Alphecca Caught Stretching the Truth
In another desperate attempt to bolster sagging gunloon morale, Alphecca breathlessly cites a Gallup Poll on the US public’s attitude toward gun laws:
a very slim majority — 51% — favor additional measures; 47% are against it.
In reality, the poll says 51% favor stricter gun laws, 8% favor less strict laws, 39% say keep laws as is, and 2% are unsure.
Ah well, you have to feel for the gunloon side; truth just has a liberal bias.
He said that 51% of the polled population supported the idea of increasing legislation, and 47% said they did not support it.
That’s demagogy, not stretching the truth.
Comment by Michael Hawkins — October 17, 2007 @ 9:11 am
It’s stretching the truth to its breaking point. As we know, the vast majority of gunloons believe there should be fewer gun laws. Alphecca is suggesting that the 47% represent this; in fact, very few support a reduction in gun laws. Additionally, as my link points out, when pollsters ask specific questions as to assault weapons and other firearms–the response is very much in favor of increased legislation.
Comment by Administrator — October 17, 2007 @ 9:38 am
Kind of like saying “most gun owners are hunters” and “most gun owners drink before shooting”.
Comment by thirdpower — October 17, 2007 @ 11:34 am
Actually, no. Of course, given your limited education, statistical inference is beyond your ken.
Comment by Administrator — October 17, 2007 @ 12:38 pm
I see Jademaroon isn’t bothering to note the poll also shows that almost 7 in 10 Americans do NOT favor handgun bans.
Comment by Sebastian-PGP — October 17, 2007 @ 3:12 pm
Oh I get it now, when I say that the majority of the Vtech victims families didn’t support the Brady campaigns push for stricter background checks, that’s wrong because less than half of them did support it!
And we can’t say that 47% of the people don’t support harsher laws, because a portion of them, in spite of not supporting harsher laws, don’t support abolishing current legislation either.
(/sarcasm)
And don’t trow the “you don’t know statistics” line at me, I aced my university course in “statistical analysis of experimental data”.
What classes have you taken recently? Hypochrisy 101?
Comment by Michael Hawkins — October 17, 2007 @ 3:12 pm
Hypochrisy 101?
Must resist urge…
isn’t bothering to note the poll also shows that almost 7 in 10 Americans do NOT favor handgun bans
I see the lying censor, Sebastian, has missed this post.
He obviously missed it because I hid it on the same page.
Comment by Administrator — October 17, 2007 @ 5:23 pm
“Truth just has a liberal bias”
I Agree.
Liberal.
As in Liberty.
As in Freedom.
An in The Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
Comment by CalebC — October 17, 2007 @ 5:37 pm
Holy crap, AssGold, I knew you couldn’t read, but you can’t do math either? Let’s see…39+8=..? Ok, 39 says “as is”, 8 says “less strict”, kinda sounds like they don’t favor stricter laws to me, but then again we live in the shadow of your reasoned discourse.
(cue some stupid 7th grade level taunt completely ignoring any fact in the above on behalf of AssGold, in an attempt to divert attention from his obvious appearance as a ignorant idiot.)
Comment by Matt — October 17, 2007 @ 5:53 pm
Must resist urge…
To shit on yourself? No, you’re not doing so well resisting that.
(cue some 4th grade level taunt since I actually quoted him here).
Comment by Matt — October 17, 2007 @ 5:54 pm
Actually, no. Of course, given your limited education, statistical inference is beyond your ken.
Ok, AssGold, let’s hear some of your statistical analysis. I’m good for that, let’s hear what you got. Please don’t bore me with someone else’s calculations, as you’re such an expert, please entertain us with your own.
(cue jibbering mass of dogshit since I not only quoted him this time, I actually asked him to calculate something. Be advised that any response, regardless of what it DOES contain, will most assuredly NOT contain any fact, calculation, or statistic of his own in response to any of the above question)
Hawkins-You getting this? Do you see the blatent bullshit avoidance of any comment? Or, are you as much a troll?
Comment by Matt — October 17, 2007 @ 5:57 pm
Matt: It would go over your pointy-little head as you weren’t bright enough to attend the Federal Military Academy. Reference my comment #2.
