[ARCHIVED THREAD] - PSA - Background Check Polls (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 4/21/2013 5:57:12 PM EDT
|
I've seen a lot of denial about the polls that have been done about background checks, I would just encourage people to educate themselves so they can keep to the high-ground of arguing from reason and facts, rather than resorting to emotional, knee-jerk reactions such as 'BS, they made those numbers up.' It doesn't make gun owners look good if those are the responses people see when they bring up the subject. Let's not lower ourselves to the level of emotional libtards.
There have been a lot of polls. This is just a few(FOX included to show the consistency), and most of these polls are done over and over to track changes in public sentiment. Some of the polls have different issues with wording, etc, and those are the things we should be talking about. Notice that the polls that go into more detail about the types of transactions show less support for background checks than the polls that only ask about 'all transactions'. Ask yourself 'what would a libtard do?', then don't do that. 
FOX
Do you favor or oppose each of the following proposals to reduce gun violence? Requiring criminal background checks on all gun buyers, including those buying at gun shows and private sales - 85% favor. Requiring mental health checks on all gun buyers - 72% favor. Washington Post/ABC
Would you support or oppose a law requiring background checks on people buying guns at gun shows or online? - 86% support. CNN
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 from a gun store or other business that sells guns - 89% favor. If the buyer is trying to purchase a gun at a gun show - 83% favor. 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 - 70% favor. If the buyer is purchasing a gun from a family member or receiving it as a gift - 54% favor. Quinnipiac
Do you support or oppose - requiring background checks for all gun buyers? - 91% support. |
|
Is there a poll anywhere asking DO YOU THINK IT SHOULD BE A FELONY IF YOU SELL A GUN TO YOUR BEST FRIEND OF 20 YEARS?
The fucking law wasnt a background check it was a transfer at the ffl and only gave exceptions of the background check if the buyer had a permit to carry possess or buy. The ffl still has to do a transfer in that case or it is illegal. When those fuckheads are gun owners and learn how to read a bill of law they can vote their shithead opinions. |
|
Quoted:
Yes but how many people did they poll? I don't consider a poll of a hundred people on a liberal news outlet accurate. That information is generally included with the poll, and I linked to them. Quinnipiac - 1711 CBS - 1181 CNN - 1012 FOX - 1002 Washington Post - 1003 |
|
Nah.They pulled those out of their commie butts.
No, I have actually fallen into that trap and weakened my argument by not being aware of all those f'in polls. Best response is that a simple background check is not what BHO,Chuckie Schumer and DiFi tried to ram home is it? |
|
Quoted:
I will direct you to this article of news about the WaPo/ABC news polls http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matt-vespa/2013/04/21/its-not-just-abc-and-washpost-wholl-skip-finding-majority-women-feel-gun I'm not exactly sure what you/they are trying to say. It has nothing to do with background checks, and it's not like they hid the question or the results. |
|
Quoted:
Nah.They pulled those out of their commie butts. No, I have actually fallen into that trap and weakened my argument by not being aware of all those f'in polls. Best response is that a simple background check is not what BHO,Chuckie Schumer and DiFi tried to ram home is it? We've all done it, but usually a search will get the actual polls in under a minute. One of the best responses is to use the CNN poll to show that "90% of Americans support UBC" is a lie, depending on the type of transfer as few as 50% support the idea. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I will direct you to this article of news about the WaPo/ABC news polls http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matt-vespa/2013/04/21/its-not-just-abc-and-washpost-wholl-skip-finding-majority-women-feel-gun I'm not exactly sure what you/they are trying to say. It has nothing to do with background checks, and it's not like they hid the question or the results. What I'm saying is they will only tell you what they want to tell you. If the polls don't match their agenda, the polls are non-existent. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I will direct you to this article of news about the WaPo/ABC news polls http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matt-vespa/2013/04/21/its-not-just-abc-and-washpost-wholl-skip-finding-majority-women-feel-gun I'm not exactly sure what you/they are trying to say. It has nothing to do with background checks, and it's not like they hid the question or the results. What I'm saying is they will only tell you what they want to tell you. If the polls don't match their agenda, the polls are non-existent. No, because they did release the results of the 'do guns make you feel safer' question. Why are you using something that they released as evidence that they withhold information? Are you only upset because they didn't mention it in the article? |
|
Id rather be required to keep records of all private sales than the toomey manchin crap. I do anyways for my own legal purposes if they would ever arise. Let the buyer call into nics or something along those lines.
