29% of All Voters Think Armed Revolution May Be Necessary.

Fairleigh Dickenson University recently conducted a poll of registered voters about the need for gun control laws.  The poll asked questions about armed revolution and Sandy Hook conspiracy theories. Findings: America is a weird country.

Regarding armed revolution:

  • 29% of  all voters think an armed revolution in order to protect liberties may be necessary.
  • 5% of all voters are unsure.
  • 18% of Democrats think an armed revolution may be necessary.
  • 44% of Republicans think an armed revolution may be necessary.
  • 27% of independents think an armed revolution may be necessary.
  • 38% of Americans who believe a revolution might be necessary support additional gun control legislation.
  • 62% of those who don’t think a revolution might be necessary support additional gun control legislation.

Regarding Conspiracy Theories about Sandy Hook and attitudes toward gun control:

  • 25% of Americans think that facts about the shootings at Sandy Hook elementary last year are being hidden.
  • 11% are unsure.
  • 32% of Republicans think the truth about Sandy Hook is being suppressed.
  • 20% of Democrats think the truth about Sandy Hook is being suppressed.
  • 31% of those with no more than a high school degree think the truth is being hidden.
  • 16% of college grads think the truth is being hidden.
  • 37% of Americans who think the public is being lied to about Sandy Hook support new gun control effort.
  • 59% of Americans who don’t think there’s a Sandy Hook conspiracy support new gun control effort.

The rest:

  • 50% of registered voters think new gun laws are needed.  
  • 39% of registered voters don’t think new gun laws are needed.  
  • 73% of Democrats say new gun laws are needed.
  • 65% of Republicans don’t think new gun laws are needed.  
Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to 29% of All Voters Think Armed Revolution May Be Necessary.

  1. “38% of Americans who believe a revolution might be necessary support additional gun control legislation.” okayyy

  2. robertpekrul says:

    Reblogged this on Truth, Justice, Salvation: With a Jacobin Spirit and commented:
    For years I have heard talk from varying groups of picking up their weapons and using them for a possibly needed revolution here in America. In fact, one guy approached me once wondering if I would join a “Christian” organization here in Rhode Island that desires to bomb the police stations. Obviously I refused with disgust. I am neither a murderer or an idiot…

    This survey doesn’t reveal too much to answer this question, but, do you think that we are nearing a point where armed revolution becomes a legitimate national question?

  3. robertpekrul says:

    Ohtarzie, what are your thoughts on the survey you posted?

    • ohtarzie says:

      I don’t have any really. That insurrectionary feeling is mostly a right-wing thing is unfortunate but not really surprising.

      Put this up as a quickie just because I found it interesting and thought people might find all the extra words in the Fairleigh Dickinson write-up as annoying as I did.

      • robertpekrul says:

        You have a very pleasing tendency to be right to the point. Thank you. I did find it overall annoying and I found the number of those surveyed and the demographic specifically annoying.

  4. Daniel says:

    My first thought: I wish there was a comparative breakdown of the exact same questions from 2000-2008.

  5. Dictum says:

    The study is seriously flawed. First and foremost they questioned fewer than 1000 people rendering any statistical analysis moot. Then using house phones in an age where that would virtually guarantee that you only get seniors. The study indicates no attempt at instituting controls. In fact the questions are leading – first invoke party affiliation and then ask about guns. C’mon. The thing is bunk.

    Gun control in this country first showed its head during the civil rights movement as an attempt to disarm black males. It’s interesting to me how hard statists work – mostly with anecdotal evidence -to spin gun ownership as a curious pre-occupation of republicans (read bigots). Consider that there are more guns in the US than people and an estimated 50% of households have firearms. The NRA only represents only 2% of that population, so 98% of gun owners are never heard from in the press. Living among them as I do, I can tell you that the primary concern is simply self defense, not some shoot out fantasy with the state, but the desire to protect oneself. No one with a fire extinguisher thinks they are going to crush the fire deparment with their might, and yet no one mocks people for owning fire extinguishers.

    The logical disconnect of the pro gun control position is baffling to me. Here we live in the full fallout of Nancy Reagan’s war on drugs. With all of the death and suffering that prohibition brings, how could any rational person think that gun control would reduce violence? How could anyone envision criminalizing 50% of the population as a cunning plan? Mass has some of the strictest gun laws in the country. Considering recent events, would you describe those as effective? Chicago has very strict gun laws. Are those working, in your opinion?

    Further, what law that they are proposing would have stopped Sandy Hook – not one. That young man drove a car that wasn’t his, using a license that wasn’t his, carrying guns that weren’t his. Three level of failed regulations and yet the public believes that regulation will fix the problem. Baffling.

    Anyway, presented at the feet of one of my favorite twitterers…my very strong opinions on gun control.

    • ohtarzie says:

      Yeah, gun control’s a crock, pretty much, though it’s not something I feel too strongly about. As you say, gun control laws don’t seem to have a strong impact. My understanding is the last assault weapons ban was a complete failure.

      It’s a cultural issue, really, masquerading as a crisis. Variously a shiny bauble to distract from oligarch crime and a cudgel for beating people into political submission.

      I don’t know much about polling, but my understanding is that with the right sampling methods you don’t need that many people which makes sense to me.

      • Yeah, Tarzie is correct, in a national polling like this you are always going to have a sample less than 1000 people. It really isn’t feasible to work with data over a certain amount, and some quant guy somewhere at some point figured out a sweet spot. I don’t remember why exactly that is, I am not a math guy or a poll guy, but its legit, so far as you want to consider the legitimacy of polls at all (my criticisms are qualitative in nature).

        And I would also point out that the methodology mentions using data from cell phone-only users as well, which is becoming more and more common, due to the critique you raise, a practice that if followed would definitely skew your results.

        My thought is that the “do we need a revolution” question IS the baseline or control-type question, but they kept it in the results because they thought it was weird, funny and would get them some attention. Which it has.

      • Dictum says:

        >Yeah, Tarzie is correct, in a national polling like this you are always going to have a sample less than 1000 people.

        Which is precisely why polls are crock. Statistics is a tool for large number problems the integrity of which depends upon a random sample in order to produce quality information. Any sample below 1000 renders the tool of statistics for generating information useless. That is the first lesson of a 101 stats class, available as a MOOC at edx, coursera, and udacity (if you are not currently enrolled in a U)

        >And I would also point out that the methodology mentions using data from cell phone-only users as well, which is becoming more and more common, due to the critique you raise, a practice that if followed would definitely skew your results.

        And since a directory of cell phones isn’t listed, this brings into question how the numbers were acquired (which isn’t specified) brings the question of how the sample was selected (also not specified in the methodology)

        They should reassure us that measures were taken to get a population that reflected the general population. They should have described their questioning techniques, and taken only a portion of each of the questions from each subject to correct for any bias introduced through question order.

        The social sciences are already pretty sketchy in their ability to make predictions (the entire point of science) and when they are done sloppily…well these people are trolling the tax payers at tax payer expense.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s