NSSF and the "90%" Myth

[Tom Servo]

The gun-control lobby spend most of the year claiming that 90% of Americans support so-called universal background checks for gun purchases. We've discussed the questionable survey leading to that figure and its methodology before.

The NSSF has done a survey in which they clarified the questions, and the responses were far different. After being informed that most transactions at gun shows are performed by licensed dealers who do NICS checks, only 40% of respondents supported expanding checks to all transactions.

(Dear Mr. Bloomberg: 40% is a smaller number than 90%.)

54% of respondents doubted that requiring background checks for transfers between family and friends would be effective at reducing violent crime. We see the greatest consensus when it comes to accurate reporting of prohibited persons to the NICS database. 92% of respondents support legislation requiring that.

 

[osbornk]

54% of respondents doubted that requiring background checks for transfers between family and friends would be effective at reducing violent crime.

I'm shocked the percentage is not higher. I think it would be if they had given it more thought. I know my family and friends. I know the ones who would be responsible enough to own a gun and those that would not be. I know some of them would pass a background check with flying colors but should never be near a gun.

 

[Wreck-n-Crew]

Another good sign within the same poll:

Some 70 percent of the survey sample also said that did not believe that government should mandate that all firearms produced incorporate “smart gun” technology should it become commercially available. Only 17 percent approved of a mandate, while 13 percent didn’t know.

Sooner or later someone should hold Pollsters accountable for these questionable surveys. Purposeful wording designed to get the intended response they want is at least unethical.

If Quinnipiac were called on the carpet these junk poles would cease, but we have the larger obstacle, the media! Good luck with that one.

Great find BTW and thanks for the vigilance.

 

[JimDandy]

I know my family and friends. I know the ones who would be responsible enough to own a gun and those that would not be.

What you're missing is both the people who think gun ownership itself is practically a crime, as well as those of us who realize while WE know our family, and we know who is responsible or not in our family, we don't know if that guy over there knows, or even cares.

Do I think it would be effective? I don't know. Probably a little bit. Enough to be worth the cost? Probably not. Effective can be subjective too.

 

[44 AMP]

Taking a poll, and reporting your results, no matter how slanted the questions, is not unethical. SLANTING those questions to achieve a predetermined result, is. As is claiming a valid conclusion (and making it public policy) from those slanted responses.

I am reminded of an old Doonesbury cartoon (from the early/mid 70s)

Poll taker at the door, asks "if the election were held today, who would you vote for?"
Nixon?
The Easter Bunny?
Adolph Hitler?

The homeowner responds with "hmmmm"
Polster thinks to himself "this is going to be tougher than I thought...."

Another example...

Fellow I knew, back in the Clinton years, somehow got on the list of people to be called and polled. Every couple months they would call him, and ask what he felt about the President, and the job he was doing.

The fellow was an old farmer, not a political bone in his body. His life was fine, so he always answered he felt ok about the Pres and the job he was doing.

After a couple years, he decided to say something different, just to see what happened. The next time they called him, he said he was very upset with the Pres, and felt he was doing a bad job.

They NEVER called him again.

I don't think its any different today...

 

[Uncle Buck]

They NEVER called him again.

I have noticed this personally. I used to get calls all the time, but when I started going against which-ever organization was conducting the poll, I stopped getting the calls.

Now I can only be a curmudgeon in the online polls.

I used to refuse to answer the part about white, black etc. etc, etc and told them it was more important that I was an american than what color I was.

 

[44 AMP]

I used to enjoy marking the box "other" in the race category, and writing in "human". BECAUSE THAT"S ALL THAT REALLY MATTERS!
(pardon the rant)

I stopped doing that when I learned that some systems automatically dump all the "other" category into the black or Hispanic group. Dishonest bassfishes!

My biggest gripe with polls is that no matter how honest you or I are in answering them, answers that don't fit the agenda of the pollers (or the people paying for the poll) are going to be tossed, anyway.

The only poll that matters is the one we do every couple years in November...and I'm beginning to have my doubts about that one...