Republicans support Obama's gun control proposals

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,829
3
0
Well, they support them until they find out they're his proposals. What is wrong with Republicans? Are they just not smart?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...to-gun-control-but-not-president-obamas-plan/

support2.jpg
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Obama's gun control plans concerning banning certain types of weapons and magazine capacity limits are counterproductive, polarizing, and are not backed by any data that supports their usefulness.

Your shoe size would have to be higher than your IQ for you to support what Feinstein proposed today.
 

SparkyJJO

Lifer
May 16, 2002
13,357
7
81
Obama's gun control plans concerning banning certain types of weapons and magazine capacity limits are counterproductive, polarizing, and are not backed by any data that supports their usefulness.

Your shoe size would have to be higher than your IQ for you to support what Feinstein proposed today.

There are few things I agree with jpeyton on, but this is one of those instances that I definitely do agree with him.

Also, a sample size of 1000 people isn't near enough to make any claim of validity, so that chart is 100% worthless.
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Also, a sample size of 1000 people isn't near enough to make any claim of validity, so that chart is 100% worthless.
I'll disagree with you on that point. If the poll methodology was solid, 1000 is a large enough sample size.

But the poll itself shows widespread support mainly on the issue of background checks.

Banning certain types of weapons or high-capacity magazines has middling support.

Furthermore, this poll is more of a "national average" type of poll. If you poll those in right-leaning states (especially those with Democratic Senators who are up for re-election in 2014), you'll see far less support. And that's what matters to Reid; not how much support this bill has in California or New York, but how much support it has in Montana (Baucus), Alaska (Begich), and his home state of Nevada. Losing control of the Senate in 2014 to support a bill that won't pass the GOP-controlled House isn't smart politics.
 
Last edited:

sigurros81

Platinum Member
Nov 30, 2010
2,371
0
0
All these gun control proposal is all a big political game and has very little to do with making our country safer. Instead of posting a poll and follow it up with a vitriolic statement against republicans, how about trying to make a more sensible observation next time. It's been obvious that most Americans support some form of legislation to make it not so easy to buy a gun in this country.

I'm a democrat, and I think the bill being tossed around by the congresswoman is a joke. I find it disturbing that whatever side of the fence people are on, they're not looking for the sensible solution, they just support whatever their political party is trying to pass, blindly.

I find it quite hypocritical that democrats are so quick to ban 'assault rifles' yet they are so eager to preach personal freedom(abortion). Same goes with the republicans, but you don't hear that being brought up on CNN or FOX News, because being noticed as hypocrites are counter productive to your agenda.

There is no conclusive data or evidence that suggest banning these mislabeled AR15 is going to reduce mass shootings, yet the dems are pushing for it anyway, completely overlooking other factors that any logical person would agree better address the violence in this country. The Vrginia Tech shooter killed more people with a .22 and 9mm hand guns than these other assholes and their AR15. So what does that say?

American politics is a satire of itself. It's all about what's currently fashionable, and has nothing to do with constitutional rights. Sane people have no voice in this country, all you got are loud mouth hypocrites like the NRA and Piers Morgan fighting for the attention of the mass idiots.
 
Last edited:

bozack

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2000
7,913
12
81
watch Rachel maddow much tonight? you're basically parroting her entire show, which was brutally annoying.
 

themusgrat

Golden Member
Nov 2, 2005
1,408
0
0
What a joke. 51% of Americans want a ban on handguns? Wow, tell me nobody is stupid enough to believe that. Was this a poll of a few blocks in downtown NYC?

The reason Republicans and all intelligent people don't support a ban on a small percentage of guns is because that could not possibly make anyone any safer. This idiot in Newtown killed 26 people in 20 minutes. You don't need some sort of insane firepower to do that, he could have done it with a single shot shotgun 100 years old. I have some that were made in the '30s. They're still functional, and you could easily, without trying, get a shot off every 5 seconds.

The point is that we all want to get rid of gun violence. That's why everyone is basically for some sort of gun law reform. However, the difference between gun control nuts and others is whether you consider the gun part of the gun violence equation to be the problem, or whether you think it's the violence part that's the problem.

