View Full Version : Be a part of the next "focus group"; Keep stupid statistics out of national headlines
http://www.theworddoctors.com/index.php
Get on Frank Luntz's "radar" so that the real voices are heard. May 2012, he was sourced for a MAIG (Mayor's Against Illegal Guns) poll conducted with 945 people. Apparently, some were NRA members, or ex-NRA members, etc, etc.
http://i47.tinypic.com/24fwpso.jpg
Of course I can not find the demo of the people polled, what cities, etc.
That's all irrelevant. We need to be getting the REAL voices on these forums. Period.
I know that 945 random people do not represent the country, but the poll is a wedge now. Get on their forums.
http://www.theworddoctors.com/expertise-issues-answers.php
Someone who knows someone at the NRA would be well served to source Luntz for a real forum on gun issues.
GeorgiaBoy
02-08-13, 18:23
Gallup has had similar results in its polling; they had 91%:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/160085/americans-back-obama-proposals-address-gun-violence.aspx
If the poll was the opposite, and 92% of Americans did not support "universal background checks", would you feel the same way about "945 random people not representing America"? It seems like there is bias on both sides of anything when it comes to polling. The only people that like polls results it are the ones who benefit from it.
Regardless, polling is one of the most accurate (and easy) ways to get a view on what Americans as a whole believe.
Let me be perfectly clear:
Deciding which policy moves to make, or pursue, based on 0-10000 people's opinion is ****ing retarded beyond all retardness.
Now that is out of the way, let me clarify:
When I see polls we "win", I only say to myself, "Thank God that is not going to be used as a wedge against me/us for the ****ing retarded jackasses who believe in, and use, polls to guide their decisions!!" That's it.
I think for myself, and try to take in as much information as I can before forming a opinion. I don't operate much on soundbytes and I understand that polls like the Luntz May 2012 poll was framed in a way to serve his client MAIG. Meaning vague questions that may lead to affirmative answers, and specific questions when they wanted to split the results favorably for their narrative.
I get it.
I also understand that someone who has an IQ above room temp, can see through those questions, and answer in a way that reflects the real world.
900 people, sourced from DC Metro, or cities in general, do not represent 100,000,000 gun owners, 4,000,000 NRA members, and certainly not 330,000,000 US Residents.
So anyone really believe that 74% (+/- 3%) of actual NRA members WANT a Universal Background Check to include previously "private" sales?
So anyone really believe that 74% (+/- 3%) of actual NRA members WANT a Universal Background Check to include previously "private" sales?
74% of the respondents to that CBS/NYT/whatever-the-hell pole? Sure. It could also be a crock o'shit. I don't know. Anyway, the sample size is too small and we don't have any information of the methodology used.
74% of the NRA as a whole? Not a clue. I don't know a lot of NRA members personally, and most of my exposure to the "gun community" has been through local ranges (morons), competitions (not representative), and online forums (not representative, especially sites like M4C). Also, a lots of gun owners aren't thinking about the "slippery slope" so I don't have a hard time imagining a bunch of people that don't have an issue making sure more people have to pass a background check.
All that said, I imagine the actual percentage if every single NRA member was polled, would be lower. How much lower? No idea.
threeheadeddog
02-08-13, 19:44
I believe that 74%+/-3% said they believed in something similar to being asked "do you believe that criminals should have guns" or some other non-specific catch all question that was later translated into the question above.
I was a "random poll subject" once. I think that I gave the polster a stroke by refusing to agree with any form of regulation whatsoever because I didnt know where my data was going. (BTW when you say that you have no issues with children being armed at school,since the bill or rights has no age limit, it seems to bother people)
74% does sound high. I live in an area where EVERYONE is cool with and has guns yet I am amazed how many people would be ok with getting rid of weapons like ARs and AKs.
As was previously mentioned way too many people in the gun community are totally ambivalent to the slippery slope.
-Jax
Get on Frank Luntz's "radar" so that the real voices are heard. May 2012, he was sourced for a MAIG (Mayor's Against Illegal Guns) poll conducted with 945 people. Apparently, some were NRA members, or ex-NRA members, etc, etc.
I actually used the MAIG poll results for an essay I did last semester. (Believe me, I wanted to peel my skin off with a dull potato peeler after.) About a month and a half later, post Sandy Hook, I'm reading an article on CNN (again, potato peeler.) and the "journalist" used the ~75% of NRA members number. I threw out the Bullshit flag on that one!
So anyone really believe that 74% (+/- 3%) of actual NRA members WANT a Universal Background Check to include previously "private" sales?
It's possible that after a flurry of mass shootings, especially Sandy Hook, many members are looking for solutions that they believe won't harm them specifically as law obiding citizens. To them it's a harmless and even beneficial compromise.
I fall into all three groups allegedly contacted during the survey and no one called me.
Here is my vote: I am against any more firearm restrictions of any kind.
The poll is propaganda and I question it's authenticity.
The larger point is when they convince people that 900 people = 4,000,000 members, but the pool have some current NRA members, and some who were members but had lapsed memberships, some who maybe claimed they were, etc.
Does anyone, other than the naive, really believe that 74% of the 4M members want UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND CHECKS, as indicated in the little graphic in post #1?
Was there a list of the actual questions for the Luntz survey, as well as the answers, breakdown of demographics, etc.? I notice on one of those links they talk about 'changing the language,' so it would be interesting to see how the questions were shaped.
