An interesting poll, Gunnies Vs Antis !

[NukemJim]

There is a widespread net practic of "flooding" polls by posting links in online forums when the polls involve firearms. Very quickly the votes flood in, the pro side is winning massively and the poll gets shut down as being "manipulated".

A recent series of events,

A poll was recently posted.

Which then led to this post http://blog.joehuffman.org/CommentView,guid,b70628d0-d3d5-46ad-896d-a489abae0792.aspx#commentstart

Which led to this http://newtrajectory.blogspot.com/ (hmm.. even I know that link does not look correct, the originating web****e can by linked to by the joehuffman link. I hope*)

which led to a challenge by wallsofthecity to create a pol that will stay open and will not be shutdown, regardless of the results.

The poll is on the left hand side of the page, one vote per ISP.

http://www.wallsofthecity.net/2011/02/in-the-interests-of-honesty.html

The nature of this poll is to include as many people who you can talk into voting.

Please vote.

This could be interesting

NukemJim

*I hope the linkie thingies work, I am so NOT a compugeek. NJ

 

[oldgold]

whoops

 

[geekWithA.45]

I was the 666th vote for "very much against stricter legislation".

In college, my mail box was 666.

One more 666, and I get to summon the apocalypse!

 

[merlinfire]

haha, a gun poll on a pro-gun site? i'm surprised it wasn't HIGHER than 97%.

 

[doc2rn]

98% against 2% for now thats about right!

 

[happygeek]

From the one site the OP linked to (http://newtrajectory.blogspot.com/)

It's why I allow comments (Yes, they're moderated, but you should see the sort of off-color comments that come in! I admit some are not posted for other reasons, though, due to their extreme length, redundant comments, or vast deviations from the topic, and occasionally I sit on a few in order to research a response, and don't always get back to them).

So someone replies to one of his anti-gun rants by pointing out that the CDC of all groups did their best to find even the slightest benefit to any gun control scheme, but all they were able to come up with was:

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

During 2000--2002, the Task Force on Community Preventive Services (the Task Force), an independent nonfederal task force, conducted a systematic review of scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of firearms laws in preventing violence, including violent crimes, suicide, and unintentional injury. The following laws were evaluated: bans on specified firearms or ammunition, restrictions on firearm acquisition, waiting periods for firearm acquisition, firearm registration and licensing of firearm owners, "shall issue" concealed weapon carry laws, child access prevention laws, zero tolerance laws for firearms in schools, and combinations of firearms laws. The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes. (Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness.) This report briefly describes how the reviews were conducted, summarizes the Task Force findings, and provides information regarding needs for future research.

So this blogger "researches" a response, but all he can find is some "study" by the Brady Campaign (http://www.bradycenter.org/xshare/pdf/reports/on_target.pdf) claiming that the 94 to 04 AWB actually accomplished something (besides enriching people who had large stocks of pre 94 AK47 mags to sell). He concludes that Google must be wrong, there must be a study by the CDC, the BATFE, somebody, anybody that conclusively shows a causal relationship between gun control schemes and crime rates.

Since his "research" never gets completed as he doesn't come up with the answer he wanted, he never posts the comment.