PDA

View Full Version : Where We Stand In The Polls (Not Good!)


sholling
12-24-2012, 8:58 AM
The latest Rasmussen Reports polls shows that the Progressive media's disinformation campaign is swinging public opinion in favor of stripping us of many of our 2nd Amendment our rights. According to the polls those in favor of banning semiautomatic firearms are registered Democrats (77%) and a majority of women. That doesn't mean give up - it simply means that we have to redouble our efforts to reach out to non-gun owners especially women and get them onto our side and we have to sign up millions more for NRA memberships (https://membership.nrahq.org/forms/gift.asp) and give lots more to the NRA-ILA (http://www.nraila.org/).

Link (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/december_2012/55_favor_assault_weapons_ban_but_62_oppose_complet e_gun_ban) (there is a little bit more behind the paywall)
55% Favor Assault Weapons Ban, But 62% Oppose Complete Gun Ban

Friday, December 21, 2012

Most Americans favor taking semi-automatic and assault-type weapons off the market but also are wary of a society in which only the government has guns. Very few would opt for a neighborhood where they couldn’t own a gun. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 55% of American Adults think there should be a ban on the purchase of semi-automatic and assault-type weapons. Thirty-six percent (36%) disagree and oppose such a ban.

SanPedroShooter
12-24-2012, 9:03 AM
What, did they poll a few hundred people in Chicago and DC?

All though the cost of ignoring polls can be clearly shown from the last election.

sholling
12-24-2012, 9:14 AM
Rasmussen tends to be one of the more reliable polling firms and a list of the questions is at the linked site. I do have a Rasmussen membership but not at the level where I can see the demographics of those polled. Again that doesn't mean we give up - it means we have to help the NRA and recruit more people into shooting.

SanPedroShooter
12-24-2012, 9:28 AM
I would like to see the numbers when this issue comes up in Congress. If we can bury it by then.

Tarn_Helm
12-24-2012, 9:36 AM
The latest Rasmussen Reports polls shows that the Progressive media's disinformation campaign is swinging public opinion in favor of stripping us of many of our 2nd Amendment our rights. According to the polls those in favor of banning semiautomatic firearms are registered Democrats (77%) and a majority of women. That doesn't mean give up - it simply means that we have to redouble our efforts to reach out to non-gun owners especially women and get them onto our side and we have to sign up millions more for NRA memberships (https://membership.nrahq.org/forms/gift.asp) and give lots more to the NRA-ILA (http://www.nraila.org/).

Link (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/december_2012/55_favor_assault_weapons_ban_but_62_oppose_complet e_gun_ban) (there is a little bit more behind the paywall)

Way too early to draw conclusions or prognosticate about impact on 2nd Amendment.

tcrpe
12-24-2012, 9:51 AM
Congress will toss it to the SC.

sholling
12-24-2012, 9:59 AM
Way too early to draw conclusions or prognosticate about impact on 2nd Amendment.
How did ignoring the polls work out for the presidential campaign? I'm hoping public opinion starts moving back in our favor but the media smell blood and aren't likely to let up before February or March at the earliest.

Casey
12-24-2012, 10:06 AM
Since when are our rights determined by poll or vote?
We live in a republic and you can't (supposedly) get your property or rights taken by vote. You can however give up your rights by not acknowledging you have them or by not wanting them or the responsibility that goes with them in the first place. That is the real problem.
Our biggest problem is uneducated gun owners that have bought into the Brady company line. Those will be the ones that bury us if we let them.
The first order of business is to get gun owners on board. Then you can start educating women, fence sitters and the rest.

ScottB
12-24-2012, 10:07 AM
Rasmussen tends to be one of the more reliable polling firms and a list of the questions is at the linked site. I do have a Rasmussen membership but not at the level where I can see the demographics of those polled. Again that doesn't mean we give up - it means we have to help the NRA and recruit more people into shooting.

I don't think any poll has any credibility unless they disclose the full questions as asked and the demographics of the sample. Black box polls are inherently suspect.

Rusty Scabbard
12-24-2012, 10:08 AM
How did ignoring the polls work out for the presidential campaign? I'm hoping public opinion starts moving back in our favor but the media smell blood and aren't likely to let up before February or March at the earliest.
Absolutely ! Join the NRA if you haven't already. Sign up a friend or family members. Media talking heads, anti-2a ploticians and commentators openly ridicule and demean 2a supporters these days, and face little opposition.

SilverTauron
12-24-2012, 10:46 AM
Since when are our rights determined by poll or vote?
We live in a republic and you can't (supposedly) get your property or rights taken by vote. You can however give up your rights by not acknowledging you have them or by not wanting them or the responsibility that goes with them in the first place. That is the real problem.
Our biggest problem is uneducated gun owners that have bought into the Brady company line. Those will be the ones that bury us if we let them.
The first order of business is to get gun owners on board. Then you can start educating women, fence sitters and the rest.

History disagrees with you.Every loss of our rights has happened at the request of the voting majority.California's status is the perfect example of a society voting to strip itself of its rights.Things are no different at the Federal level.

For an example of the level of commitment required to oppose government intervention,look at the SOPA protest this summer.Every website of note got in on protesting against it,and sure enough the bill died.If people opposed more gun regulation we'd see public support of the 2nd Amendment.What we see instead are pro-gun politicians throwing their hat in the ring for more regulation.

I wish I could say the Rammussen poll is BS,but it echoes what ive observed of public reaction to Sandy Hill.Outside of the "gun community" most Americans support additional gun control. Even AR15 owners are supporting an AWB at this point.

speedrrracer
12-24-2012, 11:10 AM
Isn't Rasmussen the company that everyone on CalGuns was quoting because the Rasmussen poll showed that Romney was going to win the presidency?

donny douchebag
12-24-2012, 11:16 AM
Maybe it's less the progressive media's disinformation campaign and more little kids being riddled with rifle fire. Just saying. And even if we "win" this round what happens after the next shooting? Again, just saying.

sholling
12-24-2012, 11:22 AM
Maybe it's less the progressive media's disinformation campaign and more little kids being riddled with rifle fire. Just saying. And even if we "win" this round what happens after the next shooting? Again, just saying.
That's naive. These events are horrible but it's the media beating in the message that it's the availability of guns that's the problem and belittling the fact that armed teachers would have prevented the tragedy that is whipping up the public. If the media spent as much effort trying to arm teachers and other law abiding adults so they could defend themselves and kids then bans wouldn't even be registering in the polls. Schools are kept gun-free for a reason and it's not to protect the kids.

safewaysecurity
12-24-2012, 11:23 AM
Most of this is just pure ignorance. If you adked the same group of people if they support the second amendment or if they believe in banning handguns most would be on our side.

donny douchebag
12-24-2012, 11:24 AM
And you say I'm naive.

RuskieShooter
12-24-2012, 11:26 AM
It also doesn't help the cause when I open Google News > US and four of the headlines are new shootings (Webster, NY - four firefighters ambushed and shot with two killed; Wauwatosa, WI - on-duty officer shot and killed; Bellaire, TX - Officer and bystander shot and killed; and Bellevue, WA - Man opens fire in crowded bar).

SuperSet
12-24-2012, 11:53 AM
The OP is right, polls are very important. If you say they aren't, you didn't learn the lesson from the last 'the polls are wrong' election.

Along with joining the NRA and donating to other organizations like CGF, you should be out there fighting for public opinion by talking to your friends, neighbors, church, civic groups and engaging online through social media. You will not convince an anti but there are tons of folks on the fence. With every mass shooting, they're going to view your right as more harm than good.

SuperSet
12-24-2012, 11:53 AM
Another double tap. Please fix the forum.

Tarn_Helm
12-24-2012, 12:04 PM
How did ignoring the polls work out for the presidential campaign? I'm hoping public opinion starts moving back in our favor but the media smell blood and aren't likely to let up before February or March at the earliest.

[Sigh.]

O.k., here is what I did not say:

1] Ignore the polls.

2] I don't care whether public opinion starts moving back in our favor.

3] The media will drop the issue very soon.

