The basic template of this argument is as follows:
One sample of a population says
X. Another sample of the same population says
Y conflicts with
X. Thus members of this population are inconsistent because they claim both
I find this argument used very commonly, and it's obviously flawed. The error here, of course, is that there's no attempt made to see if there's any overlap between the sample that says
X and the sample that says
Y. So it's not clear that any significant number of individuals are holding these conflicting views.
Here's an example of an every day use of this flawed argument: "First conservatives say that banning guns won't do anything because the bad guys will get their hands on them regardless. But then they want to ban drugs so that people can't get their hands on them. They are inconsistent."
Is this a known logical fallacy?