Justin Time

[GreyGhost]

If i have to type any slower.....do you know what the word random means? It isn't my job to learn for you. Look it up if you don't understand or stop talking about the poll. Talk about how you think guns should be legal.....you cannot change that a large majority of Canadians support a ban on what comes to mind when someone says the word assault rifle. You may disagree....but that has nothing to do with the poll. So the poll is way off it is only 70% or 65% still a huge majority.

And now apparently all polls are wrong because you don't agree with the results? pick an argument

I dont listen to any polls. I don't care what the results are. They are garbage. Have you looked up random? You cannot get a random sample of canadians from a phone book.

Yes, sampling a random subset of a population can be considered applicable. Sampling what is by definition a non-random (and somewhat self-selected group) produces results that only apply to that group. How does that group compare to an actual random sample? I have no idea and nor does anyone else. They choose to ignore it as it doesnt suit their purposes. Polling companies jeed to poll to make money. Admitting that it is now garbage science eliminates their industry.

 

[800over]

Even if it was an attempt at random, what's to stop them from running the poll multiple times until they get the results they want? The contrary polls never get finalized or published and you have the results you want.

Nothing prevents them from running the poll one thousand times.....and the ramdom sample size determines if it is reliable or not....so you could run the test 50 more times and you'll get very close numbers every time....like 2 percent off. If the wording is changed or maybe something happens to change peoples mind (or enough time from the event occurs) then the numbers will change. But 80% isn't a lucky chance....

 

[Mr.K]

I've seen lots of people claiming that the Libs were elected with this in their platform, therefore there is wide support for a gun ban of some sort. This doesn't hold up for a few reasons.

Many people would have voted for the party (or any party) without agreeing on their platform 100%. I voted Liberal because they had some hope of winning while having some sort of coherent environmental policy, not because of their gun stuff. I would imagine that this was not in the top 3 issues people voted for when it came to a liberal vote.

People have no clue about gun laws either here or abroad. A discussion with my in-laws shows the general sentiment, along with many misconceptions. SIL said that they're not useful for hunting animals; they aren't allowed to be used outside of a range making any other argument of their use irrelevant, but it would also depend on what someone was hunting and the caliber being used. MIL claimed that nobody has a valid use for an automatic assault rifle, which I explained were already not allowed. FIL then had some bizarre story about needing to pick up any guns at the police station in Ireland if you wanted to use them, which is just not true.

Unfortunately we're tainted by the neighbours down south being incredibly obnoxious with their guns, which makes any reasonable gun owner look bad. People who are anti-gun also end up imagining that people are advocating for a USA style system, which doesn't seem to be the case, and they confuse our issues with the ones down south which are very different.

I'm not sure how any motorcylist can be in favour of the logic behind the ban. The logic is that nobody needs guns (or these guns, at least). Nobody needs motorcycles either, but we all ride. Statistically speaking, we're a far more dangerous crowd than gun owners. People who like sports cars should be upset too; nobody needs a car with more than 200 horsepower. Nobody needs alcohol, tobacco, or weed, but we still allow those things too because we shouldn't be a bunch of wanks who just sit at home all day and complain about other people having fun like a bunch of facebook moms.

 

[800over]

I dont listen to any polls. I don't care what the results are. They are garbage. Have you looked up random? You cannot get a random sample of canadians from a phone book.

do you know that is how they do it? no you don't because you just ******* typed it.

I dont listen to any polls. I don't care what the results are. They are garbage. Have you looked up random? You cannot get a random sample of canadians from a phone book.

And apparently you do care.

 

[GreyGhost]

Nothing prevents them from running the poll one thousand times.....and the ramdom sample size determines if it is reliable or not....so you could run the test 50 more times and you'll get very close numbers every time....like 2 percent off. If the wording is changed or maybe something happens to change peoples mind (or enough time from the event occurs) then the numbers will change. But 80% isn't a lucky chance....

You are not running a random sample.

You're right 80% is not a lucky chance. They were very loaded questions intended to achieve the desired outcome. I am 100% sure you could change the results by 50% by differently wording the questions. If the results are dictated by the input, what did we learn about the respondents? F all.

 

[jc100]

Unfortunately what you typed is correct.....and a complete red herring....you can sign up to receive surveys for like food etc....but not this type of poll. If i ******* have to explain what random means holy ****.

I was talking in general terms about surveys, not specific.

 

[jc100]

93.49% of statistics are made up

 

[crankcall]

And 74% of those statistics are in metric


Sent from my iPhone using GTAMotorcycle.com

 

[800over]

You are not running a random sample.

You're right 80% is not a lucky chance. They were very loaded questions intended to achieve the desired outcome. I am 100% sure you could change the results by 50% by differently wording the questions. If the results are dictated by the input, what did we learn about the respondents? F all.

Exactly what i have been saying....but yes a random sample. What part of random don't you understand?

 

[jc100]

Exactly what i have been saying....but yes a random sample. What part of random don't you understand?

He's stating ”random” doesn’t necessarily mean that your getting an unbiased response.

Here's an extreme example of manipulation of random samples to get what you want..

What have we learnt from Vioxx?

In October UK patients who had cardiovascular events while taking rofecoxib lost the right to fight Merck in the US for compensation. But researchers and journals can still benefit from this case if they learn from the mistakes, write Harlan Krumholz ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

These are results from a placebo controlled double blinded clinical study of a drug performed under FDA regulations. Arguably one of the most rigorous and truly randomized studies you can get. But by framing the study a particular way Merck got the outcome they wanted, ignoring the fatal cardiovascular side effects that eventually led to huge legal settlements.

