National Poll Report for IOG Sept 2014

NATIONAL POLL REPORT 

THE POLLING CENTER 

THE INSTITUTE OF GOVERNMENT 

JACKSON STATE UNIVERSITY 

September 2014 

Institute of Government Polling Center

Statement of Confidentiality and Ownership 

All of the analyses, findings and recommendations contained within this report are the 

exclusive property of the Institute of Government at Jackson State University. 

As required by the Code of Ethics of the National Council on Public Polls and the United 

States Privacy Act of 1974, The Institute of Government Polling Center maintains the 

anonymity of respondents to surveys the Center conducts. No information will be released 

that might, in any way, reveal the identity of the respondent. 

Moreover, no information regarding these findings will be released without the written 

consent of an authorized representative of Institute of Government. 

Institute of Government Polling Center Page 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1 

SECTION 

Introduction .............................................................................................................................. Page 4 

2 

SECTION 

Methodology ............................................................................................................................. Page 5 

3 

SECTION 

Highlights ................................................................................................................................... Page 7 

4 

SECTION 

Summary of Findings ........................................................................................................... Page 15 

Law Enforcement ................................................ 15 

Gun Control / Ownership ................................. 22 

Identification ........................................................ 26 

Demographics ...................................................... 29 

5 

SECTION 

Appendix .................................................................................................................................. Page 31 

Survey Instrument 

Composite Aggregate Data 

Cross Tabulations of Data 


1 

INTRODUCTION 

The Polling Center at the Institute of Government is pleased to present the results of a 

national poll of Americans. 

The poll was designed to assess public views regarding law enforcement, gun control and 

ownership and uses for identification such as voting and employment. 

The research study included survey responses from 900 respondents nationally 

approximately proportional to state population contribution. 

The national poll included the following areas for investigation: 

‣ Views on safety in respondent communities; 

‣ Perceptions of the job police and police departments are doing; 

‣ Support / opposition to specific policing strategies; 

‣ Trust and confidence held in police and the judicial system; 

‣ Views on gun control; 

‣ History and reasons for ownership of firearms; 

‣ Support / opposition to gun controls; 

‣ Policy views regarding gun ownership and use; 

‣ Opinions on identification requirements; 

‣ Views on voter identification; 

‣ General trust in identification reliability; and 

‣ Demographics. 

Section II of this report discusses the Methodology used in the study, while Section III 

includes Highlights derived from an analysis of the quantitative research. Section IV is a 

Summary of Findings from the online survey. 

Section V is an Appendix to the report containing the composite aggregate data, cross 

tabulations and the survey instrument employed. 


2 

METHODOLOGY 

Using a quantitative research design, the Center completed 900 online surveys nationally. 

Survey design input was provided by the membership of the Polling Center’s Oversight 

Committee – a subcommittee of the Institute of Government at Jackson State University. 

Survey design is a careful, deliberative process to ensure fair, objective and balanced surveys. 

Staff members, with years of survey design experience, edit out any bias. Further, all scales 

used by the Center (either numeric, such as one through ten, or wording such as strongly 

agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly agree) are balanced evenly. 

Additionally, placement of questions is carefully accomplished so that order has minimal 

impact. 

This survey was conducted September 1 – 9, 2014. 

Respondents qualified for the survey if they were a resident of the United States and 18 years 

of age or older. Responses were approximately proportional to each state’s population. 

All facets of the study were completed by the Polling Center’s senior staff and researchers. 

These aspects include: survey design, pre-test, computer programming, fielding, coding, 

editing, verification, validation and logic checks, computer analysis, analysis, and report 

writing. 

Statistically, a sample of 900 completed surveys has an associated margin for error of 

+/- 3.5% at a 95% confidence level. 

Results throughout this report are presented for composite results – all 900 cases. Many 

tables and graphs will also hold results among respondents from the South (Alabama, 

Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee and 

Virginia). 

Readers of this report should note that any survey is analogous to a snapshot in time and 

results are only reflective of the time period in which the survey was undertaken. Should 

concerted public relations or information campaigns be undertaken during or shortly after 

the fielding of the survey, the results contained herein may be expected to change and 

should be, therefore, carefully interpreted and extrapolated. 


Furthermore, it is important to note that all surveys contain some component of “sampling 

error”. Error that is attributable to systematic bias has been significantly reduced by utilizing 

strict random probability procedures. This sample was strictly random in that selection of 

each potential respondent was an independent event based on known probabilities. 

Each qualified online panel member within the United States had an equal chance for 

participating in the study. Statistical random error, however, can never be eliminated but 

may be significantly reduced by increasing sample size. 


