The dumbest thing the Brady Campaign has done to date...

[LRS_Ranger]

Isn't this starbucks thing old news already? I think that its funny that they are using all their energy fighting this battle they already lost. Starbucks did what they did specifically to avoid getting dragged into exactly what the BC is still trying to get them involved in. Is there something new I missed?

 

[Weevil]

Isn't this starbucks thing old news already? I think that its funny that they are using all their energy fighting this battle they already lost. Starbucks did what they did specifically to avoid getting dragged into exactly what the BC is still trying to get them involved in. Is there something new I missed?

Well obviously the Brady Bunch doesn't feel this battle is "lost" and are going to try and drag Starbucks back into the fight.

If they can put enough heat on Starbucks they may just knuckle under to the pressure like so many others in corporate America have already done.


We can never assume the fight is over, our 2A rights are constantly under attack from these bozos and we must be ready to rise up amd stamp out the embers when they try to fan the flames.

 

[jfdavis58]

The problem does not lie with the statistics or the statisticians; rather if falls squarely on the audience. An audience that is mostly blind to their own ignorance---ahh the joy of public education and liberal arts.


A sample of 600 from a population of 400 million is, in a single thought: a joke. Coupling the sample size to a 'margin of error' of 4% move the exercise from a single joke to a full on comedy routine.

The math can be reversed. That is to say that a proper (small) sample size from a (typically large) population of some given size can be determined for a particular level of confidence (which is related to margin of error).

Given the number of variables this survey attempts to lump-together, it's safe to conclude some sample size in excess of 600 will be needed.

Statistics at this level works well with widgets-simple mechanical devices. It cannot account for emotions or experiential factors in human beings with such a simple model approach.

Discount the story and the so called statistics for what they are: scare tactics propaganda aimed at the great mass of ignorance called the American populace.

 

[Deanimator]

Well the best way for us to counter the Brady Bunch's "poll" is go buy a cup of coffee at the local Starbucks.

That's something I do on a regular basis and which I encourage other gun owners to do.

 

[oldbear]

Please support your premise.

Dear Navy Lt, I understand the reason for your post, but you don’t support your premise, “The dumbest thing the Brady Campaign has done to date...” your second premise is, “I can't put into words how completely ridiculous this is. A total new low:”

Yes, a survey population of 600 is at best a very small when referring to the total population of the United States, but what is the dumb, ridiculous, and the low thing the Brady Campaign has done? Do you have proof that the company who conducted the pole skewed the results? Do you believe that the company conducting the survey intently chose a random sampling of the population that would not approve of anyone caring a handgun in a Starbucks?

Or do you base your statements/premis on the fact that the data presented by the Brady Campaign does not support your beliefs?

 

[WoofersInc]

Do you have proof that the company who conducted the pole skewed the results? Do you believe that the company conducting the survey intently chose a random sampling of the population that would not approve of anyone caring a handgun in a Starbucks?

I for one, do believe that.


Well a little more to this. I went to the Lake Research website and started poking around.
here are just a few tidbits from the companies website.

Most of all, we’re a firm of true believers – each one of us feels privileged to work with our clients to advance progressive ideals – it’s the primary ‘intangible’ benefit of Lake Research Partners. Many peers told Founder Celinda Lake in 1995 that building a firm with a progressive values client base wasn’t economically viable for a new business. Fourteen years later, we’re still at it, and still proud of every project we’ve done.

The polling company flat out admits to an agenda of advancing "progressive" ideas.

The right message to the right audience wins the day. LRP is one of the most reputable firms in providing issue advocacy organizations with research that shapes the debate and leads to winning policy outcomes.

Sounds like they are admitting to altering the results to what the clients want.

Candidates and ballot measure committees come to us when they want accurate polling, insightful and penetrating analysis, and a team of professionals dedicated to winning. From questionnaire design through scientific sampling and innovative statistical techniques, LRP leads the field

Team dedicated to winning. Funny. I thought poll taking was supposed to be unbiased and independent.
Do i need to even talk about "innovative statistical techniques". Political doubletalk for "we make it up however we want it."
Questionnaire design. In other words make the question so that you get the result that you want.

Check out the link for the groups that they work for. It should tell you all you need to know about these so called "polls"

http://www.lakeresearch.com/clients/issue.asp

I see more than enough reason to support my belief that the whole poll was rigged. The research company claims they do it on their own website. It not like we aren't aware of these tactics but for the Brady Bunch to use a polling service that so blatantly admits to these things is pretty boneheaded. There is zero credibility for this...

 

[Carl N. Brown]

OK, a polling firm "privileged to work with our clients to advance progressive ideals .... a firm with a progressive values client base ...." We have advocacy journalists promoting an agenda rather than reporting facts, academics catering to the ideals of the "progressive community" rather than following the data where it leads, and polling firms that poll to "advance progressive ideals". Good intentions do not make a policy unquestionably right, but our "progressives" demonize those who do ask the questions that should be asked and answered.

James Wright and Peter Rossi "Under the Gun" 1983 looked at two polls commissioned by NRA and Handgun Control Inc on gun control. The press release summaries supported the agendas of the goups who commissioned the polls, but Wright with a background in democraphics took the raw questions and answers and ferreted out this: most people supported an individual right to own a gun; most people opposed gun or ammo bans; most people supported moderate regulation aimed at abuse or misuse, as long as it did not infringe on the first two. It is a chapter of the book and was a good read back in 1983.

Can we get the raw questions and answers on this poll, or are we supposed to accept the "progressive values" espoused without question?

 

[oldbear]

“The polling company flat out admits to an agenda of advancing "progressive" ideas.”
The Deceleration of Independence and the Bill of Rights were considered progressive ideas in 1776.

