“As the anniversary of the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School approaches, one third of Americans – and women in particular – say the level of gun violence in the United States today is a crisis,” CBS News reports, “and most call it at least a very serious problem.” That’s the news network’s take away from a telephone poll of 1,120 randomly selected adults that they commissioned. Setting aside the fact that . . .
gun owners picking up the phone in a solidly pro-gun household aren’t likely to talk to a pollster about firearms, check out the wording in the graphic above.
For one thing, the term “gun violence” is prima facie prejudicial. For another, note the option “allow more law-abiding citizens to carry guns.” Allow? That assumes that the right to keep and bear arms is a privilege, not a right.
Anyway, thanks to the [rarely-seen] link to the questions asked and the full response stats [click here to view], CBS anti-gun rights bias is clearly revealed.
The graphic at the top of this post leads readers to believe that Americans see “stricter gun laws” as a better solution to “gun violence” than “allowing” law-abiding Americans to tool-up by a margin of 41 to 29 percent.
Yes, well, the survey results above show that 40 percent of respondents think stricter gun laws would do “not much” or “nothing at all” to “prevent gun violence.” Compare that to this . . .
According to this data, 51 percent of respondents think that “allowing” more public firearms carriage would do “a lot” or “some” to “prevent gun violence.”
Bottom line: carrying guns in public beats stricter gun laws for preventing “gun violence” by 50 to 40 percent. Well, that’s how I spin it. By revealing only the results of the answer “a lot” to the options, CBS leads readers to believe that the majority of Americans favor “strict gun laws” more than armed self-defense.
Hang on. What does the term “stricter gun laws” mean?
The CBS-funded poll doesn’t define it. Could a respondent consider harsher penalties for firearms-related crime “stricter gun laws”? D’uh. And that would create more than a little overlap on answer e.
Again, CBS’ graphic only lists the percentage of respondents who answered “a lot” to the tougher sentencing solution (48 percent). If we combine “a lot” and “some” a staggering 74 percent of respondents support tougher sentencing for criminals and gang members as a way to “prevent gun violence.”
That pretty much squares with the 60 percent support for “stricter gun laws.” It also beats the pants off the other methods to “prevent gun violence” — except the 89 percent total support for “better mental health screening.” Which tells me that Americans see crazed mass killers as a serious threat. And nothing more.
You see how this works? Not only do “serious” news organizations taking polls on firearms-related issues start with an anti-gun bias, they end with it too. Fake news indeed.
Once again, what is the point of taking opinion polls regarding questions that are not matters of opinion?
It closes the FAKE NEWS OODA Loop.
At first glance, it looks like most if not all of these questions are matters of opinion. What are you talking about?
> setting aside the fact that gun owners picking up the phone in a solidly pro-gun household aren’t likely to talk to a pollster about firearms
[citation needed]
I wouldn’t – Rincoln 12/12/2017
I don’t take any polls. If they want my opinion they can buy it with cold hard cash.
Look at the caller ID. If I don’t recognize it, it goes to voice mail. Any question on guns get a hang up.
I’d have to go through the entire set of internals, especially the data set and methodology, to really get into the guts of this poll and see what they really did.
That said, most of these polls do have their internals published but they’re a real PITA to find in many cases. In recent memory I can think of four or five polls hat just failed to publish their internals. The recent Harvard study on millennial opinions being one of them. On that one I suspect that I know why they didn’t but I can’t prove it.
“and women in particular” – so the main stream “news” media.
Just a note….
“Tougher sentences on criminals” is only one-third of the formula. The other two: highly increased certainty of detection/arrest; highly increased certainty of conviction.
Pull any leg from the three-legged stool….
“Could help a lot to reduce gun violence:”
I didn’t see “honest reporting in the media of legal defensive gun uses or a general decline in violent crime for the past several years” as being one of the choices… 🤠
Lots of value in asking a bunch of randos to pick a multiple choice opinion option regarding a subject none of them know anything about.
Why I myself just gave my opinion on a poll asking which medication I thought most effective in treating high cholesterol. Does it matter that I take no such meds, do not treat people who take such meds, have never researched such meds for any reason ever? Of course not! My opinion matters! Now let’s move on some legislation based on my opinion!
My favorite response for opinion polls and telemarketers.
It is all fake news.
I read some fluff piece earlier this week where the author wrote that terrorist acts are more of a nuisance than a crises. Now this is also stupid as well. I can’t believe people actually have time to answer phone inquiries, albeit while I type a response to the inquiry, hahahahahah. Seriously though, where is this country headed? I’m worried.
In other news, CBS poll reveals anti Trump bias, anti conservative bias, anti American bias, anti Christian bias, etc., etc. News at 11.
72% think armed guards or police will help prevent gun violence. Wow, the sheepole really just want to pay to have more jack booted thugs telling them what to do in their everyday lives.
