Dueling Polls on Gun Control (CBS/CNN vs. MAIG)

[shadowrider]

In the wake of the Tucson shootings, CBS News and CNN/Opinion Research Corp. -- among other organizations -- conducted polls asking Americans about their views on gun control. The CBS poll results indicated "there is no significant change in public views on the issue of gun control and gun rights." According to the CNN/ORC poll, 69 percent said they "have not changed their opinion" that more gun control is needed.

Then, on Jan. 18, Mayors Against Illegal Guns announced the results of a poll it commissioned which, essentially, confirmed the same results but, somehow, indicate that Americans want and need more gun control. The survey was conducted jointly by Momentum Analysis, a polling firm with Democratic clients, and American Viewpoint, a polling firm with Republican clients. The consensus is that "both gun owners and the general public support stronger measures to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals and other potentially dangerous individuals."

http://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/gun-shots/2011/01/dueling-polls-gun-control

[Callisto32]

1. Well, that is because they loaded the question.

Based on the language in quotes there, the question was not "do you favor, disfavor, or have no opinion on stronger gun control measures in the United States."

That is the kind of question you ask to get DATA.

The question was something like "do you favor stronger measures to keep firearms out of criminals and other potentially dangerous individuals."

That is a question designed to elicit a pre-determined response. It is like asking "do you want to ban knives used to kill babies/puppies." Most people aren't going to ask questions like "what is a 'potentially dangerous individual.'" They are just going to hear "guns away from dangerous criminals" and be on it like white on rice.

I have a fairly strong background in designing and implementing SCIENTIFIC polls. We were taught how to form a good question, and what bad questions look like. We were also taught that asking a question in certain ways gets you skewed data. I am sure everybody else who designs polls got similar education, or at least job training. Problem is, you can't teach someone how to write good questions without teaching them how to get the answer they want ahead of time.

Edit:

It looks like they really asked "do you favor more criminal control" and colored the question with the gun issue.

[one-eyed fat man]

3. Just proves the old line

"Figures don't lie, but liars can figure."

If a pollster wants to design a poll to get the results he favors he will likely get them.

The whole assault weapons idea was based on deception. The support for gun control had waned among the public to where a national handgun ban wasn't going to happen. The various gun control groups shrill and strident propaganda over "Saturday Night Specials" was no longer getting any traction. Josh Sugarmann's solution was to shift focus to another area of gun control and so he coined the term "assault weapon" to refer to civilian semi-automatic firearms the outwardly resembled their military full auto counterparts. Part of the strategy was to rely on public's confusion over what exactly was being banned. He was quite up front and wrote at the time that deceit was a crucial part of the program.

"Assault weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully-automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons --anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun-- can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons."

At the time Sugarmann was communications director for the National Coalition to Ban Handguns, he later founded the Violence Policy Center (VPC). The part to remember is he, among others, articulated the goal is to eventually ban all guns. They do not expect to do it all at once, but piecemeal one type of firearm at a time. the terms "Saturday Night Special" or "Assault Weapon" are not designed for technical accuracy as much as emotional impact and "catchiness."

To the extent the bait and switch has been effective, one only need to look at the Democratic party's own platform and the President's campaign websites:

http://obama.3cdn.net/84b2062fc4a5114715_ftxamv9ot.pdf

"As a long-time resident and elected official of Chicago, Barack Obama has seen the impact of fully automatic weapons in the hands of criminals. Thus, Senator Obama supports making permanent the expired federal Assault Weapon Ban."

Read that again, "FULLY AUTOMATIC WEAPONS in the hands of criminals" are a problem he proposes to solve by banning guns that are not fully automatic and not in the hands of criminals.

Again, how much more directly or more plainly can he say he wants to reinstate a ban on semiautomatic weapons by implying they are machine guns?

There can only be two explanations for making that statement. It was a deliberate attempt to deceive people who don't know the difference. Or he fell hook, line and sinker for Sugarmann's bullshit! Deceit or dumb-ass, take your pick! Since various administration cabinet level officials have been floating trial balloons for two years and blaming Mexican drug violence on the lapse of the 1994 ban it is natural to ask who is intended target of the deliberate deception?

That the President's choice for Director of the ATF is one who famously and deliberately staged an outrageously deceptive "demonstration" where machine guns were used to create dramatic footage to mislead a TV news audience. While the reporter is talking about semi-automatic weapons it is Special Agent in Charge of the Chicago office of the ATF, Andrew Traver who hands her a machine gun.

Using machine guns as stunt doubles for semi-automatics

While we get to see the reporter firing wildly "off the hip," it should be painfully obvious with her technique (at one point someone has to keep her from falling over backward) she is not responsible for the technical inaccuracies of the clip. Certainly, SHE did not direct the action. That brings us back to Agent Traver, a former Naval gunnery officer. How better to give 'credibility' to a massive and deliberate lie than to have an expert carefully stage an elaborate and dramatic illusion? It should come as no shock as Agent Traver has also been a shill for the Joyce Foundation, the VPC, and the Brady Campaign.

