In the more than two years that have passed since Adam Lanza murdered 26 people at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, the politics of guns in America has changed dramatically. Or at least that’s been conventional wisdom since President Obama decided to buck a decade-plus of Democratic Party strategy and make gun safety legislation a major issue once again. But the bill Obama endorsed didn’t pass, and according to the FBI, we’re now seeing more mass shootings than ever.
Another, more recent setback for the gun-safety movement was a poll from the Pew Research Center released in early December that found support for “protecting right of Americans to own guns” at an all-time high, besting “controlling gun ownership” by 52 to 46 percent. But as Bryan Schatz of Mother Jones recently reported, gun-safety advocates — not just professional activists, but researchers and academics, too — believe that the Pew poll’s phrasing is deeply flawed, pitting rights against each other that in reality need not be in conflict.
Recently, Salon spoke over the phone with Shannon Watts, the founder of Moms Demand Action For Gun Sense In America, about the Pew poll, how the gun-safety movement is like the fight for same-sex marriage, and the recent local and state-level victories by reformers that the media has missed. Our conversation is below and has been edited for clarity and length.
Were you surprised by the Pew poll’s results?
No, they didn’t surprise me, because Pew keeps using this old and poorly crafted poll question — and it really perpetuates this outdated idea that we have to choose as a country between protecting gun rights and supporting public safety. But that’s a false choice.
We don’t have to choose between protecting the Second Amendment and measures that have been proven to prevent gun violence. Ultimately, there are responsibilities that go along with gun rights. And measures like background checks, keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous people, like domestic abusers, all of these save lives. Pew asks you to choose between the two, and you don’t [have to].
Most Americans don’t know where we’re starting on this issue. The Pew question assumes that people understand that there are background check loopholes and that, every year, 40 percent of gun purchases are made without background checks (because you can avoid having to do a background check by buying from a private seller). So if Americans are going into these questions and answering them without that … context, then the answers are going to be skewed.
Is the belief that it’s an either/or choice something you come up against often when talking with and reaching out to regular people?
That certainly exists, the idea that it’s an either/or [choice], because the NRA and the gun lobby in general has sort of said, Gun ownership should be completely unfettered! It should not be subjected to the same limits as other Constitutional rights like, for example, freedom of speech. (I can’t go yell fire in a crowded theater, for example.) And there’s this idea that because it’s in the Constitution, there should be absolutely no responsibilities written into law that protect other Americans…
You'd think a professional propaganda-monger would be better at this.
ReplyDeleteWere you surprised by the Pew poll’s results?
No, they didn’t surprise me, because Pew keeps using this old . . .
And the results of that polling show a trend she doesn't like. If Pew had changed the questions, the change in results would mean a great deal less, because it could be attributed to that change, rather than changing public opinion. As for her calling it a "poorly crafted question," if it's "poorly crafted" now, it was equally so back when she liked the results better. If the pro-rights results now are to be attributed to the "poorly crafted" nature of the questions, then why don't the older polls reflect the same pro-rights tilt? She can claim that a "better crafted" question would have made for even more anti-rights results in the past, but she still isn't addressing the direction in which the polls are moving.
. . . every year, 40 percent of gun purchases are made without background checks . . .
Shut your reeking, lying hole, Watts.
In Watts' defense, I should add that among purveyors of the "40% of gun purchases are made without background checks" myth, Watt's is not the biggest liar. That "honor" should probably go to your new buddy, Mikeb, Martha Rosenberg.
DeleteCheck this shit out:
Because 40 percent of the gun manufacturers' market is estimated to be illegal according to statistics from the National Institute of Justice and other sources . . .
See that? She can't content herself with "merely" perpetuating the "40% of gun purchases are made without background checks" lie--she wants people to believe that every one of those sales (an already grotesquely inflated number, remember) is "illegal"--a "prohibited person" doing the buying, a firearm that's banned in the jurisdiction in which the purchaser lives, or illegal for some other reason.
Not just a liar, but an idiotically transparent liar.
Yeah, that's a pretty good slide from 40% without background check to 40% illegal.
DeleteBut about the accuracy of the number, if 15% to 22% is more defensible, couldn't the figure actually be double that? No one can really know. When you count all the lawful gun owners who buy and transfer guns this way to all the criminals who do, I could see the 40% being quite accurate.
But about the accuracy of the number, if 15% to 22% is more defensible, couldn't the figure actually be double that?
