That Famous Gallup Poll

[mikeb302000]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/Self-Reported-Gun-Ownership-Highest-1993.aspx">This is the Gallup Poll everyone is making such a big deal about.

http://www.pagunblog.com/2011/10/30/winning-headlines-i-never-thought-id-see/">Sebastian said, "that Gallup poll is bad news for gun control advocates, and everyone knows it."

What's that supposed to mean? The Gallup folks themselves gave a more-than-adequate explanation.

the latest increase in self-reported gun ownership could reflect a change in Americans' comfort with publicly stating that they have a gun as much as it reflects a real uptick in gun ownership.

My first thought was what's the big deal. Those look like minor fluctuations.

What do you think? Please leave a comment.
http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/">(cross posted at Mikeb302000)

[DaveJ]

1. Perhaps it's inverse correlation to the economy

People need to feel powerful, but the economy is bad, so they go out and buy a gun.

[mikeb302000]

17. I think you're right Dave

But there's more to it. Many men have always felt the need to arm themselves due to psychological inadequacy, basic insecurity and unfounded fear. In order to justify their decision, they've come up with all kinds of arguments. Usually they contain a kernel of truth, but upon close inspection they're bogus. Now the women come along. They've been convinced by those pro-gun men that they're safer with a gun than without one. That's not true, but the men don't give a fuck as long as they have more and more support for their own gun owning decisions.

It's a terrible vicious cycle which feeds on itself and the result is more people are killed and hurt than need to be.

[SteveM]

19. Yes, as per the poll, the "viscious cycle" has extended to.... Democrats. nt

[Starboard Tack]

23. I totally agree with you and as you say there's more to it. Much more.

The shameless seduction of women into their testosterone laden fantasy world is disingenuous at best and insidious at worst.
That said, I am highly skeptical of the validity of these polls for several reasons. Firstly, as stated, Dems are less likely to admit owning a gun and Repugs are more likely to claim all kinds of bullshit. Why would I tell a total stranger whether I had a gun or not in my house? What kind of people respond to these kinds of polls? Certainly not anyone I know. Certainly not anyone who has an actual life, like regular working folk. I know Gallup claims it calls cellphones and does not have to obey the DoNotCall rules, but I have had 2 landlines and 5 cellphones for 16+years (same numbers) and have never received either a marketing or pollster call since registering the numbers on the DNC list.

I'm sure there are many more underlying reasons for the apparent surge in gun ownership, not least being the politics of fear disseminated and nurtured by the previous administration.

[SteveM]

18. I'd like to see a study on that, if you have one...

The thing I noted about the Gallup Poll was the uptick in Democratic or Democratic-leaning gun-owners: It far exceed the increase of numbers shown in the GOP results.

Curious, isn't it, that so many anti-gun posters have always associated the "need" for a gun as a means to "compensate" for a lack of strength, virility or penis-length? If this is true, then the "compensation" factor may have extended even to Democrats. That could have ramifications on the admittedly-amateurish psychological side of the gun-control debate.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Motown_Johnny]

3. it just seems that democratic women in the east and midwest are now gun owners

or are now reporting to be gun owners



the other numbers seem to be within a statistical margin of error



the uptick seems to be in dems /dem leaners


women


and the eastern and midwestern regions

[iverglas]

25. "The percentage of women who report household gun ownership is also at a new high, ..."

... now registering 43%."

In fact it has always been assumed that women under-report household firearms ownership, i.e. that men and women in the same household would report differently. Numerous self-reporting surveys, by sources all "sides" would approve, indicate this.

It's unlikely that a whole lot of single women, enough to alter the line that significantly, have run out and got guns in the last year. More accurate reporting (for whatever reason one might surmise) is a more likely explanation -- but would still be a pure guess.

In fact, the survey showed that 46% of men and 23% of women reported personally owning a gun.

Frankly, is this graph



not just so bizarre that it calls the whole thing into question?

33% to 23% to 36% in the East in the space of two years??

And in the South, 52% to 57% to 52% in the space of two years?

Too obviously something there is wrong. A load of people did not own a gun one year, throw it out the next and get a new one the year after. Or vice versa. I'd say it might have something to do with this:

Results for this Gallup poll are based on telephone interviews conducted Oct. 6-9, 2011, with a random sample of 1,005 adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia.

Give me a break. 1000 people (presumably roughly the same each year), broken down into four regions, for instance, and we're expecting an accurate picture of reality? Assuming equal division, a sample of 250 to represent a population of 1/4 of 308,745,538 in 1/4 of 112,611,029 households?

Canada has a population of 33 million, and a poll based on a sample of 250 would be laughed at.

For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points.

Not great to start with, and for each subdivision of the sample the margin of error would be a lot bigger.

Intuitively, it might look like the 23% is the erroneous number in this case, but that ain't how it works.

[dtexdem]

4. To me, it looks horrible because the proportion is not going steeply down.

Not a lot of change there -- which is itself bad news.

[gejohnston]

8. since violent crime is dropping

what difference does it make?

[mikeb302000]

15. the difference is this

violent crime would be dropping a lot more if not for the tremendous access to guns. That's the difference.

[gejohnston]

24. given that has never happened in any country

or state etc. after any such laws were passed, I find the claim totally absurd. Any claim other wise is not backed up by history, Joyce funded fourth rate economists and ER doctors aside.

[petronius]

5. The explanation still leaves a question, though - since the biggest increases are among

women and left-leaning respondents, why are those groups in particular becoming more willing to report gun ownership that they previously concealed? Possibilities I can come up with are that left-leaning owners are more confident that a Democratic administration has no intention of trying for stricter gun control (and thus there's no reason to conceal ownership as some people feel), that it's a bit of a "fuck you, we have guns too!" response to 'bagger types, or there is a perception on the left that gun control is declining in importance as a liberal topic, and thus there's no 'ideological shame' in acknowledging ownership.

Of course, it's also possible that a lot more households now contain firearms... :shrug:

[gejohnston]

7. my theory

or at least part of it is that the "Reagan Democrats" are coming home once they saw that they have been supporting the plutocrats at their own expense after the recent anti-union moves.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

9. yes, I think the Democratic Party has grown and those coming

are the more rural which, tend to be gun owners. The abortion issue and the teabaggers are driving away the more moderate Republicans.

[iverglas]

26. you simply are not reading that correctly

The "women" figure you are looking at is for women reporting household firearms ownership.

Look at the graph:



Look at the table.



23% of women report personal ownership, and 20% report that another person in the household owns.

The uptick on the graph is not necessarily in personal ownership (the report does not appear to report previous year data for that item). It is an uptick in reporting of household ownership.

What it actually is, is one more reason to doubt that the poll figures are meaningful. What's with the figures for men reporting household ownership in the last 3 years -- 51% to 45% to 52%? What earthly sense does that make?

The sample is simply too small, and the size of the subdivisions of the sample way too small, for any of these numbers to be trustworthy, and the bizarre variations in men reporting household ownership (and as I pointed out in my other post, figures for firearms ownership for households in the East) are pretty good evidence of that.

[petronius]

30. I didn't miss that, actually, nor did I miss the large amount of noise in

the series. My comment was directed at Gallup's explanation for the uptick - if that explanation is valid (and they apparently think it is), it does raise the questions I pointed out. Why are women and left-leaning respondents suddenly more willing to report household ownership?

FTR, I do think it's mostly noise. Although it's possible that more households now contain firearms, that's a huge jump for just one year...

[iverglas]

32. and Gallup had to come up with an explanation

or acknowledge that its poll results were full of noise. ;)

[gejohnston]

6. How does it compare in other countries?

How does it compare to other countries? Is legal gun ownership increasing in other places too? If so, to what degree? How many are the same? Going down and to what degree?
Honestly, that would be an interesting study. I would find it amusing if it turned out that our increase in sales are not that different than Germany's.
Who is Sebastian besides another blogger?

What is the point? Violent crime in US and Canada are dropping.

[AtheistCrusader]

10. We've been saying that for years.

The actual percentage of gun owners in the general population is MUCH higher than the self-reporting polls show.

[ileus]

11. Hopefully legal ownership will continue to climb.

[jmg257]

12. I think people are seeing the writing on the wall and buying guns whenever they can.

Even though that is sooo 2008.

Wow - could you imagine if the T-Baggers and all that open carry BS actually caused more people to come out and freely/proudly admit they own guns?

[spin]

13. Why does anyone serious believe that all gun owners would honestly answer a question ...

from a stranger conducting a survey on the telephone or in person who asked the question, "Do you own firearms?" The reason the number of gun owners fluctuates in polls is because of "Americans' comfort with publicly stating that they have a gun" as pointed out by the poll.

The true number of people who actually own firearms is much higher than the poll shows. People who don't own firearms are less likely to lie to the survey taker.

When my daughter worked for the U.S. Census last year she said that she had a difficult time getting some people to honestly tell her how many people lived in their house. She was glad questions on firearm ownership were not part of the census as she encountered enough distrust as it was.

Distrust could dampen census count
By The Washington Times Thursday, January 21, 2010

With the start of the nation’s decennial census just weeks away, nearly one in five persons might decline to participate in the high-stakes head count, citing mostly a lack of interest but also a broader distrust of the federal government.

A poll released Wednesday by the Pew Research Center highlighted the challenges as the U.S. Census Bureau prepares to begin its tally in March. The findings come as some groups question whether the agency’s $300 million outreach effort is doing enough to reach hard-to-count communities.

***snip***

Still, 12 percent of U.S. residents said they had not decided whether they would fill out the government form, and another 6 percent said they were unlikely to or definitely would not do so. These people were more likely to be young adults ages 18 to 29 and lower-income people.