*****
BREAK
*****

I strongly encourage all of you, including the OP, to inform everyone s/he knows on a regular basis about the importance of defending the Second Amendment by supporting 2nd Amendment orgs that defend our rights.

This last bit should have been obvious from the last two parts of my sig line.

Apparently, obvious does not always work.
:facepalm:
Take a deep breath.

Exhale.

Calm down.

Merry Christmas Eve.
:cool:

sholling
12-24-2012, 12:07 PM
And you say I'm naive.
Yes I do. The media are tracking down and publicising every shooting they can find to whip the public into a banning mood. If the media were looking to save the children they'd be looking to ban privately owned swimming pools and small lightweight economical cars. The media are doing their best to stampede soccer moms into supporting a ban.

Link (http://www.poseidon-tech.com/us/statistics.html)

In 2004, there were 3,308 unintentional drownings in the United States, an average of nine people per day.(CDC 2006)
- U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
In 2004, of all children 1-4 years old who died, 26% died from drowning (CDC 2006). Fatal drowning remains the second-leading cause of unintentional injury-related death for children ages 1 to 14 years (CDC 2005)
- U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

It is estimated that for each drowning death, there are 1 to 4 nonfatal submersions serious enough to result in hospitalization. Children who still require cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) at the time they arrive at the emergency department have a poor prognosis, with at least half of survivors suffering significant neurologic impairment.
- American Academy of Pediatrics
19% of drowning deaths involving children occur in public pools with certified lifeguards present.
- Drowning Prevention Foundation
A swimming pool is 14 times more likely than a motor vehicle to be involved in the death of a child age 4 and under.
- Orange County California Fire Authority
An estimated 5,000 children ages 14 and under are hospitalized due to unintentional drowning-related incidents each year; 15 percent die in the hospital and as many as 20 percent suffer severe, permanent neurological disability.
- National Safety Council

NHTSA Link (http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/809762.pdf)
Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for children of every age from 2 to 14 years old (based on 2001 figures, which are the latest mortality data currently available from the National Center for Health Statistics).

In 2003, there were a total of 42,643 traffic fatalities in the United States. The 0-14 age group accounted for 5 percent (2,136) of those traffic fatalities. In addition, children under 15 years old accounted for 4 percent (1,591) of all vehicle occupant fatalities, 9 percent (253,000) of all the people injured in motor vehicle crashes, and 8 percent (220,000) of all the vehicle occupants injured in crashes.

In the United States, an average of 6 children 0-14 years old were killed and 694 were injured every day in motor vehicle crashes during 2003.
In the 0-14 year age group, males accounted for 59 percent of the fatalities and 50 percent of those injured in motor vehicle crashes during 2003.

sholling
12-24-2012, 12:12 PM
Most of this is just pure ignorance. If you adked the same group of people if they support the second amendment or if they believe in banning handguns most would be on our side.

If you read the polling results it says that most support an AWB but not banning all guns. What the media will do now is define any semiautomatic rifle with a detachable magazine as a military assault rifle and any magazine with a capacity over 5rds (the new cut-off for "hi-cap") as "child-killer magazines to stampede the public into banning them.

elSquid
12-24-2012, 12:45 PM
I dunno: only 55% support for an AWB sounds pretty good to me. I honestly thought it would be higher.

Does anyone have the polling numbers from 1993-94 re the first ban?

The real question is:

- of those favoring a ban, how many would cast a negative vote if a ban was NOT implemented?

- of those not favoring a ban, how many would cast a negative vote if a ban was enacted?

Basically, which side has more single issue voters?

We don't need to convince the public. We just need to make it really obvious that any politician that supports one will face severe consequences during their next election. Now obviously some urban Dems are immune and won't care, but there are many who are not so "lucky".

I included this in another thread, but I'll post it again...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/medea-benjamin/harry-reid-gun-control_b_2337796.html

Reid's office is alienating gun control advocates. I love it. As a senior national Dem, he 'should' be helping to lead the charge...and he's not.

It ain't over yet - not by a long shot!

-- Michael

speedrrracer
12-24-2012, 1:07 PM
The real question is:

- of those favoring a ban, how many would cast a negative vote if a ban was NOT implemented?

- of those not favoring a ban, how many would cast a negative vote if a ban was enacted?

Basically, which side has more single issue voters?

We don't need to convince the public. We just need to make it really obvious that any politician that supports one will face severe consequences during their next election. Now obviously some urban Dems are immune and won't care, but there are many who are not so "lucky".

It's an excellent point. Votes are what politicians care about, and we need to tell them that allowing another AWB will have consequences to their re-election campaigns.

Make your voice heard! Contact your reps...they care a LOT more what their aides tell them each morning "...and another 457 calls from voters insisting we not back another AWB versus only 12 calls from voters wanting the AWB..." then what Rasmussen says.

ewarmour
12-24-2012, 1:40 PM
Rasmussen tends to be one of the more reliable polling firms...

Maybe before this last election. Man did they blow it.

SilverTauron
12-24-2012, 3:16 PM
I dunno: only 55% support for an AWB sounds pretty good to me. I honestly thought it would be higher.

Does anyone have the polling numbers from 1993-94 re the first ban?

The real question is:

- of those favoring a ban, how many would cast a negative vote if a ban was NOT implemented?

- of those not favoring a ban, how many would cast a negative vote if a ban was enacted?

Basically, which side has more single issue voters?

We don't need to convince the public. We just need to make it really obvious that any politician that supports one will face severe consequences during their next election. Now obviously some urban Dems are immune and won't care, but there are many who are not so "lucky".

I included this in another thread, but I'll post it again...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/medea-benjamin/harry-reid-gun-control_b_2337796.html

Reid's office is alienating gun control advocates. I love it. As a senior national Dem, he 'should' be helping to lead the charge...and he's not.

It ain't over yet - not by a long shot!

-- Michael
The dilemma with this strategy is that we dont have enough people to just phone our reps in opposition and hope for the best.If we don't make an effort to change minds too, the ratios going to be 12 concerned gun owners in opposition and 150 calls in favor by soccer moms and their husbands,mothers,and siblings.

Moonshine
12-24-2012, 3:20 PM
Banning semi-autos is something that will hit the hunting community much harder than the tactical community. A great deal of hunters now use semi-autos and there are probably more semi autos in use for hunting than some other uses.

Creeping Incrementalism
12-24-2012, 3:36 PM
I dunno: only 55% support for an AWB sounds pretty good to me. I honestly thought it would be higher.

Does anyone have the polling numbers from 1993-94 re the first ban?

I do, the numbers were much worse back in 93-94. See the thread I started on it http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=660560

wjc
12-24-2012, 3:39 PM
I suspect any poll since they can be manupulated so easily. Rasmussen is probably the only one I would even consider following.

Be that as it may, I've felt we definitely don't have the right amount of media exposure out there right now to counter any arguments by the Progressives.

IVC
12-24-2012, 3:48 PM
History disagrees with you.Every loss of our rights has happened at the request of the voting majority.California's status is the perfect example of a society voting to strip itself of its rights.Things are no different at the Federal level.

Chicago and D.C. also voted to strip themselves of their rights, yet they gave us McDonald and Heller. The landscape is different this time around.

IVC
12-24-2012, 3:57 PM
How did ignoring the polls work out for the presidential campaign? I'm hoping public opinion starts moving back in our favor but the media smell blood and aren't likely to let up before February or March at the earliest.

Apples and oranges. Media believes it's the same and they are making you believe it's the same. It's not.

Polls and popularity contests will matter in putting pressure on some legislators and might force a few to cave in, but this issue doesn't end at the political level. The real protection is in courts. The way things work these days, we actually need courts to get involved, since it's the only way to prevent these types of attacks on our rights in the future.

It would be much nicer if we could settle this at the political level (where polls matter), but we might end up getting more if we have to challenge it in courts (where polls don't matter).

sholling
12-24-2012, 4:11 PM
Banning semi-autos is something that will hit the hunting community much harder than the tactical community. A great deal of hunters now use semi-autos and there are probably more semi autos in use for hunting than some other uses.

