A question about firearms research

[Yung.gunr]

Not only do I distrust the government, I distrust people conductiong polls. This poll taking had to be paid for in one way or another. I don't feel it is too much of a leap to think that the poll will be designed to skew answers to benefit the paying party.

If a guy comes to my door asking survey questions about my satisfaction of my water, and I slam the door in his face, what type of reception will someone asking about my guns get?

It's not their business, and if it truly is their business (the phone company asking how I like my service) I will not respond until I actually need them for something.

Bottom line is......
Mind your own dang business you crooked pollsters.
&
What is this firearm object that you speak of?

 

[Salmoneye]

My question to the members of this forum is, would you misrepresent your firearms ownership to an interviewer from the General Social Survey?

Depends on my mood...

Most days I would hang up, and not take the survey...This alone I feel is the mindset of many who do own guns, and therefore already excludes us from the data, thereby skewing 'ownership' downwards...

Then again, there are times I am feeling 'devilish', and will answer surveys 'untruthfully', just for fun...

 

[Uncle Buck]

My question to the members of this forum is, would you misrepresent your firearms ownership to an interviewer from the General Social Survey?

Intentionally misrepresent myself in a survey which I feel is none of your business? Nah, I would never do that.

Do you happen to have in your home (IF HOUSE: or garage) any guns or revolvers?

No, and if you have seen a gun, one of the local criminal gangs must have put it there.

Do any of these guns personally belong to you?

See above answer.

The survey also asks about other sensitive social topics:

sex

Occasionally

religion

Whats that?

politics

I like them all, they have always been trustworthy and upstanding. I wish I was in a district that allowed me to vote more than once, that way I could vote for all the candidates.

I do not like opinion or invasive polls. I have seen the raw answers put together in such a way as to give the opposite opinion. Perhaps a poll should be conducted as to why people mistrust polling and surveys.

If you actually came to my house, I would politely tell you to leave. If you came to the shooting range and asked, I would tell you it was none of your business. If you persisted I would either call the police and report you for harassment or pack my things up and leave.

Of all my Rights, I feel my Second Amendment ones are being unfairly restricted. A politician in Washington, even if they are from my home state, has no idea of what my likes are or are not. People like the brady campaign and bloombergs goons, use these polls to their own advantage.

Professor Ike, if people who wished to exercise their First Amendment Rights had to go through the same hoops and red tape as people had to go through to exercise their Second Amendment Rights I believe you would see a much different country.

I would be interested to see how you interpret these responses.

 

[Gbro]

Household Gun Ownership Hits New Low--Fewer Than One Out of Three American Households Has a Gun

I feel confident that there is no factual basis in that survey and I would also be at fault in the misrepresentation by not responding.
I have confidence that a terrorist group would also not believe the survey.
I stand with your 1st response to this thread and for what its worth you should poll this board with a few of the responses you have gotten.

 

[hikingman]

A survey from a stranger about things that I own of value? Not!

 

[Ike666]

Unclebuck, with respect, you presume to assign motives to me that I do not have. Frankly, you do not know my biases or political sensibilities.

I will reiterate, my questions about participation in gun ownership surveys (which are not the same thing as polls) were submitted in the spirit of this forum - to engender a discussion about a firearms related issue.

While I value your opinions, thoughts, and ideas, I do not think it warrants an ad hominem attack based on an erroneous assumption about my motives.

In point of fact, the decision by many gun owners not to disclose that ownership has played right into the hands of the antis - witness the VPC's use of the GSS data to claim a lack of interest in private gun ownership. This attribution is made with the full knowledge of the NSSF data and the NICS data. See Josh Horowitz's explanation (explaining away) the significance of the transaction data. Our best estimate is that his points account for less than 15% of the NICS transactions (we're still analyzing it)..

I think we (gun owners) tend to be an insular lot, talking among ourselves and reinforcing our beliefs. I was fascinated about the thread on being "outed" as a gun owner in a social situation. We spend too much time preaching to the choir and not enough out there proselytizing to the unconverted.

Whether you "believe" in it or not, the GSS is a respected and important data collection instrument. More importantly, from my point of view, it is used to inform political decisions. My concern is that if politicians believe the numbers, I could see them quickly marginalizing gun owners as an unimportant constituency.

Each of us is, of course, the final arbiter of a decision to respond or not. I am not really advocating any position here. I am interested in what people think about such issues.

 

[Sevens]

I am interested in what people think about such issues.

And you certainly are getting exactly that.

Think it's likely to change here in this thread?

 

[Major Dave (retired)]

"If politicians believe the numbers..."

They do so at their own peril, i.e., the next time they are up for re-election, the true numbers of gun ownership will be revealed at the ballot box!

