-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
on weapons and rape deterrence . . . on Kennedy and Smith the Seattle attorneys
- Thread starter zaitz
- Start date
Freedom1Man
Regular Member
Which ones have been telling the truth?
http://momsdemandaction.org/
Bloomberg.
http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/21/bloomberg-group-wants-you-to-start-fight
So, which anti-gun group is honest and intelligent?
http://dailycaller.com/2013/03/05/y...ns-rape-victims-while-advocating-gun-control/
Last edited:
nightmare, if after pursuing your tome you have been pushing for the last several weeks, you are not acutely aware telephonically gathered data is not scientifically valid...then you might wish to pursue another more viable one.
ipse
ipse
amlevin
Regular Member
I personally don't consider any random phone survey relevant even if it was take yesterday. These surveys are often conducted in a manner, with questions specifically worded, to achieve a pre-determined result.
FWIW, in order to obtain a few thousand responses it's probably necessary to make tens of thousands of calls that are answered with a hang-up just as soon as the person realizes it's a survey.
A good example of how flawed telephone surveys can be is illustrated by a recent law passed in WA State. Surveys claimed that 90% of the populace favored mandatory background checks yet the vote count on the initiative showed and over 30% error (only 60% voted for the law).
Freedom1Man
Regular Member
And many of those never read the actual proposed law. They just believed the anti-gun literature. A former boss never read the law but had the anti-gun literature and he was a "gun owner".
Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
Difdi
Regular Member
Back when they were collecting signatures to get that initiative on the ballot, I got into more than one argument with a signature collector over that. Most of them weren't members of the sponsoring organizations, they were just random people following a script they were handed. Only one of the ones I argued with had any idea what he was getting people to sign, and he kept insisting that nobody had to pass a background check in Washington so it was past time that we started requiring people to. *facepalm*
OC for ME
Regular Member
Providing a cite means also that you need to include the/a link to your cite...cuz some folks around here are of the Interwebz age and do not use google to look things up they own dang selves...
Credibility is overrated sometimes. Credibility is only usefull when you are loosing argument, when winning a argument credibility don't matter one little bit.
Credibility is overrated sometimes. Credibility is only usefull when you are loosing argument, when winning a argument credibility don't matter one little bit.