That's a bonus for the antis because the goal is a Briton style ban on firearms but it's like any other unpopular movement they move a bite at a time just has they have with the growth of government dependence. They'll settle for banning sales of military style rifles and full cap magazines but they they'll be back for the grandfathered weapons and handgun magazines over 5rds as soon as they think they can get away with it. Then they'll find an excuse to to ban "high powered sniper rifles" (bolt action hunting rifles) followed by "kid killer shotguns" (all pump and semiautomatic shotguns). I could go on but you get the idea. Whatever we lose or give up today becomes the groundwork for the next demand that we be "reasonable" and give up more and each time we lose the allies we've thrown under the bus in the name of being "reasonable". :rolleyes:

sholling
12-24-2012, 4:21 PM
Chicago and D.C. also voted to strip themselves of their rights, yet they gave us McDonald and Heller. The landscape is different this time around.
The problem is that we can't count on the courts when it comes to scary rifles and magazines. We saw in the Obamacare decision that Roberts will tie himself in any logic knot necessary to find a way to uphold even a blatantly unconstitutional and unpopular law. Roberts may just decide that as long as we can have handguns in the home then banning scary rifles and useful sized magazines is reasonable regulation.

The real protection is in courts. The way things work these days, we actually need courts to get involved, since it's the only way to prevent these types of attacks on our rights in the future
How did that work with Obamacare? See above for the risks of relying solely on the courts when they should really be the last resort. We have to push hard for political victory and only fall back on the courts when the political battle goes against us.

elSquid
12-24-2012, 4:23 PM
I do, the numbers were much worse back in 93-94. See the thread I started on it http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=660560

Do you have access to stats for just the question of banning so-called AWs?

That's really the number that I'm interested in. It would be interesting to see how they polled before the 94 AWB, especially in view of how passage of the ban resulted in political blowback.

( That doc was cool though - nice to see a generalized decrease in for gun control and an increase for gun rights. )

-- Michael

IVC
12-24-2012, 4:31 PM
The problem is that we can't count on the courts when it comes to scary rifles and magazines. We saw in the Obamacare decision that Roberts will tie himself in any logic knot necessary to find a way to uphold even a blatantly unconstitutional and unpopular law. Roberts may just decide that as long as we can have handguns in the home then banning scary rifles and useful sized magazines is reasonable regulation.

Obamacare doesn't have any Constitutional problem if it's applied as a tax. It's no different than tax break for interest on your home. Roberts went with that line of reasoning and in the process significantly limited how "commerce clause" can be used.

With EBR-s we already have "in common use" clause and we already have the failed AWB of 1994, so the game is significantly different.

While I agree that going the court route is far from certain or risk free, it's not that we are doing it out of choice. We might be forced to do it, so I am looking at a potential silver lining. This is similar to the open carry ban in CA - if we get a virtual "shall issue" in CA or a national "carry precedent," we will look at open carriers in retrospect as geniuses. Of course, things might not go our way...

This battle is being forced on us and we have to do the best we can with the cards we are holding. Those few aces we have don't guarantee anything, but sure provide some optimism.

Write Winger
12-24-2012, 4:59 PM
"how many bullets per minute can these assault weapons of war spray fire??!! Answer the question!!!!"

anothergunnut
12-24-2012, 5:19 PM
I wonder what the poll response would be if the question was phrased a little differently.

Question: From 1994 to 2004, this country had an AWB with a stated purpose of reducing mass shootings such as the recent one in CT. During the time the ban was in effect, we had the shooting at Columbine. According to numerous studies, the AWB had no effect whatsoever on the number of mass shootings. Would you be in favor of renewing the AWB or would you choose some other strategy that hadn't previously failed?

SgtDinosaur
12-24-2012, 5:31 PM
Big surprise. Those are all the people that voted for Obama. Pretty high correlation. Unfortunately for them this is a constitutional republic, not a democracy. I hope.

Bobio
12-24-2012, 5:41 PM
Banning semi-autos is something that will hit the hunting community much harder than the tactical community. A great deal of hunters now use semi-autos and there are probably more semi autos in use for hunting than some other uses.

