Another Nutter with a Gun

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

The problem with your number is that it relies upon phone surveys. And many people, when asked by strangers over the phone if they own a gun, are going to say "no", even though that's not true. Such questions produce suspicion, and no one is looking for trouble, nor is it anyone's business. So phone surveys are always going to under-represent the true number.

One would assume that if a regular gun owner knows that, then a professional marketing company which is in survey business would know that too, and adjust the survey results accordingly. That's why it is important to see the details of a survey as it would show the adjustments (if any), and on which criteria they were based.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

One would assume that if a regular gun owner knows that, then a professional marketing company which is in survey business would know that too, and adjust the survey results accordingly. That's why it is important to see the details of a survey as it would show the adjustments (if any), and on which criteria they were based.

Like the adjustments made for the 2000 election? And those were the top professionals. There's little commercial application to this survey, hardly calls for the top talent.

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Like the adjustments made for the 2000 election?

It would be hard to find something more irrelevant than that.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Like the adjustments made for the 2000 election?

It would be hard to find something more irrelevant than that.

err, you mean, "completely damning to my silly defense."

The best pollsters in the business deal in elections. There's nothing with more money, a higher profile, or immediate results to validate (or crush) your model.

[rhaig 0]

Quote

Quote

Like the adjustments made for the 2000 election?

It would be hard to find something more irrelevant than that.

your opinion on constitutional issues?

--
Rob

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I would like to know what the fuck happened to the investigation into this professor's "accidental shooting" of her 18 year old brother when she was 20. That's the official record of the incident. But of course, there's a differing version, saying she discharged the shotgun 3 times, first into a wall, second into her brother, and third into a ceiling. Something stinks here. Not to mention the investigation into a pipe bomb mailed to some other professor. Somebody somewhere fucked up big time.

Aw come on now, Billy, it's not the fault of the police for failing to act earlier to control this violent person. Oh no. It's the gun's fault!

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

One would assume that if a regular gun owner knows that, then a professional marketing company which is in survey business would know that too, and adjust the survey results accordingly.

How would they know how much to adjust? There is no way of knowing how many people are lying to them over the phone. Any such adjustment would be based upon a guess and unknown assumptions, and would render the number unreliable. All they can do is report those that say "yes", and recognize that it may not be the whole story.

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

The best pollsters in the business deal in elections. There's nothing with more money, a higher profile, or immediate results to validate (or crush) your model.

This is true when they work for you.
Otherwise it doesn't mean you will receive valid information from them.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

How would they know how much to adjust? There is no way of knowing how many people are lying to them over the phone.

There are technologies. Giving a wrong answer to a direct question is a well-known practice (are you atheist? have you done any abortions in past? have you had an affair while married?). Therefore a survey is typically created that way that it basically asks the same question multiple times from different angles. Those answers help to find out, and adjust for those who answered wrongly due to some bias.

As an example of such poll, it could ask the following:

- Do you think existing gun laws are tight enough, or they need to be made more restrictive for law abiding citizens to obtain guns?

- Do you think that concealed carry in all Universities receiving federal aid should be allowed by Federal law?

- Do you think that law should restrict the number of guns one person may own to no more than three guns?

- Do you think shooting range safety regulations are reasonable enough and there is no need to Federally regulate them?

Based on just those questions it's possible to reliably identify most of those who had a gun but said they do not (and vice versa). Of course marketing companies would generate even better questions.

This will give not only the percentage of those who have/do not have guns, but also for those who had guns but said they do not. It can be used in later polls for adjustment.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

How would they know how much to adjust? There is no way of knowing how many people are lying to them over the phone.

There are technologies. Giving a wrong answer to a direct question is a well-known practice (are you atheist? have you done any abortions in past? have you had an affair while married?). Therefore a survey is typically created that way that it basically asks the same question multiple times from different angles. Those answers help to find out, and adjust for those who answered wrongly due to some bias.

As an example of such poll, it could ask the following:

- Do you think existing gun laws are tight enough, or they need to be made more restrictive for law abiding citizens to obtain guns?

- Do you think that concealed carry in all Universities receiving federal aid should be allowed by Federal law?

- Do you think that law should restrict the number of guns one person may own to no more than three guns?

