Attitudes about firearms--research on education levels

[Danus ex]

Hello all,

I'm a graduate student in rhetoric at a major (liberal) university, and I've come up with a very obvious hypothesis: people with little firearms education have a negative opinion of firearms.

Fortunately, this is testable. I would like to conduct a survey asking people about their formal education level, 'firearms education level' (would have to invent some kind of scale), and their opinions on guns and gun control.

Ideally, those who wish to participate in the debate over gun control should acquire some expertise in the history of, use of, and effects of firearms in society. We require accreditation of some kind for most debates, why not this one? My favorite professor is currently writing a book on gun control--one that goes somewhat against the second amendment (though he does not support confiscation)--but because he does have personal knowledge of firearms, I have the utmost respect for his opinions. I believe he is the exception, however.

The data would probably support my hypothesis. This would not do much to change the debate over whether or not education makes people less likely to buy and use guns (which, of course, means fewer guns and fewer violent crimes in dream land), but it may cause many to seriously redefine 'education'. The results of this survey would ultimately distinguish formal education from firearms education. There probably isn't a truly practical side to this research.

However, to get on my pro-2A platform, we trust experts in our society for good reason. Public health policy is determined mostly by public health experts. Transportation policy is determined mostly by transportation experts. Shouldn't gun policy be set mostly by gun experts? It irritates me when people substitute expertise with belief (please, lets not start a religious debate here).

I do wonder if the NRA would give me a grant for this? Hell, gun control advocates might do it too! I'd like nothing better than to take their money (and buy guns with it).

Thoughts?

 

[jsalcedo]

Believing in gun control is as close as you can get to mental illness.

"Taking away guns from law abiding people will stop criminals from commiting crime with guns."

That is the gist of it.

If you need a couple of mil to reason out why people really believe that fallacious argument I'm all for it.

 

[The_Ferret]

Sounds like a worthy project...

Thinking as a grad student, I could see this as a good opportunity. I definitely think your thesis (hypothesis?) is something worth testing in a formal manner.

Yes, this does seem somewhat self-evident to gun-owners, CCWers, etc. However, I would say that it seems evident to us because we interact with and discuss with just the sort of people you are talking about (uneducated with respect to firearms). These results would be obvious to a gunner, but would be good research for presentation to non-gunners, which an organization like the NRA could certainly appreciate.

Have you poked around to see if anybody else has done this kind of study? It might pay to look at (dig through?) statistics from a website like NRA or another similar organization to see if someone has had this idea, or something similar.

I would whole-heartedly encourage you to run with this idea. It should make a chewy piece of research, with possible links to hoplophobia (or however that "fear of guns" thing is spelled), demographics observations, etc. I'm sure I'm preaching to the choir though. If you thought this up, you could already see the links. You could probably get cash from somewhere to do it. There is a grant for just about everything. If the NRA is not interested, you may just need to re-spin the research to someone else.

SUMMARY: In my not-so-humble opinion, you should pursue this project. It is worth it. (And never dismiss any research as non-practical. Every time somebody does that, some smarty pants comes along and finds a practical use for whatever it was that everyone was calling trivial. )

-The_Ferret-

 

[pax]

I think you'd have a hard time sorting out some of the variables. For instance, where on the "education" spectrum would you put someone who grew up in a household with firearms, but never owned guns herself until well into adulthood? Or someone who had politically supported individual firearms ownership from the first time he was able to vote, is fascinated with and has studied the whole history of the RKBA -- but has never handled a firearm himself? Would such merely academic knowledge satisfy your requirement, or are you looking for hands-on knowledge?

More variables, thinking out loud here.

You'll probably come across a lot of people who are well-educated about firearms (or consider themselves so), who shoot a lot, but who have no formal education or training. How would you measure or quantify their knowledge level? Some sort of standardized test?

Would you consider knowledge of firearms minutae such as who designed the first polymer-framed gun, or which company has been most prolific in designing & introducing new calibers, to be as important as knowledge of the political debates surrounding the 2nd Amendment, its history, and its influence on American culture? Would you weight knowledge of the political history more heavily than knowledge of the scientific history, or vise versa? Or would you consider historical knowledge important at all?

What about someone whose political position was fixed before they got any formal training and before they ever owned guns -- but who has since learned lots? Probably going to come across a fair number of those.

