A question about firearms research

My gun club has as many liberals and Democratics as it does conservatives and Republicans. I know liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats. Labels don't really tell much about people. It's the old stereotype thing.

I spent several years in academia and found many more conservatives than I expected to find. The leadership, however, was usually liberal.

Just one man's observation.
 
Interesting reading. Just the manner and tone of the question Do you happen to have in your home (IF HOUSE: or garage) any guns or revolvers seems to me to be biased a bit and that tends to make me mistrust the rest of the questions. Isn't a revolver a gun? Is there a difference? Maybe this whole poll is going to be anti-gun in its flavor, and this would certainly tend to make me be less than honest.

Second point, about political persuasion having bearing on gun ownership. A neighbor and very good friend of mine is decidedly left leaning. Hell, he even tries to get me to listen to NPR. Anyway, when we first met he was pretty anti-gun and remained that way for a number of years, although he would wander over to my place from time to time to watch me shoot various firearms, and occasionally ask questions about the guns.

Then one morning he had his cup of morning coffee and started to step out of his house but noticed a pretty large rattlesnake on his back steps, sunning himself. A quick call to me brought me over with my 1911 with snakeshot with which I ended the standoff. The following week he asked me to go to the sporting goods store and help him pick out a shotgun "for around the house use" as he put it. Next thing I know he's asking to shoot on my back yard range, and even went with me to shoot my 1919A4. He now owns (and shoots) a 10/22, an 870, and I think an Iver Johnson .22 pistol. Maybe there's hope for him yet. At least he knows good .22 ammo from crappy ammo.

So, there's no accounting for politics and guns.
 
Medalguy, thanks for trying to bring it back on topic.

I'm not sure what bias you see in the question as asked. I do think asking if there were any guns and omitting the language about revolvers would have been enough. However, the questions are developed based on responses over time. I suspect that the addition of revolvers came about because enough of the respondents said something along the lines of, "Does that include revolvers?"

Out of curiosity, would you be likely to respond honestly to a survey conducted by the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) as compared to the GSS conducted bu the National Opinion Research Center?

Both are national, non-profit, non-governmental organizations.
 
NSSF data

Some interesting survey results from the NSSF. For those of you that think the active gun owning public is a powerful political force, I wonder. These results suggest that those active in shooting activities are a very small group. Now, I am operating on the assumption that the most politically active shooters will be the ones who are actively using their firearms. That may not be a valid assumption but it is certainly something to think about.

The sample is a weighted national probability sample of 2,095. So, the percentages are representative of the U.S. population.

How many hunt?

Used to, but not now: 21%
Currently active: 5%
Never have: 73%
Refused to answer: 1%

Handgun target shooting?

Used to, but not now: 26%
Currently active: 8%
Never have: 66%
Refused to answer: 1%

Rifle target shooting?

Used to, but not now: 29%
Currently active: 6%
Never have: 64%
Refused to answer: 1%

This survey was contracted by the NSSF with the Harris organization (professional survey organization). However you cut it, the numbers are small. There may well be a majority of gun owners out there who never use their gun, but you’ve got to wonder how strongly they will advocate for RKBA.
 
Probably as the tone of the organization would indicate intent as compared to the nonprofit status. That doesn't immunize against bias.

As far as academia - in social psych, there's a clear dominance of liberals. The Chronicle of Higher Ed has a piece on Haidt's view of that discipline. I know from experience the power structure of the social sciences is not gun friendly but many individuals are.

I can't talk about some of it right now in detail but clearly have run into such in publication. A positive piece of research on firearms usage is troublesome to some.

Also, about surveys - many women who have firearms get them for self-protection from unpleasant or horrific past instances. They are very reluctant to discuss such because of safety concerns and not wanting to stir up emotions. That would bias phone call results.
 
I would absolutely rather answer and be more inclined to answer and answer honestly to a poll done by the NSSF.

Of course, I wouldn't expect any data compiled by the NSSF to be accepted in all the places where it would be most needed.

That seems obvious. Only to me? I don't think so.
 
Confirmation bias is operative in most major debates nowadays. It is a sad fact of our dichotomized government. Once an issue has been officially anointed as a totem of your tribe or that of the enemy tribe - no evidence shall sway your opinion.
 
+1^^^

Of course there is no insulation against bias, but I'd also argue that the fact that a social scientist conducts research on gun-related issues does not, de facto, signal bias.

I would not argue against the notion that a substantial bias in favor of social liberalism permeates academia. As you (Glenn) have mentioned many times, there are also many pro-gun members of the academy, both liberal and conservative. We do, however, tend to be circumspect about the issue.

Like Sevens, I'd be more inclined to trust the NSSF data on firearms ownership as well. My reasons for that is that I think there would be a lower refusal rate by gun owners.

I will say that I was taken aback by the low numbers participating in either hunting or recreational use of firearms. I think that may leave us in the dark about people who own for purely personal defense reasons. I also suspect they are the least likely to be cooperative with any survey. My colleague, who is a gun-owning female academic, reports her anecdotal experience regarding female ownership is in line with Glenn's hypothesis.
 
GSS Refusal Rate

This chart shows the refusal rate on the gun ownership question on the GSS. The dotted blue line is the smoothed trend (locally-weighted polynomial regression). It shows that the refusal rate was actually going down until about 1994 (AWB implemented) and then took a turn and has been climbing ever since.

The overall refusal rate is still pretty low (less than 2%) but is higher than the NSSF refusal rate (reported 1%). This brings me back around to my original question, for those respond to the survey how many are giving false answers (no) to the ownership question?

Interestingly enough, this may suggest that they are responding to the political questions about guns but denying ownership.

refuse.jpeg
 
The question remains: can we change that climate, and how would we go about it?
Click to expand...

Like most things nowadays: Yes, by getting children involved in all things out of doors. Target shooting, hunting, archery, BB guns, sling shots, kites, camping,,,anything. Unfortunately, most of these activities involve some concentration and discipline, which is something thats lacking in a lot of our youth.

Furthermore, the states with the strictest gun laws, also have limited or no place to shoot/practice, as well as large urban populations. In other words, kids stay indoors watching TV which glamourizes sex and violence, then go to school where they're taught that sex and violence is wrong.

All children want to play (jump, kick, shoot, etc.), but our "modern society" says "No, you may hurt yourself" , rather than teach them how to play safely. That's where we come in. We need to bring children with us to shoot, hunt, etc. They need to see that it's fun, and that guns are not just for bad guys.

Maybe some of you Shooting Range owners could start a "Bring/Teach Your Child to Shoot Day" so it wouldn't be so intimidating. Ahhh, to dream....
 
Ike666 said:
... Now, I am operating on the assumption that the most politically active shooters will be the ones who are actively using their firearms. That may not be a valid assumption but it is certainly something to think about.
Click to expand...

Not a valid assumption, in my opinion.
 
Not a valid assumption, in my opinion.
Click to expand...
Nor in my experience. I know a few people who've worked for the 2nd Amendment who don't shoot very much at all. On the other hand, I know many serious shooters who can't be troubled to lift a finger for it.
 
Nor in my experience. I know a few people who've worked for the 2nd Amendment who don't shoot very much at all. On the other hand, I know many serious shooters who can't be troubled to lift a finger for it.
Click to expand...

Must concur. Lots of exceptions out there though.
 
Interesting thread.

To answer the OP's question, I doubt I'd answer any survey about firearms ownership. Staying beneath the radar is pretty well ingrained, and I don't choose to be targeted for robbery, and there's no way to screen telephone surveyors regarding their bona fides. Then too, I live in a rather anti-gun state, which does not engender trust in officialdom to have my true best interests at heart. Though certainly they'd have little compunction in telling me what they felt was in my best interest, and enforcing that through legislation.

Regarding surveys in general, I've seldom if ever been surveyed in such a way that the inherent bias of the survey was not apparent; I choose not to participate in that sort of game.

Regarding the furture, there is interest on the part of children to learn about guns, but there are few places where actual hands-on experience can be had. This does not bode well for a vigorous firearms-friendly future. Then too, there are plenty of stories, not all of them urban legends by any means, wherein children are punished for such transgressions as drawing a picture of a gun, or pointing their fingers inimitation of a gun. School systems in the most left-leaning states, especially those with high urban concentrations, have a very negative bias toward firearms. This has increased over the last few decades to the point where the culture of my youth has been entirely supplanted, replaced by a strong tendency toward isolation and even fear.

There are no free-range children in my community. No child seems to be permitted to "goo outside and play"; rather, "play-dates" are the norm, and activity is circumscribed.

I suspect much of this is a result of media negative feedback; in order to keep our attention, greater levels of stimuli must needs be provided. Which is not to deny that, a few miles from my home, children are shooting each other on a regular basis, which was never the case in my youth. So perhaps the media are not so much to blame.

While civility is in relative decline, and modern life enables closer contact between otherwise incongruent social groups, I don't suppose things are as bad as they seem; what I object to, in my particular situation, is having to live in a political unit which denies me the right to defend myself. Certainly I have no interest in furthering the spread of information regarding my value as a particularly interesting target, for any group with an interest in my various resources.

A bit of a rambling set of answers, to questions that perhaps were only alluded to. But that's the price one pays for opening interesting lines of inquiry.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top