The Gallup polls have that info. Interestingly, on one of the Gallup polls, only about 63% of the respondents said they personally owned a firearm. I'm sure that when it comes to someone that does not own a firearm, 'assault weapon' and 'armor piercing bullets' are as scary sounding as the names intend for them to be. I also noticed on one of the Gallup polls that more people wanted a 'universal background check' for everyone purchasing a gun, but a substantially lower percentage wanted increased penalties for straw purchasers. That indicates a lack of understanding towards the full nature of what was being asked. You'll notice that every question is formed to where agreeing with gun control 'solutions' are an affirmative answer, not a negative. If you look at the more 'to the point' part 2, when it comes to more focus on 'laws on sales of guns and ammunition,' 'school security measures and mental health system,' and 'no opinion,' it's a 30/65/6 split. So maybe what the Gallup poll results should say at the top is 'people support school security measures and fixing the mental health system 2-to-1 over new/changed laws on guns and ammo sales.'
Having been through enough 'customer perception' training, I know how easy it is to herd people in to proving/accepting your point, even when they have no clue about the topic at hand. (And then framing the 'results' to make you look super effective at winning hearts and minds...) A lot of the Luntz language illustrations sounded just like that same word voodoo, essentially making people feel smarter and part of the process even though all you've done is basically convinced them to nod their head 'yes' because you are nodding your head 'yes' as well. It certainly helps when using words that elicit a response favorable to your side of the issue.
It's no mystery why Luntz was commissioned. He is very good at what he does. He "sells" well on TV too, and once his numbers and forums opine on something he buys in to it 100%.
The problem is his poll was commissioned by MAIG, and I don't know any group of top level lawyers who allow questions to be asked, of anyone, if they don't already have a firm handle on the answers.
I do not believe, for one second, that if proper questions were asked, of bona fide NRA members, that your results wouldn't skew in a drastically different direction.
I do not believe, for one second, that if proper questions were asked, of bona fide NRA members, that your results wouldn't skew in a drastically different direction.
I completely agree. Expand: I'm not sure how many NRA members are truly politically active/engaged, as well as 'knowledgeable' on firearms issues outside of some pretty narrow windows, if that's what you mean.
I've been subjected to some surveys (on other subjects) where it becomes quite obvious after a few questions that it's nothing more than a sort of 'exercise in confirmation bias.' They don't seem to like it when you refuse to answer the questions as asked and begin to question their motives, either.
Last post for the night will be to state that some may be trying not to see what is in front of them. When I first came here we talked of NRA members who looked down upon the black rifle crowd, yet now we struggle to see why most aren't with us after 20 first graders were slaughtered.
This is a specialized forum for dedicated individuals, not a cross section of the NRA as a whole. Our perspective, however legitimate, is not universal.
Jaxman,
Remember, and I think this would be indicative to all the states,
These polls are a segment. No matter how cool we think people are, they have a base fear of the newton murder happening in their AO. They are mistakenly in the thought process of "bad weapons, assault weapons" and they will only be able to be used for evil intent. We must work as a community of enthusiasts, not the often thought of "gun nuts"'period. In our AO, Katrina would be a great arguement.
If they only knew half the crazyness that was on like a chickenbone during Katrina, it would give them pause. You WOULD give the insight to know HEY, YOU are all you got, protect yourself. It will be a while before anyone will come to the rescue and they will want your guns when they come to make everything safer.
Great tactical thinking.
All I can say for sure is is, poll the people who want to be robbed, raped or murdered(not in that particular order). Then ask them how and what they would want or need for protection if the gov, LE, NG, was not in the near future.
Some things you just can't capitulate to, nor take for granted.
The larger point is when they convince people that 900 people = 4,000,000 members, but the pool have some current NRA members, and some who were members but had lapsed memberships, some who maybe claimed they were, etc.
Does anyone, other than the naive, really believe that 74% of the 4M members want UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND CHECKS, as indicated in the little graphic in post #1?
A firearm rights organization needs to address this issue by dissecting the poll, how it was conducted, etc. and fund a media blitz to attack the poll.
It's all about how the question for the poll is worded. Pollsters can custom bake results they want by changing just a few words in the question.
VooDoo6Actual
02-09-13, 10:05
It's all about how the question for the poll is worded. Pollsters can custom bake results they want by changing just a few words in the question.
This is EXACTLY part of the 'Cult Of Personality' problem we are up against.
The Obfuscation is deliberate.
Last post for the night will be to state that some may be trying not to see what is in front of them. When I first came here we talked of NRA members who looked down upon the black rifle crowd, yet now we struggle to see why most aren't with us after 20 first graders were slaughtered.
This is a specialized forum for dedicated individuals, not a cross section of the NRA as a whole. Our perspective, however legitimate, is not universal.
I simply do not believe it's "most" of anything resembling the NRA membership. What I do believe is that people may say, for their own purposes, "Oh yeah, I was an NRA member once...but I disagree with X or Y, so I am not one now."
I hear that a lot actually, in a lot of places unrelated to gun forums. So the poll included people like that? Seriously? They include wishy-washy dumbasses.
I also believe that when people realize that a certain segment is being specially identified, some people want to feel included. "Yeah, I was an NRA member, a long time ago.......Yeah, yeah...that's the ticket."
Anything that I see or hear in the media is taken with a grain of salt after seeing how networks like CNN, CBS and NBC have altered video, statements and outright lied about stuff they reported on. The key thing about this so called poll is I can almost bet the wording was set up in a way that would make you feel heartless or bad if you answered a certain way. No one wants that.
I also bet the those doing the polling and even the respondents had no idea as to what the questions were really asking.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.