General Discussion

Lizzie Poppet

(10,164 posts)

180. There are very sound reasons to suspect those ownership polls are grossly inaccurate.

Thu Aug 27, 2015, 11:58 AM

Aug 2015

Unverified survey polling (that is, telephone surveys w/o any physical verification of the accuracy of responses) are reasonably accurate for most questions. However, they are notoriously inaccurate when the subject matter is controversial. That is to say, when the questions are about things like gun ownership, drug use, marital infidelity, and such, people lie to researchers in very significant numbers. FWIW, among gun owners with whom I've discussed this point (maybe a dozen, so this is purely anecdotal) not a single one would admit gun ownership to some stranger calling on the phone, regardless of any assurance of confidentiality. Not one...

As for the numbers, yes the number of permit-to-purchase applications number in the tens of thousands. That's because only a couple of jurisdiction in the country require them. The number of NICS background checks, on the other hand, now number in the tens of millions per year (over 21 million in 2013), and have been climbing rather sharply over the last several years.

Cannot edit, recommend, or reply in locked discussions

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

235 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Message auto-removed [View all] Name removed Aug 2015 OP

The Supremes seem to have made that part of it irrelevant... TreasonousBastard Aug 2015 #1

The Congress COULD override that decision. riversedge Aug 2015 #8

Huh? Snobblevitch Aug 2015 #20

Congress could pass a new law on this issue. If objected to by some it goes to court and riversedge Aug 2015 #29

No Travis_0004 Aug 2015 #51

You need to research the difference between 'a law' and an enumerated civil right via the BoR. AtheistCrusader Aug 2015 #113

Second Amendment right is not unlimited. SecularMotion Aug 2015 #18

The supremes can overrule themselves. Most important reason to elect whoever the democratic nominee MillennialDem Aug 2015 #67

Potentially, but stare decisis suggests they wouldn't, Miller, Heller, MacDonald, etc. AtheistCrusader Aug 2015 #120

Suggests does not mean will or will not. Just likely. Not about gun rights but Lawrence v Texas over MillennialDem Aug 2015 #126

Meaningful gun reform could be accomplished many ways, without infringing on the 2nd amendment. AtheistCrusader Aug 2015 #128

only the idiot repug 5 supremes have done that. the decision can be changed by smarter samsingh Aug 2015 #123

Repugs say the same thing about Roe vs. Wade. AtheistCrusader Aug 2015 #129

And I have no doubt they'd change Roe v Wade if they replaced a liberal with a MillennialDem Aug 2015 #148

They'd challenge it. A challenge would be raised the same day. You bet. AtheistCrusader Aug 2015 #150

and if we have more repugs on the bench they will replace roe vs wade samsingh Aug 2015 #202

The Supreme Court also has held that slaves must be returned to their masters. tabasco Aug 2015 #157

Regulated is not the same as restricted -- which is all this is really about. Nuclear Unicorn Aug 2015 #2

As has been pointed out countless times... gcomeau Aug 2015 #21

Thankfully our federal borders are secure and there's not hughee99 Aug 2015 #69

Ask Australia. gcomeau Aug 2015 #94

They know this about Australia and profer the same tired ass'd arguments!!! uponit7771 Aug 2015 #104

Australia's borders are a little more secure than ours GummyBearz Aug 2015 #116

Australia's Largest Gunsmith & Store Go Vols Aug 2015 #198

Where in the US is purchasing guns insanely easy? AtheistCrusader Aug 2015 #121

We just instituted universal background checks here in Oregon. Lizzie Poppet Aug 2015 #131

I think it's a good thing. I wholeheartedly encourage Washington to follow suit. AtheistCrusader Aug 2015 #133

Other way 'round on recreational weed. Lizzie Poppet Aug 2015 #143

You are correct, medical not recreational. AtheistCrusader Aug 2015 #149

By the standards of most of the rest of the civilized world? gcomeau Aug 2015 #134

That's a 10 year $100,000 federal felony. AtheistCrusader Aug 2015 #139

An almost impossible to effectively enforce one. gcomeau Aug 2015 #152

I can't help you here. AtheistCrusader Aug 2015 #159

Nobody said "it's not enforced". gcomeau Aug 2015 #164

It can be enforced. AtheistCrusader Aug 2015 #171

No, it can't. gcomeau Aug 2015 #184

Full registration (UBC) is the only tool to combat that. AtheistCrusader Aug 2015 #187

