Wednesday, September 23, 2009

Rasmussen Reports

The Los Angeles Times published an article about the recent findings in the Rasmussen Reports on guns.

The polls, conducted by Rasmussen Reports, asked whether the Constitution guarantees the right to own a gun and what was behind the recent increase in gun sales.

Among Americans polled, 75% said the Constitution guaranteed the right to own a gun. The percentage of "yes" answers was higher among Republicans (92%) and lower among Democrats (64%). Among others, 71% answered yes.

Isn't it fascinating that the difference between Republicans and Democrats is that much? Does this poll show that 36% of Democrats believe there is no constitutional guarantee? I wonder how many of the Democrats who made up the 64% think although there is a constitutional guarantee, it's a bad idea. What do you think?

Here's another good one.

Republicans and Democrats were evenly divided as well: 63% of Republicans polled said they opposed stricter gun laws while 62% of Democrats said stricter laws are needed.

I'm not sure if I would call that "evenly divided," but it is interesting. I suppose you could say that Republicans who oppose stricter gun control are 63%, while Democrats who oppose stricter gun control are 38% or less assuming there are some undecided. Let's say the undecided ones are only 8%. That means in the question of opposing stricter gun control laws the difference is 63% to 30%. Does that sound about right to you?

Why do you think there are such great differences between Republicans and Democrats. My own idea, very unscientific and totally without proof, is that among the Republicans you've got the mindless close-minded masses who cannot think outside their pre-conceived notions of how things should be. These are the millions who listen to Beck and Limbaugh and O'reilly for their inspiration. Among the Democrats, on the other hand, you've got the open-minded, the seekers, the idealists, folks who are generally better educated and better able to distinguish right from wrong.

What's your opinion? Please feel free to leave a comment.

29 comments:

  1. My own idea, very unscientific and totally without proof, is that among the Republicans you've got the mindless close-minded masses who cannot think outside their pre-conceived notions of how things should be.

    Hmm--" . . . mindless close-minded . . . "--that sounds like a tricky combination.

    Congratulations, Mikeb--making wanton bigotry amusing isn't easy to do, but you managed beautifully.

    ReplyDelete
  2. beowulf, That sure is a tricky combination, but doesn't it describe those characters at the tea parties and the protests?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Quick question there MikeB...

    You do know that Paul Helmke is a republican, right?

    ReplyDelete
  4. So you don't believe there are any close minded Democrats who can't think outside their preconceived notions?

    Wow!

    ReplyDelete
  5. No, Mikeb, I don't see how that combination can be any more possible than "headless and level-headed," or "bald and brunette."

    If you're asking whether or not I agree that some tea party attendees aren't especially bright, or well equipped to think for themselves--sure, I suspect that's probably the case. I would say the same thing about just about any other large gathering of people. There are going to be some doofuses is any crowd.

    ReplyDelete
  6. While many of both party are mindless zombies following the party line...or what they think the party line is anyway (and apparently the favorites to stick in front of a camera), there are plenty of thinkers on each side. Of course, if you're on one side or the other, it's easier to just ignore them and only point at the zombies of the opposite side.

    Republicans tend to favor lesser government intervention in their everyday lives (HAH, good luck with that in the Republican party), Democrats dream of some impossible perfect world where government makes sure we're all taken care of fairly, never mind that history has continually shown that this doesn't work since some jerk always decides he wants more power for himself. Oh wait, that defines the current politicians in power already.

    ReplyDelete
  7. So you don't believe there are any close minded Democrats who can't think outside their preconceived notions?

    Can you say PROJECTION?

    MikeB needs to look in the mirror.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Why do some of you guys get so offended when I say "among the Republicans you've got...?"

    That's "among," not all.

    You have the same reaction when I say 10% of gun owners are bad news. Why is that?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Because who is the 10% you are throwing under the bus Sparky?

    Are you saying my friends are part of it?

    Are saying that my family are part of that 10%?

    I know over 100 gun owners...based on statistics, that means YOU are saying that 10 of them could be criminals....and then you wonder why I find it offensive?

    Yet, you seem to delete any comment that might question your criminality....even as just an analogy. Why is that SPARKY?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Please tell me your thoughts on the following comment...

    Why do you think there are such great differences between black people and white people? My own idea, very unscientific and totally without proof, is that among the black people you've got the mindless close-minded masses who cannot think outside their pre-conceived notions of how things should be. These are the millions who listen to Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and Van Jones for their inspiration. Among the white people, on the other hand, you've got the open-minded, the seekers, the idealists, folks who are generally better educated and better able to distinguish right from wrong.



    What say you, MikeB?

    ReplyDelete
  11. "Isn't it fascinating that the difference between Republicans and Democrats is that much? "

    Not to me it is. Most democrats are convinced the government is there to do everything for them, from providing health care to personal protection. So it's no surprise that so many democrats don't believe in an individual right to keep and bear arms. In their ideal world, only the government would need arms.

    "My own idea, very unscientific and totally without proof..."

    Exactly.

    And my unscientific and proof-less idea is that that among the republicans you have rugged individualists who are aware of the realities of the world (the existence of criminality). Among the democrats, on the other hand, you have a bunch of Maddow/Olberman/Maher dittoheaded sheep who bow at the alter of globalism and think they can legislate away human nature.

    ReplyDelete
  12. You have the same reaction when I say 10% of gun owners are bad news. Why is that?

    Hmm--I don't know. Could it have something to do with your habit of assuming guilt by association:

    So, I don't accept that pro-gun argument that it's not their responsibility, that only the criminals are responsible for their actions.

    How far a stretch is it from all gun owners being responsible for what criminals do with guns, to all Republicans being responsible for the idiocy of some Republicans?

    If I made the statement that a there seems to be a great deal of crime among African Americans and Mexican immigrants, and was condemned for being racist for doing so, would you defend me? How 'bout if I said something about there seeming to be a rather disproportionate amount of terrorism that is committed by Muslims?

    You malign a large group of people, and then when someone from that group objects, you say "I wasn't talking about you--just a lot of people like you."

    It's bigotry, pure and simple, Mikeb, and as such, is despicable.

    ReplyDelete
  13. AztecRed said, And my unscientific and proof-less idea is that that among the republicans you have rugged individualists who are aware of the realities of the world (the existence of criminality). Among the democrats, on the other hand, you have a bunch of Maddow/Olberman/Maher dittoheaded sheep who bow at the alter of globalism and think they can legislate away human nature."

    Now, that's a beautifully worded description of the best of the Republicans and the worst of the Democrats, which is more or less just what I did in the post.

    Good one.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Hey MikeB,

    Does this count as a defensive gun use or is this guy suspected of staging a revenge killing like some of the other people you've accused?

    http://www.rugerforum.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=62636

    (h/t) to Weer'd Beard

    ReplyDelete
  15. My own idea, very unscientific and totally without proof, is that among the Republicans you've got the mindless close-minded masses who cannot think outside their pre-conceived notions of how things should be. These are the millions who listen to Beck and Limbaugh and O'reilly for their inspiration. Among the Democrats, on the other hand, you've got the open-minded, the seekers, the idealists, folks who are generally better educated and better able to distinguish right from wrong.

    I'd say that's a pretty classic case of projection, right there.

    ReplyDelete
  16. So basically, we're smarter than you. So there! Neener neener neener!

    ReplyDelete
  17. Interesting tactics you have MikeB...

    You refuse to post my comments CALLING you a bigot and yet you allow my comments which SHOW you are a bigot.

    You are truly a fascinating specimen.

    Please continue.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Bob S., Mikeb might be willing to acknowledge that that account was legitimate self-defense (or maybe not--I know he has trouble with that), but if the bear had been driving a car, Mike would be all for sending the shooter to prison.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Bob asked, "Does this count as a defensive gun use or is this guy suspected of staging a revenge killing like some of the other people you've accused?"
    That's pretty funny Bob, a revenge killing against a gigantic bear.

    I accept that DGUs happen, I just don't believe they happen as often as some people say.

    Something I've been thinking about is, do you think animal DGUs should be counted separately from the normal ones against criminals? I admit the gun saves the day when the attacker is a bear, but wouldn't you then have to count all the acts of gun violence against animals on the other side to make a fair comparison?

    ReplyDelete
  20. kaveman, You've got me pegged: "fascinating specimen."

    ReplyDelete
  21. DirtCrashr, I'm almost afraid to ask, but what's "Code Pink?"


    Stan and BC, Thanks for the comments.

    ReplyDelete
  22. MikeB,

    I just don't believe they happen as often as some people say.

    So, on one hand we have a scientifically conducted survey by Kleck and on the other hand is your belief, is that what you are saying?

    And that because you don't believe Kleck, we should give up our rights, accept every greater "inconvenience" and restrictions for actions that have not proven to reduce gun crime ?

    Is that the basis of your argument?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Beowolf

    but if the bear had been driving a car, Mike would be all for sending the shooter to prison

    I don't care who you are, that's funny right there.

    ReplyDelete
  24. who is Code Pink?

    MikeB, Google is your friend. Of course, they don't bring too much friendly commentary from certain sorts of women.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Of course, the open-minded seeking lefties don't deal in base stereotypes or sweeping generalizations.

    The leftie are, after all, so much SMARTER than the rest of us simpletons.

    If you don't believe that lefties really are smarter than you are, just ask one and find out.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Bob S., beowulf sure has my number doesn't he?

    "but if the bear had been driving a car, Mike would be all for sending the shooter to prison"

    ReplyDelete
  27. kaveman, Thanks for helping me understand my own commenting policy better.

    "You refuse to post my comments CALLING you a bigot and yet you allow my comments which SHOW you are a bigot."

    That's pretty much what it boils down to. You cannot call me a bigot or a liar or a hypocrite. But you can show that I am one of those. The reason is when you stick to the second method of showing, some people might not see it the way you do. That leaves us with a civil disagreement. When you employ the first method, you've pre-empted all discussion and gone right into name-calling and personal attacking, which is not allowed.

    This distinction will come in handy during my imminent blog break.

    ReplyDelete
  28. MikeB,

    I think I've figured out the basis of your commenting policy - expressed in a different light.

    If I say that a statement you made is untrue - that is okay.

    If I said the person making an untrue statement is a liar - that isn't.

    What is the difference? You avoiding personal responsibility for what you say and believe.

    If the focus is on the statement, the idea, the data...then you don't have to own up for your responsibility to make sure it is right.

    If a statement is shown to be hypocritical (as many of yours are), then it is the statement that is the problem...not the person making it -- YOU.

    You aren't called liar for your opinions or thoughts.

    You are called a liar when you make statements where there is clear, evidence that you lied.

    When you say "I think it is at 10%" you aren't called a liar, are you? Nope.

    You are taken to task because you don't support that statement with EVIDENCE.

    Once again, it seems like it boils down to just another pro-ignorance, anti-freedom liberal not wanting to take responsibility.

    ReplyDelete