- Do you think shooting range safety regulations are reasonable enough and there is no need to Federally regulate them?

Based on just those questions it's possible to reliably identify most of those who had a gun but said they do not (and vice versa). Of course marketing companies would generate even better questions.

This will give not only the percentage of those who have/do not have guns, but also for those who had guns but said they do not. It can be used in later polls for adjustment.

You are assuming that someone does not tell them to bugger off because I am too busy....

or the even better one when someone from the Brady people calls and you tell them to go fuck themselves... how do you score those

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Based on just those questions it's possible to reliably identify most of those who had a gun but said they do not (and vice versa). Of course marketing companies would generate even better questions.

"reliably identify" = WAG (wild ass guess). You got 25% and 33% as candidates, and if either were picked with your criteria, you have no idea of knowing which one is more accurate. You just like the lower number.

There are a large number of non gun owners who support the 2nd amendment. There are some gun owners who support some of the common gun grabber platforms. Ill advised in my viewpoint, but they exist.

Likewise, supporting drug legalization laws doesn't imply that the person is a drug user. Or is in a secret gay marriage.

You're successfully demonstrating that social science isn't nearly so objective as the 'hard' sciences. The data isn't nearly so concrete and interpretation is a much more significant factor.

[brenthutch 388]

What type of gun was used? Long gun? Pistol? Wheel gun? Semi? Shotgun?

[BillyVance 34]

Quote

What type of gun was used? Long gun? Pistol? Wheel gun? Semi? Shotgun?

9mm, thats all I know. Shot most of the dead point blank in the head. Then when her gun either went empty or jammed, the others pushed her out of the room and locked the door. She left the gun in a bathroom and walked out and was arrested shortly.

"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban

[BillyVance 34]

Here's a new update: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35420396/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts//

She does have a history of violence, but for some reason never got charged with a crime. Like I said before, something stinks here.

Can't fault UAH here as their background checks turned up nothing. You'd have to go back to the AG who was in charge back then.

"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

"reliably identify" = WAG (wild ass guess). You got 25% and 33% as candidates, and if either were picked with your criteria, you have no idea of knowing which one is more accurate.

That is why I would like to learn more about the survey, which questions were asked and what kind of correlation, if any, was applied. Stating just a percentage is completely useless.

Quote

There are a large number of non gun owners who support the 2nd amendment.

None of those questions I made up have anything with 2nd amendment in its current legal interpretation.

Quote

You're successfully demonstrating that social science isn't nearly so objective as the 'hard' sciences.

Indeed. But that is all you can have. Even if you force every citizen in USA to go through polygraph to answer those questions, you'll still have at least 4% error margin related to polygraph. It may be an acceptable margin (i.e. 25% versus 29% is not a big difference - but what about 48% vs 52%?), but it is still there, and you cannot avoid it.

Again, in past I worked for a company conducting surveys (writing the software to analyze the data), so I know a little about how it worked internally.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[kallend 1,649]

Quote

Here's a new update: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35420396/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts//

She does have a history of violence, but for some reason never got charged with a crime. Like I said before, something stinks here.

Can't fault UAH here as their background checks turned up nothing. You'd have to go back to the AG who was in charge back then.

Clearly someone who could have been identified in advance as a nutter, but wasn't on account of a flawed system.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Quote

Clearly someone who could have been identified in advance as a nutter, but wasn't on account of a flawed system.

I wonder how this would work. She was never charged in connection with her brother's death (judged at the time to be accidental) or in connection with the mail bomb incident. Should that mere fact that you have been questioned by the police at some time (along with numerous other people) be sufficient to forever bar you from owning a firearm? Essentially, that is branding someone as a criminal without bothering with an actual trial or conviction. Doesn't our system presume innocence until conviction in a court? Do you advocate throwing that out, and going to a system that presumes guilt until you prove your innocence? I'm very sympathetic to the desire to identify "nutters", but denying constitutional rights on the basis of accidents or being caught up in a police investigation that does not result in charges or convictions seems to be giving up a lot.

