If 90% want Universal Background Checks, why are 39% happy they got shot down?

[ivwshane]

I prefer "reasonable intuition". You're saying that this poll shows nothing of significance regarding the question of background checks, despite having the issue plastered all over every TV in America for months, making it the focal point of the new gun control legislation, and despite the fact that the question itself references universal background checks.


I disagree. No I don't have a scientifically provable case or a hard figure, but I do have a reasonable one. I spend 4 months shoving bananas in your face on a daily basis, and then have a highly publicized vote on law that include apples, bananas, peaches, and cherries. I then ask you how you feel about the vote being struck down, and mention the vote included bananas. You don't have any real time to think about your answer. Now tell me, exactly what criteria are you going to base your answer on?

Except there are people who hate all fruit except for bananas so they might be happy about.

It's a horrible poll and you know it.

 

[fskimospy]

No, you went a step further with this.

No I didn't. If you believe I asserted that he was doing anything other than making unfounded conclusions from that poll data, please quote me.

Nothing here says that 90% is correct either now does it. I would add that the poll does seem to bring that 90% into question. To what extent who knows.

You're now asking to prove a negative. It would be quite easy to evaluate the support for background checks, just ask the question again. Asking it as part of a larger question that involves a lot of other factors is silliness.

As ivwshane mentioned, the poll question police suddenly become very forgiving when they think the poll tells them what they want to think.

 

[irishScott]

Except there are people who hate all fruit except for bananas so they might be happy about.

It's a horrible poll and you know it.

A horrible poll that has implications nonetheless.

 

[fskimospy]

I prefer "reasonable intuition". You're saying that this poll shows nothing of significance regarding the question of background checks, despite having the issue plastered all over every TV in America for months, making it the focal point of the new gun control legislation, and despite the fact that the question itself references universal background checks.

I'm saying that you cannot draw a meaningful conclusion as to polled population's feelings about background checks from the question provided. To attempt to draw that from this question is foolish.

I disagree. No I don't have a scientifically provable case or a hard figure, but I do have a reasonable one. I spend 4 months shoving bananas in your face on a daily basis, and then have a highly publicized vote on a law that include apples, bananas, peaches, and cherries. I then ask you how you feel about the vote being struck down, and mention the vote included bananas. You don't have any real time to think about your answer. Now tell me, exactly what criteria are you going to base your answer on? (Answer: How you feel about bananas)

You are really really reaching here. You know the question didn't ask what you said it did. If you have to attempt to psychoanalyze the effects of media consumption on a thousand random people in order to justify your interpretation it is on mighty shaky grounds. I for one can't fathom why this would in any way cast doubt on the results of polls in which people were explicitly and solely asked about background checks.

 

[irishScott]

You're now asking to prove a negative. It would be quite easy to evaluate the support for background checks, just ask the question again. Asking it as part of a larger question that involves a lot of other factors is silliness.

Or it could be like nuclear power, where many are in favor of it in a vacuum and against it in their neighborhoods.

 

[irishScott]

I'm saying that you cannot draw a meaningful conclusion as to polled population's feelings about background checks from the question provided. To attempt to draw that from this question is foolish.



You are really really reaching here. You know the question didn't ask what you said it did. If you have to attempt to psychoanalyze the effects of media consumption on a thousand random people in order to justify your interpretation it is on mighty shaky grounds. I for one can't fathom why this would in any way cast doubt on the results of polls in which people were explicitly and solely asked about background checks.

Yes, I'm really, really, reaching with normal human social intuition. As I said, I think the poll intuitively calls the 90% figure into question. I don't know precisely how much, but given the vast disparity between this poll's results and 90% it appears to be somewhere between 0-39% at minimum, with likely odds that it's somewhere in the middle.

 

[ivwshane]

Yes, I'm really, really, reaching with normal human social intuition. As I said, I think the poll intuitively calls the 90% figure into question. I don't know precisely how much, but given the vast disparity between this poll's results and 90% it appears to be somewhere between 0-39% at minimum, with likely odds that it's somewhere in the middle.

So you throw out all previous polls because you found one poll that might say something else? I know a group of people who had that same mentality regarding another set of polls around November of last year

 

[irishScott]

So you throw out all previous polls because you found one poll that might say something else? I know a group of people who had that same mentality regarding another set of polls around November of last year

I think a found a poll that does say something else of significance, I just can't numerically show what it says.

And I'm pretty sure I'm on record here predicting Obama wins in both elections as soon as the Republican candidate was announced. Used reasonable social intuition for that too.

 

[ivwshane]

I think a found a poll that does say something else of significance, I just can't numerically show what it says.

And I'm pretty sure I'm on record here predicting Obama wins in both elections as soon as the Republican candidate was announced. Used reasonable social intuition for that too.

Well I guess that's just the luck of the Irish

 

[piasabird]

We should use background checks at the Voting Booth!

 

[ivwshane]

We should use background checks at the Voting Booth!

We do, it's called voter registration and provisional ballots.

 

[Smoblikat]

According to the press and plenty of senators along with the presdient about this vote, it was to get background checks on all the firearms you can buy over the Internet!

Now, because the meanies in the senate voted no people can still buy any gun they want, as much as they want over the internet. Just click, buy and the weapon of war is delivered right to your door, no questions asked and no background check!

How would an anonymous thing such as the internet keep people from using an identity other than their own?

 

[spidey07]

How would an anonymous thing such as the internet keep people from using an identity other than their own?

Dear god I hope my sarcasm meter is broken.

You cannot buy a gun on the Internet without a background check.

 

[cubby1223]

Have you ever wondered why the individual parts of the Affordable Care Act are generally very popular but the act itself is not? It's because there are more considerations when you talk about legislation in the aggregate than when you talk about individual issues.

Your OP is based on a fundamental misreading of what the poll question asked. That's really the beginning and end of it.

Seriously? You're going to bring that up again?

It kind of goes like this:

Do I want background checks? Yes.
Do I want an easily accessible federal database of individuals, who knows who is adding correct or incorrect information to the files being handed out to someone who asks? No.

So, do I want the legislation passed mandating more background checks? No. But I want background checks. It's as simple as that.



With Obamacare it's like:

Do you want to be healthy and have insurance coverage? Yes.
Do you want to pay for the costs? No.

so... what do we do?

The real question is, is the end result worth what it takes to get there?

 

[PrinceofWands]

Even just the background check section was BADLY written and contained much having nothing to do with background checks. If people want background checks passed, they need to write the bill better, utilizing the critiques widely available on the previous attempts.

 

[glenn1]

Seriously? You're going to bring that up again?

It kind of goes like this:

Do I want background checks? Yes.
Do I want an easily accessible federal database of individuals, who knows who is adding correct or incorrect information to the files being handed out to someone who asks? No.

So, do I want the legislation passed mandating more background checks? No. But I want background checks. It's as simple as that.



With Obamacare it's like:

Do you want to be healthy and have insurance coverage? Yes.
Do you want to pay for the costs? No.

so... what do we do?

The real question is, is the end result worth what it takes to get there?

Or more likely perhaps:

Do you want XYZ? Yes.

Do you trust the U.S. Congress to give it to you without completely fucking it up? No.

 

[OverVolt]

According to the press and plenty of senators along with the presdient about this vote, it was to get background checks on all the firearms you can buy over the Internet!

Now, because the meanies in the senate voted no people can still buy any gun they want, as much as they want over the internet. Just click, buy and the weapon of war is delivered right to your door, no questions asked and no background check!

If background checks were so important to the liberals they shouldn't have over extended themselves and try to shove all the other bans in there with it, then they blame the republicans because they bit off more than they can chew? Okay, liberals are looking like a bunch of complainers.

 

[irishScott]

If background checks were so important to the liberals they shouldn't have over extended themselves and try to shove all the other bans in there with it, then they blame the republicans because they bit off more than they can chew? Okay, liberals are looking like a bunch of complainers.

Not so much Republicans as the evil, satanic gun lobby that just ensured their asses got kicked.

Liberals need to realize that not everyone who disagrees with them on gun rights is some back woods toothless high-school-dropout hillbilly. I actually attribute that impression to the reason they lost. They think they're preaching to a tiny, stupid, uneducated minority, when in fact a lot of gun owners are pretty normal, reasonably smart people.

At least that's the only explanation I've come up with for how insultingly dumb their rhetoric has generally been.

 

[cubby1223]

Or more likely perhaps:

Do you want XYZ? Yes.

Do you trust the U.S. Congress to give it to you without completely fucking it up? No.

That too.

I hate polls, really do. But more than that I hate people who point to polls as the be all, end all of discussion.

I hate when progressives do it. I hate when conservatives do it.

 

[blankslate]

Here's an interesting counterpoint from a Fox News Poll.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/23/fox-news-poll-during-manhunt-6-percent-voters-want-gun/

Even so, fully 82 percent of voters favor expanding background checks. Almost all non-gun owner households favor doing so (89 percent), and it’s even the consensus among those in gun-owning households (77 percent).
Almost all Democrats (89 percent) support an expansion of checks for guns, as do most independents (84 percent) and Republicans (72 percent).

I guess it depends on what the poll says that determines how much weight a person will give to it.

It seems that people want to be able to own weapons but don't mind measures that would actually keep them out of criminals hands.

Of course some people would argue that background check expansion wouldn't do that.

Guess we'll never find out.

Another interesting point is that according to the actual poll link
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/int...oll-during-manhunt-6-percent-voters-want-gun/

if you scroll down to the bottom you'll find a question (#42) about the likelihood of the voters voting against someone who voted against expanding background checks.

Oddly enough a slight majority of house holds with firearms are less likely to support a candidate who voted against expanding background checks.

In the end polls are probably a bit like photographs. Just a snapshot of a certain time and it depends on how the information is gathered (in the way the questions are asked) just like how a photo can turn out differently depending on the shutter speed and f-stop exposure.

 

[NesuD]

According to the press and plenty of senators along with the presdient about this vote, it was to get background checks on all the firearms you can buy over the Internet!

Now, because the meanies in the senate voted no people can still buy any gun they want, as much as they want over the internet. Just click, buy and the weapon of war is delivered right to your door, no questions asked and no background check!

Actually that isn't entirely true at least as far as you have stated it. You can buy handguns on the internet but they cannot be delivered to your door. They are delivered through either the sellers local outlet Gander Mountain store for example or they can be delivered through the Federally licensed firearms dealer of your choice at which time local laws of your state will apply concerning licensing said weapon including background checks.

Sorry if I missed any sarcasm in your statement. Just gets a little hard to separate the BS from constructive discussion around here sometimes.

 

[spidey07]

Actually that isn't entirely true at least as far as you have stated it. You can buy handguns on the internet but they cannot be delivered to your door. They are delivered through either the sellers local outlet Gander Mountain store for example or they can be delivered through the Federally licensed firearms dealer of your choice at which time local laws of your state will apply concerning licensing said weapon including background checks.

Sorry if I missed any sarcasm in your statement. Just gets a little hard to separate the BS from constructive discussion around here sometimes.

It wasn't sarcasm as much as what the narrative has been that you can buy any gun you want over the internet without a background check. That kind of blatant lie has been constantly told by media, president and democrats.

Not true at all. Any gun you buy on the internet will have to have a background check run because it must be transferred through a licensed dealer (FFL). By federal law the FFL cannot give you the weapon without performing a background check, if they do there are SEVERE penalties.