Another anti poll...wanna tell 'em?

What kind of jerk wrote this poll??

Here is one of the choices.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Anything that is considered good for Charlton Heston must also be good for the public health.[/quote] I've never run into a poll question worded quite like that.


The right to bear arms is absolutely protected by the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution - 86% Whoo hoo!
 
Went there, took it. I cannot believe how slanted the questions where, almost to the point where I thought the poll was a joke. (Well, it actually _is_ a joke, but...).

Yep, 3 times more likely to be killed if I have a gun in the house. Since I have six, does that mean I'm 18 times more likely? Or is it exponential, and I'm 729 times more likely?

It reminds me of the AMA's statement that each cigarette you smoke takes 5 minutes off your life. Since I've been chain smoking for nearly 30 years, I figure I should have been dead ten years before I was born.

Dick
 
Take a moment to read the Editor's Choice. It sounds like he actually possesses some common sense, in spite of the question being asked.

------------------
Times have changed, but the nature of man hasn't. That's why I always go to AA, "Alert and Armed". :)
 
Why do they ask a yes/no question, then given multiple choices?

(And presumably the person who wrote this is a doctor . . . someone who's actually treated patients . . . ?)

------------------
Help! Help! I'm being repressed!
 
2nd Admendment winning 87% :)

------------------
We preserve our freedoms by using four boxes: soap,ballot,jury, and cartridge.
Anonymous
 
Where is this article you guys are referring to? The link just takes me to this medical sitedo not see any poll questions or pertainent articles...PJ
 
Pj,
Right hand side, halfway down, under the heading "Quick Poll".

------------------
Times have changed, but the nature of man hasn't. That's why I always go to AA, "Alert and Armed". :)
 
88% .... Grrrrrrr! Look at the bias!

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>In the United States, firearms are used to commit a majority of all homicides (1), guns in the home increase the risk of homicide almost 3-fold, (2) and the risk of suicide almost 5-fold (3). Most of the risk is related to handguns. (2, 3) Given these data do you feel that a universal ban on handgun sales and licenses would be an appropriate public health measure?

O All public health statistics aside, the right to bear arms is absolutely protected by the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. [/quote]
 
Here's the editor's take:

"Editor’s Choice
Better data on the epidemiology of firearm-related death is required before a universal handgun ban would be justified.

Legal precedent generally supports the states' right to restrict firearm access.(1, 2) A large number of US citizens, however, passionately oppose restrictions on gun ownership.

Public health measures — especially those that place significant and unpopular restrictions on personal freedom — must be strongly supported by specific data. These data presented here do not demonstrate that the handguns in which this law proposes to ban — which include legally purchased and licensed handguns — are the handguns responsible for increasing the risk of homicide and suicide.

The lack of such evidence leaves open the possibility that banning handguns might only disarm law-abiding citizens who are unlikely to commit homicide and leave intact the black-market supply of handguns to criminals.

Improved data collection are critical in producing effective gun-control legislation.

Staurt Weisberg
New Media Editor"

While he sounds reasonable, he STILL doesn't get it. "Public health measures — especially those that place significant and unpopular restrictions on personal freedom — must be strongly supported by specific data." What is the law of the land, the Constitution or Public Health Measures? I don't care how much "specific data" (which doesn't exist) he comes up with -- it's a Constitutional right we're talking about.

"Improved data collection are critical in producing effective gun-control legislation." Repeat after me, "Gun violence is NOT a disease and cannot be handled as such. And what happens when the improved data collection reveals that?"

I told him as much at mss@ama-assn.org

Update: I no sooner sent the email off when I ran across that great post by CassandraComplex http://www.thefiringline.com:8080/forums/showthread.php?threadid=25606
describing the junk science used in this poll -- I sent the entire message to Mr. Weisman as reinforcement to my first email.

------------------
The New World Order has a Third Reich odor.

[This message has been edited by Oatka (edited March 11, 2000).]
 
MY reply:

Regarding your quick poll, several points occur to me:

1. Correlation is not causation. The only study I've seen which tied gun ownership to increased risk of homicide was rather poorly designed, in as much as possession of firearms in homes where homicides occured was determined by a police search in the course of a criminal investigation, while possession of firearms in the control group was determined by simply asking if they owned guns. You can figure out as well as I how the result would be biased were people reluctant to admit to owning guns... A proper study would require identifying gun owners in advance, and following them to see if they got murdered; More difficult, to be sure, but it might actually settle something... About statistics, not civil rights; Suppose owning a gun DID increase your chance of being murdered... So does living in a high crime area, so shall we make a law against living anywhere with a higher than average crime rate?

2. Gun ownership is a risk factor in "Suicide in the home"? Might well be, in as much as a gun owner has no need to leave his or her home in order to find a tall building to leap off of. Pardon me, but aren't we concerned with "suicide", not "suicide in the home"? Is there any evidence that gun ownership actually causes suicide in general? Controlling for the obvious cases of people who decide to commit suicide, and then go out and buy guns to do it?

3. The New England Journal of Medicine? Why are THEY publishing articles on murder? Hey, if I promote the latest cancer cure, and the only studies I can cite saying it works were published in journals of criminology, think you'd give me the time of day? Not a chance! So you tell me why I should take studies on crime published in medical journals seriously. As near as I can tell, the gun control movement has simply turned to the medical journals because they can't get the time of day from a criminologist.