"And that's all I'm going to say about THAT" - Forrest Gump

 

[johnbt]

"the GSS is a respected and important data collection instrument"

Among a certain, shall we say, class of people. An insular bunch to some degree if I might borrow a word.

And no, we don't know your biases or political sensibilities. And that's a problem as you've seen, isn't it?

You say you are harmless, and maybe you are. We don't know who people are when they come nosing around asking questions.

John

 

[Ike666]

Yes, it is problem. But to me it is a problem because I think I am being painted with a broad brush merely for asking the question (BTW, we all ask questions all the time on this forum). I know the assumptions made by others about me to be inaccurate, but I don't want this discussion to be about me or my beliefs. If you feel the need to castigate me for asking the question, I'll be okay with that. It's just slightly off-topic. That's what I do - ask questions.

I was interested in what others thought about this apparent phenomenon of under-representation of gun owners in the only instrument currently collecting data from a National probability sample.

The folks that wouldn't answer any survey or poll ever don't really contribute much to this understanding. They aren't going to be in the data regardless. If you are virulently anti-survey and see no value in behavioral research that's fine by me.


But there is a different group (that I don't think has chimed in here) who answer the surveys but under-report their gun ownership. I don't think the person who would never respond to a survey speaks for them.

If that population doesn't actually exist, then the percentage of the population that own guns is actually decreasing. One explanation may be a Pareto function - 20% of the people now own 80% of the guns - but we just don't know. If more and more guns are concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, then gun owners are more likely to be marginalized.

So, based on two valid and reliable sources of data (NSSF manufacturer sales data & NICS transactions data), gun sales are going up. Based on a somewhat questionable source of data (GSS) gun ownership is going down. If we are looking at a Pareto phenomenon, this is certainly a plausible explanation. If we are looking at an under-reporting phenomenon, then there is some other influence at work.

 

[Tom Servo]

Whether you "believe" in it or not, the GSS is a respected and important data collection instrument. More importantly, from my point of view, it is used to inform political decisions. My concern is that if politicians believe the numbers, I could see them quickly marginalizing gun owners as an unimportant constituency.

That's actually a good point, and a sobering thought.

The gun culture is subject to a few fallacies. The first is that there is an "us." There isn't. The guys in fatigues call the hunters Fudds, the bullseye shooters look down on IDPA guys, and we all make the mistake of assuming we vote as one bloc. Heck, we make a mistake in assuming we all even vote at all.

Just because I don't place credibility in its methodology or conclusions, the GSS is still widely used and widely respected in influential circles. So, the question arises: how do we fix the discrepancy?

 

[2damnold4this]

If I'm not mistaken, the ATF reports the number of guns manufactured each year in the US. That might help refute the claims by Horwitz that NCIS data is misleading.

We really don't have a more accurate way to measure firearm ownership rates than the GSS, so it's a problem that we don't accurately report gun ownership. The National Academies provides some insight into the problems with the GSS and some researchers use proxy measurements for gun ownership or conduct their own surveys. Some examples of proxy measurements for gun ownership that have been used are percentage of suicides committed with firearms and the number of Guns and Ammo subscriptions in an area. Both methods have some problems. I'd rather we find ways to make the GSS more accurate than rely on proxies or David Hemenway's proprietary Joyce Foundation survey of firearm ownership.

I can understand some gun owners not wanting to give information to the GSS but there are consequences. By not responding or by providing misleading data, we are giving ammunition to gun control advocates and hack researchers while we are taking away valuable data from legitimate researchers.

The VPC will pick and choose the data they want whether it is accurate or not. The best way to debunk their claims is to have the best research using the best available data.

 

[brickeyee]

Whether you "believe" in it or not, the GSS is a respected and important data collection instrument.

That should probably be 'has been seen as' not "is."

As more and more people become aware of the manipulations supported by such polling (that probably should not have any real place in a democracy, especially about a defined right) the very validity of the data is brought into question.

how many questions ask about ownership of the press?

Why not?

How about 4th amendment protections?

Maybe we should change our Constitution to reign them in.

And sorry.
The fact that the GSS is located in a few areas with restrictive views does lead to questions about bias.

The fact it is even connected with Universities does the same.

Every survey of university professors has shown they tend to the left.

But that could never play in such a study.

After fighting for a very long time to preserve the second amendment against politicians concentrated on the left, gun owners have become even more suspicious.

I have introduced numerous people to shooting.

I simply avoid bothering to deal with people who want to threaten my rights.

I find many of them simply want the country their way, and to hell with any other view.

I am not the one trying to restrict others rights, they are.

