Studying Gun Control Opinions

2

2d_Amend_Law_Prof

Inactive
Dear fellow Firingline subscribers:

I am a researcher at Yale University studying political attitudes, including opinions on gun control. I am especially interested in the opinions of individuals who are knowledgeable about and interested in this issue.

As part of my research, I am conducting an on-line survey. It should take about 5 to 8 minutes to complete. I would be extremely grateful for your participation in it.

Please be assured that all responses are confidential and anonymous and no personal identifying information is collected. You can also find contact information for me at the end of the survey.

To participate, please go to:

http://islandia.law.yale.edu/ss/wsb.dll/braman/study5.htm

Thank you very much!
 
This survey instrument is clearly designed with an agenda to make us look like bigots. I'm suprised it doesn't contain the question "Have you stopped beating your wife?". I would strongly suggest members of this board NOT to participate in this survey.
 
Oystermick-
I disagree. Both sides of the debate could pull individual questions out and argue that they're skewed. We need to better understand where the author is going.

Dan-
Not certain what to make of you or your survey. I completed it. In context of some of the Abstracts of your papers, it appears to be fairly straight forward.....and I detect no attempt to "fit the survey questions" to a preconceived conclusion. However, certain of the questions are really kinda "loaded".

eg:
[Do] we need to dramatically reduce inequalities between the rich and the poor, whites and people of color, and men and women.[?]
Click to expand...
Which of the following does not fit in the list:
1) White Man
2) Black Woman
3) Poor Person

See what I mean? I'm by no means calling "Troll" here, but I really would like to know how a survey that includes gun rights and global warming intends to support the hypothesis that I glean from your other writings.

As a New Haven native, I'm glad to see Yale is still stretching the sociology envelope. Some of your abstracts are pretty far out....and pretty interesting: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=45442

That said, the attached paper by you appears to be where you're going. Whether you are pro or anti on the Gun Control issue is not apparent....much to your credit. You portray the brittle edge of both camps pretty fairly. (Though a reading of your abstract from "The Logic of Reciprocity: Trust, Collective Action, and Law", juxtaposed against the hypothesis for this latest paper, quoted below, gives a pretty good indicator of where you would come down on the issue.)

I do take exception to the fact that you formulate the debate around societal "safety" without ever taking into account that, for many, the debate is about Liberty and a fierce belief in the fact that certain rights, including self defense, ARE granted by a Higher Authority than the US. Congress; that the Framers knew better than we, in our comparatively well-fed, cushy homes, what it takes to keep a People free.

Still, your plea that the Gun Control debate should closely examine "Cultural Orientation" vs "Quantification of Risk" is a valuable contribution to both sides. However, I'm not certain a man of your education, talent and background needs to "test" a hypothesis which is easily answered by anyone seriously involved in the debate:
Persons of a relatively individualist orientation
should oppose gun control, which they are likely to see as
denigrating the ideal of individual self-reliance. By the same token,
individuals who are less inclined toward individualism should favor
gun control in order to express trust in, solidarity with, and collective
responsibility for the well-being of, their fellow citizens. These
are the hypotheses that we decided to test.
Click to expand...

But, like they say in the Halls of Academia, "It's your grant money." ;)

Looking forward with interest for the results of your work.

Best regards and best of luck-
Rich Lucibella
 

Attachments

How about testing the hypothesis on the bumper sticker, "Society is safer when criminals don't know who is armed"?
 
jrklaus-
You're responding to a Dean of the Yale School of Law here. I'm flattered, on behalf of all of us, that he's taken the time to register, post and seek to include us in the study group.
http://www.law.yale.edu/outside/html/faculty/dmk38/profile.htm

I suspect some of the those in the opposing camp are taking the same survey, only at another URL, for comparison. Could be way off on that.

In any case, Dan's Yale position grants him no automatic respect. But I think it does deserve serious and honest response. Let's raise the bar, shall we?
Rich
 
Within that bumper sticker is a very serious hypothesis, which is, that the benefits accruing to society from uncertainty in criminal's minds about who might be able to resist them has rarely been taken into account in studies which purport to look into the "societal costs" of firearms.

I'm very pleased this gentleman is the Dean of the Law School at Yale.

I also meant no disrespect in the post.

