-
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.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
New Poll - From Coalition to Stop Gun Violence
- Thread starter Knuckle Dragger
- Start date
Okay, so the URL is unique and I've just wasted everyone's time?
Done. I hope we skew the "results" a little. Also, I elected to stay just short of the extremes to make my responses less likely to be dismissed as statistical anomalies, ie choosing 4's instead of 5's. In the only comment bos I saw I wrote this:
Guns exist. Denying that reality is delusional. Criminal, by definition, disobey the law. Passing laws restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens disenfranchises them while empowering criminals. If guns are made illegal, criminals become emboldened and law-abiding citizens become more defenseless. The proof of this premise is to ask criminals whether they want more, or less, gun control measures that would disproportinally target law-abiding citizens. When they answer "More", you have your answer as to whether guns cause, or prevent, violent crime.
Guns exist. Denying that reality is delusional. Criminal, by definition, disobey the law. Passing laws restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens disenfranchises them while empowering criminals. If guns are made illegal, criminals become emboldened and law-abiding citizens become more defenseless. The proof of this premise is to ask criminals whether they want more, or less, gun control measures that would disproportinally target law-abiding citizens. When they answer "More", you have your answer as to whether guns cause, or prevent, violent crime.
When I clicked on the link in the OP it took me here:
https://uwmadison.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_dh9ONf7jxrPnu97
No idea if that's the same, or a different, counter as the others got. Might be a good ide to edit the OP and ask for urls to see if weare duping ourselvs or going to unique sites... Or I may have no f-ing clue what I'm talking about...
CatSnoutSoup
NES Member
Maybe, but it gives insight into the opposition, and was an interesting diversion, so thank you in any event.
Crazy stupid survey, very biased. Wants you to read fake news and then respond to a question seeing if you understood what the conclusion of the fake news was. Very repetitive, stupid lines of questionaing.
And then at the end, do you make 30-40k, 40-50k, 50-60k, 60-70k, 70-80k, 80-90k, 90-100k, 100-150k, or over 150k per year (paraphrasing if you will), but WTF?!?!?! Basically, are you a SJW, a working person, or a trustifarian.
And then at the end, do you make 30-40k, 40-50k, 50-60k, 60-70k, 70-80k, 80-90k, 90-100k, 100-150k, or over 150k per year (paraphrasing if you will), but WTF?!?!?! Basically, are you a SJW, a working person, or a trustifarian.
Yah...Same thoughts here...Read a few questions more than twice to make sure...anyway was a good early morning concentration exercise before the Friday mad work rush to get out early for the long weekend...
babygorilla
NES Member
Done
Done! I'm sure they'll discard the 'outliers' but it's fun to imagine having to explain why the gun control supporters they surveyed are so pro-gun.
Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
MP-In-The-Wind
NES Member
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2010
- Messages
- 1,658
- Likes
- 687
Done....
From the conclusion:
"The articles you read were designed as a way to study how people process information on controversial issues."
Throughout the entire survey, I interpreted the objective as being the study of how 'fact-checking' can influence one's opinions. I think it used gun control as it's independent variable, with the dependent variable being how the respondant's views changed.
K, flame away! ;-)
"The articles you read were designed as a way to study how people process information on controversial issues."
Throughout the entire survey, I interpreted the objective as being the study of how 'fact-checking' can influence one's opinions. I think it used gun control as it's independent variable, with the dependent variable being how the respondant's views changed.
K, flame away! ;-)
Horrible
NES Member
They are pushing the same propaganda of making this all about "gun violence" as opposed to overall violent crime, simply because they lose the argument if they do.
One of my comments on the survey:
They are trying to paint you into a corner by saying that the facts state that more guns begets more gun crime and that denying that makes you irrational. So, to be able to claim that the antis are the rational ones.
One of my comments on the survey:
They are trying to paint you into a corner by saying that the facts state that more guns begets more gun crime and that denying that makes you irrational. So, to be able to claim that the antis are the rational ones.
![[thinking]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/010.gif "Thinking [thinking]")
hpm
NES Member
The questions are formulated very tricky of course.
e.g.
1) Some people support stricter gun regulation; others think there should be less. In general, to what extent do you oppose or support stricter gun regulation?
Pretty clear...but with the next question they get you:
2) How important is the issue of gun regulation to you?
They removed 'stricter' from the question. So they get opponents (as in "I want gun regulation to go away) and supporters of 'stricter gun regulation' to vote for the fact that the issue of gun regulation is important to them.
With the results showing the issue of gun regulation is important to the majority of people - the fact that this also included opponents of stricter regulation will get lost in (media) coverage.
The results will be that the majority wants gun regulation.
e.g.
1) Some people support stricter gun regulation; others think there should be less. In general, to what extent do you oppose or support stricter gun regulation?
Pretty clear...but with the next question they get you:
2) How important is the issue of gun regulation to you?
They removed 'stricter' from the question. So they get opponents (as in "I want gun regulation to go away) and supporters of 'stricter gun regulation' to vote for the fact that the issue of gun regulation is important to them.
With the results showing the issue of gun regulation is important to the majority of people - the fact that this also included opponents of stricter regulation will get lost in (media) coverage.
The results will be that the majority wants gun regulation.
done
Having a little confusion issues today?
![[rofl2]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/035.gif "ROFL2 [rofl2]")
When that happens to me, I just pull down my genes and look.
Having a little confusion issues today?
When that happens to me, I just pull down my genes and look.
You've mapped you DNA sequence? oh you meant jeans as in pants. I suppose either method answers the question though
![[smile]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/001.gif "Smile [smile]")
Wow. Unless they are doing an A-B comparison of people who identify as anti-gun vs. some other group, they are breaking a fundamental rule of research study methodology.
If they publish this without disclosing their recruiting bias, such conduct is grounds for retraction.
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
You've mapped you DNA sequence? oh you meant jeans as in pants. I suppose either method answers the question though
"It's a joke son, AH SAY IT'S A JOKE!"
Senator Foghorn Leghorn