I've said it many times. There is not gun violence. There is not baseball bat violence, boxing glove violence, piano wire violence, or any other weapon violence. There is only people violence. If you want to truly get rid of gun violence, you must ban all guns. Every last civilian owned gun. As long as you're banning very small numbers of guns, there will remain close to 88 guns per 100 Americans. People otherwise will always be able to get guns. What parents have you ever known to successfully hide a cookie jar?

Until we start talking about why there is people violence and what we can do to address the issue, we'll never even get started on violence itself. We can scapegoat AR-15s and 12 round magazines as long as we want, but it will not change anything. It doesn't stop anyone from using a gun to kill a person. And really, as long as there are guns, nothing, no laws, no restrictions, no nothing will stop a person from killing someone with a gun. The only cure for violence is for people to stop wanting to be violent.

Personally I think it's all about education, but that's another topic for another day. I assume you're a democrat, therefore, you idiot liberals love running your 1.5tn deficits every year because a marginal number of people are employed by that insane amount of money, all the while you tell us we need to cut education. Really? We spend 2% on education, and Obama wants to cut it more. Is that where we draw the line? We'll ban a few guns here and there so HOPEFULLY nobody ever mass murders at a gun free zone ever again, but then we're going to cut education and make it harder and harder for you children to get the tools you need to be successful in life. Yep, hopefully you live, but after that, screw you.

Education is a major problem in our country, and is only getting worse. One day we'll have to do something about it, and I hope it won't be after we raise entire generations of kids who don't know how to make anything of themselves. Education can't stop the mentally ill, but maybe it could prevent some of the senseless gang violence.
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,444
1
0
"If the poll methodology was solid" - jpeyton nails this one again.

It's Capital Insight, which is basically a branch of the Washington Post although "independent" of their editorial and advertising departments. Yeah right, i'm sure they're unbiased and their methodology (not shown) was solid.
 

DaveSimmons

Elite Member
Aug 12, 2001
40,730
670
126
I'm not surprised that almost everyone supports better background checks. Background checks catch felons, they don't infringe on the rights of honest citizens.

But even assuming the methodology was solid, the poll does show a sharp drop in support for the proposals that do limit our rights -- especially the extremist proposal to ban semi-auto handguns.
 

irishScott

Lifer
Oct 10, 2006
21,562
3
0
51% of the population supports a ban on semiautomatic handguns?

I hope that isn't right D:

Gallup shows quite the opposite, and their methodology is actually defined.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/159569/americans-stricter-gun-laws-oppose-bans.aspx
bwgwzu0dp0sfxb6mph_vla.gif


I'm calling slanted poll is slanted. Especially if they used the words "semi-automatic", "assault weapon" and "high capacity" without defining them. Most people just hear "automatic" and shit bricks, and have no idea what the other two actually mean.
 
Last edited:

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,883
641
126
Let's turn the tables.

It's a blog post that the OP linked to. Show me some information from a credible news source OP and I may look at it. Right now, it's just opinion peppered with some cherry picked facts.

Are Democrats just not smart?
 

Ausm

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
25,213
14
81
watch Rachel maddow much tonight? you're basically parroting her entire show, which was brutally annoying.

I like that fact that Republicons loved each individual proposal but when they were asked if the liked Obama's Gun contol plan which encompasses EVERYTHING they agreed with then they were staunchly against it....and yes she is right saying the GOP sheepal are mindless. ;)
 

irishScott

Lifer
Oct 10, 2006
21,562
3
0
I like that fact that Republicons loved each individual proposal but when they were asked if the liked Obama's Gun contol plan which encompasses EVERYTHING they agreed with then they were staunchly against it....and yes she is right saying the GOP sheepal are mindless. ;)

Only if you trust that poll. I only mention it because other polls from better, more established sources say things are significantly otherwise.

Never mind the self-evident bits. I doubt most people understand that "banning semiautomatic pistols" means banning everything back to flint-locks. The "journalist" obviously doesn't.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=semi-automatic+&l=1
 
Last edited:

Ausm

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
25,213
14
81
Only if you trust that poll. I only mention it because other polls from better, more established sources say things are significantly otherwise.

Never mind the self-evident bits. I doubt most people understand that "banning semiautomatic pistols" means banning everything back to flint-locks. The "journalist" obviously doesn't.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=semi-automatic+&l=1

Dosesn't the Gallup Poll lean heavily to the right? I don't think the Washington Post is considered a Liberal utopia either....