Did that "raise the bar enough?"
 
Has this been changed? A link to a very similar-looking survey was making the rounds a couple years ago.
 
Rich Lucibella,
Your observation of the "loaded" questions in the survey is exactly the point of my post. The example question you used is what raised the red flag for me.
The issues of "inequalities" between rich and poor are quite different than those of race and gender. That should have been two separate questions. One's opinion of gay marriage and gun ownership is non sequitur. However, having read your well reasoned articulate post, I reconsidered and completed the survey. I will though stand by my belief that the survey instrument is flawed and agenda driven.
 
Took the survey, and in my school (University of Tampa. Tampa-Fl) we took a survey sort of like that last week.

Our survey had less firearm questions (had 1 or 2) and more questions on equal rights.

We even did an entire class (3 hours) explaining why survey's don't work. And are not a valid source of information.

Survey's and people who take surveys cannot ask the entire population (the census) So they have to take a subset of the entire people. asking an equal amount of people from each group.

If you have equal rights question, asking 10 white upper middle class men, wouldnt get you too far.

And asking 10 lower class hispanics also wouldnt get you a valid answer.

So asking 10 of each class, 10 of each race/gender/nationality always having the same amount so that one group doesnt out number the other.

So in other words a survey on gun control in a progun website..probably wont be too scientific. unless of course (which I know you're doing) you post this same survey on anti gun forums.

But even then, what if we have more members here
or if they have more members there....
 
(Berettacougar, hopefully this is a test run, and they intend to get a more random sampling of responses some other way.)

I have a few comments/criticisms...

Define your terms. "Rights", "discrimination," and "inequalities," to start with. It would also be nice if the entire survey were on a single page.

page 1 question group 1:
Black vs White discrimination: I couldn't respond even if I wanted to. Both types of discrimination exist, but they aren't neatly comparable.

Distribution of wealth: which definition of "distribution" are you intending? Are you asking about the respondent's opinion about the redistribution of wealth, or about the statistical distribution of wealth?

page 1 question group 2:
Tough vs sensitive: How is someone supposed to respond if he believes children should be taught to be both more tough and more sensitive? I wasn't aware the two were mutually exclusive.

I wouldn't use colloquialisms like "get all the breaks" and "pick up the tab" in a formal survey.

page 1 question group 3:
Gay marriage: Anti-gay-marriage arguments mostly center on the fact that marriage is, or should be, defined as the union of a man and a woman. If you don't redefine it, responses to this question will be hard to interpret.

page 2 question group 1:
One question assumes that what is "good for society" is known. Are respondents supposed to assume the existence of such an oracle? The government is absolutely incapable of acting as an oracle of any sort.

When you ask whether Government should stop people from hurting themselves, you might want to clarify whether you include actions that harm both themselves and others. Logically, those must be included, but if you leave it as-is, make sure you consider that possibility when you interpret responses.

What else does a government do, if not tell people how to live their lives? Only anarchists believe that is always bad. (Using the basic definition of "anarchy," of course, not one of the post-modern definitions or subgroups. One more peep about anarcho-syndicalism or anarcho-capitalism and I'm likely to go on a shooting spree. How's that for my position on gun control?)
 
2d_Amend_Law_Prof, I just finished taking the survey, and would be fascinated to see your final results.

Where I think (and hope) you'll be surprised is in the divergence of attitudes on racial/gender/economic/evironmental issues amongst those who are fervently pro-gun. Gun owners, and even those who oppose all forms of gun control, are not a monolithic bloc of ultra-conservatives. If you were to spend some time on the Legal & Political forums here and on other gun forums, I think you'd find a very diverse mix of liberals, libertarians, and conservatives.

What I think will be interesting to see is the diversity of opinions on the social issues you address amongst those who favor restsriction of gun ownership. My own anecdotal experience is that those who favor gun bans tend to be more in lock-step with contemporary liberalism.

Please post your results when the study is completed.
 