Yes, this company does have a number of liberal organizations listed as clients, yet not all of their clients are left wing nut case associations. After visiting their web page I cherry picked from their list of clients and have taken the liberty of posting these below:

American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network
California Common Cause
Humane Society of the United States
League of Conservation Voters
Planned Parenthood Federation of America
Planned Parenthood Affiliates Nationwide
Planned Parenthood Action Fund
Sierra Club
Rock the Vote

I no longer spend the amount of time that I once did keeping up with various political action groups, but none of the associations I listed were considered to be far liberal groups.

The reason I bring all of this up is simple, when faced with information from antigun groups or persons all to often the response is to resort to name calling and attacking the person presenting the argument, and not attacking the argument. If We want to be considered as safe and sane sportsmen and women we must present ourselves as such. Not as a gang of violent uneducated losers who are unable to respond to any criticism without name-calling.

Do not ever forget that many in the antigun movement may be misguided but they are not stupid.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Do not ever forget that many in the antigun movement may be misguided but they are not stupid.

Sorry but in this binary us against them sort of dealings when it comes to gun rights, we know that we are smarter and better and unbiased for supporting gun rights and so the opposite must be true as well.

 

[armoredman]

HSUS is a left leaning anti hunting outfit, do not mistake them with your local humane society animal schelter, NOt the same.
Sierra Club tends to support anti-hunting.
All Planned Parenthood outfits are pro abortion anti family, i.e., free pregnacy termination on demand.
Rock The Vote was the leftists stirring up for Obama, and Clinton, too, I believe.
I cannot say ay of those you listed represent any truely conservative outfits, though I have been wrong in the past, and will be wrong in the future - just ask my wife.

 

[WoofersInc]

The reason I bring all of this up is simple, when faced with information from antigun groups or persons all to often the response is to resort to name calling and attacking the person presenting the argument, and not attacking the argument

Attacking the arguement was the reason I posted the info on the company doing the poll. By showing them in their true light as an agenda driven company, it shows that the info is not unbiased. The Brady Group is using this info as facts. I am trying to show that it is not actually factual but biased to give the results that the Brady Group wanted.

Lake Reasearch is basically a hired gun who admits in their own website that they will give you the polls that show what ever you want them to.

Let's show them some of their other clients they are proud to have served shall we. Here is the whole list of agenda driven groups that they do work for..

ACORN
Afterschool Alliance
Alliance for Excellent Education
American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network
American Civil Liberties Union
Americans for Health Care
American Rivers
American Social Health Association
America's Voice
Animal Protection Institute of New Mexico
Asian American Justice Center
Basic Rights Oregon
Basic Rights New Mexico
Blue Green Alliance
California Common Cause
Campaign Money Watch
Center for American Progress
Center for National Policy
Center for New Democracy
Center for Reproductive Rights
Center for Women Policy Studies
CEOs for Cities
Chicago Metropolis 2020
Citizen Action
Clean Air Trust
Coalition to Stop Gun Violence
College Democrats of America
Common Cause
Community Service Society
Democracy for America
Early Childhood Investment Corporation
EMILY's List
Equality California
Equality Florida
Equal Rights Washington
Floridians for Fair Elections
Families USA
The Fresh Air Fund
Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund
Health Care for America Now!
Human Rights Campaign
Humane Society of the United States
Illinois Citizen Action
National Council of La Raza
Latino Policy Coalition
Leadership Conference on Civil Rights
League of Conservation Voters
Maine Won’t Discriminate
MassEquality
Metropolitan Group
Minnesota Environmental Partnership
MoveOn.org
NARAL Pro-Choice America
National Affirmative Action Consortium
National Center for Summer Learning
National Immigration Forum
National Immigration Law Center
National Voting Rights Institute
National Women's Law Center
Nevada Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice
New Mexico Office of Education Accountability
OneAmerica
Omega Institute
Oregonians for Health Security
People for the American Way
Planned Parenthood Action Fund
Planned Parenthood Affiliates Nationwide
Planned Parenthood Federation of America
Prairie Dog Coalition
Pro-Choice Public Education Project
Progressive Leadership Alliance
Public Campaign Action Fund
Public Citizen
Public Education Network
Punk Voter
Rock the Vote
Sierra Club
The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
The Centre for Development and Population Activities
The Herndon Alliance
The White House Project
The Wilderness Society
TURN
USAction
VoteVets.org
Washington League of Education Voters
Women in Government
Women’s Campaign Fund
Women’s Policy Institute
Women’s Voices. Women’s Vote.
WomenMatter
Young Voter Strategies

As Obama said during the campaign. "Judge me by the people I surround myself with."
Most of these groups are known to be either anti hunting or anti gun.

I no longer spend the amount of time that I once did keeping up with various political action groups, but none of the associations I listed were considered to be far liberal groups

.

You might want to research some of the groups you listed and see where they stand on issues now and who is running them.. Follow the money...

 

[devildog32713]

I will support starbucks MORE because of this, I will drink MORE of their coffee, and do it CHEERFULLY, knowing that I am more safe with good men and women carrying firearms into there stores, I feel more secure knowing that zero robberies will occur there.

 

[UserM4]

The Brady Campaign is lying by omission again. So what's new?

 

[KODB]

Actually, Wevil is probably the most correct; the polls of any type get skewed by the population polled. Go to the place IF you like their coffee and "vote" I would suspect that if you were able to "categorize" or "stratify" the "average" Starbucks customer they would be substantially more "liberal" than the average THR reader/poster. Personally, I like Starbucks coffees and also my 1911s so generally speaking both go with me into the store. I've never been asked before but now am looking forward to registering on the poll!
Regards,
Bob