Last edited by lockedout; 2013-05-18 at 12:14 AM.
Hey smart guy, double major in Applied Mathematics w/ Statistics & Probability with a minor in Applied Physics. Yeah, I know what Statistics are. However, you apparently don't understand what "context" is nor the difference between someone slamming "polls."
Pick a stance and stick with it. If you're going to say that their "poll is scientific" because they used numbers to keep tally then I suppose you're right. However, that's not what you inferred nor were trying to claim. You were attempting to justify the validity of the numbers based on who preformed the poll. However, even Sociology 100 will explain how and or why polls are grossly ineffective at producing valid scientific data.
Polls, like the one you presented, are worthless in the scientific community because they don't actually answer any questions. They're "great talking points" on Fox or CNN but are actually worthless at understanding the mental perception or views of a population. Not one person in academia, pro gun or anti gun, would use such a piece of shit such as what you posted as "evidence."
It is an interesting poll, it'd be neat to find out what the folks polled were thinking (not in a derogatory way). More favor gunshow background checks than favor preventing the mentally ill from getting guns, as another example...
Looked through the poll results, didn't see the raw data, so I'm unclear on whether all Form 1 questions were asked of Form 1 respondents, and Form 2 of 2, or if they got two questions from Form 1 (or Form 2).
This is why generalized question polls mean nothing. Without proper questions, there isn't a way of knowing where they really "stand" on the issue. Most people don't understand that most hunting rifles and shotguns are "semi-automatic" and instead quickly picture an AK or AR since that is what they are familiar with in the modern media.
Furthermore, these polls are directly created to push agenda rather than to get proper information. Supporting an idea doesn't mean that people automatically support any and all implementation in order to enable said idea. As I've pointed out before, supporting Capital Punishment doesn't mean you'd support death penalty decisions for jaywalking. However, without the proper quests and testing criteria, the resulting numbers are allowed to reflect whatever the creator wants.
It was really interesting to read the recent Police statistics which came out over the last few months which showed a very direct and clear message that the majority of officers do not feel proposed gun control measures would either prevent future crime nor save lives. The questions were to the point and painted a very different opinion than legislators would have people believe. However, I suppose since it was only Cops who are the ones who directly deal with the criminal element over say a Senator who is often a white collar crook, their opinion probably wasn't important to people like Fuckstein.
• Washington Post-ABC News poll, April 11-14, 2013: "Would you support or oppose a law requiring background checks on people buying guns at gun shows or online?" Support: 86 percent. Oppose: 13 percent.the bill did not have 90% popularity how many times does this need to be said
• CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll, April 5-7, 2013: "Some proposals would require a background check on anyone attempting to purchase a gun in order to determine whether the prospective buyer has been convicted of a felony or has a mental health problem. Please tell me whether you would favor or oppose a background check for a prospective gun buyer under each of the following circumstances. ... If the buyer is trying to purchase a gun at a gun show." Favor: 83 percent. Oppose: 17 percent.
"If the buyer is trying to purchase a gun from another person who is not a gun dealer but owns one or more guns and wants to sell one of them." Favor: 70 percent. Oppose: 29 percent.
"If the buyer is purchasing a gun from a family member or receiving it as a gift." Favor: 54 percent. Oppose: 45 percent.
"Please tell me whether you would favor or oppose a background check for anyone who wants to buy ammunition for a gun." Favor: 55 percent. Oppose: 44 percent.
• Quinnipiac University poll, March 26-April 1, 2013. "Do you support or oppose requiring background checks for all gun buyers?" Support: 91 percent. Oppose: 8 percent.
• CBS News poll, March 20-24, 2013. "Would you favor or oppose background checks on all potential gun buyers?" Favor: 90 percent. Oppose: 8 percent.
It's a good thing we live in a democratic republic where public opinion does matter, and not in a dictatorship where the minority can indefinitely oppose the will of the majority.They get hooked on a number and suddenly nothing else matters. Just like the 40% of gun purchases don't have background checks BULLSHIT.
They complain that we had over 50% of Americans that supported it so it should have passed. They fail to use the same logic that Obamacare has a 58% disapproval yet were stuck with that.
Also, Obamacare being popular has absolutely what to do with background checks? Disconnect and failure of logic.
Last edited by Cthulhu 2020; 2013-05-18 at 02:19 AM.
2014 Gamergate: "If you want games without hyper sexualized female characters and representation, then learn to code!"
2023: "What's with all these massively successful games with ugly (realistic) women? How could this have happened?!"