Which, like I said, would help *some*. gcomeau Aug 2015 #190

Being in simple possession of a firearm with no serial number is a felony. AtheistCrusader Aug 2015 #193

Which I'm sure greatly concerns people already intending to commit felonies with said guns... gcomeau Aug 2015 #195

USDoJ estimates the lawful use of firearms in self defense against those robberies and assaults at AtheistCrusader Aug 2015 #206

As has been pointed out countless times -- Nuclear Unicorn Aug 2015 #216

Are you serious? gcomeau Aug 2015 #231

Shall not be infringed safeinOhio Aug 2015 #28

There is no legal case law that supports your definition of arms hack89 Aug 2015 #32

So where *should* we draw the line? thesquanderer Aug 2015 #62

We drew the line in 1934 with the National Firearms Act. hack89 Aug 2015 #66

Maybe we draw the line at media that existed in 1789. GGJohn Aug 2015 #68

Well then why are we restricting arms to what was essentially all that was available in MillennialDem Aug 2015 #72

We drew the line in 1934 with the National Firearms Act. hack89 Aug 2015 #77

Again you're talking about firearms. I'm talking about arms. MillennialDem Aug 2015 #81

Knives and swords are not an issue that needs to be addressed. hack89 Aug 2015 #82

Bullshit they aren't. Switchblades and butterfly knives are illegal (nearly) everywhere. Fixed blade MillennialDem Aug 2015 #86

Background checks? Waiting periods? hack89 Aug 2015 #108

It's possible to regulate guns, impossible to regulate knives. Plus everyone owns several knives, MillennialDem Aug 2015 #118

The UK has regulated guns, and is attempting to regulate knives. AtheistCrusader Aug 2015 #137

Sure you can bust people who are carrying a knife, but you can't really get rid of MillennialDem Aug 2015 #145

The UK is attempting to do just that. AtheistCrusader Aug 2015 #151

You still need the propellant. I know the gun itself isn't hard to make. I suppose you could make it MillennialDem Aug 2015 #158

Propellant isn't that hard if you're willing to compromise a bit on quality. AtheistCrusader Aug 2015 #161

It would be dangerous as all hell sarisataka Aug 2015 #168

It's not hard to make the primers, but it is hard not to blow your face off in the process. True. AtheistCrusader Aug 2015 #172

I don't know what else it's used for, but it seems like someone buying the sulfur and potassium nitr MillennialDem Aug 2015 #174

The quantities needed would be low sarisataka Aug 2015 #179

Sounds like a lot of arsing around and that a knife would be a lot more effective at that MillennialDem Aug 2015 #169

All true. AtheistCrusader Aug 2015 #173

I think this is exactly why we have so many shootings and relatively few bombings. You can MillennialDem Aug 2015 #177

Sadly, the highest kill count of any school attack still belongs to explosives. AtheistCrusader Aug 2015 #185

Talk to the UK which has implemented knife control hack89 Aug 2015 #138

I've carried a sword on the street. AtheistCrusader Aug 2015 #135

Courts have never held the 2nd to apply to ordnance. Only firearms. AtheistCrusader Aug 2015 #130

I haven't said courts said otherwise. I still think it's bull. I think either the 2nd means MillennialDem Aug 2015 #136

I think privateers tried to make that distinction back in the day, as they liked to be armed. AtheistCrusader Aug 2015 #141

To legally be a privateer sarisataka Aug 2015 #153

And that's just like, your opinion man. Sorry for being snarky but I do think the MillennialDem Aug 2015 #156

Well, my opinion AND the SC's opinion, and federal courts opinions and and and. AtheistCrusader Aug 2015 #162

When did I disagree that that's how the courts have ruled? I'm not a fact deprived conservative :p MillennialDem Aug 2015 #165

No, no, you're fine. I've actually enjoyed our conversation. AtheistCrusader Aug 2015 #170

Adapting the 1st amendment to new technologies has likewise been a challenge. thesquanderer Aug 2015 #119

A semi-auto rifle existed prior to the ratification of our constitution. AtheistCrusader Aug 2015 #132

There existed a 20 shot semi-automatic rifle in 1780. AtheistCrusader Aug 2015 #127

