Interesting poll on gun control

[goju]

66% of everyone polled believed, there are enough gun laws on the books and what is needed is better enforcement of laws already on the books. Isolating non gun owners, the number is still 54%.

79% overall favor CCW laws, 73% of non gun owners.

Lots more info available. Very interesting breakdown.

http://www.zogby.com/2004Olear-Zogby-ValuesReport.pdf

[billbuckhead]

1. Does that count the current AWB?

Extremely vague questions. No questions about assault rifles or sniper rifles?

[goju]

2. Edited to add the link

And it doesnt mention the AWB by name, only gun control legislation and gun laws.

[Bowline]

4. Those terms are so fluid these days.

Most people assume "assault rifles" are actually those scary looking semi-autos that are banned, at least for the next 41 days. Same thing for sniper rifles. Pretty much any rifle with a scope will be touted as a "sniper" rifle if it suits the gun-grabbers purpose.

[MrBenchley]

8. Bill....it's SSDD

"CO Liberal 
Bear One Thing In Mind
Zogby polls are always referred to as Gospel truth by Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and other right-wing assholes."

MrBenchley 
There's a reason for that...
"Most journalists were probably unaware that some of Zogby's so-called American Values Polls were a joint venture with an organization called Associated Television News, which has a very strong Republican pedigree. Associated Television News is run by Bradley O'Leary, a longtime Republican consultant known for his legendary fundraising abilities and for doing direct mail for the National Rifle Association (NRA). Zogby told the Prospect that O'Leary's role in the surveys wasn't always made apparent but, "Anyone who asked, to the best of my knowledge, was told." However, when columnist Arianna Huffington asked Zogby about the funder of an American Values Poll in April of 2000, according to her column, he responded, "I can't say who it is, but he publishes a newsletter in which he prints the poll's results." Presumably that newsletter would be the O'Leary Report. "

http://www.prospect.org/print/V14/1/mooney-c.html

Amazingly this piece of shit poll also sez that America is wildly opposed to abortion, thinks millionaires pay too much tax, and want to driull in the ANWR. And it's worth noting, for example that it's question on campaign finance reforrm contains an outright lie.
By the way, wonder who this O'Leary guy is when he's at home? Just ask WorldNut Daily....
http://wndbooks.com/Authors/BradleyOLeary.htm

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=33483

[goju]

11. Interesting

No objections were made to the sample, the polling methods, or the questions (the AWB question excluded). The only objection was who the poll was affiliated with. I wonder if there is some other poll that disputes these findings or is affiliation enough to disregard a Zogby poll?

[MrBenchley]

12. Interesting...

That one objection isn't enough for a progressive Democrat?

I wonder if there actually is a piece of right wing crap so foul and idiotic that our "pro gun democrats" won't swallow it.....

[MrBenchley]

3. Been there, done that

O'Leary used to work for the NRA...the poll also says a majority of Americans think abortion is mansalughter and that school prayer is a top concern...

In other words, it's right wing horseshit.

[skippythwndrdog]

5. Speed reader, huh?

71 pages of text and results in the link

Original post at 10:05

Edited to add the link sometime around 10:10

Your post at 10:16

Something between 6 and 11 minutes to read, comprehend, and digest the poll report and formulate and post a reply. Must be one of two things: the fastest brain on the planet or, as I suspect, just the usual diamissal of anything that doesn't support your position as right wing horseshit.

Tellus, if you favor chocolate ice cream over strawberry ice cream, does that automatically make strawberry ice cream right wing horseshit?

We're here to discuss ideas, people, events, etc. We may even argue about them. The automatic dismissal of any opposing view as right wing horseshit promotes neither discussion or constructive argument.

[MrBenchley]

6. We've seen it BEFORE, skippy....

"Must be one of two things: the fastest brain on the planet or, as I suspect, just the usual diamissal of anything that doesn't support your position as right wing horseshit."
Or just the umpty-umpth time the same bit of rancid discredited conservative crap has been dredged out, dusted off and presented as "brand new" by some trigger happy poster....

"We're here to discuss ideas, people, events, etc."
Funny how the "pro gun democrats" can only discuss far right wing crap like this....and seem to hate liberal people....

"The automatic dismissal of any opposing view as right wing horseshit"
The actual production of right wing horseshit by "pro gun democrats" is telling, too.....

[iverglas]

7. for those without gold stars

(which can be obtained for the local equivalent of a loonie, I believe)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=33483

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=33664

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x33666

Just f'r instance.

[MrBenchley]

9. Gawsh, you must be one of them speed readers....

Wonder where someone went dumpster diving for this nugget?

[Bowline]

10. What is the dollar to loonie exchange rate these days?

And can I exchange my loonies for Euros?