Around here (Georgia), if you apply for work as a police officer, you are asked if you have ever been arrested, and if you answer yes you are automatically excluded from employment. Note the question isn't "have you ever been convicted of a crime", just arrested. I think that's unconstitutional, and I wish someone with standing would challenge it.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Clearly someone who could have been identified in advance as a nutter, but wasn't on account of a flawed system.

I wonder how this would work. She was never charged in connection with her brother's death (judged at the time to be accidental) or in connection with the mail bomb incident. Should that mere fact that you have been questioned by the police at some time (along with numerous other people) be sufficient to forever bar you from owning a firearm? Essentially, that is branding someone as a criminal without bothering with an actual trial or conviction. Doesn't our system presume innocence until conviction in a court? Do you advocate throwing that out, and going to a system that presumes guilt until you prove your innocence? I'm very sympathetic to the desire to identify "nutters", but denying constitutional rights on the basis of accidents or being caught up in a police investigation that does not result in charges or convictions seems to be giving up a lot.

Around here (Georgia), if you apply for work as a police officer, you are asked if you have ever been arrested, and if you answer yes you are automatically excluded from employment. Note the question isn't "have you ever been convicted of a crime", just arrested. I think that's unconstitutional, and I wish someone with standing would challenge it.

Don

Your points are very good

Here in Iowa if you are charged (not convicted) with a domestic crime you are automaticly bared from having any weapons. You have to go to court to get the right to have gun posession back.

So there is precident. A dangerous in my opinion.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

Clearly someone who could have been identified in advance as a nutter, but wasn't on account of a flawed system.

I wonder how this would work. She was never charged in connection with her brother's death (judged at the time to be accidental) or in connection with the mail bomb incident. Should that mere fact that you have been questioned by the police at some time (along with numerous other people) be sufficient to forever bar you from owning a firearm? Essentially, that is branding someone as a criminal without bothering with an actual trial or conviction.

That's the kind of thing that kallend seems to approve of. Because there is already a law that says you can't own guns if you have been adjudicated mentally defective. So they only way to change that, or give it "teeth", as he calls for, would be to increase enforcement and haul more people into court and have them officially branded nuts. Or to loosen the standards and just make a list of anyone who acts a bit grumpy or goofy. And neither one of those options is one that's going to make for a very desirable place to live. There are lots of eccentrics and grumpy old men out there, that area perfectly harmless. I respect their right to be goofy and grumpy.

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

Quote

You were happy that Cho could easily buy a gun despite all the warning signs?

I notice he didn't reply! pwnd.

When did uncle Kallend let you start posting again?

. . =(_8^(1)

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

I'm very sympathetic to the desire to identify "nutters", but denying constitutional rights on the basis of accidents or being caught up in a police investigation that does not result in charges or convictions seems to be giving up a lot.

VA Tech massacre is one of examples of those who were identified by nutters but were not accounted, and is a good indication why "so-many-existing-gun-laws" still need change. Federal law from 1968(!) already prohibited selling firearms to mentally defective. Cho was declared as "danger to himself" and sent for psychiatric treatment by the Virginia court, which should legally make him incapable to get a firearm. So technically everything should have worked? No; apparently VA state privacy law prohibited providing this information (about Cho mental state) to NICS, and therefore he was allowed to purchase a gun despite the safety checks allegedly being in place since 1968.

Quote

Around here (Georgia), if you apply for work as a police officer, you are asked if you have ever been arrested, and if you answer yes you are automatically excluded from employment. Note the question isn't "have you ever been convicted of a crime", just arrested.

This is interesting because getting a speeding ticket is considered by some immigration attorneys as being arrested (and released on notice to appear), and therefore it should be listed on N-400. Is it the case there too?

(and N-400 has even funnier question - something like "have you committed a crime for which you have not been arrested?")

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

VA Tech massacre is one of examples of those who were identified by nutters but were not accounted, and is a good indication why "so-many-existing-gun-laws" still need change. Federal law from 1968(!) already prohibited selling firearms to mentally defective. Cho was declared as "danger to himself" and sent for psychiatric treatment by the Virginia court, which should legally make him incapable to get a firearm. So technically everything should have worked? No; apparently VA state privacy law prohibited providing this information (about Cho mental state) to NICS, and therefore he was allowed to purchase a gun despite the safety checks allegedly being in place since 1968.

