Are we doing ourselves any favors repeating this 90% number?

[supernaut]

Last edited Sat Apr 27, 2013, 05:57 PM - Edit history (1)

I actually did some research to find out where this 90% number comes from. It comes from a phone survey conducted on 1,772 people. Not 90% of ALL Americans as many people keep saying. Is this really helping our cause, or pushing it further away?

And for those who keep asking for a link to the poll: http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes--centers/polling-institute/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=1847

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. Are you familiar with statistics and how they relate to polling?

[neverforget]

80. I would say no.

[Robb]

2. What do you mean when you say "our cause"?

[hfojvt]

11. "Your country, mine, every other country in the world, has the same cause"

"and what it does is, it takes people who don't give a pint of whaledreck for it and sends them off to kill women and children. Yes, it's the cause of every country on earth! And you know what I call that cause? I call it naked stinking greed."

John Brunner "Stand on Zanzibar" p. 574

[spanone]

3. here's my research...several polls

Last edited Sat Apr 27, 2013, 04:13 PM - Edit history (1)

• Washington Post-ABC News poll, April 11-14, 2013: "Would you support or oppose a law requiring background checks on people buying guns at gun shows or online?" Support: 86 percent. Oppose: 13 percent.

• CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll, April 5-7, 2013: "Some proposals would require a background check on anyone attempting to purchase a gun in order to determine whether the prospective buyer has been convicted of a felony or has a mental health problem. Please tell me whether you would favor or oppose a background check for a prospective gun buyer under each of the following circumstances. ... If the buyer is trying to purchase a gun at a gun show." Favor: 83 percent. Oppose: 17 percent.

"If the buyer is trying to purchase a gun from another person who is not a gun dealer but owns one or more guns and wants to sell one of them." Favor: 70 percent. Oppose: 29 percent.

"If the buyer is purchasing a gun from a family member or receiving it as a gift." Favor: 54 percent. Oppose: 45 percent.

"Please tell me whether you would favor or oppose a background check for anyone who wants to buy ammunition for a gun." Favor: 55 percent. Oppose: 44 percent.

• Quinnipiac University poll, March 26-April 1, 2013. "Do you support or oppose requiring background checks for all gun buyers?" Support: 91 percent. Oppose: 8 percent.

• CBS News poll, March 20-24, 2013. "Would you favor or oppose background checks on all potential gun buyers?" Favor: 90 percent. Oppose: 8 percent.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/apr/18/gabrielle-giffords/gabby-giffords-says-americans-overwhelmingly-suppo/

[DanTex]

4. We? LOL.

[99Forever]

5. Take a course in statistics and polling and get back to "us."

I'm pretty sure that "our cause" and yours are two very different things.

[lob1]

6. You seem to be complaining that only 1,772 came up with the 90% figure.

One hundred percent of the people have never been polled, ever.

[Hoyt]

7. How can anyone, but a fool or felon, be against background checks.

[hfojvt]

8. here's the thing about polling

Imagine you had a bag with 310,000,000 marbles in it, and you want to know "what percentage of them are red and what percent are blue?"

The MOST accurate way, of course, would be to count every single marble in the bag, but good grief that would take a whole bunch of time.

Well, it turns out, that if you pull out, say 1,000 marbles at random, then the percentage of red marbles in that 1,000 is very, very likely to be the same as the percentage in the whole bag, and it is, of course, much easier to count 1,000 than it is to count 310,000,000.

They even have formulas for this, to calculate the "sample size" that would give you X% certainty of being correct given the size of your total population.

Because, clearly, a sample size of 3 or even of ten, is not going to be very accurate, but, in general, a sample size of 2,000 will be almost as accurate as a sample size of 10,000.

[hughee99]

35. It's not exactly that simple, though, because demographics matter.

Reaching into a bag of marbles and pulling out 2000 marbles and counting them doesn't take many factors into account. If the person who filled the bag dumped all the red marbles in, and then all the blue marbles in after, I'm going to get 2000 marbles off the top and they'll all be blue.

I'm not saying there's not a lot of science that goes into it, but in the end, turning a few thousand phone calls into a national poll requires some statistical weighting based on certain assumptions.

It's still not an exact science. If it were, pretty much any poll with sufficient sample size would give the same information, but going back to the 2012 election, that definitely wasn't the case.

[upaloopa]

9. 90% speaks to the disparity on wealth

and income and is extremely meaningful to people who have the good of the country at heart. Of course to the self centered greed motivated, they would rather it not be used.
Who is this we you speak of?

[Recursion]

10. So, the thing with polls is that you only ask a few thousand people

A genuine criticism is that the poll seems to have oversampled from the northeast. The size itself is fine.

To draw many conclusions from that you have to know the underlying process is ergodic; we know in fact that political opinions are not ergodic, but we have nothing better to go on, and polls on simple questions behave at least most of the time as if there were ergodicity.

[RC]

12. So, you'd rather the poll be conducted in Montana, North Dakota, or Texas?

[davidn3600]

13. If you want a true representation of ALL Americans...then yes.

Sorry but rural folks are Americans too. And that's why the founders made sure a small state like Montana gets the same amount of votes in the Senate as a big state like New York.

[Recursion]

14. I don't have the tabs in front of me but I remember this poll included 0 from big sky

and very few from the mountain west.

Yes, I would like a poll to more or less represent the underlying population. That's kind of the point.

[Progressive dog]

45. So another polling expert heard from

I'll bet none of your relatives got included either.
Remember that unskewed poll thing and how well they did.

As to your desire "Yes, I would like a poll to more or less represent the underlying population." See, the polling experts who did the poll believe it does represent the underlying population. Fortunately they use statistics and years of previous polling to select and analyze their samples rather than worrying about whether you approve.

[spanone]

19. what poll? the op mentions a poll, you mention a poll but where is it? where's the link?

[supernaut]

36. Here you go.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes--centers/polling-institute/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=1847

[Progressive dog]

15. multiple polls showed well over 80%

The people who do the polls do research too. They use statistics to determine sample size for a specific error. So statistically there is a 95% probability that the poll is accurate to the error specified.
Here's what I think.
90% of voters support 100% back ground checks for gun purchasers.
90% of voters support 100% back ground checks for gun purchasers
90% of voters support 100% back ground checks for gun purchasers
90% of voters support 100% back ground checks for gun purchasers
90% of voters support 100% back ground checks for gun purchasers
Do I need to repeat this again, so that even gun nuts get it?

