iMediaEthics PollCheck Highlights Problem with General Questions in Gun Control Polls

[SecularMotion]

A new iMediaEthics PollCheck survey, designed to check the validity of media polling, finds that when the American public is asked about new specific gun control measures, large majorities express strong support. See methodology statement here. Such results contradict recent poll findings by Pew and CNN, which report a mostly divided public on whether, in general, more or stricter gun control laws are needed.

This distinction – between what the public supports in general and what specific proposals the public supports when given the opportunity – is highlighted by the iMediaEthics poll major findings: While only about a third of Americans say they strongly support stricter gun control laws in general, substantial majorities also indicate strong support for new gun control laws that would require the registration of all guns with the state and would also require criminal background checks on all gun buyers regardless of where and from whom they purchase the weapons. Also, by better than two-to-one margins, Americans strongly support new gun control laws that would make it illegal for most people to own assault weapons and would limit new purchases of guns to one a month.

http://www.imediaethics.org/News/3330/Imediaethics_pollcheck_highlights_problem_with_general_questions_in_gun_control_polls.php

[safeinOhio]

1. Good peer review study.

[spencer60]

3. Don't see anything in the methodology saying this is peer reviewed...

[DanTex]

2. Great article.

It puts to bed the talking point that gun control is unpopular. And, the more specific the proposals, the more support you find.

The numbers are stark:
75 - 20 in favor of registration of all guns.
53 - 34 in favor of banning semi-auto rifles.
86 - 9 in favor of background checks for all gun buyers including private sellers.
57 - 30 in favor of a one gun a month limit.

It also goes to illustrate just how much the NRA crowd, who claim to be representing Sarah Palin's "real America", are in fact out of touch. I think it's safe to say that every single one of the pro-gunners who posts here is "strongly opposed" to registering all guns with the state. That puts them in a 14% minority -- the right-wing fringe, an even smaller percentage than think that Obama was born in Kenya.

This study confirms that gun control is just one of many issues where an organized and well-funded right-wing lobby has successfully gamed the system to override the will of the people. Just like higher taxes for the 1%, public option in healthcare, etc., most Americans want tighter gun laws.

[spencer60]

4. Hardly

Firstly, all the questions were phrased to elicit a pro-gun control response, so the 'results' aren't too surprising.

Also, this was not a 'blind' or anonymous poll. People were called so it would reasonable for the respondents to assume that the pollsters had their personal information as well.

People have an instinctive tendency to agree with the questioner, even if that is a pre-recorded voice. People are very good at figuring out what the questioners' bias is simply by wording or voice queues.

To get an accurate result, you need to allow people to express opinions they feel may contradict the pollster, which is much more difficult if you think they may know personal information about you.

The distribution looks OK, but you have to wonder what type of selection bias was present, and how it was mitigated.

Selection bias is always present in a poll, but can be offset with a proper mitigation plan. However this was not discussed in the 'methodology' section.

The group seems to to be heavily biased towards supporting the gun-control agenda. Something made very clear in their 'Background...' section.

Looking at the organization itself, you find it is a typical collaboration of liberal arts and journalism majors, all funded by grants and foundations. These all tend to be groups with heavily anti-Second Amendment biases.

All in all, this study falls into the category of pseudo-science. It looks like they simply manipulated the study to reinforce their own biases.

They dress it up in the trappings of statistical accuracy, but in the end the leading questions make this survey data flawed beyond redemption.

The fact that it falls so far outside the norm compared to other, more established survey organizations is the final straw here.

If what they were seeing was consistent, and not an outlier, it would certainly have shown up in other polls.

Not convincing, but I'm sure it will get it's intended headlines.

[DanTex]

5. LOL. We got a new one!

[glacierbay]

11. So.

That doesn't make his/her points any less valid. You were a new one here at one time also, just as I am relatively new here, but we should be able to post w/o the snark.
You make some good arguments here and it makes me do research even though I may disagree with you most of the time but, you'll notice, I don't resort to insults or name calling.
You might want to extend the same courtesy to new members no matter what you think of their arguments.