Alphecca’s dishonesty or ignorance (possibly both) is a classic example of framing bias in statistical inference. He is asserting two outcomes when, in truth, there are three.
Surely, even your GED can allow you to see this.
Comment by Administrator — October 17, 2007 @ 6:32 pm
Aw, c’mon Ass, I expected better. You feeling ok this eve? Wouldn’t want you to hurt yourself thinking of your next schoolyard taunt. Why don’t you take a couple hours, get back to me. We can do the statistics later, we have to get your pissant comments up to at least an acceptable level first.
Where are you Hawkins? I’m really interested to hear what you see in this bottom feeder.
Comment by Matt — October 17, 2007 @ 6:39 pm
Matt: Do you deserve better? I think not. Face facts; a libertarian without much of an education and a fouled up family life should be grateful his betters converse with him.
Comment by Administrator — October 17, 2007 @ 6:51 pm
Ok, that’s in the right direction, but still pretty anemic. You sure you’re ok? An energy bar, perhaps?
Comment by Matt — October 17, 2007 @ 7:05 pm
Matt: What can I say? After a day of running the Navy and good 3 mile run, I can still slap you about a bit.
Comment by Administrator — October 17, 2007 @ 7:06 pm
Jade: You’re an idiot.
Either you want stricter laws or you don’t. Pretending like there’s a big difference between “keeping them the same” and “lessening them” is a pointless exercise on your part.
The reality is that the two are functionally the same–opposition to stricter gun control.
Glad to see you’re still pretending I’m censoring something. I stand by my original position–not allowing you to call people names and behave like a child isn’t censoring anything anymore than it’s censorship that you can’t walk into district court for a traffic ticket and tell the judge to go fornicate himself.
Comment by Sebastian-PGP — October 17, 2007 @ 7:21 pm
As I’ve always maintained, Sebastian the Lying Censor™, you have every right to alter, edit, delete, change or revise comments on your site–if you choose.
But you can’t say you engage in Reasoned Discourse™ if you do. And you should fully expect to be called on it.
Switching topics: Do you ever call Matt, Jimmy?
Comment by Administrator — October 17, 2007 @ 7:30 pm
Calling me the Lying Censor is like calling Margaret Thatcher the emperor of Japan. It makes as much sense.
I haven’t lied about anything, and as I’ve stated, I haven’t censored anything either.
For the umpteenth time, telling you you can’t engage in nonsensical name calling instead of rational, reasoned arguments isn’t censoring anything.
Comment by Sebastian-PGP — October 17, 2007 @ 8:56 pm
Calling me the Lying Censor is like calling Margaret Thatcher the Emperor of Japan. It makes as much sense…seeing as I haven’t censored anything or lied about anything. Hint: saying something that isn’t true over and over and over doesn’t make it true.
Comment by Sebastian-PGP — October 17, 2007 @ 8:58 pm
Sebastian-PGP: You’re a lying, censor. Deal with it. You couldn’t handle dissent from your views and you censored.
Comment by Administrator — October 17, 2007 @ 9:33 pm
Another way of looking at it: if we’re hiding something or not telling the whole story…and support for gun control is so robust, why aren’t any of the DNC candidates publicly pandering for Brady support? Why are the GOP candidates (even the ones who frankly aren’t all that great on the RKBA issue) scrambling for NRA street cred in very visible fashion?
And why are gun control proposals dead letter issues that get no traction?
The plain reality is that there are more of us, and we’re more passionate. We can bicker back and forth all day long about this poll and that one…
The scoreboard doesn’t lie, and doesn’t care about your ego. Gun control is a weak animal compared to the gun rights movement.
Comment by Sebastian-PGP — October 17, 2007 @ 9:41 pm
I’ll ask again: what did I lie about?
And what did I censor? And how does hurling a juvenile playground taunt from behind a cowardly assumed name represent a “dissent” from my views?
If you actually would articulate something approaching a rational, logical argument that wasn’t riddled with factual, grammatical,and punctuation errors, I’d be happy to let it stand.
Comment by Sebastian-PGP — October 17, 2007 @ 9:44 pm
Sebastian the Lying Censor™: The NRA is sooo powerful that the GOP candidates for Prez all have records of opposing most, if not all, NRA positions.
