90% of Americans Support UBCs

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Every time I see this stupid stat trotted out, I wonder where they got it from. Well, here is the source: http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes...ea=;&strTime=3

They polled people in NJ, PA, and VA only.

[jimbob86]

"Any data, sufficiently tortured, will testify to whatever you want it to."

[FoghornLeghorn]

Just like he said that the vast majority of NRA households wanted the bill to pass.

The POTUS has gotten into the habit of just throwing (whatever sounds good to him) out there.

[Skadoosh]

I distrust polls that post results in percentages...because they never actually state the sample size of those polled.

[Spats McGee]

I don't guess we really needed MORE proof that the devil is in the details, but there it is. Always look at the definitions and the methodology.

[Rj1972]

That's the one that POTUS uses? Strange. There are others as well:
CNN/ORC International in April - "Nationwide"

Vote Vets (unknown states)

Huffington Post/Yougov (unknown states)

Several others that are fairly interesting (with what the question was and the % responding and includes some of the above)

That last link is worth reading over some of the questions.
Interesting that more people think armed guards should be in all schools than think AR-15s should be banned.

I'm actually surprised by this one:

"Do you think the federal government should or should not use the information from background checks to create a national list of people who own guns and the kind of guns they own?"


Should Should not Unsure
% % %

4/5-7/13

44 55 1

Surprised that 44% think that there should be a national list of people who own guns and the kind of guns they own. I sure would like to hear the "why" on that one.

[lcpiper]

The fact that they must use completely false studies to support their claims simple highlights how poor their foundation of support really is.

They pulled out all the stops, used every dirty trick, and still they have failed.

They even dragged the mothers of dead kids out there and put their grief on display in a despicable show of heartlessness. I wish these mothers and fathers would realize how they are being used and manipulated.

Obama using these women, and the children before, is like a big neon sign that says "I am lower then snail bellies".

[DaleA]

Several people have reported this and I’ve run across it myself: many people, (gun owners included) think there ALREADY is a national database of who owns what. After all when you buy a gun at a dealer you fill out all that information. It doesn’t seem ‘logical’ or efficient, (in fact it seems down right stupid) to take all that information and then NOT create such a database.

When the cops show up at a crime scene where there is a body and a gun you’d like the cops to be able to check the serial number on the gun and then cruise over and arrest the killer. Most LEOs will attest to the fact things don’t work like this in real life and Canada IIRC has given up on a national database of guns, serial numbers and owners just because it was ineffective.

IMhO most gun owners have quite a bit of common sense and realize that if universal background checks are implemented WITHOUT the database the checks are almost worthless. That is, you could sell a gun to a nut case bent on mass murder and the sale would go through just fine because the nut case doesn’t have a record because he hasn’t had a gun to commit the murders. After he’s killed some folk and the police recover the gun, without the database they don’t know who the owner is and can’t go get him. With the database they could. Once again, and I’ll let the LEOs say yea or nay to this, real crime doesn’t work this smoothly and again, IMhO a database is more of a threat to law abiding gun owners then it would be a help to law enforcement officials.

I thank the folk that have prevented this step, the database, from being created but it is such a small step to go from what we have to creating a database, and such a logical thing to do, I wonder if some slip, some late night amendment or some compromise might see its creation.

[TailGator]

In my discussions with people about the BC bill that was defeated yesterday, I have emphasized the point that thinking that BCs were a good idea was not the same as thinking this bill was a good idea, and opposing this bill was not the same as opposing all BCs. The antis are using false dichotomies again and again. They want the public to think that opposition to any measure they come up with, however flawed, is the same as being in favor of shooting up elementary schools.

[cvc944]

I wonder what the percentages would be if a Quinnipiac University Poll asked how many times 90% of Americans ever agreed on anything? 9 out of 10 favoring UBCs is just too big a number for me to believe. I would think it would be actually closer to the 50/50 mark as yesterday's Senate vote would suggest.

[gc70]

Quinnipiac released a National Poll of 1,711 registered voters on April 4, 2013.

Question #24 shows 88% of gun-owning households in favor of background checks for all gun buyers.

Question #25 shows 53% of gun-owning households believe that the government will use information from background checks in the future to confiscate legally-owned guns.

So, the majority of people who own guns and think that background checks will lead to confiscation still want background checks. Really?

[carguychris]

Originally Posted by gc70

So, the majority of people who own guns and think that background checks will lead to confiscation still want background checks. Really?

A large portion of the "Yes" respondents probably believe that the government won't come for their personal guns; they believe that the government will go after the "nasty" guns (i.e. guns unlike the ones they personally own) and/or those owned by "bad" people (i.e. groups other than themselves). Many people aren't bothered by slippery slopes.

[Jeff #111]

I think the old saying goes like this (more or less)

There are lies
There are damn lies
Then there are statistics.

[KyJim]

I've seen the Washington Post - ABC poll cited for the 90% support for "universal background checks." Yet, the question actually asked in the poll was:

"Would you support or oppose a law requiring background checks on people buying guns at gun shows?" http://www.washingtonpost.com/page/2...tion_10030.xml

Most people hearing that question will think of sales by vendors at the gun shows. Of course, they are already licensed dealers and run background checks. The term "sales" also means the poll didn't ask about the type of UBCs proposed. These included "transfers" of various type, even temporary transfers (letting a buddy shoot your gun). So, the poll numbers are meaningless and were used as a lie to build pressure and momentum for the Senate vote.

[ballardw]

Having worked in survey research or with survey data for going on 14 years my employers and most of my clients would fire me for providing data with out confidence limits, sample and response sizes and a least a minimum of methodology. Even one page executive summaries would mention the sample size (number of people that actually responded to the survey) and usually either a cooperation or response rate. It tells a lot about the survey quality if only 1 of 50 people that were contacted actually participate.