[DanTex]

12. His/her points are boilerplate denialism and NRA talking points about "anti-gun" bias.

Nothing really worth responding to, as far as I can tell.

[glacierbay]

23. The same could be said about you also

but you'll notice that I don't engage in that crap. Do you agree that I have been pretty respectful of your view points so far?
You may think what you like about the his/her view points and respond the way you want, but a little civility goes along way, IMHO.

[DanTex]

29. Not really.

If you read that post, you'll see it is all pretty boilerplate and mindless.

The group seems to to be heavily biased towards supporting the gun-control agenda. Something made very clear in their 'Background...' section.

Blah.

Looking at the organization itself, you find it is a typical collaboration of liberal arts and journalism majors, all funded by grants and foundations. These all tend to be groups with heavily anti-Second Amendment biases

Yeah, you have to look out for those liberal arts and journalism majors, not to mention "grants" and "foundations"!

And so on. If someone had come in and started spewing the same kinds of talking points about how global warming is pseudoscience and how all those climatology and environmental science majors have heavy anti-capitalist biases, I would say the same thing.

I agree that you are civil and don't engage in the name calling. Kudos. On the other hand, I don't see you trying to tell anyone on the pro-gun side of the issue to be more civil.

[glacierbay]

33. You're right

and I will be pro active in urging my side of the aisle to be more civil also.
Fair enough?

[safeinOhio]

14. Good points.

Perhaps the person would like to present a poll that would measure the same points, controlling for the variables questioned. I'd be fine with that. I think this paper addresses many complaints about previous polls that are just as much, if not more flawed.

[glacierbay]

24. That's a fair point.

[gejohnston]

6. not exactly

it says one side cares more about it than the other. If one side cares enough to write their congressperson, give money to like minded organizations, etc. while the other doesn't take care enough about the issue to bother, can't blame that on the NRA.
One question I have, how many of those people actually know what semi auto means?

[DanTex]

7. A well-funded right-wing special interest against the will of the people.

Same old story...

[gejohnston]

8. which is funded by the grassroots

if the other half can't bother to write their congressperson or send a couple bucks to Brady, how is that the NRA's fault? It is the same as a union in collective bargaining. Everyone is a member of a special interest. Usually several.

[DanTex]

9. LOL. Grassroots, like the tea party!

The 1% are also a largely self-funded political movement. They contribute a lot of their own hard-earned cash to get the government to pass laws that are favorable to themselves! It's democracy in action!

I mean, if the 99% really cared, they would stop being so stingy and spend more money on campaign contributions! Put up or shut up, poor people!

[gejohnston]

10. apples and oranges

but critical thinking has never been your strong suit. There as also writing your congress person. The article itself said they don't actually feel that strongly on the issue. Many of the 99 percent really do care, they send money to the NRA etc.

[DanTex]

13. LOL. "critical thinking has never been your strong suit".

No, I get it, really. Well-funded right-wing corporate-funded special interest lobbies are good, provided that they agree with your politics! If the urban poor and minorities really cared about gun violence they would put their money where their mouth is! It's clear as day!

[safeinOhio]

15. 4 million of the 320 million

does not seem like very many of the 99%.

[krispos42]

21. 4 million versus how many Brady Campaign members?

...

[safeinOhio]

26. Very true. The majority

or most of the 99% are in favor of background checks on all handgun sales. They are not in favor of a ban on common rifles and pistols. I'd say the majority fall between the zealots on the extremes of both sides of gun issues.

[krispos42]

31. I'm in favor of a background check on all gun sales.

Presuming, of course, the fees are kept reasonable. Say, 2x or 3x the federal minimum wage.

I actually think the ATF should create a kind of FFL for people that want to have a side business of checking private transfers but don't want to be stocking dealers. Sort of an FFL-lite.


The other side of your argument is that now AK-47 pattern and AR-15 pattern rifles are "common", so that would presumebly preclude an "assault weapons" ban of some sort.

[gejohnston]

28. they can write their congress person

just like the rural poor of all races do who care about not being some big city mayor's scapegoat while breaking unions and laying off cops. Of course they care about gun violence. They are also are smart enough to know it is not the fault of some guy in Montana. They know it is about drug market share, and they also have a better grasp on the real issues than you seem to give them credit for.