 

[FullMotoJacket]

He just can't grasp that the government paid for a "random" study of 80% (or better).

 

[GreyGhost]

Exactly what i have been saying....but yes a random sample. What part of random don't you understand?

Compared to a random sample of the entire population, you are by definition limiting it to people with phones in the poll companies directory (which may or may not be representative of the population at large, I strongly suspect not). I would hope that the polling company does not do any shady filtering of their directory to select regions they think will give them the result they want (I'm sure they won't say this, but it is trivially easy to have a directory for each poll and the entire directory is eligible but it happened to be a subset of the total directory available).

When you call a number from the directory the respondent self selects whether they would like to participate. You have many people that won't answer if they don't recognize the number, are those people statistically likely to agree or disagree with the expected outcome? I have no idea but I am sure on some topics there will be a correlation. It is easy to skew results when people answer by how and what you say when asking if they want to participate. By making the expected length of questionnaire longer, you are likely to get less people that work/have families and more people that are old/lonely. By putting trigger words into this question, you also change whether people choose to participate (eg. we have some questions about assault rifles/gun control/public safety changes who wants to spend their time answering).

So the selection is not random. There are a number of steps where you may deviate from a truly random sampling of Canadians.

 

[nobbie48]

With cell phones you also have the issue of many households having multiple phone numbers. I'm not sure how this influences the randomness and applicability to the distribution. I suspect (but could be wrong) that there are more phone numbers per urban family than rural family.

Somewhere I read 50 million phone numbers in a country of 37 million. Home, office, work cell, personal cell, cottage and a few faxes. One right person could have four or five opinions.

If we're talking about political voting the phone poll of an underaged person dosn't count. Best new boy band maybe.

 

[GreyGhost]

Somewhere I read 50 million phone numbers in a country of 37 million. Home, office, work cell, personal cell, cottage and a few faxes. One right person could have four or five opinions.

And some will have zero. We all know a few crazies up north that have no way to contact them other then banging on the door to their cabin. I'm not sure if the number of people without phones is statistically significant. Even if you managed to contact them, they wouldn't want to talk to you. I'm also not sure whether they care what JT says, they moved to the woods for a reason.

That is why I wonder if a phone based poll unintentionally (or not) focuses on urban populations.My urban friends have one phone number per person, many of my rural friends share one for the family (less money to Robelus and no need to be constantly connected)

 

[Hack]

I dont keep a gun for home defense. That's what the police are for.

I dont keep any fire extinguishers at home either. That's what the fire dept. is for.

 

[GreyGhost]

I dont keep a gun for home defense. That's what the police are for.

I dont keep any fire extinguishers at home either. That's what the fire dept. is for.

Well, I have fire entinguishers because cleaning up some powder is less work for me than replacing everything.

Gun for home defense on the other hand is more likely to ruin my life than save it. Even if you get found innocent (debatable given the gov't hard on for private gun owners), you have lost years of your life and all of your money in the fight.

 

[Hack]

My issues with the ban are these... in no particular order.

1. The sneaky way they imposed it. Going around parliament. This is huge. Wait until they start doing this with other more mainstream agenda items.

2. The fact that its all based of feels and not facts

3. That it affects me personally. I'm out thousands of dollars and have had my primary recreational sports activity taken from me. Imagine how you'd feel if tomorrow the govt banned motorcycles due to public safety concerns.
That's how I feel right now.

 

[backmarkerducati]

The funny thing about a gun for protection argument.....

Little more than half the population are female, gun ownership for women is VERY low compared to men.

Then look south of the border...CCW, argument is of course they need it for protection everywhere they go. While women do have CCWs the numbers are again way lower than men. So why do manly men need a gun for protection and women don't seem to? Then of course the man needs a gun for protection at all times but his children don't CCW....yet they live in the same hood, go to the same store, malls, whatever????

Appears to me the women and children are tougher than some manly men when it comes to self defence.

No issue with ownership when it comes to hunting, hobby, whatever. Protection does not fly...

 

[backmarkerducati]

My issues with the ban are these... in no particular order.

1. The sneaky way they imposed it. Going around parliament. This is huge. Wait until they start doing this with other more mainstream agenda items.

2. The fact that its all based of feels and not facts

3. That it affects me personally. I'm out thousands of dollars and have had my primary recreational sports activity taken from me. Imagine how you'd feel if tomorrow the govt banned motorcycles due to public safety concerns.
That's how I feel right now.

I am with you on 2 and 3, as for number 1, Harper used OICs and also tried to hide some of them, this is nothing new.

 

[GreyGhost]

The funny thing about a gun for protection argument.....

Little more than half the population are female, gun ownership for women is VERY low compared to men.

Then look south of the border...CCW, argument is of course they need it for protection everywhere they go. While women do have CCWs the numbers are again way lower than men. So why do manly men need a gun for protection and women don't seem to? Then of course the man needs a gun for protection at all times but his children don't CCW....yet they live in the same hood, go to the same store, malls, whatever????

Appears to me the women and children are tougher than some manly men when it comes to self defence.

No issue with ownership when it comes to hunting, hobby, whatever. Protection does not fly...

And inside 10' a knife beats a gun. Most gun crimes are up close and personal. A gun is scary looking but not a great tool for the job.