Bloomberg Says Interpretation of Constitution Will ‘Have to Change’ After Boston Bombing

[rushmc 18]

YOu go ahead
I will use Gallup

I see you still have a Fox fedish however......

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

[wmw999 2,122]

You're using Breitbart, not Gallup. He's using some of Gallup (selected to back his point) -- if you evaluated the Gallup data yourself, and potentially included other material that Breitbart hadn't, then you'd be using Gallup.

You can accurately say that you're using Breitbart, who backs his data up with Gallup. But attribute the conclusions whence they came.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[rushmc 18]

It works both ways Wendy

Directly from Gallup

And this piece really represents HOW polls do really work

Quote

Prioritizing Gun Violence Reduction Measures
Only 4% of Americans say that gun violence or gun issues constitute the most important problem facing the country today, based on our April 4-7 monthly update of the "most important problem" measure. This puts guns in the same 4% category as immigration issues, education, and the situation with North Korea.

This also puts guns -- on this measure -- well below a number of other economic and governmental issues (we’ll have a full discussion of these results on Monday at gallup.com).

Trend wise, the mention of gun issues is about where it has been since December, when it jumped to 4% from virtually no mentions in November. This increase was, no doubt, a direct result of the impact of the Newtown, Conn., elementary school shootings. The mention of guns as the most important problem has stayed at about this level since December -- at 4% in January, 6% in February, and 4% in March and April.

Does the very low level of mentions of gun violence as the nation’s top problem mean that Americans don’t want Congress to pass gun legislation? No, I don’t think this is the case. This type of top-of-mind question is, by its nature, exclusionary. We actually allow respondents to name more than one issue, and many do. But by its nature, this question focuses the respondents in on “the” most important problem. And just because few Americans volunteer that guns are the most important problem off the top of their heads doesn’t mean that this isn’t considered to be an important priority when measured in different ways.

However, a Pew Research poll conducted Jan. 9-13 of this year asked Americans to rate 21 issues in terms of being top priorities for the president and Congress. The results showed a range from 86% who said that strengthening the economy was a top priority to 28% who said that dealing with global warming was a top priority.

“Strengthening gun laws” came in fourth from the bottom, with 37% saying that it was a top priority.

In short, both an open-ended question asking about the nation’s top problems and a closed list of questions asking Americans to rate issues as priorities show the same thing. Gun issues have a relatively low priority.

A January Gallup survey approached this topic in a somewhat different way and found that 51% of Americans were dissatisfied with the nation's gun laws, while 43% were satisfied. This 51% dissatisfaction rating put gun laws at about the middle of the list of those issues measured. Other elements of American life where more than half were dissatisfied included the nation’s policies on crime, the quality of public education, healthcare, immigration, the amount Americans pay in taxes, the nation’s efforts to deal with poverty, and in particular the state of the nation’s economy (79% dissatisfied).

So gun laws were not high on the list of concerns using this measure either, although the finding that slightly more than half were dissatisfied indicates some level of concern. (But a follow-up question asked of those who were dissatisfied with the nation’s gun laws showed that not all of this dissatisfaction was because the laws should be made stronger; some thought the laws should be made less strong, while others didn’t know or couldn’t say.)

This is not to say that Americans are not in favor of stronger gun violence control measures. As my colleague Lydia Saad summarized in her review of the gun violence control measures proposed by President Obama a couple of months ago:

“Given the chance to vote 'for' or 'against' each of nine key proposals included in President Barack Obama's plan to reduce gun violence, Americans back all nine. Americans are most likely to be in favor of requiring background checks for all gun sales (91%), increasing funding for mental health programs aimed at youth (82%), increasing funding for programs to train law enforcement and schools in responding to active armed attacks (79%), and increasing criminal penalties for people who buy guns for others -- so-called straw purchasers (75%).”

So Americans favor laws that would be aimed at controlling gun violence, but the data don’t suggest that passing such laws is their highest priority at this point in time.

None of this speaks to the issue of intense focus on this issue among niche groups of Americans. That issue is of course of significant concern to Representatives and Senators seeking re-election. Smaller groups of gun activists -- on either side of the issue -- can make a difference in a close elections. So elected officials in Washington face a situation in which they recognize that the average American favors passing gun violence control measures (particularly measures like background checks), but one in which the average American does not consider these measures to be of the highest priority. But, a situation in which the officials may well recognize that smaller groups of constituents in his or her district or state may care very deeply about gun measures, making their decisions on how to handle pending gun legislation complicated indeed.

http://pollingmatters.gallup.com/

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

[regulator 0]

I could care less what polling method you use.

You are polling a very small percentage of the population...then extrapolating that into saying that the entire nation agrees with the results.

Its a complete farce. And don't try to quote some archaic result from some election. I simply don't care.

Id like to see you try and poll 100 people from my county and see if you get the same results.

I'm reposting this link...because according to this...that 90% failed miserably. Just like the gun control package.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/04/24/why-the-american-public-isnt-mad-as-hell-about-the-failure-of-the-gun-bill-in-numbers/?hpid=z2

And seeing biden look like he's about to cry because he couldn't help destroy the constitution:

PRICELESS

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

You're using Breitbart, not Gallup. He's using some of Gallup (selected to back his point) -- if you evaluated the Gallup data yourself, and potentially included other material that Breitbart hadn't, then you'd be using Gallup..

OK, now I'm confused. What has this got to do with horses?

[wmw999 2,122]

If you pretty carefully randomized the sample, and selected the questions well (i.e. not too many choices), then you would consistently get a poll result that matched the eventual outcome. I believe we live in the same county, or at least very close to it.

Not every single time, but consistently. Otherwise, election forecasts would be a crapshoot every time, and they're not.

The trick with statistics is to be honest with them.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Coulter's got the skinny.

probably too much. A little more muscle tone, less eye liner would do her a world of good. She'd have to agree to fewer rants also.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

Coulter's got the skinny.

probably too much. A little more muscle tone, less eye liner would do her a world of good. She'd have to agree to fewer rants also.

I just want to throw a steak at her and yell "Eat this!"*








.
*I hereby disavow any insensitivity to eating disorders.

[skypuppy 1]

Quote

>Explain to me exactly how that number of 90% is made up.

By asking a large number of people, collating their answers and doing some higher math. For example, if you ask 10,000 people that question, and 9000 of them said "yes, I support universal background checks" then you would do that math and arrive at the 90% number.

>Just sticking 100 democrats in a room and getting 90 of them to come to a
>conclusion about background checks doesn't mean that 260 million people agree with
>it.

Correct! But asking 100 randomly selected people does. Asking 1000 is even better. The Quinnipac poll used 1700 poll responses, for example.

>This whole 90% conclusion is a complete farce.

Because it disagrees with your preconceptions? Such facts can often cause people great distress when that happens.

There are several problems with that gallup poll. They asked IIRC 1012 households. Now, for that household, although many females do actually own guns and carry, it is very possible that a female in the household will give a different answer than a male in the household. So it;s quite possible that the answer is not necessarily what everyone in the household would give.

Another problem is in the wording. The question asked about firearms purchases, as if that is the only way firearms move. But what about other firearms transactions. Guns inherited, passed around, traded between family members or close friends.

The legislation and the poll are treating all transactions as if they are purchases, which is not true.

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

.

You are polling a very small percentage of the population...then extrapolating that into saying that the entire nation agrees with the results.

Its a complete farce. And don't try to quote some archaic result from some election. I simply don't care.

In a unbiased, random sample the accuracy of the result will be based on the size of the sample, not the size of the entire population.

Sometimes samples are not unbiased and sometimes poll questions are not well designed but extrapolating from a small number to a large population is the basis for all polls and very well established.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[Kennedy 0]

Bill, which is more likely, that 90% of Americans agree on ANYTHING, or that it is actually split up and about half the population isn't upset that no new guns laws were passed?

Your poll makes me wonder if people don't know that gun dealers are ALREADY required to conduct regular background checks at gunshows. There are plenty of uniform folks out there who can be taken advantage of without even needing to use leading questions or biased sampling.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I just want to throw a steak at her and yell "Eat this!"*

yeah, but then she'd follow you around and you'd have to feed her and get her shots taken care of and clean up after her.

next thing you know you're taking her to the dropzone and she'd get fidgety from being tied up at the camper all day

it's not worth it

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 2,400]

>There are several problems with that gallup poll.

And the Quinnipac poll, and the WaPo poll? All of which returned results within a few percent of each other? Quite the organized conspiracy they have going on there. Best "de-skew" those polls to arrive at the truth; that works well.

[regulator 0]

Quote

Quote

I just want to throw a steak at her and yell "Eat this!"*

yeah, but then she'd follow you around and you'd have to feed her and get her shots taken care of and clean up after her.

next thing you know you're taking her to the dropzone and she'd get fidgety from being tied up at the camper all day

it's not worth it

---------------------------------------------------------
If a large man cornered you in an alley and had four doors. He has a huge knife and promised to cut you open if you dont comply. He insisted that you MUST have sex with one of the four following women:

1.) Nancy Pelosi
2.) Michelle Obama
3.) Ann Coulter
4.) Dianne Feinstein

Fortunately for you theres a window on each door and you can see whats inside before choosing.

GO

[rehmwa 2]

if you have to ask, of those four it would be Ann (it would be ok, but uncomforable, like doing an ex girlfriend), Michelle would be next (Ok, but like doing your friends very "sturdy" sister), after that, I'd probably choose the knife.....

but it's a loaded question like asking if you'd like to have a cheap hot dog for lunch vs a large piece of cardboard vs 2 different types of feces.....


but,,,,,different strokes for different folks

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I just want to throw a steak at her and yell "Eat this!"*

yeah, but then she'd follow you around and you'd have to feed her and get her shots taken care of and clean up after her.

next thing you know you're taking her to the dropzone and she'd get fidgety from being tied up at the camper all day

it's not worth it

---------------------------------------------------------
If a large man cornered you in an alley and had four doors. He has a huge knife and promised to cut you open if you dont comply. He insisted that you MUST have sex with one of the four following women:

1.) Nancy Pelosi
2.) Michelle Obama
3.) Ann Coulter
4.) Dianne Feinstein

Fortunately for you theres a window on each door and you can see whats inside before choosing.