3 

HIGHLIGHTS 

ON LAW ENFORCEMENT… 

‣ Most Americans, 98.1%, report feeling very or somewhat safe in their own 

neighborhoods during the day. Fewer suggested the same for their own 

neighborhoods at night, their community’s downtown areas during the day, 

and their own neighborhood’s downtown areas at night – 91.6%, 91.2% and 

71.2% respectively. 

‣ Just over one-third of those surveyed, 35.6%, could report knowing a police 

officer. Further, 41.2% indicated they’ve had interactions with officers for 

reasons other than law enforcement issues or problems. 

‣ Ratings of local police departments, community police officers and state 

police were only fair – 72.8%, 73.1% and 72.2% respectively. Most service 

organizations strive to attain satisfaction ratings in the high eighties and low 

nineties. Worse, just 50.1% of those surveyed provided positive ratings for 

TSA officers at airports. In each case, “don’t know” respondents were 

removed from the data. 

‣ There exists strong support for a number of policing strategies such as foot 

patrols and community policing with substations – 91.6% and 86.3% 

respectively. There is more moderate, but majority, support for “stop and 

frisk” - allowing officers to stop suspicious individuals to check for weapons 

or drugs without a warrant (61.8%) and for police departments accepting used 

military weapons and equipment (58.6%). 

‣ Trust and confidence in police officers, police departments and the judicial 

system is only fair. Just two-thirds of Americans surveyed, 67.8% reported 

strong trust in police officers while 66.0% held strong trust in police 

departments and a slim majority, 55.6%, could say they have strong trust in 

the judicial system of courts, prosecutors, and judges. 


‣ Nearly one-in five of those surveyed, 17.1%, indicated they have experienced 

verbal abuse, condescending remarks, or intimidation by police officers. 

Further, 15.1% suggested they had been profiled or believed they were 

stopped by officers because they “appeared” suspicious. 

‣ While offering only moderate satisfaction ratings for police, 60.9% indicated 

they would be willing to pay more in taxes to increase pay in order to attract 

quality officers. 

‣ Unfortunately, 34.3% suggested they “do all that they can to avoid police 

officers” while another 11.4% said they have taught children to avoid police 

officers. 

‣ Just short of one-half of all respondents, 47.6%, agreed with a statement that 

read: “Based on all that I know or have heard, African-Americans are 

justified when they report fearing the police.” When “don’t know” 

respondents are removed from the data, this percentage moves to 52.6%. 

ON GUN CONTROL / OWNERSHIP… 

‣ Over one-quarter of Americans surveyed, 26.8%, reported owning a firearm 

such as hand guns, rifles, assault weapons and shot guns. 

‣ Of this group of owners, three-quarters (78.1%) have participated in training 

in the use of or the safe use of the firearms owned. 

‣ Owned firearms were reported to be stored in a safe, kept individually locked 

and kept unloaded – 37.6%, 48.3% and 65.3% respectively. 

‣ The primary reasons for owning or “someday owning” a firearm included (in 

declining order) personal and family protection in the home, personal and 

family protection when away from home, hunting, sporting, slow police 

response time, wild animals, collect firearms, and jealous former 

boy/girlfriends/spouses. 

‣ While 7.2% of those surveyed believed there should be no regulations or 

controls for any reason on firearms, 79.0% suggested they can see some 

limited licensing or permitting and some restrictions on certain arms such as 

assault weapons. Another 7.2% believe firearms should not be privately 

owned. 


‣ There exists varying levels of agreement (strongly and somewhat) on a 

number of firearm related issues…. 

Having the right to use a firearm in my own home against an intruder – 

88.7% 

Allowing active duty military members to carry arms on their own bases – 

70.0% 

Having a right to use a firearm in public if I fear for my own life – 61.9% 

The government is encroaching on 2 nd Amendment rights to carry and 

own arms – 49.3% 

Feeling safer when with others who are carrying firearms in public – 34.6% 

Allowing teachers and administrators in public schools to carry arms – 

33.1% 

That tensions in places like Ferguson, Missouri would be lessened by 

more gun controls – 28.7% 

Feeling safer when carrying a firearm in public - 27.4% 

Sellers and manufacturers of firearms should be held responsible for 

deaths caused – 23.1% 

ON IDENTIFICATION… 

‣ Surveyed Americans were asked to report when an identification requirement 

would be a reasonable request. In rotating and random order, respondents 

indicated which of 30 instances a request for identification would be 

considered reasonable. 

‣ Identification requests were considered most reasonable for obtaining a 

passport (95.7%), applying for a loan (91.1%), opening a bank account 

(90.3%), buying a gun (89.8%), applying for food stamps (87.0%, and applying 

for welfare (86.3%). 