 

[Wyoredman]

I find these surveys a bit suspicious from the begining. If I was ever asked to participate, I would want to know how the survey is designed, what methods are used to pick those being surveyed?

How many people are questioned who live in restrictive states? How many people are questioned who live in non-restrictive states?

Are those questioned rural or urban dwellers?

Surveys are very ambiguous.

How can any survey correctly predict something so personal as firearm ownership, especially in a country as culturaly and ideologically diverse as the USA?

Therfore, to answer your question, I would most likely lie and tell the survey taker that I don't own guns.

By lying, am I knowingly helping the anti-gun culture build a case against me? That is a chance I will take to be secure in my right to privacy.

 

[Uncle Buck]

Professor Ike, I in no way intended to imply you are other than what/who you say you are.

My remarks were meant to be directed more at a system that seems to manipulate answers to fit what their clients are wanting, not always the truth.

How many times have we been told "We will use this data to better XYZ" and then the data that is collected is used for another purpose in which we disagree?

I honestly think this is a very good discussion.

General Social Survey is one more survey of which I was not familiar. I get quite a few calls asking me to take part in surveys. The majority of them are from organizations I have never heard of. If I received a call from someone who identified themselves as a member of GSS, I would not have known them from Adam.

How do you, or I, identify who is who when they call to take a survey? People can make up any name they want.

 

[44 AMP]

First of all, please don't think I am impuning you, your motives, or your organization. I am not. I don't know anything about them. And that is the point I was trying to make.

For many of us, it doesn't matter one bit who you are, why you are asking, or what you think the results will be used for. We have had past experience that proves to us that various groups are going to use poll results in any way they see fit to "proove" their agenda.

You say that by not responding, we are risking being "marginalized" as a group? Got news for you, we already are, and have been for some time, particularly in the eyes of the media and anti gun advocates. And that's not going to change.

Another personal anecdote; some time back I took a "risk assessment survey" as part of an annual company physical. It asked questions about drinking, seat belt use, driving over/under the speed limit, being involved in fights, things like that. Not one question on the survey asked ANYTHING about guns, hunting, or anything involving firearms, at all.

When the results were sent to us, one of the "recommendations" to reduce risk in our lives was to (this is an exact quote) "avoid handguns".

I raised the point with my mamagement that, since there was not a single question on the survey even mentioning firearms, this indicated an obvious bias. They agreed, and the company that did the survey never did another one for us. Not because my mgt was particularly pro gun, but because if they had an obvious bias in this area, ALL their conclusions became suspect.

And that's how many of us see ALL polls. We feel that your conclusions are already made, and you are just looking for numbers to massage to make your point appear valid. That being the case, we simply choose not to play your game.

Polls may try to shape political opinion, but politicians tend to follow their own agendas, the primary one being getting re-elected. The only poll that really matters is held on Tuesdays every couple of years in November.

THAT one(s) we do play in.

 

[MTT TL]

Let me get this straight.

The OP wants to know that if a stranger called me up and asked me over the phone if I owned guns and what type of guns would I tell him the truth? Seriously that is even a question?



Why would someone even answer that? What if they started asking me if I had large amounts of cash around the house and in what denominations? Gold Jewelry? High end electronics? I guess if I were stupid I might. But if I were stupid I likely would not own any of that stuff.

Some people who own guns won't even tell their friends that they own guns.

True story: A family friend of ours who we had known for several years lost the key to his family safe. He asked me to get it open for him. His wife dropped it off at our house and left it. When I got home it took about a minute to open it. I did not look through his stuff but right on top was a small .380 pistol. Now for years he had said that he did not own any guns (and in truth it was his wife's gun). So he trusted me enough to let me have access to all of his personal papers and some valuables but not enough to tell me he had a gun for years? This is not a simple question.

 

[Ike666]

For many of you this is probably an unimportant distinction, but a poll is a commercial undertaking conducted at the request of a customer who then financially compensates the polling organization. To be sure, there are polling organizations that quite boldly advertise that if you tell them the point of view you want to support will guarantee you polling results that support that position. These organizations are largely descendants of the advertising industry and the business of marketing research. Of course, there are also legitimate marketing research firms that serve various business interests quite well. American corporations tend not to spend money for very long on an enterprise that does give them the expected return. So, someone sees value in the types of polling that is so offensive to so many.

The General Social Survey is a scientific endeavor funded by and run for a consortium of colleges and universities to provide a timely and contemporary source of shared data for social/behavioral scientists. The interests (and agendas) of these social scientist are as varied and diverse as the membership of this list – the common denominator being a professional interest in the research. The GSS is not, in and of itself, research. It is a data collection/repository. It has a standard set of questions asked with each administration, and special subject-matter questions asked at the behest of various researchers around the country. The use of this data for commercial purposes is specifically prohibited by the data sharing agreement.

