-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Gallup: U.S. Remains Divided Over Passing Stricter Gun Laws
- Thread starter mikem317
- Start date
How is that divided? It's pretty well split off as we go on.
1968 is what I would call divided
1968 is what I would call divided
Notice that the lines also come close together in 1986 and 1994. Other "infamous" years...
So if history repeats itself.. we can deduce that if those lines come close some gun control measures will pass. And as of right now.. not even close.
Quiet
Banned
So during the civil rights riots, Vietnam protests, and Summer of Love, people thought gun control would fix everything, and 45 years later, people prefer not to be raped or killed by dirtbags.
I don't remember that period, but it would be interesting to see what the debate looked like and see how much of it was racially motivated.
I don't remember that period, but it would be interesting to see what the debate looked like and see how much of it was racially motivated.
Editor
NES Member
We cannot make that deduction from the statistics; cause and effect is not established. Perhaps we can deduce that the lines come closer together when gun control measures pass.
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2007
- Messages
- 3,352
- Likes
- 386
Means nothing. Politicians will do what they want as long as there is some deal for them. Of course Colorado is a great example of getting your teeth kicked in when you tell the voters to go pound sand because they mean nothing to you and your side deal (Bloomberg money). Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out the door 
. I would suspect there will be a lot more recalls in the future especially now that Colorado has shown the way
. I would suspect there will be a lot more recalls in the future especially now that Colorado has shown the way
Garys
NES Member
From the mid 1800s on, gun control has been about keeping unfavored minorities from being able to arm themselves for protection from the violence of the majorities. In the 1960s, people really wanted to keep blacks from being armed, so we got a lot of gun control that mostly made it more expensive to own firearms. None of it was intended, or has, kept firearms out of the hands of criminals or people wealthy enough to meet the various requirements. Now the unfavored minority, which is probably not a minority, is composed of people of all races who work, pay taxes, and want as little government as is needed to perform the few vital functions for which governments are needed. Or as President Ignorance is Bliss would describe us, "Bitter clingers".
Means nothing. Politicians will do what they want as long as there is some deal for them. Of course Colorado is a great example of getting your teeth kicked in when you tell the voters to go pound sand because they mean nothing to you and your side deal (Bloomberg money). Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out the door
I doubt it. Few states allow recalls of state offices.
This is why things like the Obamacare fiasco are important in relation to gun control.
I've read a few analyses of the health care debacle who point out that it could lead to a Republican House - AND a Republican Senate on the next go around.
So the pro-gun side ought to take advantage of this and make the gun laws more favorable - and STOP tolerating RINO's within the ranks RIGHT NOW.
I think part of what you see going on in the political realm right now is people lining up behind that fact. The right side is sensing some blood in the water over Obamacare and is gearing up to capitalize on it.
This is also part of the reason why they're going after the Tea Party wing - because they need to marginalized NOW - so that that's all taken care of when the next election cycle rolls around so the RINO's aren't fighting both the Tea Partiers - and the Democrats.
I've read a few analyses of the health care debacle who point out that it could lead to a Republican House - AND a Republican Senate on the next go around.
So the pro-gun side ought to take advantage of this and make the gun laws more favorable - and STOP tolerating RINO's within the ranks RIGHT NOW.
I think part of what you see going on in the political realm right now is people lining up behind that fact. The right side is sensing some blood in the water over Obamacare and is gearing up to capitalize on it.
This is also part of the reason why they're going after the Tea Party wing - because they need to marginalized NOW - so that that's all taken care of when the next election cycle rolls around so the RINO's aren't fighting both the Tea Partiers - and the Democrats.
Nah, looks like they have more to worry about from the Libertarians:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/30/terry-mcauliffe-4-points-virginia-governors-race-p/
The good news is there are vulnerable Dem seats in the Senate; Rockefeller, Landrieu, Pryor and Begich.
The GOP can't afford to run candidates who can't win, such as Linda McMahon and John Raese.
There is also a THIRD recall in Colorado...recall" Hudak 2".
If she is recalled and a rep[ublican wins her seat , they have a majority and can repeal the Colorado bans.
Pity we don't have that in Ma.
ggboy
If she is recalled and a rep[ublican wins her seat , they have a majority and can repeal the Colorado bans.
Pity we don't have that in Ma.
ggboy
I was in High School during that period and I have to say I don't remember much talk about gun control. I don't think the issue really gained any traction until the 80's.
rep308
NES Member
the general population has the attention span of a gnat. The media tells them to care about gun control and they do, for about 3 months. Then it's back to save the whales, give me more free stuff, or what ever issue the media is pushing that day.
Quiet
Banned
Yeah, I've done consumer surveys and I know some people who have participated in them as a very lucrative "side job".
As far as straight opinion polls go, I frequently ask "How much are you going to pay me for my opinion?" That's where the conversation usually ends. If they protest I go on about how they're getting paid, their boss is getting paid, the marketing people are getting paid, everyone is getting paid except the people who actually have the commodity being sought. The rest hang up at this point.
While there are plenty of good reasons to say "some polls are shit", the issue is rarely sample size or sampling error. Do a little research on statistical analysis and you'll see that very few random samples are needed to produce a poll with a tiny margin of error.
I received at least a dozen polling calls leading up to the 2012 primary and election on my NH landline number.
And therein lies a fundamental and new problem with polling.
Most of my generation (Gen Y) does not own a land line. We own cell phones. Never been polled on my cell phone. No one else I know has been polled on a cell phone either.
Legally polling cell phones is *very* expensive for polling firms.
I'm no expert on the above, but I've worked on related systems in the past, and still sometimes get paid for wardialing, and technically I'm vice-president of a "phone company".
There's a good reason for polling on cell phones is rare -- Federal law (TCPA, 47 U.S.C. 227) prohibits automated polling systems from contacting cell phones. Gallup and others are aware of this, and will sometimes use live operators to contact cell phone respondents, though this is much more expensive -- to comply with TCPA, a live human operator has to manually dial the cell phone's number, actually press the individual buttons on the keypad, wait for ring, etc. An order of magnitude less efficient than robodialing with a pool of human operators who are only connected when software detects somebody saying "Hello?", which itself is a huge cost compared to using IVR with no human in the loop at all (on the originating end, anyway).
I'm no expert on the above, but I've worked on related systems in the past, and still sometimes get paid for wardialing, and technically I'm vice-president of a "phone company".
Don't make me feel old.
There's a good reason for polling on cell phones is rare -- Federal law (TCPA, 47 U.S.C. 227) prohibits automated polling systems from contacting cell phones. Gallup and others are aware of this, and will sometimes use live operators to contact cell phone respondents, though this is much more expensive -- to comply with TCPA, a live human operator has to manually dial the cell phone's number, actually press the individual buttons on the keypad, wait for ring, etc. An order of magnitude less efficient than robodialing with a pool of human operators who are only connected when software detects somebody saying "Hello?", which itself is a huge cost compared to using IVR with no human in the loop at all (on the originating end, anyway).
Similar threads