‣ A strong majority, 81.4%, considered an identification requirement for voting 

was reasonable. 

‣ Instances where an identification requirement was seen as least reasonable 

included: buying an M-rated video (40.3%), wearing ID at work (38.8%), 

adopting a pet (32.3%) and holding a protest or rally (21.8%). 

‣ In a follow-up question specific to voting, a large majority (80.3%) indicated 

they strongly (58.9%) or somewhat (21.3%) supported a voter identification 

requirement. 

‣ Under one-quarter said taxpayer dollars should be used to pay for 

transportation and childcare to help those without secure government 

identification. 

‣ Just over one-half of Americans surveyed, 51.8% indicated they believed that 

voter fraud in the country is either very serious (18.6%) or somewhat serious 

(33.2%). 

‣ Under half of all those surveyed, 47.2%, trusted the reliability of today’s 

identification measures given counterfeiting that occurs. 

ON CROSS TABULATIONS… 

Cross tabulations of data provide a view of the issues covered within the survey (core 

questions) by the various demographics collected such as age, race, ethnicity, 

education, rural/suburban/urban, gender, with/without children, marital status, 

income and political party inclination. Readers are encouraged to review the nine 

crosstab tables held within the appendix to this report. The following are some 

observations based on a review of these cross tabulations. 

Age 

Generally, younger respondents (18-39) feel less safe in their neighborhoods and 

communities during both day and night than their older peers. 

Younger respondents are significantly less likely to provide positive ratings (57.4%) 

for local police than those 40-64 years of age (73.0%) and those 65+ (80.9%). The 

same holds true for community police departments, the State Police and TSA. 


Younger respondents are significantly less supportive (46.4%) than 40-64 and 65+ 

peers of “Stop and Frisk” – 62.4% and 70.9% respectively. Younger respondents are 

similarly less supportive of other policing strategies such as community policing, 

foot patrols and providing local police departments with used military weaponry. 

Older respondents, 65+, are nearly twice as likely to report trusting their local police, 

police departments and the judicial system as those 18-39 years of age. 

Younger respondents are three and four times as likely to report being verbally 

abused and profiled by police than those 65+ and significantly more likely than those 

aged 40-64. 

Those 40-64 and 65+ were significantly more likely, 84.6% and 81.4% respectively, to 

suggest they supported voter ID laws than younger (18-39) respondents at 70.5%. 

Race/Ethnicity 

Hispanics (61.4%) were less likely to report feeling safe downtown at night than 

either whites (73.4%) or African-Americans (71.1%). 

Whites were more likely (38.4%) to report knowing a police officer than African- 

American respondents (29.8%). 

On rating local police, community police departments, the State Police, and TSA, 

African-Americans provided significantly lower positive ratings than whites or 

Hispanics surveyed. On rating local police, the positive ratings among Hispanics, 

whites and African-Americans was 65.6%, 79.3% and 49.0% respectively, for example. 

While “Stop and Frisk” was supported by 68.1% of whites surveyed, just 36.8% of 

African-Americans supported the same. Among Hispanics the percent was 56.4%. 

Further, African-Americans were much less likely to support (38.6%) the transfer of 

used military weapons to local police departments than whites (63.6%) or Hispanics 

(55.7%). 

Trust, overall, for officers, police departments and the judicial system was 

significantly stronger among whites and Hispanics than African-Americans. For the 

judicial system, trust was recorded for Hispanics, whites and African-Americans at 

48.6%, 61.9%, and 38.6% respectively. Even on a composite level (55.6%) trust in the 

judicial system in the U.S. would be considered poor. 


African-American respondents were significantly more likely to indicate they tend to 

avoid police and teach children to avoid police than their white or Hispanic 

neighbors. Those Hispanics, whites and African-Americans who reported teaching 

their children to avoid police was 14.3%, 7.2% and 29.8% respectively. 

Hispanics were most opposed (10.0%) to any form of gun control compared to whites 

at 8.2% and 0.0% among African-Americans. 

Rural/Suburban/Urban 

Rural respondents were significantly more likely (81.5%) to report feeling safe in their 

community’s downtown area at night than suburban and urban respondents – 72.8% 

and 62.1% respectively. 

Rural resident respondents were twice as likely (52.6%) than urban resident 

respondents (28.1%) to report knowing a police officer. 

Ratings for local police, police departments, State Police and TSA were significantly 

higher among rural respondents and suburban respondents than urban respondents. 

“Stop and Frisk” was support more strongly by rural and suburban respondents – 

65.3% and 62.1% respectively than urban respondents (56.3%). 

