“Do you support increased gun control?” map

O

Ozzieman

New member
http://www.isidewith.com/map/5i5/support-for-gun-control

Interesting color coded Map for the support of gun control. This is a congressional district result from a total of 1.227 million since 2013.
The question was “Do you support increased gun control?”
I found it rather surprising and I bet the Brady bunch are not happy with it.
Also not surprising is the locations that are showing the most for gun control is California and the north east coast and a small aria around Chicago.
 
What's surprising to me is that southern AZ and northern NM are strongly pro-control.
Click to expand...

I would hardly say NM is "pro control." The map isn't accurate for NM in that it allows Albuquerque, Rio Rancho, Santa Fe, and Los Alamos to influence the remainder of the northern area. Believe me - places like Red River, Eagle Nest, Questa, Raton, Farmington, and Clayton are hardly "pro control."

Rio Rancho / Albuquerque have a lot of people that have moved in from California and New York. Santa Fe has a lot of people from California - including a whole group of movie star types. Los Alamos is the home of the "propeller heads" that have PhD's and have moved in from all over the U.S.
 
Many people think that "more gun control" means stopping the illegal use of guns in violent crime when in reality it means just further limiting the already law abiding citizen. Results of these questions are often skewed.
 
Many of these areas are more urban where people see guns as a tool of the criminal and not as an item to be used in recreational activities or even self defense. While I agree many are naive in believing that more gun control will reduce crime. However, I think we should realize that their fears are often real and based on what they see on a daily basis in their communities. This is an area that we as firearms enthusiast need to petition organizations and leaders that represent our position to improve educational and outreach in these communities.
 
“Do you support increased gun control?”
Click to expand...

There are too many laws on the books already. They should enforce the laws already in place, instead of trying to ram more legislation down our throats.
 
Such a question is always useless. Legit and nonagenda surveys find that:

1. People with support more gun control if it keeps criminals or nuts from having guns.

2. The majority of folks (who do support #1) and those who don't want more control are in favor of allowing law abiding citizens to own guns for SD and sport. Their degree of control might vary but they are not total gun banners.

The implication from agenda polls is that total bans are wanted - which isn't the case.
 
When it comes to these kinds of polls, what exact questions asked, and the context matter, and what the respondent thinks is the right answer, and what the pollsters present to us as the results may not be the same thing, or even close.

Glenn gets it, as do some of the rest of us.

What is asked, and how, matters, and many, many "polls" are skewed to produce desired results.

One excellent example of this that has stuck with me is a Doonesbury cartoon from the early 70s. Doonesbury is acting as a poll taker, door to door, and reads the question...

"If the election were held tomorrow, who would you vote for?"
A) Santa Claus
B) The Easter Bunny
C) Richard Nixon

to which, the homeowner replies...
"hmm let me think about that..."
Doonesbury then thinks..
"This is going to be tougher than I thought..."

I hope you can see the message here...

Another "example" of polling, one I personally know about, from the Clinton years. An old boy I knew, farmer, about a political as a rock, got on the list, and began getting calls from polls, asking him how he felt about the job Pres Clinton was doing. He didn't really care much, so he said he thought the Pres was doing a good job. They called him every two or three months, for years. He always said the same thing. Then, just to be contrary, he decided to tell them he thought the Pres was doing a terrible job.

They NEVER called back after that.

Polls are wonderful things, as long as you realize that the reported results can be smoke and mirrors.

the only poll that really matters is the one we have every couple years in November.
 
There's also a serious issue with the sample group. Here's what the iSideWith.com map legend says. (My emphasis underlined.)
Congressional District results from 1,277,597 iSideWith.com users since Aug 2013...
Click to expand...
This is NOT a neutral and representative sample of registered voters in general. It's ONLY a survey of people who went to the website and took the quiz.

Furthermore...
Aguila Blanca said:
What's surprising to me is that southern AZ and northern NM are strongly pro-control. Also, ALL of NH and ALL of ME.
Click to expand...
I can't find if/where the iSideWith.com website tells us how many people in those areas actually took their quiz. If only 10-15 people in southern AZ, northern NM, all of NH, and/or all of ME took the quiz, the sample is NOT accurately representative of general political opinions in those areas.

It's also unclear how the website filters out duplicate "spoiler" votes, other than this vague and uninformative statement on their FAQ:
How do you prevent tampering and duplicate submissions in your results map and state-by-state results?
We don't publish how we prevent tampering, but we have sophisticated measures in place for finding and discarding tampered or duplicate submissions.
Click to expand...
Without a detailed explanation of these so-called "sophisticated measures", there's NO way to ascertain the accuracy of the results.
 
Do I dare expose the ugly truth? Polls(ters) lie...

Do I dare expose the ugly truth? Many of these polls on guns aren't worth the paper they're (not printed on).

"I side with...", "Survey Monkey" and other internet based survey tools are very often contrived-results-oriented survey tools with anticipated (predestined?) results (was that tactful enough but still get the point across?).

I've personally seen an advocacy group manipulate these polls in 2 ways:

1)They ask a question that appears innocuous but is prime facia biased: ("Can you name a worse president *in your lifetime* than George W. Bush (obama)?", asked to 18-25 year olds. (Since few 18 year olds remember a president before GWB they have 2 choices, nearly all name the current president or Bush))etc, or vice versa.

2) They use specific social media techniques to get specific but susceptible respondents to flood the responses with suggested / expected answers, in at least one instance offering prizes for the most (100's) responses.

Further, there is at least one company in India that can guarantee you any number of like-minded responses to a poll for literally pennies per vote, and the IP addresses will appear to be from targeted location for a bit more.

Be careful of anything you see as author active on the Internet.
 
I have found that the people that don't have guns or say they don't like guns, are none the less fascinated by them. Most of the movies and television programs they watch involve firearms that are essential to the storyline. Odd, isn't it? Like, "ethical", vegetarians that wear leather shoes.....
 
buckhorn cortez said:
I would hardly say NM is "pro control." The map isn't accurate for NM in that it allows Albuquerque, Rio Rancho, Santa Fe, and Los Alamos to influence the remainder of the northern area. Believe me - places like Red River, Eagle Nest, Questa, Raton, Farmington, and Clayton are hardly "pro control."

Rio Rancho / Albuquerque have a lot of people that have moved in from California and New York. Santa Fe has a lot of people from California - including a whole group of movie star types. Los Alamos is the home of the "propeller heads" that have PhD's and have moved in from all over the U.S.
Click to expand...
Yes, I'm familiar with Questa, Eagle Nest, and Farmington. Which is why the results surprised (and disappointed) me. But the survey (which was not scientific) is based on congressional districts (not counties), so one needs to look at where the congressional district lines are drawn in order to know if one (comparatively) large city could be skewing the results for an entire district.

New Mexico has three congressional districts. The district in which Albuquerque is located is relatively compact, leaving the rest of the state divided into two districts, roughly north of Albuquerque and south of Albuquerque.

nm-congressional-maps.gif


It looks like the 2nd district (to the south) is less inclined toward gun control, but the 1st (Albuquerque) and 3rd (Sante Fe and north) are coded the same color. That's the district that includes Questa, Eagle Nest, Farmington ... as well as Gallup. And it came as a big surprise to me to see that part of the state checking in as equally pro-gun control as Albuquerque.
 
Don't be fooled. The anti-gun crowd won't be happy until all guns are out of private hands. They will try and pass more laws until their objective is complete.
 
fuhr52 said:
Don't be fooled. The anti-gun crowd won't be happy until all guns are out of private hands. They will try and pass more laws until their objective is complete.
Click to expand...
I think most of us get that.

I'm still trying to figure out, though, how they got two out of the three people in Maine's 2nd District to vote pro-control. :cool:
 
Also not surprising is the locations that are showing the most for gun control is California and the north east coast and a small aria around Chicago.
Click to expand...

I am betting that the results for Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine were due to calls only being made to Burlington, Manchester, and Portland...
 
The enlightened/progressives tend to favor controls that are sticter or perhaps about the same as present. It has always been an illusion that stricter controls means lower crime and criminal use of firearms. The more rural areas generally favor the same or less control for the exact opposite reasons.

I keep hearing the broadcasters when talking about NYC and the police protecting the citizens. Not so.... anywhere, they only enforce the law. Protection by law enforcement is an illusion unless you believe their presence means protection. I view it more as a deterrent.
 
Protection by law enforcement is an illusion
Click to expand...

There is absolutely police protection, for certain individuals. When the police are assigned to do so. The mayor, or other public figures, or a witness under threat, might have police protection, for a time. That is real, an no illusion.

Protection for the general public is the illusion. Or, more accurately, they do try, it just doesn't succeed for everyone. The illusion is the belief that it does.
 
<---------political science major whose favorite class was "Public Opinion & Propaganda".

Any public opinion survey can be tailored to get the results you want by how you present each question.

The question "Do you support increased gun control?" may mean different things to different responders:
Some may interpret that to mean:
-more laws
-actual enforcement of existing laws

But it ignores the reasoning behind why people might want "gun control".....criminals. When the question includes the word GUN, it isn't about the criminal but an inanimate object.

MADD doesn't run polls asking "Do you support increased laws to keep cars away from drunk drivers?" They don't demonize what kills people, but WHO kills people.

Show me any opinion poll or survey and it's pretty easy to see the bias in the questions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top