There some considerable debate as to whether or not this was an intentional system failure, or one of sloppiness.

In any event, privacy rights are important too. And like gun rights, aren't free. Even if you're a Soviet who doesn't understand the value of privacy, there are practical reasons to worry about heavy handed rules with regards to seeking treatment for mental health issues.

If you know that you will lose your guns, possibly your license, or your job because the government mandates reporting of your visit to a doctor (screw doctor-patient confidentiality), the end result is that you're less likely to seek help, or to be forthcoming when he or she asks you questions. So instead of fewer known nutters roaming around (some get cured), you get more ticking time bomb types.

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Quote

This is interesting because getting a speeding ticket is considered by some immigration attorneys as being arrested (and released on notice to appear), and therefore it should be listed on N-400. Is it the case there too?

I did the N-400 process a couple of years ago. I recall that traffic offenses for which you are not actually arrested, but just receive a fine, do not have to be reported. I did the paperwork myself, I saw no need to feed the trolls, er I mean immigration lawyers.

Quote

(and N-400 has even funnier question - something like "have you committed a crime for which you have not been arrested?")

The reason for that one is if you lie, later on if they find out they can use that to invalidate your citizenship and deport you. I think they would be shocked if someone actually owned up to a crime. However if you are a career criminal who has been lucky so far chances are they will eventually find out and then you can't hide behind your US citizenship. They used that to deport an alleged Nazi concentration camp guard not long ago.

Quote

VA Tech massacre is one of examples of those who were identified by nutters but were not accounted, and is a good indication why "so-many-existing-gun-laws" still need change. Federal law from 1968(!) already prohibited selling firearms to mentally defective. Cho was declared as "danger to himself" and sent for psychiatric treatment by the Virginia court, which should legally make him incapable to get a firearm. So technically everything should have worked? No; apparently VA state privacy law prohibited providing this information (about Cho mental state) to NICS, and therefore he was allowed to purchase a gun despite the safety checks allegedly being in place since 1968.

True enough, but the conflict between keeping medical records private and public safety is a real issue. Cho was not considered to be so dangerous that he was involuntarily committed, so he fell outside the reporting guidelines. I think he was sent for evaluation, not treatment. Of course hindsight is always 20-20, but it is often not easy to tell the actual dangerous nutters from the merely depressed or odd personalities. If people lost their legal right to make decisions for themselves on the basis of just being evaluated for possible depression, for example, how many more people would forgo getting needed medical treatment?

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

I did the N-400 process a couple of years ago. I recall that traffic offenses for which you are not actually arrested, but just receive a fine, do not have to be reported.

This is strange as current N-400 explicitly asks:

16. Have you ever been arrested, cited, or detained by any law enforcement officer (including USCIS or former INS and military officers) for any reason?

So if you got a ticket (which required court appearance), doesn't it mean "cited"? If you got stopped by an officer, weren't you detained?
Anyway, I was told I need to list those tickets which were dismissed in court (all of them so far have been), because it was still considered "arrested".

Quote

The reason for that one is if you lie, later on if they find out they can use that to invalidate your citizenship and deport you. I think they would be shocked if someone actually owned up to a crime.

Technically you'd have to list all the cases you were speeding (like driving 70 in a 65mph freeway - a crime), tailgating, or run a stop sign/red light. Maybe you used cell phone without hands-free, need to report it too. Of course if you ever bought weed or visited a hooker you'd have to list it too.

Quote

However if you are a career criminal who has been lucky so far chances are they will eventually find out and then you can't hide behind your US citizenship. They used that to deport an alleged Nazi concentration camp guard not long ago.

There is a separate question in N-400 which explicitly asks if you worked for Nazi government, so this was a different case.

Quote

True enough, but the conflict between keeping medical records private and public safety is a real issue. Cho was not considered to be so dangerous that he was involuntarily committed, so he fell outside the reporting guidelines. I think he was sent for evaluation, not treatment.

This article says he was sent for treatment, and that by Federal law it should make him incapable to buy a gun.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

This article says he was sent for treatment, and that by Federal law it should make him incapable to buy a gun.

Incorrect - GCA 68 references a person "who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution". Neither apply in Cho's case.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706