So why were Democrats and Liberals always voting against concealed carry, and now against National Reciprocity and support every Anti Gun Bill and Law ??? Do tell, thrill us with your acumen.....
As a Professional Certified Firearms Instructor of many years experience, he certainly holds far more qualifications than you do.
Actually yes as far as shooting skill that is undoubtedly true. As far as knowledge of science and statistics he is probably not in my league. His statements about polling and reliance on anecdotal evidence prove he should stay out of fact based discussions.
Comparing a scientific poll to the opinions of firearms instructors is a no brainer except for those of us with no intellectual faculties.
Actually would suggest that designing the sampling size and determining margin of error and how to obtain a representitive sample is science. Asking the questions in such a manner as not to prejudice the answer is the more art part.
Well I could have said that only an intellectual pigmy would believe that personal anecdotes have more validity than polling data but I was trying to be tactful.
A soon as you introduce art as part of the process, it’s no longer science. As for alluding statistics is science, there is no absolute concensus that it is. A good book, required reading for me in college, was ‘How to lie with statisics’. For any reference you post that refers to polling and statistics as a science, I can post an opposite view. As for question design, it’s easy to design guestions, order and context of questions, explanations of questions and term definition, limiting multiple choice answers, rankings, question grouping, language order, language targeting, and more to deliberately skew results and extremely difficult to remove bias. For example, asking a question that asks if a respondent is in favor of a UBC without context will yield diffferent results than the question, are they for a UBC even if it means a BC must be done for any transfer including to family or when lending a gun and that a UBC will require all guns to be registered. In the first case, asked in simple terms, the details of a UBC, it’s scope, and other dependencies are left vague. In the second, a position bias is introduced. In both, it assumes every one knows what a UBC is and how it works... and the meaning is understood by all. Few polls get critiqued because of the questions making this an easy, often covert means of biasing a poll. Authors of polls rarely start design without some bias. There are several methods of determining repsentative sample populations and choosing the appropriate model is an art as well. Applying statistical methods for analyzing complex human behavior, is not without significant potential potential for results that do not reflect in the full population being targeted. Most polls get criticized by their polling sample method and if that group is representative to the larger population being studied. Of course it’s all science when the results of polls fit the LW narratives.
There is no evidence anywhere that supports your claim other than some limited sample polls. Polls are estimates, that's why there is a margin of error. Name any other method af acquiring accurate data that comes with a margin of error. I feel I'm qualified to weigh in on this, not because of pre conceived notions, but rather the exposure to thousands of gun owners, and their feedback on this and similar subjects over the many years in the firearms training and shooting sports competition fields. The truth is that I just haven't run across many shooters that would discuss their personal firearms with someone that may or may not be genuinely conducting a poll.
I got lucky. After I sold mine to "Gary", he lost them all in a tragic boating accident. Is your name Gary?
Explain the so-called safe act for the state of New York then. Lowering the maximum allowed capacity of detachable magazines from ten to seven rounds of ammunition, requiring new re-certification of handgun ownership permit owners, and the confiscation of legally owned firearms from owners on the flimsiest basis, such as insomnia. Or for that matter, explain the firearm-related restrictions of the state of California, where one family member can have law enforcement come and remove the legally owned firearms of another family member without evidence of wrong doing.
When there is no evidence of wrongdoing required for the confiscation of firearms, how are responsible individuals not negatively affected by the malicious act of another? Explain such.
AB-1014 "With AB-1014, a family member only has to have a gut feeling to petition for a temporary restraining order. For the process to start, a judge has to sign off on the order." http://www.krcrtv.com/news/california-gun-confiscation-law-takes-effect-jan-1-1/11503732
That is silly. In which judicial system is a temporary restraining order gun confiscation? Here is the actual law: This bill would authorize a court to issue a temporary emergency gun violence restraining order if a law enforcement officer asserts and a judicial officer finds that there is reasonable cause to believe that the subject of the petition poses an immediate and present danger of causing personal injury to himself, herself, or another by having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm and that the order is necessary to prevent personal injury to himself, herself, or another, as specified. The bill would require a law enforcement officer to serve the order on the restrained person, if the restrained person can reasonably be located, file a copy of the order with the court, and have the order entered into the computer database system for protective and restraining orders maintained by the Department of Justice. The bill would require the presiding judge of the superior court of each county to designate at least one judge, commissioner, or referee who is required to be reasonably available to issue temporary emergency gun violence restraining orders when the court is not in session. This bill would additionally authorize a court to issue an ex parte gun violence restraining order prohibiting the subject of the petition from having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving, or attempting to purchase or receive, a firearm or ammunition when it is shown that there is a substantial likelihood that the subject of the petition poses a significant danger of harm to himself, herself, or another in the near future by having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm and that the order is necessary to prevent personal injury to himself, herself, or another, as specified. The bill would require the ex parte order to expire no later than 21 days after the date on the order and would require the court to hold a hearing within 21 days of issuing the ex parte gun violence restraining order to determine if a gun violence restraining order that is in effect for one year should be issued. The bill would require a law enforcement officer or a person at least 18 years of age who is not a party to the action to personally serve the restrained person the ex parte order, if the restrained person can reasonably be located. Actuall seems pretty reasonable and probablynthe best thst can be done to help family members keep loved ones from committing suicide by gun.
And By the way Xenamnes was talking about a New York state law that supposedly allows confiscation for insomnia. So far he hasn't actually come up with the law. See post #1593.
