A lot of gun restrictions can be very different as presented versus how they are in practice. Especially when it comes to the sort of "edge cases" that don't actually end up being edge cases.

Universal background checks sound like common sense to a lot of people, until it's pointed out that they mean that they suicidal person can't give their guns to a friend for safekeeping - or let a buddy borrow a hunting rifle for the weekend. (It also means implementing a national gun registry to actually enforce anything, and registries have led to confiscation too many times for comfort)

Ditto with red flag laws - everyone wants to let the police take the guns away from the next school shooter, but a lot of people are justifiably wary that the police will just take guns from "every black man", "everyone that criticizes the local police department" or even just "absolutely everyone". (Or that potential home invaders will do this to their victim before invading) All Cops Are Bastards, but we can trust them to not abuse new powers over guns?

So when the actual wording of the policy that gets shorthanded as "red flag laws" or "universal background checks" makes it to a referendum, you can see some of that come into play.

The slippery slope/edge case arguments. These things seem to be so complex in America. They're not.

Can you loan a rifle to a buddy for a hunting weekend? Yes, as long as your buddy has his gun licence. Otherwise a hard no, as there's no proof your buddy has a damn clue about gun safety. And of course you, a licenced gun owner, can supervise your buddy while he shoots if he doesn't have a licence. Same for teaching your kids to shoot safely.

Can that hunting rifle be an AR-15? No. Military assault rifles are not needed for hunting. You can use a bolt action rifle, or even a low powered semi-auto, .22. If you have special requirements - like hunting feral hogs from a helicopter - then you can apply for a special class of licence that allows you to possess said weapons, and use them for said purpose.

Are there red flag rules? Obviously! Why would you let a disturbed individual have a lethal weapon?

Can people still have their guns? Yes! But they must be stored in a secure gun safe, and some weapons (e.g pistols/concealable weapons), due to the risks they present, must be treated separately. You certainly can't carry your gun on your shoulder into the supermarket.

And so it goes. The solutions to America's gun problem are obvious - from the outside.

But you just completely ignored what I wrote, which was that a policy's name may be viewed differently than that policy's implementation. And then you said there's no objections to red flag laws! Did you even read my comment?

But calling an AR-15 a "military assault rifle" is probably enough evidence that you don't know what you're talking about, anyways. ('Assault Rifle' is a term of art and the vast vast majority of AR-15s do not qualify - the legal ones that do qualify have literally never been used in violent crimes in the US, because they are worth tens of thousands of dollars and machine guns (a superset of assault rifles) have had universal background checks since the 1920s)

> ('Assault Rifle' is a term of art

It is, but it actually has two different meanings. There is what you mean by it (the traditional military definition) and then there is “assault rifle”=“rifle which was legally classified as an assault weapon under the 1994-2004 US Federal Assault Weapons Ban”-a civilian AR-15 is (generally) not an “assault rifle” in the first sense, but it is in the second. Now, you can argue the second is an abuse of language - but once a usage becomes supported by US federal law (even if since expired), that becomes an ipso facto legitimate definition, and it would be better to acknowledge people who use that definition as doing so than lecture them that they don’t know what they are talking about (maybe they don’t, but when you don’t acknowledge the different definition of the term which they are actually using, it doesn’t make you sound like you do either)

The second one is an "Assault Weapon", not Rifle. This is why it was called the Assault Weapons Ban.

See [0], "a United States federal law which included a prohibition on the manufacture for civilian use of certain semi-automatic firearms that were defined as assault weapons".

"The Act prohibited the manufacture, transfer, or possession of "semiautomatic assault weapons," as defined by the Act."

0: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

People use the term "assault rifle" to mean "assault weapon rifles". It is a very widespread usage, including by politicians and the news media. It is also a very logical usage – it is simply shortening the phrase by dropping "weapon", which is kind of duplicative given it includes "rifle". Yes, this contradicts with the older military usage of the term "assault rifle" – but different people use words in different ways, language evolves, and insisting other people are wrong for using words differently from how you do is just ignorant linguistic prescriptivism.

Sometimes, specific terms matter. Federal law is one of those times. Especially gun law, because getting it wrong means the ATF shoots your dog and you go to club fed.

The complexity isn't that it's hard to write out a set of gun regulations. The complexity is that many Americans support only a subset of the measures you're describing. So when universal background checks (for example) come up for a vote, a lot of people who support them in principle raise concerns that they'll be seen as a backdoor for creating a gun licensing program, and thus they get a lot less popular support than you'd expect from polling data.

Why would you not require a licence to own and operate a lethal weapon?

Because trusting the government to have the power to determine who gets to defend themselves means that African Americans in the post-civil-war south, and Jews in 1930s Germany, don't get to defend themselves.

People keep saying that the US is on the verge of being a fascist white supremacist state - why do you want to give that state the right to choose who gets guns?

Edit: and in more immediately practical consequences, because gun-hostile governments have a history of publicly leaking the list of people who own guns.

Moat countries require a license to drive cars. A white supremacist nation can certainly use that as excuse to take away the livelihood from certain classes of people. Is this a reason for not enforcing the need to have a driving license? (You do have driving licenses in the US right? I'm often surprised about the amount of things that seem universal and that are not a thing in the united states')

You do not in fact need a driver's license to purchase/own/operate a motor vehicle in the USA - only to use public roads. (And that's just talking about "by law" - "in practice" people drive with no license or with a suspended license far too often here)

Don't ask me! I think we should. My point is just that, from what I can tell, the problems with gun regulation in America have a lot more to do with what the public is willing to support than some kind of complication or corruption making it hard to pass laws the public wants.

The argument is usually that a license mechanism involves a registry and that the government having a list of every gun owner will lead to them taking citizens guns away or otherwise further restrictions.

And such lists have very often led to further restrictions / confiscation in other countries, so it's not exactly a baseless fear.

Like it or not, owning and operating a firearm is guaranteed by the constitution. There are certain issues with requiring licenses for a constitutional right which include cost and location, which have cropped up with the voter I.D. laws and the voter station issues, where specific ballot pickups aren't placed in poorer lacales and certain districts are trying to get rid of mail in voting, making it a financial burden on poor voters to exercise their constitutional right.

I know a lot of people say that licensing makes a lot of sense, and on the face of it, of course I agree. But if you look deeper you can see how it becomes a bridge to making a constitutional right to something for only English speaking, upper middle class or rich people (generally white or Asian demographically) people.

I don't have an issue with competency tests, but what is the bar and for what purpose? I only hunt and to get a hunting license I had to take a hunting class which includes a gun safety pertion. Does that count? Also, I'm the son of a Vietnam vet and have literally been shooting since I was 7 years old. I understand defensive shooting and can shoot revolvers and semi auto pistols, but I don't particularly care for pistol shooting. Do I also have to get certified for defensive shooting separately for a different class of gun? What's the definition? I can hunt with semi autos. AR-15's are a style of rifle, but functionally they're just a semi-auto with a pistol grip. They're fine to hunt with and you can get them chambered in a lot of rounds. If I get everything the same but without the pistol grip, can I have it not qualified as an AR-15 and not have to license it as such? Do we care about semi auto shotguns? They seem to miss a lot of the press.

But then we have to talk about the American government's history if misusing the information that it has been provided. Its history of withholding pertinent information to its citizenry about "liberated" confidential information. PRIZM was leaked and not only is it still being used, but no one has been prosecuted and the people who published the leaked information are being prosecuted. This was information that wasn't given to the government but was the government illegally obtaining information... what happens when information is given for one purpose and then is decided to be used for another. It's reasons like this that the "slippery slope" argument get trotted out (even though, like me, I think most people are for some more restrictions... why NOT a three day waiting period or a background check- which happen in most gun shop purchases).

Many of the states right now don't have a requirement for having your guns to be registered. How do we move forward with that? Are those guns now just illegal, is there a grace period or do all guns going forward have to be registered or are we going to do a "buy back" program for all unregistered guns, where the government buys back your unregistered gun far below a reasonable price before it becomes illegal?

America, as it is, is 50 states with 50 sets of gun laws and -to make it worse - 50 sets of definitions of what each classification of a gun is. Not every state even defines an assault rifle the same. I think only 3 or 4 define it the same, not to mention the federal definitions. Top to bottom, the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing, and so we don't even know who would do the licensing... state or federal. And, even if they could figure that out, there's a very good chance it would get knocked out by the Supreme Court on multiple grounds... not the least of which is unlawful discrimination.