I doubt there will be a ban on semi automatic weapons. Most of the non owner public think these are full machine guns. I would be surprised if a federal ban would be as strict as our laws in California. I'd also be interested to see what percentage of hunters own military style rifles and what percentage hunt with them. I not being a hunter enjoy the military style platform.

Bobio
12-24-2012, 5:54 PM
Also because this amendment was to give states the right to militias under their control I wonder about the constitutionality of a federal law. But the federal government banned machine guns after the mobsters started shooting the cities up.

hawk1
12-24-2012, 6:03 PM
Are you really going to rely on anything, let alone a poll, being reported by the ANTI-gun media.
Please, you know better than that..:facepalm:

nicki
12-24-2012, 7:00 PM
The reality is many gun owners don't care, they are like the blissfully ignorant drunk fool taking a stroll on a high speed train track and will stay that way until we hit them in the head with a 2 X 4 or until they get splattered by on oncoming locomotive.;)

The reality is that most Americans may bark, but they won't act.

If we do things like crash the phone lines in congress, the bills will die.

Even though it may feel like a waste of time to call Feinstein, Boxer and many of the other anti gun Cal politicians, when we call, we tie up their staff.

If we shut down the capitol switchboard with pro gun calls, Congress will here our message loud and clear.

Of course, since the MSM has declared war on us, we should finish the war and by finishing the war, I mean drying up their revenues that their stock values tumble and the stockholders fire the management.

Nicki

RugerFan777
12-24-2012, 7:07 PM
The latest Rasmussen Reports polls shows that the Progressive media's disinformation campaign is swinging public opinion in favor of stripping us of many of our 2nd Amendment our rights. According to the polls those in favor of banning semiautomatic firearms are registered Democrats (77%) and a majority of women. That doesn't mean give up - it simply means that we have to redouble our efforts to reach out to non-gun owners especially women and get them onto our side and we have to sign up millions more for NRA memberships (https://membership.nrahq.org/forms/gift.asp) and give lots more to the NRA-ILA (http://www.nraila.org/).

Link (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/december_2012/55_favor_assault_weapons_ban_but_62_oppose_complet e_gun_ban) (there is a little bit more behind the paywall)

You need to mention the wording of the poll which says semi-auto and assault weapons. If it correctly said just semi-auto's they would not have 55%. As we know that assault weapons are machine guns that can be selected to semi-auto.

The need to name the legislation the semi-auto ban, then we can see where the public correctly stands. ;)

Marthor
12-24-2012, 7:15 PM
Polls are very important, but something even more important are the views of the Senators. Congress and the President can vote against polls, and they have before.

Anyway, I saw on TV that Karl Rove said that a majority of Senators have an A- rating or higher from the NRA. To block any gun control laws, you only need 41 to filibuster, so the odds are good in the Senate to block a new AWB.

Then again, Harry Reid was supposedly pro-gun, but he has blocked some pro-gun bills in the past, so you're not guaranteed anything on some people changing their opinion, or being bought, or etc.

Left Coast Conservative
12-24-2012, 7:49 PM
Banning semi-autos is something that will hit the hunting community much harder than the tactical community. A great deal of hunters now use semi-autos and there are probably more semi autos in use for hunting than some other uses.

We do not know if this is true or not until we see the bill. There is a chance that Feinstein will over reach her political capital, and then we can counterattack using her own bill against her.

While outreach to non-gun owners is important, lets wait to see what is in the bill before we set the strategy. This is not 1994. Even my wife, a non-gun enthusiast wishes the Sandy Hook school principal had something more than bare hands to confront the shooter.

Goosebrown
12-24-2012, 8:07 PM
Polls mean a lot, but these polls change daily and they are a long way off from actually even getting a ban on paper. Once they do the polls are indicators, but we need to get an initial read of the House. I think in the Senate they are going to have the votes. There is going to be a lot of pressure on them. More than usual. In the end it doesn't come down to the voters directly, but on Congress so don't panic even if the polls show more wanting an EBR ban than don't.

Wait and see for at least an initail read of the new congress.

Left Coast Conservative
12-24-2012, 8:13 PM
Whatever we lose or give up today becomes the groundwork for the next demand that we be "reasonable" and give up more and each time we lose the allies we've thrown under the bus in the name of being "reasonable". :rolleyes:

Which is why we should not give one inch in anything! Make them take it, but don't surrender anything!

