WBUR Poll: MA residents want moar gun laws

[JJ4]

Tougher gun laws favored by Massachusetts voters, says poll

69 percent believe protecting citizens from gun violence should be the most important thing to lawmakers as they consider gun legislation.

79 percent said they support raising the minimum age in Massachusetts for firearms purchases from 18 to 21, and 89 percent favor prohibiting people found to be a risk to themselves or others from owning or possessing guns.

63 percent oppose getting rid of laws that restrict what kind of guns people can own; 33 percent support that idea.

• 68 percent support banning high capacity magazines that allow guns to fire more than 10 rounds before reloading; 27 percent said they oppose such a ban.

• 28 percent support repealing the Second Amendment; 67 percent oppose that idea.

• 98 percent support, and 2 percent oppose requiring a background check for every person who purchases a firearm. On this question, pollsters encountered a rarity: no respondent said they didn’t know or refused to answer the question.

• 61 percent support banning all rifles capable of semiautomatic fire; 34 percent oppose such a ban.

• 64 percent support banning the manufacturing in Massachusetts of assault rifles meant to be sold to civilians, an idea recently offered by candidate for governor Jay Gonzalez.

-- 67 percent oppose the idea of arming some teachers and school staff to defend against school shooters; 29 percent of respondents support that idea.



-----------------------------------------

My comments: Who the hell actually participates in these polls? First, I only have a cell phone now. Are they only calling landlines? If so you've just narrowed your participant base significantly. Second: The types of people who support gun rights are probably the types of people to just hangup on pollsters.

 

[Whutmeworry]

Tougher gun laws favored by Massachusetts voters, says poll

69 percent believe protecting citizens from gun violence should be the most important thing to lawmakers as they consider gun legislation.

79 percent said they support raising the minimum age in Massachusetts for firearms purchases from 18 to 21, and 89 percent favor prohibiting people found to be a risk to themselves or others from owning or possessing guns.

63 percent oppose getting rid of laws that restrict what kind of guns people can own; 33 percent support that idea.

• 68 percent support banning high capacity magazines that allow guns to fire more than 10 rounds before reloading; 27 percent said they oppose such a ban.

• 28 percent support repealing the Second Amendment; 67 percent oppose that idea.

• 98 percent support, and 2 percent oppose requiring a background check for every person who purchases a firearm. On this question, pollsters encountered a rarity: no respondent said they didn’t know or refused to answer the question.

• 61 percent support banning all rifles capable of semiautomatic fire; 34 percent oppose such a ban.

• 64 percent support banning the manufacturing in Massachusetts of assault rifles meant to be sold to civilians, an idea recently offered by candidate for governor Jay Gonzalez.

-- 67 percent oppose the idea of arming some teachers and school staff to defend against school shooters; 29 percent of respondents support that idea.



-----------------------------------------

My comments: Who the hell actually participates in these polls? First, I only have a cell phone now. Are they only calling landlines? If so you've just narrowed your participant base significantly. Second: The types of people who support gun rights are probably the types of people to just hangup on pollsters.

That last should read: "67 percent support the idea of leaving their own school-aged children open to being slaughtered by the next school shooter; 29 percent of respondents oppose that idea."

 

[MAGA99]

They probably polled all the mindless browncoats in cambridge/boston near a college campus.

 

[kmanick]

probably Harvard square at lunch time LOL!

 

[MGnoob]

Polls and the news are just trying to tell you what to believe.

 

[mjbff]

Of course people who do not know gun laws want more done laws

 

[bigpick]

I'm not surprised by these figures at all, this state is becoming more and more unbearable.

 

[Compooky]

Sample size of 504 people... that's almost 1 whole packed train in the morning!

 

[Greschner 4]

Sample size of 504 people... that's almost 1 whole packed train in the morning!

On the Red Line in Kendall Square.

 

[42!]

It's way too easy to manipulate these polls, i want to see the exact questions asked. And most people in MA still think semi-automatic and AW means machine gun. This will sque the results.

 

[Asaltweapon]

probably Harvard square at lunch time LOL!

Well duuuhhhhhh.

 

[JJ4]

It's way too easy to manipulate these polls, i want to see the exact questions asked. And most people in MA still think semi-automatic and AW means machine gun. This will sque the results.