I say this like I'm anti all control, and I don't mean to be. I have a concealed carry, even though I don't. I don't really have a problem with licensing, per se. The concealed carry saves with hassle if I take rifles to the range and they're in a bag and I have a hand gun in there or something. Plus, it just doesn't bother me. I just want to let you know, there are things to think about and A LOT of people who don't shoot and have never shot wouldn't think about. It's never just that simple.

Thanks for your very considered reply. Got my licence over 30 years ago, and just to share my perspective after seeing many changes over the years:

> I know a lot of people say that licensing makes a lot of sense, and on the face of it, of course I agree. But if you look deeper you can see how it becomes a bridge to making a constitutional right to something for only English speaking, upper middle class or rich people (generally white or Asian demographically) people.

Not sure why it would be any different from a car licence?

> I don't have an issue with competency tests, but what is the bar and for what purpose? I only hunt and to get a hunting license I had to take a hunting class which includes a gun safety pertion. Does that count? Also, I'm the son of a Vietnam vet and have literally been shooting since I was 7 years old. I understand defensive shooting and can shoot revolvers and semi auto pistols, but I don't particularly care for pistol shooting. Do I also have to get certified for defensive shooting separately for a different class of gun? What's the definition? I can hunt with semi autos. AR-15's are a style of rifle, but functionally they're just a semi-auto with a pistol grip. They're fine to hunt with and you can get them chambered in a lot of rounds. If I get everything the same but without the pistol grip, can I have it not qualified as an AR-15 and not have to license it as such? Do we care about semi auto shotguns? They seem to miss a lot of the press.

I'll fall back on how it works in my country, where we have no guaranteed right of self-defense. Instead owning a gun is a privilege and you must prove you are capable of owning one responsibly. As such, there aren't a whole heap of different usages. The basic licence test covers hunting, target shooting, safe storage etc. and all the common things you would need a gun for. I can agree if you were allowed to carry a pistol for self-defense that would probably require a different licence class due to the increased risk and involvement of other people.

> Many of the states right now don't have a requirement for having your guns to be registered. How do we move forward with that? Are those guns now just illegal, is there a grace period or do all guns going forward have to be registered or are we going to do a "buy back" program for all unregistered guns, where the government buys back your unregistered gun far below a reasonable price before it becomes illegal?

Buybacks have been used in UK, NZ and Australia (at least) and have worked well, despite the sums of money involved. As far as I know they've used something like fair market value, though of course there have been complaints, particularly from people with e.g. rare models that are hard to value.

> America, as it is, is 50 states with 50 sets of gun laws and -to make it worse - 50 sets of definitions of what each classification of a gun is. Not every state even defines an assault rifle the same. I think only 3 or 4 define it the same, not to mention the federal definitions. Top to bottom, the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing, and so we don't even know who would do the licensing... state or federal. And, even if they could figure that out, there's a very good chance it would get knocked out by the Supreme Court on multiple grounds... not the least of which is unlawful discrimination.

Yeah, I appreciate the problems. There are always people who love to look for loopholes, e.g. what about an AR-15 chambered for .22? I would say the test case is simply how dangerous is the weapon. Can it be used to kill many people very quickly? A AR-15 in 5.56 is far more dangerous that in .22. A semi-auto is more dangerous than a bolt action. A gun with a magazine of 30 bullets is more dangerous that one with 8. etc. etc. Not easy decisions, but a framework of danger to the community can be used to identify weapons that should have more restrictions.

I say this like I'm anti all control, and I don't mean to be. I have a concealed carry, even though I don't. I don't really have a problem with licensing, per se. The concealed carry saves with hassle if I take rifles to the range and they're in a bag and I have a hand gun in there or something. Plus, it just doesn't bother me. I just want to let you know, there are things to think about and A LOT of people who don't shoot and have never shot wouldn't think about. It's never just that simple.

Appreciate your thoughts.

