Please DU this Gun Law poll.

[Lint Head]

http://www.indexjournal.com/index.php

This newspaper is published in the heart of the right wing nut world. It's the Greenwood Index Journal. Some powerful South Carolina Republicans live in this area and read this paper. We need to send a message about killing and violence to these Ted Nugent ass kissers. I think there are some neocon re-pubic-rats from this part of the country that lurk on DU because I have seem some postings on other websites from some I know personally that live there. They check us out occasionally. Please send a message to these fart-bags.
:dem:

[murloc]

1. I wonder result DU'ing a gun poll will have.

looks like DU is pretty split on the issue.

[Lint Head]

2. There is now a hunter's pro gun organization that advocates

better gun laws and controls. They say the NRA is off track. The Constitution says a right to bare arms, not a right to a minute man missle or a machine gun. Some definition needs to take place. The federal government has a database of every perscription pharmacutical you or I take yet they do not have a database for guns we buy. :dem:

[Ben Masel]

14. And the prescription database is a good thing???

[beevul]

20. For the umteen billionth time...

"The Constitution says a right to bare arms, not a right to a minute man missle or a machine gun."


missles...not even worth commenting on.


Machine guns...ALREADY REGULATED BY THE NATIONAL FIREARMS ACT OF 1934.

The amount of times people spew this same tired falacy is amazing.

[jmg257]

30. That organization you are referring to is likely bogus. There are a couple of those now.

They "pro-hunting" orgs are just fronts for anti-gun groups.

[depakid]

27. Not really split- just a very vocal minority

who perceive that their pro-gun positions are threatened.

This sort of thing happens every time there's a mass shooting, but when you look at scientific polling data, you see that people's ingrained beliefs and the general trends over time don't change very much.

Scan recent surveys that touch on guns and gun control and you realize quickly that it has not been a matter of political debate in quite some time. Last fall, a question on gun control was included in an October Post/ABC News survey.

The sample was asked whether they favored or opposed "stricter gun laws." Sixty-one percent said they favored tighter restrictions while 37 percent opposed more stringent regulations.

Not surprisingly, Democrats were generally more supportive of more gun restrictions than Republicans. Seventy-three percent of Democrats favored stricter laws, compared with 52 percent of Republicans who said the same; 56 percent of independents supported tighter strictures.

The same trend was seen when voters were differentiated by ideology. Seventy-one percent of liberals backed stricter gun laws, followed by 61 percent of moderates and 55 percent of conservatives.

It's interesting to note that the Post/ABC poll was in the field shortly after the the shooting at an Amish schoolhouse in Pennsylvania -- the third fatal school shooting in a week's time. Events like the Amish school shooting or even Columbine incident -- i.e. ones that managed to make gun violence in schools a part of the daily debate for several years -- don't have any long-term impact on Americans' overall beliefs about gun laws. Since 1989, an average of 63 percent have expressed support for stricter gun laws -- regardless of external events.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2007/04/parsing_the_polls_gun_control.html

[murloc]

45. The polls I've seen on DU are certainly split

I suppose its possible some folks may have multiple accounts and are voting twice or more.

[DKRC]

3. Be careful what you wish for cause

I'm certain I didn't vote the way you intended, but I did vote.

[Lint Head]

4. The way I intend is to vote the way you think.

That's called freedom. You have the right to a gun but you do not have the right to promote violence or threaten anyone.
If you agree with the proliferation of arms and death does not bother you more power to you. I do not agree with the way the second amendment is framed by gun barrel kissers.

[DKRC]

11. I don't agree with their frame

anymore than you probably do, but your frame doesn't sit right with me either. Nothing is as black & white as some paint it and this is an issue we're going to disagree on. The life experience I've had gives me a different view from yours. I'm not fond of death and given the choice I've avoided it, but the fact that I had a gun in my hand gave me that choice when no one else did.

[slackmaster]

19. The poll does not ask whether or not one agrees with a proliferation of arms

Nor does voting No indicate that death does not bother someone.

[-..__...]

5. Quite honestly...

I think online polls mean very little if anything... particularly when they're crossposted with the intent of skewing the poll results. But, I voted anyways (no need to tell you how I voted).

[piedmont]

6. Done. Voted "no."

[pintobean]

7. Same here.

[ChazII]

9. Done. Voted no. Several times.

[youthere]

40. me too!

[NaturalHigh]

44. Ditto.

[mudesi]

8. Done. And I voted YES (nm)

[Booster]

10. I voted yes because I don't think anyone needs an assault rifle

or a handgun loaded with lots of bullets. If you can't hit an instruder with 5 shots, you better just start running like Hell.

[Man_in_the_Moon]

12. No one needs an assault rifle...

what is an assault rifle?

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

17. Obviously they are the ones that have barrel shrouds on them.

Black, oh yeah, they are black too.

