Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
29 percent of voters think 'armed revolution' might be needed.
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="toehanus" data-source="post: 2184810" data-attributes="member: 9740"><p>Ok. I'm going from memory on this one. The 90% poll lumped together two categories. One was something like "you are ok with current gun laws" and the other "you support new gun laws". It seems like they were roughly the same percentages and they added up to something like 85% </p><p></p><p>First, they rounded up get the 90% and secondly they used two categories to give the impression that people were in favor of new gun laws. </p><p></p><p>It also depends on their sampling methodology. I haven't read either polls method because I don't really care. Rights are not subject to the whims of the dumb masses. </p><p></p><p>A large part of statistics deals with clearly defining what you are talking about. Case in point: several years ago I read an article about "children" who were the victims of gun violence. I happened know the statistics of deaths where a firearm was used of the top of my head. The numbers reported were way higher than what I knew. So I did some investigating. The problem was they author of the article used a different definition of children than I did. For me a child is in the age range 0-12, 13-17 is a teenager and 18 and above is an adult. Well the author defined a "child" as someone whose age was from 0-24 years old. Now there will be a lot of different definitions of a child but I doubt many people would include 24 year olds in that category. This was done to inflate the numbers because children ages 0-12 are killed very infrequently by a person using a firearm. </p><p></p><p>Now back to the UBC. If you ask a person if they support a UBC many of the dumb masses will say yes simply because they don't have a clue what current law is nor do they know what they mean by a UBC. If you had asked the same people if they supported a redundant law that would cost a lot of money and not accomplish anything, you would probably have gotten a lot different response. </p><p></p><p>As to the 29% poll. Meh it's pretty easy to talk revolution on paper. I think what people really mean is that they would support other people fighting an armed revolution. I guess it would be revolution food stamps. Somebody else doing the work and you getting the benefit. Also as was already pointed out. It didn't define whose revolution it would be. Would it be conservatives fighting for freedom or communists fighting for power. That would be a much more question to answer. </p><p></p><p>Ok been serious enough for now. Must end with a poop joke. </p><p></p><p>Why is poop tapered on the end? So your butthole won't slam shut. </p><p></p><p>@toehanus</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="toehanus, post: 2184810, member: 9740"] Ok. I'm going from memory on this one. The 90% poll lumped together two categories. One was something like "you are ok with current gun laws" and the other "you support new gun laws". It seems like they were roughly the same percentages and they added up to something like 85% First, they rounded up get the 90% and secondly they used two categories to give the impression that people were in favor of new gun laws. It also depends on their sampling methodology. I haven't read either polls method because I don't really care. Rights are not subject to the whims of the dumb masses. A large part of statistics deals with clearly defining what you are talking about. Case in point: several years ago I read an article about "children" who were the victims of gun violence. I happened know the statistics of deaths where a firearm was used of the top of my head. The numbers reported were way higher than what I knew. So I did some investigating. The problem was they author of the article used a different definition of children than I did. For me a child is in the age range 0-12, 13-17 is a teenager and 18 and above is an adult. Well the author defined a "child" as someone whose age was from 0-24 years old. Now there will be a lot of different definitions of a child but I doubt many people would include 24 year olds in that category. This was done to inflate the numbers because children ages 0-12 are killed very infrequently by a person using a firearm. Now back to the UBC. If you ask a person if they support a UBC many of the dumb masses will say yes simply because they don't have a clue what current law is nor do they know what they mean by a UBC. If you had asked the same people if they supported a redundant law that would cost a lot of money and not accomplish anything, you would probably have gotten a lot different response. As to the 29% poll. Meh it's pretty easy to talk revolution on paper. I think what people really mean is that they would support other people fighting an armed revolution. I guess it would be revolution food stamps. Somebody else doing the work and you getting the benefit. Also as was already pointed out. It didn't define whose revolution it would be. Would it be conservatives fighting for freedom or communists fighting for power. That would be a much more question to answer. Ok been serious enough for now. Must end with a poop joke. Why is poop tapered on the end? So your butthole won't slam shut. @toehanus [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
29 percent of voters think 'armed revolution' might be needed.
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom