Too good to be true or too absurd to believe?
by SSAA Research Team
Australian Shooters Journal
November 1997
For the first time we know how many firearms are in the community. Australians currently own approximately 2.5 million firearms. This is substantially less than figures quoted by both pro-gun groups and the anti-gun groups. Based on there being 2.5 million firearms, each Australian gun owner has in his or her possession approximately 2.1 firearms. (1)
This absurd statement is from a News Release issued by the Attorney-General's Department dated August 26th, 1997, with Attorney-General Daryl Williams echoing such sentiments the same day in Parliament. (2)
It now appears that to validate the poor hand-in rate for the gun confiscations dressed up as a "buyback", the Attorney-General's Department now officially underestimates the number of firearms and firearm owners in the country. How has it arrived at its conclusions?
Newspoll Market Research
The Attorney-General's
Department commissioned Newspoll Market Research to conduct the "Australian
Firearms' Buyback Tracking Study" in June-July, 1997, "to monitor the effectiveness
of the buyback in terms of compliance rates, consumers self-reported gun ownership
and attitudes to the gun laws." (3)
2,400 randomly chosen respondents aged over 18 were surveyed and asked questions relating to the new gun laws, the ownership and handing in of now-illegal firearms and the effectiveness of the national advertising campaign.
The survey also canvassed such questions as domestic responsibilities, other persons in the household, age, employment status, level of education attained, marital status, income levels and a range of other personal details.
Adherence to proper confidentiality procedures should ensure that a respondent's answers are not disclosed to the authorities; respondents, however, could be forgiven for wondering about the purpose of the extensive nature of the personal questions asked. Could it be to build some kind of profile of firearm owners?
The News Release claims that "for the first time (the research) gives a reading on just how many firearms there are in the Australian community. Until now, the Commonwealth has not had reliable data on which to calculate a national figure." (4)
Such a statement is extraordinary, given that the Commonwealth has easy access to Bureau of Statistics and Customs import figures that can give a clear breakdown of the number of firearms brought into this country. Rather than use these figures, the Attorney-General's Department has chosen to base its now official figure on a random survey of 2,400 people in the community. This is completely nonsensical and will obviously produce an under-reported figure of firearm ownership. Was it a move to validate the "buyback" and to further marginalise firearm owners in the community?
Rigorous Study or Polling
and Market Research?
The approach which the
Attorney-General's Department has used to conduct its research into firearm
numbers must be called into question.
Put simply, here is an example of what appears to have occurred. There are 18 million people in Australia. A randomly chosen group of 1,800 people (.01% of the population) who agree to participate are asked a series of questions, some of which may be personally incriminating. Of the questions put to them, 1,700 say yes and 100 say no. On this basis it is then officially concluded that, by extension, 17 million Australians agree and 1 million disagree. This then becomes the basis for determining whether government policy has been successful in achieving its aims.
If this is what the Australian Government calls detailed "research" providing a worthy basis for important policy decisions, then heaven help Australia. In an attempt to lend a veneer of credibility to the squandering of over $300 million of taxpayers' money, the government has now resorted to the shabby technique of phone polling to justify its enforcement of political correctness.
Such so-called "research" is nothing more than the use of unreliable telephone opinion polls to arrive at official underestimates of firearm numbers in the community.
The nature of the questions asked may almost guarantee that the results will be inaccurate. The results of the flawed opinion poll are then held up as official national statistics.
The Study
Questions asked in the
Newspoll "study" included the following: "Do you think you now might have
a gun which has become illegal under the new gun laws?" (5) and "If you owned a gun which has become illegal would you say you personally
would be likely or not likely to hand in the gun which has become illegal?". (6) This is akin to asking
if the respondent is a criminal or intends to be one.
Could respondents in fact be reliably expected to answer honestly a collection of intrusive questions such as these? The answer is obviously not. Research into this type of questioning indicates that the dishonesty rate can be from 30-50%.
Not surprisingly, respondents will not generally incriminate themselves. They prefer to provide answers pleasing to the interviewer and will not confess to behaviour which is thought to be disapproved of. The likelihood of respondents admitting to a stranger over the phone that they are in possession of an illegal firearm (or an illegal anything) is particularly low. The Newspoll "study" provides nothing more than a loose aggregation of not necessarily truthful answers.
Other questions included: "Do you think that the person in your household who owns a gun might now have a gun which has become illegal under the new gun laws?" (7) and "Would you say that the person in your household who owns a gun is likely or not likely to hand in a gun which has become illegal?". (8)
This is also asking people to report others. Australians are traditionally loath to do this, so more misleading figures are likely. The concept of "dobbing in" to the authorities other people for perceived wrongdoing is now being actively encouraged by governments and has very worrying implications. The concept is likely to be employed extensively in attempts to seize any now-prohibited firearms that have not been voluntarily surrendered.
Reporting of others, of course, is also being used by some in a malicious and vexatious manner to cause problems for people whom the informer may happen to have a grudge against. Few States or Territories provide any legislative protections for people wronged by such actions.
Additional survey questions include: "....Could you please tell me how many different guns or firearms you still personally own?" (9) and "Are you the person in the household who is responsible for doing the weekly food shopping?". (10) Such intrusive questions about the possession of private property are not likely to produce accurate responses, and questions about domestic responsibilities are apparently irrelevant.
