Rorschach Research Associates

The news today is full of the latest poll alleging massive support for an “assault weapon” ban, universal preemptively-prove-your-innocence checks, and more human/civil rights violations. The numbers claimed were so outrageous I was sure it would prove to be another Quinnipiac poll.

But not this this time; it was conducted by Langer Research Associates, an outfit of whom I’ve never heard before.

I had some time to kill, so I took a look at the poll data. This was a “nationwide” telephone survey of 1,003 people, supposedly randomly dialed. There is no further information on methodology. But given the questions they asked, no methodology was going to save them.

16. Would you support or oppose a nationwide ban on the sale of assault weapons?

They failed to define “assault weapon,” a term with different meanings in a few jurisdictions and none in most. Therefore the question has zero meaning, or a wildly variable meaning in the mind of each individual respondent.

Did they mean an “assault weapon” as defined by the 1994 federal law? A Massachusetts assault weapon whose definition was based on the ’94 federal law until it was bureaucratically expanded? The NY definition which encompasses both more and less? The CA definition which covers even more, while missing things covered by the others? Respondents were left to their own imagination.

17. Would you support or oppose [ITEM]?

a. requiring background checks on all potential gun buyers, including private sales and gun shows

All retail sales require background checks already. It’s already unlawful to knowingly transfer a firearm to a prohibited person. The question should mention costs, too. It should note that nearly all firearms used in crimes are obtained unlawfully, bypassing any required checks.

b. a nationwide ban on high capacity ammunition clips, meaning those containing more than 10 bullets

“Clips” are devices used to load magazines, and hold cartridges, not just bullets. The most common clips already hold 10 or fewer cartridges.

c. a law allowing the police to take guns away from people who have been found by a judge to be a danger to themselves or others

Such laws already exist. Their summary refers to “red flag” laws, so for the question to have meaning, they must specify that the order would be ex parte and the subject would not have the chance to speak in his defense and that the accuser need provide no evidence (if there were evidence, a regular arrest warrant could be issued).

d. a mandatory buy back program in which the federal government would require assault weapon owners to turn in those weapons in exchange for payment

Again, “assault weapon” must be defined, and the payment specified. For instance, New Zealand’s new ban specifies a maximum payment below market value, which may be part of why compliance is running below 10% (and dropping with each “buyback” event).

18. Who do you trust more to handle gun laws in this country – (Trump) or (the Democrats in Congress)?

That question is so biased that, if I had been polled, I would have hung up on the idiots. It presupposes that more gun laws are desirable. It frames the debate as an individual vs. a Dem majority. (Incidentally, Trump has implemented more new firearm restrictions in this year, than the Democrats have managed in the past twelve years.)

19. How confident are you that [ITEM] would reduce mass shootings in this country – very confident, somewhat confident, not so confident or not confident at all?

You failed to define “mass shooting.” The GVA definition, which includes people not shot? The CRS/FBI definition which excludes gangbangers shooting it out over turf and revenge? Meaningless question.

21. Do you or does anyone in your house own a gun, or not?

I’ve always found that question amusing. Imagine answering your own phone one day and hearing, “Hi! I’m a stranger randomly dialing numbers, so I don’t really know where you live. Will you tell me if you have valuable merchandise that’s easily stolen?”

It gets even better when you toss that question in with the suggestion of confiscation.

All in all, the clowns didn’t find “support” for anything specific. They conducted a verbal Rorschach test of “support” for whatever was in the mind of each individual. They might as well have asked, “Do you support or oppose color?” And left it to each person to guess if they meant color vs. B&W imagery, people of color, or red vs. blue.

I’d like to see more detail on the methodology. Did they ask the questions of whomever answered the phone, or ask for youngest likely voter? Someone else? What regions did they poll, and how did they weight responses? It doesn’t much matter, given the questions, but I’d like to further ridicule them.

[Permission to republish this article is granted so long as it is not edited, and the author and The Zelman Partisans are credited.]

Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with ISP and web host bills. And the rabbits need feed. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)
Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

3 thoughts on “Rorschach Research Associates”

  1. You have hit the entire problem with any poll on the head, of course.
    Anyone with half a brain could design a poll to support just about any position desired. In fact, I do believe that people with half a brain design most of these gun polls.
    It is often that I have seen people using things such as polls and statistics that are gleaned from suspect places to attempt to support their position. It tells you much that they feel the need to resort to lies and half truths to lend support a position that the truth would expose.

  2. 1000 people nationwide? That many? I think there have been larger sample populations in surveys for new M&M colors, but I could be wrong. But astounding that a poll paid for by a hoplophobic paper would discover already ticked off American citizens wish for further infringement.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *