Politifact
In March 2013, Lee Leffingwell, then the mayor of Austin, Texas, made
a two-part claim that includes the claim Taylor made. He said 90
percent of Americans and 74 percent of NRA members support background
checks of gun purchasers. PolitiFact Texas rated his claim True.
The key evidence was an article published
in the New England Journal of Medicine on a poll done in January 2013
by two entities at Johns Hopkins University -- the Department of Health
Policy and Management and the Center for Gun Policy and Research.
The poll was conducted online among 2,703 adults -- including 169 NRA members -- through GfK Knowledge Networks,
which specializes in working with academic and government researchers
to do polling online. It recruits participants randomly via mail and
telephone.
The poll found that 74 percent (to be precise, 73.7 percent) of NRA
members supported requiring background checks for all gun sales. (The
margin of error was seven points.)
What's the percentage of NRA members who want to make it a crime to sell or loan a gun? I bet a lot lower.
ReplyDeleteMath is a powerful thing. Where else can 125 responses out of 2,703 result in showing the wishes of an organization with members numbering in the millions.
ReplyDeleteWhat are the "250 responses" you're talking about?
DeleteIsn't Politifact in the business of sussing out statistical problems?
"honesty"....Honesty is thinking because 125 individuals agree with something in an online poll which likely did not verify if the respondents were truthful in saying they were NRA members that it must surely mean that 3684875 other individuals are irrefutably like minded?......Hog Wash.....All polls are full of Shit and so is the NRA
ReplyDeleteI didn't get that the conclusion is "other individuals are irrefutably like minded." It's just talking about percentages.
Delete" It's just talking about percentages."...Right Mike and the 73.7 percent of 5000000+or-...Theres now way to know thats accurate after speaking to just 169 members..its nothing more than pulling numbers out of their ass.....Im sure I could find 125 Democrats that are anti abortion but to then say 75% of Dems are anti abortion based on those peoples responses would just be a completely dishonest conclusion would it not?.
ReplyDelete"The poll found that 74 percent (to be precise, 73.7 percent) of NRA members supported requiring background checks for all gun sales. (The margin of error was seven points.)"......you see the conclusion was 74% of all NRA members want BGC's....had the just been straight forth and said 74 percent of the 169 NRA members polled wanted BGC's but to try and extrapolate 125 into 3.8 million is dishonest and in no way accurate..dont you think?....or do you really think almost 75 percent of the members of an organization you hate and belittle on a regular basis are in agreement with you on BGC's?....If i had to guess like this poll did I would put that number at well under 10% thats a much more likely number
The truth is I find it hard to believe that the majority of NRA members support universal background checks. But, that doesn't mean it's a bad idea. It would save lives and as some of you guys often remind me, popularity has nothing to do with it.
DeleteMy only point Mike was that the poll is dishonest as are all polls that try to group large amounts of people by the opinion of a few....I know you hate the NRA and want BGC's and you know I hate the NRA and dont believe in BGC's
DeleteSo, we've agreed that the 90% number was inflated, but we're supposed to take this number at face value?
ReplyDeleteCommon sense would say that if one of their results is suspect the other is too.
It's nice you gun guys want to make it appear NRA members do not want background checks, but many soyrces over many years have come up with similar results, a majority of NRA members do want background checks.
ReplyDeleteSo give them more background checks then instead of offering more crimes. I highly doubt those people want more frivolous crimes around everyday gun ownership which somehow the gun control movement equates to being the same as background checks.
Delete"I highly doubt those people want more frivolous crimes around everyday gun ownership"
DeleteI don't doubt it since their position is to lobby against basic safety like gun safes, and then claim such safety rules are somehow unconstitutional according to their perverted reading of the 2nd A.
"I don't doubt it since their position is to lobby against basic safety like gun safes, and then claim such safety rules are somehow unconstitutional according to their perverted reading of the 2nd A."
DeleteInteresting that the "perverted" reading of the Second Amendment also seems to match this little known Supreme Court decision called Heller.
As for them lobbying against gun safes, in truth, they sell them,
"Our newest safe requires only one finger swipe for instantaneous access to your firearm. Featuring state-of-the-art biometric technology, the Inprint™ scans individual fingerprints to authorize its unlocking sequence. Up to 15 separate fingerprints may be enrolled into its memory with a simple setup process."
http://www.nrastore.com/gear/gun-safes/nra-inprinttm-micro-biometric-gun-safe
And of course, there is the safety program called Project Childsafe which provides FREE gun locks to people to properly secure their firearms.
Did Heller make gun safes unconstitutional? I didn't know that. Did Heller make gun safety rules unconstitutional? I didn't know that either, because it's not true.
Delete
Delete"Did Heller make gun safes unconstitutional? I didn't know that. Did Heller make gun safety rules unconstitutional? I didn't know that either, because it's not true."
Well Fred, if Heller has no effect on gun safes, or gun safety rules as you claim, then why exactly did you bring it up in the first place? As I've shown, the NRA actually makes money selling gun safes. Plus the gun industry has spent millions of dollars promoting gun safety through education and supplying free gun locks. Both result in real world immediate results in improved safety. I've even done the same thing on an individual level. I upgraded to a larger pistol vault and gifted someone with my smaller, but still functional vault because they didn't have one. And I doubt I'm alone among gun owners who have done that.
I also have several cable type gun locks from my new gun purchases to give away to those in need because I prefer to secure all of my unloaded firearms with trigger locks.
Here's an interesting thought, how many extra gun locks would be available for those that need it if former Mayor Bloomberg were to kick in say a million dollars to Project Childsafe. Or, if he didn't want to be associated with the firearms, he could easily start his own program that provides similar services.
Though I think he would score much better PR if he worked with them. It would be a move that would convey that he's willing to work with a group on an issue that in this particular instance, is a common concern. I honestly don't see a downside.
Do I think it will happen? Nope.
"interesting that the "perverted" reading of the Second Amendment also seems to match this little known Supreme Court decision called Heller."
DeleteYou brought it up.
I did so by quoting you Fred. It comes right from your comment at 5:15 PM. Did you forget you said it? Notice the quotation marks I used when I quoted you?
DeleteI quoted you from your earlier comment at 2:11am. Notice the quotation marks I used when quoting you. Guess you forgot you said it.
Delete"I quoted you from your earlier comment at 2:11am."
DeleteYep, and those words are yours from your comment just previous to it that I cited. The words in quotes are all yours. The words below it are mine. Are you trying to tell me that you don't know what you said in a comment in the same thread?
Or perhaps I can send your very words back to you,
"Guess you forgot you said it."