There are new polls out of Harvard and NBC that show surprising results on gun ownership and rights. According to NBC, a majority (52%) now say that they or someone in their household owns a gun. Most notably, the Harvard poll shows that six in ten voters believe owning a gun is a necessary part of protecting themselves from criminals.
Despite the strong anti-gun rights message from the White House and the media, the public seems to be moving significantly in the opposite direction.
Some 55% of voters now believe that “Woke politicians are to blame for rising crime.” With gun control one of the top issues for Democrats going into this election, the polls show a growing gap with a majority of voters on the issue, particularly as crime continues to rise among the top issues for 2024.
The NBC polling shows a record number of Americans are now gun owners. The current level is up six percent from 2019 when 46% of Americans said that they or someone in their household owned a gun. It is now up 10 points in the last ten years.
Notably, that includes 41% of Democrats. If this trend continues, half of the Democratic voters will soon be living in households with gun owners. Some 45% of independents confirm ownership as do 66% of Republicans.
The Harvard poll is likely to be more chilling for the Democratic Party. Not only do citizens overwhelmingly blame woke policies on the left for rising crime, but 42% believe that crime and safety is getting worse in their community. Only 21% believe that it has gotten better.
Harvard then asked “Do you think you need to have a gun today in case you are attacked by criminals, or do you think owning a gun is unnecessary?”
A majority of voters in all three categories (Democrat, Republican, or independent) said that a gun is necessary. That includes 54% of Democrats. (Some 77% of Republicans and 56% of independents agreed).
Consider that for a second. Almost half of Democrats are gun owners and over half believe gun ownership is necessary. It is one of the greatest disconnects of either party with their membership. While Democrats have found a winning issue on abortion in recent elections, it represents a growing separation on one of the other key issues in this election. President Biden has pursued some of the most aggressively anti-gun policies of any president.
Legally, the polling shows that the public seems to be moving toward the view of the Supreme Court despite unrelenting attacks in the media. Since the Court declared the right to bear arms to be an individual right in Heller, the media has overwhelmingly decried the decision (and later decisions). Reporters generally quote staunchly critical law professors who portray the Court as “gun-crazy” and disconnected from both the Constitution and reality.
Once again, the public appears to be tuning out the media. What should be concerning for both the Democratic Party and the media is that the Second Amendment is different from other rights in that citizens have a direct and tangible investment in its protection. Many rights are viewed as fairly abstract. Indeed, that has long been a problem in the free speech community where the right is often limited by threats that are viewed as more immediate and real like terrorism.
Gun ownership can give voters a tangible investment worth hundreds or thousands of dollars. Many have more than one gun. That gives them a vested interest in a debate over limiting gun rights or banning weapons. When President Biden repeatedly pledges to ban assault weapons, there are millions with such weapons. Likewise, Biden has referred to the danger of semi-automatic weapons which would include popular handguns. He previously has included 9mm handguns in his proposed ban. Other Democrats have called for gun confiscation. Those are calls that a majority of Americans may view as threatening their own property and safety.
While the Court may be at odds with a majority of voters on abortion, a growing number appear to be embracing gun ownership and gun rights. That does not mean that either the Court or the voters will not support reasonable limits. Since Heller, the Court has emphasized that there may be such limits on this right. However, the United States (by household) is now a majority gun-owning nation according to these polls. That could present an interesting dynamic going into the election in 2024.
Prof. Turley, and for the firearms trivia-minded, (Or the terminology fanatics crew – of whom I am not a member), a nit…
Dad carried an M1 Garand. It was Lock (the chamber open) and Load (a clip of 8 rounds) for him. I use am M1A (no name) a direct ancestor of the M1, and my drill is Load (a magazine of 5 – 30 rounds, from underneath) and Lock (cycle the operating handle to strip a round from the magazine and lock it into the chamber).
If I am feeling nostalgic, and not in love with my thumbnail, I can also stuff rounds in from the top.
But, everybody still says “Lock and Load”. 8>)}
Once upon a time, Jonathan, you might have written about this:
“Sen. Wyden Reveals New Details about the Massive Hemisphere Surveillance Program”
November 21, 2023
https://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/wyden-urges-justice-department-to-release-information-about-hemisphere-phone-surveillance-program-that-would-outrage-americans-and-congress
The surveillance goes way beyond mere phone surveillance, but most Americans don’t seem to care.
National populations must be ready to join the militia of their choice at a moment’s notice.
Is anyone surprised? When ever there is a question of taking away gun rights or restricting them even further, guns sell like hit cakes. There are more guns than citizens, that should say something.
Having a gun debate is fine and warranted. But if anyone truly thinks they can pulls this one off, think again.
I think guns to the Democrats are much like abortion is to the Republicans. They have tin ears and are always surprised when it does not go their way. Instead of listening, they repackage the argument and try again and still lose.
This is easy, if you do not want a gun, then do not own one. Leave those that want them to own them.
There are similarities and diffrences between abortion and guns as an issue.
Guns are going to remain a partisan problem for democrats so long as crime and violence remain high.
Worse still new gun owners are women and minorities.
The abortion issue will far – especially nationally as states adapt to Dobbs.
We will see different laws in different states, but the issue will be primarily a state issue, not a federal issue and each state will quickly stabalize on what its consituents want.
Put differently the Pro-life people won the battle over Rowe.
But the net impact in the long run will be minimal.
It is likely that many states will adopt more restrictive constraints on abortion. – because mostly those have broad support.
But there will be few outright bans.
As a practical matter this is wise and the right outcome.
There is lots of evidence that there is very little need for a long time frame during which abortion is legal.
Even PP’s own data shows that restrictive laws result in women deciding earlier.
That is a GOOD thing for all of us.
Abortion as an issue only has leggs if Republicans can muster the political power to ban it broadly and that is not happening.
There is a bit of extra pushback at the moment – because left wing nuts have persuaded people that the tiny number of right wing nuts who want to ban birth control are going to somehow succeed.
Contra what you hear on MSM the actual “extreme right” is tin and powerless. Unlike the extreme left.
A common practice of a zealot with a hardened point of view is to parse the words of those who confront him with facts that conflict with his viewpoint. Obvious here.
“According to NBC, a majority (52%) now say that they or someone in their household owns a gun”
These Americans are merely following the example and inciting words of Democrat clowns Goldman and Waters: eliminate opponents ….in the poetic sense naturally
🖕🏾
The Bill of Rights sits squarely besides a smoking musket. Like all human liberty, it’s secured solely by one’s willingness to fight for it.
Judges may be surprised to find out the federal Executive Branch operates a slavery program illegally detaining U.S. citizens – all covert with no official charges or convictions. Without consent of their prisoners.
Possibly the U.S. Marshal’s Service or some other agency.
Perhaps fewer people would feel the need to have a gun if government did a better job of protecting them.
Robert,
Knowing the incompetence of our government, would you really want to trust them to do a better job?
While that is true, and government can certainly do better, fundimentally the task of protecting citizens is impossible.
We can not have enough police for them to respond immediately to all threats.
The right to self defense is even more fundimental than the right to firearms.
Citizens must be able to defend themselves – because police can not be omnipresent.
Quell surprise??? Who would have thought that self-respecting individuals in what was conceived as a nation of free people, would support the ownership and use of guns to protect life and property? “Ultimately property rights and personal rights are the same thing.” – Calvin Coolidge. That sounds as if it would deny the entire “Great Society” legislation if we tried to live by that ideology – the ideology of our forefathers.
𝐃𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐜𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐬’ ‘𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐧 𝐁’ 𝐢𝐬 𝐊𝐚𝐦𝐚𝐥𝐚 𝐇𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐬: 𝐃𝐨𝐮𝐠 𝐒𝐜𝐡𝐨𝐞𝐧
Democratic pollster Doug Schoen discusses the reality facing the Biden administration in the president’s bid for reelection.
By: Laura Ingraham FOX News ~ November 22, 2023
https://www.foxnews.com/video/6341602680112
Video Link:
https://vod.foxnews.com/media/v1/pmp4/static/clear/694940094001/ba4015e6-3b04-444c-9afb-1e7b5c23a084/d2365c9f-7ede-4ff3-a02c-0987f96b2877/main.mp4
Professor Turley,
“Almost half of Democrats are gun owners.” Where did you get that statistic? Certainly not from the poll because the poll asked about gun ownership in a household, not individual ownership.
From the poll: “This month, 66% of Republican voters surveyed say that they or someone in their household owns a gun, while just 45% of independents and 41% of Democrats say the same.”
You do realize that a household can have Democrats and Republicans living together, right? If the Republican owns the gun, then the Democrat would answer “Yes” to the poll question even though that person did not individually own a gun.
Many Americans have trouble with reading comprehension – you yourself have written articles noting the failure of our education system to adequately teach the subject – yet, here you demonstrate an inability to comprehend the results of the NBC poll. Please do better.
“Certainly not from the poll because the poll asked about gun ownership in a household, not individual ownership.”
That’s not true, either:
Do you, or does anyone in your household, own a gun of any kind? It simply does not make a distinction.
You make a good point, i’m sure there are plenty of non-gun-owning democrats living in republican households. Those dems are generally called social science majors who wait tables.
I don’t understand your critique.
Asking “do you or anyone in your household” is a household question, not an individual question.
An individual who does not personally own a gun, but who lives in a household where another owns a gun, must answer the question “yes.” There is no option to only answer the “do you” part. This is the meaning of “OR” in the question.
If it was a choice, then it would be worded differently.
And to respond to your other point: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-many-republicans-marry-democrats/
While this is not exactly on point, about 9% of married households have one democrat and one republican (2016 figures, so a bit dated). This does not included households of non-married individuals (roommates, for example). Only about 55% of married households included spouses with the same party affiliation. Therefore, this is a pretty significant caveat to Professor Turley’s inaccurate conclusion.
That members of a household have different party affiliations does NOT mean that are at extreme ends of politics.
I am libertarain – I am registered as a republican so that I can vote in Republican primaries. My county is deep red.
The primary is essentially the general election. Whoever wins the republican primary will will the assorted county offices.
I am not a republican – and I nearly always vote for the republican candidate NOT endorsed by the party.
My wife is a public defender – she is employed by the county, she changes her party affiliation sometimes with each election.
Like me she sometimes registers republicn to be able to participate meaningfully in local elections.
At the same time – she has more interest in democratic statewide primaries.
My wife and I do not agree on everything politically – but we do agree on most things – regardless of our political registration.
40 years ago neither of us would have considered owning a gun.
We still do not, but we have talked about it.
Despite the FACT that I am slightly more republican leaning, and definitely a stronger 2A advocate, I talked her out of owning a gun.
We concluded that if we chose to own a gun we would have to get the proper training and gain sufficient proficiency.
There are just too many instances in which a persons gun is used against them in a crime.
I fully support the right of people to own guns, as does my wife.
But we do not own a gun,. because we do not have the time and willingness to be trained as responsible gun owners.
And because a gun is only useful if you are willing to use it.
If you are unwilling to point a gun at someone who poses a serious threat and pull the trigger, then you should not own a gun.
Neither of us at this time are prepared to kill another person to protect ourselves.
Another factor is that our children are grown. Both of us would be willing to kill another to protect our kids.
While the anonymous poster is correct that household is not the same as individual – they are in most instances close.
It is far more likely that if a household has a gun – that all or nearly all members of the household support the right to firearms,
That that they are at significant odds.
Anonymous also ignore the Trendline.
The absolute numbers only matter a little.
The 4 year shift of 6% is very significant.
“Asking “do you or anyone in your household” is a household question, not an individual question. ”
It’s both an individual and a household question. If everyone they asked personally owned a gun and no one else in their houses did…or if a respondent lived alone…
Back to reality, there are likely more households in the US that have guns than there are households in, say, all of Canada…there are a lot of guns in the US, and the number of democrats around them has, apparently, increased by 33% in the past 20-years, according to the poll.
Given the numbers, you are likely around guns all the time, however, you’re really only in danger if you’re in a heavily democrat-infested area.
It is not an individual question. It is a household question.
“If everyone they asked personally owned a gun and no one else in their houses did…or if a respondent lived alone…”
…finish the sentence? Both of those are HOUSEHOLD responses.
The way the question was asked, no correct response would differ from “Does anyone in your household own a gun?”
A household of one is still a household. Anyone, who personally does not own a gun but lives in a household with one MUST answer YES.
Can you tell me one situation where the answer would be correct and different from the question, “Does anyone in your household own a gun?”
Does it matter if the number of democrats supporting gun rights is 20% or 30% or 40% or 50%, if the rate is increasing by 6% every 3 years ?
Turley is correct – democrats are on the losing side of this battle.
Is the strength of 2A support equivalent to opposition to abortion restrictions ?
That will depend on specifics.
If the rate of violent crime drops 400% @A will cease to be a consequential issue.
It took 40+ years to reduce violence from current levels to where is was 4 years ago.
The 2A is not likely to go away as an issue favorable to the GOP anytime soon.
Further it functions as a proxy for lots of other issues – for the revolt against Democrats crime, and policing policies – even for border issues.
Abortion is CURRENTLY a small but powerful wedge issue for democrats. It might get them 2% additional votes – but that is huge.
But abortion will fade as an issue as it becomes increasigly aparent that Dobbs changed nothing.
And that there is no plausible effort to limit access to birth control.
The rate of what is increasing by 6%? HOUSEHOLDS.
Again, you cannot conclude the rate of individual gun ownership is increasing by 6%. That requires polling on…. INDIVIDUALS.
This is precisely my point.
Of course I can. It si called MATH.
Separately we do NOT need polls to know the rate of increase in gun ownership.
We know how many guns are produced and sold each year.
Why is it that you left wing nuts are incapable of anything past first order thinking.
Why not suggest the poll may include responses from people who included cap guns, water pistols and nerf guns?
I suspect sometimes even you get sick of your own useless pedantry. But you just can’t help yourself.
Proper reading comprehension is not “useless pedantry.” Why read a blog if you don’t value the importance of understanding the written word?
So much of the “Age of Rage” that Professor Turley waxes poetic about is the result of Americans failing to “trust, but verify” the news they consume. Whenever you read an article that summarizes a poll, a study, or some other writer’s analysis, you must go to the original source to verify its accuracy. Never blindly trust any source, even if it happens to be a GW law professor.
The reason I go to this site is to get the right-wing side of the news, so that I can verify the MSM. Oftentimes, however, I find inaccuracies just like this one.
All well and good, but the “innaccuracy ” that you fixate on is close to meaningless.
First Polls do NOT precisely try to reflect the collective view of people. They are necescarily a blunt instrument.
Nit picking the details of the poll – whee there is not clear evidence of bias in the poll questions is “useless pedantry”
The distinction between household and individual is only meaningful – if you magically beleive there is a growing trend of democrats in households with guns that are increasingly opposed to guns.
Do you really think that is the case ?
I would further note that Turley.org is not a right wing site.
I am glad you are visiting somewhere to get a different perspective than the MSM.
But if you think that nit picking jt.org is going to provide you with a balanced view – your deluded.
Prof. Turley remains a democrat and a liberal. He is left of center. He is not MAGA, he is not a republican. He is not even a libertarain.
While he does not jump to conclusions – left or right, his biases STRONGLY favor the left. Just not so ridiculously strongly as the MSM.
This is all very easy to tell. It took a very long time for Turley to grasp that the collusion delusion was a lie.
Yet, a cursory examination of the claim leads to the logical conclusion that it is absurd.
While that is NOT proof it is false – absurd things do happen in the real world. They are STILL not commonplace.
The odds of the collusion delusion proving true were from the start miniscule.
Rationality does not require that we favor the right 50% of the time and the left 50% of the time.
It requires that in circumstances where we do not know all the facts, that we DO NOT presume that low probability claims are likely true.
NEarly every single issue that the left and the MSM has been incorrect on in the past decade, has been an issue where the probability of a claim was LOW, and yet the MSM chose for political reasons to presume it was near certain.
You are doing the same here. You are nitpicking an aspect of a question that does not significantly alter the analysis of the survey – either Turley’s or the rest of ours.
The FACT is that support of 2A rights is on the rise – a 6% increase in 4 years.
That is a very big deal and a trend that the left and the MSM is on the wrong side of.
That does NOT answer detailed questions regarding what policies that people will support.
It does not tell us whether people support a falsely named “assault weapons ban” or gun registration or red flag laws, or magazine limits or ….
But it DOES tell us that gun bans are growing in unpopularity.
Why are polls necessarily a blunt instrument?
Poll: What is your age?
Why would the responses be anything but clear?
Similarly, THIS poll is very clear with respect to HOUSEHOLDS. It does not provide accurate information regarding individuals.
Polls are just the mechanics of statistics.
Is my age an opinion ?
Why are polls necescarily blunt instruments ?
Because you can not provide 30 pages of clarification to every question as well as 20 alternate answers.
Are you really asking questions this stupid ?
Just some very simple examples –
Polls showed supermajority support for Healthcare reform prior to PPACA.
But no poll has EVER shown majority support for ANY specific healthcare reform.
Further either specifically – PPACA, or generically – healthcare reform generally, supermajorities OPPOSE healthcare reform or even the PPACA if they are told it will cost them $100/yr.
Polls do not, and can not measure complex issues.
They are binary in nature querying problems that are as “non-binary” as things can get.
Why is any of this particularly difficult for you to understand ?
Polls are useful and have value. They are especially useful in reporting trends, no matter how complex the underlying non-binary issues of an binary poll, the trend of the poll does reflect changes in peoples views, even if it can not explin why those views are changing or which non-binary facets are driving the change.
Separately the most important “poll” are those in which there is “skin in the game”
Gun sales are up. Gun ownership is up – we do not need a poll to know that. We know the sales.
We also know that more women and minorities are buying guns, and that there are more first time buyers.
Actually bying a gun is radically different from answering a poll question on the 2A.
Buying a gun means having skin in the game. It means having bet your money that it is valuable.
It means you chose the gun over other things you could have done with that money.
By far the most important “polls” on any issue are those in which people make actual value decisions
when they buy something or sell something.
We know from economics that even very small amounts of money can radically change the choices people make.
That is why despite their bad history poll taxes are actually a really good idea.
The tax need not be high – $5 is suffiecient, even $1 would radically alter voting.
And we should not have people whose opinion is not strong enough to spend a dollar making choices that effect all of us.
No polls are not the mechanics of statistics.
Do you think about what you post ?
The analysis of polls is statistics.
The polls are the attempts to measure something.
There are many ways to measure something, and the different ways frequently produce different results.
No this poll does NOT merely provide information on households.
As noted – polls are blunt. Your statement about accuracy strongly implies perfect accuracy is acheivable – it is not.
Regardless, this polls does tell us that very large numbers of democrats are willing to live in a household where guns are present.
Owning a gun, living in a home with a gun. living in a home without a gun are EACH individual choices that reflect our values.
The FACT that large numbers of democrats are willing to live in a home with a gun without a doubt is meaningful, and a problem form Democrats gun control positions.
Absolutely this poll does not “accurately” measure the strength of opposition or support for individual gun rights.
But it DOES bluntly measure the distribution, and especially the change in distribution is both meaningful, and individually meaningful.
If the Republican owns the gun, then the Democrat would answer “Yes” to the poll question even though that person did not individually own a gun.
So? The exceptions would even themselves out and result in the same conclusions.
The poll does not really need to get the D/R percentage accurate to support the results of the poll
This is a tracking poll and provides a trend over time.
The trend is clearly a wider swath of the political spectrum own guns. In direct conflict with the Democrat Party Narrative that guns need to be taken away from law abiding citizens.
You patented technique of pedantry, to thow the discussion of subject, will work with the uninformed left, but the rest of us see whats going on.
The narrative is collapsing under the weight of the evidence. Thats all this post is discussing
“So? The exceptions would even themselves out and result in the same conclusions.”
This is not how statistics works.
“The poll does not really need to get the D/R percentage accurate to support the results of the poll.”
This is also not how statistics works. Without accuracy, you do not have useful “results.”
Drawing a conclusion about “Democrats” individually owning guns from a poll about households is categorically incorrect. Full stop. There is no “argument” here. Arguing against this point is akin to arguing the Earth is flat. Some things are not debatable.
Perhaps a course on statistics would be a useful refresher (assuming you ever took Statistics in school).
Drawing a conclusion about “Democrats” individually owning guns from a poll about households is categorically incorrect. Full stop.
My job requires I estimate individual field yields, by using my perceptions about the the numbers I know. Its a guess, but it tracks trends, not yields.
This poll has been taken across a time span. Same poll, same accuracy. Like all polls their real usefulness is in tracking trends, NOT who is in the lead, but the trends of the each..
The trend is a wider political spectrum is buy guns. ie, a higher percentage of Dems are buying guns.
You have something to counter that finding, you damn shy about sharing your source.
This is incoherent.
Tracking a trend based on a poll not designed to answer the particular question you seek is useless. For example, if I want to know the number of babies born in the USA over the same period, this poll is useless. My point here is the same. If you wish to look at individual gun ownership over time, then USE A DIFFERENT POLL for that question. Tracking households does not give you clear results to answer that question.
“This is not how statistics works.”
Because you say so ?
Regardless you are making a claim regarding to statistics that has nothing to do with statistics.
The claim that things will even out – which is likely not correct as an absolute statement of fact, but is with near certainly correct as an observation of relative patterns, is a claim about human behavior – not statistics.
You repeatedly confuse the yardstick with what is being measured.
It is unlikely that human nature factors distribute 50:50 with respect to the edge conditions of this poll.
But it does not matter alot whether they distribute 50:50 or 60:40.
It does if they distribute 90:10 – which is the position you are trying to argue.
This is incoherent.
I cannot respond because I have no idea what you are saying.
There aren’t “exceptions” that “even out” when you have a poll that measures X, and your are drawing Y conclusion.
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2023/08/16/for-most-u-s-gun-owners-protection-is-the-main-reason-they-own-a-gun/
This is a poll, which tracks BOTH HOUSEHOLDS and INDIVIDUAL ownership. Use a different poll if you care more about individual gun ownership.
My point was simply that you cannot draw accurate conclusions about individual gun ownership a poll that only measures households.
A statistical model can’t answer every question under the sun. It can only provide meaningful answers to specific questions based on the data the statistician inputs. If you want to measure INDIVIDUALS, then poll individuals. Do not poll HOUSEHOLDS. This is really is not that complicated.
“Without accuracy, you do not have useful “results.””
Then no poll ever is useful.
The accuracy you are demanding is impossible. opinions on isues are non-binary – an actually correct use fo the term non-binary.
Polls force binary results.
They are therefore inherently inaccurate.
I would further note that one of the most important uses of statistics is to try to reach analytical conclusions when we do NOT have perfect accuracy.
In controlled scientific experiments. statistics are used to determine if a result is within the objective limits of measurement error.
The results are binary – either the thesis is proven or disproven.
The only alternative is error in the execution of the experiment.
But outside of controlled experiements the more common use of statistics, is to measure things that we can not measure in a controlled experiment. Statistics are used to try to isolate from messy real world data evidency of the forces that are driving things in the real world.
These efforts are inherently inaccurate – and polls are the epitomy of that.
Polls are NOT accurate – thoucgh some are more than others.
They are NOT controlled experiments.,
But they ARE useful.
Iowan2,
“The narrative is collapsing under the weight of the evidence.”
That right there.
Traditional, sane, Democrats look at what their woke leftist Democrats have done to society and are beginning to reject them and their failed policies.
There is a great deal of nuance missing in the poll – that is normal. Polls address multifacetted questions with yes no answers.
The important factor – as you note is that there is a very strong trend.
The poll does not as an example tell us how many households do not have a gun but support gun rights.
Nor does the poll tell us peoples clear views on guns.
Just because someone owns a gun – does not mean they are opposed to all forms of gun control.
Again the poll can not capture everything.
Gun owners and republicans tend to strongly support “Red Flag” laws.
I do not, they do not work.
We can as an example predict that certain mental health problems are twice as likely to result in violence.
But that merely means that those with paranoid schiztophrenia are as likely to be involved in violence as blacks.
There are no indicia of future violent conduct so strong as to justify removing the right to arms of those with those problems.
I beleive there are 2M schitzophrenics int he country – are we going to take all of their rights away ?
As I noted statistically the rate of violence by blacks is the same as that of the most violent mental health issues.
Are we going to deny blacks the right to firearms ?
Our ability to predict who will be violent and who will not SUCKS.
There is LOTS of evidence that even the “experts” do no better, often worse than ordinary people.
HOUSEHOLD trend, yes.
INDIVIDUAL trend, inconclusive. That is literally all I am saying.
A proper reading of this poll would draw no conclusions regarding individual gun ownership. There are plenty of other polls to use to determine this,
Everyone on this blog thinks you have to be on a RED or BLUE team. This has NOTHING to do with the politics of gun ownership and everything to do with reading comprehension and statistics.
I support the right to own guns! I care much more about the English language.
INDIVIDUAL trend, inconclusive. That is literally all I am saying.
I already had an opinion on WHO is buying guns. Garnered from dozens of interactions. Looky here, another data point, building on my opinion. Confirmation bias? To a point. BUT as you have been so helpful in demonstrating, There is little countervailing infomation for me to consider.
The Trend, is more Dems buying their first guns
But again, My tracking of Trends, discovered Dems lie about their gun ownership, because even they can smell the stink of hypocrisy on themselves.
No. No. No. You cannot reasonably deduce whether Dems individually are buying guns from a poll that tracks HOUSEHOLDS. There are confounding factors that make such a conclusion inappropriate. For example, demographic trends have gotten younger, and housing is more expensive. Without additional information, there could simply be larger households then in the past. The same number of individual gun owners could then lead to a higher number respondents answer YES on a household-based poll question.
Again, I am not saying this is the case. But, it seems pretty basic that you cannot deduce X from a study looking at Y. And the above is an example of why drawing such a conclusion leads to significant error.
Look at data tracking individual gun ownership if you want to analyze trends in… individual gun ownership. NOT HOUSEHOLDS.
For example: https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2023/08/16/for-most-u-s-gun-owners-protection-is-the-main-reason-they-own-a-gun/
This shows that 20% of Democrats personally own a gun. Data from August 2023.
Yikes.
“There is a great deal of nuance missing in the poll – that is normal. Polls address multifacetted questions with yes no answers. ”
From a statistical analysis perspective of anybody who had to suffer through fourth year statistics, this is like many polls and surveys offered for public fodder. Vague pablum that you could argue was intended to produce something worth writing news articles about.
Whether you love or hate their conclusions of this poll and others, if you handed it in to your fourth year stats prof, it would come back covered with so much red marker ink that your involuntary response would be to reach for a tourniquet. Rather see if there are any rational assumptions.
With all the discussion of the poll/survey and who and how many are in the home, this reminds me of the famous/infamous Kellerman “study that proved a gun in the home was 40 times more likely to lead to the death of someone in the family”. That’s the one that ultimately the CDC got caught of from any funding regarding their supposed research into gun violence.
The relevance to this is how Kellerman used his definitions of what was a home or household, what were residents of the homes being studied, etc. to get to what he called his findings that a firearm in the home for self defense was more dangerous than not having one.
Without compiling a major list of how he Kellerman his findings:
– many of Kellerman’s “homes” in his study area were crack houses and shooting galleries – not what you think of as when you think of an American family home.
– many of the members of those “homes” were pimps, drug dealers, junkies, whores, etc. Not exactly your representative family when they’re shooting each other.
– Kellerman only counted as a defensive gun use by someone in the home if they killed their attacker. Not if they only scared them off or wounded them.
– of the 440+ murders in those “homes” during Kellerman’s survey, in only 8 of those 440+ murders was the firearm used FROM INSIDE THE HOME.
There’s a lot more, but suffice it to say Dr. Kellerman’s (medical doctor, not criminology Ph.d doctor) supposed gun violence research got thrown out on it’s ass. And the public was outraged when the CDC bureaucracy was ordered to get out of their “gun violence” research work. One of the first things Biden did after coming back into office was tell the CDC they could go back to finding more Kellerman’s to help develop research that it is dangerous for Americans to own firearms for self defense.
So, I didn’t waste my time reading this massively vague survey. But the point is that (by changing the questions you ask, the definitions you decide to use for things, not eliminating confounding variables) you can almost get a surveyed population to give you results showing that the color white is actually black – if that’s your intent. Our fourth year stats prof regularly said “Figures don’t lie, but liars figger”.
Anyways, I suppose this is a survey Turley decided to cover (for some personal reason or other) that I suppose conservatives/constitutionalists should like the apparent results of. In the real world of statistical analysis, like the results or not, this study as as shallow as cow piss on a flat rock and really isn’t useful for doing anything other than providing a subject to write a column about.
Kellerman and his population surveys and studies on firearms ownership in families and in homes isn’t all that far in the past. And the Soviet Democrats have told the CDC to start rocking Kellerman style “Americans owning guns is dangerous” work again.
How many households do you think have gun owners as well as other voters in the house who vigorously oppose guns.
Households are NOT typically apartment complexes. While there are always small political differences within a household.
large ones are highly unlikely.
You also miss the point – gun ownership has risen 6% in 4 years.
You can debate the tiny details – but the trend is clear and it is going away from a key policy of democrats.
Scroll up. I provided data, showing just under half of married households have spouses with identical political party affiliations.
Again, you draw an improper conclusion. This poll does NOT show that “gun ownership has risen 6% in 4 years.”
THAT IS PRECISELY THE PROBLEM.
It shows that the percentage of households with at least one gun owner has risen 6% in 4 years. Those two things are NOT the same.
You stated, “‘Almost half of Democrats are gun owners.’ Where did you get that statistic? Certainly not from the poll because the poll asked about gun ownership in a household, not individual ownership.”
The question asked was, “Do you, or does anyone in your household, own a gun of any kind?”
That’s a compound question. In court the objection would be that it is a compound question and the attorney would have to split the question to two separate questions.
When broken down to two separate questions (that’s why it’s a compound question) the first part asks, “Do you…” that’s asking the individual if they own a “gun of any kind,” and the second part of the question is “…,or does anyone in your household, own a gun of any kind?”
Because it is a compound question it does not support either position being argued, but it does show evidence that support for owning firearms is up.
This is wrong on so many levels.
1. It is not a compound question.
2. This is not court, so the reference is irrelevant. It is a poll.
3. As I mentioned earlier, if the question were, “Does anyone in your household own a gun of any kind,” the results would necessarily be exactly the same. With the possible exception of homeless respondents, can you provide a single situation, in which anyone polled would answer differently?
Well Jonathan, I would suggest that the original founders grave concerns about the excesses of a tyrannical government might be a growing concern of many today as well. Just look at the wildly blatant two-tier system of justice in Merrick Garland’s Department of Justice. They don’t even try to hide it. They spend millions hunting down a 68-year-old grandmother for taking a selfie in the Capitol while Joe Biden gets a complete pass for recklessly storing classified documents for years at the Penn-Biden Center, the University of Delaware, and in his garage ?
Polls are BS and JT knows it. It depends on how you ask the question, how many people are polled, how you get the people that are polled, etc. BS. But on a slightly different note, we are getting some answers on voter fraud.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/iowa-republican-ballot-stuffing_n_655dcabfe4b0662eb43c355d
How many different ways can you ask the question:
“Does somebody in your household own a gun?”
You could ask if anyone in your household does not own a gun.
Answers from Huffpost???? LMAO at your silliness.
Was the news not accurate?
If it was in Huffpost, then no
You do realize that this story can from the AP, which is a source that Fox uses as well…
Do you question Fox News story with similar gusto or do you not care about the facts?
My guess is he has no regard for facts. Facts are only what trump says they are. And if tomorrow he contradicts himself, you run with the latest as truth. Their minds are literally Swiss cheese from worshiping an orange baby man.