[skippythwndrdog]

14. A loonie, huh?

I'd donate one, 'cept that ownership of others, however dense or mentally unblaanced they may be, is illegal.

Anyone want to volunteer? Of course, I can think of a few members of this board that qualify. May I borrow one of them for my donation?

[iverglas]

15. get two volunteers

and of course you'll have a toonie.


+ =

[Bowline]

16. Wicked cool coins, eh? n/t

[skippythwndrdog]

13. How do you know if you'd seen it before if you didn't take the time

to read it before you posted a response? I suppose it was an assumption on your part because of O'Leary's asociation with the poll.

And we all know about those who assume.

[iverglas]

17. good bleeding grief

Am I invisible?

I gave you the results of the search. I omitted these the first time around, posted by a colleague of yours:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=33646

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=33649

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=33655

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=33656

Check them, and the ones I'd given you several posts before you wrote this post, and realize that when you say

How do you know if you'd seen it before if you didn't take the time to read it before you posted a response? I suppose it was an assumption on your part because of O'Leary's asociation with the poll.

to MrBenchley, you may not look really, um, clever ... candid ...

You, on the other hand, might want to do some study on the topic of survey design.

There are reasons why distasteful people are associated with invalid surveys, and vice versa.

[skippythwndrdog]

18. Not at all, my questions were not posted to you, unless

you're either MrBenchley in drag or are joined with him at the brain cell.

It's interesting that my posts, numbers 5 and 13, were in reply to MrBenchley's posts, numbers 3 and 6, yet you're the one answering in his stead. I cannot imagine how you would know his desired response to a question directed to him. It's arrogantly presumptive for anyone to answer a question posed to another, unless of course, you and he are one and the same - which I sincerely doubt.

What was that thread about dogpiles?

[iverglas]

19. if ya want a private conversation

go find yerself one.

If you choose to say things in public, prepare for the consequences.

You might reasonably expect that the consequence of saying something that is false or bizarre would be that someone would pipe up and point out the fallseness/bizarreness of it.

It was bizarre to say to Benchley "speed reader, huh?", implying that HE HAD NOT READ THE MATERIAL YOU CITED. My post in response clearly established THAT HE HAD READ IT, very likely before YOU had even heard of it.

It was your choice to compound the sin by coming back with:

How do you know if you'd seen it before if you didn't take the time to read it before you posted a response? I suppose it was an assumption on your part because of O'Leary's asociation with the poll.

You "supposed" something that was IN COMPLETE CONTRADICTION with what were by then THE KNOWN FACTS (known even to you, unless you had chosen wilful ignorance and not read my post), and something which you simply had no basis for "supposing" IN THE FIRST PLACE, even without knowledge of those facts.

MrBenchley -- to MY KNOWLEDGE, which I was happy to share with you and which you chose to ignore -- was NOT making ANY "assumption". The evidence I offered you in my initial post on the point -- links to past discussions of the whole deceitful meaningless Zogby mess -- DEMONSTRATED this.

Your comment really applies to only one person in this scenario:

And we all know about those who assume.

*I* have no more desire to see time wasted on the whole deceitful meaningless Zogby mess than does MrBenchley, or on reinventing the wheel by responding to that deceitful meaningless mess when its deceitfulness and meaninglessness have already been exhaustively established.

The drek in question has been thoroughly addressed in this forum in the past, and no one who was a party to that discussion is under any obligation to you, or to anyone else, to treat the drek as if it were honest, meaningful and deserving of discussion just because *you* choose to dredge it back up again.

And your ignorance on the subject of what other people know is no basis for attacking their intellectual integrity.

And I'll say so whenever I feel the need or the urge.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

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

[iverglas]

25. anytime you decide

to talk about something that's actually being talked about, you let us all know, y'hear?

What makes you say, let alone think, if you do think, that I felt an "attack", about my intelligence or anything else, I have utterly no clue.

The attack that *you* engaged in was to address someone else rudely BASED SOLELY ON YOUR OWN ASSUMPTION that the person you were addressing had not bothered to know what he was talking about before speaking. YOUR assumption was WRONG. False. Unfounded. Out in left field. Bizarre. Insulting.

My original post stands as written.

And as repeatedly compounded: a false accusation against someone else, based solely on an unfounded assumption made and expressed out of ... well, quite plainly not out of respect.

You guys get yrselves all puffed up and pleased and proud about the damnedest shit, doncha just?

[library_max]

22. What's the problem, skippy?

You indicated disbelief that MrBenchley could respond so quickly to the poll, insinuating he hadn't read it. Iverglas explained that the same poll has appeared several times before at JPS, with the same discussion points following.

