A Gun Survey From Yale


PDA






Chaz
December 28, 2003, 05:27 PM
http://islandia.law.yale.edu/ss/wsb.dll/braman/survey4.htm[/URL]

Found this on another gun board. Take the survey and let them know how the rest of us think.[URL]


Edited to add the CORRECT URL this time. :o

If you enjoyed reading about "A Gun Survey From Yale" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
WonderNine
December 28, 2003, 05:33 PM
"The page cannot be found"

Fly320s
December 28, 2003, 05:48 PM
Survey worked fine for me.

It's a six page "Survey on Social Issues." Only about a page and a half is devoted to guns.

7.62FullMetalJacket
December 28, 2003, 06:05 PM
Done. Let us see if THAT fits into their demographic machinery :evil: :neener: :what:

SMLE
December 28, 2003, 06:12 PM
They'll have a heck of a time trying to fit me in a pigeon hole. On some issues I'm a liberal, on other a conservative.
You might call me a "Jeffersonian" or "Madisonian"

PWK
December 28, 2003, 06:26 PM
Filled it out, took only a couple of minutes.

Fairly good survey, except the usual flaws of implying that the person being surveyed agrees that such and such a premise exists so then the question asks what should be done about it. If you don't believe the premise exists then whether you agree or disagree your true belief on that issue is not discerned. But that only happened on a few questions the rest were pretty well worded.

Quartus
December 28, 2003, 06:27 PM
It's a six page "Survey on Social Issues." Only about a page and a half is devoted to guns.


Nope. It's ALL about guns. The questions that don't directly relate to guns are just to check your demographics.

jamz
December 28, 2003, 08:30 PM
Done.

There were some whacky questions on there though...

"People who sleep around promiscuously are the cause of all the diseases threataning our health"?

What..the..heck?

Standing Wolf
December 28, 2003, 08:43 PM
Flaky. Definitely flaky.

antsi
December 28, 2003, 09:07 PM
Jamz, you got the word order slightly wrong. It reads;

"People who sleep around promiscuously are the cause of diseases threatening all our health."

It's arguable -- promiscuity certainly facilitates the spread of STD's. However, we also choose whether to put ourselves at risk or not.

Dave R
December 28, 2003, 09:17 PM
Just took the survey, and did not see that question on sleeping around...

rock jock
December 28, 2003, 09:32 PM
Yeah, the survey I took didn't have that question either. Perhaps they change the subsequent questions based on your initial responses.

tyme
December 28, 2003, 09:54 PM
I think I crammed about 1000 words total into the various comments spaces. Let them chew on that.

Major criticisms:
-many vague terms used: "gun control" for instance.
-no questions on the 2nd amendment.
-no questions directly related to individual rights vs societal consequences in the case of firearms
The only questions that might satisfy the last complaint were of the form "if X, Y" where X was without any rational basis.
- no questions about what the primary purpose(s) of firearms are: hunting, self defense, defense of community, etc.

contact info for the survey (from final/submission page)
user: jgastil
host: u.washington.edu
Phone: (206) 543-4655.
user/host separated to foil spambots. The address was user@host

HogRider
December 28, 2003, 10:06 PM
Done!

Jake
December 28, 2003, 10:12 PM
All done here.

geekWithA.45
December 28, 2003, 10:16 PM
The amusing thing will be to see what conclusions are drawn.

The bet I'm placing is:

Rabid gun owners oblivious to dangers of unregulated business, ecological catastrophe, have no compassion or respect for diversity.

geegee
December 28, 2003, 10:43 PM
Done (and if they take the time to email me the results, I'd gladly email them my signature line ;) ). geegee

NorthernExtreme
December 28, 2003, 11:07 PM
POOR questions! Few if any were phrased in a way that wasn't outcome based. They gave you a choice of being un-caring and intolerant or a nice, caring, socially compliant person. Not much there to base a valid conclusion on. I hope they don't plan on using this as a valid source of research.

joeoim
December 28, 2003, 11:38 PM
I took the survey. I too thought the questions were rigged. Answered honestly anyway. Had to answer a few that I had no preferences to whatsoever just so it would let me continue on.
I didn't have any question about sleeping around either.
I think it was slanted, but am interested in the results nuntheless.
Joe

Parker Dean
December 29, 2003, 12:44 AM
I hope they don't plan on using this as a valid source of research.