I guess people are that stupid because they’re more likely to be shot by aggro cops in a church, school, or hotel than a mass shooter or a gangbanger.
My fellow Americans, government funded and trained officials of any capacity are not your friends.
I don’t know what non-political use opinions without facts could be. “Mental health” would presumably cover the bulk of gun deaths (suicides). Arguably tougher punishment of criminals who use guns to commit crimes would dramatically reduce Chicago style gun violence.
But most people have no idea about the specifics of current gun laws. Nor is the average non gun owner familiar enough with different weapons to have a meaningful opinion on what should be allowed and what should not. My ex mother in law couldn’t comprehend that my revolver didn’t have a safety. Nor was she aware what a safety does and doesn’t do. Most non-gun owners would say that an AR-15 is “bad” if it’s black but an AK47 is ok if it has wood on it. They are truly clueless.
Yes, well, the survey results above show that 40 percent of respondents think stricter gun laws would do “not much” or “nothing at all” to “prevent gun violence.”
…
51 percent of respondents think that “allowing” more public firearms carriage would do “a lot” or “some” to “prevent gun violence.”
Bottom line: carrying guns in public beats stricter gun laws for preventing “gun violence” by 50 to 40 percent. Well, that’s how I spin it.
Spin it indeed. You’re substituting the percentage of respondents who answered negatively about gun control for the percentage who responded positively. The correct comparison is 60% believe stricter gun laws would help, and 51 percent believe more armed citizens would help.
I noticed that as well. If you’re going to criticize someone for their spin tactics, I don’t recommend using them yourself.
Unless you were doing it to prove a point, which you should have made more clear if you were.
“Bottom line: carrying guns in public beats stricter gun laws for preventing “gun violence” by 50 to 40 percent. Well, THAT’S HOW I SPIN IT. ”
How could he make it any clearer?
Sandy HOAX !
☞What does the term “stricter gun laws” mean?☜
it means AUstralian-style gun laws…which all the (serious) gun-grabbers make no bones abt!
in the US, of course, that would mean a CIVIL war …. so…they usually try to down-play/deflect the AUstralian gun laws meme …. but…their own words condemn them on that one….
which “begs the question” …. would any serious attempt to actually impose/legislate for AUstralian-style gun laws @ the federal level be sufficient justification for US citz to declare war against fed(dot)gov [?]
I’ll bite- what is the significance of repeatedly writing it as “AUstralian” ?
This entire gun violence “epidemic” that Hildabest was spewing along with the other brainless women like D.F. and S.W. oh and let’s not forget now String Puppet and Capt. Kelley, have been saying is total crap and the mainstream media has their noses right up those antis proverbial ass. It’s total BS but when those clowns like lying Hillary Clinton say it over and over, it’s just like PITBULLS and ASSAULT rifles! You get the impression that they are horrible killing machines and things are out of control.
I get so sick and tired of stupid people who can’t think for themselves or read between the lines and really see what is going on. As one gets older, the patience for these ignorant slobs is getting even less less.
Was this the same main stream media that had polls showing Hillary would win by 10 point margins? Isn’t this why Hillary loyalist protesters pulled people from cars and beat them to an inch of death?
Main stream news media and the leftists in America are spreading lies in order to convince their followers that using force against We The People is noble. This is a strategy used throughout history by authoritarian movements. There are even howto books written about this.
I guess the point is this. This is so much deeper than the 2nd Amendment, but it is deeply connected to what is happening in America. It is said that politics is no longer about right and wrong, it is now about left and right. The left wants dominion over the US, and the right stands on their way. An armed citizenry also stands in their way.
I should just cut and paste my comment from the question of the day.
The biggest problem with this whole survey is that it is predicated on the notion that there is some massive amount of gun related crime going on, all over the country, and that there are broad brush solutions that would reduce it meaningfully. Problem is, there isn’t widespread gun crime – it is very localized and, in the grand scheme of things, not that common.
Any sweeping, nationwide, vaguely stated initiative will do virtually nothing. You cannot meaningfully impact the actions of a small fraction of a percent of the population by imposing regulations on the overwhelming majority of the population. The overwhelming majority already doesn’t commit the crimes the survey takers say they want to address.
Put another way, you can impose all the gun rights restrictions on me (and all the POTG that are effectively just like me) that you want and you are not going to reduce the probability of me committing a crime with a gun because the probability that I am going to commit a crime with a gun is already approximately 0.
My cell phone and home number are on do not call list. I don’t do polls. But have no problem with opening a can (of verbal) whip ass on polling callers.
I did hear a roommate, years ago) interrupt poll taker by saying “Gotta go, Sweet Lord, my cat’s on fire” We did not have a cat and got a lot less junk calls after that. I don’t have a cat, but might use the cat’s on fire 🔥 ploy.