“Their minds are literally Swiss cheese from worshiping an orange baby man.”
Sam specifically votes for President Daddy-Daughter Inappropriate Showers because bag licking Bribery Joe helps Sam finally get wood appear in his pants.
Bribery Joe, he of the sharpest mind ever seen fighting (and losing) a battle with the teleprompter he was supposed to read from to appear articulate. The brilliant mind of Bribery Joe, who talks to dead people who aren’t on stage and attempts to shake hands with people who also aren’t there. (This is the kind of response you were looking for with your non sequitur post, Sammy, so here we go)
The Big Guy, who foreign leaders have to lead off the stage by the hand, because his mind is off somewhere else (probably dreaming of another shower with his teenage daughter, who is just as bad a drug addict and pervert as her brother Lieutenant Dishonourable Discharge Crackhead Kid, the family’s military hero).
Yep, that’s who Sam wants normal Americans to measure as his hero against Trump – the man he specifically posted here so he could mention him in this thread that had nothing to do with either Trump or Biden. So let’s talk about Biden, Sam, as you probably really want your police state fascist Dear Leader to get some attention.
Sam is dreaming on getting in on that Biden family shower action. Or maybe some of that Crack And Russian Hoes action that The Big Guy paid for while sitting in his White House office as Obama’s foreign affairs expert VP. Pretty hot stuff from the president whose Secret Service detail has to carry his diaper bag full of Depends, eh Sam!
Maybe Sammy worships Bribery Biden because he also gets a little extra wood in his jeans thinking of The Big Guy’s daughter in law humping and sucking The First Son while he was still just Lieutenant Crackhead Kid before her husband’s body, the Crackhead Kid’s brother, was cold and buried.
To be fair to Sammy, The Big Guy did tell them that they should try to be less public with the Biden Incest Is Best lifestyle they were engaged in. Didn’t make the White House look good to have that Biden action going on inside.
Sammy got any other explanations for why his worship of Bribery Biden brought him here to post that non sequitur comment? Especially when he started with his initial sentence:
“My guess is he has no regard for facts. Facts are only what trump says they are.”
Sammy wants normal Americans who aren’t Bolshevik Biden Birthing Boys like he is to believe that The Big Guy is a SUPERIOR teller of truth to his little sodomite groupies like Sammy.
Lets have a review of The Big Guy’s factual statements to Sam that led to Sam worshiping The Big Guy just like he worshiped Bolshevik Barack, The Magical Mad Marxist Mulatto Clown before Trump ever entered politics. Bribery Biden assured Sammy that he:
– graduated with two degrees. At the top of his class… and on a full pull scholarship
– turned down an offer to attend the US Naval Academy to play on their football team
– grew up being raised Puerto Rican
– grew up being raised Jewish
– grew up being raised black American
– was arrested while freedom marching with MLK
– was arrested in South Africa attempting to see Nelson Mandela
– worked as a big rig driver
– his son was killed serving in Iraq (while his wife was humping and sucking The Crackhead Kid- Jody in reverse)
– VP Bribery Joe assured Americans the “Russia Dossier” was ‘no joke man; verified intelligence agency product’
– Bribery Joe knows absolutely nothing about his son’s business is
– Bribery Joe has no idea of who his son’s business customers are
– Bribery Joe has never spoken to any of his son’s ChiCom business customers
– Bribery Joe has never been at meetings with any of his son’s ChiCom or Russian customers
– Bribery Joe and The Bagman Kid have never made a dime from ChiCom customers
Sam, Sam, Sam… you REALLY want to compare Bribery Biden, The Coward of Benghazi and Kabul to Trump here? Whether on which one is the most demented, or who’s less truthful about what they were doing while in politics?
I hope this post is exactly the kind of post you were hoping for in response to that post you put here to bring Trump – and by extension – your Dear Leader, The Big Guy, into the discussion.
Post like a pathetic scumbag straight off the Soviet Democrat short bus; you win a response with the same kind of language.
Enjoy winning your FAFO prize, Sammy, you Soviet Democrat Woke Marxist Useful Idiot Bolshevik Birthing Boy
Well, yes.
A month or so ago there was an article IIRC in the WaPo about the crime in DC has gotten so bad, one woman in a more nicer affluent sub-burb would not even walk 5 blocks in fear of crime. Crime has gotten so bad, the city council wanted to call out the NG to patrol the streets. Recall when Sen Tom Cotton wrote an op-ed in the NYT about calling out the NG to quell the George Floyd riots that were costing millions of dollars in damage, injuries and more than a few lives? People threw a fit at the idea. Now . . .
The NAACP chapter in CA wanted a state of emergence declared to call out the NG for East Oakland as the crime there has skyrocketed.
Since the Fiery But Mostly Peaceful, 2020 Summer of Love riots, 40% of new gun owners have been minorities and women. They know and feel it is up to them to protect themselves and their families.
Some pundits and even Hillary Clinton try to spin it as “red states” have a major crime problem. But when you drill down into the data, it is Blue Cities in Red States that have the crime problem.
Why?
Soft on crime DAs who do not prosecute criminals, leftist Democrat policies and laws that side with the criminals and criminal organizations like in San Fran, defunding the police movement, strict gun control laws and no-cash bail.
Gun control laws only hurt law abiding citizens and are un-Constitutional. Criminals love gun control laws as then they are the only ones with the guns. Take Chicago as an example.
