None of that has anything to do with the accuracy of public opinion polling related to background checks. Did you just google nate silver and pick the first link that said something bad about him?
This is hilarious, the looks on their faces and the facepalm by biden. They look so sad and distraught. Glorious day indeed.
None of that has anything to do with the accuracy of public opinion polling related to background checks. Did you just google nate silver and pick the first link that said something bad about him?
I'm getting emails that it's been amended twice and is still on the legislative calendar for future arm twisting/vote buying. Anyone know?
Got it. Sounds like terrorists...keep throwing crap at the house until something goes through a window.That was why Reid voted no, that way he can bring the bill back for another debate/vote.
I hope people start to calm down.
I want to be able to find ammo on shelves and at reasonable prices.
He said, Nate made the prediction and got it right. That doesn't mean to say the same thing that the method to his poll or prediction was any more valid than ANY OTHER poll or prediction that stated other outcomes. There were other outcomes and those lost. He also states, that Nate's prediction being right once doesn't mean it will be right in the future. It certainly could be, but it's basically no better nor worse than something like watching when a ground hog pops out of the ground to tell if winter will come early or late this year.
While something like a ground hog popping out of the ground doesn't allow people to control variables, that doesn't make other polling or prediction based methods any more valid. In real science they are just one more tool. They are never the only tool. Most scientists will tell you it not even that great of a tool.
OPINION Polls are even worse than scientific statistics where variables can be accounted for. It's even worse when the person polling uses a weighting system and one they do not disclose. As in the polls listed in this thread. For example, what if the weighting system in that poll was to exclude any answers made by a person being polled that was from a rural zipcode when phoned?
We do not know if that was done or not done. Not without full disclosure. A weighting system that did that would certainly skew the data being presented by the poll.
Nor are polls from people's opinions EVER considered good. Language matters in such polls. MASSIVELY matters. It doesn't take much more than a single word change in most questions to change the outcome of a given poll drastically in many cases.
http://cstl-cla.semo.edu/renka/Renka_papers/polls.htm
Polls CAN be made better than others. They are a useful tool as a guideline and starting point. Not once have I said otherwise. I said it's just decision making to place all your bets on the outcome of a poll. Many have in the past and been massively burned by that. I use JCPenny as an example in my last post. There are plenty of others.
The point I'm making is that even the best polls are still just "educated guesses" for a specific outcome. Rallying around the outcome of a poll as your sole basis for decision making is fucking stupid.
I also pointed out how the poll in question as used is a BAD one. It uses too small a sample size. No release of how the randomization of sample selection was done. No mention of how weighting for various questions of the poll was done. The language was not vetted, nor was a release of a vetting process done. The language was hardly neutral as buzz words from the media were plentiful in the poll. Such as the use of the word GUNSHOW loophole. That connotates a derogatory outcome in anyone's mind. Nor was there a release on how the poll questions were asked. Was it an automated computer voice poll? Or was there a live person? If live, how were they directed to ask the questions? What was the specific order of the questions?
Those are all relevant to determining how useful any data gained by a poll is. In the case of the poll done by both Shoen and the GKP group... NONE of that information is released to the public. As such, they are horrible polls.
The point she made about politics trumping accuracy in polls is spot on and you know it. Well, you know it, but you'll continue to lie about it.
lol. I don't think you understood your own link. Like I said before though, you're not actually influenced by rational argument so who cares?
Huh? First sale doctrine relates to copyrighted works, not guns. Regardless, nothing in the first sale doctrine says that they must be immune from generalized regulations on sales.
The goal of background checks is to prevent unauthorized individuals from purchasing firearms. If unauthorized people can purchase firearms simply by buying them from someone else, that's pretty much the definition of a loophole.
If conservatives used logic and rationality they wouldn't be conservatives. It is literally impossible to be both conservative and logical.
The first sale doctrine applies to all good manufactured or sold in the United States. The court judgement simply ruled it also applies to copyrighted works.
Of course you can determine that some are more valid than others and all methods most certainly are not equal. You are attempting to equate scientific polling and modeling to random coin flips, which is clearly false. Just to show you how silly that is, if you look at the 9 swing states identified in that article Silver got all 9 right. Assuming that all of those states could have gone either way, the probability of getting all 9 right by random chance is about 0.2%. Long story short: No. Just... no.
Now you're just speaking from ignorance and you clearly didn't even bother to go actually read the poll you're complaining about. First, the poll you're complaining about the methodology on didn't even ask about background checks.
In case you're interested, read it here:
http://ap-gfkpoll.com/main/wp-conte...-GfK-April-2013-Topline-Posted-FINAL_guns.pdf
Hey look, they even asked about the percentage of people in rural areas. Remember how you claimed they oversampled urban areas? Wrong again.
Yes, opinion polls are vulnerable to language bias. Considering the breadth of opinion polling on this matter and the relative uniformity of opinion that comes from a number of different polls, chalking the results up to language bias is absurd.
Now you're backtracking. No one has made this opinion poll their 'sole basis' for decision making. They are not educated guesses, however.
Basically everything you said here is wrong and you have only your own laziness to blame.
It does not use too small a sample size. That's just math and there's no arguing it. The fact that you argued for a sample size of 100,000 shows that you have literally zero knowledge of the statistical principles behind scientific polling. Zero.
Furthermore you complain about how they didn't release their methodology but you clearly never even bothered to look.
Link to methodology here:http://ap-gfkpoll.com/poll-methodology
So basically you decided the poll was a BAD one because you didn't even take five minutes to learn about the poll you were talking about. Have you had enough on this yet?
If conservatives used logic and rationality they wouldn't be conservatives. It is literally impossible to be both conservative and logical.
Still waiting for some rational explanation for using emotional appeals from people impacted by a tragedy to support bills that would not in any way have prevented that tragedy from occurring. I can't see any other rational way to interpret it other than "hey, lets just use this tragedy to see if we can get some traction on this political agenda".
They are pushing to curb your constitutional rights, supposedly to prevent crime, while acknowledging that 1) they don't have any evidence to support the idea that their gun grabbing laws would curb crime or in any way benefit society, and 2) the bills likely would not accomplish their purported goals (as admitted by Biden).
The fact that the gun grabbers have been successful in conning a lot of the public with the help of the left wing media doesn't change those facts.
This reports says 150k were prevented from getting guns do to background checks. Does that mean it prevented other mass shootings? No one can say but it certainly made it harder for those people to get a gun and it certainly didnt cause more mass shootings to happen.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/239272.pdf
Im sure the above wont be enough for you to justify a universal background check for all gun sales so why don't you just move the goal posts already and tell us exactly what info you would need to change your mind.
If conservatives used logic and rationality they wouldn't be conservatives. It is literally impossible to be both conservative and logical.
All this BS is over trying to pass a law that is already in place and doing what it is supposed to do. There were no mass shooting as a result of any gunshow loophole but don't let that stop the media and politicians from saying this is something we need.
If conservatives used logic and rationality they wouldn't be conservatives. It is literally impossible to be both conservative and logical.
Goal posts moved right on cue.