A recent poll shows National Rifle Association members overwhelmingly favor closing the gun show loophole, and that has the NRA fuming. Never mind that the poll was conducted by Frank Luntz, a Republican pollster who is on Fox News so often that he may as well be considered a network personality. Or that the same poll shows NRA members do support many pro-Second Amendment positions (against a national gun registry, for example).
Once again, the NRA's leadership is out of step - not only with average Americans but even with people who identify themselves as NRA members. That kind of extremism may help the organization raise money from its base, but it's only making the country more vulnerable to criminals who can now purchase firearms at a gun show in most states without a Brady criminal background check.
The article goes on to speak only about gun shows and not at all about private sales outside gun shows. To me it seems limiting the requirement to gun shows only is not going far enough. But perhaps the ones pushing this legislation know better than I do. Perhaps preventing criminals and other prohibited persons from easy access at gun shows is enough to accomplish the goal.
Still the most amazing part of this whole argument is the resistance by so many gun owners. Even the majority of their fellows agree this is necessary, yet they, the vocal minority, persist with all possible arguments. Why is that? Are these people so self-centered, fearing further restrictions which would inconvenience them, that they fight against these obviously necessary measures?
What's your opinion? Is there another explanation for the resistance? Please leave a comment.
"Still the most amazing part of this whole argument is the resistance by so many gun owners. Even the majority of their fellows agree this is necessary, yet they, the vocal minority, persist with all possible arguments.:ReplyDelete
Kind of contradictory there? You have "resistance by so many gun owners" yet they are a "minority". If that were true at all, their voice wouldn't matter.
"Are these people so self-centered, fearing further restrictions which would inconvenience them, that they fight against these obviously necessary measures?"
You, or anyone else for that matter, have yet to prove that these are necessary measures. And yes, I refuse to be inconvenienced because some criminal thousands of miles away decides to break laws. Instead, go inconvenience the criminals by leaving them in jail.
As a reminder, I am an NRA member who supports closing the "gun show loophole" -- dependent upon reasonable compromise.ReplyDelete
Yet I continue to side with the NRA because reasonable compromise is anathema to gun control advocates.
Never mind that the poll was conducted by Frank Luntz, a Republican pollster who is on Fox News so often that he may as well be considered a network personality. Or that the same poll shows NRA members do support many pro-Second Amendment positions (against a national gun registry, for example).ReplyDelete
Since you comment over at Sebastian's, I'm sure you've seen his article on this from a couple days ago. The poll wasn't run by an impartial polling company, but rather a public opinion company who advertise being able to shape opinion. Their president has been quoted saying that the key to polling is "to ask a question in the way that you get the right answer."
The questions were carefully worded to elicit a particular response. An example used to "show support" for repealing the Tihart amendment:
"The federal government should not restrict the police's ability to access, use, and share data that helps them enforce federal, state and local gun laws"
Most people (including me) would agree to that statement as written. The real question of the Tihart amendment isn't of sharing between law enforcement agencies, but rather whether this data should be released outside the law enforcement community for purposes other than law enforcement.
It is unclear how they determined that they were talking to NRA members, since the NRA doesn't publish its membership.
Using this company indicates that they were shooting for a particular answer, rather than trying to find actual opinions. It is extremely unlikely that this poll represents the actual views of the majority of NRA members.
The real point of the poll was: "Politicians, vote for gun control and don't worry about the NRA! Even most NRA members support you!"ReplyDelete
Most politicians know better than to fall for this nonsense.
This "NRA and most of it's members have opposite views" has been tried before but is still bogus. The NRA's leaders are elected by the members, serve at their whim, and represnt the posions of the majority.
This poll is in the grand tradition of the MA handgun ban, CA handgun "freeeze" and WA gun registration scheme. Polls showed overwhelming popular support, yet all went down in overwhelming defeat in the actual popular referenda when the actual voting took place.
From the Baltimore Sun: "Never mind that the poll was conducted by Frank Luntz, a Republican pollster who is on Fox News so often that he may as well be considered a network personalityReplyDelete
So the Sun says, in other words: "This is not the usual biased gun poll by a pollster who favors in advance the policies or results which (by incredible coincidence) happen to match exactly what his poll winds up showing. It's a Republican pollster, so that's not the case here!"
From the WaPo:
"I support the NRA," Luntz insists. What he doesn't go for is the "slippery slope argument" that casts any new gun law as the first step toward confiscation. "When the choice is between national security and terrorism versus no limits on owning guns," Luntz says, "I'm on the side of national security and fighting terrorism."
Oh, wait! They found a Republican pollster who DOES favor in advance the policies or results which (by incredible coincidence) happen to match exactly what his poll winds up showing.
Cool, FWM, you are all set to be a hero and save us from the bad guy, yet you refuse to do anything about a situation which affects us all: even you.ReplyDelete
You pay for this whether you wish to house the criminals in jail for the rest of their lives, pay for the victims' medical treatment, or are even victimised by a gun. That was the point of my Cost of Gun violence, which I know flew right over your head.