[Deep13]

16. What are you talking about?

90% do what?

[Skittles]

29. *yawn*

he's a gun humper

[Deep13]

62. I thought that might be the case...

but his OP did not mention say so.

*chuckle* "gun humper"

[rrneck]

17. The 90% figure is probably accurate.

Last edited Sun Apr 28, 2013, 10:05 AM - Edit history (1)

The poll is asking people if they are in favor of a good thing - without telling them what they would have to pay to get it. 90% of Americans would like a pony too...

[Progressive dog]

46. Would you explain the price to

the 90% of us that don't get it? I'm really curious.
I get the pony thing, as an adult I'd be too big to ride the pony, I'd have to pay to stable him and groom him etc.., but I have a hard time with the background check thing.
We already have checks on many gun purchasers. The problem with exemptions is that the criminals can self select to buy at a venue that doesn't check. The question then becomes, what do we have to pay to add all the criminals to the background checks that most responsible gun owners already submit to.

[rrneck]

53. This is a repost of an old OP

It's too long, but guns are a complicated issue that require a lot of examination.

---------------

Since guns have become a partisan fetish object the legislation is understood to be regulating that object. Actually, the proposed legislation regulates relationships between people.

When you buy a gun from an FFL, it is a commercial relationship between a certain type of buyer and seller. For the seller to be considered legitimate he or she has to be licensed as and FFL with all the rights and responsibilities thereto. The FFL has to keep a "bound book" of every transaction and firearm bought and sold and make his or her inventory and records available to the government for inspection. There are severe penalties for non compliance. For someone to be a "gun buyer" he or she has to verify that they are an upstanding citizen by filling out a 4473 and passing a background check, also with severe penalties for non compliance. If these conditions are not met, the sale cannot be completed and the relationship between buyer and seller will not exist. That's how the regulation of that kind of relationship is done.

Heretofore, transfer of firearms between friends, family, associates or acquaintances were exactly that. It's the same gun, but the relationships between the people are different. Universal background checks will require the redefinition of the relationships between people surrounding the transfer of the gun. That's why exceptions are made for family in the current proposed legislation.

A gun is considered a much more personal object than say, a car or a house. A gun, generally understood to be a handgun, is small enough to carried in one's clothing so is understood in the same context as a wallet or a ring and is considered an extension of one's body as opposed to other personal property like a lawn mower. Also, a gun is understood to be important for the protection of one's person, so it's importance as a safety device is much greater than almost any other thing someone may own. The circumstances under which a gun is designed to be used surround issues of life and death and loom very large in the minds of those who own or transfer them to others.

The problem with a background check requirement for private sales is that it will require us to redefine our relationships with others to transfer the gun. While two people may have any number of uncounted types of human relationships between them from godparent to causal acquaintance, at the point of transfer the relationship has to become one between an FFL and a qualified buyer. Any background check system has to employ chain of custody documentation, penalties for non compliance and a means of prosecuting violators or it will be useless. That system is already in place for FFL's and the law as proposed will use the same verification infrastructure for private sales as for commercial sales. Hence the controversy surrounding "keeping records" and "gun registry" etc.

So the problem with the implementation of universal background checks is that no matter what relationship two people may have, when the firearm is transferred the relationship of "sanctioned buyer and seller" becomes paramount. While that relationship can begin and end between two anonymous individuals in a store, it will not supplant whatever relationship two people may have prior to the transfer. Thus, the regulation requirement becomes intrusive into the private lives of individuals.

Such an intrusion is not, in itself, a bad thing if it results in an improvement in the lives of all. The sociocultural cost benefit analysis of that benefit is done through the political process. Resistance to further firearms regulation from the political right will be near universal, and the intrusion into the private lives of citizens by "big government" will make that resistance particularly intense. Support from the political left will not match the resistance from the right because firearms ownership is not divided along partisan lines and the implications of the legislation will be a factor in liberal gun owning support of the law. Support from the political center will be particularly soft depending on how people feel about the implications of the legislation.

The issue is a difficult one for the political left in light of other important signature policy initiatives we champion. Liberal defense of personal relationships have been a lynchpin of any number of policy initiatives from marriage equality to reproductive rights. Support for regulating relationships between people surrounding the transfer of firearms opens the left to accusations of ideological hypocrisy. Such accusations, whether true or not, will have an impact on the support for the overall Democratic agenda. The question to ask is will universal background checks result in sufficient societal improvement to refute accusations of ideological hypocrisy and deliver a perceptible improvement in people's lives to merit the intrusion into their interpersonal relationships?

Since only a tiny fraction of the firearms in existence are used improperly a universal background check requirement will have a negligible impact on the further reduction of their improper use. The negative impact on the private lives of people who otherwise would do no harm far outweighs whatever benefit it might deliver in the reduction of crime with firearms. Furthermore, the political liabilities of such a requirement may well result in much greater damage because of the damage to much more important and effective aspects of the Democratic agenda that will be impeded because of support for this law.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172118043

[Progressive dog]

54. Every time I read a long post like this, there is always the bottom line

that considers the murders, the suicides, the accidental shootings that actually happen negligible. They are not negligible to the victims, family, and friends.
It certainly affects their relationships much more than the self determined relationships that are now allowed to override background checks.
Liberal is NOT the same as Libertarian. The ideological hypocrisy would be to deny the basic purpose of government, which is to protect the citizens.

[rrneck]

56. Of course murders, the suicides, the accidental shootings

are not negligible to those who experience them. Neither are are assaults that require a gun for self defense. But what I actually wrote was:

Since only a tiny fraction of the firearms in existence are used improperly a universal background check requirement will have a negligible impact on the further reduction of their improper use. The negative impact on the private lives of people who otherwise would do no harm far outweighs whatever benefit it might deliver in the reduction of crime with firearms. Furthermore, the political liabilities of such a requirement may well result in much greater damage because of the damage to much more important and effective aspects of the Democratic agenda that will be impeded because of support for this law.


Actually, the basic purpose of government is the equitable distribution of resources. While protecting the citizens is important, I hope you don't think the defense budget is appropriate since our "national defense insfrastructure" is primarialy devoted to the defense of corporate profit. If you think the government is tasked to defend individual citizens from assault, the laws of physics will disagree with you since cops can't jump through a rip in the fabric of time.

[Progressive dog]

57. Look around and you can find the number of self defense uses of guns

now that is negligible.