I suspect some of the those in the opposing camp are taking the same survey, only at another URL, for comparison. Could be way off on that.
Click to expand...
It is very difficult to formulate questions for a survey or poll that cover all the possibilities. Some of Dr. Kahan's questions appear similar, but in that vein had me appearing to contradict myself in some of my answers. None the less, I couldn't really detect a slant in any particular direction. That in itself is noteworthy, as even the NRA's polls often times show an obvious slant. Polls like this are an interesting animal: There are the obvious objectives of direct answers to direct questions, and there is the more obscure, actual and final objective, which I suspect is a great deal more complicated, both in the analysis and in the conclusions. We don't know what hypothesis or theory Dr. Kahan's group is attempting to test in the long run, and while that leads me to wonder, I find it a good thing overall. Human nature being what it is, if we knew the project's true objective(s), we would attempt to slant the conclusions to our advantage. I would be very interested to read Dr. Kahan's final paper on this.

Regardless of whether Dr. Kahan's group is "pro" or "anti", we here find ourselves presented with a golden opportunity: That of Ambassador, not only of TFL, but of the firearms community as a whole. I would prefer that when the good Doctor is done with us, he leaves with a new-found sense of respect for the values, maturity, and intelligence of this community.
 
Sorry........

I respect the fact someone came here to get some data.........how it is used or perhaps modified later to fit a certain paragraph in a certain book is only for history to explain..... I act and react with caution when things don't seem right to me on initial contact. I feel that has saved my life a few times in the past. Sure, this isn't the same at all - is it?

So, until I learn more of this project and it's total purpose...... beyond what I first read, I shall say that gun control is a big topic...... I shorten it to a marksman's note: Hitting exactly what one aims for........ Ok, I think I will head out to the range now..... ;)

Regards...... Rojoe67 :D

ps....... I did take the test before I left.......... Smells just like fish as I suspected it might..... ;)
 
Capt-
Re-read my earlier. I believe this is a survey designed to buttress the Professor's written hypothesis:
"Persons of a relatively individualist orientation
should oppose gun control, which they are likely to see as
denigrating the ideal of individual self-reliance. By the same token,
individuals who are less inclined toward individualism should favor
gun control in order to express trust in, solidarity with, and collective
responsibility for the well-being of, their fellow citizens. These
are the hypotheses that we decided to test."

What has me confused is:
1) Why anyone would need to test this...as the answer is obvious to anyone involved in the debate.
2) The subtle bias of:
"pro-2nd = Individual Self Reliance"
vs
"anti-2nd = trust in, solidarity with, and collective responsibility for the well-being of, their fellow citizens". (Emphasis mine).


Note the emotive images painted on either side. Note a subtle bias there? In one case, you care about yourself; in the other you care about your "fellow citizens".

A more even handed, apples to apples comparison would be:
"Indivudual Self Reliance"
vs
"Government mandated collective consciousness"

......but I could be reading it all wrong. ;)
Rich
 
Odd ... I started taking the survey, but I had to quit. Some questions regard "the government" as if there is only one government. Many things would be improper for the federal government yet proper for the States ... I tend to think that since it doesn't say "government" but rather "the government" that it regards federal government ... it's like asking me if "the government" should set a speed limit.
 
Interesting. I have got to stop reading forums on the run! :D Given that hypothesis, the entire survey seems a little too simplistic, which brings me back to the question: What, exactly, IS the professor's final objective?
 
Hi, everyone. Many many thanks to those of you who have participted in the survey and even more to those who have offered their feedback on the survey. The research is ongoing, so the comments and reactions are very useful to me.

You certainly are entitled to a full explanation of what my research is about. Indeed, I think you might find it interesting, and I'm definitely interested to know your reactions to it. I suspect there will be both positive and negative evaluations of my work (as pointed out by Monkeyleg, after all, gun enthusiasts "are not a monolithic bloc"!) but I'm certain responses of both sorts will be well considered and insightful, and that I'll come away having learned something.

In case anyone else is still interested in participating -- and because we could still use some more responses! -- I will probably wait a couple of days before I brief you on what the research is about more generally and how this particular survey (which is in the nature of a trial for a survey I'm developing for a general population sample) fits in.

Thanks again for the assistance!

Dan Kahan
Professor
Yale Law School

p.s. Not *Dean,* just "Deputy Dean" -- believe me that's bad enough!
 
Payne

Glad you liked it and encourage us all to take it....... :barf:

Are you trying to get into law school?

Just kidding......have a great day ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top