Saturday, January 19, 2013


Headline of a Fox polling story:
Fox News poll: Twice as many favor more guns over banning guns to reduce crime
Yes, that's what Fox's pollsters asked:
Would there be less violent crime in the United States if: [ROTATE 1-2]

Guns were banned 28%

More law-abiding people had guns 58%
Fascinating -- or it would be fascinating if any politician or other influential figure were actually proposing to ban all guns. A significant percentage of Americans may think that's what's being proposed by the president, but it's not even close. So why even ask the question, except to give a news organization that thrives on straw-man arguments a little more straw?

And the other choice is equally absurd. If more law-abiding people get guns, that will mean that the gun market is thriving even more than it is now, and purchasing a gun is even easier than it is now -- which means that more guns will also be obtained by people who aren't law-abiding. (Or people who are law-abiding now but may eventually lose their battle with mental illness or rage or depression and decide to shoot up a school, or kill a spouse, or shoot themselves.) The belief that there's some way to increase the number of good people with guns without also increasing the number of bad people with guns, in a nation where the NRA has emasculated all national agencies that enforce gun laws, as well as most local agencies, is delusional.

To their credit, the same poll respondents who engage in this NRA-propaganda-fed magical thinking about guns actually want laws to make getting a gun harder:
The most popular suggestions are requiring criminal background checks on all gun buyers (with 91 percent favoring this proposal), providing services for mentally ill people who "show violent tendencies" (89 percent) and improving enforcement of existing laws (86 percent)

Large majorities also favor mandating mental-health checks on gun buyers (83 percent) and requiring criminal background checks on anyone buying ammunition (80 percent).

Smaller majorities favor putting armed guards in schools (60 percent), banning high-capacity clips (56 percent), [and] banning assault weapons (54 percent)....
And yet, according to the poll, 56% of Americans have a favorable opinion of the NRA, which exists to make sure that nothing on the above list ever happens (except for the armed guards in schools).

But that, I suppose is because Americans see the NRA as fighting the good fight against politicians and other policymakers who want to ban all guns.

You know, people who don't actually exist.


Victor said...

Steve, things may get worse next week - and that may change things a bit.

Next week is the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, and my prediction is - I expect a lot trouble.

I look for the the gun-nuts to join in with the “Pro-Life” crowd, and I anticipate several “Two-for-one” protests that may include mass shootings.

After all, ‘Rushba the Slut Hutt,’ said that “The best way to prevent abortions, is with a gun.”

I hope that fat @$$hole is wrong, and nothing happens.

But, if soemthing happens, I want that fat POS to be held responsible.

Wanna bet there won’t be any takers to Rush's challange?

Examinator said...

And you're surprised why?
I'd be surprised if they didn't!
why wouldn't they? it means more MONEY!
Why do you suppose Murdoch changed his nationality? MONEY= Power. He would have become a Chinese citizen if he could have the same power.
In short he would be an interesting case for someone trying to prove the link between sociopathology and success in business.
He's been eulogised as being the last great NEWSPAPER MAN a la Randy Hurst.
But that is way too narrow He is simply obsessed with M&P. He's only interested in MSM because he can whip up the more emotionally dominated rump of the population.
I would posit with more than a little circumstantial evidence that he doesn't give a flying pink elephant for anyone's rights except his OWN.
His thinking goes free speech allows me to influence public opinion in MY favor to make more power . Because I can't be Prez and laments that (he has said that in interview). I'll control the system.
Everything he does is to influence the public to his thinking.
Psychologically we are only shocked by what is novel/new. We are no longer appalled as we once were about the extremes... that is a higher brain function....we are however easily frightened that is a limbic system (instinctual reaction).
He's not interested in the Intellectual voter rather just the emotionally visceral rump both Dem and Republican. He simply doesn't need the others!
Ask yourself How much money can one person reasonably spend. His family already have enough to never have to work now. .
He know the consequences of his ambition but just doesn't care ..his empathy is clearly subservient to his megalomania tendencies