BTW, that was one of the most strawmen ever made. 80 million voters and some percentage of them sending twenty bucks is grassroots, doesn't matter if you like them or not. That's not corporate funded. The gun control movement has more corporate funding.

[krispos42]

16. Interesting article

Here's the problem with the answers, though.

The general public's desires have been debated in the public square and by legislative bodies, with information far more detailed than given in a poll question.


The general public wants to ban rifles that are "assault weapons". Or, they want to ban all semi-automatic rifles.

Okay, but can they tell what features makes a semi-automatic rifle an "assault weapon"? Do they know that "assault weapon" also includes types of shotguns and pistols? Do they know that all rifles only account for less than 3% of homicides a year, while handguns account for ~50% and shotguns for ~11%?



The general public wants gun registration because they think it will deter crime, right? Safe assumption?

Okay, but if you asked them if they would be willing to raise their own taxes to support the registration effort, to fund increasing government to create and maintain an accurate database of guns and their owners, you might get a different answer.

Also, if you told them that gun registration does not help solve crimes (or only solved a tiny percentage of crime) wherever and whenever it's been tried, will they still be in favor of it?



The general public wants background checks done on all gun purchases. Fair enough; it's probably a good idea.

But, do they know that it has to be done on a state-by-state level? Do they know that the "gun show" loophole is a myth? Keep in mind that the note on the survey results says: "In most states, it's possible to buy guns at gun shows and online with no criminal background check. " The implication is that gunshows are magical law-free places, and you can buy guns online like you buy books from Amazon.



The general public wants to limit gun purchases to one a month.

Okay, but first off, a majority of respondents never have and never will buy a guy, so maybe they're not the people to ask on this.

Regardless, there are other, less-oppressive ways to do this that were not presented, such as a 12-guns-per-calender year limit. Or 10 guns a year annual limit.




The ultimate problem with polls is that when you get specific, you wind up with replying to binary choices.

[DanTex]

17. IOW, if you subject people to NRA talking points and misinformation before answering the survey,

you might get different results. LOL. Great point!

[krispos42]

18. Snark, not refutation.

Where did I give any talking points? Where did I give misinformation?

[DanTex]

19. Your whole post is misinformation.

For example: The gun show loophole is a myth. Gun registries will be expensive and not have much effect. Blah blah blah.

On top of that, your whole argument is preposterous. A poll is a poll. It's supposed to be worded neutrally, they way they did. If you ask people "do you support a gun registry, which, by the way, will cost a lot and solve very few crimes", that is obviously not a fairly worded poll.

If people believed that a gun registry would be expensive and not accomplish anything, they wouldn't be in favor of it. So, apparently most Americans disagree with you about that.

[krispos42]

20. And you failed again.

Like I carefully explained in Meta, associating "gun show" with "loophole" is inherently wrong and perjorative; I could just as easily call it the DanTex backyard loophole and it would be just as accurate. So, why do you get to sell guns without a background check, anyway?

Falsely stating that geographic location matters is a Brady talking point, not the NRA.



I also never said a registry would be expensive; I said it would cost money. Public money. So, more fail on your part.

And of course, you doubtless have linked lined up showing how gun registries had good, positive, noticeable effects on crime. Go ahead and post them.


*shrug* people think a lot of stuff that won't actually accomplish anything. That Saddam attacked us on 9/11, for example. Remember the 3 principals of Idiot America. Gun registries are, in my opinion, one of them.

You last statement is only true if the people have facts on the issue. Since 2/3rds of the country doesn't own guns and likely never will, and don't get involved in the details of gun laws, then their opinion when polled has a large margin of doubt.

[DanTex]

22. This is a survey. The point is to gauge public opinion.

The pro-gunners always insist that gun control is unpopular, but, as this survey shows, that is obviously not the case. And this is not the only survey with this finding. Apparently, you think people who disagree with you must be misinformed. Join the club.