Asked why they were unlikely to participate, more than half said it was because they were too busy, not interested or weren’t familiar with the census. One quarter cited distrust of government or concerns about privacy.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jan/21/poll-sees-tough-count/

edited for clarity

[mikeb302000]

16. I agree with you - it's much higher nt

[SteveM]

20. It's possible that Gallup, and the way it asks the questions, may...

have more credibility, or those surveyed feel less threatened. Gallup, btw, has an 50+ year track record of surveying attitudes toward the Second. That in itself could give more "steady" results.

[burf]

14. Seems as though the numbers are

trending upward since 2010. I wonder if there is a specific reason or just coincidence.

[SteveM]

21. It would be great if a follow-up survey was done on the increase...

esp. with regards Democrats and women. In the detailed break-down provided in another thread, the increase in women gun-owners/gun-access group could almost be an overlay of the increase in the Democratic group. Could Demo women constitute the greatest sub-group of the Demo. group at-large?

[iverglas]

27. nonsense speak

A year over year change (even if it were real) is not "trending upward", it is a year over year change.

A trend is what you might see if you look at several years in a row.

Kind of like this one:


spousal homicides by firearm in Canada

[SteveM]

22. On "minor fluctuations," Irishman to Noah: "Tis only a shower." nt

[iverglas]

28. the differences among Gallup's polls are astounding

One really might think that the questions have something to do with the answers.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/145757/Americans-Link-Gun-Laws-Mental-Health-Mass-Shootings.aspx



Let's aggregate what we might call "more gun control":

Stricter gun laws - 24
More extensive background checks for those buying guns - 8
Ban handgun/bullets - 5
Restrict sale of automatic handguns - 2

vs

Allow people to carry guns for their own protection - 4

Snork.


Other, Nothing and No Opinion accounted for 24%.

So the total 39% that falls into the "more gun control" class is actually nearly 52% of those who answered.


And how about this one -- check out the factors that people "blame" for mass shootings, and what's second from the top?



"Easy access to guns".



Or you know something else we might conclude, if we consider the firearms ownership survey (to the extent any weight at all should be placed on it) and surveys like these?

People who own guns actually are not all sociopathic gun militants.

My my, quelle idée. No different from what I've always said myself, of course.

[gejohnston]

29. on the other hand

Do those who answered "stricter gun control laws" actually know what current federal or state gun control laws are? In my own experience, I have found few non gun people have the slightest idea what current gun control laws are.
For the past 40 years, politicians and gun control advocates complain that one can easily drive to a gun store in the next state to avoid the licensing or registration scheme in their home state. Problem is, it has been against federal law since 1938, strengthened since 1968. Then there is the "you can buy a fully automatic weapon with no questions asked at any gun show" according to some Al Qaida clown and reported as fact by Media Matters and others. Those are two of the easiest examples. Of course there is the misinformation about carrying on campus (18 year olds with CCWs canard).
Automatic handgun? A full auto pistol? See National Firearms Act of 1934. Yes, from then until 1977 we had stricter machine gun control than Canada.

[iverglas]

31. you can question anyone's answer to any poll

I have pointed out obvious weaknesses in the Gallup poll in issue.

What does it matter what they know? The fact is that the people who gave the answers I cited are not crying out for less gun control and can hardly be expected to vote against the Democratic Party because of its gun control stances.

For the past 40 years, politicians and gun control advocates complain that one can easily drive to a gun store in the next state to avoid the licensing or registration scheme in their home state.

Well, I've never said that.

The fact is that anyone resident in a state where, say, any number of handguns can be bought in any period of time, and there is no registration of handguns, can easily drive to another state and sell them, or sell them to someone who drives to another state and sells them.

You are aware that precisely this kind of organized trafficking goes on, right?

All the way across the international border in some cases, but much more frequently it's internal trafficking.

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/ci-rc/reports-rapports/traf/index-eng.htm

There continues to be significant cross-border firearms movement, particularly in British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario, Quebec, and the Atlantic region, where many of the seizures are concentrated.

- In British Columbia, a large number of firearms originate in the United States, with a high proportion coming from Washington State.
- In Alberta, most of these firearms come from Washington State, Idaho and California.
- In Ontario, the I-75 corridor is the main supply vein for illegal firearms from Florida, Georgia, Ohio and Michigan.
- In Quebec, the following states are key sources for illegal firearms: Vermont, New Hampshire and Maryland.
- There is an increasing number of illegal firearms reported being smuggled across the New Brunswick-Maine border, entering the Atlantic region.

That gives a pretty good idea of what domestic trafficking, within the US, looks like as well.

So why take such pride in demolishing what is essentially a straw person, this assertion that anybody can go anywhere and buy a gun, and pretend not to notice what is very much a reality?

Obviously people are aware that fireams trafficking is a problem in the US. They may not be fully conversant with the mechanics. Big whup.