Highlighted is extremely important.
Comment on the second part, go tell that to Blacks and Homosexuals.
What actually "hurts" me as an American is that there isn't equality at all on this subject. Religion is far more dangerous and deadly both thought history and currently. Yet, we cannot even discuss banning the living shit out of that like we can guns. Hell, we can't even have a discussion which could potentially limit freedom of speech in this country which now is a legal right of corporations. But if it comes to guns, well "FUCK THOSE GUYS!" Because apparently the 100 Million legal gun owning citizens are a "minority" holding up the progress of the rest.
I can't attend a class, go the gas station, or buy groceries without being constantly bombarded by people "expressing their rights" of religion or free speech, but apparently my owning of something in my home which no one else every has to see is a problem and unreasonable of me.
Wait a sec, I forgot, this is new American often spelled "Hypocrisy land."
Actually,
This does come across as the new "movement" now that Homosexuality has become the "lost war." For a long time the argument was "What does it matter to you what someone does in the privacy of their own home" only to be combated with "But the CHILDREN!!!!!!!"
Last edited by hakujinbakasama; 2013-05-18 at 02:31 AM.
1. It's cute that you compare the majority of America wanting more extensive background checks to racism and anti-homosexuality in a giant straw man.
2. Who said anything about BANNING guns? Oh wait that's right, we can't have have comprehensive background checks because [insert slippery slope nonsense] GUN CONFISCATIONS.
3. Dear lord can we have a discussion about background checks without false equivalencies, slippery slopes, straw men, and other fallacies? Although I'm not really surprised the right has begun comparing being in the minority on BACKGROUND CHECKS to racism and anti-homosexuality.
2014 Gamergate: "If you want games without hyper sexualized female characters and representation, then learn to code!"
2023: "What's with all these massively successful games with ugly (realistic) women? How could this have happened?!"
This poll has an obvious problem that I feel compelled to expand on. Here is the graphic again for convenience sake.
58% want to ban semi-automatic weapons. I think of the venerable Ruger 10/22. Which btw is even legal in Great Britain as I understand it.
55% want to ban Assault weapons. I think of an AR-15. These are semi-automatic weapons with "dangerous" features.
To summarize for those not fluent in firearms, more people should want to ban assault weapons, because assault weapons are the "evil" versions of semi automatic firearms. IT DOESN"T MAKE SENSE.
The polling questions must have been poorly phrased, or conducted on a brain dead mass of American wasteland somewhere. It is a shame that these polling outfits don't provide a copy of their actual questionnaire.
If more concealed guns were allowed, wouldn't would-be fist fights/bar fights turn into gun fights?
Actually it makes perfect sense. The vast majority of firearm death occur with semi-auto handguns. There's only a very small minority of firearm deaths that occur from semi-auto assault weapons.
Therefore, it makes much more sense to want to ban semi-autos than it does just semi-auto assault weapons.
I don't think you're giving the people enough credit. Saying "people taking the poll are stupid" isn't a valid rebuttal of the poll.
It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere.
Sir, I will assume for a moment you are not trolling and will attempt to explain again. Banning Semi Autos would also ban "assault weapons," because they are semi-automatic as well. Why would more people want to ban a Ruger 10/22 than ban an AR-15.
Let me illustrate in a clumsy allegory. %58 percent of all Americans want to ban ground beef. %55 Percent of all Americans want to ban hamburgers. Would that make sense to you?
I'm sorry the results of this poll don't pass the Jugzilla smell check. I will also assert that when when you use the term "semi-automatic" it confuses people who don't know anything about guns, and some will think we are talking about automatic weapons.
Last edited by jugzilla; 2013-05-18 at 05:47 AM.
Democracy when it aligns with my views, tyranny and oppression when it doesn't.
2014 Gamergate: "If you want games without hyper sexualized female characters and representation, then learn to code!"
2023: "What's with all these massively successful games with ugly (realistic) women? How could this have happened?!"
We can spin around this circle if you want. And then of course I will be obliged to go on here about how Originalist i am on the 1st amendment and how it was there to only the protect printed press. That discussion will get us nowhere of course. But hey, your the one at the moment, trying to use the vagueness of the constitution, to limit the rights of citizens. I am sure that is what the founding fathers had in mind, right?
Also I feel winds are blowing in my direction, so I'm not really mad, I just think your wrong.