As far as the gun show loophole, first of all, the survey doesn't actually talk about any "gun show loophole", so I'm not sure why you even brought it up. I guess you figured you'd just "spray fire" the NRA talking points just in case.

Anyway, as I pointed out in meta, calling it the "gun show loophole" is justified based on the fact that gun shows are one of the ways the "private sales loophole" is often exploited -- e.g. the Colombine guns. It's like the "hedge fund tax loophole" which allows hedge fund managers to pay 15% tax rates on income. Technically, that should be called the "carried interest loophole", but I don't see may people complaining.

A registry would be paid for by tax on gun owners. To call that "public money" is misleading. I have plenty of evidence that gun availability increases homicide rates. There is much less evidence on specific policies, like gun registries -- this is the case not just in gun policy, but other areas of public policy in general. You can't just do a controlled experiment where you take two copies of the world, start a gun registry in one and not the other, and see what happens.

[krispos42]

25. And public opinion does not directly equal policy.

When gauging public opinion, we have to also gauge how much the public knows (remember, a quarter of the public "knows" Obama was born in Kenya) in order to give weight to the opinion. People that disagree with me are not necessarily uninformed, just like the ones that disagree with you are not necessarily informed. I'm noting that the survey does not gauge the relative level of "informedness".

2. The survey does talk about the gun-show loophole. See Proposal 3, Q6A. It talks about online sales and gun shows without giving information about either. Does the 2/3rds of the gun-free public know how online guns sales work, or about how private versus FFL sales work?

3. I haven't really heard it called the "carried interest" OR the "hedge fund tax" loophole. I've heard it called "investment income" or "unearned income".

4. That's supposition on funding. Remember, the initial setup costs must be borne by somebody, after all, and how it's ultimately funded is not determined. If it benefits all of society, then why should only the gun owners pay the tax? How about gun-violence perps pay it instead?

[DanTex]

27. Particularly when there are well-funded right-wing special interest groups involved.

Nobody is claiming that what the majority thinks is always right right. I'm just pointing out that the majority does, in fact, support tighter gun laws, contrary to what many pro-gunners often claim. I get that you think people who disagree with you are misinformed. Like I said, join the club.

2. The survey does not use the term "gun show loophole", which you object to. They also ran that question without mentioning gun shows or online sales, and it got even more support. People think everyone who buys a gun should have to go through a background check first, no matter how they buy it. And they are right.

3. It's called carried interest. It allows hedge fund and private equity managers to treat performance fees as capital gains, rather than income, thus reducing their effective income tax rates.

4. Umm... it should be paid by gun owners because they are the ones engaging in the activity that necessitates the regulation. If nobody owned guns, the registry would be pretty cheap.

[krispos42]

32. And why can't the left-wing special interest groups get their shit together?

Because gun owners will organize and fight for their right to buy, keep, and use guns because there are people out there constantly looking to restrict, complicate, and increase the costs.

Non-gun owners don't have to do a damn thing to keep their right to not own a gun.

2. The survey specifically mentions gun shows. It doesn't say loophole; it's implied by the fact that gun shows are getting special mention in the question.

3. Well, shit, that's a loophole then. *sigh* 60% flat tax on all income, with a standard deduction of 2x the median annual wage of the bottom 99%. Double it for married couples.

4. But the people that pay the fees, by and large, do not cause the gun-related misery and death that necessitates the regulation because most of it is caused by career criminals with illegally-acquired guns, who did not pay the registration fees.

[Atypical Liberal]

30. Yeah, let's put all Constitutional rights up for public opinion polls.

California Proposition 8.

[GreenStormCloud]

34. The only poll that counts is the election day poll when the votes are counted.

Gun controllers have been losing that poll ever since 1994.

[Jenoch]

35. If 75% of the American public

did not own nor had they ever driven an automobile and knew little about autos, would a survey asking them their view about automobile laws and regulations provide information that was of any value?

[ManiacJoe]

36. Exactly.

The big problem with any of the polls by any of the organizations is that they make no attempt to judge the subject knowledge of the participants. If the participant has no knowledge of the current laws, his opinion on the need to change the laws is worthless.