[rrneck]

59. I'll say it again.

Since only a tiny fraction of the firearms in existence are used improperly a universal background check requirement will have a negligible impact on the further reduction of their improper use

Accurate data regarding the use of firearms for self defense is impossible to obtain unless you know a way to determine how many people ended a potential assault by brandishing a gun without firing it or reporting it to the police or how many assailants decided not to initiate an assault because they thought they might get shot.

[Progressive dog]

60. So what, we already have background checks on a self selected

majority of gun purchasers. So, isn't it suspicious when some use loopholes to avoid the checks? What do these sellers and buyers have to hide?
I am not going to argue about the accurate reporting but I would tend to believe that the incidents of use are over reported.

[rrneck]

61. Here is the definition of a loophole.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/loophole
A loophole allows an individual or group to use some gap in the restrictions or requirements of the law or contract for personal advantage without technically breaking the law or contract.

The law doesn't address the transfer of firearms between private individuals who reside in the same state. You can't have a loophole in a law that does not address the issue.

The reason the law does not address the issue is because it is unenforceable and politically disastrous to implement. Like I said, we aren't regulating guns. We're regulating relationships. A commercial relationship is easily defined, thus fairly easy to regulate. But interpersonal relationships defy definition, thus are impossible to regulate without invading people's privacy and placing an onerous burden on people who would do no harm.

Indeed, some people will exploit the realities of life in the world for their own benefit. They are bad people. There will always be bad people who do bad things. They are a necessary albeit regrettable evil in any culture. The price of micromanaging people's interpersonal relationships would result in a cure that is much worse than the disease.

Here's an excerpt from another post (not very long) on the subject if you care to check it out.

So why don't you advocate for a "tag" that will inform the government of your relationships with people. You know, an object that will facilitate a record of who you know or meet that will last forever in a government database. That "tag" will have a serial number, and if the powers that be want to know who you know, all they have to do is pull up that number and check the log to see where that "tag" has been. Of course, nobody in the bowels of any federal agency is required to tell you when you have been tracked, but there will have to be severe penalties for non compliance on your part.

[Progressive dog]

63. The federal government can regulate these sales

They wrote an exemption into the law for the gun show/private party sales to persons with residence in the same state. That is a loophole large enough to drive a truck through, it is a complete shredding of the laws intent. Our laws should not give bad people an easily fixable loophole to exploit.
Your argument that bad people do bad things so don't bother closing legal loopholes is a denial of the purpose of government. It is a denial of the rights of others.

[rrneck]

64. Wrong.

The law governs licensed sellers and qualified buyers.

If you think they left such a loophole, explain why they would do a thing like that.

[Progressive dog]

65. The idea is to change the law, but you knew that

I would call the loophole the NRA, gun lobby, gun nut joint loophole. The idea of the new proposed law is to close that loophole (but you knew that).
90% of the voters agree with closing the loophole, among those voters many can't believe the loophole exists, probably because of lies from the same groups who put the loophole in place.

[rrneck]

67. So how should the law work? Explain it.

What would it require?

How would you prosecute violaters?

[Progressive dog]

68. No point to this, is there

Gun worshipers like to pretend they don't understand when called on their deceptions.
Not that that applies to you , of course.

[rrneck]

70. Can you explain it?

Think about it. If some guy on the internet can shoot the idea down so easily, what chance does it have in congress? That's why that 90% poll number is meaningless. People took two minutes to think about it and support wilted. How many senators voted "yes" on Manchin/Tomey knowing it would never pass? Do you think each and every legislator didn't consider the political ramifications if that legislation actually became law? It was political theatre from the beginning.

[Progressive dog]

71. The gun nuts have to move past the 1st stage of grief

90% of the American people support background checks for 100% of gun purchasers. Support withered, in the minds of gun nuts, the same way as support for re-election of the President withered in Romney's mind. Oh, wait, the polls only showed PBO ahead by a few points and this poll is 9:1. Tougher to deny 9:1 but many gun nuts have succeeded.
Now the gun nuts hope that none of their elected representatives will cave to constituent pressure. The gun nuts hope for an authoritarian outcome because they want to buy any gun, any where, and from any one.

Then as icing on the cake, Ayotte of NH votes against this, sinks 15% in polls.

[rrneck]

72. And you still can't explain how a law that you support will work.

What do you get if only 80% of the public thinks something is a good idea?


http://www.economist.com/node/16930683

Looks like overwhelming bi partisan support for a war. You know, three trillion dollars of debt, hundreds of thousands of casualties, Gitmo, torture, an entire region destabilized, gigantic transfer of wealth to the 1%, the elevation of W to status of "war president".

So what makes you think 90% of the public polled after a national tragedy want something that makes sense? Why don't you try to work past an argumentum ad populum and actually discuss the issue? I find it fascinating that people repeatedly flee to a sort of fundamentalist litany when they can't or won't consider what their ideology will do in the real world. The legislation was public knowledge. The means of enforcement are public knowledge. The infrastructure to facilitate the law is public knowledge. I have given you a boatload of concrete information to discuss and yet you flee to a conspiracy laden litany about "gun nuts".

We got a goddamn illegal war with eighty percent support, but we couldn't get something as obviously wonderful and seemingly benign as universal background checks with ninety percent support.

Explain why. How will universal background checks actually impact the lives of people? What will people with various sorts of relationships actually have to do to comply with the law? How will it actually make them safer? What price will they have to pay for that increased security if it exists? What will be the political ramifications of the law?

[Progressive dog]

73. 90% of voters support 100% background checks

How long did we debate the Iraq war before we went? How much of the support evaporated when the Bush propaganda finally was disputed?
How long have the gun nuts, gun manufacturers, and their lobbies got to own the debate?
They no longer do. They don't get to ignore facts and invent facts (commonly known as lie).
So 90% are for background checks now, and a majority for AWB and magazine capacity limits. The support for gun control is growing, not shrinking. See that's kind of like the graph you posted of opposition to the Iraq war.

[rrneck]

74. Another dodge.

But are universal background checks a good idea? Will the law work as advertised? You say you have facts, lets see them. I'll ask you again. Explain how the law would work. Explain how it will actually impact the lives of people in the real world.

Produce some facts to discuss.