I don't even see how most of the referenced surveys contacted people of they were an actual random sample.

The comments about surveying 3 states and projecting to the whole country are correct that it is unlikely they are truly representative of the country. Do not use a survey on smoking conducted in Virginia or Kentucky and report that as the rate for Utah or Idaho.

Won't even go into the subtle or not so subtle biases by the way the questions are phrased in most of these.

[SHE3PDOG]

Quinnipiac released a National Poll of 1,711 registered voters on April 4, 2013.

Question #24 shows 88% of gun-owning households in favor of background checks for all gun buyers.

Question #25 shows 53% of gun-owning households believe that the government will use information from background checks in the future to confiscate legally-owned guns.

So, the majority of people who own guns and think that background checks will lead to confiscation still want background checks. Really?

Something definitely smells fishy about that. I'd love to meet that 42% overlap and ask them why they think that. To my knowledge, I have never met a gun owner that thought both of those things simultaneously, certainly not 1 in 3 gun owners that I meet.

[Ralgha]

Originally Posted by Rj19a

Surprised that 44% think that there should be a national list of people who own guns and the kind of guns they own. I sure would like to hear the "why" on that one.

I asked an anti what benefit a registry would bring and she couldn't come up with anything except, "well if you wanted to start a gun club, you'd have a list of people who might be interested." That's all she came up with. It's not that I even shot down other possible benefits (I shot that one down), that was it.

[Dalek]

Keep in mind. Most folks have no bloody clue what the laws happen to be. I have had to school so many on how most of the claims of "Guns on the Internet do not require a BGC, and the like. Much like trying to explain that the bad, scary rifles you see on the average gun shop shelf are NOT Full Auto!

I find it best to calmly and, in a friendly manner, explain the myths without pushing any agenda.

However, our president and his happy arse Media are thrilled to put forth complete rubbish on the subject whenever possible.

[Buzzcook]

Interesting demographics in this one.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes...ReleaseID=1877

oppose stricter gun control laws.
Republicans 29% Men 45% White 48% Rural 42% Age in years (18 - 34) 49% and of course Guns in household 35%.

Two of those groups are within the margin of error, +/- 2.4 percentage.

So of 27 groups only 6 oppose stricter gun control laws.

I'd like to suggest that however is in charge of getting people to oppose gun control, is not doing a very good job.

[gc70]

Republicans 29% Men 45% White 48% Rural 42% Age in years (18 - 34) 49% and of course Guns in household 35%.

The above numbers are from the "Support" rows of Question #21 responses.

[Tom Servo]

Much like trying to explain that the bad, scary rifles you see on the average gun shop shelf are NOT Full Auto!

Actually, politicians routinely played that confusion in the leadup to the original AWB. Whenever they talked about "assault weapons," the news would cut to footage of a machine gun being fired.

From the horse's mouth:

The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.

[cvc944]

Keep in mind. Most folks have no bloody clue what the laws happen to be.

Truer words are seldom spoken. A direct quote from O'Bama's defeat speech when he spoke of universal background checks - "Most folks think we have that already".

[22-rimfire]

They polled people in NJ, PA, and VA only.

The poll responses if reported accurately do not reflect "America", but politicians can quote and reference this poll all day long to justify their attempt to restrict 2A rights.

What I always wondered is if UBCs likely had no to little effect on crime, why would anyone support them? ... because it sounds good.... you must be checked out to buy or own a firearm. ..same as you need to take a test to get a drivers license.... We don't want any more crazies walking around toting their guns.... "Crazies".... the bill didn't even address that issue? Makes no sense. It only makes sense from the perspective that the government wants to control its citizens.

The problem that I see it that there is so much distrust in government these days whether it be about guns, 2A rights, voting preferences, poverty, etc. The distrust is refected in polls... a good example... how many thing Congress is doing a good job? (Something like 15% as I recall). How many suppport you Congressmen and Senators from your state... much much higher...

The second accused Boston bomber was caught and Fox was already asking how the FBI gave their approval the two suspects (one deceased, and one in the hospital). It is so easy to slip by the system unless they have their attention focused on YOU for whatever reason.

[44 AMP]

One of the problems with poll data is, that while the mathmatics says that a poll of 1,000+/- may be a statistical representative sample of the 300+ million of us, the details of who (and where) those thousand or so people are is vital to the accuracy of the sample.

And that also leaves out one other slightly important factor, the honesty of the people responding. For the polls showing how gun ownership has declined (number of households with a gun,etc...), I doubt every one. Nobody with two brain cells to rub together is going to tell an anynonomous voice on the phone that they own guns. That alone is going to seriously skew any poll on the subject.

If I were to poll a thousand people on the streets of New York City about any gun related issue, I'm sure I'd get quite a different result than if I polled a random thousand from Montana or Texas. Just as if I polled a thousand from the NRA's membership list, vs. a like number of people who donated money to Coalition to end gun violence (or whatever they are calling it this week).

The devil is in the details, and the only poll that really matters is held every 2 or 4 years in November.

[fragtagninja]

To see just how easy it is to scare people with facts, stats, and percentages just look at this website.

http://www.dhmo.org/


I would first like to inform you that all of the information on this site about Dihydrogen Monoxide is true. I would also like to inform you that Dihydrogen Monoxide is better known by its chemical formula H2O commonly called water or agua in Spanish.

People actually signed a petition to ban water under the name DHMO as a result of the facts used on this site.

For instance DHMO can be lethal if inhaled even in small amounts. Which most of us know as drowning. The purpose of this tom foolery was simply to demonstrate how easily we are manipulated by rhetoric and how easy it is to make facts tell the story you want them to. Impressed? I'm not.