I will say this about the car license argument... A car license is not a right. It isn't codified in the constitution as something we are guaranteed, like voting. That brings me to stories like this:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/getting-a...

I don't view car licenses and the right to own a firearm on the same fundamental level, neither do many/most Americans. It has to do with what we view as our fundamental rights vs. what other countries of the world view as their rights. We feel the same way about speech, which isn't the same in a lot of countries, for better or worse. Both of these fundamental rights and the viewpoints they bring do cut both ways in action and attitude. I can see that.

The majority of dissent in America in views on guns is the urban population vs. the rural population (this is actually the similar in Canada, if you look at the difference in views on hunting and gun ownership, just like in America - even though their gun violence is a fraction of ours).

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/07/10/rural-and-u...

A knife is a lethal weapon. And before you go into how much easier it is to kill someone with an AR15, remember that more people are killed with knives than AR15's.

>> Can that hunting rifle be an AR-15? No. Military assault rifles are not needed for hunting. You can use a bolt action rifle, or even a low powered semi-auto, .22.

I very much agree with with the paragraph before this one. However. This one is why many people just stop listening. The one's you are trying to persuade are gun owners, and this reads as though you did a quick google search for hunting guns and maybe shot a gun once at a range. (not saying thats how it is)

I'll try to unpack this. The statement is conflating looks, cartridge action/mechanism (bolt-action), semi-auto describes the bullet firing mechanism (the gun only fires one round per trigger pull - fully auto will continue to fire as long as the trigger is depressed), and caliber (.22) which is different from cartridge (ex .22LR)

Military assault rifles != AR-15 (I believe many people are confusing what a gun looks like and what it actually does)

> The U.S. Army defines assault rifles as "short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachine gun and rifle cartridges." [1]

Bolt-action describes a large range of guns. To be honest, I have always wanted a military sniper rifle, just don't have a use for it, except to maybe look pretty on the wall and target practice. Something like [2]

The .22. I love this gun. It is one of the best guns to learn on. It was the gun I learn to load, shoot, dismantle and clean when I was 4 y/o. It's extremely user friendly. I really hope you don't think a .22 should be used for hunting anything other than rabbits or the like. Anyone that shoots a .22 knows it wont leave big holes, but that you can still kill larger things - if you want to be cruel. The .22 is notorious for bouncing and ricocheting, including off bone and tearing up and shattering the insides. .22s are also easier to fire than larger calibers with a heavier recoil that greatly diminishes accuracy. An untrained shooter with be able to handle a .22 far more accurately, with a greater rate of fire, than the types of "AR-15" guns you are thinking of.

People are scared of large bullet-holes and think AR-15s look like it will leave large holes, so let's ban them. I think many people that actually shoot guns would pick being shot with a gun that quickly blows a large hole through them and it ends there - than by a .22 that will most likely not exit. Instead, it will ricochet shattering bones with the shards ripping through other organs as they slowly, painfully bleed to death from the inside, leaving surgeons helpless to fix that many problems in time.

For completeness, by saying you are okay with a low powered semi-auto .22 (such as a .22 Long Rifle), that is approving of:

American-80 submachine gun [3] Colt M4 .22LR [4]

There are many more AR-15 style gun in .22 caliber

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle#Definition

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remington_MSR

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American-180

[4] https://waltherarmsusa.com/walther-colt-m4-ops-22lr-carbine-...

Appreciate your thoughts and I will try and give my perspective, having been a responsible gun owner/user for many years.

> I'll try to unpack this. The statement is conflating looks, cartridge action/mechanism (bolt-action), semi-auto describes the bullet firing mechanism (the gun only fires one round per trigger pull - fully auto will continue to fire as long as the trigger is depressed), and caliber (.22) which is different from cartridge (ex .22LR) [..]

To stay away from legalistic arguments I agree and appreciate the problems of categorising firearms. I would say the test case is how dangerous is the weapon - can it be used to kill many people very quickly?

An AR-15 in 5.56 is far more dangerous than a .22.

A semi-auto is far more dangerous than a bolt action.

A gun with a magazine of 30 bullets is more dangerous that one with 8.

A semi-auto shotgun is somewhat more dangerous than a pump action which is far more dangerous than an over and under.