If you pay attention to the clip, the depth of the deception should be more apparent. At one point, an ATF agent is shown firing controlled bursts in to a vest clad mannequin. Contrast his technique to the reporter's. She is dangerously set up to shoot like she has seen on TV or the movies precisely because the minimal control would give the dramatic footage of bullets randomly striking all over the range and backstop.

The politics of the fight come to this: The TV footage of machine guns firing while talking about semi automatic firearms is not accidental. It is not from confusion, it is not from ineptitude. It is deliberate. The clear intent is to mislead the public to draw incorrect conclusions. It is bait and switch in its most reprehensible form. After laying the groundwork in low key the past two years, along comes the "perfect tragedy" to exploit.

[Atypical Liberal]

5. Atrocious!

That was an atrocious video!

The intent clearly was to show fully-automatic weapons, when in fact, the ones available for civilian purchase are almost exclusively semi-automatic weapons. Additionally, all rifles, let alone assault rifles, are used annually less often than hands and feet to commit murder.

This was terrible journalism.

[one-eyed fat man]

6. Don't blame the reporter!

She was clearly manipulated. The blame lies entirely with Agent Traver. She came to do a follow-up story on a Chicago gang shooting. He is the one who set up the demonstration. He is the one that made sure it had plenty of footage of a fully automatic AK firing while spinning the "too bad the assault weapons ban expired" spiel.

The story is a year old, but it falls right in line with the administration's attempt to tie the expired ban in with Mexicans killing each other. That's a drum they have been pounding for the past two years. That he should be nominated to be the next head of the ATF, Agent Traver's carefully orchestrated demonstration in complete devotion to the "party line" is, doubtless, merely coincidental.

This is not unlike the fraudulent piece CNN aired where, a deputy fired what was described as "a AK-47, the Chinese version," which is "currently banned."

Viewers saw bullets fired into a pile of cinder blocks and chunks of the cinder block flying off, leaving a big hole in one block. Then, the deputy fired into a bullet-proof vest. The CNN reporter observed that the bullets "clearly fired right through" the vest.

Second, they set up the next model to be tested: "This is an AK-47 also, but a civilian model. It has some differences and right now this only has a clip of 10 in the magazine -- or 10 rounds in the magazine. So this is a big difference than the 30 rounds in the previous magazine."

Viewers then saw the deputy fire four shots toward the cinder blocks, but nothing happened, not even a speck of the cinder block flew off, never mind any hole being created. The very clear implication: The illegal model punches right through cinder block with devastating and deadly force, but the legal model can't even cause a speck to fall off. Similarly when fired at the vest clad mannequin, nothing happens.

The deputy deliberately missed the targets with the legal weapon. In other words, the demonstration, in which the legal assault weapon caused no damage to the cinder block and failed to penetrate the vest, was very misleading and very possibly an outright fabrication.

CNN accused of faking story

Frame by frame analysis proved the story a sham and CNN was forced to "clarify" the report. CNN claimed in it's defense the camera operator didn't realize the sheriff's employee had switched targets and was firing into the ground....

The most charitable analysis would be that the CNN bureau chief (someone who had covered wars fought with real military weapons) was as naive as the girl in Chicago and was duped by Sheriff who arranged the demonstration.

[Atypical Liberal]

7. Video available elsewhere?

I would like to see the misrepresenting CNN piece, but in the article you linked it required RealPlayer. Does anyone have a link to a standard media format for this movie? Youtube?

[one-eyed fat man]

8. Here is another link

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oi4vVMj5fuQ&feature=related

The deception is pretty clear. The question is was the reporter in on it or taken in by it?

[Atypical Liberal]

9. Unbelievable.

Thanks for the link.

That is really over the top. It's really mind-blowing how far the anti-firearm folks will go to build a false case.

The firearms are functionally identical, but that sheriff is just tripping over himself trying to paint the real AK-47 as being so much more dangerous than the civilian variant.

That is just outright deception.

But it seems to me that the sheriff is the one primarily pushing the deception.

[one-eyed fat man]

10. CNN made a similar argument

They claimed they didn't notice the deputy deliberately missing the target with the "legal" weapon. That argument is pretty thin on it's face. Like believing a car with a 10 gallon tank is slower than same same car with a 30 gallon tank. One possible explanation....

[Atypical Liberal]

11. Yeah but...

It seemed to me like the interviewer was interviewing the sheriff, while some other guy was doing the shooting. So if the interviewer was paying attention to the sheriff and not the shooter, he could have missed what was going on. The video said "live" so there may not have been a chance to edit.

But it was still a highly deceptive piece.

[lawodevolution]

2. Let's see, how can we engineer the results of a poll

option 1: Would you support a gun control measure that would stop terrorists from being able to buy guns
option 2: You would like terrorists to have access to guns
if your option is not there you simply don't vote.

[Glassunion]

4. How does it go?

Figures don't lie, but liars figure.