Where a Redneck Jew, a Hispanic Catholic, and a Computer Geek write about Gun Rights, Self Defense and whatever else we can think about.
Sean Sorrentino passed the info a bit ago.
Hi! We’re researchers from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. We are conducting a study to better understand audience evaluations of media coverage of gun regulations and gun rights.”
Click on this link and make them miserable.
Semi-retired like Vito Corleone before the heart attack. Consiglieri to J.Kb and AWA. I lived in a Gun Control Paradise: It sucked and got people killed. I do believe that Freedom scares the political elites.
Comments are closed.
“To what extent do you oppose or support restrictions on the sale of semi-automatic assault rifles?”
That should tell anyone all they need to know.
[edit]They have a comments question! My answer: “Semi-automatic rifles are not assault rifles, you under-evolved embarrassment to a chimpanzee.”
Done.
Ditto.
Ahh the wonderful “gun death” metric. like it matters what kind of tool you are killed with. Pretty much all of my notes in the poll were discussing the absolute dishonesty of that metric. Sure, gun control can reduce “gun deaths”. What it does not do is reduce the over all levels of violence, or reduce the murder rate. It is a lie to cover up the fact that gun control increases violence levels. Take the one metric that is actually reduce, ignore the other metrics that were not and declare victory.
Done. They are hoplophobes masquerading as intellectuals. Fuck them.
Believe I also told them I was a Trump-hating, left-leaning gay black man.
Did it and in the comments box wrote that they should stop lying by calling self-loaders assault weapons.
Per usual, they didn’t define “assault” weapon. It is a garbage term and a shibboleth of the Lefties.
There are multiple versions of the poll. Seems at least one is shorter and one longer.
you know these fools are biased when they pretend that Josh Horwitz has any credibility
I took the poll and refrained from any snarky comments (though it was tempting). I absolutely loved the fact that the free text boxes allowed apparently unlimited space. I carefully laid out logical arguments as to why one could not separate out “gun violence” from other violence, reminded them that the “most violent country” studies did not include the most violent countries, etc. it was even allowed to comment on whether the polls quoted were worthwhile, and I commented on that.
Polite, logical, factual: please encourage all of your friends to do the same thing. Who knows — maybe it will help.
I have been able to to take the poll a number of times. The last time was as a minority Dr card carrying member of the Dem party
As worded, the questions regarding Semi-auto Assault rifles are misleading. Assault rifles are full-auto or burst-fire weapons and are classified as NFA (National Firearms Act) weapons and require an extensive background check and purchase of a $200 Tax Stamp. Semi-auto rifles such the AR-15 and Ruger Mini-14 are sporting rifles and are often used in shooting sports such as 3-gun competition and are also popular and effective for use as home/ranch defensive weapons.
Heh….done. Hopefully you’ll link to the final study. I’ll have forgotten by then. Would love though, to see the look on CSGV faces when the results don’t pan out the way they thought.
Destroyed them in the comments. Pointed out the biased sources, reporting, selection bias, factual errors, nomenclature, and so on. Questioned why they were in journalism since they were so unqualified.
What a pile of excrement for a survey.
No, you want them to actually use your responses, not throw them out as “undesired.”
Pretty much pointed out that they already had decided what the poll results should be. I have a suspicion that a lot of entries will be cast out as unreliable when they don’t meet their prejudices.
Have taken the poll about 12 times now. Identified as a female democrat never married, and as a white male divorced, etc… Always added comments about limiting your view to gun violence presents a disingenuous argument.
Do they not see their own bias, in claiming a law just prevents people at increased risk from owning firearms, or in using the preposterous term “semi-automatic assault rifle”?
Note that in this type of internet survey, your multiple-choice answers are what counts. Free-form comments are used simply to disqualify your responses.
Heh! Hope they publish the results. I simply referred them back to the constitution and the concept of personal responsibility, a concept surely lost on these left wing Soros funded idiots.
For those who’re interested, this poll is on behalf of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, which is described here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_to_Stop_Gun_Violence
Note that according to that description the organization “advocates the repeal of the Second Amendment and making the private ownership of firearms in the United States unlawful.”
—–
Now some background. When I lived in Seattle, I was surveyed by a group that that wanted Pike Place Market to get millions in tax money. I’m clearly against that for principled reasons. It’s taking money from one business and giving it to another a block away merely because the second is part of an old public market. That’s grossly unfair.
I went round and round with that surveyor for about 15 minutes, as she tried to find an argument for the subsidy that I’d find acceptable. With me, she was wasting her time, but there are many voters whose POV is less well-defined and principled.
To give a for-instance, she pointed out that the last major tax subsidy had been twenty years before. My response wasn’t: “Oh, this doesn’t happen too often, so I must be OK,” like she had hoped. As I told her, that meant the organization running the market had twenty years to save up the money for needed repairs themselves. Failing that, they could borrow the money. What they had no right to was a tax-payer bailout.
Her efforts to find a pro-funding argument that such people would find appealing is why the survey was being done. Perhaps, it’d be “providing work.” Perhaps it would be “encouraging tourism to the city.” Those are poor arguments, since they don’t deal with the unfairness of taxing one store to subsidize another, but they do appeal to some voters.
——
That’s what the Coalition is doing here. What strong supporters of gun rights say will probably be ignored. What they’re looking for are arguments that those fearful of guns like, since they’ll contribute money, and those that appeal to the wishy-washy and ill-informed, since their votes can be used to pass laws.
You see that in the questions about “assault rifles.” No one who knows anything about weapons will find that claim persuasive. Ditto the appeal to “authority” in so-called fact-checking organizations. They want to see how effective such an appeal is to the ill-infomed, and how it should be stated. Savvy people know that so-called fact-checking organizations tend to be less about fact-checking and more about POV promoting.
–Michael W. Perry, co-author of Lily’s Ride (A novel that offers a marvelous illustration of the value of gun ownership. In it a teen girl must face the KKK on a dark road at night in 1870s North Carolina. She not only had a pistol, she knows how to use it and does. And yes, she also has a very fast horse.)
About the same way I feel about taxpayers guaranteeing bonds to construct football stadiums.
I had a problem with responding to this survey. It was the followup “How important is the issue of gun regulation” type questions. Say I “strongly oppose” regulating firearms. On the next question I am going to choose “strongly agree” or “strongly disagree” with the importance of the issue.
If I say “strongly agree” (based on the interpretation that this is a critical issue, just not in the way then mean it), then they can ignore my actual stance and lump me in with the eventual results that say “OMG!!!! Gun Regulation is really important to 93% of respondents!!!!”
If I say “strongly disagree” (based on the interpretation that gun *freedom* is an important issue to me whereas gun *regulation* is not) then they are free to discount my original opposition because the issue just isn’t that important to me.
The game is rigged, and any results published will somehow emphasize that the “gun regulation issue” is massively important (emphasis on the *regulation*) part.
Will do.
I recommend pasting the link in a different browser window, rather than just clicking on it. There is a small but real possibility the pollsters will realize they’re being trolled, and filter out clicks that identify this page as the referrer.
It’s likely the pollsters can programmatically delete or disregard results where the referrer field in the http GET command requesting their page is this page, for instance.
Alinsky would approve.
Done, 3 times, different ways, etc.
Done!
The 2nd amendment was written to allow my right to protect my family and my rights. It is not voidable.