*** Politics Gun Owners Thread*** - Page 162 - Politics and Economics

On a gun control issue?

I don't know at exactly what point I "declare a poll wrong".

When discussing gun control/rights, any poll that shows support of anything in either direction >60% I'm growing very very leery. The country is just too divided on this issue to allow for more.

90% isn't just ridiculous, it's downright insane.

04-25-2013 , 11:51 PM

#4028

Low Key

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 33,327

Quote:

Originally Posted by rjoefish

At what % do you declare a poll wrong?

Using the maher example: he was talking about the amendment in particular, then switched subtly to say that background checks had 90% support (which could easily be true), then switched back to talking about how it was silly that a bill/amendment with 90% support could not pass.

Maybe the amendment had 90% support. I've not seen a thing that said it was ever higher than ~60%.

It seemed at the time like verbal gymnastics for the purpose of clouding a discussion and being intellectually dishonest. I'll gladly change my tune if I see a report that says "90% support for x amendment."

04-26-2013 , 12:02 AM

#4029

rjoefish

Got Out the Vote

Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 31,086

Maher was obviously confusing, maybe/probably on purpose, the 90% support for background checks with the support for the bill. DBL is of the position that the original poll, the one that showed near 90% support, is wrong simply because that number is too high per his feelings.

04-26-2013 , 12:07 AM

#4030

Low Key

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 33,327

What original poll showed 90% support for what?

This is why things are confusing! Be specific, damn you! (You in this case meaning rjoe for his statement in post #4029 of this thread that I am posting in at this time)

ETA

You/maher aren't adding these numbers together to get that 90%, right?

Quote:

Sixty-one percent say members of Congress "should only agree to a stronger version of the bill, even if it might not pass." Just 30% say they should "accept a weaker law" they know can win approval.

04-26-2013 , 12:09 AM

#4031

DblBarrelJ

2+2 Resident Enforcer

Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 13,857

rjoe, think for a moment about how high 90% is.

Do you not find it a bit ridiculous that 90% of Americans agree on something?

Now, what if I told you the issue that that mega majority agreed on was what any halfass observer could see was the most polarizing issue in America today.

Can you still expect to be taken seriously when you believe that?

I mean you realize that we're bordering on a discussion on organized religion and fairytales by this point, right?

04-26-2013 , 12:12 AM

#4032

Low Key

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 33,327

dbj,

I'm fairly certain only 8-10% of Americans agree that abortion should be outlawed at all times, for all reasons. That leaves 90% who think it should not be completely outlawed.

04-26-2013 , 12:17 AM

#4033

DblBarrelJ

2+2 Resident Enforcer

Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 13,857

Well I'm fairly certain a small number of US citizens believe it should be ok to lynch black people too.

We're discussing issues where both sides have valid points and strong followings here.

We're talking about guns. When you're debating gun politics anything above a coin flip for your side is a solid win. 55% is something to brag about and 60% is a staggering knockout.

There's no 90% anything related to gun ownership. On either side. Nor has there ever been.

04-26-2013 , 12:20 AM

#4034

Pilkain

old hand

Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 1,779

I'm pretty sure the 90 % was for the background check expansion that did not create a registry.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/160085/am...-violence.aspx

04-26-2013 , 12:28 AM

#4035

Low Key

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 33,327

Quote:

These results are from a Gallup survey conducted Jan. 19-20. The question does not tell respondents that all nine proposals come from Obama's recently released plan to reduce gun violence; however, the wordings used to describe them intentionally follow the White House's "Now Is the Time" plan descriptions.

I almost made a joke about how I doubt they mentioned the name Obama, but of course it turned out to be true.

Last edited by Low Key; 04-26-2013 at 12:29 AM. Reason: Also, January was a looong time ago. Guess maher was being dishonest with use of "had"

04-26-2013 , 12:29 AM

#4036

rjoefish

Got Out the Vote

Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 31,086

Quote:

Originally Posted by Low Key

Oh wow, didn't know you weren't aware where the original 90% came from. No we're not adding that number together rofl

Pilkain just posted one poll. CNN just did one first week of April and reproted:

Quote:

The 86% figure from the CNN/ORC poll is in line with just about every other national survey released over the past couple of months, which found support for increased background checks hovering around the 90% level. And the CNN survey, along with the previous polls, found no real partisan divide, with very strong support for the checks from Democrats, Republicans, and independents

So you see, 'just about' every national poll comes back near 90% supporting more background checks but that's too high to be real because something something according to DBL.