For example, questions about background checks. When polled with questions like "Should every gun sold require a background check", most people immediately think only about people buying guns in stores. So the immediate answer is "yes of course", and as we know, we already have background checks on those sales. Most people don't think about "Well, what if Joe Bob wants to give or sell his gun to his brother Dick Bob - should they have to go sell it through a dealer and pay a fee even though Joe knows Dick is legally allowed to buy the gun?" Or that, a dying grandfather giving his collection away to family would be charged a fee for every single gun transferred, etc.

 

[Dadstoys]

And Trump is miles behind Hillary too.
75% of polls are fabricated bullshit 98% of the time.
There you have it.

 

[drgrant]

Lol I have the same question... half of these polls wether its a gun thing or some political thing, it always seems like "what did they do, go into a shopping mall on a weekday afternoon?"

-Mike

 

[SpaceCritter]

Telephone polls are meaningless. Working people do NOT answer phone calls from numbers they do not know. Self-selecting Internet polls are self-selecting, and thus meaningless. And it's not cost-effective to poll by any other means. Ergo, polls = crap.

 

[E.Stoner]

Because more laws make a difference:
Tough 2014 Mass. Gun Law Has Had Little Effect, A State Study Finds

 

[gamma19]

A sample size of 504 respondents in a state with a population of 6.8 million is too small to convey any meaningful information. That said, the purpose of the poll isn't to find out Mass residents' attitudes towards guns; it's to push an anti-2A agenda. Now your typical ignorant moonbat can cite that article and say "see! 61 percent of people in Mass support banning those evil fully-semi-auto-semi-matic rifle thingies that kill millions of innocent women and children every day!" They also tag fence-sitters this way; sheep who are undecided see that 61 percent and go "hmm well since that many people support it, I think I should too!"

 

[SpaceCritter]

A sample size of 504 respondents in a state with a population of 6.8 million is too small to convey any meaningful information. That said, the purpose of the poll isn't to find out Mass residents' attitudes towards guns; it's to push an anti-2A agenda. Now your typical ignorant moonbat can cite that article and say "see! 61 percent of people in Mass support banning those evil fully-semi-auto-semi-matic rifle thingies that kill millions of innocent women and children every day!" They also tag fence-sitters this way; sheep who are undecided see that 61 percent and go "hmm well since that many people support it, I think I should too!"

...whereas

28 percent support repealing the Second Amendment; 67 percent oppose that idea.

backs MY idea of expelling states like Massivetwoshits from the "union" as it's quite apparent substantial swaths of the creatures therein inhabiting neither understand nor approve of Americanism.

But again, we're back to polls = crap.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

These polls can be influenced, intentionally or not, to the point of being meaningless unless a carefully crafted scientific poll is generated. Items like the wording of questions; order of answers; timing of poll relative to sensationalitic media events; and even the time of day the pollee is called impact the result. Call during the day and you are going to skew the participant population against the employed.

This sort of media poll is about as meaningful as the "polls" the NRA for 2AF sends asking if guns should be banned. In other words, statistically useless.

 

[Mattyweb]

99% of people polled have no idea what current gun laws exist.

 

[rsj]

If 500 people can speak for 6 mil, then can the population of RI speak for all of the US?
Edit: maybe even... the world?

 

[Rob Boudrie]

If 500 people can speak for 6 mil, then can the population of RI speak for all of the US?
Edit: maybe even... the world?

Statistically, they can. It takes a surprisingly small percentage to get a representative position IF the polling is done without implicit bias in either the question or subject selection. The population of RI would not given an accurate representation of the US sentiment, however, a truly random sample of those throughout the US the size of RI would (assuming an unbiased question). That is basic statistics 101.

This is best illustrated by example. Suppose you have everyone in the US flip a coin and count the percentage of heads. It will be very close to 50% thanks to the classic binomial distribution. Now, do the same with 500 people. You will find the percentage is also very close to 50%, despite the fact that you have sampled a miniscule percentage of the entire population. In this example, a sample size of 500 would rather accurately measure the result of the same item sampled across the entire population.

It is counter-intuitive, but a basic statistical principle is that a small sample size can accurately represent the entire group assuming no bias in member selection or formulation of the question.

 

[42!]

...assuming no bias in member selection or formulation of the question.

I've worked with people whose career was creating surveys and they openly talked about how to word the questions to get the answers they wanted. So while the theory is sound, the application is BS.