Of course, you prefer ignorance and can say that's someone else's problem rather than face the fact that it hits you in your pocket.
Can I guess that you resent paying taxes? I know that you dislike government from your statements here. But try and figure out how much of your tax dollar goes toward the effects of gun violence.
Or should we just wait until it hits close to home for you?
I don't recall ever saying I dislike government; it is fine in moderation. And true, I do not like paying taxes. I also never said that I was willing to be a hero and save you from anyone.
However, I am in charge of security at my place. Beyond my family, I really don't care much what happens if it does not affect me or mine directly. People are responsible for their own actions and I wish everyone the best of luck.
There is no way that you can convince me that I am responsible for the behavior of criminals in other states nor should anything I do, such as trading, buying or selling a gun to a friend or family member be hindered because some dirtbag in some other city or state decides to break the law.
Sevesteen: I like Sebastian; he's the only gunloon I know who admits he will lie to further his agenda.ReplyDelete
I'm certain Sebastian understands all polling companies are public opinion companies. Where Sebstain engages in the subterfuge is not telling his minions the difference between focus group surveys and polls.
A polling company that skews its results or uses iffy methodologies doesn't stay in business long. Polling is like golf; you can fudge your scores all you want but that isn't going to help you win the Master's. Similarly, Luntz keeps getting hired by lots of GOP campaigns and media outlets, so he's doing something right. Again, in polling, telling your client what he wants to hear and not what's actually happening is a fast way to go out of business.
WRT public opinion--that's where tools like focus groups comes in. They help campaigns and businesses determine what strategies and messages work--and which don't.
Blooomberg's was a poll.
FWM said "...because some dirtbag in some other city or state decides to break the law..."ReplyDelete
How about some dirtbag in Akron or Cleveland? What if one of them steals a gun from you, or better yet what if you foolishly sell one to a dirtbag? Are you still not responsible, even a little?
Sevesteen said, "Since you comment over at Sebastian's, I'm sure you've seen his article on this from a couple days ago."ReplyDelete
The truth is, as much as I like Sebastian's writing, he's so prolific that I often cannot keep up with all the posts. I hadn't seen this one, but the idea that fair questions need to be used for a poll or survey to have any value, is obvious to anyone.
I believe that was the case in this story. They even made a point of the question not being tricky.
FishyJay, Maybe you need to clarify why you require a compromise again. To me a reasonable gun owner should agree to the background check on all transfers without demanding anything in return. If the measure is right and necessary, why demand something in return? You would be entitled to something in return if you were giving up something you believe is good. In this case either you think we need to prevent criminals and kooks from buying guns legally or you don't. If you don't we want to know why. If you do, you don't get anything in return because you're agreeing that this is right.ReplyDelete
Gun control advocates are always asking for gunowners to be willing to compromise. When gunowners express willingness to compromise, thay are asked to agree to the latest demand of gun control advocates "without demanding anything in return." Is that "compromise"? I always thought that was "capitulation."
So what happens if gunowners agree to the latest demand? The NEXT demand is then made, and gunowners are again asked to be reasonable and compromise -- the same sort of "compromise."
When does this process end? NEVER.
Mikeb: "Maybe you need to clarify why you require a compromise again. To me a reasonable gun owner should agree to the background check on all transfers without demanding anything in return."ReplyDelete
Yes, I do need to clarify why I require a compromise. My requirements relate directly to gun shows, and to claims made by gun control advocates as to why gunowners should not object to their proposed gun show regulation. My previous post on this follows:
While there are many gunowners who oppose more regulation on rights grounds, there are also many gunowers like me who are willing to compromise on a system that would enable and require private sellers to access the background check system at gun shows. The main obtacle to such compromise has been the intrangience and extremism of gun control advocates. For example: I would consider legislation giving private sellers at gun shows access to the current instant background check system, but gun control advocates want to ABOLISH the instant background check system and replace it with a mandatory waiting period system of 5 days or more, which is unacceptable to gunowners. Also, in some of those states which HAVE required checks at gun shows, gun control advocates have CONTINUED to attack gun showns there by attempting to ban them in the most popular (or sometimes only) locations. This recently occurred in California, and is obviously unacceptable to gunowners. Moderate gunowners are open to reasonable compromise: Background checks for sales by private sellers at gun shows IF gun control advocates agree to NOT abolish the instant check system and NOT continue to attack gun shows. But gun control advocates have NOT been open to reasonable compromise.
That's the problem Fishyjay - If we compromise they simply continue to attack our rights from the new ground gained.ReplyDelete
Compromise infers that both sides will make concessions. Anti gunners do no such thing and have proven to be untrustworthy.
Why compromise with those who are unrelenting in their attacks on my rights? What do I get out of it?