Reports of being profiled by police was more frequent among urban respondents 

(23.2%) than rural respondents (15.0%) or suburban respondents (11.4%). 

Firearm ownership was 41.6% among rural respondents while at 26.6% and 17.0% 

among suburban and urban respondents respectively. 

Rural resident respondents were significantly more likely (15.0%) to oppose any form 

of gun control compared to their suburban and urban peers at 5.1% and 6.3% 

respectively. 


Party Affiliation or Inclination 

Republicans provided significantly higher positive ratings for law enforcement than 

their Democratic and unaffiliated neighbors. 

Republicans were more likely to know a police officer (43.0%) than Democrats 

(31.7%). 

Trust in police officers, departments, and the judicial system was significantly higher 

among Republicans than Democrats and those unaffiliated. For example, trust in 

local police departments among Republicans was 83.8% while at 59.0% among 

Democrats and 50.1% among unaffiliated voters. 

Firearm ownership was higher among Republicans (34.6%) and unaffiliated (30.8%) 

than Democrats (18.3%). 

Republicans were significantly more likely (96.9%) to support voter ID laws than 

Democrats (70.1%) and unaffiliated voters (80.6%). 

Further, Democrats (37.1%) were less likely to describe voter fraud as a serious 

problem in the U.S. than either Republicans (73.2%) or unaffiliated voters (50.7%). 

Income Levels 

Lower income respondents (under $40K annual) are significantly less likely to report 

feeling safe in their communities at night than higher income peers. 

This lower income group is significantly less likely to know a police officer or report 

having exchanges with police that are not related to enforcement issues. While 

26.9% of lower income respondents reported knowing an officer, 38.4% of those 

earning 40K to 130K and 39.5% of those earning over 130K reported the same. 

Trust for police officers, trust in police departments and trust in the judicial system is 

about 20.0% lower among lower income respondents that those in income categories 

above 40K annually. 


Gender 

Males are more likely to be willing to pay more in taxes to support the hiring of more 

qualified police officers than females – 64.1% to 57.9%. 

Males were more than twice as likely, 38.0% to 16.7%, to report owning a firearm 

than females. 

Males were more likely to provide higher trust level ratings for local police 

departments (71.1%) than females (61.3%). 


4 

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 

Readers are reminded that the narrative throughout this report refers to composite aggregate 

data – the 900 completed surveys. Tables throughout present national results while many 

graphs also present results southern states – Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, 

Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia. 

LAW ENFORCEMENT 

Community 

All respondents were asked to think for a moment about how safe they personally felt in a 

number of community settings or locations. For each, respondents were asked if they felt 

very safe, somewhat safe, somewhat unsafe or not at all safe. 

A large majority, 98.1%, suggested they felt safe in their own neighborhoods during the 

day while fewer, 71.2%, indicated the same in their community’s downtown at night. 

The following graph and table present the results as collected. 

Feeling Very or Somewhat Safe 

98.1 

97.7 

91.6 

91.7 

91.2 

88.7 

71.2 

72.9 

NEIGHBORHOOD DURING 

THE DAY 

NEIGHBORHOOD DURING 

THE NIGHT 

COMMUNITY'S 

DOWNTOWN AT NIGHT 

COMMUNITY'S 

DOWNTOWN DURING THE 

DAY 

USA 

South 


Characteristic 

Very 

Safe 

Somewhat 

Safe 

Somewhat 

Unsafe 

Not at 

all 

Safe 

Unsure 

In your neighborhood during the 78.2 19.9 1.3 0.1 0.4 

day 

In your neighborhood at night 54.6 37.0 6.6 1.2 0.7 

Downtown in your community at 25.2 46.0 17.9 7.2 3.7 

night 

Downtown in your community 

during the day 

54.8 36.4 6.0 1.1 1.7 

All respondents were asked if they knew a police officer in their own community or had 

an interaction with police officers for other than law enforcement issues or problems. 

Over one-third, 35.6%, reported knowing a community police officer. Results are 

presented here. 

Know or Interact with Officers? 

41.2 

45.1 

35.6 

35.3 

KNOW A POLICE OFFICER 

INTERACTION WITH OFFICERS 

Yes / US 

Yes / South 

Interactions with Officers Yes No Unsure 

Know a police officer 35.6 62.3 2.1 

Have had interactions or conversations with 

police officers other than on law 

enforcement issues/problems/offenses 

41.2 57.8 1.0 


Ratings 

Law enforcement organizations were rated by respondents on quality and professionalism 

using a scale of one to ten where one was very good and ten is very poor. 

Most service organizations and businesses in the United States strive to attain and 

maintain satisfaction ratings in the high eighties or low nineties. Only “fair” ratings were 

provided by Americans surveyed for their community police officers (73.1%). 

The following graph presents the cumulative total positive ratings of one through four on 

the ten point scale. “Don’t know” respondents were removed from the data. 

Positive Ratings of Law Enforcement 

72.8 73.1 72.2 

65 64.8 64.1 

50.1 

39.3 

LOCAL POLICE 

DEPARTMENT 

COMMUNITY POLICE 

OFFICERS 

STATE POLICE 

TSA OFFICERS AT AIRPORTS 

USA 

South 

Rating Police and 

Police Departments: 

Positive Ratings of 

1-4 

My local police 

department overall 

The police officers in 

my community 

USA: 

Positive 

Rating 

with DK 

USA: 

Positive 

Rating 

w/o DK 

South: 

Positive 

Rating 

with DK 

South: 

Positive 

Rating 

w/o DK 

68.6 72.8 61.7 65.0 

68.2 73.1 60.9 64.8 

State Police officers 60.9 72.2 56.4 64.1 

TSA officers at 

41.0 50.1 31.6 39.3 

airports 


Strategies 

Respondents were presented with a number of policing strategies that have been used, to 

varied degrees, by police departments over time. Respondents were asked to indicate if 

they strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose each 

policing strategy. The following graph depicts the cumulative totals for those strongly 

and somewhat supporting these initiatives or strategies. 

Support for Policing Strategies 

86.3 

82 

91.6 

88 

61.8 

58.6 

58.6 

54.9 

"STOP & FRISK" 

COMMUITY POLICING 

WITH SUBSTATIONS 

FOOT PATROLS 

ACCEPTING USED 

MILITARY 

WEAPONS/EQUIPMENT 

USA 

South 

USA: Support/Opposition to 

Policing Strategies 

“Stop and Frisk” – allowing 

officers to stop suspicious 

individuals to check for 

weapons or drugs without a 

warrant 

Community policing including 

substations housed within 

communities 

Foot patrols by police officers 

in the communities they serve 

Accepting used military 

weapons and equipment 

provided to police departments 

for municipal use as needed 

Strongly 

Support 

Somewhat 

Support 

Somewhat 

Oppose 

Strongly 

Oppose 

Unsure 

26.0 35.8 17.4 15.9 4.9 

52.4 33.9 4.4 2.4 6.8 

64.2 27.3 3.7 1.1 3.7 

26.3 32.3 18.4 13.0 10.0 


Trust and Confidence 

Survey participants were asked to think for a moment about their own trust and 

confidence in police officers, police departments, and the judicial system. Each was 

asked to rate their trust that they would be treated in a fair, impartial and objective 

manner if involved with law enforcement. Each used a scale of one to ten where one 

meant they had strong trust and confidence and ten meant they held no trust or 

confidence. 

Two-thirds could report “trust and confidence” in their police officers or their 

departments – 67.8% and 66.0% respectively. 

The following graph and tables present the cumulative totals for ratings of 1 – 4 (strong 

trust) and 7-10 (little to no trust). 

Trust and Confidence 

67.8 

66 

59.4 60.2 

55.6 

48.1 

13 13.6 13.7 

15.1 

19.2 

24.1 

TRUST IN POLICE OFFICERS TRUST IN POLICE DEPARTMENTS TRUST IN THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM 

USA: Strong Trust USA: Little/No Trust South: Strong Trust South: Little/No Trust 

USA: Trust and Confidence 

in… 

Strong Trust Little to No Trust 

at All 

Trust in police officers 67.8 13.0 

Trust in police departments 66.0 13.7 

Trust in the judicial system 

including courts, prosecutors, and 

judges 

55.6 19.2 


Experiences 

Respondents were questioned about any verbal abuse or profiling they feel they have 

experienced. 

Nearly two out of ten Americans surveyed, 17.1%, suggested they have experienced 

verbal abuse, condescending remarks or intimidation by officers. Another 15.1% 

suggested they believe they were profiled as suspicious in a stop. 

The following graph presents the results as collected. 

Experiences with Law Enforcement 

22.6 23.3 

17.1 

15.1 

VERBAL ABUSE, CONDESCENSION, 

INTIMIDATION 

PROFILED BECAUSE OF APPEARANCE 

USA 

South 

Experiences with Police Officers USA: Yes USA: No USA: Unsure 

Verbal abuse, condescending remarks or 17.1 80.1 2.8 

intimidation by the officer(s) 

Profiled or you believe you were stopped 

because you “appeared” suspicious to the 

officer(s) 

15.1 80.3 4.6 


Issue Statements 

The survey included some questions on issues surrounding police and policing. 

