Where does the "90 per cent support expanded background checks" number come fro
- Thread starter ArcherandShooter
- Start date
- Status
ROCK6, if a sample is truly random, you don't need much over 2 or 3 thousand to be very accurate, like within 2 or 3 percentage points. With 1000 respondents, the margin of error is probably closer to 5%, but still not large. The sample size is not the issue.
It's how the question is asked. I worked in market research, and I could get any answer I wanted if I just asked the question the right way. I guarantee the question was something like "do you support background checks for gun purchases and closing loop holes that allow criminals to purchase guns without background checks." Who wouldn't answer yes to that?
It's how the question is asked. I worked in market research, and I could get any answer I wanted if I just asked the question the right way. I guarantee the question was something like "do you support background checks for gun purchases and closing loop holes that allow criminals to purchase guns without background checks." Who wouldn't answer yes to that?
Blackstone
Member
As Colion Noir put it, there's a word of difference between
"Would you give up your guns to save children's lives?"
and
"Do you think giving up your guns would save children's lives?"
"Would you give up your guns to save children's lives?"
and
"Do you think giving up your guns would save children's lives?"
The actual question from the survey is:
"Q: Would you support or oppose a law requiring background checks on people buying guns at gun shows?"
It's easy to see why there is so much support based on that wording.
There doesn't appear to be a followup question to determine whether people are aware that Federal law already requires this of all FFLs.
This is also a far cry from the actual bill that Schumer put forth, and only part of the Manchin-Toomey bill (Internet and publications, whatever that means)
"Q: Would you support or oppose a law requiring background checks on people buying guns at gun shows?"
It's easy to see why there is so much support based on that wording.
There doesn't appear to be a followup question to determine whether people are aware that Federal law already requires this of all FFLs.
This is also a far cry from the actual bill that Schumer put forth, and only part of the Manchin-Toomey bill (Internet and publications, whatever that means)
Outlaw Man
Member
62% don't agree with me, so the poll must be rigged. :banghead:
As John Adams said, "facts are stubborn things," but it seems they're certain if they ignore the facts enough they'll go away.
mgkdrgn
Member
Bend over .... waaaaayyyyy over.
now look up
danthearmyman
Member
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2011
- Messages
- 24
I don't support a single thing that comes out of D.C.
Show me 9 people who do, and then I might believe in that statistic.
Show me 9 people who do, and then I might believe in that statistic.
bhesler, thanks for providing the actual question. As I suspected, it's worded in a way to get only yes answers. It certainly doesn't say that they want background checks for all transfers, and doesn't, as you identified, explain to low information people that the law already requires this of all licensed dealers.
indyogb
Member
The continued quoting of that poll is driving me nuts
90% of Americans can't agree which direction is north. It's ridiculous. If I could see even ONE other poll that corroborated that level of support, I might be more inclined to believe it.
Maybe they should be a little more specific - as in "Do you support the 'Univeral Background Check' amendment as proposed by Senators Manchin and Toomey?" I quite doubt they'd get 90% or 88% of gun owners in favor of that (ridiculous numbers).
90% of Americans can't agree which direction is north. It's ridiculous. If I could see even ONE other poll that corroborated that level of support, I might be more inclined to believe it.
Maybe they should be a little more specific - as in "Do you support the 'Univeral Background Check' amendment as proposed by Senators Manchin and Toomey?" I quite doubt they'd get 90% or 88% of gun owners in favor of that (ridiculous numbers).
Nail+Head=HIT
A poll question asking do you support background checks on criminals trying to buy guns is a far cry from "Do you support the bill currently up for debate in the Senate?" What we really need in this country is "Media Reform." Hold the media accountable for the misinformation it spreads claiming poll numbers that have little to nothing to do with the facts and politicians that spew these misguided poll numbers as facts.
And that's the key phrase.
What's our definition of random and what's the anti-gun folks definition of random?
Suppose the sample was kept to within a mostly anti-gun area such as Washington DC, Montgomery County MD, and Prince Georges County MD?
I guarantee you that they'd get that 90% easily.
