Two out of three Swiss support the EU Gun Ban, referendum against it likely to fail (poll)

[Tommygunn]

If you read my post again, you might see that I said it wasn’t that simple. I said that the utopian state is impossible, just in different words. But it is natural to think as the antis do. No guns means no gun violence. What could be better than that? But impossible. Same thing as a war on poverty. It is an impossible task.

'Thinking no guns is no violence' is not sensible, and is not true. I don't even really think the antigunners believe it; I think it's really about people control, not gun control.
Perhaps the antigunners believe possessing guns makes mayhem easier, and a people lacking guns would not so readily resort to knives, bludgeons, and other non firearm weapons.
I think there's ample evidence that people would use those weapons more.

 

[rpenmanparker]

The problem is equating "no gun violence" with "no violence". The reports of "knife violence" in places like China and the UK is just one example of the fallacy of the no-guns-no-violence viewpoint.

Nobody suggested that extension of no gun violence that you are promoting. We care about guns. People won't blame gun owners if someone is stabbed with a knife.

 

[Elkins45]

The polling statistical methodology accounts for those peculiarities. People not responding is factored into the results. That’s what statisticians get paid for. And that brings up an important point. Statistics and probability. Polls aren’t meant to be infallible. They are like the chance of rain. It is a likelihood, not a certainty. Having the last presidential election come out as it did was as much a part of the poll results as the opposite. It just wasn’t the most likely outcome. Very frequently the less likely outcome is what happens. Probability! But that doesn’t mean the odds weren’t as described. What, do you win every football bet because you take the favorite. I don’t think so.

Only to a degree. The issue is that one particular flavor of respondent knows they can express their thoughts with little chance there will be negative consequences, so those people tend to be oversampled just by virtue of the fact they are willing to respond. Or people who feel one way tell the pollster they feel the ‘correct’ way in order to avoid getting labeled as a kook/gun owner/conservative. There’s not a very reliable algorithm to account for this other than applying corrections after the fact.

 

[Walkalong]

As much as I like the Europeans (& I really do), I have often found them to be much more 'collectively oriented' than Americans. They tend to think more in terms of 'what X means for our society' than 'what X means for me.' IMHO. YMMV.

Which isn't always a bad thing, until government takes advantage of it.

 

[mdauben]

Nobody suggested that extension of no gun violence that you are promoting. We care about guns. People won't blame gun owners if someone is stabbed with a knife.

I'm not saying you are suggesting that, I'm saying that is what the anti-gunners are implying and many people who drink their koolaid seem to believe.

 

[Sniper66]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Firearms_Directive#Content

The most important change is that they could possess the newly banned firearms based on an "exemption" contained in the law.

Which is a tried and practiced way. First remove right to be armed and make it privilige. Few years down the road tell them that nobody could seriously expect to keep their arms based on "exemption". And the times have changed, no more exemptions.

Yes, that's the way it works. Same thing happening here with "red flag laws", which makes it OK for authorities to confiscate firearms under "certain conditions". At some point the conditions for confiscation will expand and expand. Just as the UK now bans even a pocket knife on your person. This fueled by the notion that if you are carrying any "weapon" you must have evil intent. How much of a stretch is it to assume that just owning a firearm reveals evil intent? Many gun haters already assume that.

 

[Pete D.]

"to assume that just owning a firearm reveals evil intent? Many gun haters already assume that."

Very true. Often, when the subject of gun ownership surfaces in conversation with folk that do not own firearms, i hear them saying "Oh. you own guns?" The tone of the rhetorical question is obviously critical....as if I am doing something bad.

 

[Casefull]

Not only is it obvious that polls and polling are tools used to influence public opinion it is incredibly naïve to believe that pollsters are always honest and never allow their personal beliefs to affect the criteria they use to poll. Just the way the question is framed makes a difference in polling results.

 

[rpenmanparker]

Not only is it obvious that polls and polling are tools used to influence public opinion it is incredibly naïve to believe that pollsters are always honest and never allow their personal beliefs to affect the criteria they use to poll. Just the way the question is framed makes a difference in polling results.

What is it to believe that polls are never honest, and that pollsters always allow their personal beliefs to affect the criteria they use to poll? You act like a trained pollster has no idea how to frame a question. How much worse than naive is paranoid and deluded?

Polling has always been an inexact science. It is that by definition, not by fault. But most pollsters do the best they know how.

 

[Tommygunn]

"He who determines the question determines the answer," ~~Confucius.

There are good pollsters who are good at framing a question very neutrally, and then there are amateurs, usually working for local media who may try hard but still will never be pro, then their are those who concoct polls to drive an agenda.
I have no idea about the pollsters who did this European poll. My point is that it's a mixed bag. Be careful of painting too wide a swath.
It's saying all police are corrupt, or all are good.
During our election cycle (one is coming up in 2020!!!....) The major parties will conduct push polls, designed all to drive some agenda. Some media will also do this. You can bet, behind the scenes, both parties will use professionals to conduct REAL polls to find out what is really happening to help them tune their campaigns. Some of these are known and we get their results too.