There was also the puckle gun. beevul Aug 2015 #226

Firearms evolve. AtheistCrusader Aug 2015 #230

The 2nd has never been construed by any court to apply to ordnance and explosives. AtheistCrusader Aug 2015 #124

Go ahead and show me the person who can maintain, in working order, an atom bomb. Nuclear Unicorn Aug 2015 #221

There are all kinds of state and local restrictions on the 2nd Amendment. blackspade Aug 2015 #178

"Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is in the Declaration of Independence not the Nuclear Unicorn Aug 2015 #220

Did I say it was? blackspade Aug 2015 #234

Don't tell that to RoccoR5955 Aug 2015 #3

Women and minorities are the fastest growing segments of CC applicants. Nuclear Unicorn Aug 2015 #6

How in the fucking world... gcomeau Aug 2015 #23

Because nobody fetishises firearms. Indydem Aug 2015 #71

Bull freaking shit they don't. gcomeau Aug 2015 #93

There IS a lot of fetishizing sarisataka Aug 2015 #100

That poster is absolutely correct. beevul Aug 2015 #227

In a sexualized manner, like the person he was replying to suggested? AtheistCrusader Aug 2015 #144

Perhaps you should have continued reading the exchange for 2 more posts... gcomeau Aug 2015 #154

Post 3 contains all the awful I need for one day, thanks. AtheistCrusader Aug 2015 #163

You should remember two things RoccoR5955 Aug 2015 #199

Considering the Controllers portray gun owners as white male redneck fetishists the Controllers Nuclear Unicorn Aug 2015 #225

Two words RoccoR5955 Aug 2015 #97

Thats patently sexist, and you should delete it. N/T beevul Aug 2015 #229

I don't understand your reasoning. RoccoR5955 Aug 2015 #233

There's only a 20% delta between republican and democratic gun owners. AtheistCrusader Aug 2015 #142

So, you want the government to drastically cut the number of guns in this county? krispos42 Aug 2015 #4

Where are the liberal scholars on this? wolfie001 Aug 2015 #5

The state constitutions are eye-opening, and should inform any discussion of this issue. reformist2 Aug 2015 #7

State laws, up until a few weeks ago safeinOhio Aug 2015 #30

Except the supreme court has already ruled on the 2A hack89 Aug 2015 #38

Not backwards, because fed law trumps state law thesquanderer Aug 2015 #63

So when Massachusetts legalized gay marriage ten years ago hack89 Aug 2015 #70

The point is that whatever MA did 10 years ago... thesquanderer Aug 2015 #106

If the rethugs got their way and revoked Roe vs. Wade somehow, abortion would remain legal in my AtheistCrusader Aug 2015 #155

True. A reversal of Roe v Wade won't make abortion illegal per se. thesquanderer Aug 2015 #191

Prop 8 is a bad comparison, because it flew in the face of the 14th amendment. AtheistCrusader Aug 2015 #147

It's part of the american way of life. Like sexual and religious hypocrisy. DetlefK Aug 2015 #9

So true! Why, though? I don't understand how we got here. n/t prayin4rain Aug 2015 #14

To heck with it. They want to repeal the 14th amendment. I want to repeal the 2nd. Vinca Aug 2015 #10

Agreed+++++++ nt newfie11 Aug 2015 #24

Does the first admendment only protect newspapers Travis_0004 Aug 2015 #54

It's rather difficult to kill people with the Internet mythology Aug 2015 #112

A 20 shot semi-auto existed 10 years before the ratification of the Bill of Rights. AtheistCrusader Aug 2015 #166

Two things.... Adrahil Aug 2015 #11

I need mustard gas safeinOhio Aug 2015 #34

The 2A does not cover chemical weapons. hack89 Aug 2015 #40

Nor auto loading or cartridge weapons. safeinOhio Aug 2015 #46

Just like the first does not apply to electronic media? OK. hack89 Aug 2015 #74

This is why we need an outright repeal of the 2A. LonePirate Aug 2015 #42

And just who do you propose conduct that confiscation? Lizzie Poppet Aug 2015 #48

I would like to see your roadmap to how that happens Lee-Lee Aug 2015 #60

You are thinking in the here and now. Repealing the 2A might take 20-30 years or more. LonePirate Aug 2015 #80

I think you still don't grasp how hard it would be Lee-Lee Aug 2015 #84

I think you still don't grasp how the country is starting to change regarding this issue. LonePirate Aug 2015 #90