552631_535738953127193_3710388_n.png
 

irishScott

Lifer
Oct 10, 2006
21,562
3
0
Dosesn't the Gallup Poll lean heavily to the right? I don't think the Washington Post is considered a Liberal utopia either....

552631_535738953127193_3710388_n.png

Heavily? I never heard that. You might be thinking Rasmussen. Gallup rides the center more often than not. They gave Romney several percentage points more than most others and caused a minor controversy in last year, but their methodology seemed solid. The only ones bitching about it were the liberal rags/bloggers, eventually forcing Gallup to publicly defend their methodology.

In any case, the report on the question I posted has been asked for decades. If you want to attempt to invalidate 50 years of asking the same question, go for it.

The Washington Post is at least as far left as the New York Times. Just because it's not salon.com doesn't mean it isn't biased. And the OP posted a blog from their op-ed section, because op-ed sections are renowned for their impartiality. :p

Honestly, given the pathetic ignorance on firearms the left-leaning media outlets have been pumping out day and night for the last few weeks, I'd be highly skeptical of any poll they published where I couldn't read the exact questions asked; namely because in their ignorance I can see them asking slanted/broken questions without even knowing that they're doing so.

The whole semiautomatic pistol ban is a prime example. If they really called 1000 people and asked "would you support a ban on semi-automatic handguns?", that's a laughable poll question. Ditto for many of the others.
 

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,994
779
126
Heavily? I never heard that. You might be thinking Rasmussen. Gallup rides the center more often than not. They gave Romney several percentage points more than most others and caused a minor controversy in last year, but their methodology seemed solid. The only ones bitching about it were the liberal rags/bloggers, eventually forcing Gallup to publicly defend their methodology.

In any case, the report on the question I posted has been asked for decades. If you want to attempt to invalidate 50 years of asking the same question, go for it.

The Washington Post is at least as far left as the New York Times. Just because it's not salon.com doesn't mean it isn't biased. And the OP posted a blog from their op-ed section, because op-ed sections are renowned for their impartiality. :p

Honestly, given the pathetic ignorance on firearms the left-leaning media outlets have been pumping out day and night for the last few weeks, I'd be highly skeptical of any poll they published where I couldn't read the exact questions asked; namely because in their ignorance I can see them asking slanted/broken questions without even knowing that they're doing so.

The whole semiautomatic pistol ban is a prime example. If they really called 1000 people and asked "would you support a ban on semi-automatic handguns?", that's a laughable poll question. Ditto for many of the others.

lol, no, gallup was the most inaccurate heavily biased poll for the past election:

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/18/gallup-vs-the-world/

It's like conservatives live in another reality.
 
Last edited:

irishScott

Lifer
Oct 10, 2006
21,562
3
0
lol, no, gallup was the most inaccurate heavily biased poll for the past election:

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/18/gallup-vs-the-world/

It's like conservatives live in another reality.

Ah Phokus. Still too stupid to read your own links I see.

In 2008, the Gallup poll put Mr. Obama 11 points ahead of John McCain on the eve of that November’s election.

That was tied for Mr. Obama’s largest projected margin of victory among any of the 15 or so national polls that were released just in advance of the election. The average of polls put Mr. Obama up by about seven points.

The average did a good job; Mr. Obama won the popular vote by seven points. The Gallup poll had a four-point miss, however.

In 2010, Gallup put Republicans ahead by 15 points on the national Congressional ballot, higher than other polling firms, which put Republicans an average of eight or nine points ahead instead.

In fact, Republicans won the popular vote for the United States House by about seven percentage points — fairly close to the average of polls, but representing another big miss for Gallup.

Apart from Gallup’s final poll not having been especially accurate in recent years, it has often been a wild ride to get there. Their polls, for whatever reason, have often found implausibly large swings in the race.

In 2000, for example, Gallup had George W. Bush 16 points ahead among likely voters in polling it conducted in early August. By Sept. 20, about six weeks later, they had Al Gore up by 10 points instead: a 26-point swing toward Mr. Gore over the course of a month and a half. No other polling firm showed a swing remotely that large.

Then in October 2000, Gallup showed a 14-point swing toward Mr. Bush over the course of a few days, and had him ahead by 13 points on Oct. 27 — just 10 days before an election that ended in a virtual tie.

In 1996, Gallup had Bill Clinton’s margin over Bob Dole increasing to 25 points from nine points over the course of four days.

After the Republican convention in 2008, Gallup had John McCain leading Mr. Obama by as many as 10 points among likely voters. Although some other polls also had Mr. McCain pulling ahead in the race, no other polling firm ever gave him larger than a four-point lead.

It’s not clear what causes such large swings, although Gallup’s likely voter model may have something to do with it.

Even its registered voter numbers can be volatile, however. In early September of this year, after the Democratic convention, Gallup had Mr. Obama’s lead among registered voters going from seven points to zero points over the course of a week — and then reverting to six points just as quickly. Most other polling firms showed a roughly steady race during this time period.

Because Gallup’s polls usually take large sample sizes, statistical variance alone probably cannot account these sorts of shifts. It seems to be an endemic issue with their methodology.

They've favored Democrats too. Inaccurate? Sure. Bias? Certainly not.

And even if their 50 year gun poll is off by a whopping 25%, it puts the divide over a pistol ban at 50/50 at best. Given that they've never been that wrong in history, it's reasonable to assume that a significant majority of Americans oppose a pistol ban. That's also making a huge assumption that the polling methodology for their regular polls is the same as it is for elections and subject to the same inaccuracies. They tell you on gallup.com that it isn't and it's far simpler; so I'd imagine it's much more accurate.

Logic motherfucker. Deal with it.
 
Last edited:

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,994
779
126
Ah Phokus. Still too stupid to read your own links I see.



They've favored Democrats too. Inaccurate? Sure. Bias? Certainly not.

And even if their 50 year gun poll is off by a whopping 25%, it puts the divide over a pistol ban at 50/50 at best. Given that they've never been that wrong in history, it's reasonable to assume that a significant majority of Americans oppose a pistol ban. That's also making a huge assumption that the polling methodology for their regular polls is the same as it is for elections and subject to the same inaccuracies. They tell you on gallup.com that it isn't and it's far simpler; so I'd imagine it's much more accurate.

Logic motherfucker. Deal with it.

The POINT (if you bothered to read) was that the gallup was so far out that they were an outlier compared to the other polls. If they're INACCURATE, why the fuck are you using it, you bitch idiot imbecile?
 

Ausm

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
25,213
14
81
Heavily? I never heard that. You might be thinking Rasmussen. Gallup rides the center more often than not. They gave Romney several percentage points more than most others and caused a minor controversy in last year, but their methodology seemed solid. The only ones bitching about it were the liberal rags/bloggers, eventually forcing Gallup to publicly defend their methodology.

In any case, the report on the question I posted has been asked for decades. If you want to attempt to invalidate 50 years of asking the same question, go for it.

The Washington Post is at least as far left as the New York Times. Just because it's not salon.com doesn't mean it isn't biased. And the OP posted a blog from their op-ed section, because op-ed sections are renowned for their impartiality. :p

Honestly, given the pathetic ignorance on firearms the left-leaning media outlets have been pumping out day and night for the last few weeks, I'd be highly skeptical of any poll they published where I couldn't read the exact questions asked; namely because in their ignorance I can see them asking slanted/broken questions without even knowing that they're doing so.

The whole semiautomatic pistol ban is a prime example. If they really called 1000 people and asked "would you support a ban on semi-automatic handguns?", that's a laughable poll question. Ditto for many of the others.

Those polls I posted didn't have nothing to do with banning Semiautomatic pistols but I do see your point about how a lot of people don't have a clue what a Semiautomatic pistol would encompass. I suppose this logic could also be applied to the polls I listed but they seem like pretty straight forward questions to me.
 

irishScott

Lifer
Oct 10, 2006
21,562
3
0
The POINT (if you bothered to read) was that the gallup was so far out that they were an outlier compared to the other polls. If they're INACCURATE, why the fuck are you using it, you bitch idiot imbecile?

And my point was that:

1. Their election predictions use a different methodology from their other polls, so you can't judge one from the other.

2. Even if they were further off than they've ever been in history, that chart still holds, and my point still holds.

So basically the argument over gallup's validity is null and void in this context. Deal with it.
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
So, American citizens can't be trusted with 11 rounds of ammunition, but Egypt can be trusted with new war tanks and F-16s? Ya gotta love it.