That way, in the event of an unconstitutional e.o. it would still be impossible to get a registry if all records were summoned from ffls |
|
I don't care to waste my time picking apart each of these polls, but I can tell you from prior research that the quinnipac poll was conducted in 3 northeastern states (I think Pennsylvania virginia and new Hampshire?)... How do you think that poll would have turned out if it was Texas Oklahoma and Nebraska?
The point others have been making also is that the news agencies / politicians only push the numbers that favor their narrative, so even if they did conduct a poll in southern states those numbers wouldn't be used, or would be outright hidden. TL;DR: Polls are bullshit and you can make them say whatever you want... |
|
Quoted:
I don't care to waste my time picking apart each of these polls, but I can tell you from prior research that the quinnipac poll was conducted in 3 northeastern states (I think Pennsylvania virginia and new Hampshire?)... How do you think that poll would have turned out if it was Texas Oklahoma and Nebraska? The point others have been making also is that the news agencies / politicians only push the numbers that favor their narrative, so even if they did conduct a poll in southern states those numbers wouldn't be used, or would be outright hidden. TL;DR: Polls are bullshit and you can make them say whatever you want... Actually, Quinnipiac does state and national polls. The 6-state poll is this one: http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes--centers/polling-institute/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=1871 Florida, Connecticut, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Virginia The one I posted was a national poll. The other poster linked to an article that complained that the numbers for one of the questions weren't mentioned in the article, but those numbers were still released. The article summary wouldn't be much of a summary if it listed the results of every question, now would it? |
|
I agree with you that taking the moral high ground is the best way to win this debate; however these polls have self-selected participants, which does, in fact, negate thier meaningfulness to almost nil.
Notwithstanding that the "universal background check" was not about background checks. It was about redefining the word transfer and criminalizing mundane activity through vaguely-worded flypaper legislation. |
|
Quoted:
The background check issue does resonate with the sheep. Hopefully it won't be in the limelight in 2014... gun owners have better memories than most of the voting public. I'm sure that soon it will be a different issue, and the POTUS will say that 82% of Americans support X, and GD says 'BS!', and we'll be right back at square one. 
|
|
Quoted:
I agree with you that taking the moral high ground is the best way to win this debate; however these polls have self-selected participants, which does, in fact, negate thier meaningfulness to almost nil. Notwithstanding that the "universal background check" was not about background checks. It was about redefining the word transfer and criminalizing mundane activity through vaguely-worded flypaper legislation. What do you mean by self-selected participants? These are, methodologically, no different than the Obama v Romney polls we had all election. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I agree with you that taking the moral high ground is the best way to win this debate; however these polls have self-selected participants, which does, in fact, negate thier meaningfulness to almost nil. Notwithstanding that the "universal background check" was not about background checks. It was about redefining the word transfer and criminalizing mundane activity through vaguely-worded flypaper legislation. What do you mean by self-selected participants? These are, methodologically, no different than the Obama v Romney polls we had all election. He means that they call your phone and say "would you like to take a public opinion survey". Think about who would answer in the affirmative, I know I never do them, ain't nobody got time fo dat... When I discuss political issues, especially gun issues, I never reference polls only facts. Give an intelligent person