Would you consider the number of rounds someone has sent downrange as an indicator of their knowledge/experience level? There are an awful lot of gunowners who shoot lots but don't know lots -- but surely a lot of rounds downrange should count for something.

Would someone who knows a lot about one particular type of gun -- can tell you everything about the 1911 design, for instance, or has an encyclopedic knowledge of one particular firearms brand -- but who knows very little about the history or about the industry as a whole -- would such a person rate as "well educated" or "not well educated" on your scale? What about someone who knows one particular shooting discipline very well (can recite all the IPSC rules!), but doesn't know a lot about the larger political debates?

What are you going to do about people who are well educated in the things you aren't testing for? There are lots of different types of firearms, and lots of different shooting disciplines too. Just about unavoidable that you'll forget something. Will you have someplace open-ended in your test for folks to fill in what they know that you didn't ask 'em for?

Interesting problem. Probably too big a question unless you nibble it down some.

pax

 

[trapperjohn]

you would have to develop some method of determing and differentiating between cause and affect. a simple survey of the population is going to show that increased education in regards to firarms does indeed correlate to a more positive attitude towards firearms. the difficulty is determing if the people have more education in regards to firarms because they had a positive view towards them to begin with, or did the education in firearms lead to a more positive view.

 

[geekWithA.45]

I would say that people's attitudes towards firearms are more influenced by sociological factors than educational, although educational factors would certainly contribute.

For example, how would one come into posession of a gun education, especially at a young age?

One would could get it first from a family member, and then perhaps from boyscouts. One's gradeschool history curriculum would also have an influence. Later in life, one could get gun education from police or military training.

 

[bogie]

I think you could probably get away with a points weighting system...

10 points for growing up in a (legal)* firearm owning household.

10 points for monitored range time/gun safety before age 10 (boy scouts, etc.)

10 points for hunting

10 points for active competition

etc., etc... More points = (theoretically) a greater appreciation for gun safety, etc...

*We obviously want to differentiate between "normal" people (better not use that word...) and people who grew up in criminal surroundings... It's "Daddy's got a gun he uses for deer hunting and for scaring off trespassers" vs. "Daddy's got a gun he uses when he goes to the likker stores."

It'd also be interesting to query as to "Did anyone around you when you were growing up own guns?" and then also follow it with questions to determine legal/illegal, etc...

 

[svtruth]

Statistics

Great idea.
But you will have a tough time keeping it statistically rigorous. For example, people with no knowledge of guns and a negative attitude will be very unlikely to gain any info, thus skewing the results.
City dwellers, residents of anti-gun states would be expected to be less informed, etc.
What might work is a study of how willing people are to change opinions based on prejudice, with gun attitudes as one example.
Good luck.

 

[thatguy]

Your hypothosis is true regardless of the subject. Lack of education on any topic causes negative reactions out of fear caused by ignorance.

There are two types of anti-gunners. The first are the leaders in the anti-gun movement who know that they are lying when they equate guns to crime and legitimate gun ownership to criminals and the second are those who believe the liars because they are ignorant or are blindly following a political party or ideology. Little can be done about the former other than continue to battle them with the truth. The latter can sometimes be swayed with facts.

I suggest you research the work of Dr. Gary Kleck and Dr. John Lott. They have done a lot of research recently on the relationship between guns and crime.

 

[Werewolf]

I suspect that the controlling variable is not education but exposure.

Some one exposed to firearms on a regular basis is more likely to be pro-gun than someone who is not.

As pax pointed out quantifying firearms education will be a difficult proposition if not defined correctly.

Quantifying exposure to firearms and attitudes towards same is a relatively trivial exercise. Measuring the covariance between degree of exposure and attitudes towards firearms is a trivial statistical exercise that anyone with a basic college level statistics course under their belt could easily handle.

Interesting project for a graduate student - might get ya tossed out of that major liberal arts college though.

You realize of course that the anti's already know the answer to the question. The answer - eliminate exposure to firearms and they will eventually become a non-issue to the people. Thus they become that much easier to take away.

