Do gun research polls acurately reflect the views of Americans?

I've seen in the various discussions on guns polls stating things like x% of Americans think we need stricter gun laws. Y% think back ground checks are already a requirement for all gun sales. Z% think assault weapons (a nebulous term) should be banned. So my question is, what do these polls mean?

What percent of Americans don't understand that the "assault weapons" people are talking about in the press are not machine guns? I've run into people who think they are. It doesn't help when various media stories about legal AR-15s start by showing fully auto M-16s firing away.

What about the need for stricter gun laws? How many of those people know what the current gun laws are? Same with background checks.

Banning "assault weapons" is certainly the most notable case of "what is it". I mean we might all agree that an AR-15 counts but why does a Marlin 60 with a 17 round tube magazine count? Why does an Olympic target pistol count? If a pol says X% are in favor of a high capacity magazine ban, who defined high capacity and did anyone actually educate the public on the subject before asking the question?

It seems that there are many topics where someone could quote a public opinion poll that was asked without really informing the public what a law might mean or what the implications of such a change would be.

How many Americans would be in favor of putting "suspected terrorists" on the no buy list? Probably a lot. Ask the same question this way, "how many Americans are in favor of stripping the right to buy a firearm because the government put you on a secret list without the option for legal review or appeal?" Would the results be the same? Does the general public know enough about the issue to answer the question in a way that's meaningful?

To answer the question posed in the thread title: I think most polls are useful only for pointing to cherry-picked results to support a preconceived notion or agenda. Those "results" are then bandied about, as an attempted bandwagon appeal. We're supposed to be convinced something is right/better because X% of our fellow [insert group here (Americans, generation, party, etc)] believe it to be so.

Appeal to emotion peppered with general idiocy of the facts.

There's a local talk radio guy that, to his credit, is pretty open-minded, and is continuously corrected on facts. Naturally the past month of the show has been consumed with gun rhetoric and initially, with all his assumed facts about how media, etc portray the incident (and the nature of guns wrt the legal system), he was what I would call relatively "anti-gun". Of the course of the weeks, bit by bit through self-education and call-ins, his opinion has been changed after being "enlightened". I use "enlightened" intentionally as people tend to have an assumed list of facts about the state of firearms in this country, molded by (mostly) TV shows and movies, but also ignorant reporting on the subject (cue reporter talking about "assault" weapons with stock footage of some guy firing an Uzi playing in the side panel). He was truly surprised to learn about how an "assault" weapon is defined (and now considers the ban to be mostly aesthetic, not functional-based).

At any rate, what needs to be connected mentally and detached personally is the relationship between guns and rights. Just as I can be for the right to smoke (generally) but detest the habit, the same goes for guns - and I realize the danger in allowing the government all sorts of abilities to whittle away at those rights.

Take a look at who lives where. Over 50% of the population lives in densely populated urban areas that comprise less than 10% of the geography of the country. Which tend to vote democrat.

Polls are notoriously tricky, because the data can be misrepresented very easily. How you ask the question can influence a person's answer. Who you ask the question to can bias the results (e.g., asking current gun owners if they favor an AWB is likely to bias the answer towards "no"). How you conduct the poll (telephone, mail, street survey, etc) can influence who gets asked and thus bias the results. What time you conduct the poll affects the results. The large polling companies are supposed to correct for these factors (which is why you usually see a disclaimer about results may vary by +/- 3 percentage points or something similar).

A poll I would be interested in would be one where people were asked, then the facts were explained and the the same questions were asked again. Alternatively just a poll on common gun knowledge. For example, there has been a lot of talk around here about unregulated buying at gun shows. Do people know how often this happens? Do they know that the same laws that apply to buying from a gun store apply at a gun show*? Do they know that most gun sellers (as opposed to venders in general) at gun shows are FFLs and thus must do background checks?

*My phrasing could be considered deceptive. The same laws do apply at both gun shows and gun stores. However, the law says dealers must do a BGC. Well that is true at guns stores and gun shows. It does not mean private sellers at gun shows must (varies by location of course) but someone might assume it to be true. Hence it could be used to create a deceptive question.

Quote from mmathis : Polls are notoriously tricky, because the data can be misrepresented very easily. How you ask the question can influence a person's answer. Who you ask the question to can bias the results (e.g., asking current gun owners if they favor an AWB is likely to bias the answer towards "no"). How you conduct the poll (telephone, mail, street survey, etc) can influence who gets asked and thus bias the results. What time you conduct the poll affects the results. The large polling companies are supposed to correct for these factors (which is why you usually see a disclaimer about results may vary by +/- 3 percentage points or something similar).

