More than 50% of Americans back Obama gun regulations
129 replies, posted
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;39351724]I think it would decrease significantly if anyone knew what a barrel shroud or telescoping stock was for[/QUOTE]
Well most people don't know all the elements of most pieces of legislation, but that doesn't suddenly invalidate public opinion polls, when their purpose is to show the level of support for a given thing.
[editline]25th January 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Relaxation;39351737]Yo Megafan, let me ask you this:
What makes you out rule ANY skepticism pertaining to this data? You seemingly defend it... Now I'm not saying that the data is right or wrong BUT I do have an educated opinion having taken several University level statistic classes and I must say, I am skeptical.[/QUOTE]
I haven't defended anything about it. By all measures the margin of error seems to be within acceptable bounds, the sample size seems fairly standard, and it seems internally consistent. That's precisely why I asked for some basis as to why the numbers might be skewed. If you could provide good evidence, then there would be a good reason to support the idea that the numbers are skewed. It's as simple as that.
For this poll to prove it's accuracy it would need to list how many people that were surveyed lived in urban and suburban areas. If you have any knowledge of political science statistics, you'll know why I say this.
In any case, I'm skeptical.
[editline]25th January 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Megafan;39351747]Well most people don't know all the elements of most pieces of legislation, but that doesn't suddenly invalidate public opinion polls, when their purpose is to show the level of support for a given thing.
[editline]25th January 2013[/editline]
I haven't defended anything about it. By all measures the margin of error seems to be within acceptable bounds, the sample size seems fairly standard, and it seems internally consistent. That's precisely why I asked for some basis as to why the numbers might be skewed. If you could provide good evidence, then there would be a good reason to support the idea that the numbers are skewed. It's as simple as that.[/QUOTE]
Fair enough. Dismissing everyone's argument just leads me to believe you're not skeptical at all, and that's why I ask you: Why aren't you skeptical? I feel like you haven't really answered.
Because you are wanting people to prove why it's wrong, and since you don't seem skeptical, how about you prove that it's right?
[QUOTE=Relaxation;39351757]For this poll to prove it's accuracy it would need to list how many people that were surveyed lived in urban and suburban areas. If you have any knowledge of political science statistics, you'll know why I say this.
In any case, I'm skeptical.[/QUOTE]
Well Gallup has quite a bit of data about how they collected their answers, albeit not the specific ones you're requesting. I'm more curious what warrants skepticism in the first place, since no evidence that suggests this skewing has been presented yet.
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;39351714]just go look at them. there's rarely less than 5% variation, and that's huge when it comes to statistics[/QUOTE]
Let's assume a 5% variation for this, even though it's less than that. Then let's assume that it works absolutely in your favor.
With that, the [I]closest[/I] for/against match would still come out to 49%/48%.
The others all have higher/lower for/against percentages, respectively. And there's a lower variation than you say. And those variations can go either way.
[QUOTE=Relaxation;39351757]Fair enough. Dismissing everyone's argument just leads me to believe you're not skeptical at all, and that's why I ask you: Why aren't you skeptical? I feel like you haven't really answered.
Because you are wanting people to prove why it's wrong, and since you don't seem skeptical, how about you prove that it's right?[/QUOTE]
I'm not currently skeptical of it because there seems to be ample evidence that the sample size is consistent with other Gallup polls, and that the margin of error is within reasonable limits. In the face of no evidence as of yet for the skewing of these results, I can see no reason to be skeptical of it.
However, in the face of evidence that suggests otherwise, I can quite easily change my stance to meet that.
[QUOTE=Megafan;39351773]Well Gallup has quite a bit of data about how they collected their answers, albeit not the specific ones you're requesting. I'm more curious what warrants skepticism in the first place, since no evidence that suggests this skewing has been presented yet.[/QUOTE]
Skepticism when it comes to statistics isn't limited to shear skewing of the data. But in any case, are you suggesting all data should be accepted unless skewing slaps you in the face? I think when analyzing data and questioning it's accuracy you should keep an open mind. And I also showed you the biggest hole in this gallop that warrant skepticism.
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;39351541]you'd have some trouble killing the jews too if your dick was constantly in your secretary's mouth[/QUOTE]
Do you expect people to take you seriously, or do you just type the first thing that comes to your head?
[QUOTE=Relaxation;39351792]Skepticism when it comes to statistics isn't limited to shear skewing of the data. But in any case, are you suggesting all data should be accepted unless skewing slaps you in the face? I think when analyzing data and questioning it's accuracy you should keep an open mind. And I also showed you the biggest hole in this gallop that warrant skepticism.[/QUOTE]
Well in that case, I suppose I am skeptical in the sense that, should evidence suggesting that it's faulty come to light, that would be a good reason to believe that it is faulty. Until then, since it appears consistent with other polls that were not faulty, there is currently no reason to be skeptical of it.
Sounds robotic, but this is just basic logic.
For my own info, not for arguments sake or anything, mind linking to other polls you speak of?
[QUOTE=Relaxation;39351822]For my own info, not for arguments sake or anything, mind linking to other polls you speak of?[/QUOTE]
This. I'd really like to see if there's any kind of reported margin of error.
[b]edit[/b] Found it. Here you go: [url]http://www.gallup.com/poll/160085/americans-back-obama-proposals-address-gun-violence.aspx[/url]
If I'm reading this correctly, the margin of error is + or - 4%.
[QUOTE=Relaxation;39351822]For my own info, not for arguments sake or anything, mind linking to other polls you speak of?[/QUOTE]
As a couple examples, here was a poll on what to do about the fiscal cliff:
[url]http://www.gallup.com/poll/159065/americans-widely-prefer-compromise-fiscal-cliff.aspx[/url]
And one about public support for the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision:
[url]http://www.gallup.com/poll/160058/majority-americans-support-roe-wade-decision.aspx?ref=image[/url]
Both have similar sample sizes and margins of error to the poll in the OP.
[QUOTE=Van-man;39351743]Someone's trying to remove focus from their lack of arguments :haw:[/QUOTE]
No, I've taken it as a hint I should be on topic
[QUOTE=download;39351853]No, I've taken it as a hint I should be on topic[/QUOTE]
Then why did you stop arguing then things were suddenly not in your favor anymore?
Seems [I]awfully[/I] convenient.
[QUOTE=Van-man;39351870]Then why did you stop arguing then things were suddenly not in your favor anymore?
Seems [I]awfully[/I] convenient.[/QUOTE]
How about we take this to MD then? The gun control thread seems like a reasonable place to do so
[editline]25th January 2013[/editline]
I also don't see how "I was losing" there
I think it might also be interesting to take another poll in a month or so to see how the numbers change. I imagine the percentages would decrease in a month or so, after people have started to calm down from being upset.
[QUOTE=Relaxation;39351737]What makes you out rule ANY skepticism pertaining to this data? You seemingly defend it... Now I'm not saying that the data is right or wrong BUT I do have an educated opinion having taken several University level statistic classes and I must say, I am skeptical.[/QUOTE]
Okay, you took statistics. We all took statistics. That doesn't mean anything. This isn't appeal-to-authority hour and even if it were "I took stats twice" is a pretty fucking low authority.
[QUOTE=Relaxation;39351757]For this poll to prove it's accuracy it would need to list how many people that were surveyed lived in urban and suburban areas.[/QUOTE]
Same numbers as are proportionally representative to overall population.
Holy shit their methodology is public and none of you assholes can read.
[QUOTE=rilez;39351796]Do you expect people to take you seriously, or do you just type the first thing that comes to your head?[/QUOTE]
in this case, neither. that was intentionally abrasive.
[QUOTE=Megafan;39351668]You're going to need a source for that. While certainly not impossible it's not something you can just state without support.[/QUOTE]
The lack of a margin of error in all of the graphs is generally a good indicator that whoever put them together doesn't actually know what they are doing.
I'm not suggesting Gallup doesn't know what they are doing, merely that the person who made the graphs isn't an academic.
Note that I mean specifically appending them to the graphs. You don't get to put at the very end "oh by the way, here is the margin of error". Graphs ALWAYS get it appended or they aren't doing it right. It is like failing to cite a source.
TBH polls don't really matter because Congress is extremely of touch with public opinion. For example, polls have shown that people don't want any changes to Social Security, but Congress is going on the warpath to tear it to bits by using the federal debt as a cover. Congress is so polarized that I highly doubt that polls will convince any anti-gun control Rep or Senator that they should go pro-gun control.