Target a specific demographic and then claim that it's random. Who's going to call them out on it? The news media? The academic circles? Heck no. They're all in it together and to them the ends justify the means.
Honesty and fair play is totally out the window with the anti-gun people. They're willing to lie cheat or do whatever it takes to get what they want.
It's a false loaded question since gun shows don't sell guns at all. FFL's can sell at gun shows, which require checks. Individuals can also sell privately owned guns without a check.
Try this question:
"Do you think the federal government should prosecute individuals for selling guns which are legally owned?"
Try this question:
"Do you think the federal government should prosecute individuals for selling guns which are legally owned?"
rodinal220
Member
Narnia??
Heywood Case
Member
These types of polls usually do start off with reasonably random samples, but they also usually only go for 2-3 days, which means they only interview the people who are easy to reach and the response rate is in the single digits. But I think the disconnect between poll questions and legislation is a better explanation, plus the fact that legislators aren't elected by random samples.
I will agree that polls can be worded to skew the results to what is desired but, at least in some polls, the 90 percent results are taken out of context and not all the information is reported.
At least one poll from Quinnipac University had other questions that indicated a majority of folks believe background checks could lead to confiscation of legally owned fire arms.
See link:
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institute...titute/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=1877
Both sides selectively delete undesirable information. It is a shame that a major news outlet does not take up the challenge to report all the information.
Yes, I know, it is not news anymore, just opinion and agenda reporting.
As an aside, around election times, a local television station will do segments on local candidates and investigate their campaign claims. It is quite interesting.
At least one poll from Quinnipac University had other questions that indicated a majority of folks believe background checks could lead to confiscation of legally owned fire arms.
See link:
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institute...titute/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=1877
Both sides selectively delete undesirable information. It is a shame that a major news outlet does not take up the challenge to report all the information.
Yes, I know, it is not news anymore, just opinion and agenda reporting.
As an aside, around election times, a local television station will do segments on local candidates and investigate their campaign claims. It is quite interesting.
janedoedad
Member
I Suspect they polled incoming freshmen at a liberal arts college in a liberal state on the first day of school, after being given candy and ice cream by the cheerleading squad.
That isn't any sillier than some of the other ideas being floated around. . .
That isn't any sillier than some of the other ideas being floated around. . .
we are not amused
Member
You beat me to it!
we are not amused
Member
Personally, I can't believe anyone taking the figure seriously!
The President was clearly out of control! Watching the speech, I kept expecting him to fling himself on the floor and threaten to hold his breath till the Senate did what he wanted.
The President was clearly out of control! Watching the speech, I kept expecting him to fling himself on the floor and threaten to hold his breath till the Senate did what he wanted.
TheSaint
Member
Rumor has it that it was pulled straight out of Bloomberg's cranky butt.
Dazen
Member
CNN is saying 74% of NRA gun owners support the universal background checks. They are going to just keep saying things like this over and over till it becomes the truth to the low information voter.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/19/opinion/waldman-gun-vote/index.html?eref=mrss_igoogle_cnn
http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/19/opinion/waldman-gun-vote/index.html?eref=mrss_igoogle_cnn
SpentCasing
Member
90% of polls and statistics are made up. 
That goes for both sides of the aisle.
That goes for both sides of the aisle.
Diamondback6
Member
Where's it come from? Same place as every other stat Bad Check Barry, Baron of Bullcrap, cites: he pulls it from somewhere between his external and internal sphincter ani.
It's all about people being uninformed.
Much like DF's ban on Aw's with the also ban on the one's with rocket launchers.
People who don't know better go, SOB!!! I sure don't want people buying and owning rocket launchers bought at walmart!!!
They don't know assault rifles don'thave rocket launchers, but if she said she wants them banned, they must exist.
Much like DF's ban on Aw's with the also ban on the one's with rocket launchers.
People who don't know better go, SOB!!! I sure don't want people buying and owning rocket launchers bought at walmart!!!
They don't know assault rifles don'thave rocket launchers, but if she said she wants them banned, they must exist.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
