KQED reset its poll on the AWB - vote again!

[4v50 Gary]

Those sneaky guys at KQED didn't like the results the first time. They've reset the polls so get your fingers working and vote.

KQED AWB Poll

At this posting, it's 95% against renewal and 5% for.

 

[R.H. Lee]

Sheesh. What part of NO don't they understand?

 

[Muzzleflash]

I would not call it sneaky.

Were I the one operating the poll- regardless of my slant- I would reset it and then adjust the .htaaccess to forward the visitors from the site skewing the poll to something unpleasant.

I respect the rights of someone to take a poll with the intent that the average internet community that normally browses their site will be voting in it. Sending a few thousand people their way is kind of... a little distasteful to me.

Regardless of the rightness of our cause. 'Spose I'm going and voting yes repeatedly until the last question, then voting no. Just like before.

 

[Zundfolge]

LOL

Should the U.S. federal government continue the ban on assault weapons?
5% Yes
95% NO!

 

[MarkDido]

Did you expect anything less from Public Broadcasting?

 

[MAKOwner]

Were I the one operating the poll- regardless of my slant- I would reset it and then adjust the .htaaccess to forward the visitors from the site skewing the poll to something unpleasant.

I think they are. Most of the people from gun boards taking this poll are still getting the 95% against the ban results. I went through (not from a hotlink on a gunboard) and did it and got around 70% FOR the ban as the results... Only showed around 400 total votes...

I think some fishy is going down...

 

[Warbow]

I just went to the site on my own in a new browser window and it's the same, 95% against the 'ban'. I don't think they're playing any tricks on us.

 

[PATH]

6097 No! 95%

334 Yes. 5%


Regardless of where the vote starts out it shows strength to hoplophobes!

 

[Average Guy]

Well, that's cute. Depending on your answer, they try to sway you into considering the other POV. So there's at least a passing nod to balance.

"Are you sure?"

You're darn right I'm sure!

 

[themic]

disagreed with some (most) of their arguments, but I thought it was a neat way to host a poll. in general, online polls suffer from a lack of information explaining the arguments. this is a modest effort to mitigate that problem. though not 100% accurate, i applaud the idea behind the effort.

 

[kd7ctv]

yeah but when I went through and chose all the opposite answers, at the last one, I told it no and it said I already voted so atleast its not some one repeatedly voting....

 

[Moparmike]

BTW, the station is located in NoCal...

From the first 'no' page:

Rifles subject to the ban are semiautomatic weapons (and copycats of the named models) that have detachable magazines and two or more of the following characteristics:

Are they implying that the Bushmasters and other AR-pattern rifles without the evil Make's-The-Baby-Jesus-Cry-Cop-Bayonetting bayo lug and the uber-evil super-secret flash hider are made illegal by the ban?

 

[themic]

if we give them the benefit of the doubt, they could be saying that you can't make the exact same banned weapon, call it a different name, and have it be legal.

i'm not enouhg of an expert on the AWB at all, but i think this was poorly phrased. then again, i get the impression that it's fairly difficult to properly summarize that particular piece of legislation.

 

[O.F.Fascist]

Here is where the new poll is linked from.

This is the one that shows us a losing.

Go vote.

http://www.kqed.org/topics/news/index.jsp#

 

[Preacherman]

Yep, O.F.F. - that poll definitely shows the anti's ahead. Now why do you suppose they'd post the same poll in two completely different locations? Any guess as to which one will be publicized?

We'd all better visit the second location and vote there too.

 

[Greg L]

First link:

Yes 335 5%
No 6264 95%

Second link:

Yes 318 70%
No 135 30%

****
Hmmm, something's up. Has anyone emailed the station to ask why they are running the same poll on two sites with polar opposite results? I'm sure that the second one is the only results that they will mention.

 

[pignock]

First link
no - 95%
yes - 5%

Second link
no 38%
yes 62 %

 

[yesterdaysyouth]

This activity was designed to present you with specific arguments, based on whether you responded "yes" or "no" to the question "Should the U.S. federal government continue the ban on assault weapons?" Although your vote has been cast, you may still go through the activity again, select the opposite answers, and see what opposition has to say.



i guess this is why there are 2 different poles.... and two different results...

 

[halvey]

I voted NO several times so I could vote no once. Man.

 

[hso]

I think we're missing something here. This is a GREAT poll!

If you go through the steps and vote at each step the next "page" of information that pops up is a counter argument to the previous vote. If you vote to drop the AWB at each step you get arguments against dropping it. Conversly, if you vote to keep the AWB you get arguments for dropping it. The arguments against the AWB seem to be more logical and compelling than the ones for keeping it. That may be why the final tally is so overwhelmingly on our side.

The folks that have the idea that the AWB somehow does some good go through the first or second step getting arguments against the AWB in response to their "YES" keep it vote. They may be seeing our information and responding to logic when they get to the final vote that gets tallied. If both sides get presented and the folks that vote base their vote upon having balanced information then it's a good poll.

 

[StopTheGrays]

Should the U.S. federal government continue the ban on assault weapons?

Yes 320 50%
No 319 50%

 

[tcdrennen]

Second Link (repeated for easy access ) now:

Should the U.S. federal government continue the ban on assault weapons?

Yes 320 49%
No 339 51%

 

[Nightfall MVII]

Did you see the discussion board. Here is a copy of the first post...

reply by Voldermortist - 09:01pm Jul 17, 2004
A message from a Victim of Gun Violence

As a victim of gun violence myself, I fully 100% support the sunset of this gun ban. This ban gun is one of the most futile and pathetic attempts at disarmament this country has ever seen. a Treasonous measure brought about by people who care nothing for others and care only for power and prestige. As a victim of gun violence myself, I CURSE anyone who supports this ridiculous legislation. People who support it obviously are not intune with the facts and know little to NOTHING at all about firearms. They are pathetic emotionally overrun people with extremely sloppy impulse control who do not think before they act. They use no brain power what-so-ever and allow their petty emotions to drag them on a rollercoaster of bullsh*t. They barely have any free will at all.

I couldn't have said it any better myself.

 

[Nick1911]

That's a really inovative way of having a poll. I like.

YES --> 320 --> 46%
NO --> 374 --> 54%

Nick

 

[Third_Rail]

Yes 46%
No 54%