[Progressive dog]

75. Fact--90% of voters support 100% background checks

FACT- 100% is universal
FACT- opinions (see good idea question in your post) are not FACTs
FACT-I am not a legal scholar,-- but I expect that this law would work by having penalties for non compliance combined with mechanisms for finding non-compliance). That is my limited understanding of how laws usually work.
FACT-If you mean the psychological impact on gun worshipers like Ted Nugent and Wayne of the NRA, they will continue to be babbling idiots. (That's probably an opinion.)

FREE OPINION- No one owes you any explanation. I realize that the gun worshipers believe that they still run the government, but it will be pried from their cold etc., too. The longer they hold back sensible reform, by their money and propaganda, the more angry the sane part of the population will become. That anger will result in more gun control, not less.

[rrneck]

79. LOL!

Fact--90% of voters support 100% background checks

They did in January. Probably more like 65% now.

FACT- opinions (see good idea question in your post) are not FACTs

This is true. And 90% of Americans in Janurary were of the opinion that universal background checks are a good idea. Public opinion polls do not produce facts beyond a tally of public opinion. They do not confirm the wisdom of those opinions.

FACT-I am not a legal scholar

So stipulated. Neither am I. But you can discuss the issue. Like I said all the information you need to examine the impact of the law on people's lives is public knowledge. You have yet to even approach a discussion of it.

You don't owe me anything. If you will examine the subthread, I did not solicit a response from you in particular, although I have asked any number of direct questions that you have studiously avoided. In fact, I actually agreed with the 90% figure. You asked for an explanation and got it. I merely posited a possible reason for why the legislation did not pass.

Look at what you have written. You are posting bumper stickers, slogans, insults, boilerplate talking points, and assorted non sequiturs; anything but a simple rational discussion about the impact of the law on people's interpersonal relationships.

I'll ask you again. What will be the actual impact of this law on the lives of real people in the real world? What will they have to do to comply with this law? Will compliance actually help each one of them? If so, how? What are the surrounding ramifications of implementation of this law? What are the political ramifications?

[Progressive dog]

81. Fact-90% of voters support !00% background checks

" I did not solicit a response from you in particular, although I have asked any number of direct questions that you have studiously avoided."
You solicited opinions which I had already expressed.
As to your last questions, they have absolutely nothing to do with the public policy question of whether we should support a law that has been proposed.

I am not a robber, so I would find it hard to speak to the impact of robbery laws on real people. I have no problem having a BC done to buy or sell a weapon, so the law has no effect on me. If you need to buy or sell weapons without a background check, perhaps you could inform me. If you need to make sure that no records of your weapons purchase or sales exist, then if you told me what use you intended to make of the weapon. I might be able to help you with a justification. It might be better to ask the NRA or Wayne or Ted (sorry, I'm sure you meant a sane explanation).
As to "surrounding ramifications", I'm having a hard time figuring out what you think you're saying.
As to political ramifications, they're trending in favor of regulation and probably will continue in that direction. Of course, unlike some gun worshipers, I can't predict the future and understand the difference between opinion and fact.

[rrneck]

82. Still running I see.

You solicited opinions which I had already expressed.

You offered opinions that had nothing to do with what I asked. But while you're at it, what's the price of eggs in Germany these days? Since you seem willing to treat opinions like commodities, surely you can expound on that.

As to your last questions, they have absolutely nothing to do with the public policy question of whether we should support a law that has been proposed.

So whether or not a law will actually work, become a burden on the those who comply with it but will receive no benefit from it, unnecessarily invade people's privacy, or result in the banishment of the Democratic party to the political wilderness are not germane to any discussion of the issue? That's rich. Then why are we here?

I am not a robber, so I would find it hard to speak to the impact of robbery laws on real people.

Robbery is against the law, and yet it still happens. What solution do you offer people who get robbed in spite of the penalties for doing so?

Let me help. It hurts. Sometimes when people get robbed it ruins their lives.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Working-Poor-Invisible-America/dp/0375708219/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1367261842&sr=8-1&keywords=shipler

The Working Poor: Invisible in America
They perform labor essential to America’s comfort. They are white and black, Latino and Asian--men and women in small towns and city slums trapped near the poverty line, where the margins are so tight that even minor setbacks can cause devastating chain reactions.

You find it hard to speak to the impact of robbery on real people because they are invisible to you. Of course since you "have no problem having a BC done to buy or sell a weapon, so the law has no effect on (you)", you don't give a shit about all the people who will have their lives devastated because you won't even consider the impact of your policy proposals on the reality of their lives. Those are the "surrounding ramifications" that seem to mystify you so much. Mandated formalities backed by force of law may be fine for someone that can take a day off from work and pay to have them done, but a lot of people don't enjoy that luxury. If they lose a day of work, they lose their job. And not a few of them are already working two or three jobs just to eat and sleep indoors. So now they have a bunch of upscale suburbanites lecturing them on what they need to do to keep the wolves away from the gates surrounding their tract homes. That kind of attitude results in the "political ramifications" that put the lie to the 90% support figure which, as I pointed out earlier, is now around 65%.

So, are you ready to discuss the how the law will affect real people, or do you have another batch of bumper sticker slogans, boilerplate, and insults prepared?

[Progressive dog]

83. 90% of voters support 100% background checks

This is like the are we there yet from children.
If you took what I said as insults, are you a gun worshiper? A simple yes or no will do, in fact I consider your speeches with your rhetorical questions (which you cannot believe are real questions, can you) rude and discourteous.

By the way, I would think that 65% of voters would be a landslide in most elections, in other words so what.

No I do not give a shit about people who want loopholes in the law. I do not care about insulting them, I do not care about their feelings whether there name is Wayne or whatever.

"If they lose a day of work, they lose their job. And not a few of them are already working two or three jobs just to eat and sleep indoors."
That rates among the dumbest things I have ever heard in relation to gun purchase and sales. Someone with the money and time to buy and sell guns could lose their job because the guns are more important.
Let me ask a yes or no question, wouldn't they be safer to sleep indoors instead of buying a gun to defend themselves? That's a rhetorical question, I don't expect an answer.

[rrneck]

84. I don't mind answering.

Yes it would be safer to sleep indoors than buying a gun because only an idiot would sleep outdoors when there are robbers, rapists, and murderers about. So what are people supposed to do when they leave their homes? Would you prefer to avoid discussion of concealed carry rather than background check legislation?

A Google search for "home invasion" gets About 262,000,000 results. And this is from the ever popular gungeon just today...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172121401
EVANSVILLE, IN (WFIE) - An Evansville man who held two home invasion suspects at gunpoint until police arrived shared his story with 14 News.
...
Matt was behind his bedroom door when out of nowhere, he says two men kicked in the front door of his Idlewild Drive home.