facts and let them make up their own mind, telling someone what opinion is popular encourages them to be sheep. Or to put it another way: Why should I be concerned what percentage of Americans feel a certain way about gun control (or more properly what way some jack wagon propagandist says they said they feel) a fairly large percentage of Americans are fucking stupid... |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yes but how many people did they poll? I don't consider a poll of a hundred people on a liberal news outlet accurate. That information is generally included with the poll, and I linked to them. Quinnipiac - 1711 CBS - 1181 CNN - 1012 FOX - 1002 Washington Post - 1003 Although I agree we should argue from a position of fact, I do not think that polls including 1000-2000 response accurately depict the sentiment of the populace as we have over 310,000,000 citizens. I also think we should not take the position of justifying our position and should make them justify theirs. We HAVE the RIGHT and it is PROTECTED by the Constitution. If they want to change that then they need to amend the Constitution. No other solution is acceptable for a free republic. Thanks for posting this and starting the conversation. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I agree with you that taking the moral high ground is the best way to win this debate; however these polls have self-selected participants, which does, in fact, negate thier meaningfulness to almost nil. Notwithstanding that the "universal background check" was not about background checks. It was about redefining the word transfer and criminalizing mundane activity through vaguely-worded flypaper legislation. What do you mean by self-selected participants? These are, methodologically, no different than the Obama v Romney polls we had all election. He means that they call your phone and say "would you like to take a public opinion survey". Think about who would answer in the affirmative, I know I never do them, ain't nobody got time fo dat... When I discuss political issues, especially gun issues, I never reference polls only facts. Give an intelligent person facts and let them make up their own mind, telling someone what opinion is popular encourages them to be sheep. Or to put it another way: Why should I be concerned what percentage of Americans feel a certain way about gun control (or more properly what way some jack wagon propagandist says they said they feel) a fairly large percentage of Americans are fucking stupid... The secret is there are just as many sheep on the right as on the left, so it all works out
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yes but how many people did they poll? I don't consider a poll of a hundred people on a liberal news outlet accurate. That information is generally included with the poll, and I linked to them. Quinnipiac - 1711 CBS - 1181 CNN - 1012 FOX - 1002 Washington Post - 1003 Although I agree we should argue from a position of fact, I do not think that polls including 1000-2000 response accurately depict the sentiment of the populace as we have over 310,000,000 citizens. Thanks for posting this and starting the conversation. Most of the polls during elections are in the 1000-2000 responses range. Margin of error at that point isn't very high, and when you conduct the polls multiple times, you can see just how little variation there is. Usually 5% or less margin of error. If you really look at it, 5 polling groups calling 1000 random people every month for 3 months gives you a much better sample than a single 1000-respondant poll. |
|
Re : self-selection:
My bad. When I saw news outlet polls mentioned, I assumed that they were viewer polls with self-selected participants. Is a sample size of 1,000 over six states adequate? I don't know much about survey procedures, but this seems limited to me. |
|
Quoted:
US Senate members live and die by the polls and yet they didn't bite- maybe their internal polling showed a different story? It's not a big issue for most people, so a lot of the 'Yes' votes didn't really mean that much. Most people won't call their reps about any issue, and most Americans still say the Economy and Deficits are the most important issues. |
|
Thanks for posting this.