[michreject]

39. What's a barrel shroud?

Oh yeah. That thing that goes on your shoulder.:evilgrin:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ospNRk2uM3U

[Paladin]

49. No, It's That Thing That Gives You An Erection

n/t

[DKRC]

13. Hell, if you can't hit'em with 5

you take what's coming to you.
:evilgrin:

[Mojorabbit]

15. Voted no

I am female and a gun owner. The laws are fine as they stand in my opinion. Nothing will ever be a hundred percent perfect in life. Someone will always slip through the cracks. This person did. That does not mean the rest of law abiding gun owners should pay a price for his mental illness.

[Balbus]

16. Done.

Voted no.

[slackmaster]

18. Done - voted No

Current standings:

No 62.0%
Yes 34.4%
Don't know 3.7%

Total Votes: 8322

If existing federal law had been followed, shooter Cho would not have been able to buy the guns he did, in the manner he did. He could have still gotten them illegally.

[cgrindley]

21. Done. Voted No.

thanks for letting us know.

[Irreverend IX]

22. Be careful when calling DU members to a gun poll...

The results may not be what you expect.

[depakid]

23. A textbook example of response bias

People with strong feelings about an issue tend to dominate non-randomized, "self selected" polls, and so the data always ends up skewed. No matter how big the sample size is, the results will be inaccurate and/or misleading.

Rather than a representative sample, you end up with too many people at either extreme.

[beevul]

26. Is that a non-standard definition?

Response bias is a type of cognitive bias which can affect the results of a statistical survey if respondents answer questions in the way they think the questioner wants them to answer rather than according to their true beliefs. This may occur if the questioner is obviously angling for a particular answer (as in push polling) or if the respondent wishes to please the questioner by answering what appears to be the "morally right" answer. An example of the latter might be if a woman surveys a man on his attitudes to domestic violence, or someone who obviously cares about the environment asks people how much they value a wilderness area.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Response_bias

Just askin.

In any case, I would think its exactly those people - "People with strong feelings about an issue" - that would be the ones to get up from the tube and vote when thier vote counts for something.


/shrug

[depakid]

28. It's a standard definition- and there are several forms

Read on in the wiki entry:

It also occurs in situations of voluntary response, such as phone-in polls, where the people who care enough to call are not necessarily a statistically representative sample of the actual population.

It's interesting how it works-

There's also non-response bias, which looks at who doesn't respond. Here's cool little snippet that talks about some of the subtleties:

Many studies have attempted to determine if there is a difference between respondents and nonrespondents. Some researchers have reported that people who respond to surveys answer questions differently than those who do not. Others have found that late responders answer differently than early responders, and that the differences may be due to the different levels of interest in the subject matter. One researcher, who examined a volunteer organization, reported that those more actively involved in the organization were more likely to respond.

http://www.statpac.com/surveys/nonresponse-bias.htm

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

33. That's only true if you don't like the outcome.

These internet polls are unbiased and scientific when they support my view. Otherwise you're right, they're inaccurate and misleading.

:rofl:

On the other hand, if they get people to discuss the issue, that's good value.

[depakid]

41. Just doin' the science

Unfortunately, like reason and objectivity, it's a lost art in much of America.

These "polls" don't seem to prompt much discussion... it's more like catharsis and psychological masturbation....

[Richard Steele]

38. Indeed. Like Benny Hill said, "What do we do when we 'assume' ?" nm

[and-justice-for-all]

24. Done ... Kick. its 63 (no)to 32(yes)...nt

[B Calm]

25. Done. Voted NO!!!

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

29. Done. Message sent. I voted "no"

Gun laws wouldn't have helped.

We have privacy (HIPAA?) laws preventing information about a person's mental or medical health to be shared. So the FBI was not privy to information that might have resulted in a refusal of the sale.

Easing these privacy laws might help keep guns from the mentally ill, if that's a desirable goal. But the cost is a loss of privacy, and that cost may be too high.

It's an interesting balance of safety/security vs privacy/freedom.

I just hope we don't jerk our knees too quickly on this. Privacy laws help a lot of people from discrimination.

[jmg257]

31. Thanks - voted "no" - & winning! 63%! nt

[Beausoir]

32. Done. Yes.

[aikoaiko]

34. Done Voted NO. NOs ahead 2:1

Does the Virginia Tech tragedy mean the nation needs stricter gun laws?
No 64.2%
Yes 32.4%
Don't know 3.4%

Total Votes: 8924

[michreject]

35. Done. We're winning

Index Journal Poll
Does the Virginia Tech tragedy mean the nation needs stricter gun laws?
No 64.3%
Yes 32.3%
Don't know 3.4%

Total Votes: 8951

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hersheygirl]

37. Done-please vote in this one.

[Township75]

42. Done, voted NO, and NO is running away with it!

!

[NaturalHigh]

43. I voted no.

Remember the part in the Constitution about the right to bear arms (Second Amendment for those who don't know)? I'm for it.

[karlrschneider]

46. Thanks. I voted with the 2 to 1 majority.

...

[Greyhound]

47. Done. Be careful what you ask for, you will probably get it. n/t

[RedCappedBandit]

48. I voted yes

because the fact that an 18 year old can buy and conceal a gun is absurd and anybody that thinks otherwise is a fool.