"I raced for the gun vault and had my gun in my hand in 5-seconds and then answered the door," says Matt.
...
Matt says the suspects were surprised and with no other options didn't move until police arrived. For two-long-minutes, Matt's pistol stayed locked on his targets loaded and at the ready.
...
Both suspects remain in the Vanderburgh County Jail charged with armed burglary and robbery with a firearm.

Watch the video at the link. That's not an upscale neighborhood. I wonder how close that guy is to qualifying as "working poor"? Do you thing he can keep up his mortgage payments? Do you think he's behind on his rent? Do you think he has friends staying with him so they won't be on the street? I guess if he hadn't been home they would have been fucked since it would have been illegal to transfer a firearm to them without the proper paperwork.

You don't see them yet. The people who have to pool their resources just to survive. The people who have relationships that are not in the mainstream. The people who have to face high crime areas and slow police response time. All you see are "gun nuts", "gun worshipers", "robbers", and various undesirables who become so in your eyes because of what they own.

This is very telling:
No I do not give a shit about people who want loopholes in the law.

A fine bit of authoritarian thinking there. You support the law whether it will work or not. Hell you won't even discuss it. The law you want is the answer and everybody else has to just deal with it. Are you sure you're on the right website?

Edit to add:

Has it not occured to you that a measure of the support from Republicans for background checks was because it would deny same sex couples the ability to transfer a firearm without a background check because they can't get married? Just another slap in the face for supporters of GLBT rights. Bravo.

[Progressive dog]

85. So change the subject now

Matt would obviously be starving if he had to take time off from his three jobs to buy another gun so he could put it in his gun safe. No stinking background checks for Matt. Poor Matt, when they broke in he was just stopping between jobs to make sure his guns were safe or something.

I don't need the definition of authoritarian, I know authoritarian and this isn't it "No I do not give a shit about people who want loopholes in the law." I want the loopholes closed. You might want to read the definition again for understanding this time.
Where does that say I support the law whether it will work or not. Maybe you could avoid that with an unrelated anecdote from the NRA via the gungeon. (Yeah, I made the NRA part up)

[rrneck]

86. So will the law work and merit your support?

Prove it.

Regarding Matt. Maybe Matt was out of work and looking for a job. Maybe Matt is one of the millions of people who has given up looking for work because of the terrible job market. Your judgmentalism supports your authoritarianism.

[Progressive dog]

88. You don't have to prove why you don't support it

Why should I have to prove why I do?
Still haven't understood the definition of authoritarianism, have you?
I guess you weren't the one who told me the story about the people who were going to starve because they couldn't pass a background check. Yeah, I know, slight exaggeration of what you said, but the spirit is there.
Now you moved on to a new word. I think we might also have a disagreement about what the word work means, and I would like to clear that up first. If you require that the law fix all gun problems 100%, like the gun worshipers do, I expect that would not be accepted by me or most reasonable people.

[rrneck]

89. LOL!

I already told you the problems I see with it. You asked me a question and I answered it, a courtesy you have not returned in kind. That kind of attitude makes DU suck.

I don't think it will stop much more than a fraction of gun violence. Read the last paragraph in the cited post. You know, the one where you intentionally misinterpreted the use of "negligible".

In a rational discussion it is incumbent on the person making the assertion to support it. You're up.

Hey, maybe you're just in the wrong forum. The choir is thataway.

[Progressive dog]

91. I have already addressed the problems you claim to have with it

I believe that stopping a fraction of gun violence is a worthy goal, but I already told you that. I believe that it will stop more than a small fraction and since neither you or I have data to back us up, we'll have to wait and see.
I am not the voice in your head, neither am I a fellow gungoneer, so I would not be expected to agree with you.

Between 90 and 65% of voters don't and a much bigger share of Democrats don't.
So as long as you have chosen to again change the subject, this is not the Republican or teabagger place. You will not find many to echo your extreme RW gun views here.

[rrneck]

94. So

how do you feel about eighty million gun dealers? If you require universal background checks, that will turn every gun owner into a gun dealer. If you think straw purchases are bad now, wait until you take responsibility for each and every gun transfer made. I mean, if you're going to take responsibility there's no need for anybody else to give it a second thought. Imagine how the bad guys will feel about that! Wow! It'll be like a gun store every twenty feet. I expect firearms manufactruers will love it too. Opening up markets is always good. Fine disaster capitalist libertarian thinking there.

Yes, stopping any kind of violence is a worthy goal, but only if it actually helps people. If you successfully stop violence on Oak street because somebody couldn't get a gun, how do we know your proposed legislation won't keep somebody on Maple street from defending themselves because they couldn't get a gun? And when you demand people jump through hoops because you suspect they will screw up, and they get brutalized because they couldn't jump through the hoops properly, they tend to vote your politicians out of office. That leaves Democrats wandering in the political wilderness scratching their heads wondering why people voted against their economic interest.

You have yet to explain how a universal background check law will actually work.

You have yet to explain the actual impact of such a law on the public.

You have yet to actually explain anything.

Please link to a post where you have actually discussed the issues I raised in post #53.

[Progressive dog]

96. If I have to sell a car, it doesn't turn me into a car dealer

Gun owners are not the same as gun dealers. Most of those 80 million gun owners are not furiously buying and selling guns. You have to explain why you are allowed to make up things like that and why your poorly informed beliefs should be treated as fact.
When we talk about guns for protection, you do know that gun owners or their family members are much more likely to be injured than protected by the guns.
Let me repeat the only explanations needed.
This is a democratic republic. The majority should decide laws within the limits of the constitution. The majority want universal background checks to become law. If most Republicans along with a few democrats continue to obstruct, some of them will be harmed politically. Gun nuts get the same vote that I do. The 4 million NRA members, most of whom claim not to have your extremist view, don't come near a majority of gun owners.
I am not answerable to you or the NRA as to my reasons. You would deny that my reasons exist, continuing to confuse your opinion with fact. I do not expect to convince gun nuts.
So I think of people with your views as too far removed from reality to reason with. It's kind of like triage where you are one that can't be helped.

[rrneck]

97. Car analogies don't work as well as you think.

You don't have to transfer the title to loan a car. You don't need a title at all if you don't drive it on a public road.

The same background check infrastructure will be used for private transfers as for commercial sales. Same system - same penalties - same objective. The only difference is that if a private individual sell too many guns they are considered a dealer, and a dealer has to have an FFL. Even if a new law doesn't make that distinction moot, the expansion of potential sellers will create a straw buyers market. How many millions of guns don't get sold now because the seller didn't like the buyers looks? Or do you think every private gun sale is between two shady characters? You didn't really think that, did you?

Cower in your shrinking majority while you can. It is shrinking. Fast. And as I have pointed out over and over, your argumentum ad populum doesn't prove anything. People have overwhelmingly favored a lot of bad legislation. You have failed to show they aren't making that mistake now.

Of course there is obstruction. It's called the political process. People are asking uncomfortable questions and not getting reasonable answers. Partisan orthodoxy will not suffice. Nor will squealing "NRA" and "90%".

The truth is that you've got nothing. You haven't given the issue any thought. You don't have a clue how universal background check will work, nor do you care. You have embraced the issue because it sounds good and lots of other people seem to like it. You have confused consumerism with citizenship.

[Progressive dog]

101. Since you apparently did your usual cut and paste reply without bothering to read

what I actually said, I thought I'd post it again to give you a second chance rather than re word it for you.
Gun owners are not the same as gun dealers. Most of those 80 million gun owners are not furiously buying and selling guns. You have to explain why you are allowed to make up things like that and why your poorly informed beliefs should be treated as fact.
When we talk about guns for protection, you do know that gun owners or their family members are much more likely to be injured than protected by the guns.
Let me repeat the only explanations needed.
This is a democratic republic. The majority should decide laws within the limits of the constitution. The majority want universal background checks to become law. If most Republicans along with a few democrats continue to obstruct, some of them will be harmed politically. Gun nuts get the same vote that I do. The 4 million NRA members, most of whom claim not to have your extremist view, don't come near a majority of gun owners.
I am not answerable to you or the NRA as to my reasons. You would deny that my reasons exist, continuing to confuse your opinion with fact. I do not expect to convince gun nuts.
So I think of people with your views as too far removed from reality to reason with. It's kind of like triage where you are one that can't be helped.

Now I didn't make an analogy between gun and car dealers. The analogy was only between selling one of something and selling many.
As to selling a car without transferring title, that is funny. Most normal people don't own miles of property to drive the car on and if they did would probably register it anyway. What would the ones without this property do, use the car as lawn art?
I didn't claim that obstruction wasn't part of the political process. You again are making stuff up.

Finally and separately, how could even a gun nut attribute consumerism to anything I said?
Oh, I get it, you don't know what the word means but them democrats use it.

As far as straw buyers, if they violate the law they should be called to account.

[rrneck]

107. Well, lets play "quote the text". It's tedious, but sometimes necessary.

Gun owners are not the same as gun dealers. Most of those 80 million gun owners are not furiously buying and selling guns.

Yes, but if you add a whole shitload, and I mean millions, of gun owners who now will have no incentive to carefully examine the buyer since you have removed that responsibility and taken it on yourself through universal background checks it will only take those millions of gun owners, selling one gun each, to bury any benefit the background checks would offer. Like I said, it will be a straw buyers market.

When we talk about guns for protection, you do know that gun owners or their family members are much more likely to be injured than protected by the guns.

Nobody cares. Given the remote chance of injury from an object over which the owner has control and exigent circumstances that pose a danger over which he or she has no control, any prudent person will choose the former every time. And then likely go vote for a Republican because the Democrats seem to be playing the odds with their lives.

The majority want universal background checks to become law.

For now. If you don't come up with a way to make it work that won't last long.

I am not answerable to you or the NRA as to my reasons.

You are if you want to win elections.

You would deny that my reasons exist

Well, I certainly haven't seen any yet that made any sense.

Now I didn't make an analogy between gun and car dealers.

Neither did I. I pointed out the difference between the uses of both, which informs the laws that govern them. Are you ready to avoid a frank and rational discussion about the public carraige of firearms, or do you agree that most cars operate on public roads and most guns are stored on private property? Better yet, why don't you go to a gun store and see if the proprietor will loan you a gun. Let me know how you do.

Finally and separately, how could even a gun nut attribute consumerism to anything I said?

Because you haven't given it any thought and you won't admit it. You're exhibiting all the symptoms of product loyalty. Ideologies are products, just like tennis shoes. You have bought yours because you think it looks good on you. Why don't you test it out in the real world and see how it works?

As far as straw buyers, if they violate the law they should be called to account.

I agree. Now, how do you plan to see to it that they are called to account and prosecuted for their crimes? Be specific and show your work.

[rrneck]

90. And by the way...

I expect that this law would work by having penalties for non compliance combined with mechanisms for finding non-compliance

The mechanism for non compliance is illegal. It was made specifically illegal in Manchin/Toomey.

[Progressive dog]

92. You expect, would that be an opinion

or is it a fact in your mind?

[rrneck]

93. Don't recognize your own words?

"I expect that this law would work by having penalties for non compliance combined with mechanisms for finding non-compliance..."

That was a quote from you.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022764891#post75

[Progressive dog]

98. You really don't get it , do you

I do not equate my opinions with fact as you continuously do.
That's a rhetorical question in the title, I already know the answer.

[rrneck]

100. I haven't had the opportunity to confuse the two

Last edited Mon Apr 29, 2013, 10:59 PM - Edit history (1)

since you have yet to attempt a rational discussion.

How will a universal background check system work? Will it be effective? Will it be an unfair intrusion on people's privacy? Will the benefits outweigh the liabilities?

And show your work. That's the difference between an opinion and an informed opinion.

[Progressive dog]

102. Rational does not maen agree with you, look it up

[rrneck]

103. That's true.

You can disagree all you want. But if you want to make sense, rationality is indispensable. So far all you've produced is music for the choir. And yourself.

A meaningful discussion is a rational discussion. Anything else is, well, me chasing you around for two days trying to get a straight answer out of you.

These subthreads make fascinating narratives, don't you think?

[Progressive dog]

104. Is that supposed to be funny

Did you see the new PPP polls showing backlash over their gun vote against Murkowski, Portman, and Flake?
As a Democrat, I'm sure you are pleased.

[rrneck]

105. It may or may not have been funny, but it was certainly accurate.

Anybody that suffers in the polls about that vote has plenty of time to mend fences with his or her constituents. As a Democrat I'm more concerned with Democratic politicians producing workable policy to reduce income disparity in this country, repair our social safety net, reform our educational system, and stop wasting time, money and political capital on stupid culture war feel good legislation that is produced and marketed like fucking tennis shoes.

It would help if Democrats would think about what they want from their elected representatives and treat their role as voting citizens as a responsibility instead of a queue in an automat. Of course that would involve actually understanding the issues surrounding their legislative objectives. Generally speaking bullshit litmus tests, McCarthyesque interrogations and defensive mewling about the evil machinations of the "evil NRA" only divide our constituency, makes us look like idiots, and gets us banished to the political wilderness.

So have you figured out how universal background checks are supposed to work yet?

[Progressive dog]

106. I'm concerned about the life part first

I am also concerned that we elect Democrats that have Democratic values. There are no litmus tests except for some small groups, like what I would characterize as gun nuts, who want democracy as long as it doesn't endanger their guns. They even oppose universal background checks. With very few Democrats opposing these checks, I find gun nuts claim to being Democrats dubious.
If one of these self described democrats also specifically implied that Democrats don't think about their vote, I would be nearly certain that their claim was false.

And WTH is the crap about McCarthy and mewling?
Did you get called before a congressional committee and they painted you as a commie with no evidence? And you are confused about the difference between defense and offense in regards to the NRA. I haven't seen anyone on DU advocate defense and capitulation to the NRA except gun defenders.

Isn't this a weasel way of stating the obvious "Anybody that suffers in the polls about that vote has plenty of time to mend fences with his or her constituents" that you supported a handful of Senate Democrats and almost all Senate Republicans.

Guns are not people, they have no feelings, they are not even alive. Guns don't get to vote.. To hell with the NRA.

[rrneck]

108. Well, you see the problem is

you haven't shown you'd know a "gun nut" if he fell on you. And based on what I've seen so far, you are in no position to pontificate about Democratic values.

If you claim to actually give thought to the ramifications of your positions, we have seen no evidence of it here. Anyone can read what we have written, and so far all you have offered is a bunch of canned snark and second hand boilerplate.

Your transparent interrogation aside, you have done nothing to actually discuss the issue at hand. All you have done is try to insult me and dodge information that you asked for. If you can't do any better than that here, your ideas don't have a chance in the real world. Just because somebody with a "D" after their name proposed something we don't have to be a bunch of authoritarian lemmings and follow along. Liberals are supposed to be the smart ones, and smart people actually deal with problems - not dodge them with slogans and fallacious arguments. We're supposed to be the "reality based community".

Are you ready to deal with reality yet?

[Progressive dog]

109. Where did you find gun nut in the dictionary?

You are really amazing with your sources of wisdom. And you continue to amaze me with your unique usage of words. I'm trying to figure out now how an interrogation wouldn't be transparent.
I plead guilty to insulting you with your own words. You are the one who changes the subject, disputes my right to an opinion different than yours, defends opinions conflicting with the vast majority of Democrats on a Democratic web site, and shows concern about Democrats losing elections for supporting positions held by 90% of the American people. You make up opinions that you suppose I hold, without having any evidence (I'm talking real evidence, like stuff I actually said).
You pretend that your responses are actually about the issue of the OP. The issue is whether Democrats should be concerned about continuing to support a Democratic position. Let me repeat that, the issue is not whether the Democratic party will support universal background checks, the party has for years. The issue is whether they will continue to support them in spite of polls showing the voters now agree with the Democratic party's position. No wonder "democratic" gun nuts change subjects when their CONCERN is questioned.

Then you put together a list of slogans and strange phrases like authoritarian lemmings that make no sense and prove yet again that you do not understand the meaning of authoritarian.

[rrneck]

110. Well, why don't you straighten it all out for us.

The issue is whether Democrats should be concerned about continuing to support a Democratic position.

Indeed. Should we be concerned about a Democratic position that may do more harm than good to the country and to the party . That was my original response to you and my repeated requests for an explanation (twelve so far) that would make the legislation merit our support.

Explain how a system of universal background checks will work. Explain how it will be effective. Explain how it will not be an invasion of privacy. Explain how you will prosecute violators.

If you support the legislation just like 65% of the public, you should be able to explain why it is a good thing. You have obviously given the matter a lot of thought, but I wonder what you have been thinking. Have you considered the law's potential efficacy? Have you sussed out the sociocultural ramifications of how the law will work? Have you contemplated the political ramifications for the Democratic party if it is enacted? You don't appear to have done so. Your use of boilerplate slogans, defensive accusaitons sans content and polling results like a mantra would indicate that the bulk of your consideration has been whether or not you have allied yourself with a majority - any majority - without considering whether or not the majority is doing the right thing. That's a pretty self serving way to discharge ones duties as a citizen.

Where did you find gun nut in the dictionary?

It's your phrase, not mine.

ETA

I'm trying to figure out now how an interrogation wouldn't be transparent.

Me too. As a Democrat.

[Progressive dog]

111. You implied you knew what gun nut meant

when you claimed I wouldn't know one if he feel on me. So you either know the definition or you are continuing to make stuff up.
See as far as the convince thingy, this is a democracy, the majority of people are already convinced. When an issue is so overwhelmingly supported with 70% in Arizona, 60% in Alaska, both states that can't be called democratic, no more campaigning needs to be done.
BTW the original gun nut poster of this thread is gone.

[rrneck]

112. Sure they're convinced

for now. But are their convictions warranted? That's what I keep asking you. Will universal background checks actually work to the advantage of the country and the party? If so, why? Just because a lot of people agree doesn't mean it's a good idea.


BTW the original gun nut poster of this thread is gone.

I don't care. But you obviously do. That's because you are more interested in associating with the right group of people than actually considering the wisdom of their objectives. Hence the phrase "authoritarian lemmings". It's the law, everybody likes it, just follow and don't ask questions.

[Progressive dog]

113. You are right but I thought the right group of people were on DU

sort of like Democrats.
How would universal background checks work to the advantage of party? I am an American first and a party member second.

[rrneck]

114. It's good to know that you are an American first.

That's why I actually asked you this:

Will universal background checks actually work to the advantage of the country and the party? If so, why?

Of course, your concerns regarding who is a Democrat and who is not would seem to indicate your first concern is membership in the right club, which is a pretty poor substitute for genuine party loyalty.

I'm still waiting for an explanation as to why we, as American citizens and Democrats, should support universal background checks. Or do I have to produce a membership card? If that's the case, I will need to see your credentials certifying your understanding of Democratic party ideals. You can prove you know what you're talking about, right?

[Progressive dog]

115. You are very confused , aren't you?

I explained before, a democracy does not mean unanimous decisions.

You have no understanding of Democratic party platforms or ideals that you have shown me.

[rrneck]

116. I've been asking you

to explain how universal background checks are supposed to work. You're still hiding behind argumentum ad populum.

Explain why universal background checks are a good idea.

Explain how you will prosecute violaters.

You've been on the run throughout this entire thread. Why? Don't you understand the issue? I have long since agreed about public opinion on the matter. As a member of that public, surely you can explain why you like the idea. Can't you? Or are you just another "me too follower" letting others do your thinking for you?

I've lost count. Are we up to fourteen or fifteen requests for you to show some intellectual integrity?

[Progressive dog]

117. Who died and left you boss

bye bye

[rrneck]

118. Yet another fearless gun control advocate

fleeing to the safety of the choir. Poor delicate flower.

[JVS]

58. Yeah. When you don't go into specifics, you don't get as much negative response.

"Are you in favor of speed limits?" is going to poll better than "Are you in favor of a national speed limit of 55 mph?"

"Should the president have more powers to fight terrorism?" is going to be more popular than "Should telephone corporations have immunity from lawsuits related to illegal wiretaps?"

[bunnies]

18. *this* is your first OP?

Interesting.

[billh58]

20. A new Gungeoneer

recruit getting his/her feet wet.

[bunnies]

21. Theyre so cute at this stage.

[DanTex]

25. I think "new" might be pushing it...

[nadinbrzezinski]

33. Lmao

[Skittles]

39. recycled, more likely

yes INDEED

[edhopper]

22. Actual research!

Wow. How did that turn out.

[spanone]

23. yet no link....after ALL that work

[supernaut]

40. There is a link in my OP.

[edhopper]

24. Hey supernaut

Obama got 51% of the vote, but do you know what, it wasn't 51% of ALL Americans.
I did some research and found out not ALL Americans voted.

[kudzu22]

26. The other problem is that the polls don't ask the right questions

Most people who answer these polls have no idea what the law is currently, or what the proposed bill would actually do. So the answers are meaningless.

If you polled people and asked, "do you support tougher drunk driving laws?" A lot of people would answer yes. If your bill to ban driving within three days of having a drop of liquor gets shot down in the Senate, are they resisting the will of the people? Of course not, they're voting down a bad bill and rightly so.

[Progressive dog]

47. You know, objecting to questions on polls

when you don't know what the questions were, because you don't like the outcome, doesn't even rise to the level of an opinion.
You could write a poll yourself, I'll bet your questions would fit your definition of right.

[sigmasix]

27. the sane side of America

The insanity of "guns upon demand" has been rejected by sane Americans over and over. The only "people" that believe in the antiAmerican NRA narrative are those with sociopathologies that include pedophilia, wife beating and murder. As the NRA continues working hard for the gun rights of child molestors and drug dealers, the rest of America works to repair the damage caused by NRA terrorist indoctrination and conspiracy theories.

[Skittles]

28. there seems to be an endless supply of NRA pimps

[Agschmid]

38. Endless....

I wish there were an endless supply of... Fill in the blank seems like a great Lounge thread?

Off I go!

[pediatricmedic]

30. Unless they used a really biased sample set, it is probably pretty accurate

[Buzz Clik]

31. I tried to call every phone number in the country, but I missed lunch. And dinner.

And most people were either not home or would not answer my question.

[XRubicon]

32. Yes. Any other questions?

[olddots]

34. I want graphs and charts damn it !

[Agschmid]

37. WTF? Are you talking about? n/t

[supernaut]

41. For the people who keep saying "no link"..

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes--centers/polling-institute/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=1847

[jmg257]

42. Does it Really matter? What dumb ass would be against background checks??

There is NO justification for not supporting them. None.

A little inconvenience during transfers ain't shit.

[Recursion]

43. More than 40 Senators

And it's starting to look like nobody even bothered to do a headcount, despite 4 months of an alleged blue-ribbon commission.

[Progressive dog]

48. It ain't over till it's over

Yup, they mustered a minority in opposition to something that 90% of American voters want and a big majority of NRA members support. Let's see if it's really over or we have a pause while some of those Senators negotiate a fig leaf for their change of mind.

[Recursion]

49. Well I hope they find a way to force it through the Senate

But I'm just kind of appalled at how this has been handled so far. Then again it's going to be harder for some Senators to take an anti-gun vote knowing it's going down in the House anyways.

[In_The_Wind]

44. It's not my day to watch 'em.

[img][/img]

[MineralMan]

50. I see. Who might those people be who "keep asking"

for the link?

[KansDem]

51. We need to do more research.

In the meantime, I will continue to pull my six-digit salary with all the perks, health care insurance, and retirement benefits...*

________
*[font size="1"]"Member of Congress"

[KharmaTrain]

52. The Only Polls That Matter To A Congresscritter...

...is the one on election day. The rest of the time what the public think or what polls say are white noise. In today's gerrymandered and partisan legislature all that matters is self interest and personal power. Since so many congresscritters operate in safe districts their concern isn't about what the public thinks (especially those in areas far away from their districts) but what will keep them in office...appeasing the big money who writes the checks and trying to prevent any primary challenges. 90% means nothing...it's the 100% of those writing the big checks want...

[alcibiades_mystery]

55. Gunner's Advice

[morningfog]

66. Yes we are. It is helping. We will win this.

[NoPasaran]

69. It's more statistical than "Four out of five dentists"

That's what my research tells me.

[stevenleser]

76. OP has been served his Pizza is no longer with us. nt

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=303452

[laundry_queen]

77. THIS is why education is so important. nt

[gollygee]

78. That's how ALL polls work

Do you expect them to call every single person? They always poll a sample of people.

[baldguy]

87. What do you mean by "we"?

Seems you're positioning yourself outside of "we".

Meaning "they" ... The "they" that support the NRA, the "they" that either don't read or can't understand what they do read, the "they" that can't take a shit without some RW nutbag telling them it's OK.

[ecstatic]

95. Excellent joke!

Well done! This is a joke, right?

[JaneyVee]

99. Oh Jeez, another person who can't comprehend statistics & polling.

Polling is actually very accurate, just ask Nate Silver.