 

[Dennis in MA]

69 percent believe protecting citizens from gun violence should be the most important thing to lawmakers as they consider gun legislation.

Wait. What were the choices???? Talk about a stupid response.

"When lawmakers consider gun legislation, their most important objective is A)Protecting citizens from gun violence, B) Ensuring more guns are on the streets, C) Getting guns for themselves, D) Nothing."

How about asking, "Should Congress be doing anything or should we enforce current laws?"

Or the always wonderful, "Do you think stricter laws that are being proposed, such as longer wait periods, increased ages of legal purchase of a firearm and more stringent background checks, would have stopped the Parkland shooting?"

Defund Public Broadcasting. Let these dolts fight for a REAL paycheck.



Oh, and the T&G probably has a biohazard situation as they "expressed" themselves over getting to write a story like this.

 

[Len-2A Training]

For example, questions about background checks. When polled with questions like "Should every gun sold require a background check", most people immediately think only about people buying guns in stores. So the immediate answer is "yes of course", and as we know, we already have background checks on those sales. Most people don't think about "Well, what if Joe Bob wants to give or sell his gun to his brother Dick Bob - should they have to go sell it through a dealer and pay a fee even though Joe knows Dick is legally allowed to buy the gun?" Or that, a dying grandfather giving his collection away to family would be charged a fee for every single gun transferred, etc.

And even 90+% of MA gun owners have no clue that when they do an e-FA10, that the state is doing a background check on both parties before allowing you to complete the transaction.

99% of people polled have no idea what current gun laws exist.

Bingo!! They really believe that anyone can walk into a Mass gun show and just flash cash and walk out with a gun, no license or background checks required.

 

[seanc]

It’s WBUR....

They probably polled only the people in their studio.. and their listeners.
I suspect any that voted against are now looking for new jobs or permanently blocked.

 

[JJ4]

I didn't want to make a separate thread... but the fun keeps on coming:
https://www.usnews.com/news/politic...l-support-soars-for-stricter-gun-control-laws

AP poll - now with more scientific bologna!
Support for stricter gun control laws reaches new high, drawing majority of gun owners.

Overall, 69 percent of Americans think gun laws in the United States should be made stricter. That's up from 61 percent who said the same in October of 2016 and 55 percent when the AP first asked the question in October of 2013. Overall, 90 percent of Democrats, 54 percent of gun owners and 50 percent of Republicans now favor stricter gun control laws.

Sixty percent believe that making it harder to legally obtain a gun would result in fewer mass shootings; just 49 percent said the same in the 2016 poll.

Nearly 6 in 10 favor a nationwide ban on AR-15-style rifles.

 

[SpaceCritter]

I didn't want to make a separate thread... but the fun keeps on coming:
https://www.usnews.com/news/politic...l-support-soars-for-stricter-gun-control-laws

AP poll - now with more scientific bologna!
Support for stricter gun control laws reaches new high, drawing majority of gun owners.

Overall, 69 percent of Americans think gun laws in the United States should be made stricter. That's up from 61 percent who said the same in October of 2016 and 55 percent when the AP first asked the question in October of 2013. Overall, 90 percent of Democrats, 54 percent of gun owners and 50 percent of Republicans now favor stricter gun control laws.

Sixty percent believe that making it harder to legally obtain a gun would result in fewer mass shootings; just 49 percent said the same in the 2016 poll.

Nearly 6 in 10 favor a nationwide ban on AR-15-style rifles.

All polls are bullshit. Working people do not answer telephone calls from unknown numbers. Nor will they take the time to fill out anything by mail. And if someone should approach them in a public place, they will tell them to f*** off, if not ignore them entirely. That leaves the People With Time On Their Hands, who ARE the ones answering polls.

 

[Waher]

Anyone that can't recite the 4 rules isn't a 'gun safety advocate' and should shut up until they learn better.

 

[42!]

Anyone that can't recite the 4 rules isn't a 'gun safety advocate' and should shut up until they learn better.

0. A robot can't harm humanity or through inaction allow it to come to harm.
1. A robot can not harm a human or through inaction allow a human to come to harm unless it conflicts with the 0 law.
2. A robot must obey all order given to it by a human unless those orders conflict with the 1 or 0 laws.
3. A robot must protect its own existence except when this conflicts with the 2, 1, or 0 laws.

How'd I do, did I pass