Hey, that’s power.
And that recent gun control legislation in CA sure was a dead letter. Good job, NRA, in killing that off.
Meanwhile, in GA, in a GOP stonghold–you have GOP lawmakers complaining about the NRA. Great job there!
Fact is, you want fewer gun control laws. And the fact is you can’t get double digits of the Populace to support your agenda. Meanwhile, each and every poll shows I have a majority of Americans supporting my views. Yet, I’m losing? Drink up.
Comment by Administrator — October 17, 2007 @ 9:54 pm
As I pointed out in the other thread, you’re simply wrong about the GOP candidates. Romney and Rudy suck on the issue, but they’re at least sucking up to the NRA.
By way of contrast, nobody on the Dem side is kissing Sarah Brady’s old wrinkly ass.
Unsurprisingly you can’t seem to point to anything I’m lying about or censoring.
Wow, you passed a stupid useless law in one of the worst states for gun rights in the US! Meantime, we’ve gained about 30 right to carry states in the last ten years, and even here in MD gun control laws can’t get passed.
GA is solidly in the RKBA camp, not sure what you’re talking about there. Not that anyone is going to be holding out waiting for you to substantiate your argument.
Each and every poll? Hardly. Polls show a majority much greater than any you enjoy does NOT want to ban handguns.
The majority you do enjoy on the stricter laws question is now one measly point above fifty percent, and has lost about 7 or 8 points in two years. That’s called a trend, dipshyte.
Comment by Sebastian-PGP — October 17, 2007 @ 10:00 pm
And I’ll ask one more time…if your support is so strong, why can’t McCarthy get an AWB on the table? Why are we gaining CCW states all the time? Why is gun control at the Federal level a non issue? Why is the Brady Bunch all but ignored?
Comment by Sebastian-PGP — October 17, 2007 @ 10:01 pm
Damn, AssGold is going backwards. Who is Jimmy and why would he be calling me? Since it is someone you apparently have made up, can you at least answer THAT question? Shouldn’t be as hard as the others for you.
Comment by Matt — October 18, 2007 @ 4:04 am
Jeebus, JimmyMatt is up early. Must be an urgent landscaping project.
I see Sebastian-PGP is still trying to defend being made a dupe by the NRA. Yup, gun control at the Federal level is certainly dead as evidenced by the explosion of more FFL dealers. Wait….oh, well. And gun ownership is going down..ooops. And closing the gun show loophole has been killed…wait, not.
Comment by Administrator — October 18, 2007 @ 7:48 am
And the AFT has not been investigated for abuses? Congress has not limited funds for shutting down firearm dealers? You have proof of less gun ownership besides old phone surveys? Seems sales are climbing:
http://www.shootingindustry.com/Pages/SpecRep1.html
Doesn’t really show decreased ownership, does it?
What bill closes the “loophole”?
Comment by thirdpower — October 18, 2007 @ 8:02 am
Third: Your ignorance is astounding. I’m truly amazed.
Comment by Administrator — October 18, 2007 @ 8:24 am
So you’ve got nothing. Same as always. Not that we really expect anything more.
Comment by thirdpower — October 18, 2007 @ 8:30 am
“Third: Your ignorance is astounding. I’m truly amazed.”
… because …?
Sooner or later you’re gonna have to start explaining yourslef and backing up your statements.
Oh Matt, I made that post before hitting the sack, and I spend the bigger part of my day stuck in a lab.
A troll? Yeah maybe, I gave up on engaging in conversation ’round these parts a long time ago. Beyond redemption and all that, I’m sure he feels the same about me.
Comment by Michael Hawkins — October 18, 2007 @ 10:28 am
MH: You are beyond redemption but you can probably explain that away because you’re just a student.
Third is ignorant because he confuses gun ownership with gun sales. He is assuming 1 gun=1 owner. Of course, this is an assumption borne in ignorance.
Comment by Administrator — October 18, 2007 @ 11:22 am
BTW, MH, you have to chart your own course in life but do you really want to be a middle-aged man like JimmyMatt who hangs out at forums talking about the length of their knives? It’s up to you.