The survey also found that "Although the number of 'compliers' is growing, the size of the gun owning population is not decreasing commensurately" (11)
This means that according to the survey, whilst half a million guns have been handed in, this has not removed people from the activity of shooting. As the "study" notes, this is because:
- Many shooters own more than one firearm;
- One in five have replaced a firearm which was handed in with a new one.;
- Some have only handed in some of their illegal firearms and have kept others.
The "study" in its executive summary expressed some doubt "that gun owners are fully aware of what is legal and what is not", and also whether "survey respondents have been completely honest". Newspoll acknowledges the shortcomings of its own study, yet subsequently seems to overlook the importance of these very weaknesses.
The survey also finds that "the vast majority of owners claim that they would be likely to hand in an illegal gun if they did own one". (12) If a total stranger doing a survey on the government's behalf telephoned and asked whether the household contained an illegal gun and would be surrendering it, what will the householder most likely say?
Even so, in the face of this some respondents still said no, they would not be handing in their illegal firearm.
Is this in some way indicative of the level of disquiet amongst gun owners?
"Total awareness of the new laws is virtually universal with 96% of people aware of the new laws", (13) says the government's News Release. What it fails to mention, however, is that the Newspoll study states that while 96% might know that the laws exist, as few as 54% actually understand the details of those laws.
The experience of many firearm owners is that even the police do not understand the new laws. Again, the information provided by the Attorney-General's Department fails to tell the whole story.
Taken for a Ride
Are Australians being told
the whole truth? The survey notes that there is a softening in attitudes towards
the new laws from gun owners. It suggests that support is up from 42% to 53%,
that belief in the new laws being too strict is down from 53% to 45% and the
perception of the laws being about right is up from 30% to 40%. (14) Again, it must be wondered how these figures are determined, as they certainly
do not reflect the evidence available to the SSAA research team.
Perhaps the most unsubstantiated comment of all is that "44% of gun owners still oppose the concept of gun restrictions". (15) Such a conclusion could not have been drawn from the questions asked in the survey. Indeed, most firearm owners believe in the fair and just regulation of firearm ownership. The body of the study actually says that "4 in 10 gun owners are still opposed to the new laws". (16) This is not the same as saying that 44% of gun owners still oppose the concept of gun restrictions.
The Government is clearly setting the scene for low estimates to be provided to the public so that a false impression of the success of the "buyback" can be created. Additionally, the Government use of the poll results would appear to be designed to minimise the apparent popularity of shooting and the numbers of people who take part in the sport.
The August 26th News Release says that the scheme "has successfully removed the bulk of now prohibited firearms from the Australian community and fundamentally changed community attitudes towards dangerous firearms". (17) On the basis of polling 2,400 Australians, such a conclusion cannot possibly be drawn.
In addition, not only is the same old furphy that some firearms are more dangerous than others still being peddled, but the statement also claims that there has been a fundamental change in the community's attitude. Those who have lost guns do not need to be told how ridiculous this is; some aspects of Australia's culture will not be so easily manipulated.
The government, of course, believes it can be made to look good if the "research shows that there are substantially fewer firearms than the 4 to 10 million predicted by some opponents to the new laws". (18)
By minimising the supposed number of firearms in the community, the purported success of the "buyback" can be maximised. It is amazing that such grand and convenient conclusions can be extrapolated from such flawed sources.
Ought governments commission studies that are likely to produce artificially low figures and therefore produce official underestimates, which will then create the impression that their flawed policies and practices are successful? Clearly not.
What You Can Do
Firearm owners
across Australia are facing their gravest threat ever. The need for continuing
action is clear. If after visiting or writing to your local Members of Parliament
you feel brushed off, don't be discouraged; keep on doing it. It is essential
we make our views known. As you continue to visit and write to politicians,
make sure you also provide them with a copy of the Special Edition Insert
from the September ASJ if you have not already done so. Additional free copies
of the Insert are available from the SSAA National Office, PO Box 762, Kent
Town, SA 5071; the fax is
08 8272 2945.
1. Attorney-General's Department, Australian Firearms Buyback Public Education
Campaign, Newspoll Research Results June/July, 1997, Summary of findings,
26/8/97, p2.
2. Hansard (Draft), House Of Representatives, Questions Without Notice, Firearms
Reforms, 26/8/97.
3. Newspoll Research Results June/July, 1997, p1.
4. Ibid, p1.
5. Newspoll Market Research, Australian Firearms' Buyback Tracking Study - Phase
Two Advertising - June-July 1997, Questionnaire, Question No. Y7(a).
6. Ibid, Question No. Y6.
7. Ibid, Question No. Y7(d).
8. Ibid, Question No. Y8(a).
9. Ibid, Question No. Y14.
10. Ibid, Demographics, Question No. 3.
11. Newspoll, Tracking Study, June-July 1997, p10.
12. Ibid, p11.
13. Attorney-General's Department, Thanks To Participants In Firearms Buyback,
26/8/97, p2
14. Newspoll, Tracking Study, June-July 1997 p11.
15. Ibid, p11.
16. Ibid, p25.
17. Thanks To Participants In Firearms Buyback, 26/8/97, p1
18. Ibid, p1
Home > Research archive > 1997 > Too good to be true or too absurd to believe?