"70% of Americans support a ban on semi-automatic weapons"

So says Charlie Gibson in that recent Palin interview.

I'm pretty research savvy being a librarian and all and I'm all about guns guns and more guns but I can't find where he got that stat from.

The best I've found so far is that before and immediately after the Clinton AWB was enacted polls show 70% of Americans supported that (then the number quickly falls) but that is a far cry from Charlie boy saying right now 70% of all Americans support a semi auto ban.

Anybody have the source of this stat he used?

Once folks figure out what exactly the AWB ban entails, the numbers supporting such a ban drop off rather quickly. its all in how the question is phrased and how knowledgable the questioned individual is of guns.

I got no earthly idea where he came up with that 70 percent figure, sounds like wishful thinking...

I think he may have found this statistic using a different statistic, and that would be that 70% of all statistics are made up.

If it's a statistic, and you hear it being touted on MSM, your first obligation as a clear thinking human being to stand up wave your arms around and yell in falsetto 'woop woop woop' while flailing your arms and spinning.

These people USE statistics. NEVER accept their statistics unless you get the actual document so you can see just HOW they came up with these numbers. There's a reason the government run American Education systems has brought us from being among the most mathematically literate in the world to among the least...,

Originally posted by DarkStormCrow
I got no earthly idea where he came up with that 70 percent figure, sounds like wishful thinking...

Agreed, completely. I have no idea where statistics like this come from. Most people I know, are already quite upset at all of the ways people are trying to control our freedom and right to bear arms. It simply never stops there. They want to take it further, and further.

70% just seems like a HUGE, made-up number.

reply to post by DarkStormCrow


Thats called push polling and George Soros is a black belt in that. His minions in the Daily Kos and other blogs and media he controls are on a constant assault on our 2nd amendment. This overly rich clown isn't even a US citizen, but uses his money to try to change our constitution to his meglomaniac ego!
The real numbers when the question is posed in a unbiased way is closer to 34% against. And most of those are fulltime city dwellers who wouldn't know which end of a gun is the dangerous one, and swallow everything Bloomberg and Daley spout!


Zindo

90% of all Americans think Charles Gibson is a leftist shill and take almost no stock in anything he says!

All kidding aside, there is nothing to support this ridiculous statistic. Once I read it I looked for any documentation to support such a claim and quess what I found - NOTHING! No suprise really. The MSM will say just about anything in support of their stupid pet causes.

Originally posted by JesterMan

I think he may have found this statistic using a different statistic, and that would be that 70% of all statistics are made up.

And the other 30% are only 70% accurate.

I took a poll of pollsters and statisticians about polling and statistics and soon found the word 'meaning' to have lost all meaning.

Nobody can find the stat? Seems like if such a stat existed the Brady Bunch would be ramming it down our throats.

So how is it that Gibson can just make something up like that and announce it to millions to Americans as fact? In a perfect world this would mean Gibson is headed the way of Dan Rather.

There really needs to be some accountability when a newsman just goes on the air making things up. Unless the Weekly World News didn't close up shop and instead became ABC News.

It doesnt matter even if the stats prove to be correct. It wouldnt even matter if 99.999% of Americans supported a ban on semi-automatic weapons.

The fact is that the majority cannot, even in a democracy, curtail the rights of the minority. (Or so the theory goes... few will actually respect this principle).

This is the closest that I could find for 70%

From ABC News, 6/26/08 By Gary Langer

Consider an ABC News poll on the subject last year: Six in 10 favored "stricter gun control laws." But just 38 percent favored banning the sale of handguns, and 42 percent favored a ban on carrying concealed weapons. By contrast, 67 percent favored banning assault weapons and 55 percent favored banning semi-automatic handguns. In previous ABC/Post polling, support has been broader still for mandatory registration and licensing for handgun owners, background checks and trigger locks. And after the Virginia Tech shootings, eight in 10 backed a national registry meant to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill.

Views of the Second Amendment are one factor informing attitudes on gun control; there are others. One is some skepticism about whether legislation would do the job; while six in 10 support stricter gun laws in general, fewer, 49 percent, think such laws in fact would reduce gun violence. Instead better enforcement is preferred to new legislation, by 52 to 29 percent.