I havent' seen a single recent poll that indicates increased support for such a repeal. Lizzie Poppet Aug 2015 #114

Have there even been any recent polls conducted on repealing the 2A? LonePirate Aug 2015 #176

There are very sound reasons to suspect those ownership polls are grossly inaccurate. Lizzie Poppet Aug 2015 #180

We;; then, you need to get right on that? GGJohn Aug 2015 #73

You can repeal the 2A and prohibit firearms in the same amendment. LonePirate Aug 2015 #85

May I quote you sarisataka Aug 2015 #88

I certainly and proudly advocate the repeal of the 2A and the confiscation of all guns. LonePirate Aug 2015 #96

Thank you sarisataka Aug 2015 #101

True progressives like myself are accustomed to holding extreme minority opinions. LonePirate Aug 2015 #102

Are you advocating for the confiscation of guns by force if necessary? BlueEye Aug 2015 #219

You really think that gun owners are just going to sit idly by and let this happen? GGJohn Aug 2015 #89

When this country finally reaches a point where it repeals the 2A and confiscates guns ... LonePirate Aug 2015 #99

I'm with you on gun confiscation, so you're not alone. SheilaT Aug 2015 #105

Thank you. Your incremental approach is worthy of support. LonePirate Aug 2015 #111

"It really could be done somewhat incrementally." Lizzie Poppet Aug 2015 #115

Yep. It won't be easy at all, could even rise to the level of a ecstatic Aug 2015 #183

repeal of the 2nd A is a good idea, IMO. There are modern constitutional democracies in CTyankee Aug 2015 #44

The alternate definition of "regulated" doesn't really change anything thesquanderer Aug 2015 #64

+a gazillion a2liberal Aug 2015 #87

Fine. truebluegreen Aug 2015 #109

Not exactly... blackspade Aug 2015 #189

The gunsanity is the number one reason I may never return to America. CBGLuthier Aug 2015 #12

"The 2A protects an individual right to keep and bear arms" - Democratic party platform. nt hack89 Aug 2015 #13

Here's the full Democratic Party platform on guns SecularMotion Aug 2015 #19

So we agree that the 2A allows strict regulation of guns hack89 Aug 2015 #22

The 2A permits strict regulation. Even Scalia says that in Heller. hack89 Aug 2015 #15

There is popular support, but it is not "single-issue" popular support jeff47 Aug 2015 #125

If I could only find one gun owner...? kentuck Aug 2015 #16

Read post 11 above Lee-Lee Aug 2015 #25

Humanity evolving...how about that?? Guns evolving from muskets to assault rifles with 100 bullets ..how about that? Fred Sanders Aug 2015 #39

It meant we should be like the Swizz. safeinOhio Aug 2015 #43

You mean back when safeinOhio Aug 2015 #45

In terms of people, I believe "well regulated" also meant "well trained and organized." [n/t] Maedhros Aug 2015 #203

Well trained and equipped. nt hack89 Aug 2015 #41

They probably don't even know that 'well regulated' phrase is in there. -none Aug 2015 #50

In Context of the late 18th Century One_Life_To_Give Aug 2015 #117

that annnd retrowire Aug 2015 #17

Do you apply that logic to the entire Bill of Rights? Lee-Lee Aug 2015 #27

Ask the NRA why they removed those words from their display at national HQ? Kind of telling.... Fred Sanders Aug 2015 #35

actually yes. retrowire Aug 2015 #37

Because the rest of the Bill of Rights is not causing so many people to be killed, as the 2nd Amendm -none Aug 2015 #55

Air rifles with 20 shot magazines were invented in 1779 Travis_0004 Aug 2015 #58

Girandoni Repeating Rifle. Next fallacy? AtheistCrusader Aug 2015 #175

not a handgun nor was it mass produced and readily available to civilians retrowire Aug 2015 #182

Meriwether Lewis was a civilian. He carried one on the Lewis and Clark expedition. AtheistCrusader Aug 2015 #186

lewis and clark were army men commissioned by the president himself retrowire Aug 2015 #192