A pistol is far more dangerous than a rifle (can be concealed).

Agree these are not simple checkbox decisions, but a framework of danger to the community can be used to identify weapons that should have more restrictions.

> The .22. I love this gun. It is one of the best guns to learn on. It was the gun I learn to load, shoot, dismantle and clean when I was 4 y/o. It's extremely user friendly. I really hope you don't think a .22 should be used for hunting anything other than rabbits or the like.

Agreed, and yes .22 is not suitable for shooting anything too large. Above that you will need the right caliber, e.g. we use .308 often over here for pigs, deer etc. But if you need a semi-auto to hunt deer you are doing something wrong - a bolt action is enough.

> An untrained shooter with be able to handle a .22 far more accurately, with a greater rate of fire, than the types of "AR-15" guns you are thinking of.

It's hard to respond to this, you could be right? But if some deranged individual breaks into my place of work with a gun I personally would much rather they had a .22 than a .308 or 5.56. Overwhelming them with force with 2 or 3 people I feel would be far more feasible even if you take some bullets in the act.

> People are scared of large bullet-holes and think AR-15s look like it will leave large holes, so let's ban them. I think many people that actually shoot guns would pick being shot with a gun that quickly blows a large hole through them and it ends there - than by a .22 that will most likely not exit. Instead, it will ricochet shattering bones with the shards ripping through other organs as they slowly, painfully bleed to death from the inside, leaving surgeons helpless to fix that many problems in time.

I thinks it's uncontroversial that an AR-15 in 5.56 is far more deadly than one in .22.

> For completeness, by saying you are okay with a low powered semi-auto .22 (such as a .22 Long Rifle), that is approving of: American-80 submachine gun [3] Colt M4 .22LR [4]

Yes, that looks a zany and fun little weapon and personally I think it is OK and I would love to shoot one. I don't see any difference between any of the form factors for .22 semi-auto (unless it's very small and allows concealment).

>> But if some deranged individual breaks into my place of work with a gun I personally would much rather they had a .22 than a .308 or 5.56. Overwhelming them with force with 2 or 3 people I feel would be far more feasible even if you take some bullets in the act.

>> I thinks it's uncontroversial that an AR-15 in 5.56 is far more deadly than one in .22.

I am not so sure I would agree. Two reasons; splitting the assertion. One is that many of the people calling for AR-15 bans have no idea that there is a difference in bullet sizes, or if they have an idea that there is, they dont understand what it means and default to - AR-15 == bad.

The other is, I can fire off more round from a 22 rifle and 22 magnum faster with better accuracy than I can an AR-15 style rifle in 5.56 or a .45 (own most of the kinds of guns I talk about). If I slow down on the 5.56 or the 45, I have better accuracy. I have also been shooting for multiple decades, mostly against moving (mostly non-living things) and non-moving objects . Which leads into:

>> I would say the test case is how dangerous is the weapon - can it be used to kill many people very quickly?

Every time I read about these shooters, it is absolutely baffling me that they hit so few people. The only thing that makes sense is that they miss a lot - and from experience, I would guess it is because their anger makes them recklessly-wantonly firing off shoots from a gun they can not handle - put a 22 in their hands and I would bet my arsenal that they hit and kill more people. I would even put a 20g shotgun at being a better(worse) weapon than an 5.56 and maybe even tied with a 22 in terms of an untrained shooter hitting and killing their target. But not a 10g or 12g. Of course all of this changes depending on the shooters experience - and then the experienced shooters preference, but any gun in their hands will be more deadly.

I can not see a world where someone who just picked up a real gun will be able to hit more of their moving targets with something that kicks higher than a 22. I would rather take my chances of being a moving target they have trouble hitting over getting a 22 breaking apart inside of me. And if I get hit with a larger slug, I have a better chance of it exiting, cleanly killing me or worst case, being lodged inside but at least staying intact and having a chance to be patched up.

>> But if you need a semi-auto to hunt deer you are doing something wrong - a bolt action is enough.

Just for fun, I prefer the American classic lever-action 30-30. But growing up in the south where cowboy boots and hats are still an everyday thing, not a fashion statement - so I may be biased. Though you wont find me wearing either, I prefer urban areas most of the year and like to blend into the background.

