And the Survey Says… ‘People Like Background Checks’ - Guns Magazine

I'm going upset some people here - That was one long ran.
If there was a point it was lost on me since it was poorly written and in parts just confusing.
I will condense what I did pick out of it - understand I am pro-gun so I might slant my choices.
1. The survey was overwhelming in its anti-gun conclusions (a copy of the survey was not provided). I did some checking myself and discovered the survey was commissioned by an (I will not name him) 2016 House campaigner. It was hard to track but its in among the campaign's public record (convoluted of course).
2. Previous surveys (or maybe even the same survey) came up with different survey results.
3. Democrats in a different cities were allowed to vote in the original survey but this rebuttal (5 years too late) cherrypicked one present day metro/city to support it's premises.
4. The pollster company randomly dialed persons based on another survey provided by the campaigner's (pre)staff where they polled their support base. The campaigner had not even announced his intent to run yet (based on that first surveys date of completion).
Continuing - the campaigner rejected the survey because it wasn't vetted properly thus he considered its conclusions were flawed.
5. I gathered when reading the article that the current poll isn't closed yet - which is strange because the Quinnipiac Survey (in question) ran for a set one week time frame prior to 2019 - though the current release date (based on newly included information - they didn't take a 'new poll' they just inserted 'updated' statistics) date is May 22, 2019.
6. I think the person who wrote the article had better resources than I have available to me and his rebuttal could have been better focused - and shorter.
I summarize with: SURVEY BAD.

I am sure part of this was the way the question was asked. And part is...what could anyone sane object to" mentality?

How come they never ask me ?