The culture war over the right to bear arms isn't much of a war after all. As it turns out, there is a lot everyone agrees on.What's your opinion? Do you think it's true that "the vast majority" of gun owners are more like non-gun-owners than they are like the passionate gun bloggers? That would make the claims often used by the passionate types that there are 80 million of them or 100 million of them completely misleading, wouldn't it?A new poll of gun owners and National Rifle Association members makes it clear that they share many attitudes and beliefs with Americans who don't own guns.
The poll, conducted by The Word Doctors, a national research and communications firm, and commissioned by the bipartisan coalition of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, shows that gun owners in general and NRA members in particular share the belief that commitment to the Second Amendment goes hand in hand with more vigorous law enforcement and common-sense solutions that prevent criminals from getting guns.
For instance, 69% of NRA members and 86% of non-NRA gun-owners support closing the "gun show loophole." The loophole allows some vendors at gun shows to sell guns without conducting the federal background checks that all licensed gun dealers perform. Gun shows provide hunters, collectors, sportsmen and gun enthusiasts with a great place to shop - but as the Department of Justice has reported, 30% of guns in illegal gun-trafficking cases are linked to gun shows.
Mayors of small and large cities and police from throughout the country strongly support closing the gun show loophole. Now we know that gun owners - including NRA members - do, too. The only question is: Are their elected representatives listening?
After a bruising partisan battle on health care, it might seem strange to suggest that gun laws - long-considered a third-rail political issue - could bring all sides to the negotiation table. But centrists in both parties have an opportunity to join the American people in recognizing the culture war over guns is more myth than reality.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
A debunked poll.
ReplyDeleteBut if that's what they want to believe, let them believe it. They made that same mistake in 1994 when they thought the majority of gun owners would support the AWB. Turns out they were wrong and when the ban sunset, to the chagrin of the pollsters, not many gun owners (or even non-gun owners) were in favor of it being reinstated.
See... When you push-poll questions like "Do you want to ban suspected terrorists from buying guns", you get a lot of flag-waving, mouth-breathers who say "Yes". But when it's explained to them that the list essentially denies due process to anyone arbitrarily put on a list, they start to regret their choice.
The same goes for closing the "gun show loophole". Once it's explained to people what it actually is and what closing it entails, it loses some support.
So the original premise is true, but the reasoning behind it is false. Most gun owners are just like non gun owners. But only because most gun owners are just as uninformed and easily swayed as non gun owners.
AztecRed said the poll was "debunked," but linked to the HuffPo article that did anything but dubunk it. Am I missing something?
ReplyDeleteAnd you said, "The same goes for closing the "gun show loophole". Once it's explained to people what it actually is and what closing it entails, it loses some support."
"What it actually is," is something most people are in favor of. It takes a mighty effort at spinning to get reasonable people to oppose background checks on gun purchases.
30% "linked" to gun shows? Yeah right. The FBI says less than 2% come from gun shows. "Linked" must be some stretch to say that a stolen gun was bought or sold at a gun show some time in its life. Gimme a break.
ReplyDeleteThe first clue to this being BS is the involvement of MAIG. Proven liars.
I'll use the Jade Gold argument: Myth, urban legend, never happened.
"The poll, conducted by The Word Doctors, a national research and communications firm, and commissioned by the bipartisan coalition of Mayors Against Illegal Guns,"
ReplyDeleteNow come on. The Word Doctors is a "research" firm renowned for wording polls in a manner to get the desired result. And the Mayors Against Illegal Guns is a known gun control group. Sorry, I'll wait for independent research or an unbiased poll.
Word Doctors basically says "We will get the poll results you want". They aren't an impartial polling company, they are a PR company, and the polls they publish are to shape opinion, not to judge it. I would love to see the wording of the questions and how they selected the people polled.
ReplyDeleteIt's not a debunked poll--of course, the gunloons will say any poll they don't like is debunked or biased.
ReplyDeleteFrank Luntz is a GOP pollster; he claims to be a fan of the NRA.
What RuffRider or Sevesteen don't know or are deliberately ignoring is that all polling companies are PR firms. Harris, Gallup, Zogby, etc. For example, if you're doing polling for a political candidate, you do him no favors by claiming everyone loves him and he's going to win in a landslide if it's not true. Further, such a polling firm would find itself out of business fairly quickly if they were wrong. The very purpose is to identify voter attitudes so a candidate can either address them or work to mitigate the fallout.
--JadeGold
I'll tell you all what. Just to clarify things, I'll be at the NRA Annual Meeting in North Carolina this year. I'll ask around and see if the number is close to 69%. These will all be confirmed, paid members so we won't have to worry about what list the spin doctors pulled their sample from.
ReplyDelete"AztecRed said the poll was "debunked," but linked to the HuffPo article that did anything but dubunk it. Am I missing something?"
ReplyDeleteYou have to read through the comments.
Basically, it's a poll conducted byan organization that specializes in push-polling. Their goal is essentially to get you the numbers you want.
Or in their own words:
"If you need to the language to build support for legislation, we’ll find the right words. If you need to kill a bad bill, we’ll show you how.
Either take control of the debate, or the debate will take control of you. It really is that simple. Silence is no longer an option. The news cycle never ends. Either you determine the message or someone else will.
Our focus is on language. We already know the words that work – or we’ll find them for you…fast.
Consider our record:
We changed the “estate tax” to the “death tax” and that changed the course of legislative history.
We changed “global warming” to “climate change,” and while that was highly confidential, even opponents acknowledged how those two words significantly impacted the public debate.
We changed “drilling for oil” to “exploring for energy,” and that helped energy companies secure the rights to develop more energy resources right here in America.
We changed “school choice” to “parental choice” and “vouchers” to “opportunity scholarships,” and that has helped the education reform efforts in more than a dozen states.”
Time after time we have succeeded in changing the course of the debate, and the impact can be measured in the hundreds of millions of dollars.
Remember, what matters is not what you say. It’s what people hear."
"Frank Luntz is a GOP pollster; he claims to be a fan of the NRA."
ReplyDeleteAnd i'm the Queen of England.
Don't dispute it. It has to be true by your logic.
Of the 90 million or so gun owners out there, many aren't politically active. I don't know how many hunter's I've heard say something to the effect of, "they'll never come after my hunting rifle, and I don't want a black rifle or pistol" and they don't get involved in gun politics (as they say, ignorance is bliss). Some of them are NRA members, for whatever reason (they have to be to join a specific club, get discounts at a sporting goods store, etc.).
ReplyDeleteBut the NRA doesn't control 90 million votes by any stretch of the imagination. If they did, the mission of the ATF would be to run convenience stores under the same name ;-).
But there are many millions of us, both official NRA members and not, who DO care about the gun issue and vote. The politicians who have been giving us our way are pragmatic, not stupid.
And as for anti-gun people who vote on gun issues ... few and far between. It's one thing to say in a phone poll you support an AWB, another to watch and vote for politicians who also do -- or particularly to choose whom to vote for on that basis alone. i.e. I simply WILL NOT vote for an anti-gun candidate. How many anti-gunners will refuse to vote for a pro-gun candidate?
And on your own site here ... it's really just a place us pro-gun people come to talk and shoot down the anti-gun people (I would bet the pro-gun word count on comments is 2-1, even if you include your original post). And the few anti-gun people who do show up here lack the cajones to come to our own sites. Even here, where you set the tone in their favor, they can't do much more than whine and complain because they lack any legitimate facts and figures but are sure of themselves anyway.
But for pro-gun guys, posting on anti-gun sites is kind of like a A-Rod playing in a T-ball league; it's just enough of a workout to keep him limbered up and it's a morale booster because he can hit a home run every time.
*zing* there goes my shot! Right into the cheapseats! Now excuse me while I round the bases. Sorry to have to humiliate you and your compadres again!