Don't worry, they plan on using it as "research". Valid or not.

nico
December 29, 2003, 12:59 AM
took it. it was definitely pretty biased.

Phil Ca
December 29, 2003, 01:03 AM
When it asked my race I ignored the question. When I went to next page it bounced back and asked me to fill in the missing part. I wrote in 'Human' since I never answer that question. I suppose it will be culled out and deleted because of that.

The quesstions were mostly geared to getting liberals to answer the way the writers of the poll wanted IMO.

remember this: There are LIES ,DAMNED LIES ,and STATISTICS!

:D

Parker Dean
December 29, 2003, 01:23 AM
Just for grins I Googled the professors name, John Gastil. Lots of hits, but mostly from book reviews.

Got the Faculty Index (http://www.com.washington.edu/Program/Faculty/Faculty/gastil.html) page for Washignton University

Vitae (http://faculty.washington.edu/jgastil/research/vitae.html)

And his website (http://faculty.washington.edu/jgastil/main.html) came up

SMLE
December 29, 2003, 02:22 AM
"Research Manager, Institute for Public Policy, University of New Mexico, 1994-1997."

Hmm he's a former homey of mine. ;-)
I'll have to have look in the UNM library to see what'ds there under his name.

GigaBuist
December 29, 2003, 02:25 AM
OK, I took the survey too. I agree it was a bit biased, in that some of the questions threw a couple of ideas together that make you lean toward "gun raving lunatic" vs "strict Constitutionalist". Also found it odd that there weren't any questions about the 2nd ammendment given that it was basically a gun-feeling survey.

Very few questions on religion too (other than asking what your religion is)... which I think is central to the RKBA argument also.

So... we can criticize the survey. My old man has a saying, handed down from his mother, "If you don't like the way somebody else it doing it -- do it yourself!" With that in mind, what would everybody here like to see in a proper survey on people's feeling about guns?

Remember, the idea of their survey (I feel) was to tie people's social feelings to their feelings on firearms. They leaned heavily toward "what the government should do" type of questions vs. "what would you do".... and with RKBA being a very personal thing to most of us I feel that our survey should reflect that personal vs government decision.

For instance:

Q: Do think the government/society as a whole has an obligation to provide for basic needs?
Q: Have you ever given a homeless person food or money?
Q: If not, could would you possibly do that in the future?
Q: Do you think the government/society as a whole has an obligation to provide transportation?
Q: Have you ever given a hitchiker a ride?
Q: Would you ever?

I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to see that 90% of the people on THR that proclaim welfare taxes are stealing (I'm one of them) have also given money/food to homeless people.

clubsoda22
December 29, 2003, 04:27 AM
guys, you have to realize that slanted questions in political tests are meant to provoke you, it is not bias. If you ask a liberal and conservative what he thought the liberal will complain of right wing bias and the conservative will complain about left wing bias.

The "biased questions" are to see how much you react.

the only question that caught me as unfair was "Would you say that having a gun in the home increases the risk of someone being accidentally shot?"

I had to say slightly because if no gun was present, how the hell would you accidentally shoot yourself? You are forced to answer yes.

Chaz
December 29, 2003, 07:26 AM
Rabid gun owners oblivious to dangers of unregulated business, ecological catastrophe, have no compassion or respect for diversity.

Thats funny! I thought the same thing only you forgot the obligatory "...for the children" statment in there.

WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN???? :neener:

Werewolf
December 29, 2003, 10:55 AM
My take on the poll was that it was being taken in order to provide info to some democratic presidential candidate on how to appeal to the broadest spectrum of the population (especially pro-gunners) without having to actually take a stand on anything.

