Now, this pisses me off...

.... how so-called opinion polls are phrased.

I was checking out "The National Review" online, the only half-way decent right leaning aggregate and opinion site that I can find (thank's for nothing ATS, I asked dozens of times for suggestions from you self-righteous bozos), which I don't do too often because of the quantity of adds.

Well, I closed the window and was presented with a VOTE NOW window from LeanRight American.org. I was going to offer my opinion untill I read the TWO options.

www.leanrightamerica.org...

The question: "Should republicans fight OBAMA on gun controls?

Sounds pretty simple - non - nuanced - but okay so far.

I have two choices:

YES - The Republican party should stand up for citizens constitutional rights. Gun ownership is a fundamental Freedom.

or

NO - Violent gun crimes speak for themselves. We need to ban guns now and update our outdated constitution. Republicans should bow down and do what’s right.

The first option is calm and reserved, it doesn't mention a specific party (as opposed to the individual mentioned in the question) but is generally a reasoned response.

Then we have the NO exposition. First is the over the top sensationalism. "Violent gun crimes......." WTF doesn't that even mean????? then We (no specifics at all about who we is) need to ban guns now - as far as I know NO ONE is even suggesting banning all guns or updating the constitution - so basically telling lies. The last line includes lies again, the implied identification of YOU the responder.

I hate "opinion polls", Polling companies, especially political ones (right and left my dears) write the questions (as in this poll) to elicit the exact response that the polling client wants.

This is a prime example of this crap. I always get calls mostly for local politics from people wanting by opinion - yes/no, on a scale from 1 to ten, yadda.

In a recent local race, I received about three different polling calls from a single (Dem) candidate with these skewed questions, and eventually I told them that any change of my voting for this candidate was gone just because of these skewed polling calls.

Also - The National Review always - f***es with my computer performance something fierce and I have to reset - every single time - f***ers.

Nice rant I saf
And by the way how can gun crime be non violent ? I'm from the uk just confused .

originally posted by: Denoli
Nice rant I saf
And by the way how can gun crime be non violent ? I'm from the uk just confused .

Carry-On being confused - I've lived in the US most of my live - and it confuses the heck out of me.

originally posted by: Denoli
Nice rant I saf
And by the way how can gun crime be non violent ? I'm from the uk just confused .

If I sell one of my guns to a person known to me as a convicted felon, I would be committing a crime involving a gun.... Even though I harmed or threatened no one.
ETA:
If I carry a gun concealed outside of my property lines without the required permit, I have committed a crime with a gun with no violence involved.

Most poles are just a way of conditioning people. Quite often people are not even aware an issue exists until its presented to them in the form of a pole, and then the seed is planted.
I NEVER take part in poles or surveys because they are always "skewed"

DP

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: Denoli
Nice rant I saf
And by the way how can gun crime be non violent ? I'm from the uk just confused .

If I sell one of my guns to a person known to me as a convicted felon, I would be committing a crime involving a gun.... Even though I harmed or threatened no one.
ETA:
If I carry a gun concealed outside of my property lines without the required permit, I have committed a crime with a gun with no violence involved.

a reply to: FyreByrd

Ok.
If anyone did what was provided by butcherguy in the first example, they would be committing a nonviolent crime with a gun
If anyone other than a cop did example #2, they would also be guilty of a nonviolent gun crime.
Is that better?

a reply to: FyreByrd

You might be confusing individualism with arrogance.

There's a difference.

Using buzz words and specific wording to manipulate people into two groups, the left or the right, republican or democrat.

Had it been an honest, open question based around getting a clear response from every audience, it would have read something like "Should Americans do anything about rising federal gun control?"

YES: "Americans should have the power to keep themselves armed without regulation going above and beyond genuine public safety concerns."

NO: "Americans do not need guns. It would be safer and smarter to only let the government have them."

But, if everyone started talking like that, we wouldn't be dividing ourselves pedantically into two "opposing" groups.

Most republicans and democrats will agree, guns should NOT go unregulated, but should also NOT be banned. Why can't we see this? Constantly peddling fear to take our rights
a reply to: FyreByrd

that's the word i was trying to think of. "conditioning"
thanks for fixing my brain knot

originally posted by: VoidHawk
Most poles are just a way of conditioning people. Quite often people are not even aware an issue exists until its presented to them in the form of a pole, and then the seed is planted.
I NEVER take part in poles or surveys because they are always "skewed"

I just hang up on them now .Usless in most cases . Its like the lawyer that asks ..are you still abusing your wife ,answer yes or no . a reply to: FyreByrd

originally posted by: Ziath
Using buzz words and specific wording to manipulate people into two groups, the left or the right, republican or democrat.

Had it been an honest, open question based around getting a clear response from every audience, it would have read something like "Should Americans do anything about rising federal gun control?"

YES: "Americans should have the power to keep themselves armed without regulation going above and beyond genuine public safety concerns."

NO: "Americans do not need guns. It would be safer and smarter to only let the government have them."

But, if everyone started talking like that, we wouldn't be dividing ourselves pedantically into two "opposing" groups.

Most republicans and democrats will agree, guns should NOT go unregulated, but should also NOT be banned. Why can't we see this? Constantly peddling fear to take our rights
a reply to: FyreByrd

Thank you - nicely phrased. Perhaps a business option for you?? Call it "Level Field Polling" or something.

a reply to: FyreByrd

The trouble with polls has always been, that like an election, the person taking the poll or survey, is asked to chose answers from a selection scribed by someone who is trying to guide responses, into easy to count quantitative data sets, rather than acquire a reasoned, deep understanding of the opinion of the person taking the poll.

Unfortunately, a properly crafted document, detailing ones feelings and thoughts on the sort of matters dealt with by a poll, would be useless to a pollster, whose job is to condense opinion into data which can be used to render all the finest thought and deepest cogitation on the part of people taking a survey or poll, into a mere percentage. Add to that the fact that many poll questions are written in a way which polarises issues deliberately, for the purposes of ratings and creating media fluff to fill a news hour, or suggest more support publicly for a given policy or action than actually exists, and you will see just how useless polling is in general.

It is like choosing between left and right, red or blue, all meaningless, all trivial, and all designed to make it easier for someone to take your power away from you.