And perhaps most fundamentally, far more people blame gun violence on the influences of upbringing and culture than on access to firearms. In our 2007 poll, 40 percent blamed "the influence of popular culture" as the main cause of gun violence, and 35 percent pointed to "the way parents raise their children." Just 18 percent pinned it primarily on the availability of guns.

blogs.abcnews.com...

Semi auto weapons are currently used extensively by the military and law enforcement cadre in America. And in the military lots of fully auto weapons as well.
Since the US depends on a civilian army, citizen need to be handy and familiar with semi auto weapons.
How proficient were the soldiers with bolt action rifles in the first World War. Very proficient. Firing 1000 rounds per casuality inflicted on enemy.
WWII we fired 10,000 rounds per casuality inflicted, and VN we fired 100,000 rounds per casuality inflicted.
The more rapidly a weapon fires the more misses there are at the target.
I think a more logical plan would be to issue a semi auto weapon to all military age eligable citizens in the USA and go from there.

Since we're on the topic of statistics I have something to add... I have a minor in Stats and completed about 48 credit hours of statistical coursework. One of my stats professors used to say about statistics, "One must be very wary and careful of statistics and put as much emphasis on the methodolgy used to derive them as the statistic itself; for statisitcs are much akin to prisoners - you can make the numbers say anything depending on how much your torture them." A very learned man methinks!

Additional thoughts on a semi-auto weapons ban... this will serve the criminal element extremely well as then they can expect to be more heavily armed than their intended victims! Have we learned nothing from history? Any ban or unreasonable restriction on the possession of a firearm only harms law-abiding citizens as only law-abiding citizens are likely to honor such a ban.

Finally, I am hopeful that the NRA takes this man and his network to task for such a blatent lie!

I came across this ........ piece claiming a study by the *cough* Consumer Federation of America, which touts the 70% statisitc : www.consumerfed.org...

My opinion, it's a smushy rehash of the "assault weapon" definition, which (again in my opinion) pretends to be going after full-auto weapons, but in truth also wraps semi-auto in it's leathery coils. Remember, control happens in increments.

Consumer Federation of America??

The current media is pretty slick at delivering messages. My wife who used to be a director fairly screams at the tv most days especially when she sees supposed news shows delivering biased editorial stuff thinly disguised as news or facts.

Having said that I'd bet a buck or two that the actual survey had something to do with "automatic weapons" IE machine guns and nothing to do with semi auto's ie pistols, shotguns, rifles and so on. All they had to do is take a true fact drop one word and BAM a believable half lie/truth and if caught the professional talking head says oops didn't I say semi?

Cavet ad emptor

I just did some research on Consumerfed.org. Looking at the links on Google and trying to find out who actualy runs the organization is a bit sketchy. They are, however, world wide and realy seem to be part of an international banking cabala. No wonder they're stats look like UN stats on gun ownership. NWO raises its horney head!!

Zindo

I was reading somewhere where the "news" was deemed not to have any responsibility (beyond personal liability) to report the actual news... Trying to find where that was.

Anyway, a court case was won by the "news" organization which was reporting falsities, with the ruling coming down that they were under no obligation to actually report news - basically just protect advertisers... I guess this is the next step. Fabricate figures. Since they are under no requirement to report truth.

Im certainly not in support of banning ANY weapons at all. We will not be disarmed it is the only thing that will guarantee our freedom in the end.

reply to post by projectvxn


Neither am I in favor of banning any weapon. I am a staunch supporter of the Second. Our right SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

Why anyone thinks they're safer by infringing this right leaves me clueless. Take the weapons away and not only can a rogue government take over easily (not that we've seen any of THOSE lately... ), but also, criminals will still have guns - THEY surely don't care about the laws - and the honest law-abider will be at their mercy as well.

Those who give up their rights for perceived safety, and all... [sigh]

[edit on 9/13/2008 by Amaterasu]

Doesn't matter. If 90% supported a ban on semi-automatic weapons, it doesn't negate the other 10%'s right to own semi-automatic weapons. If anyone else has access to them regardless of their labels and/or status, then everyone should be allowed.