Yea, Denny the dum dum tried that one a while back, claiming that Alabama was the “wild west” because of the gun death numbers compared to NY. Then I kindly showed him that the numbers pointed almost entirely to Birmingham, the big blue city in red Alabama. Ah, the idiots that take the rest of us to be.
“Time has blurred our memory, words have stilled our feelings – but we remember the man and the day, and feel a muted sorrow.”
“Time has blurred . . .”
This is the second time that quote has been cited on this blog.
Who is it from? And what is it in reference to?
it was authored by a mentally ill commenter who posts on here to seek attention. Well done
It’s about JFK. It was first published in the “Harvard Crimson” on 11/22/64.
Well done.
LOL
dumb ass
Huh?
Interesting that because of their policies, Democrats have inadvertantly become 2nd Amendment advocates.
Now survey Republicans and ask them if Hunter Biden should be able to own a gun like 52 percent of American households.
No need to survey Republicans, Hunter himself would be surveyed on his NICS application:
f. Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?
Warning: The use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful under Federal law regardless of whether it has been legalized or decriminalized for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where you reside.
“Now survey Republicans and ask them if Hunter Biden should be able to own a gun like 52 percent of American households.”
Most Americans now believe Hunter Biden and his Dahdee should be eliminated.
Ask Rep. Dan Goldman to elaborate
If there were far fewer democrats, we would need far fewer guns for defense. Imagine Baltimore or Detroit without democrats…
Well, we find ourselves in the position of realizing that all of mankind’s “sophistication” in today’s modern era of computers, scientific advancement, etc has not changed the potential for human beings to commit horrible acts of violence against others. As Democrat politicians continue to deride and defund the police and not prosecute criminals, it has become each individual’s responsibility to protect their families, themselves. Human nature has not changed despite technological advancement, and never will.
One of the severest problems I have long had with progressive ideology is the assumption that it is possible to regulate by law the human heart, in all its good and all its evil. There is a reason that the Constitution, and for long our laws, focused on behavior, and that the motive of a crime was not an element thereof, merely introduced to demonstrate potential additional reason to believe a defendant might plausibly have wanted at a minimum the outcome the crime produced.
You really think the GOP doesn’t legislate according to morality? Who did the GOP just elect as speaker of the House? He literally views the Bible as his moral basis for governance.
Rather have him than any member of the “Squad.”
“He literally views the Bible as his moral basis for governance.”
If you do not have something as guidance to make decisions and chart a path, you are just bouncing randomly among often conflicting goals.
The left is hooked on “rule by experts” Covid exposed the idiocy of experts. NEVER has the response to a virus been to quarantine healthy.
Why the experts thought that would work, you’ll have to ask God
Logically, don’t all or at least most of us act according to our own personal morality/standards? Would you want to vote for or give power to someone who proclaims that they have no moral standards whatsoever? Knowing what a given person’s moral standards are is perhaps the most important thing to know about them. If you discover that they have no moral standards at all, then you are dealing with a psychopath and proceed with all possible caution.
Most do, but modern marxists dont. When exactly did Obama, Clinton, and Biden decide that same sex marriage was ok?
Modern marxists have their own moral principles.
The problem is that those principles are self contradictory and do not work.
Those with knowledge of history (or philosophy) worked that out half a century ago.
The moral foundations of the west are less than perfect.
But they are inarguably the best humans have ever had.
I am perfectly fine with same sex marriage. Why should they be excluded from the suffering of the institution of marriage like everyone else?
Anonymous – ALL legislation rests on morality.
Murder is immoral. But it can be useful.
Johnsons use of christian religion as the basis for morality puts him in the company of John Adam’s as well as most of our founders.
Regardless, the social contract, the law, government are NOT possible without some moral foundation PERIOD.
Murder is illegal because it is immoral.
More importantly slavery is illegal because it is immoral.
Why is slavery immoral – because it is a violation of free will – a MORAL principle.
The aphorism against legislating morality is only valid if applied to positive morality.
You can not force people to do good.
You can morally use force to preclude them from doing evil.
And you MUST have some moral principle to meausure what is good and what is evil.
Without a moral foundation law, government, the social contract are impossible.
You are merely disagreeing with Johnson’s moral foundation.
Thank you Mr. President!! The bowel movement of woke ideology which you and too many of your no-cash bail/antisemitic minions support has done more for 2nd Amendment rights than you ever believed possible. As long as criminals hold sway, their prey will carry guns.
You think it’s right to require a citizen merely accused, to be locked up unless they have enough money to remain free pending trial?
A yes or no question for a problem that is not that simple.
As we have seen, not locking people up results in more crime, especially more violent crime, and murder.
A wise person would seek to find a solution that protects the rights of the accused and the life, liberty and property that government exists to protect.
Bail is an imperfect attempt to find that solution.
We have tried to deal with this problem through recorded history.
If you have a demonstrably better answer than the west has come up with – please lets hear it ?
To be clear – I am open to looking at options.
But the recent poliicies of the left were poorly thought out and a serious failure, many thousands of people are dead as a result
@Anonymous: Re: “You think it’s right….” Legislation has been passed listing those offences for which no cash bail has been implemented. In some jurisdictions, the offences are such that they describe an individual who presents a clear and present danger to the personal safety of the ordinary citizen, or property. Such individuals should be incarcerated and deemed as such until adjudicated otherwise. Bail is collateral of such value intended to dissuade an accused to act in a fashion such to jeopardize the forfeit of same. For some, that persuasion is irrelevant and useless. Those individuals should be isolated from the general population.