I did find the poll to be a biased in favor of the left - i.e. questions were worded so that the left answer equaled good while the right answer equaled bad.

DigitalWarrior
December 29, 2003, 11:59 AM
questions were worded so that the left answer equaled good while the right answer equaled bad

I think that some people on this board have guilty conciences




:neener:

CJ
December 29, 2003, 02:19 PM
I disliked the portion of a theoretical question from a congressman stating that a new study showed that CCW increased crime, so he was going to oppose it. Then it asks if I agree or disagree with him.

Let's see: If I disagree, then I'm a lunatic who wants a gun even if it means other people will be hurt.

If I agree, then I am apparently against CCW.

I wonder if he'll consider my comment that I'd question the study since earlier studies have shown an opposite trend...

rock jock
December 29, 2003, 03:21 PM
I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to see that 90% of the people on THR that proclaim welfare taxes are stealing (I'm one of them) have also given money/food to homeless people.
I doubt that very much.

geegee
December 29, 2003, 04:04 PM
The more I think about this poll, the more I think it's being produced by some faculty professor who's pissed off at another Yale professor, namely John Lott. You have to think that he's made more than a few enemies in those halls of academia, what with all the media attention generated by books like "More Guns, Less Crime." I would think he's probably close to "pariah class" amongst his peers. That's life! :neener: geegee

Bill Hook
December 29, 2003, 04:29 PM
Research

Kahan, D., & Gastil, J. (2002). Co-Principal Investigator, National Science Foundation (Directorate for Social, Behavioral & Economic Sciences: Decision, Risk and Management Sciences Program). Funding to study political culture and public deliberation on gun control in the United States. ($400,000).




Gee, looks like the gubmint gave him $400K of OUR MONEY to study gun control. :barf:

nico
December 29, 2003, 04:52 PM
I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to see that 90% of the people on THR that proclaim welfare taxes are stealing (I'm one of them) have also given money/food to homeless people.
personally, I don't see taxes as stealing, but I do think they are too high and the government takes our money to pay for way too much. That being said, IMO, there's a huge difference between willingly giving your money to someone and having it unwillingly taken and given to the person. That's why welfare is called welfare and charity is called charity.

M1911Owner
December 29, 2003, 09:13 PM
Man, it sure seemed like there were a lot of questions on the order of, "How often should you beat your wife?: O A few time a day; O Daily; O Every other day; O A few times a week; O Weekly.

I especially didn't like the one about where you land on a liberal-conservative axis. I don't like any of those positions--I go off on an orthogonal axis in the direction of "limited government." Both that libs and the cons want too much power.

I wish I'd taken notes while taking the test--there were an awful lot of questions that presupposed facts not in evidence.

FPrice
December 29, 2003, 10:02 PM
I agree with someone who said that this IS a gun-issues survey. Some of my comments to the person conducting this survey:

"I am begining to think that this is not a survey to determine a wide variety of societal opinions but rather a thinly disguised anti-gun survey with additional questions to attribute certain opinions to personnel who appear to be pro- or anti-gun. So far, all of your "scenarios" revolve around the opinion that the availability of guns to law-abiding citizens increases crime and that banning gun ownership would decrease crime. Unfortunately for many anti-gun groups, this is not the case. I will be very curious to see where this all goes."

"I am of the opinion that this is more of a survey concerning gun issues than anything else. The initial questions seem to me to be determining demographics and other background information rather than any serious attempt to determine societal positions on different topics. As evidence I present the fact that the only detailed scenarios you present suggest that guns in the hands of honest citizens cause crime. And I know for a fact that I am not the only person who has noticed and commented on this fact."

Do you think that Mr. Gastil will get the point that we are on to him?

Tag
December 30, 2003, 12:43 AM
well that was a half hour rant at whatever faceless gungrabbers posted it.

deanf
December 30, 2003, 12:50 AM
You guys did notice that he works for the University of Washington, in Washington State, not Yale, right?

