Poll: Curbing gun violence is more import than gun rights

[Holland&Holland]

Seriously Markemp or whoever you really are, why are you even on this board? At this point you've gone far beyond anything that could reasonably be called a "debate" and are simply trolling for a position that's antithetical to the purpose of this board. Yes there are antis who think gun control is wonderful; one can hardly go anywhere online and not encounter them. If we wanted to hear more gun control propaganda we have plenty of other opportunities.

Honestly, I’m surprised most of all that you of all people replied like this. You just posted within the last couple of weeks that you had a fight with your brother about this very topic. This is hard evidence showing that he is right. I think you owe him an apology.

viewtopic.php?f=55&t=65598&p=627187#p627187

I had a "discussion" (argument) with my brother today who insists that "public opinion is changing" with respect to support for gun control even in traditionally pro-gun states. Along with the oft-repeated claim of "80% of Americans are in favor of passing new firearms laws" like Red Flag, background checks, magazine limits, etc. I tried to explain that to the best of my research all these claims have to be qualified, that gun control proponents routinely exaggerate their support if not outright lie, and that it's not that cut-and-dried. He basically accused me of sticking my head in the sand, ignoring widespread credible reporting, and only listening to "NRA propaganda".

Well it is a good thing we have the 2nd amendment then huh? Otherwise those thinking like you would have a grand ole time infringing on our rights.

[rtk]

Don’t keep feeding the troll.

[vingrjoe]

Democracy is mob rule.

We were founded, and are supposed to be, a representative republic; with the Constitution restraining government and even popular opinion of the majority.

[Holland&Holland]

Democracy is mob rule.

We were founded, and are supposed to be, a representative republic; with the Constitution restraining government and even popular opinion of the majority.

This

Said another way. One is 3 wolves and a sheep voting on what is for dinner. The other is a well armed sheep protesting the vote.

[IvanTheTerribleShot]

I am sincere and authentic. I was originally asked what my (or people like me) opinion is, and I’m happy to oblige.

Good, good! Would you please kindly address questions you invited in another thread and never finished answering?

[jdege]

Not sure you actually read that article.

But low response rates don’t necessarily mean that telephone polling is completely broken. Studies examining the impact of low response on data quality have generally found that response rates are an unreliable metric of accuracy. Pew Research Center studies conducted in 1997, 2003, 2012 and 2016 found little relationship between response rates and accuracy, and other researchers have found similar results. In the 2018 midterm election, polls – including those conducted by phone with live interviewers – performed well by historical standards. Nonpartisan polls in 2018 were more accurate, on average, than midterm polls since 1998.

Pew is in the business of selling polling services, so of course their studies will never find that their polling methods are necessarily broken.

[IvanTheTerribleShot]

Seriously Markemp or whoever you really are, why are you even on this board? At this point you've gone far beyond anything that could reasonably be called a "debate" and are simply trolling for a position that's antithetical to the purpose of this board. Yes there are antis who think gun control is wonderful; one can hardly go anywhere online and not encounter them. If we wanted to hear more gun control propaganda we have plenty of other opportunities.

Honestly, I’m surprised most of all that you of all people replied like this. You just posted within the last couple of weeks that you had a fight with your brother about this very topic. This is hard evidence showing that he is right. I think you owe him an apology.

Wait, what is hard evidence Lumpy's anti-gun brother is right? Lumpy, quite politely, expressing his displeasure with your idea of debate?

[Markemp]

Wait, what is hard evidence Lumpy's anti-gun brother is right? Lumpy, quite politely, expressing his displeasure with your idea of debate?

It was in the part you removed from your quote. His brother said that attitudes are changing on gun safety issues. Lumpy replied that according to his research, that isn't true. So this whole thread about how America's views on the subject have been changing is something he should be very interested in adding to his body of research on the topic. A high quality poll (Marist, https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/) by the second most trusted (PBS, https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/91fpeaa0sh/ ... esults.pdf) news source in America (behind the Weather Channel, for obvious reasons).

[Markemp]

Not sure you actually read that article.

But low response rates don’t necessarily mean that telephone polling is completely broken. Studies examining the impact of low response on data quality have generally found that response rates are an unreliable metric of accuracy. Pew Research Center studies conducted in 1997, 2003, 2012 and 2016 found little relationship between response rates and accuracy, and other researchers have found similar results. In the 2018 midterm election, polls – including those conducted by phone with live interviewers – performed well by historical standards. Nonpartisan polls in 2018 were more accurate, on average, than midterm polls since 1998.

Pew is in the business of selling polling services, so of course their studies will never find that their polling methods are necessarily broken.

Yes, polling is a business. Hundreds of billions of dollars every year are spent based on the results of these pollsters, even in political topics. In politics (both republicans and democrats), people use these polls to figure out which candidates may have a shot on an upset with a little extra funding, or if spending on a candidate who is woefully underperforming may be spent better somewhere else. Businesses make plans based on the trends these polls show. And if a pollster has a history of failing to accurately do their jobs, people will stop buying their products and instead contact a competitor that has a better track record to ensure their dollars are being spent wisely. Pollsters have a huge free market incentive to get the right answer, or they go out of business.

Five Thirty Eight does a great job of rating the pollsters with respect to how accurate they are in political races, since the results are easy to measure. I highly recommend their website for a number of reasons. Here is their pollster ratings page, where you can see all kinds of juicy info, including the historical bias a pollster may have in their results.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/

[wrench]

Funny thing, when I first read the topic, "NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll",
I read it as NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marxist

[Jackpine Savage]

Funny thing, when I first read the topic, "NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll",
I read it as NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marxist

Me too!

I actually used to listen to NPR when I was on the road once in a while and even donated a couple times long ago. Not any more. The only thing you hear from them are the talking points of the day. Raaacist, white naaationalist, woke nonsense.

Appropriate that they both have a P in their name.
National Propaganda Radio
Propaganda Broadcasting Service

I really resent that some of my taxes go to them.

[IvanTheTerribleShot]

And if a pollster has a history of failing to accurately do their jobs, people will stop buying their products and instead contact a competitor that has a better track record to ensure their dollars are being spent wisely. Pollsters have a huge free market incentive to get the right answer, or they go out of business.

I am not very handy with the topic, but here is what I think is counterexample: 538 predicting overwhelming victory of Mrs. Clinton over Mr. Trump in 2016 presidential elections.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

For which I don't have any other logical explanation than that the polls were cooked, a big time.

Don't you think there is a market for public opinion shaping, as opposed to opinion measuring, polls?

[jdege]

Don't you think there is a market for public opinion shaping, rather than opinion measuring, polls?

My assumption is that polls that intended to find the truth are kept private and that polls that are publicized aren't intended to find the truth, but hope to create it.

[Holland&Holland]

Don't you think there is a market for public opinion shaping, rather than opinion measuring, polls?

My assumption is that polls that intended to find the truth are kept private and that polls that are publicized aren't intended to find the truth, but hope to create it.

This

[Markemp]

And if a pollster has a history of failing to accurately do their jobs, people will stop buying their products and instead contact a competitor that has a better track record to ensure their dollars are being spent wisely. Pollsters have a huge free market incentive to get the right answer, or they go out of business.

I am not very handy with the topic, but here is what I think is counterexample: 538 predicting overwhelming victory of Mrs. Clinton over Mr. Trump in 2016 presidential elections.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

For which I don't have any other logical explanation than that the polls were cooked, a big time.

Don't you think there is a market for public opinion shaping, as opposed to opinion measuring, polls?

I'm assuming you misread the 2016 election forecast numbers. Nate Silver gave Trump about a 30% chance of winning. That's not an "overwhelming" amount, so maybe you assumed she would get 70% of the vote from that article? A 30% chance of winning is pretty respectable number. I'd throw $20 on a 70% chance to win (unless someone was saying the Vikings had a 70% chance to win, because we all know how that goes), but I definitely wouldn't bet $1000.

But the best part about 538 is that they have a ton of post mortems after the elections to analyze all the data they collected and report on what worked and didn't work. Here is the long form version from him, if you'd like to see how some of the sausage is made: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/th ... y-of-2016/. Really good stuff! You can read the rest of the series here: https://fivethirtyeight.com/tag/the-real-story-of-2016/, which includes some juicy headlines like "There Really Was A Liberal Media Bubble"

And of course, the polling industry (which isn't 538; they just aggregate polls with a model to basically average them out, including republican leaning ones) learned a lot from that election and updated their processes to account for the changes in the base assumptions of that time. As a result, polling was pretty good in 2018. It took a small step back in 2020 (weird stuff happens when Trump is on the ballot, apparently), but they were pretty close to spot on in 2022. And they continue to adjust and learn. It doesn't mean there won't be polling misses in the future, but it gets better over time as a whole. Science! It works!