All these are true. But polling is almost a science. Like Journalism, it could be abused or it cold air and balanced. I think we some reputable polling agencies, such as the Gallop.

In fact the amazing accuracy of elections polls is a testament that by and far they do good job. It is ok to criticize bad poll takers but let's not throw the baby with the bath water.

Quote from trancepire : To answer the question posed in the thread title: I think most polls are useful only for pointing to cherry-picked results to support a preconceived notion or agenda. Those "results" are then bandied about, as an attempted bandwagon appeal. We're supposed to be convinced something is right/better because X% of our fellow [insert group here (Americans, generation, party, etc)] believe it to be so.

This. All day long.

The last sentence is done to try to influence elections a lot.

Quote from JackHandey : Take a look at who lives where. Over 50% of the population lives in densely populated urban areas that comprise less than 10% of the geography of the country. Which tend to vote democrat.

I think you are on the right track. One has to wonder if gun research polls or the questions they ask are relevant.

Somebody in a densely populated urban area and somebody out in the desert are likely to have very different views because of the environments in which they live. And why should one get to set the rules for the other?

Quote from TRNT : All these are true. But polling is almost a science. Like Journalism, it could be abused or it cold air and balanced. I think we some reputable polling agencies, such as the Gallop. In fact the amazing accuracy of elections polls is a testament that by and far they do good job. It is ok to criticize bad poll takers but let's not throw the baby with the bath water.

Election polls are easy compared to other polls. "Who are you going to vote for?" is a pretty unambiguous question, especially when compared with "Do you support an assault weapons ban at the federal level?" I agree that Gallop, Pew, and some others do a good job with polls, but just like journalism (and most anything else), how they frame the question may show a (possibly unintended) bias.

When politicians say "x% of Americans think we should ban assault weapons" it makes me wonder how the question was phrased - especially when the question was asked right after Sandy Hook. Polls taken in the months before SH did not show such support for an AWB, which makes the poll methodology suspect.

BTW, I think it's important to note that I don't question the honesty of the results. For example, if you have a poll asking which way people will vote that's a simple question. If you say you will vote for the donkey you are unlikely to be confused and vote for the pachyderm. Thus if the sampling is correct you can have a good idea how people will vote if things don't change.

Things are different when the poll is looking at "do we want a change". That is much harder. I'm certain that prior to say the health care reform most people wanted health care reform. Very few people thought the old system was good. So lets say that's 90% want reform. Does that mean 90% will be happy with the new system or would want the new system once all the details come to light? Well that's another mater.

When CNN says X% of American's support "stricter" "ban on high capacity" or "ban on X weapons" does that mean the same X% are really well informed on the subject and would feel the same way if the facts were presented in, as much as possible, a neutral manor? Really, one should ask, why does CNN tell me that X% are in favor of something? Is that to make me feel good that I'm with the majority or make be feel like I'm somehow morally problematic since I'm with the minority? Is it trying to inform or trying to persuade? If I'm voting for something I would like to know if my person is looking like a potential winner. If I'm instead being asked if a new law is a good idea it's perhaps rather deceptive to say "most favor it" if most are no better informed than I am. This BTW, is why I hate it when a friend of mine asks if I'm for or against some rule that someone is proposing. Most of these things have too many devils in the details so asking me based on the title of the bill doesn't let me know if it's a good idea or not. Healthcare reform was (and still is) a good idea. Was the recently passed bill a good idea? Well that's for another thread.

Quote from BigBananaMess : And why should one get to set the rules for the other?

Possibly cause in the absence of tight border controls between regions, easy legal gun availability in one region translates to easy, but possibly criminal, gun availability everywhere else.

Quote from Dr. J : Appeal to emotion peppered with general idiocy of the facts.

You meant ignorance, right?

Quote from 124nic8 : Possibly cause in the absence of tight border controls between regions, easy legal gun availability in one region translates to easy, but possibly criminal, gun availability everywhere else.

This is a legitimate point. However, I would argue that it speaks to why NY should relax rather than tighten it's rules. If the flow of illegal guns is really free then NY isn't stopping the bad guys. They are instead only harming the good guys. How is that a good idea?

Quote from BigBananaMess : Somebody in a densely populated urban area and somebody out in the desert are likely to have very different views because of the environments in which they live. And why should one get to set the rules for the other?

This isn't the first time you concisely explained why a Federal approach to this issue is not the right answer.