Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

discntnt_irny_srcsm

(18,608 posts)
2. regarding a response akin to junk science
Mon Nov 23, 2015, 01:38 PM
Nov 2015

"The ad..."

I posted no ad nor did I link to one. Your citing of factcheck's response to something which the NRA apparently published definitely reveals that factcheck had, as its motivation in writing the article to which you linked, discrediting that which the NRA published. I have no clue what the NRA published and I don't care.



The survey wasn’t a scientific poll...

I didn't purport that it was a scientific poll. It's obviously skewed because the self-selected aspect of the included respondents would exclude the opinions of those readers not inclined to answer internet polls.



"...there was no question asking whether “background checks” would have an “effect on violent crime.”

Quite true; I didn't make any claims about background checks.
The article to which I linked and posted in part did not make any claims about background checks.
Why you're addressing background checks I'm not sure. (Maybe you just want to distract from the topic by changing the subject. You should start you're own thread for that.) I happen to like background checks.



"In fact, the survey methodology says that a question on criminal background checks was removed..."

Again, I don't care, I didn't mention BGCs in my OP. So, again, start your own thread on BGCs and stop peeing the pool here in this thread.



"...flim flamming..."

This term means to swindle as in 'use deception to deprive (someone) of money or possessions.'
You assert that I posted "disinformation" but offer no proof of that. Proof would be a "scientific" survey of police officers which shows a preponderance of respondents actually hold opinions counter to the those I posted.



Your factcheck link: < http://www.factcheck.org/2013/04/nra-misrepresents-police-survey-legislation/ >
...makes a bit of fuss about:
Online ads from the NRA wrongly claimed that “80% of police say background checks will have no effect” on violent crime. The survey cited in the ads by the NRA says nothing of the sort.


I made no reference to nor representation of a position on BGCs. GO argue on the NRA site (which neither you nor factcheck seems to have linked to.)
You can return to your slumber now.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

police one survey 'by invitation only' to members of police one jimmy the one Nov 2015 #1
regarding a response akin to junk science discntnt_irny_srcsm Nov 2015 #2
I'm not slumbering jimmy the one Nov 2015 #4
apology accepted discntnt_irny_srcsm Nov 2015 #5
Oh and BTW..... discntnt_irny_srcsm Nov 2015 #6
No. 2: Curiously, the far higher homicide rates in the 50s & 60s (guns) must... Eleanors38 Nov 2015 #3
IIRC in the '50s and '60s... discntnt_irny_srcsm Nov 2015 #7
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»PoliceOne's Gun Control S...»Reply #2