A number of statements about police and policing were created. For each, respondents 

were asked if they strongly agreed, somewhat agreed, somewhat disagreed or strongly 

disagreed. 

Nearly two-thirds of all Americans, 60.9%, suggested they would be willing to pay more 

in taxes in order to increase pay and attract quality police officers. And, just under half, 

47.6%, indicated African-Americans are justified when they report fearing the police. 

When “don’t know” respondents are removed from the data, this percent moves to 

52.6%. 

The follow graph presents the results as collected. 

Strongly & Somewhat Agree 

60.9 

55.6 

34.3 

41.4 

47.6 

46.6 

11.4 

13.5 

WILLING TO PAY MORE 

TAXES TO ATTRACT QUALITY 

OFFICERS 

I DO ALL THAT I CAN TO 

AVOID POLICE OFFICERS 

I HAVE TAUGHT CHILDREN 

TO AVOID POLICE OFFICERS 

AFRICAN AMERICANS ARE 

JUSTIFIED FEARING POLICE 

USA 

South 


Statements 

I would be willing to pay more 

in taxes to increase police pay 

to attract quality officers 

I do all that I can to avoid police 

officers 

I have taught children or my 

own children to avoid police 

officers 

Based on all I know or have 

heard, African-Americans are 

justified when they report 

fearing the police 

Strongly 

Agree 

Somewhat 

Agree 

Somewhat 

Disagree 

Strongly 

Disagree 

Unsure 

or N/A 

15.6 45.3 19.0 13.6 6.6 

12.3 220 26.6 34.8 4.3 

4.9 6.6 17.9 54.4 16.2 

16.6 31.0 24.1 18.7 9.7 

GUN CONTROL / OWNERSHIP 

History of Ownership 

In the next survey section, researchers collected current views of Americans on issues related 

to gun / firearm controls and ownership. 

Just over one-quarter of Americans surveyed, 26.8%, indicated they own a hand gun(s), 

rifle(s), assault weapon(s), or shot gun(s). Another 70.2% (59.4% among Southern state 

respondents) suggested they do not. Results are presented here. Multiple responses were 

accepted. 

Type of Firearms Owned 

70.2 

59.4 

30.8 

21.1 

21.1 

15.2 [VALUE] [VALUE] 

13.7 

16.5 

HAND GUN(S) RIFLES(S) ASSAULT WEAPON(S) SHOT GUN(S) OWN NONE 

USA South 


Over three-quarters of Americans who own firearms, 78.1% (77.6% in the South), suggested 

they have participated in training in the use of or safe use of firearms owned. Results are 

presented here. 

Participate in Training Among Owners? 

61.6 

63.3 

21.9 

22.4 

9.5 10.2 [VALUE] 

7 

YES, IN THE USE OF YES, IN THE SAFE USE OF YES, IN BOTH USE AND 

SAFE USE 

NO 

USA 

South 

Status of Firearms 

Survey respondents, who owned firearms, were asked how they are stored when not 

being used. Two-thirds, 65.3%, suggested they were unloaded when stored. However, 

just 48.3% indicated the arms are locked. The following depicts the results collected. 

How firearms are stored USA: Yes South: Yes 

In a safe 37.6 36.7 

The firearms are locked 48.3 44.9 

Firearms are kept unloaded 65.3 57.1 


Reasons for Ownership 

All respondents were asked for reasons they own or might own a firearm someday. The 

largest percent, 52.9%, indicated they own or would own for personal or family 

protection in the home. Among southern state respondents, this percent was 67.7%. The 

following table presents the results collected. Results are presented in declining order by 

USA data. 

Reasons for Ownership USA South 

Personal and family protection in the home 52.9 67.7 

Personal and family protection when away from home 22.7 36.8 

Hunting 18.2 18.0 

Police response in my area may be slow 12.2 21.8 

It’s a sport 10.4 6.8 

Wild animals in my area 10.4 12.8 

I collect firearms 5.2 9.0 

Jealous former boyfriends/girlfriends/spouses 0.8 0.8 

Would not own a firearm 37.8 24.8 

Support / Oppose Gun Controls 

On gun control, respondents were asked to think for a moment about their own position 

and beliefs about gun control – a controversial topic in this country. Each was asked 

which one of three options best reflected their own personal position on gun control. A 

large majority, 79.0%, indicated they could see some limited licensing, permitting or 

restrictions on certain arms such as assault weapons. 