ETA: Looks like I addressed your concerns about the January poll being outdated before you put it up

04-26-2013 , 12:29 AM

#4037

DblBarrelJ

2+2 Resident Enforcer

Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 13,857

Relevant:

Quote:

however, the wordings used to describe them intentionally follow the White House's "Now Is the Time" plan descriptions.

When I want to get fair and honest feedback on what people think of their widgets, I phrase things exactly as the widget-maker does.

It should of course be noted that most people assume by the phrasing of the question "Should we require a background check on all firearms purchasers?" leads the person who is being asked that question to assume that background checks on gun purchases aren't required already, save for a couple specific exemptions. And if there's one thing this forum, the media, and the internet in general are a testament to, it's that people don't know jack **** about gun laws.

04-26-2013 , 12:31 AM

#4038

DblBarrelJ

2+2 Resident Enforcer

Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 13,857

So like support dumped out 40% in a week?

rjoe you got some spainin to do IMO.

04-26-2013 , 12:32 AM

#4039

Low Key

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 33,327

Dbj,

Would you deny that putting Obamas name in front of any poll question would automatically cap the % agreeing at 60% or below?

04-26-2013 , 12:33 AM

#4040

DblBarrelJ

2+2 Resident Enforcer

Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 13,857

Of course it would.

04-26-2013 , 12:35 AM

#4041

rjoefish

Got Out the Vote

Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 31,086

Quote:

Originally Posted by DblBarrelJ

So like support dumped out 40% in a week?

rjoe you got some spainin to do IMO.

Weren't you just complaining about Maher??

04-26-2013 , 12:37 AM

#4042

DblBarrelJ

2+2 Resident Enforcer

Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 13,857

You're one of the faithful here, convert me rjoe.

04-26-2013 , 12:41 AM

#4043

rjoefish

Got Out the Vote

Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 31,086

Step 1: Complain about someone confusing a poll about background checks with support for a bill.
Step 2: Confuse a poll about background checks with support for a bill.
Step 3: ????
Step 4: Profit?

04-26-2013 , 12:46 AM

#4044

Low Key

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 33,327

OhhhhHHHHhhhhh

Now I get it!

ty rjoe! It's late. I has a sleepy.

04-26-2013 , 12:57 AM

#4045

DblBarrelJ

2+2 Resident Enforcer

Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 13,857

So like wait, rjoes theory is that there's a rather large difference between the number of people who support a bill and the number of people who support the idea behind that bill?

What on Earth caused such a discrepancy?

04-26-2013 , 01:01 AM

#4046

rjoefish

Got Out the Vote

Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 31,086

Quote:

Originally Posted by DblBarrelJ

Quote:

Originally Posted by Low Key

Dbj,

Would you deny that putting Obamas name in front of any poll question would automatically cap the % agreeing at 60% or below?

Quote:

Originally Posted by DblBarrelJ

Of course it would.

04-26-2013 , 01:04 AM

#4047

Low Key

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 33,327

You would literally need to run both surveys multiple times, together, to get a clear picture of what was going on, as well as carefully examine the text and order of the questions.

Last edited by Low Key; 04-26-2013 at 01:05 AM. Reason: And other things I'm probably forgetting. Americans are ****ing fickle.

04-26-2013 , 01:12 AM

#4048

DblBarrelJ

2+2 Resident Enforcer

Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 13,857

Quote:

Originally Posted by rjoefish

This is ridiculous. Do you not assume the connection to Obama is already made in the head of the person being polled when they are asked about universal background checks?

Who the hell do they think is behind it, Wayne LaPierre?

04-26-2013 , 01:18 AM

#4049

rjoefish

Got Out the Vote

Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 31,086

Are you pipes' gimmick account?

04-26-2013 , 01:21 AM

#4050

Low Key

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 33,327

Quote:

Originally Posted by DblBarrelJ

This is ridiculous. Do you not assume the connection to Obama is already made in the head of the person being polled when they are asked about universal background checks?

I dunno if you've studied political opinions and behavior at all, but I've spent a few semesters on it and yes, all this stuff matters immensely: word choice, question order, tying policies with politicians names (even fictitious politician names).

Page 162 of 166

First

62 112 142 152 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166

Last

...

Page 162 of 166

First

62 112 142 152 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166

Last