None of those aspects have been repeated as issues related to civil rights expanded AtheistCrusader Aug 2015 #194

he still didn't buy it off of a store shelf. retrowire Aug 2015 #196

The government didn't give him that gun. Cite your source. AtheistCrusader Aug 2015 #207

well isnt that something retrowire Aug 2015 #209

No worries. AtheistCrusader Aug 2015 #210

well thank you retrowire Aug 2015 #211

So true tiptonic Aug 2015 #26

Unfortunately, we'll never win this argument Bettie Aug 2015 #31

If your brother could pass the background check Snobblevitch Aug 2015 #208

Which is all why the NRA stripped those words out of their display of the 2nd at their national HQ!! Fred Sanders Aug 2015 #33

It's need clarified to assure the 2A is a individual right. ileus Aug 2015 #36

What does that part even mean? IronLionZion Aug 2015 #47

In 1701 there was fredamae Aug 2015 #49

Even if toting and arming up is a right, that doesn't mean one should be excused for anti-social Hoyt Aug 2015 #52

Amen. Amen. Amen. CTyankee Aug 2015 #53

I'm welcoming you aboard Don madokie Aug 2015 #56

Surprised to see no one has mentioned the role state militias played in enforcing slavery mnhtnbb Aug 2015 #57

thank you! This should be shouted out loud regularly... CTyankee Aug 2015 #59

I was never taught this in school...and I went to school in NJ and CA...can imagine mnhtnbb Aug 2015 #61

and you can be assured that growing up in segregated schools in TX in the 1950s CTyankee Aug 2015 #65

Because white men decided to write the entire constitution around them. mountain grammy Aug 2015 #76

with all the mass killings, I would say it is anarchy. PowerToThePeople Aug 2015 #75

You are far more likely to be killed by a guy with a gun... Initech Aug 2015 #78

For such a large group of "terrorists," they sure don't kill very many people. Lizzie Poppet Aug 2015 #107

I don't think anything vindicates the view of Americans as children, Joe Chi Minh Aug 2015 #79

Well regulated is important, but how about Militia?? Amimnoch Aug 2015 #83

DEATH BY GOVERNMENT pocoloco Aug 2015 #91

That's a misprint. The founding fathers meant un-regulated. Kablooie Aug 2015 #92

What law would you like to see sarisataka Aug 2015 #95

If you read Heller, the Second Amendment was basically ignored. happyslug Aug 2015 #98

The British Bill of Rights of 1689 had a right to bear arms independent of militia service hack89 Aug 2015 #146

You have to read the British Bill of Rights in its entirely to understand the "Defence" protected. happyslug Aug 2015 #197

Protestants were disarmed by the government as part of an organized repression of civil liberties hack89 Aug 2015 #204

Agreed on all three conclusions Beta Male Aug 2015 #103

I can see how that can be interpreted to include open and/or concealed carry on campuses, in bars, DrDan Aug 2015 #110

kick samsingh Aug 2015 #122

It Is Maddening colsohlibgal Aug 2015 #140

The NRA is clearly opposed to the... Mike Nelson Aug 2015 #160

The money quote: blackspade Aug 2015 #167

"It's hopeless and it's sad and it makes me sick." ecstatic Aug 2015 #181

"Well Regulated" = "Well Trained". Govt. regulations - especially federal - were almost jonno99 Aug 2015 #188

You are ignoring the main book of Regulation, Von Stuben's "Blue Book". happyslug Aug 2015 #200

Thanks for an informative response. It seems then that the phrase "well ORDERED" would jonno99 Aug 2015 #201

I agree with you HassleCat Aug 2015 #205

You bring up some interesting points sarisataka Aug 2015 #213

we need to reform the second amendment ericson00 Aug 2015 #212

The word "militia" also seems to escape the NRA-types brentspeak Aug 2015 #214

101st Rec. That phrase jumped out & smacked me in the face the first time I read the Bill of Rights Hekate Aug 2015 #215

kick Angry Dragon Aug 2015 #217

Never had a gun...never will have a gun. SoapBox Aug 2015 #218

The 2nd Amendment must be watered daily with the blood of innocents Dems to Win Aug 2015 #222

At the time 2A was passed: moondust Aug 2015 #223

Flawed premise: The bill of rights restricts only government. N/T beevul Aug 2015 #224

Yep, if we just read it in english, round up all guns and put them in well regulated militias randys1 Aug 2015 #228

It's impossible to delete or change the 2nd amendment Sam_Fields Aug 2015 #232

Au contraire sarisataka Aug 2015 #235