Comment by Administrator — October 18, 2007 @ 11:27 am
Jan-June 2007 NICS reports 5,221,633 background checks, up 19% from the same period last year!
Comment by The Duck — October 18, 2007 @ 11:43 am
The Duck obviously has been drinking from the same bucket of stupid as Third.
“Why?’ chimes in MH.
Well, MH, 80% of the firearms in the US are owned by 20% of the population. This means, MH, that 1 gun sale does not equal 1 gun owner. (Am I going too fast for you, MH?)
Next, NICS transactions do not represent all gun sales. Further, NICS transactions have been increased but still do not capture all gun sales.
Comment by Administrator — October 18, 2007 @ 11:55 am
Sorry butterbar, I never claimed that 1 sale=1 owner. That would be your fallacy. You, however, are claiming that all sales are going to fewer owners. More FOS by Jade.
Comment by thirdpower — October 18, 2007 @ 12:38 pm
Explaining to MH WRT Third’s silliness; Third did indeed respond to my fact that gun ownership is declining by stating gun sales are increasing. Nor did I claim all sales are going to fewer owners. It would be more accurate to state that some sales are going to fewer owners as not all gun transcations are recorded.
Comment by Administrator — October 18, 2007 @ 12:43 pm
There is no Reasoned Discourse here,
the Administrator would have to be able to reason, & he only wants to argue, & call names.
So sales are up but fewer people are buying? that’s possible, but I keep seeing alot of first time buyers,
Comment by The Duck — October 18, 2007 @ 1:03 pm
Duck: Stop being silly.
First Time Gun Buyers the Exception:
Comment by Administrator — October 18, 2007 @ 1:15 pm
That’s rich. You whine about “gun loons” using polls that are ten years out of date and then you use a newspaper article from over 7 years ago. Mine data was from last year. All yours showed was that there are a lot of people who buy more than one firearm. Not that there are “less” owners. It’s own stats state that between 20-40% of customers are “new”.
Got anything recent butterbar?
Comment by thirdpower — October 18, 2007 @ 1:42 pm
Yes and CBS is the most slanted of the networks, of course Jade will tell us there is no media bias among the networks
Comment by The Duck — October 18, 2007 @ 1:49 pm
MH: Since Third is partly illiterate, here’s a more recent study from NORC which shows gun ownership has declined 20% in the last 20 years. The NORC study validates the CBS report.
Comment by Administrator — October 18, 2007 @ 2:00 pm
Isn’t that cute. A VPC “study” paper. I guess you don’t understand the difference between lower total numbers and lower percentage of. It says between ‘80 and ‘06 the percentage dropped 9% of ownership and 20% of households. Yet the US population increased from 225 million to 300 million.
Go get your calculator and do the math.
Comment by thirdpower — October 18, 2007 @ 2:52 pm
MH: I should have anticipated Third’s goofy response–he wants cites but only, apparently, if they come from the NRA or other gunloon organizations.
MH, I realize you’re a bit wet behind the ears but NORC is one of this nation’s most prestigious social sciences research organization. It is affiliated with the University of Chicago and is a leader in reseach concerning technology, criminal justice, education and energy.
Comment by Administrator — October 18, 2007 @ 3:09 pm
Now if the butter bar had actually cited the NORC instead of a secondary source like the VPC that openly admits to lying to achieve their goals, it might be a different story.
I guess the math was to difficult for JG .
Comment by thirdpower — October 18, 2007 @ 3:15 pm
MH: I also should have realized Third wouldn’t actually read the study. Instead, he saw VPC and like a vampire encountering a crucifix was driven away.
Comment by Administrator — October 18, 2007 @ 4:48 pm
I primarily realize I’ve been doing the right thing getting my data from the department of justice, and not lobbyist organizations.
.
Furthermore, we’re all regurgitation our own old speeches here, why are you trying to convince each other (or me for that matter).
.
Now, for future reference: If I describe something as demagogy (first comment) THAT’s your cue for attacking the statement, not the actual math involved, because your issue is with how the guy presented them, not the validity of the numbers.
Comment by Michael Hawkins — October 19, 2007 @ 6:54 am