I guess my point is focusing on guns will lead to nowhere, too many varying cases - but focusing on keeping guns away from violent and unstable people is a good place to find common ground. I am a huge advocate of gun safety and gun licenses (registries are another issue, and I don't like them because they can be abused too much for my taste. A licenses does not mean you have a gun, just that you can operate them safely, and I am all for that.) Too many people know nothing about guns for me to be okay with them broadly bans gun types without specifically.

How about this proposal – since the Gun Control Act of 1968, there has been a minimum age of 21 to buy handguns under US federal law, why not extend that to long guns as well? President Trump publicly proposed this in 2018 (after the Parkland shooting), but soon after dropped the idea under pressure from the NRA and other gun lobby groups. What is wrong with that proposal? It really seems like the NRA is just opposed to any stricter regulation whatsoever.

A lot of political polling is poor and conducted in isolation. People consistently support addressing climate change, for example. What will they pay to address climate change? Less than $10/month: https://www.cato.org/blog/68-americans-wouldnt-pay-10-month-.... Most people support Roe. Meanwhile, most people oppose legalized second trimester abortions, which is guaranteed by Roe. With respect to gun—what people support and what they trust democrats enough to work with them on are two different things.

A lot of issue polling is conducted by advocacy organizations and is useless. Pew and Gallup are some of the few organizations doing objective polling.

Actually, even companies like Pew and Gallup have serious problems with poll accuracy. Beyond the well known issues with wording sensitivity there's a pervasive problem that they know about, but which isn't widely known by the general public, who tend to assume that professionally done polls are unbiased and accurate. I wrote an article about this last year [1] explaining the problem and providing references.

The summary is as follows. The number of people who are willing to answer random phone calls by pollsters declined seriously over time to the point where almost all calls fail. As a consequence pollsters now rely heavily on panel polling, where people who are willing to answer polls are recorded and repeatedly re-polled over and over in return for trivial sums of money.

This has created an enormous and unfixable bias problem, called pro-social or volunteering bias. It's exactly what it sounds like - the sort of people who are now being regularly polled are drastically more likely to be volunteers than normal people. This can be measured by polling panels on how many of them volunteer for things in their community and then comparing the answers against census results [2]:

"While the level of voter registration is the same in the survey as in the Current Population Survey (75% among citizens in both surveys), the more difficult participatory act of contacting a public official to express one’s views is significantly overstated in the survey (31% vs. 10% in the Current Population Survey).

Similarly, the survey finds 55% saying that they did some type of volunteer work for or through an organization in the past year, compared with 27% who report doing this in the Current Population Survey."

This level of bias is extreme and unfortunately completely uncorrectable. It's inherent to polling the sort of people who are willing to regularly spend time filling out long forms in return for basically no compensation - you're getting a population of Ned Flanders style good neighbours who are, relatively speaking, obsessed with civic duty. That's why they're doing the polls - they think it's for the general good!

Making things worse, panels get more dominated by such types over time because less volunteering-oriented people drop out at a higher rate. Thus a panel that might start out somewhat representative will become less so over time, and they don't really have a good way to control for that or even measure it.

Pollsters argue that this doesn't matter for the types of polls they normally run (commercial/marketing surveys), and for elections and other votes where they have regular consistent reference points they can compute adjustment models. But it's an open secret in the polling community that any poll question that has a "pro-social" or "civic duty" component to the answers will get wildly disproportionate results to what the public actually thinks. And worse, such questions tend not to have any obvious reference points to which the results can be re-calibrated.

The political scientist being interviewed in the article probably either doesn't know about these problems, or doesn't care, because he seems very willing to 'correct' politicians about what 'the public' really believes. But he has no real way to know that. He can only know what the sort of public that is willing to spend time talking to political scientists believes, and there's good reason to think they're not really representative.

[1] https://dailysceptic.org/archive/do-online-opinion-polls-ove...

[2] https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2012/05/15/assessing-th...

This is an interesting analysis thank you.

> Are opinion polls actually representative of what public opinion is

Yes.

> and more importantly, how the public will vote?

