The Maddow Blog
We already know that a majority of Democrats, independents and even a substantial majority of Republicans are in favor of expanded background checks. We also already know that card-carrying NRA-members and Tea Partiers think background checks are a good idea. But thanks to the diligent, independent research done by the social scientists over at the University of California at Davis's Violence Prevention Research Program, we can add another important constituency to the pro-expanded background checks camp: gun dealers. The people who would have to actually carry out those background checks. The majority of the guys and gals around the country who make their living selling guns – gun dealers, pawnbrokers and gunsmiths – are in favor of more checks.
Here is what the NRA does not want you to know: 55.4% of gun dealers surveyed support comprehensive background check requirements and 37.5% strongly favor them. (pdf)
What is particularly amazing about this study is that it has never been done before. Independent researchers have never asked the actual people who would have to do the checking what they think of expanding background checks. So in 2011 the researchers at UC Davis decided that they would.
The article fails to show two things:
ReplyDelete1. This poll was taken in February.
2. It doesn't show the part about how rights are subject to opinion polls.
Mike,
ReplyDeleteWas it you or the Maddow Blog that left this part out of the article:
"The citation for the current study is: Wintemute GJ. Support for a comprehensive background check requirement and expanded denial criteria for firearm transfers: findings from the Firearms Licensee Survey. To be published by the Journal of Urban Health.
The research was funded in part with a grant from The California Wellness Foundation. Initial planning also was supported in part with a grant from the Joyce Foundation."
Their response rate for the survey was 37% totaling 593 responses. This isn't sounding like such overwhelming support as is being portrayed. In fact, using my sixth grade ciphering skills and the data in the report, this conclusion comes from responses from a little over 6% of dealers.
So please explain how this perceived vested interest doesn't make this "study" just as credible as any of the others coming from the VPC, the Brady Campaign, MAIF, or the NRA? Especially with the ultra high percentages on "their" side of the debate.
Don't your concerns create a larger +/- factor? Even going to the limit in your favor, wouldn't that bar graph still make the same point? If the FFL guys came down to even or worse, let's bring them down to 40%, isn't the point the same? In that case it would be "an overwhelming percentage of all groups, and almost half of the FFL guys support universal background checks."
DeleteMike, you have often commented here on the perceived bias of some researchers on the pro gun side. If an NRA study had been released that showed numbers like this supporting the pro-gun side, what do you think would have been the reaction of you, Laci,Baldr, etc?
ReplyDeleteThis study seems to be no different. I'm honestly not terribly familiar with what to expect in the way of the normal response percentage of a mail in survey.
Again the hillbilly's deny facts because they don't agree with their conclusions. That shows stupidity, not honest opposition based on facts. Hillbilly thinking. Life according to Jethro and uncle Jed.
ReplyDeleteJim,
ReplyDeleteWhen the facts are possibly inaccurate due to bias, are they really facts? There was a time when Galileo was imprisoned because he didn't agree with the church's "facts". In this case, the possible bias of the study is being brought up. I doubt you would accept the findings of a study published by the NRA, even if a Dr. Signed off on it. I brought up the very low data set (my perception) from my reading of the article.
And I mentioned that I wasn't sure if this is normal. If the data is valid, then it doesn't matter who produced the study. But such a biased source will obviously be looked at more closely.
Galileo was forced to recant his findings by the church. But was still quoted as saying, "it still turns"
Your argument might have merit except the hillbillies deny the facts of every study and poll Mike posts. I haven't seen the hillbillies prove those facts are wrong, just stating their hillbilly opinion, which is worth shit.
Delete