Position on Gun Controls 

UNSURE 

FIREARMS SHOULD NOT BE PRIVATELY OWNED 

[VALUE] 

[VALUE] 

[VALUE] 

9.3 

PERHAPS SOME 

LICENSING/PERMITTING/RESTRICTIONS 

79 

85 

NO REGULATIONS, NO CONTROLS 

8.3 

7.2 

South 

USA 


Firearm Statements / Issues 

A number of statements related to arms and arms control were presented. Each was 

asked if they strongly agreed, somewhat agreed, somewhat disagreed or strongly 

disagreed with each statement. The final two columns hold cumulative results for 

strongly and somewhat agree nationally and in the South. 

Statements 

I have a right to use a 

firearm in my own home 

against an intruder 

Our active duty military 

members should be 

allowed to carry arms on 

their own bases 

I have a right to use a 

firearm in public if I fear 

for my own life 

The government is 

slowly encroaching on 

2 nd Amendment rights to 

own and carry arms 

I would feel safer when 

I’m with others I know 

who are carrying 

firearms in public 

Teachers and 

administrators in public 

schools should be 

allowed to carry arms 

Tensions in places such 

as Ferguson, Missouri 

would be lessened by 

more gun controls 

I would (or do) feel 

safer if I carry a firearm 

in public 

Sellers and 

manufacturers of 

firearms should be held 

responsible for any 

deaths caused 

Strongly 

Agree 

Somewhat 

Agree 

Somewhat 

Disagree 

Strongly 

Disagree 

USA: 

Agree 

South: 

Agree 

62.7 26.0 5.1 2.9 88.7 94.7 

31.8 38.2 14.2 4.9 70.0 72.9 

27.6 34.3 20.9 9.7 61.9 77.4 

24.0 25.3 20.6 19.3 49.3 58.6 

13.0 21.6 22.3 32.7 34.6 43.6 

10.4 22.7 27.6 32.7 33.1 42.1 

12.1 16.6 21.0 33.8 28.7 24.8 

11.6 17.9 23.0 35.0 27.4 42.1 

7.8 15.3 27.3 41.4 23.1 17.3 


IDENTIFICATION 

Survey respondents were presented with the final section of the survey with the following 

introduction: “We all face identification requests ranging from infrequently to frequently. 

The following are instances when identification is typically required.” Each was then asked 

to indicate which of 30 different instances in which an identification requirement is a 

reasonable request. Requirements considered most reasonable included obtaining a 

passport, applying for a loan and opening a bank account. A large majority, 81.4%, indicated 

an identification requirement for voting was reasonable. Results on a national basis are 

presented here in declining order. 

Identification Requirement is Reasonable for: Percent 

Reasonable 

Obtaining a passport 95.7 

Applying for a loan 91.1 

Opening a bank account 90.3 

Buying a gun 89.8 

Applying for food stamps 87.0 

Applying for welfare 86.3 

Air travel 85.7 

Receiving a marriage license 83.3 

Applying for a job 83.1 

Getting married 82.4 

Renting a car 82.4 

Writing a check 82.3 

Buying alcohol 82.3 

Voting 81.4 

Getting medical care or securing medical records 80.8 

Buying / renting a home 80.1 

Make a credit card purchase 76.9 

Alcohol at a bar 74.3 

Buying cigarettes 72.6 

Getting a fishing or hunting license 70.9 

Bank transactions 68.2 

Picking up a prescription 62.6 

Opening a post office box 57.1 

Blood donations 56.8 

Getting a hotel room 56.2 

Starting gas, cable, electric or internet service 53.4 

Buying an M-rated video game 40.3 

Worn while at work 38.8 

Adopting a pet 32.3 

Holding a protest or rally 21.8 


Identification History 

Nearly all respondents, 99.2% (99.2% in the South), reported having a driver’s license 

(69.0%), a government-issued identification (4.4%) or both (25.4%). 

Voter Identification / Voter Fraud 

A strong majority, 80.3%, indicated they strongly (58.9%) or somewhat supported (21.3%) a 

voter identification requirement. The results are presented here. 

Support / Oppose Voter Identification 

Requirements 

58.9 

59.4 

21.3 

18.8 

6.8 9 6.7 7.5 

STRONGLY SUPPORT SOMEWHAT SUPPORT SOMEWHAT OPPOSE STRONGLY OPPOSE 

USA 

South 

If we do require identification for voting in this country, respondents were asked if we 

should pay transportation and childcare while residents go to secure government-issued 

identification. Those agreeing are presented in the following table nationally and in the 

South. 

ID Requirement USA: Yes South: Yes 

Use tax dollars to pay for transportation to 23.0 29.3 

secure a government-issued identification 

for voting purposes 

Use tax dollars to pay for child care while 

residents go to secure a government-issued 

identification for voting purposes 

17.7 19.5 


Just over one-half of all respondents (51.8%) suggested voter fraud is very (18.6%) or 

somewhat serious (33.2%) in the United States. Another 36.5% suggested voter fraud 

was either not very serious (24.6%) or not at all serious (11.9%). 

