Normally, I couldn't be bothered with phone surveys but realized it was about gun control so I decided to take it.

 

They asked very biased questions i.e. "do you support efforts to prevent civilians from owning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines meant for use by the military and police", "do you support a ban on private sales at gun shows" etc.

 

The person taking the survey seemed to be getting a little annoyed with my answers and my failure to fall into a number of trap questions which covered Obama, Bloomberg, the NRA, John Runyan, assault weapons, BHO's recent executive orders, private gun sales, armed guards/police at schools and the 2012 and 2014 elections.

 

I hope I made a dent in their numbers, at least I took a spot from some drone would have fallen for their misleading style of questioning.

Hope they call me. I always wonder who these pollsters talk to.

 

The number showed up as 646-453-1349 which seems to belong to Central Research Services. Apparently they are contracted to perform political surveys.

 

http://central-research.com/

you lucky dog

probably a hot college student making slave wages to pay for more pizza

someone help those poor young women...

Normally, I couldn't be bothered with phone surveys but realized it was about gun control so I decided to take it.

 

They asked very biased questions i.e. "do you support efforts to prevent civilians [as opposed citizens or "legal residents"] from owning assault weapons [What is an assault weapon? Sounds evil.] and high-capacity [i thought the bans would restrict standard capacity magazines like 30-round rifle mags and 15-round pistol mags] magazines meant for use by the military and police [if these weapons were meant for "military and police" only as this question implies, why do manufacturers sell these through channels like Bass Pro and Wal-Mart that eclipse military channels in sales?]", "do you support a ban on private sales at gun shows" etc.

 

The person taking the survey seemed to be getting a little annoyed with my answers and my failure to fall into a number of trap questions which covered Obama, Bloomberg, the NRA, John Runyan, assault weapons, BHO's recent executive orders, private gun sales, armed guards/police at schools and the 2012 and 2014 elections.

 

I hope I made a dent in their numbers, at least I took a spot from some drone would have fallen for their misleading style of questioning.

 

 

Typical push poll garbage---see the key words in bold and my editorial comments in brackets.

One question I walked away from was "in the 2014 elections what would you say is your most important issue? Gun control, the economy, immigration, gay rights, national debt, etc." For me Gun rights are number one, the economy is number two. I said the economy because had I said "gun control" it could have been used to frame a response meaning X percent of people consider "gun control" as an important election issue as if they all supported greater restriction. It is my number one issue because I support fewer restrictions!

One question I walked away from was "in the 2014 elections what would you say is your most important issue? Gun control, the economy, immigration, gay rights, national debt, etc." For me Gun rights are number one, the economy is number two. I said the economy because had I said "gun control" it could have been used to frame a response meaning X percent of people consider "gun control" as an important election issue as if they all supported greater restriction. It is my number one issue because I support fewer restrictions!

 

you shoulda said "I plead the 2nd"

Congrats, you'll be part of the "8% of Americans who don't want Gun Control".

One question I walked away from was "in the 2014 elections what would you say is your most important issue? Gun control, the economy, immigration, gay rights, national debt, etc." For me Gun rights are number one, the economy is number two. I said the economy because had I said "gun control" it could have been used to frame a response meaning X percent of people consider "gun control" as an important election issue as if they all supported greater restriction. It is my number one issue because I support fewer restrictions!

 

The same thing distortions of public opinion happened when Obama went after Bill Clinton's DADT policy: http://www.washingto...eback-barracks/

 

The administration tried to twist survey results to indicate that 70 percent of soldiers had no problem with ending DADT. The soldiers I have served almost universally align with General Conway: http://www.dakotavoi...-unit-cohesion/

 

Why do I bring this up? This is the MO of the administration. Give a weak, distorted misrepesentation of popular sentiment as some excuse for carrying out unconstitutional and inappropriate actions. The media lap this stuff up without a thought of skepticism or even cursory fact checking.

you lucky dog

probably a hot college student making slave wages to pay for more pizza

someone help those poor young women...

 

Have you ever read my user title? This hot college student will work for ammo or guns, figure if any NJGF member were to offer those as payment, I wouldn't feel guilty spending that extra money on that stuff anyway!

The same thing distortions of public opinion happened when Obama went after Bill Clinton's DADT policy: http://www.washingto...eback-barracks/

 

The administration tried to twist survey results to indicate that 70 percent of soldiers had no problem with ending DADT. The soldiers I have served almost universally align with General Conway: http://www.dakotavoi...-unit-cohesion/

 

Why do I bring this up? This is the MO of the administration. Give a weak, distorted misrepesentation of popular sentiment as some excuse for carrying out unconstitutional and inappropriate actions. The media lap this stuff up without a thought of skepticism or even cursory fact checking.

 

It's not necessarily the administration. Even though I'm a biology major, I was required to take a "Humanities" course, or Social Science or something. Anyway, I took sociology, and we actually had an extensive discussion on how, when conducting research sociologists are supposed to be VERY careful in how they word their questions, since wording things a certain way easily skews results. It's actually a VERY common tactic for proponents of a certain ideology (on both sides) to have poll questions worded in purposely muddled ways so as to skew the data in favor of their stance. The polling companies really don't give a shit, as long as they get paid.

 

An example of such a question would be, "Do you oppose the use of dihydrogen-monoxide as a food additive?" The wording makes the person being polled more likely to answer "Yes" due to using a chemical name that sounds more threatening than if I said "Water."