[url]http://www.gallup.com/file/poll/160094/Obama_gun_proposal_II_%20130123.pdf[/url]
Interestingly the percentage of respondents that respond that they own, or have a firearm in the home, is 36 percent.
[url]http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/Self-Reported-Gun-Ownership-Highest-1993.aspx[/url]
This is, by Gallup's own numbers, likely not an accurate representation by a fairly significant margin.
[QUOTE=GunFox;39352015]The lack of a margin of error in all of the graphs is generally a good indicator that whoever put them together doesn't actually know what they are doing.
I'm not suggesting Gallup doesn't know what they are doing, merely that the person who made the graphs isn't an academic.
Note that I mean specifically appending them to the graphs. You don't get to put at the very end "oh by the way, here is the margin of error". Graphs ALWAYS get it appended or they aren't doing it right. It is like failing to cite a source.[/QUOTE]
Unless the person who put together the graphs was also in charge of the data collection, I don't see how it being at the bottom of the page or on the graph itself would matter.
[QUOTE=Megafan;39352054]Unless the person who put together the graphs was also in charge of the data collection, I don't see how it being at the bottom of the page or on the graph itself would matter.[/QUOTE]
Because of exactly what happened. The graphs get stripped and used in news articles without the important bits about how the data was gathered being appended.
[QUOTE=Last or First;39351490]
[sub][sub]Because you implied that 1000 people is a "handful"[/sub][/sub]
[sub][sub][sub]And it most definitely is not[/sub][/sub][/sub]
[/QUOTE]
When you have a planet with around 7 billion people, and the nation itself in this situation has over 300 million?
Yeah, at that point 1000 kind of is a "handful" at most. 1000 M&Ms may be a lot, but scooping 1000 M&Ms out of a bin of 300,000,000 is hardly a lot by comparison.
1000 is fairly standard. I think Gallup's margin of error is far greater than they actually claim, but overall their methodology isn't awful for what it is.
The primary error is that they do phone surveys and are performing a poll. A not insignificant portion of the population will simply never take a phone survey. That is a demographic that simply can't be represented. You also have the issue with the accuracy of the information provided by the person being polled. They can lie or misremember or do any number of things which causes an error in the data. The design of the questions and the order in which they are provided are also something to be considered (note that the pdf file gives a little bit of info on how the questions were presented. Some were rotated, others were randomly asked.).
[QUOTE=BLOODGA$M;39352091]When you have a planet with around 7 billion people, and the nation itself in this situation has over 300 million?
Yeah, at that point 1000 kind of is a "handful" at most. 1000 M&Ms may be a lot, but scooping 1000 M&Ms out of a bin of 300,000,000 is hardly a lot by comparison.[/QUOTE]
that's how statistics fucking work.
the whole point is to take a "sample" of the population and use it to form an idea of what the larger population feels.
do you honestly expect gallup to interview over 300 million people whenever they want to gather data?
[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;39351390]1,013 people does not equate to a proper sample size when comparing against 315,214,000 people. That's not even a percent.[/QUOTE]
That's actually how statistics work.
It would be downright impossible to poll a large chunk of the population in a short amount of time, so they'd pick people from varied locations, income bracket, gender and so on.
Obviously there'd be a error margin, but with all the years spent on perfecting polling methods and considering Gallup's general reputation, I'd say the error margin is low.
Besides, the whole point of this poll is to get the average US citizens opinion & stance regarding the subjects they were questioned about.
Which we all know now
The AWB and high cap mag limits really, really piss me off. They are based on a scared, knee-jerk reaction, and will ultimately only hurt people who collect guns/use them for recreational purposes/even use them for defense. I would argue over it more, but many other facepunchers have already made the argument, even in this thread. [I]Gun-bans in this country just don't work.[/I]
It's really a shame, because literally every other part of this bill is great and totally necessary, but the AWB just ruins it.
There are some elements in the laws that most probably won't make a difference, but most of it seems very reasonable. Won't some of it get blocked off either way?
[QUOTE=Shadow Core;39351506]Gun's don't kill people.. people do.. un-arming citizens is the first action of a dictator... Hitler did it in Germany
(It is true)[/QUOTE]
Your ignorance of history is rivaled only by your ability to recite NRA rhetoric verbatim.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.