Quoted:
Re : self-selection: My bad. When I saw news outlet polls mentioned, I assumed that they were viewer polls with self-selected participants. Is a sample size of 1,000 over six states adequate? I don't know much about survey procedures, but this seems limited to me. Yes, a sample of at least 1,000 randomly-selected respondents is generally adequate, allowing for a margin of error of 2.5-3% |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yes but how many people did they poll? I don't consider a poll of a hundred people on a liberal news outlet accurate. That information is generally included with the poll, and I linked to them. Quinnipiac - 1711 CBS - 1181 CNN - 1012 FOX - 1002 Washington Post - 1003 Although I agree we should argue from a position of fact, I do not think that polls including 1000-2000 response accurately depict the sentiment of the populace as we have over 310,000,000 citizens. Thanks for posting this and starting the conversation. Most of the polls during elections are in the 1000-2000 responses range. Margin of error at that point isn't very high, and when you conduct the polls multiple times, you can see just how little variation there is. Usually 5% or less margin of error. If you really look at it, 5 polling groups calling 1000 random people every month for 3 months gives you a much better sample than a single 1000-respondant poll. I do not believe they are random. Look at some of the polls (from both sides) they target an area to get the result. First rule of polling is - Know the answer you want and craft to question to get it. |
|
Quoted:
Re : self-selection: My bad. When I saw news outlet polls mentioned, I assumed that they were viewer polls with self-selected participants. Is a sample size of 1,000 over six states adequate? I don't know much about survey procedures, but this seems limited to me. Not for a nationwide poll, but the Quinnipiac polls that were over 6 states were state polls, and only presented as such. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
US Senate members live and die by the polls and yet they didn't bite- maybe their internal polling showed a different story? It's not a big issue for most people, so a lot of the 'Yes' votes didn't really mean that much. Most people won't call their reps about any issue, and most Americans still say the Economy and Deficits are the most important issues. Ah, so we need a PSA for something that isn't important to most people? |
|
Quoted:
I do not believe they are random. Look at some of the polls (from both sides) they target an area to get the result. First rule of polling is - Know the answer you want and craft to question to get it. Don't know what you mean... none of the polls I looked at targeted any areas. They all say they are random calls of registered voters, I see no reason to doubt them. If there were a big difference between some of the results, then there would be reason to doubt, but FOX, CNN, ABC, NYT, all very similar results. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
US Senate members live and die by the polls and yet they didn't bite- maybe their internal polling showed a different story? It's not a big issue for most people, so a lot of the 'Yes' votes didn't really mean that much. Most people won't call their reps about any issue, and most Americans still say the Economy and Deficits are the most important issues. Ah, so we need a PSA for something that isn't important to most people? GD isn't most people, the PSA isn't for most people. It's for Arfcommers. |
|
Quoted:
I believe our calls and letters had more of an effect/impact than any poll. Definitely. If 90% of Americans had been calling and writing, it would have passed. No doubt that enough R's would have folded to that kind of pressure, luckily we turned some of them around. The polls actually probably helped us. I could imagine people thinking '90%, awesome! I don't even need to bother calling my rep, he knows I support it'. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
US Senate members live and die by the polls and yet they didn't bite- maybe their internal polling showed a different story? It's not a big issue for most people, so a lot of the 'Yes' votes didn't really mean that much. Most people won't call their reps about any issue, and most Americans still say the Economy and Deficits are the most important issues. Ah, so we need a PSA for something that isn't important to most people? GD isn't most people, the PSA isn't for most people. It's for Arfcommers. So we can intelligently address something that isn't important to most people? OK, bye. |
|
Quoted:
So we can intelligently address something that isn't important to most people? OK, bye. Bye. And, FYI, even if people aren't passionate about the subject, if John Libtard says to you '90% of Americans supported UBC' and you respond 'Whatever, the leftist media just made that up', that doesn't help. Even if John Libtard doesn't really care, it doesn't help. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I do not believe they are random. Look at some of the polls (from both sides) they target an area to get the result. First rule of polling is - Know the answer you want and craft to question to get it. Don't know what you mean... none of the polls I looked at targeted any areas. They all say they are random calls of registered voters, I see no reason to doubt them. If there were a big difference between some of the results, then there would be reason to doubt, but FOX, CNN, ABC, NYT, all very similar results. The reason to doubt is there are just as many polls that say just the opposite. The sample rate is too small for me. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I do not believe they are random. Look at some of the polls (from both sides) they target an area to get the result. First rule of polling is - Know the answer you want and craft to question to get it. Don't know what you mean... none of the polls I looked at targeted any areas. They all say they are random calls of registered voters, I see no reason to doubt them. If there were a big difference between some of the results, then there would be reason to doubt, but FOX, CNN, ABC, NYT, all very similar results. The reason to doubt is there are just as many polls that say just the opposite. The sample rate is too small for me. Which polls say the opposite? The sample rate between those I linked to, if you look at current and past polls, is probably 15 polls with a margin of error under 5%. The fact that they are all in the 80-90% range says a lot. |
