Lott has a post (scroll to 1/10/04 entry on his blog) on the meaningless poll that discussed earlier. Lott's headline is:
A BBC Poll Shows that Most British Want a Law authorizing homeowners to use any means to defend their home from intruders
Of course, as I explained earlier phone-in polls are not at all representative of the population. Nor in any case was there majority support for the shoot a burglar law, which received 37% of the votes.
Lott links to a post by Eric Rasmussen, who also seems to think that the poll is representative of public opinion in Britain. Sigh.
More like this
Glenn Reynolds links approvingly to a post by Thomas Lifson on the results of a BBC phone-in and email poll that allowed people to propose a new law that they would like to see passed. The winning proposal was a law that would allow home-owners to use any means to defend their home…
Yet another columnist has demonstrated profound ignorance of opinion polling. Scott Norvell writes about the meaningless BBC phone-in poll (discussed earlier here and here):
Britain's chattering classes sure can get their knickers in a knot with the will of the people…
Glenn Reynolds approvingly links to another poll that he claims provides
More evidence that the British public is taking a tougher line on crime than the British government.
Of course, Reynolds yet again fails to take notice of the fact that it is yet another meaningless on-line poll…
The London Daily Telegraph has been running a cynical and dishonest campaign in the UK to give people the right to defend themselves against burglars. It's dishonest because, as I have detailed here and here, people in the UK already have the right to defend themselves against burglars or anyone…
You are correct that phone-in surveys are not representative in general, but in this particular issue, they seem to reflect the views of Britons as a whole:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/crime/_story/0,13260,942118,00.html
Quote:
Do you think it is acceptable or unacceptable for householders to use potentially deadly force to protect their property against intruders?
Acceptable 68%
Unacceptable 32%
Of course, the two questions were slightly different: "any means" vs. "potentially deadly", but I can't think of "any means" that would be worse than "potentially deadly", other than perhaps pouring boiling water and acid on someone.
In the US, the laws that delimit the legitimate exercise of self-defense usually use the phrase "use of deadly force". This reflects the understanding that you have to be justified in using deadly force against someone attacking you or someone else. If you are justified in doing so, then the end result of the deadly force is not that important, from a legal perspective. The means of deadly force are also not that important - a baseball bat or an automobile could be used as a deadly weapons.
May be I am missing something but Lott's post notes that the BBc survey is not a scientific one. His also makes it clear about that proposal getting the "most votes." CCan't you read?
Yes, I can read. Right at the end Lott admits that the survey is not scientific. That means that his headline is utterly wrong -- the poll does not show what "most British" want.
May be I am missing something but Lott's post notes that the BBc survey is not a scientific one. His also makes it clear about that proposal getting the "most votes." CCan't you read?
May be I am missing something but Lott's post notes that the BBc survey is not a scientific one. His also makes it clear about that proposal getting the "most votes." CCan't you read?
May be I am missing something but Lott's post notes that the BBc survey is not a scientific one. His also makes it clear about that proposal getting the "most votes." CCan't you read?