 

 

 

An example of such a question would be, "Do you oppose the use of dihydrogen-monoxide as a food additive?" The wording makes the person being polled more likely to answer "Yes" due to using a chemical name that sounds more threatening than if I said "Water."

 

You mean like saying " Do you believe Assault weapons should be banned?"

When in reality... So called "assault weapons" are already banned unless you have a tax stamp....

 

You mean like saying " Do you believe Assault weapons should be banned?"

When in reality... So called "assault weapons" are already banned unless you have a tax stamp....

 

Exactly. Apparently it was a big deal for a while. Sociologists had ended up being "Guns for hire" and would basically conduct research biased towards whatever organization was paying them. It still pretty much works like this, I remember the book had stated that "Sociologists should always take care to publish real results, even if they do not agree with their own political ideology. For example Dr. (I forget the name), while more left-leaning personally, published a report that conflicted with his personal beliefs."

 

In the end, I pretty much learned the whole field seems to be skewed towards the left. There are different schools of sociology that focus on different theories on how people interact with one another. The issue is that the most popular school of thought is that of "Conflict Theory". The father of Conflict Theory was Karl Marx, and his writings are taught, and are very influential in the field of sociology.(Actually Conflict Theory extends far beyond just the ideas of Marxism, they also extend to Feminism, and pretty much any ideology where one group oppresses another.) The other issue is that since Sociologists are usually employed by some organization with a goal, they usually HAVE to skew data to keep employed, the example we were given was of a guy who worked for Tobacco companies.

 

See, in fields like biology, that crap wouldn't fly, and anyone caught fudging data would pretty much never be taken seriously again. In sociology, it's pretty much how the game is played, yet their data, in terms of social policy, is taken as hard fact. That's where a lot of groups like the Brady campaign, and VPC get their data. Hell, when we see polls that say "60% of people support the Second Amendment", the real figures could be much higher, it all depends on how the questions were phrased.

when conducting research sociologists are supposed to be VERY careful in how they word their questions, since wording things a certain way easily skews results. It's actually a VERY common tactic for proponents of a certain ideology (on both sides) to have poll questions worded in purposely muddled ways so as to skew the data in favor of their stance. The polling companies really don't give a shit, as long as they get paid.

 

As someone with a background in social sciences, research methodology and stats I can tell you this is absolutely true and it doesn't stop there. They go beyond the muddling and ask questions in hopes of obtaining a certain answer, ie leading the respondent into an answer. Also, the company that called may not be the people who wrote the questions. There could be several more parties involved. Companies that do the question writing and stat analysis know that if they don't get the desired responses they won't be getting business of whoever is asking them to do the research. And this doesn't even touch on the statistical shenanigans that take place to get a significant (or non-sig) result. There is only 1 important stat that every person should know, 95% of studies referenced by the media are bullsh*t. lol

 

Just an example.... Rutgers has a food sciences research center. A few years ago it was renamed... The Nabisco Advanced Food Technology Center. Hey, guess what, all Nabisco food is safe to eat according to RU!!! [yes I'm biased, I don't believe the words food and technology belong anywhere near each other].

See, in fields like biology, that crap wouldn't fly

 

I certainly wouldn't bet any of my money on that one.

Have you ever read my user title? This hot college student will work for ammo or guns, figure if any NJGF member were to offer those as payment, I wouldn't feel guilty spending that extra money on that stuff anyway!

 

 

It's not necessarily the administration. Even though I'm a biology major, I was required to take a "Humanities" course, or Social Science or something. Anyway, I took sociology, and we actually had an extensive discussion on how, when conducting research sociologists are supposed to be VERY careful in how they word their questions, since wording things a certain way easily skews results. It's actually a VERY common tactic for proponents of a certain ideology (on both sides) to have poll questions worded in purposely muddled ways so as to skew the data in favor of their stance. The polling companies really don't give a shit, as long as they get paid.

 

An example of such a question would be, "Do you oppose the use of dihydrogen-monoxide as a food additive?" The wording makes the person being polled more likely to answer "Yes" due to using a chemical name that sounds more threatening than if I said "Water."

 

Rasmussen has some integrity. On a different note, what sort of skills do you have? I could use a mason, among other things.

Rasmussen has some integrity. On a different note, what sort of skills do you have? I could use a mason, among other things.

 

Well, I do property management down in the AC area during the summer, and when not in school. I haven't done MUCH masonry, only repairing a little cinderblock partition. Generally I'd just do home maintenance things, I've repaired broken sofa-beds, Carpet Cleaning, spackling, painting, some minor deck repair, carpet removal. Oh, and appliance clean-up, covering scratches and stuff, building furniture, tearing down walls, removing wall paper (Both with a steam-machine, and with stripper). Building AR15s, doing some minor gun repairs, have some wood-working experience.

 

I've also cleaned up a room where a woman ODed. (Basically, my sister's neighbor let a woman she knew crash at her place, and she overdosed. After the police removed the body and all that stuff, there was a sofa and floor covered in vomit and other stuff. Actually considered trying to get some work cleaning up crime scenes for a while there.)

 

I've also done TONS of landscaping stuff, from general yard clean-up, to cutting down trees (Not huge ones mind you, but one was about 30', the other 20', fairly thin trunks.) , to building compost bins, and setting up garden plots.

 

Usually I'll do whatever I can if it's worth my time, and doesn't get in the way of school. I'm side-lined a bit right now due to my ruptured spleen, I'm not allowed to lift more than 10lbs, but yeah, I've done quite a bit of stuff in my day.