The NY Times link in your post only gives me 2 pages? But I read that and also the General Social Survey link in the Times article. You have more faith in these small samplings being representative, than I do. People like myself that don't do polls, suspect the people that do, just like to talk and will say anything to keep the contact going. OK, that's a little extreme
, but the suspicion is genuine.
I had the unfortunate luck to be chosen by the US Census to be grilled as a follow up to track between the 10 years censuses. This woman hounded me day and night, waking me up(day sleeper), at all hours. Then her supervisor called on the phone leaving messages until I finally talked to him. I told him it was none of his fucking business, and he threatened to have me "brought" to the federal building in Philly for "questioning". My response was bring it on, and he must have been bluffing, because I didn't hear any more.
My impression was the NRA sponsored funding bill restrictions, prevented publishing incidental information that was gathered in there normal data collection, and expressly forbid gathering background information on gun deaths and injuries. This included trying to determine how it happened, to whom, by whom, and their relationship.
I think paranoia is perhaps wishful thinking on your part, like I said, it's a polarized hot button issue that civil people sick of the national divisiveness, prefer to avoid.