GO

Michelle Malkin

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[wmw999 2,122]

Well, Nancy and Dianne are both post-menopausal, so they'd need lube. Michelle Obama is pretty buff. Ann Coulter is awfully skinny, nothing to squeeze.

If you ignore that whole married-to-the-President thing, it's obvious to me.

I'm not even a guy, and I can figure this one out.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Stumpy 256]

Quote

Well, Nancy and Dianne are both post-menopausal, so they'd need lube.

People in the office are looking at me funny and I really don't want to explain what I am laughing at.

Cheers Wendy

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[ManagingPrime 0]

Right on! I concur.

When considering Ann, there's the whole Bill Maher history to consider as well..... God knows what that guy was doing in the 80's and 90's.

[billvon 2,400]

>Your poll makes me wonder if people don't know that gun dealers are
>ALREADY required to conduct regular background checks at gunshows.

I suspect that they do; that's why it's called a loophole. Dealers do have to conduct background checks; there's a loophole that allows ordinary Joes to sell guns at gun shows with no background checks whatsoever. Most people understand the meaning of "loophole."

> There are plenty of uniform folks out there who can be taken advantage of
>without even needing to use leading questions or biased sampling.

Sure, you can assume most people are ignorant of such things. I find that's generally a mistake.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I suspect that they do; that's why it's called a loophole. Dealers do have to conduct background checks; there's a loophole that allows ordinary Joes to sell guns at gun shows with no background checks whatsoever. Most people understand the meaning of "loophole."

do you? Its definition involves being able to do something you ordinarily can't do. At a gun show you can't buy from a dealer with a 4473 background check, just like you can't at the FFL's place of business. And at a gun show you can buy from an individual (non FFL) without such a check, just like you can outside in the parking lot, provided the state in question allows for private sales. These aren't loopholes, there are consistent laws.

And for those who say someone in California can drive out of state and buy at a gun show without a check....that's not a loophole either, that's multiple felonies.

Quote

Sure, you can assume most people are ignorant of such things. I find that's generally a mistake.

It's pretty well established that 'people' have a poor understanding of automatic versus semiautomatic, of what armor piercing bullets and hollowpoints are for, and many bought into the myth of the plastic glock that could go through airport security. The Brady Bunch relies on people's ignorance to promote their agenda.

[billvon 2,400]

> Its definition involves being able to do something you ordinarily can't do.

Correct.

> At a gun show you can't buy from a dealer with a 4473 background check, just like
>you can't at the FFL's place of business.

Correct. The loophole? You can buy exactly the same weapon at exactly the same show from a non-dealer with no background check at all.

> And at a gun show you can buy from an individual (non FFL) without such a check,
>just like you can outside in the parking lot

Correct. The solution? Don't have laws that are specific to gun shows, or parking lots, or dealers, or the Internet. Every single one of those has a simple loophole that can be used to get around it. Simplify the law. Everyone who sells a gun has to get a background check done. Period.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

> Its definition involves being able to do something you ordinarily can't do.

Correct.

> At a gun show you can't buy from a dealer with a 4473 background check, just like
>you can't at the FFL's place of business.

Correct. The loophole? You can buy exactly the same weapon at exactly the same show from a non-dealer with no background check at all.

uh, if you're accepting my definition, buying a weapon from a citizen is something you ordinarily can do, anywhere within the state. The rules don't change just because there are FFLs nearby. You'll need to distort the definition a bit to achieve your desired result.

[billvon 2,400]

>uh, if you're accepting my definition, buying a weapon from a citizen is something
>you ordinarily can do, anywhere within the state.

Including gun shows. Hence the gun show loophole - a way to legally buy a gun from someone at a gun show without any background check.

"Hey, I want to buy that Glock. Do we need to run a background check?"
"Yes, it's the law."
"Oh, uh, never mind."

"Hey, I want to buy that Glock. Do we need to run a background check?"
"Yes, it's the law."
"Oh, uh, never mind."

"Hey, I want to buy that Glock. Do we need to run a background check?"
"Yes, it's the law."
"Oh, uh, never mind."

"Hey, I want to buy that Glock. Do we need to run a background check?"
"Nope, not at this table my friend."
"Excellent! I'll take it."

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

The Brady Bunch

Just to digress a sec, the fairly frequent use of that vaguely mocking term is going to be viewed as rhetorical chickenshit - a sort of thinly-veiled name-calling - by the large number of as-yet undecided moderates and fence-sitters. Bad form and counter-productive, and (IMO) beneath someone like yourself, who is blessed with intelligence and the ability to articulate well.

Just a little coaching; and you don't even have to cover my slot.