Luntz Misleads With New Gun Poll

Publius Forum ^ | 01/25/09 | Warner Todd Huston

[Mobile Vulgus]

Pollster Frank Luntz is trying to hawk his new poll on gun laws commissioned by the left-wing group Mayors Against Illegal Guns. He's trying to sell the concept that NRA members are just as interested in "common-sense gun policies" as anti-gun nuts and that legislators should take this into account when crafting future anti-gun legislation. The problem is that this poll is misleading in some important ways. The problem here is that the devil being in the details is glossed over by the poll. (Download .pdf of poll here)

In an op ed penned by Luntz and Tom Barrett, gun owners are compared favorably with non-gun owners over their feelings on gun banning laws. "The culture war over the right to bear arms isn't much of a war after all," the pair tells us. "As it turns out, there is a lot everyone agrees on."

And this main point serves as the biggest problem with Luntz' poll. Of course everyone will claim they are for "common-sense" laws. But the first thing that anyone will find out when discussing concrete policies that might come to make up these so-called common-sense ideas is that disagreement quickly reigns when people start getting specific. An assumption that everyone agrees on just what common sense means disappears pretty quickly when the details are laid out...

Read the rest at Publiusforum.com...

[Mobile Vulgus]

Luntz makes a major miss with THIS bad gun poll, for sure.

[Lancey Howard]

Luntz is like a “climate scientist” - - he knows ahead of time the results he wants and he polls accordingly for supporting data.

[RanGreHad]

Luntz continues to amaze. He will make wild generalizations, get Sean Hannity all excited, and then reverse himself, based on his "scientific" focus groups. I'll take Rasmussen any day, even when his conclusions are unsettling.

[End Times Sentinel]

You know, I’ve never liked Luntz. I know he’s popular with some around here, but there’s always been something shady about his analysis.

Also, that “Words that Work” book was one of the worst books I’ve ever tried to read. Flat out horrible.

[rellimpank]

---it was front and center with the Milwaukee mayor and the local version of the Daily Worker yesterday, too-- --http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2436277/posts

[smokingfrog]

Right. Just look at Mass.

Current gun laws have been a failure in reducing crime and respecting civil rights.

[RC one]

So long as liberals continue to release violent criminals back onto the street, there's really no point taking away guns from law abiding citizens. As far as I'm concerned, there's no point in it ever anyways of course but especially not in light of the high incidence of violent recidivism exhibited by violent felons who have been released onto the street. Case in point, the young Iraq war hero in San Bernardino County California that was recently murdered while installing cable in the home of a man who had previosuly been convicted of murder and rape(1). California's liberal gun policies not only didn't save this man but it can certainly be argued that california's liberal policy of releasing violent felons back onto the street killed this man despite their high incidence of recidivism(2). It can also be argued that had this man been empowered with the right to carry a concealed firearm, he would be alive today.

1.) "Acosta has a lengthy criminal record for crimes including rape and murder, and he had recently been released from prison" http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local-beat/Marine-Cable-Guy-69711867.html

2.) "The governor noted that California's recidivism rate is 70 percent, the highest in the nation." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/26/AR2006062601240.html

[bravo whiskey]

i’m all for common-sense gun laws. it’s just my definition of common sense is closer to thomas paine and the constitution than the brady bunch’s definition of common sense.

[wastoute]

In a sense I supose one could say I am "on board" with him in this sense and maybe that is why he is (mis)interpreting his data. I don't care about "more gun laws" but the reason I don't care is because the gummint has "lost it's moral authority" to make any further gun laws that I feel any need to acknowledge.

Μολὼν λάβε

[Misterioso]

It’s amusing to watch the liberal moths flying into the gun control flame.

[Still Thinking]

This guy is a putz. He’s the polling equivalent of Olympia Snowe. People hire this guy and he gives them the liberal results they want and they can claim the poll was done by a conservative Republican firm. He just exists to give statists a fig leaf. I think he says something like “it’s all in how you put your message”. Prick.

[Mobile Vulgus]

Good points.

[Who is John Galt?]

I’ve seen him present completely NON-common sense poll results in the past - which were obviously a result of the specific wording of the questions presented by the pollster. Mr. Luntz is a ‘gun for hire,’ and I’m sure his results always please the folks who hired him (whoever they were)...

[GYL2]

How did they verify the people participating In the poll are ACTUALLY NRA Members?

Question: A proposal prohibiting people on the terrorist watch lists from purchasing guns.

Did it specify that people can end up on the “terrorist watch lists” without due process?

Did it specify how people can get off the “terrorist watch lists”? IE. Clear their name?

I wonder how people would answer if the question were posed with the provision that they had mistakenly been placed on the “terrorist watch lists”?

[GYL2]

Consider that in most conflicts an enemy will telegraph their moves ahead of time, let’s connect the dots here.

A few months ago, the department of homeland security intimated that they considered certain people as possible “Domestic terrorists”

Such people being those that support the second amendment and veterans among others.

Now, the Far-left National Socialists are pushing to restrict people on the Terror watch lists from buying guns.

So, to put it all together, they would like to restrict anyone who is a veteran or supports the second amendment from buying guns – which by most accounts would be ANYONE wanting to buy a gun, isn’t that neat how that works out for them?

[Mobile Vulgus]

Not out of the realm of possibility, for sure.

[Redcloak]

The biggest problem with Luntz’s poll is that it’s impossible to “poll NRA members”. The NRA membership list is a closely guarded secret. Luntz could not have conducted the poll he claims to have conducted.