|
Quoted:
Made up poll are made up polls. Fact: 90% of Americans don't give a rats ass about UBC Fact: Only 4% of Americans think there is an issue with what we already have. Bring up whatever else lame stream polls you want, they are BS propaganda. Exactly my point, thanks for the demonstration. How do you feel about FOX? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Made up poll are made up polls. Fact: 90% of Americans don't give a rats ass about UBC Fact: Only 4% of Americans think there is an issue with what we already have. Bring up whatever else lame stream polls you want, they are BS propaganda. Exactly my point, thanks for the demonstration. How do you feel about FOX? They go on about some BS polls too, Mainstream media is owned/ corrupted and being used as a weapon against us. If you want truth, you will have to seek elsewhere. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I do not believe they are random. Look at some of the polls (from both sides) they target an area to get the result. First rule of polling is - Know the answer you want and craft to question to get it. Don't know what you mean... none of the polls I looked at targeted any areas. They all say they are random calls of registered voters, I see no reason to doubt them. If there were a big difference between some of the results, then there would be reason to doubt, but FOX, CNN, ABC, NYT, all very similar results. The reason to doubt is there are just as many polls that say just the opposite. The sample rate is too small for me. Which polls say the opposite? The sample rate between those I linked to, if you look at current and past polls, is probably 15 polls with a margin of error under 5%. The fact that they are all in the 80-90% range says a lot. I am referring to internet polls across many media outlets, left and right that i participated in. Many of the ones that were fire missions here. My point is that any poll, call or Internet or other that only has a participation rate of 1K-2K is not enough of sampling rate and I would not make decisions based off that number. I would pay more attention to the communications coming into my office. |
|
Quoted:
I am referring to internet polls across many media outlets, left and right that i participated in. Many of the ones that were fire missions here. My point is that any poll, call or Internet or other that only has a participation rate of 1K-2K is not enough of sampling rate and I would not make decisions based off that number. I would pay more attention to the communications coming into my office. Internet polls are worthless. They aren't controlled. You can't use them to counter real polls. |
|
Quoted:
I would just encourage people to educate themselves so they can keep to the high-ground of arguing from reason and facts, rather than resorting to emotional, knee-jerk reactions such as 'BS, they made those numbers up.' It doesn't make gun owners look good if those are the responses people see when they bring up the subject. Let's not lower ourselves to the level of emotional libtards. Or just say "I don't give a shit if it's true." |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I am referring to internet polls across many media outlets, left and right that i participated in. Many of the ones that were fire missions here. My point is that any poll, call or Internet or other that only has a participation rate of 1K-2K is not enough of sampling rate and I would not make decisions based off that number. I would pay more attention to the communications coming into my office. Internet polls are worthless. They aren't controlled. You can't use them to counter real polls. Polls of 1K-2K regardless of media used where the majority of the populace does not understand the ramifications of the answer are useless. The people who took the time to call in and voice their opinion is what matters. If you want to trust the polls stated by these entertainment channels as the truth then go ahead. I will keep calling and going to rallys and showing a presence. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I am referring to internet polls across many media outlets, left and right that i participated in. Many of the ones that were fire missions here. My point is that any poll, call or Internet or other that only has a participation rate of 1K-2K is not enough of sampling rate and I would not make decisions based off that number. I would pay more attention to the communications coming into my office. Internet polls are worthless. They aren't controlled. You can't use them to counter real polls. Polls of 1K-2K regardless of media used where the majority of the populace does not understand the ramifications of the answer are useless. The people who took the time to call in and voice their opinion is what matters. If you want to trust the polls stated by these entertainment channels as the truth then go ahead. I will keep calling and going to rallys and showing a presence. The two are not mutually exclusive. The polls are useful in showing, as much as possible, public sentiment. Doesn't mean you can't fight it. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I would just encourage people to educate themselves so they can keep to the high-ground of arguing from reason and facts, rather than resorting to emotional, knee-jerk reactions such as 'BS, they made those numbers up.' It doesn't make gun owners look good if those are the responses people see when they bring up the subject. Let's not lower ourselves to the level of emotional libtards. Or just say "I don't give a shit if it's true." 
|