Results are presented here. 

70 

Seriousness of Voter Fraud in the U.S. 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

51.8 

57.9 

0 

VERY AND SOMEWHAT SERIOUS 

USA 

South 

Just under one-half of all Americans surveyed, 47.2%, reported that they hold strong trust 

in the reliability of today’s identification measures, in general, given the level of 

counterfeiting. Results are presented here. 

Trust? 

USA: 

Strong 

Trust 

South: Strong 

Trust 

In Identification Today 47.2 47.4 


DEMOGRAPHICS 

Rural, Suburban or Urban? 

US 

Rural 19.5 

Suburban 53.5 

Urban 25.3 

Age 

US 

18 to 29 15.9 

30-39 18.5 

40-49 20.4 

50-64 28.2 

65 and older 16.9 

Income 

US 

Under $9,999 1.7 

$10,000 to less than $40,000 17.9 

$40,000 to less than $70,000 26.5 

$70,000 to less than $100,000 19.8 

$100,000 to less than $130,000 12.5 

$130,000 to less than $160,000 6.4 

$160,000 or more 8.0 

Unsure 7.4 

Party Affiliation 

US 

Republican 25.3 

Democrat 30.9 

Independent 37.9 

Some other party 1.1 

Unsure 4.8 

Marital Status 

US 

Single, never married 17.2 

Married or domestic partner 66.1 

Widowed 4.5 

Divorced 10.7 

Separated 1.2 

Other 0.2 


Education 

US 

8 th grade or less --- 

Some high school 0.6 

High school graduate or GED 9.2 

Some technical school 0.9 

Technical school graduate 4.4 

Some college 24.4 

College graduate 33.9 

Post graduate or professional degree 26.1 

Refused 0.4 

Hispanic, Latin American, Puerto Rican, 

US 

Cuban or Mexican 

Yes 15.6 

No 84.4 

Ethnicity (Among Non-Hispanics) 

US 

White 78.5 

Black, African-American 15.0 

Asian, Pacific Islander 4.1 

Aleutian, Eskimo or American Indian 0.3 

Other 2.0 

Native Hawaiian 0.1 

Two or more races --- 

Refused --- 

Don’t know/unsure --- 

Children under 18 living at home 

US 

None 33.4 

One 13.6 

Two 29.7 

Three 15.1 

Four 5.3 

Five or more 2.8 

Don’t know --- 

Refused --- 

Gender 

US 

Male 48.0 

Female 52.0 


APPENDIX 

5 

INTERPRETATION OF AGGREGATE RESULTS 

The computer processed data for this survey are presented in the following frequency 

distributions. It is important to note that the wordings of the variable labels and value labels 

in the computer-processed data are largely abbreviated descriptions of the Questionnaire 

items and available response categories. 

The frequency distributions include the category or response for the question items. 

Responses deemed not appropriate for classification have been grouped together under the 

“Other” code. 

The “NA” category label refers to “No Answer” or “Not Applicable.” This code is also 

used to classify ambiguous responses. In addition, the “DK/RF” category includes those 

respondents who did not know their answer to a question or declined to answer it. In many 

of the tables, a group of responses may be tagged as “Missing” – occasionally, certain 

individual’s responses may not be required to specific questions and thus are excluded. 

Although when this category of response is used, the computations of percentages are 

presented in two (2) ways in the frequency distributions: 1) with their inclusion (as a 

proportion of the total sample), and 2) their exclusion (as a proportion of a sample subgroup). 

Each frequency distribution includes the absolute observed occurrence of each response (i.e. 

the total number of cases in each category). Immediately adjacent to the right of the column 

of absolute frequencies is the column of relative frequencies. These are the percentages of 

cases falling in each category response, including those cases designated as missing data. To 

the right of the relative frequency column is the adjusted frequency distribution column that 

contains the relative frequencies based on the legitimate (i.e. non-missing) cases. That is, the 

total base for the adjusted frequency distribution excludes the missing data. For many 

Questionnaire items, the relative frequencies and the adjusted frequencies will be nearly the 

same. However, some items that elicit a sizable number of missing data will produce quite 

substantial percentage differences between the two columns of frequencies. The careful 

analyst will cautiously consider both distributions. 

The last column of data within the frequency distribution is the cumulative frequency 

distribution (Cum Freq.). This column is simply an adjusted frequency distribution of the 

sum of all previous categories of response and the current category of response. Its primary 

usefulness is to gauge some ordered or ranked meaning.

National Poll Report for IOG Sept 2014

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?