That seems to have answered your question, so I'm not sure what your objection is. You must be aware that MrBenchley is one of the most regular posters in JPS, so if iverglas saw it here before, you can bet that MrBenchley saw it too. And if you wanted an explanation of how he could respond so quickly, you've got one. Why does it have to come from him?

It's possible, you know, that MrBenchley can't see your messages for the same reason a whole lot of RKBAers on JPS can't see his.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

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

[iverglas]

26. and amazingly enough

The first poll linked by iverglas concerned CCW. BUT it was a different survey.
The second was primarily religious - prayer in schools and posting of the Ten Comandments
The third concerned abortion.

THEY ALL CONCERNED ZOGBY and its "values" survey.

And smart people really just don't keep going back to the pigsty in search of pearls, y'know?

It's the same bleeding survey --
http://client.xntec.com/clientpages/oleary/report0104.html
-- it's just a different *report*.

And I'll tell ya, when I see a survey that asks respondents whether they "favor abortion" ... or a survey analysis that juxtaposes "hometown values" and "Hollywood values" ... I just laugh and turn the page.

[library_max]

27. Like iver said. It's the same poll.

:dunce:

[MrBenchley]

30. The problem is that the poll is right wing bullshit

and it got sniffed out this time before our "pro gun democrats" could work up much of a head of steam pretending ti wasn't....

[MrBenchley]

29. The same way I know

most RKBA posts are crap...because they are.

And of course, it was the same tedious and dishonest right wing shit as before.

[library_max]

20. Zogby found some pretty conservative folks to survey, here.

52% believe that the treatment of prisoners at Gitmo is appropriate.
60% favor drilling in the ANWR.
62% feel that removing school prayer and municipal religious monuments is taking away our nation's "moral compass."
74% support the Academic Bill of Rights, which allows the federal government to interfere in grading of students and promotion and tenure of faculty in higher education to assure a "diversity of belief" (i.e. more conservatives get tenure).

[iverglas]

21. nothing like honest survey design, eh?

I almost think that *I* would have been in some of those groups, if offered only the options that the surveys in question offered. The sampling wasn't the only obvious problem.

For your divertissement, in case you haven't seen it in a while:

Sir Humphrey: "You know what happens: nice young lady comes up to you. Obviously you want to create a good impression, you don't want to look a fool, do you? So she starts asking you some questions: Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the number of young people without jobs?"

Bernard Woolley: "Yes"

Sir Humphrey: "Are you worried about the rise in crime among teenagers?"

Bernard Woolley: "Yes"

Sir Humphrey: "Do you think there is a lack of discipline in our Comprehensive schools?"

Bernard Woolley: "Yes"

Sir Humphrey: "Do you think young people welcome some authority and leadership in their lives?"

Bernard Woolley: "Yes"

Sir Humphrey: "Do you think they respond to a challenge?"

Bernard Woolley: "Yes"

Sir Humphrey: "Would you be in favour of reintroducing National Service?"

Bernard Woolley: "Oh...well, I suppose I might be."

Sir Humphrey: "Yes or no?"

Bernard Woolley: "Yes"

Sir Humphrey: "Of course you would, Bernard. After all you told you can't say no to that. So they don't mention the first five questions and they publish the last one."

Bernard Woolley: "Is that really what they do?"

Sir Humphrey: "Well, not the reputable ones no, but there aren't many of those. So alternatively the young lady can get the opposite result."

Bernard Woolley: "How?"

Sir Humphrey: "Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the danger of war?"

Bernard Woolley: "Yes"

Sir Humphrey: "Are you worried about the growth of armaments?"

Bernard Woolley: "Yes"

Sir Humphrey: "Do you think there is a danger in giving young people guns and teaching them how to kill?"

Bernard Woolley: "Yes"

Sir Humphrey: "Do you think it is wrong to force people to take up arms against their will?"

Bernard Woolley: "Yes"

Sir Humphrey: "Would you oppose the reintroduction of National Service?"

Bernard Woolley: "Yes"

Sir Humphrey: "There you are, you see Bernard. The perfect balanced sample."

http://www.yes-minister.com/ypmseas1a.htm

But damn, the RealPlayer video clips don't seem to be accessible.

[MrBenchley]

31. Funny how our liberal progressive

"pro gun democrats" didn't seem to notice any of those red flags, isn't it?

[goju]

28. It turns out

That there are some questions behind the legitimacy of zogby's pay to poll methods. My connection is tempermental today, but I did find one source that outlined zogby's polling for dough methods and cited this report as evidence. Not conclusive and certainly doesnt mean for sure that this is invalid but, it is questionable.

I still would like to see a more reputable poll that addresses these issues.

[iverglas]

34. a, uh, sample

http://www.juliannemalveaux.com/ycpwp.htm

"Is it right for a college or university to give preferential treatment to some minorities in the admissions process even if it means taking away opportunities for other qualified applicants"?