4. "Public health measures — especially those that place significant and unpopular restrictions on personal freedom — must be strongly supported by specific data." So you're saying that public health measures which ARE strongly supported by specific data justify significant and unpopular restrictions on personal freedom? Sounds like you don't quite grasp the concept of "freedom"...

Brett Bellmore

------------------
Sic semper tyrannis!
 
Our side now ahead at 91 percent despite the most biased wording of any poll I've ever seen that was not done by the Democratic National Committee. Haw.
 
Seems the site is unreachable right now. Perhaps because the "poll" isn't going their way?

------------------
Gun Control: The proposition that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own panty hose, is more acceptable than allowing that same woman to defend herself with a firearm.
 
NRALIFE: Just checked a moment ago, and the poll is back. They DO say they've got something in place to prevent multiple votes; Could that be what you ran into?

------------------
Sic semper tyrannis!
 
Now it's 94% in favor of "data irrelevant, protected by the Second", which is of course very misleading because it implies that many voting such believe that Second Amendment aside, that guns still might be a health epidemic, which is not true because inasmuch as there was no choice for "it's no public health problem, AND it's protected by the second", many in the 94% majority may have so believed but were unable to express that - so of course the results will clearly be spun anti-gun.
 
Interesting how theres no awnser to support the side of enforcing the laws, and there is no place that I can find to leave feedback and tell them about their bullsh*t poll!

------------------
I thought I'd seen it all, until a 22WMR spun a bunny 2 1/4 times in the air!
 
That's most blatantly and shamelessly skewed poll I've ever seen. If the "studies" it cites are half as unscientific in their results, they are completely worthless.

:mad:
 
This is not to mention that 2 of 3 of the references for his data were created in 93 or before! Hello! Maybe he should check something like the 1999 FBI Uniform Crime Report, which finds that one of the largest increases in gun ownership has taken place in the last three years (from 1999, obviously) and that, despite this, crime has gone DOWN something like 17%. Of course, Clinton administration doesn't tell you the part about gun ownership going up. They just point out the drop in crime and claim it is because of their anti-gun legislation. Well, in part, it IS because of their anti-gun legislation... that is to say that because of it, people like me have been scared into buying a gun before it was too late! And the increase in gun sales has effectively lowered crime. I'd like to see somebody confront our lousy president with THAT little known fact!


------------------
"...you're thinkin was that 5 shots or was it 6? Well, you've gotta ask yourself one question: Do you feel lucky??? ...Well, do ya PUNK!?!?
 
I wrote them an email:

----------------------

In your editorial, you said: "Improved data collection are critical in producing effective gun-control legislation."

Gun violence is NOT a disease and cannot be handled as such. What happens when the improved data collection reveals that? What tack will you people take then? I have the God-given right to self-defense (and the ultimate defense against government tyranny - remember Waco??), as spelled out by the Founders of this nation.

If any of you people would actually do a little READING on Constitutional matters, you'd discover an AMAZING fact: The first 10 amendments are considered God-given by the Founders. That is, far from enumerating these "rights", the purpose of their inclusion in the Constitution was to PRECLUDE the government from usurping them in ANY way. (As a matter of fact, if any of the Bill of Rights are "repealed", the entire Constitution is VOID. Did you know that? I bet not...) And the words "the people" as used in every other amendment is not questioned. It is accepted that it refers to an INDIVIDUAL right. Why is the 2nd not taken that way, hmmm?

The ONLY way to remove guns from American society is to turn the U.S. into a totalitarian police state. You KNOW that, deep down. Why do you want that? What sick, twisted mentalities prevail in your profession?

I tell you what. I won't try my hand at brain surgery if YOU don't try your hand(s) at taking my guns away. (Or can't you RESIST the fun of trying to rule my life from the ivory towers in which you smug, sanctimonious, self-righteous people live?)

Stay out of my life. Period.

A couple of final thoughts:

Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my guns.

GUN CONTROL: The principle that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is more acceptable than allowing that same woman to defend herself with a handgun.

You people are SWINE.

-------------------------------

I ACTUALLY GOT A RESPONSE!

-------------------------------

>You people are SWINE.

Dear Mr. Olson,

Your very amusing response to our opinion poll inspired me to write this reply which, of course, only reflects my personal opinion and certainly not that of the AMA or MSJAMA.

Angry rhetoric has never gotton a bill passed, won a case in court, or sealed an election victory. Knee jerk, enraged reactions like this one simply don't become an adult American trying to take a stand. Throwing a temper tantrum whenever someone publishes material with which you disagree only serves to damage the reputation of your entire cause.

Whenever I read something that ticks me off. I take a step back, think about what I feel is wrong with it and respond using reason and logic _not_ anger. Anger in the political arena will only get you laughed at or ignored. If you don't like what you read, feel free to respond using a rational argument instead of slinging meaningless insults around.

I trust you will keep this in mind. If you don't, well then all the better for the anti-gun lobby!

Sincerely,
Stuart

------------------------------

To which I replied:

------------------------------

Thank you. Point taken. Now, if you'd be so kind as to respond to the OTHER points of the original email, I would be most appreciative.

The "swine" comment refers to supposed professionals who warp and twist the "facts" to support a political agenda. I loathe junk science, and am horrified that you people embrace it. I guess that's just an indicator as to why so many more people DIE from medical malpractice each year than from
guns.

You might want to look those statistics up too. I'd LOVE to hear your answer....

Dennis Olson

------------------------------------

Amazing. We'll see what develops....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top