I see FWM needs a bit of a lesson in probability and statistics.
ReplyDeleteHe claims he can go to a NC NRA annual meeting and that will provide a sample representative of the NRA members polled by Luntz.
FWM's suggestion illustrates what is known as "self selection bias." For example, if you were doing a poll on the average height of US males, it would be "self selection bias" to conduct polling among the NBA Players Union.
The overwhelming majority of NRA members never attend an NRA convention.
Additionally, what may interest an NRA member in NC may not be the same for a MN NRA member.
--JadeGold
I am reminded of my debates with "Truthers." They want to argue about "inconsistencies" in the events of 9-11, but I like to turn the arguments into why most journalists and national Democratic officeholders seem to be participating in the "coverup." Their wacky explanations for that are quite amusing.
ReplyDeleteLikewise, if most NRA members suppport most of the same gun control as gun control activists, it's amusing to hear the wacky attempts to explain why NRA members consistently elect anti-control NRA leaders, NRA leaders who give anti-control speeches are overwhelmingly cheered by NRA members, and NRA conventions are occasionally disrupted by protestors...who claim that the NRA is not anti-control enough!
However, the poll-wavers and I AGREE on something: President Obama and other Democrats SHOULD propose an "assault weapon" ban -- right before the 2010 elections would be nice. All those pro-control NRA members will line up to vote for those Democrats, right?
FishyJay said, "if most NRA members suppport most of the same gun control as gun control activists, it's amusing to hear the wacky attempts to explain why NRA members consistently elect anti-control NRA leaders,"
ReplyDeleteIt could be a minority with a lot of clout doing all the moving and shaking.
Stephen:
ReplyDelete"But for pro-gun guys, posting on anti-gun sites is kind of like a A-Rod playing in a T-ball league; it's just enough of a workout to keep him limbered up and it's a morale booster because he can hit a home run every time.
*zing* there goes my shot! Right into the cheapseats! Now excuse me while I round the bases. Sorry to have to humiliate you and your compadres again!"
I tell everyone, you are a great fiction writer.
AztecRed, Someone else said it, I don't know if it was directed to you, that you have a mighty loose definition of "debunked."
ReplyDeleteJade,
ReplyDeleteIf your debunked poll was really correct, then wouldn't 69% of NRA members have that opinion no matter where they are found?
Of do the spin doctors say that 69% of NRA members that would never attend an NRA function believe......
Mikeb: "It could be a minority with a lot of clout doing all the moving and shaking."
ReplyDeleteFor "moving and shaking" read "voting" which is how NRA members elect their leaders.
So one would have to claim that the "majority" pro-control NRA members don't vote for their leaders, and when those leaders run the organization in a manner contrary to their wishes...they STILL don't vote.
As I posted: "wacky" explanations.
AND, when their leaders and their organization take positions and actions that are CONTRARY to their wishes, the "pro-control" majority of NRA members...renew their membership for next year.
ReplyDeleteAs I posted: "wacky" explanations.
FishyJay, Would you accept wishy-washy and apathetic to describe most gun owners? That might account for the powerful minority steering the whole group without too much dissension.
ReplyDeleteMikeb: "Would you accept wishy-washy and apathetic to describe most gun owners?"
ReplyDeleteI would say that a movement AWAY from that explains in large part the increasing good political fortunes of the pro-gunower cause.
Activist gunowners have a term for
"wishy-washy and apathetic" gunowners -- a "Fudd." They might just be in the minority now.
Mikeb: "That might account for the powerful minority steering the whole group without too much dissension."
ReplyDeleteSo "pro-control" gunowners join the NRA, somehow ignorant of NRA positions and actions (really?), and never vote for their NRA officers, and when their leaders and their organization take positions and actions that are CONTRARY to their wishes, the "pro-control" majority of NRA members...STILL doesn't vote and STILL renews their membership year after year at $35 per?
Really?
Maybe it's the NRA's discount on gun insurance? I never tried it.