More than 50% of Americans back Obama gun regulations
129 replies, posted
[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]
why do people agree with this post?
is it because they don't like the findings of the poll so they call the methodology into question?
I love Facepunch gun threads, because it simultaneously displays the best and worst of the community.
Most of you posting are the worst. Stop being terrible. Gallup polls are inaccurate because they are polls, not because they are from Gallup. Gallup at least gives it the old college try to be accurate.
The rest of you, nobody cares that Obama is Stalin Two or Hitler 2014 or whatever. Shut up. Look at the number of competent people owning firearms. Then look at how many people who are utterly incompetent own firearms.
Until jackasses with guns are forced to be educated in every state (almost definitely not going to happen because effort), until we fix the massive problem of mental health in America, and until we make people realize that you will never in your life [I]need[/I] a gun, weapon bans are going to be raised and they will pass.
People who want guns for the nebulous cause of self-defense [B]are[/B] the problem. If it's not some thinly-veiled racist gnawing at the bit for a chance to shoot a minority, it's some whacko who wants it to defend himself from the gubbermint.
Believe it or not, you will probably not ever get robbed at gunpoint in your life. If you do, and if you pull a gun, do you really think that the other guy is going to respond in any other way than shooting first? What the hell is the point?
Man, a bunch of those options sure involve spending. It's a no brainer that most people want the government to spend on more good things for the citizens.
[editline]25th January 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Zeke129;39351518]I could speculate and say that I think it's because guns are popular in nerd culture and Facepunch is a gaming a technology-related forum
I could speculate further and say that nerd culture romanticizes exaggerated displays of masculinity and guns play into this
But I would [i]neeeeveerrrr[/i] speculate like that[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Vasili;39351363]whats with FPs unusually high gun support then[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=download;39351462]Because most FP'ers know what the AWB is and why it's retarded, unlike most people who get their news from the sensationalist media[/QUOTE]
I'd say because a lot of facepunchers are gun nuts or gamers (who will have formed an opinion based on how much people are linking violent vedio gaems to weapon-based murder) and a lot of facepunchers think they're always right about things and that they're superior compared to most people
Another thread with a poll showing statistics against the popular opinion of the forum which turns into a dissection of the statistics or just simply dismissal. Nice.
If it was 70% of Americans are against the AWB the poll wouldnt even be questioned....
Your almost as bad as the stoners who dismiss every cannabis study which shows negative effects.
Someone who's an expert in polls / statistics - can you tell me why people call polls like this conducive or within a small margin of error? I understand that logistically, there is no way they can poll even half of Americans. But %0.00003 is a pretty small number to work with. How are they able to call it representative of anything? It's like me interviewing one or two of the 41k Facepunch members.
(I mean to come at this entirely neutrally/not-in-regards-to-the-topic. I've always been told Gallup polls are usually pretty non-biased; but I can't see the accuracy with such small samples.)
[QUOTE=Harry3;39353625]If it was 70% of Americans are against the AWB the poll wouldnt even be questioned....[/QUOTE]
Oh, yes, yes it would.
[QUOTE=Last or First;39351406]Have you [I]ever[/I] taken a statistics class?[/QUOTE]
First lesson of statistics class: Statistics can always be twisted in your favor.
The results don't surprise me. Its just the majority of Americans get really emotional and base their beliefs on current events. Obviously, to the untrained eye, it looks like America is being invaded by "Assault rifle terrorists" but in reality its not really the case.
[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]
wow 3 posts in and we have people who don't understand statistics and are trying to de-legitimize gallup, one of the biggest and best pollers
The sample size is fine guys, what the fuck.
Examine the line of questioning in the survey, that reveals what is going on here.
The question on Gallup's earlier poll was "Are you for or against a law which would make it illegal to manufacture, sell, or posses semi-automatic guns known as assault rifles?" 44% Yes
The recent question was "Would you vote for or against a law that would reinstate and strengthen the ban on assault weapons that was in place from 1994 to 2004?" 60% Yes
When the poll omits the fact that "assault weapons" are semi-automatic guns and that sale and possession would be banned, support for an AWB increases. This is expected. Gallup pollsters are professionals guys, they noted this in their [URL="http://www.gallup.com/poll/160085/americans-back-obama-proposals-address-gun-violence.aspx"]official report[/URL].
Oh my fucking god this thread
A bunch of pro-gunners came out and none of them understand statistics and all of them are convinced it must be a biased conspiracy but can't point out how or why
Christ, facepunch
Gallup polls are terrible
[QUOTE=IliekBoxes;39354384]Gallup polls are terrible[/QUOTE]
Polls are generally terrible IMO because there's no guarantee of proper representation, but Gallup polls are probably among some of the better polls regardless.
And like Disotrtion said this isn't about statistics, it's about how people's opinions can change the stats when you use a different vocabulary.
[QUOTE=scout1;39354347]Oh my fucking god this thread
A bunch of pro-gunners came out and none of them understand statistics and all of them are convinced it must be a biased conspiracy but can't point out how or why
Christ, facepunch[/QUOTE]
I calmly asked how the statistics worked and admitted that Gallup is probably pretty non-bias.
Instead I get more shit-slinging and non-answers.
Maybe I should just get angry on an internet forum and insult the opposing side. That's seems to be the standard. :v:
[QUOTE=Vasili;39351363]whats with FPs unusually high gun support then[/QUOTE]
Video game nerds love guns.
I'd rather the public be in favor of the whole bill instead of none of it, but the last two didn't work last time, so I don't see how they'll work again.
[QUOTE=Tacosheller;39354731]I'd rather the public be in favor of the whole bill instead of none of it, but the last two didn't work last time, so I don't see how they'll work again.[/QUOTE]
It'd be a mighty fine bill if it weren't for the "let's ban things that are used in 0,3% of gun crimes, they appear scary to the uninformed" part.
I personally find it neat how the actual awb and mag ban are the least popular aspects, since those are my biggest gripes with the package as well.
But yeah guys I'd say the margin of error is less important than the source claiming 'nine out of ten' Americans support the whole thing when parts of it are split 54-43
[QUOTE=jimhowl33t;39354765]It'd be a mighty fine bill if it weren't for the "let's ban things that are used in 0,3% of gun crimes, they appear scary to the uninformed" part.[/QUOTE]
It feels like they're shoehorning bullshit into an otherwise alright piece of legislation.
[QUOTE=scout1;39354347]Oh my fucking god this thread
A bunch of pro-gunners came out and none of them understand statistics and all of them are convinced it must be a biased conspiracy but can't point out how or why
Christ, facepunch[/QUOTE]
did you expect anything different
I mean, even gunfox is here, being typical gunfox
[editline]26th January 2013[/editline]
isn't it funny how polls are apparently only ever inaccurate to those who aren't pleased with the result
[QUOTE=MisterMooth;39354827]
isn't it funny how polls are apparently only ever inaccurate to those who aren't pleased with the result[/QUOTE]
The same thing with studies
Go go facepunch psuedo-science
It's funny how when a poll is questioned, those who are in favor of it mock the other side without giving the slightest explanation of why we should (apparently) blindly believe it other than "it's right, you don't know statistics" or "how dare you question Gallup, how dare you."
Hell, I thought we were suppose to agree on the three lies ordeal: lies, damn lies, and statistics. :v:
[QUOTE=Doom14;39355448]It's funny how when a poll is questioned, those who are in favor of it mock the other side without giving the slightest explanation of why we should (apparently) blindly believe it other than "it's right, you don't know statistics" or "how dare you question Gallup, how dare you."
Hell, I thought we were suppose to agree on the three lies ordeal: lies, damn lies, and statistics. :v:[/QUOTE]Questioning the poll itself is fine tbh if rather baseless, but it's annoying when people who don't understand the mathematics behind statistics whine about the sample size being too small.
[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;39355611]the mathematics behind statistics[/QUOTE]
Can you explain what these are to me then; whether in regards to this poll or in general?
At base value, I don't understand it. Got no qualms in admitting it - the gap between 300M and 1k seems monstrous. Is a sample size of roughly 1/40,000 good enough, and why (if it is?) How can a sample that small be indicative?
[QUOTE=Doom14;39355717]Can you explain what these are to me then; whether in regards to this poll or in general?
At base value, I don't understand it. Got no qualms in admitting it - the gap between 300M and 1k seems monstrous. Is a sample size of roughly 1/40,000 good enough, and why (if it is?) How can a sample that small be indicative?[/QUOTE]
It's done over the entire country.
The larger samples rarely get bigger than about 2000 people, and samples of this size already have a reasonable accurate measurement with a margin of error that doesn't exceed a few percent.
I find it funny how when it comes to most matters large portions of the FP community are as bleeding-heart liberal as it gets but when it comes to gun control some of those same people kick and scream like all those cartoonish FOX News-worshipping gun nut types the reports on which you see on the news and go "man, what the fuck is wrong with these people?"
[QUOTE=Doom14;39355717]Can you explain what these are to me then; whether in regards to this poll or in general?
At base value, I don't understand it. Got no qualms in admitting it - the gap between 300M and 1k seems monstrous. Is a sample size of roughly 1/40,000 good enough, and why (if it is?) How can a sample that small be indicative?[/QUOTE]
Let's say that the entirety of the US can be put down into 10 brackets. Whites. Males. Blacks. Women. Income brackets. So on, so on...
You grab 100 of each person (at random) from each bracket. Even if one bracket is wildly skewed, the law of large numbers will (generally) see that skew in the opposite direction in the other brackets. The total sample is thus representative of the larger population, at some margin of error which can be determined by these complex formulas that can be mathematically proofed time and time again.
*Somebody majoring in stats feel free to correct me
[QUOTE=scout1;39354322]wow 3 posts in and we have people who don't understand statistics and are trying to de-legitimize gallup, one of the biggest and best pollers[/QUOTE]
I understand how statistics work, I feel that releasing a poll that is supposed to represent the entirety of the United States based off of 1,000 people is off. Mathematically speaking it works, but with so many different demographics it would be foolish to believe that poll results from 1,000 people would represent a nation. You and I can see past this, but millions of Americans can't. Hence why I feel this would be more accurate (both mathematically and demographic wise) If they had a much larger sample size.
[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;39355889]I understand how statistics work, I feel that releasing a poll that is supposed to represent the entirety of the united states based off of 1,000 people is off. Mathematically speaking it works, but with so many different demographics it would be foolish to believe that pol results from 1,000 people would represent a nation. You and I can see past this, but millions of Americans can't. Hence why I feel this would be more accurate (both mathematically and demographic wise) If they had a much larger sample size.[/QUOTE]
So you want an unreasonably bigger sample size as feel-good bullshit
Why don't we just interview every american so they can give their opinion and thus everyone can see how it represents everyone?
[QUOTE=scout1;39355901]So you want an unreasonably bigger sample size as feel-good bullshit
Why don't we just interview every american so they can give their opinion and thus everyone can see how it represents everyone?[/QUOTE]
Damn straight I do
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.