 

[waterhouse]

I agree with Werewolf in the education vs. exposure concept. I know people who have taken the NRA basic course because their boy scout troop thought it was a good idea (it was). Those people have more formal gun education than my grandfather ever did, but they still think a 20 gauge is bigger than a 12 gauge because it is a higher number ("why do people use 12 when they could use a 20?").

Actual exposure is what matters. I know lots of people (mainly females) who were raised around guns but who have no interest in them. The important thing is that they are not afraid of them, and they don't mind that I own them. I also have lots of friends who say things like "I've never been around a gun and will never own a gun and no one should own a gun."

It seems like an interesting project though, please keep us updated on how it goes.

 

[benEzra]

What about asking a series of questions about technical and legal aspects of firearms, and studying the relationship between firearms knowledge and anti-gun attitudes?

It isn't formal education you are looking at, it's knowledge. And scoring answers to a questionnaire would be an objective measure of the subject's firearms knowledge.

You might also want to throw in a separate questionnaire on gun laws...

I am a regular on Democratic Underground and I have found that a LOT of people initially averse to guns are a lot less hostile once they gain a bit of knowledge about guns.




Some questions that could be asked might be:

Rank the following firearms in terms of power or kinetic energy, on a per-shot basis:
.357 magnum caliber handgun
.30-06 caliber hunting rifle
.22LR caliber rifle
AK-47 style rifle

Rank the following firearm calibers by bore diameter:
.45 ACP
9x19mm
12-gauge
.50 BMG
5.56x45mm
.22LR

Categorize each of the following as primarily (A) rifle ammunition, (B) handgun ammunition, or (C) shotgun ammunition.
9x19mm
.30-30 Winchester
.45 ACP
7.62x39mm
.308
.243
.410
12-gauge
20-gauge

A semiautomatic firearm is one that
(a) fires rapidly as long as the trigger is held down
(b) fires once and only once when the trigger is pulled, and will not fire again until the trigger is released and pulled a second time
(c) fires once when the trigger is pulled, and will not fire again until the action is manually cycled by an external lever or slide
(d) none of the above

Which of the following statements about automatic weapons is true?
(a) Automatic weapons such as military AK-47's were banned by the 1994 assault weapons ban, but became legal again when the ban expired in 2004.
(b) Automatic weapons such as military AK-47's are very tightly controlled by the Gun Control Act of 1968.
(c) Automatic weapons such as military AK-47's are very tightly controlled by the National Firearms Act of 1934.
(d) None of the above.

Which of the following statements about buying a gun is true?
(a) To purchase a gun from a licensed dealer, Federal law requires you to undergo a mandatory background check and fill out a BATFE form 4473, unless the gun is purchased at a gun show.
(b) To purchase a gun from a licensed dealer, Federal law requires you to undergo a mandatory Federal background check and fill out a BATFE form 4473, regardless of where the sale takes place.
(c) To purchase a gun from a licensed dealer, you have to show a driver's license but there is no background check requirement under Federal law.
(d) To purchase a gun from a licensed dealer, there is no ID or background check requirement under Federal law, unless the venue is a gun show or pawn shop.

etc.

I'm sure you could come up with a lot better with time (these were off the top of my head).

 

[Michael Courtney]

I think you can use gun education, but you have to determine the education by test. This can make for a burdensome survey unless you keep it simple. Why not just have the respondent list the 4 gun safety rules and give a point for each rule listed correctly resulting in a 4 point education scale. I bet that attitudes toward gun ownership correlate very well with the ability to list the gun safety rules.

Michael Courtney

 

[afasano]

Believing in gun control is as close as you can get to mental illness.

"Taking away guns from law abiding people will stop criminals from commiting crime with guns."

That is the gist of it.

If you need a couple of mil to reason out why people really believe that fallacious argument I'm all for it.

Smart folks think crooks will obey gun laws.

 

[MillCreek]

Hmm, would 'formal education level' essentially just be a proxy for socioeconomic status, and if so, how would that tie in? Is there data already on the issue of degree of educational attainment and attitude on gun rights, or the socioeconomic status (i.e.: income) and attitude on gun rights?

Very broadly speaking, formal education level will likely be correlated with socioeconomic status. We all know about the Ph.D's driving a taxi, and Bill Gates with no college degree, but these cases are likely outliers.