Not sure why it's hosted on Yale's server.

Buckskinner
December 30, 2003, 01:33 AM
Kahan, D., & Gastil, J. (2002). Co-Principal Investigator, National Science Foundation (Directorate for Social, Behavioral & Economic Sciences: Decision, Risk and Management Sciences Program). Funding to study political culture and public deliberation on gun control in the United States. ($400,000).

This says he is studying two things about "gun control" in the US. Namely:
1) Political culture
2) Public deliberation

In other words, who's talking about it, where and why? AND which way is the wind blowing?

Y'know, grant writing isn't that hard...Anybody want to get paid to do some research and poll taking? By the people for the people?

MeekandMild
December 30, 2003, 10:58 PM
I'm afraid I got more irritated at the leader questions than the gun questions.

As an example the gay marriage question, as I've tried to demonstrate to my Lesbian nieces, I love them both but its still a domestic partnership. You just can't go changing the basic definition of words, if you could I'd change the word "taxpayer" to "fiscal gang rape victim".

Buckskinner, you know we probably have a significant number of people here who have the credentials to really get a grant like this. $400,000 would go a long way to pay both our stipends, plus a nickle or two for the guy who writes the html code. I love writing psychobabble for money. :D

Highland Ranger
December 31, 2003, 10:01 AM
Just took it . . . .I agree, too many questions about guns for it to not be gun related. Up front stuff is just to fit you into a demographic.

As some have mentioned, I bet we as a group (gun owners) don't fit into any one category real well . . .

Russ
December 31, 2003, 10:23 AM
Took it. I like where they ask your religion. If you put certain ones do they disregard or marginalize what you have to say?

I should have put that I was a Muslim or an Atheisit. I'm not either of those but maybe that would have been more PC to them as opposed to putting Catholic, Protestant, Latter Day Saint or Jewish.

Let us know if this gets published anywhere.

Michael
December 31, 2003, 11:08 AM
Hi folks,

I participated in the "study," pointed out various and sundry instrument construction flaws along the way, and then pointed the researchers toward classic undergraduate texts that address the proper methodologies of questionnaire design and construction. I wonder if they will consider my input? :)

The final results, as well as the conduct and findings of the "larger study," should be interesting to see (does anyone really believe the Amazing Karnak is needed to predict the outcome successfully ?).

Sincerely,

Michael

cratz2
December 31, 2003, 01:49 PM
I took it... I'm also one usually not easily fit into a popular category. When I take the 'What are you' tests, I usually come out as being about middle of the road. Slightly libritarian, slightly conservative but my actual beliefs aren't really representative of that... I don't believe in the death penalty but I wouldn't hesitate one second to put someone down that was causing or would potentially cause harm to my children. I don't think that pot smokers or prostitutes (and solicitors) should face any sort of jail time but I believe that many crimes should be much more severely punished (time in jail wise) than they are such as any violent offense esp rape and I believe that we need to build more prisons to house said offenders without concern of overcrowding.

Anyway, on the survey, the two questions I had the biggest problems with were the two about 'The following are two statements than have been made about gun control'... one was something to the effect of even if legal gun ownership increased crime, should the be banned' is so offensively misleading I almost stopped. And the reference to the 'cop-killer bullets' made me chuckle as it always does.

BluesBear
January 7, 2004, 11:58 AM
Y'all think this "survey" was a little bit biased?

0 - Somewhat
0 - Quite a Bit
0 - Yes
0 - Hell Yes
0 - Flippin' ay right it was biased



:( U-dub, <sigh> my tax dollars at work :(





U-dub = UW = University of Washington

ClonaKilty
January 7, 2004, 01:17 PM
Got the Faculty Index page for Washignton University

Actually it's University of Washington, not Washington University (which is in Saint Louis).

Just keeping things straight :)

morganm01
January 7, 2004, 05:00 PM
Most of those were not questions, but statements you were asked to agree or disagree with. The Bias was intentional in them.

If you enjoyed reading about "A Gun Survey From Yale" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!