 

[Snejdarek]

Not only is it obvious that polls and polling are tools used to influence public opinion

Hey, guys, just take it easy. The referendum will be in one month, so we will get clear answer.

Based on the information from Swiss gun owners the polls seems to be reflecting pulic opinion pretty well.

 

[mdauben]

I was going to comment, but this thread seems to have drifted from the issue into arguing about polls.

 

[Casefull]

What is it to believe that polls are never honest, and that pollsters always allow their personal beliefs to affect the criteria they use to poll? You act like a trained pollster has no idea how to frame a question. How much worse than naive is paranoid and deluded?

Polling has always been an inexact science. It is that by definition, not by fault. But most pollsters do the best they know how.

I do not think all pollsters are dishonest or uninformed. Deluded is your word not mine.
You and I look at the same thing and see it differently. If you actually look at all the variables in producing a poll you would realize the chances of error and or fudging are quite large. Some think polls are a random selection of people, that is not true. Everything they do is calculated. Just the small sample sizes pollsters use is an indication of how in accurate they can be. Everything is weighted based on a variety of educated guesses. One of the common phrases you hear in the news is this: " The polls are tightening up just before the election "
I've heard that too many times to count. Ask yourself why they say that. Most of the time it's because the pollster doesn't want to be caught out on a limb with the assumptions he made when doing his polling. I believe polling is as much opinion as it is science.

 

[ATLDave]

But most pollsters do the best they know how.

I think that's true. I also think it's true that only some pollster are trying to collect accurate, predictive information. A lot of pollsters have other objectives.

But even for those just trying to measure actual public opinion, issue polling is much, much harder to get right (meaning both valid and reliable) than electoral polling. Issue polling is just hard, precisely because there are so many different ways of asking a question about a topic - and people respond differently to different questions. Lawyers know that as well as pollsters!

 

[rpenmanparker]

I think that's true. I also think it's true that only some pollster are trying to collect accurate, predictive information. A lot of pollsters have other objectives.

But even for those just trying to measure actual public opinion, issue polling is much, much harder to get right (meaning both valid and reliable) than electoral polling. Issue polling is just hard, precisely because there are so many different ways of asking a question about a topic - and people respond differently to different questions. Lawyers know that as well as pollsters!

Agreed.

 

[Koolmoose]

Another issue is who the pollsters work for. If an organization hires two highly qualified and ethical polling professionals and both polls come back with conflicting results, one positive to the groups ideals and one not so much, which poll results are going to be highlighted and which will be buried?

There could be much data on Swiss gun attitudes that are not available to the public.

 

[wyk]

Hey, guys, just take it easy. The referendum will be in one month, so we will get clear answer.

Based on the information from Swiss gun owners the polls seems to be reflecting pulic opinion pretty well.

Yes. From what I understand even members of Pro-Tell (Swiss gun rights organization), agree that the opinion polls are accurate.

Many Swiss are fearful of being kicked out of the Schengen zone and the economic backlash should they reject implementing amendments to the EU Firearm Directive.

The best chance of victory will be a low turnout for most and gun owners turn out in large numbers.

 

[WVGunman]

I remember hearing quite a bit about other polls right before our last elections.

The polls that said the Democrats would take back control of the House?? Because ... they did ...

 

[milemaker13]

The polling statistical methodology accounts for those peculiarities. People not responding is factored into the results. That’s what statisticians get paid for. And that brings up an important point. Statistics and probability. Polls aren’t meant to be infallible. They are like the chance of rain. It is a likelihood, not a certainty. Having the last presidential election come out as it did was as much a part of the poll results as the opposite. It just wasn’t the most likely outcome. Very frequently the less likely outcome is what happens. Probability! But that doesn’t mean the odds weren’t as described. What, do you win every football bet because you take the favorite. I don’t think so.

So... you're saying polls are unreliable and useless endeavors?

 

[milemaker13]

I have not read all the replys here... but based on historical and even current events... I think europeans should be VERY weary of gun controls. It seems to be a viscous (& stupid) cycle over there... first they take the arms, then they take the power.
Why in the world is the EU so dang hot to dis-arm everyone on the continent??

 

[rpenmanparker]

So... you're saying polls are unreliable and useless endeavors?

Only for those who are not swift enough to be able to interpret probabilities.

 

[Browning]

The polls that said the Democrats would take back control of the House?? Because ... they did ...

I was actually talking about all the polls saying Hillary was supposed to win.

So what happened there?

 

[WVGunman]

I was actually talking about all the polls saying Hillary was supposed to win.

So what happened there?

Sure, but that was not the last elections, as stated.

 

[Snejdarek]

I was actually talking about all the polls saying Hillary was supposed to win.

So what happened there?

She did get about 3 million votes more than Trump. What the polls didn't account for was that Trump could win the electoral college even with about 3 million less votes.

 

[Odd Job]

Locked.
OP can PM me when he has the actual results and I'll reopen this for discussion.