 

[benEzra]

I think he may be speaking of formal gun education, which is hard to assess (i.e., a Private 1st Class supply clerk in the U.S. Army has more formal firearms education than I do, but I dare say I know more about guns and gun law than he/she does). And not all gun education classes are created equally (and you won't find many anti's with diplomas from Gunsite or Thunder Ranch, so you'd introduce selection bias).

 

[Atticus]

...a very obvious hypothesis: people with little firearms education have a negative opinion of firearms.

That's the conclusion I reached a few years ago. It would be nice to see the results of a formal study. I no longer get involved in gun debates with antis, because I have yet to meet one who is even vaguely familiar with guns or gun terminology. I think you could accomplish your goal with a simple test. Have the participants answer 20 gun related questions that are ranked from simple to difficult. Then ask them to vote for a degree of gun control - None/ Some/Outright Ban. The most knowledgable group will demand the least control ,while the least knowledgable group will demand the ban. Your graph will look like Twin Peaks.

 

[Danus ex]

Wow you guys, this is exactly the discussion I was hoping to generate. You're asking all the right questions. This place is definitely the High Road!

My thesis research is actually on developing training for tutors across multiple disciplines (all the research done is on writing tutoring, which is my background).

It's clear that this could easily turn into more than just a simple article. I'm one of those people who thinks of a research idea like this just about daily, so I'd be happy to donate this to any other social science researcher for a master's thesis or doctoral dissertation. If there are no takers, let's keep this discussion going.

I do like benEzra's suggestion that we use firearms knowledge as a measure--both firearms education and firearms exposure could ultimately funnel into a 'firearms knowledge' category. However, this may alienate the group of people mentioned by waterhouse and pax--those who grew up around guns, don't know much about them, but aren't afraid of them. Maybe we can measure 'gun fear' (hoplophobia right?) instead (or additionally)?

MillCreek's suggestion of socioeconomic status (SES) is also interesting. Human capital theorists would argue (and have proven) that no factor affects a person's SES more than education level (another way to measure the correlation between education and self-efficacy). I was thinking that hoplophobia vs. SES might be fun, but that may not help determine why our hoplophobia variable is high or low or whatever.

geekWithA.45, pax, and trapperjohn's cause-effect based questions are perhaps the nastiest ones for this project. I think others are getting at the answer by calling for the 'firearms exposure' measurement--which is the one indicator we've got so far that can account for people who've been around guns but have no interest in them. For those with purely academic knowledge of firearms, we'd need to sort them out with a 'firearms knowledge' quiz. Then there's those people who don't know much about firearms, haven't been around them, but are interested in them. They could be found with a series of questions.

So perhaps 'firearms exposure' and/or 'firearms interest' and/or 'firearms knowledge' vs. hoplophobia is where this should go? Someone must have done this already. Good thing I'm at the library right now, I'll start searching journals.

Keep it rolling!

 

[P0832177]

The one thing that I was always amazed me when I shot HP. I shot with Northwest Pilots, County Judges, Mayo Drs., Factory Workers, Farmers, Lawyers, Armed Forces Personel both active, guard,and reserve, LEO, retired folks, electricians, and teachers. People from all sorts of backgrounds. One thing leveled the playing ground = Mother Nature. She never discriminated!

 

[Sheldon J]

Gun attitude is more a product of your childhood and life experience. If you had family that was pro gun and liked to shoot or you have been victimized by the dregs of society one too many times then you are very likely to be pro gun. Otherwise you are likely to have had the common sense educated out of you and are a Democrat err I mean anti gun.

 

[Standing Wolf]

Your hypothesis is almost a tautology—but so what? It bears looking into.

I'm not sure your firearms knowledge measuring system really makes a great deal of difference: as long as there is a definite, more or less verifiable scale and it's applied dispassionately to all your subjects, it should be good enough for your purposes.

I think what you're working on is a test of a method or an approach. I think it's worth pursuing—and hope you'll share the results with us, too.

 

[KONY]

I think there are alot of theories that are applicable to this sort of study. I would think that firearms exposure could be measured by asking about childhood experiences as well. There are also decision-making theories (Theory of Reasoned Action) and knowledge frameworks (Instrumental-Symbolic Knowledge Framework) that could be applied here. The point about causality is note-worthy but as long as you recognize and express this limitation, I wouldn't consider it to be a fatal flaw.