The GSS sample is based on a methodology called a National probability sample. That means that when the tens of thousands of interview subjects are collected, the demographic distribution will match the distribution in the American population. Polling organizations typically rely on far fewer subjects (2 or 3 thousand) and tend not to use a National probability sampling method (too expensive). Proportionally, the GSS samples matches the Nation in terms of percentage of men and women, percentage of different racial/ethnic groups, percentage of different age cohorts, and percentage from different regions of the country. Data collection continues until this criterion is met. In sum, this sample does the best possible job of providing data that gives us some insight on the opinions and attitudes of the American population on a wide variety of topics of interest to social scientists. [BTW, attitudes and opinions are not behaviors - we know what people say they believe, but not what they actually do].
It does ask about things such belief in, or support of, the First Amendment, the Second, the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth. It also asks about the full spectrum of “hot button” social issues that are part of the American discourse. There are fewer than 10 items about guns in an instrument several hundred questions long – or less than about 2% of the total survey.

The GSS does not “use its data to support an agenda” – it provides the data to social scientists to analyze. Many of them do have an agenda – some liberal, some conservative (witness VPC’s use of the GSS data for example). Neither the GSS, nor the NORC, exerts any control over the conclusions reached by social scientists in their analysis. There are ethical researchers and there are unethical researchers – like most any human endeavor.

Back on topic. If you have been burned by participation in a poll or even scientific survey, I can understand your skepticism. If this happened to me, I probably wouldn’t participate in another one myself.

If you have confused, or just lumped together, agenda-driven polling with scientific inquiry, I’d just ask that you consider the substantive difference. If you aren’t persuaded, you aren’t persuaded.

I am concerned by what appears to me to be an anti-rational reaction to the question, and even the very gall of someone like me to ask the question. It is a reaction that seems to be based largely on a negative emotional response to the very asking of the questions. It reminds me so much of the anti-rational arguments made by people who say things like, “Well I just wouldn’t be comfortable if a professor carried a concealed handgun in class.” The strong, visceral reaction that many anti-gunners have to the very idea that I would want to own and operate such a vile device is an anti-rational position that is the flip side of that same coin. To have a similar, emotional response to the idea that there may some legitimate purpose to understanding a social phenomenon so deeply embedded in the American psyche as gun ownership and the exercise of a Constitutional right is, well, fascinating.

The qualitative understanding that I derive from this is that, in the current climate, this is not an area open to further scientific exploration.

It occurs to me that distrusting the GSS because it has organizational offices in Chicago and Maryland makes about as much sense as saying I wouldn’t trust a gun made in Massachusetts because it is such an anti-gun state.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

If you want to see the gun questions - look at:

http://www3.norc.org/GSS+Website/Browse+GSS+Variables/Subject+Index/

Then go to G for guns.

Being a psychologist, I chose to watch for a bit. The problem with the question set and similar ones was pointed out by Vizzard in his books Shots in the Dark in 2000. The questions are loaded and answered by folks with little real knowledge of the issues.

Should semis be limited to the military? Of course, the question implies already that they are dangerous. Limited implies the danger.

Also, Vizzard points out that if ask should there be more legal controls on guns - folks say Yes. That's because many gun owners also feel the question asks for measures to keep the guns out of criminal hands.

If you ask the same group, should law abiding citizens be allowed to own guns for self-defense, the majority is in favor.

Thus, the questions cannot escape bias which is typically not favorable for guns.

Academics will usually pose questions that are negative.

However, attacking Ike for asking about responses to the survey are silly. I do similar things and have gotten attacked. When I did my assault rifle paper, I was accused of being an antigunner obfuscater in cohoots with Massad Ayoob to do something. Whatever.

But I don't trust the surveys. We know that in states and countries where AWB like laws were passed for confisication or registration - the amount turned in or reported was way below what was known to be there.

That's a hint.

 

[brickeyee]

The General Social Survey is a scientific endeavor funded by and run for a consortium of colleges and universities to provide a timely and contemporary source of shared data for social/behavioral scientists.

How many conservatives are in academia?

How many have EVER voted for a non-democrat candidate?

You can wave "scientific endeavor" and "consortium of colleges and universities" all you want, that is NOT any kind of guarantee of objectivity.

Have you even looked at some of the stiff that flew around about global warming (now morphed in to 'global climate change')?

How many academics participated in writing briefs in the Heller case?
And do not forget that law schools are 'academic' institutions.

The public has learned enough to not blindly trust academics, any more than politicians.