No. And you touched on the key problem. It's impossible to poll how people will vote because voting differs in key ways:

- tribal (party affiliation) component

- secret

- different wording

- more fear of consequences (meaning that fear of "something going wrong" affects a vote but not a survey)

- lots of other things I haven't personally researched

So the key is for elected officials to figure out how to market a policy/candidate so it connects to the issue polled, and few of them are good at that.

There is also an art of making opinion polls say what you want them to say, e.g. by asking a biased question, sampling a demographic known to skew a certain way or using a method that largely may exclude certain demographics. (E.g. internet polling)

On top of that, there will be selection bias in what polls are published. If the poll you've paid for does not support your narrative, there is no reason to publish it.

Polls are therefore often skewed one way or another, and should probably only rarely be used as support for what the general population wants. At least when the margins are small. Especially if paid for by an organization with stakes in the question.

Don't forget:

- voter suppression[1]

It doesn't really matter what percentage of the public favors X, when people who might vote for X are systematically blocked, coerced, or dissuaded from voting. And when one party tends to benefit from low voter turn-out, as is the case in the USA, it should be no surprise when very popular politicians or proposals that poll well, fail due to voter suppression.

1: https://www.votingrightsalliance.org/forms-of-voter-suppress...

One party doesn’t consistently benefit from low turnout, not anymore. Trump won almost exactly half of new voters in 2020. Also, “voter suppression” is a myth, just like “voter fraud.” Isolated instances but studies consistently fail to show any material effect. (E.g. no effect from voter ID: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/2/21/18230009/v...)

> > Are opinion polls actually representative of what public opinion is

>Yes.

No.

According to "Yale Climate Opinion Maps 2018", 69% of people polled in washington state supported taxing fossil fuel companies. In the same year, a ballot initiative to enact carbon taxes failed 43% to 57%. Granted, they're not asking the same question, but it seems doubtful that 26% of people were for "taxing fossil fuel companies" but were against "pollution fees on sources of greenhouse gas pollutants ".

[1] https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/visualizations-data/yc...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Washington_Initiative_163...

That measure specifically exempted fossil fuels.

According to that wiki link [1]

> Others opposed the measure because section 9(c) specifically exempted "Fossil fuels directly or eventually supplied to a light and power business for purposes of generating electricity" from the carbon tax.[3] This meant that coal, gas, and diesel power plants would not directly be responsible for paying the carbon tax.

Also, midterms have a much lower voter turnout and in Washington it was 58.9% in 2018 vs 75.71% in 2020 [2]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Washington_Initiative_163...

[2] https://ballotpedia.org/Voter_turnout_in_United_States_elect...

> That measure specifically exempted fossil fuels.

This statement is highly misleading. Fossil fuels are exempted, but only for a limited number of circumstances. The wikipedia article you linked only mentions fossil fuels being used for electricity generation being exempted. Furthermore, you failed to quote the rest of the paragraph, which mentions fossil fuels make up a minor part of electricity generation in Washington.

"However the majority of electricity generation in Washington state is derived from renewable sources. [...] The same analysis further indicated that only 4% of Washington's energy comes from burning coal, [...] Natural gas currently accounts for only 10% of Washington's energy generation, according to the Washington Post analysis. "

>Also, midterms have a much lower voter turnout and in Washington it was 58.9% in 2018 vs 75.71% in 2020 [2]

Except that the 2018 ballot measure wasn't the first time Washington tried instituting a carbon tax. They tried 2 years before (not a mid-term year) and that failed even harder, 41% to 59%.

> The wikipedia article you linked...

It is YOUR wiki link, but with '#Opposition' at the end to move directly to that section of the article...

Edit to add:

> This statement is highly misleading.

Kinda like the post before that, you said:

>>> 69% of people polled in washington state supported taxing fossil fuel companies.

and

>>> but it seems doubtful that 26% of people were for "taxing fossil fuel companies" but were against "pollution fees on sources of greenhouse gas pollutants ".

The whole reason I read through that wiki You linked, was because this did not seem like the same thing, and a lot of people with only a quick reading (such as myself) who this issue is not their main focus is only going to see as loosely related, if that - If Im the 69% that wants to tax fossil fuels, and the ballet says taxes on "greenhouse gas" - Im not going to care or be very happy with the measure, because I agreed I want to tax "fossil fuels"

As for:

>> Except that the 2018 ballot measure wasn't the first time Washington tried instituting a carbon tax. They tried 2 years before (not a mid-term year) and that failed even harder, 41% to 59%.