SkiDevil
12-24-2012, 8:48 PM
I too believe there is a definitive bias in the media's use of polls. Take for example CBS is purporting an increase to 57% of Americans are now supportive of tighter gun control, yet five minutes later they run a piece on the number of people purchasing these same firearms (AR type rifles). It was even commented that one manufacturer sold 3 years of stock over the last few weeks.

I have a simple rhetorical question, if Americans are so against these types of semi-auto firearms then why are they purchasing them by the thousands. It took several days after the tragedy in CT before this part of the story was being reported. Also, it only took approx. 4-5 days before the mainstream media's incessant coverage basically stopped. And the other side (ours) started to receive something more akin to objectivity.

I was even surprised to see David Gregory in the same Meet the Press program go after Senator Schummer regarding the ineffectiveness of the 94 AWB. His response was a fail to acknowledge its ineffectiveness. And commentary was offered on the challenging task of writing a bill which would pass through both houses of Congress.


I agree that there is a definitive difference since 1994, especially since the ban was widely acknowledged to have cost the Democratic party seats in the subsequent election.

Lastly, regarding "polls" I don't place a great deal of stock in CNN and other media polls parrotted on tv. There are over 300 million people in the U.S. and taking a sample of 1200-1500 people by robo-calling random phone numbers or standing in a public venue does not produce the best statistical sample. Simply phrasing a question differently can affect the response and sway the results.

In the computer world there is a saying "garbage in garbage out", the same could said of polls as well.

SilverTauron
12-24-2012, 9:11 PM
I too believe there is a definitive bias in the media's use of polls. Take for example CBS is purporting an increase to 57% of Americans are now supportive of tighter gun control, yet five minutes later they run a piece on the number of people purchasing these same firearms (AR type rifles). It was even commented that one manufacturer sold 3 years of stock over the last few weeks.

I have a simple rhetorical question, if Americans are so against these types of semi-auto firearms then why are they purchasing them by the thousands. It took several days after the tragedy in CT before this part of the story was being reported. Also, it only took approx. 4-5 days before the mainstream media's incessant coverage basically stopped. And the other side (ours) started to receive something more akin to objectivity.

I was even surprised to see David Gregory in the same Meet the Press program go after Senator Schummer regarding the ineffectiveness of the 94 AWB. His response was a fail to acknowledge its ineffectiveness. And commentary was offered on the challenging task of writing a bill which would pass through both houses of Congress.


I agree that there is a definitive difference since 1994, especially since the ban was widely acknowledged to have cost the Democratic party seats in the subsequent election.

Lastly, regarding "polls" I don't place a great deal of stock in CNN and other media polls parrotted on tv. There are over 300 million people in the U.S. and taking a sample of 1200-1500 people by robo-calling random phone numbers or standing in a public venue does not produce the best statistical sample. Simply phrasing a question differently can affect the response and sway the results.

In the computer world there is a saying "garbage in garbage out", the same could said of polls as well.

For one, the events of CT happened during a holiday season where guns of all kinds were already selling out.The rush of people buying guns is a combination of people buying guns for the holidays that they already planned on buying , rush buyers scared of a new ban,some speculators hoping to make a buck on Gunbroker,and bystanders who accelerated their purchase plans on account of the chaos. It's a mess out there,and as such we can't use the number of guns sold as any reflection of our nations' political stance.

Another point I'd like to make is that we're also a lot more 'active' regarding Internet activity.Theres dozens of gun forums,but I've yet to see a dedicated gun control forum that's analogous to Calguns-huffpost is as close as I can think of,and even then that's not what the primary purpose of the site is for.Whenever there a public gun control poll we pass the word and crush it:but the antis aren't as publicly visible.We post and make ourselves heard while the antis go to work and live their lives.Then we get overconfident and assume the media is outright lying when the polls show support for the antis because the only comments you see online are gun owners. Then come Vote Day the quiet antis make their presence known to the politicians & we're scratching our heads wondering how we got f**ed.