This question was part of an "academic life" survey administered by Zogby International for the Foundation for Academic Standards and Tradition, which is also known as FAST. Shortly after the survey results and the accompanying blitz of press material was released, FAST's president, Marc Berley had an article on the op-ed page of the New York Post titled "Sanity Makes a Return: College Kids K.O. Quotas.

... Using biased questions, forcing false choices, and failing to offer reasonable definitions of affirmative action programs, Berley and his colleagues virtually assure that the respondents of their poll will say they oppose "racial preferences" (and one has to ask how we get from the preferences mentioned in the poll to the quotas mentioned in his headline).

... Imagine being asked another kind of question - Is it right for a college or university to admit students on the basis of their athletic ability, even if it means taking away opportunities from other qualified applicants? Is it right for a college or university to spend money on a library even if it means taking away dollars from other important projects? FAST has pre-determined the answer to the question it poses. It is amazing that an institution as reputable as Zogby would go along with FAST's polling prevarication. Of course, the client is the client, faulty polling methodology notwithstanding.

Those who teach polling methodology, rhetoric, or public relations have a built-in lesson with this FAST poll. It's no news that you can lie with statistics and prevaricate with polling. This poll, though is a stunning illustration of the many ways bias can be codified as "science".

That seems to be the long and short of it. When the client with an axe to grind gets to design the survey, it doesn't matter whose good name is attached to it.


How 'bout this?

http://www.stats.org/record.jsp?type=news&ID=464

What’s more, both AMG and Zogby are more than just dispassionate polling organizations. John Zogby is a prominent pundit in his own right, called upon to speculate about the meaning of his polls on MSNBC and on the Sean Hannity show.

... And pollster-pundits have the same pressure on them that journalists do: They must make the numbers exciting, which more often than not means making the numbers fit into the dominant story line of the day. "Again, it's all about electability," was John Zogby's sound bite prior to the Wisconsin primary, echoing the conventional wisdom. Dick Bennett chimed in with, "What voters are looking for is who can beat George Bush."

It's not that these sentiments are wrong; it's that these sentiments are hard to derive from poll numbers.

Pollster-pundits are unlikely to talk about what poll findings don’t tell us, such as the strength of Kerry's support. Even more disturbing, the pollster-pundits lend legitimacy to the approach your everyday pundits and journalists take to polls: If Zogby and Bennett don't talk about margins of error or methodology, why should anyone else?

Zogby gets zonked from various quarters; google will find you accusations that it/he has a record of "anti-Israel extremism", for instance.

Here's a rather more serious criticism:

http://www.insightmag.com/news/2003/10/14/Features/The-Watchers-477697.shtml

A recent poll of Iraqi citizens released Sept. 10 by Zogby International has initiated a dispute over polling methodology. A Sept. 11 letter written to Zogby by the Polling Review Board of the National Council on Public Polls took issue with the methods used by pollster John Zogby in conducting this survey.

The board complained about Zogby's characterization of the poll as a "scientific" survey because, as Zogby readily disclosed, the interviews were conducted in only four cities (not including Baghdad) and were taken in public places. Rather than culling opinions from a wider survey group, the letter says, a "convenience sample" was employed.

Warren Mitofsky of Mitofsky International e-mailed a letter to Zogby raising the board's concerns about selection of the respondents. "There is nothing random in this selection, not of the areas where the poll was conducted or the selection of respondents. It conforms to no known norm of scientific polling," wrote Mitofsky, who urged Zogby to "correct the record" by deleting such claims from releases accompanying the poll results.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0917/p09s01-cojh.html

Since Hussein's toppling, uncertain security has hindered polling, but the American Enterprise magazine, working with Zogby International, has just completed a poll in four disparate cities - Basra, Mosel, Kirkuk, and Ramadi - that sheds light on the current state of thought. The poll was conducted in August, with a sample of 600 respondents, and a plus or minus degree of accuracy of 4.1 percent.

The magazine's editor, Karl Zinsmeister, who occupies a chair at the American Enterprise Institute, spent a month as an "embedded" journalist with the 82nd Airborne during the campaign to liberate Iraq. He says the results of the poll show that the Iraqi public "is more sensible, stable, and moderate than commonly portrayed, and is not so fanatical, seething, or disgusted with the United States after all."

Hey, you too can be a Zogby respondent: follow the links -- http://survey.caltech.edu/links.html

[enfield collector]

32. it's about as credible as a VPC pole. n/t

[MrBenchley]

33. Not hardly....

But then those of us who know the difference between a poll and a pole know the difference between the two groups...

[Wickerman]

35. Locking - a dupe

see links within thread - we did this one in Jan 2004 if I recall correctly.