I was responding to your post and that wasn't included - and it could just mean that as the years progress, people are getting more concerned..who knows

>If Im the 69% that wants to tax fossil fuels, and the ballet says taxes on "greenhouse gas" - Im not going to care or be very happy with the measure, because I agreed I want to tax "fossil fuels"

Again, I'm skeptical whether this distinction is responsible for a 26 percentage point drop in support. Fossil fuels make up the overwhelming majority of greenhouse gas emissions in washington state. Taxing greenhouse gasses is largely synonymous with taxing greenhouse gasses. Outside of a very small group whose livelihood involves non-fossil fuel greenhouse gas emissions (cow farmers?), I'm having a hard time imagining why you'd be against a greenhouse gas tax but would support a fossil fuel tax.

> I'm having a hard time imagining why you'd be against a greenhouse gas tax but would support a fossil fuel tax.

Where did I say that?

I was pointing out that choice of words matter. This isnt even about the tax, the original point was about if what people say in polls is real - you argued no and presented very shaky evidence - I was pointing out the flaw in it so you could refine your position or rethink it - what you choose is up to you - but thinking all 69% of the people who would want to tax “fossil fuels” and are also able to make that connection to “greenhouse gases” or not just really dislike fossils fuels for other reasons, I think may be too generous. Then add the people who dont think it goes far enough, plus the midterms and you have a not great argument.

Either way, I havent stated any actual opinion on the tax matter nor have I thought about in the discussion in any way other than to point out what was missing from your example about polling opinion - the words matter, and also voter turn out

The first two do not seem different for polling vs. voting in a referenda.

That's not really true because referenda usually become partisan. One of the parties is often the one initiating it and choosing the verbiage, which means it's often presented extremely misleadingly, too.

An explanation I've heard is while people might support an issue, as shown in polling, they don't feel very strongly about it compared to other issues. In that sense, many (most?) opinion polls are not predictive of voting in any significant sense.

I don't see why this would cause people to vote differently from their beliefs on a referendum on the exact issue. This seems like a generic reason why people might vote for politicians who support things differently than how they are polled, but not responsive to what I am saying.

You're right, I misinterpreted what you were saying, and the explanation I described does not address that.

I think the explanation here is that referendum is anonymous, while polls not so much. When questioned by the person doing the poll people tend to give answers that they think are expected from them (i.e. Politically Correct), at referendum they are free to vote according to their actual beliefs.

If you have an opinion on an issue but don't care strongly about it, you might be willing to answer when polled, but unwilling to actively participate in a referendum.

We’re assuming that public opinion influences policy.

The opinions of the top 10% of income earners correlates highly with the direction of US policy whereas the bottom 90% have very small influence. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli...

And yet the engineers and other PMCs who are definitely in the top 10% by income still conceive of themselves as part of an oppressed underclass with no influence on policy direction.

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say those who are in the top 10% by income/wealth in their state of residence.

Yes, yes, yes the Princeton study.

But I don't think I made any such assumption.

> …Are opinion polls actually representative of what public opinion is - and more importantly, how the public will vote?

> It seems that on a lot of hot button issues … opinion polls show considerable support for [positions] that simply do not manifest when there are actual referenda on the issue…

What an excellent question. There are a couple of issues.

One is what is measured by public opinion surveys. Let’s say I ask “should roe be overturned?” Two people who think that roe is fine but the threshold should be moved might respond differently (“no — we just need to move the threshold” “yes — and replace it with the same but a different threshold”). The survey people know this but it’s very hard.

Second, is that the voting options are never clear cut. A simple referendum can include the problem above; when voting for a candidate you may not find one with the same attitude as you on your most important question, or you may survey with the majority on three topics but find a minority position more important to you.

Maybe there is also possibility that the restrictions in the referenda are not the ones that they intended. At least this is my experience of many policies.

I think one issue with many polls is the polls themselves are biased. Because of that it is easy for someone to dismiss results they don't like.