DeleteOr, for that matter, half that. Now we're just throwing baseless numbers around. Even if it were appropriate to regulate guns according to statistical figures (something I'll never concede), you don't base policy on random guesswork.
But we might find some room for agreement here, Mikeb:
No one can really know.
And yet Watts and the rest incessantly throw the "40%" figure around as a bald statement of fact--already settled science. When that stat first became popular in "gun control" circles, some would at least qualify it with "up to 40%," but I hardly see that anymore. Apparently an admission of any possibility that the number could be lower would be too much integrity to ask of these serial liars.
I'm stickin' with the 40%. But I'll call it approximately 40%, or an estimated 40%. How's that?
DeleteI'm stickin' with the 40%. But I'll call it approximately 40%, or an estimated 40%. How's that?
Delete"How's that?" Well, it's a bit of a dilemma for me. Should I count you as a victim of what even the fawningly pro-Obama, pro-"gun control" Washington Post describes as a "Three Pinocchios" (out of a possible four) prevarication; or, since you are perpetuating this fantasy, should you be held accountable as one of the purveyors?
Decisions, decisions--are you one of the symptoms, or one of the pathogens?
I gotta say I'm leaning toward "pathogen," since you've come out and admitted that, "No one can really know," but that's not stopping you from spreading the lie that this number can be relied upon as having anything to do with reality.
How about if we say estimated 2million DGU's or Approximately 2 million?
DeleteWe'd just be following your example of taking numbers we can't prove, and which are inflated, and simply qualifying them with a word to make it a-ok. Will you be refraining from calling us dishonest for doing so if we refrain from calling you dishonest for continuing to use these numbers?
Kurt, How does saying "approximately" qualify for "spreading the lie that this number can be relied upon as having anything to do with reality."
DeleteHmm, so I guess it's ok to say "the earth is approximately 200 million miles from the sun", even though it's only approximately 93 million miles away.
DeleteKurt, How does saying "approximately" qualify for "spreading the lie that this number can be relied upon as having anything to do with reality."
DeleteBecause the "approximation" is itself thoroughly discredited. And SJ makes a very good point. We can point to studies that claim 2.5 million defensive gun uses per year. You say those estimates are bullshit, and, if I recall correctly, that anyone who promotes them is dishonest.
So, as SJ asks, if the claim is revised to "approximately 2.5 million," or "estimated 2.5 million," would that compel you to withdraw your "dishonesty" charge?
Actually, another reason this "approximately," and "estimated," bullshit is nonsense is that it changes nothing. No one has ever claimed that exactly 40% of gun sales proceed without a background check--and in fact, it turns out that the study's finding on which that figure is based requires a quite generous round-up in order to get to 40%:
When all of the “yes” and “probably was” answers were added together, that left 35.7 percent of respondents indicating they did not receive the gun from a licensed firearms dealer.
From 35.7%, not to 36%, but all the way up to 40%. So to get that "40%" number, they had to drop (without explanation) two of the three significant figures.
My point being that this was already clearly an "approximation," an "estimate"--you have ceded nothing with your offer to qualify the figure.
My spidey sense is telling me that we'll be seeing a link to this thread again from Kurt the next time Mike calls bullshit on a number that we give which included the safe word "approximately".
DeleteTrust your spidey sense, TS--it misses very little.
DeleteIt's dishonest to use a number you can't prove, but we can count the bodies of gun shot deaths with certainty.
DeleteIt's dishonest to use a number you can't prove, but we can count the bodies of gun shot deaths with certainty.
DeleteHa! Tell that to Mikeb.
This was an entertaining article in light of getting to watch putting their recent defeats into a positive,
ReplyDelete"No, they didn’t surprise me, because Pew keeps using this old and poorly crafted poll question — and it really perpetuates this outdated idea that we have to choose as a country between protecting gun rights and supporting public safety. But that’s a false choice."
Of course, no one on the gun control side was complaining about the poorly crafted question when the numbers supported their stance. In fact, I recall seeing that poll cited on this blog in the past.
"It should not be subjected to the same limits as other Constitutional rights like, for example, freedom of speech. (I can’t go yell fire in a crowded theater, for example.) And there’s this idea that because it’s in the Constitution, there should be absolutely no responsibilities written into law that protect other Americans…"
Actually, there are plenty of laws that impose responsibilities on gun owners. Laws like homicide, assault, etc. Sort of like someone would be punished for yelling fire in a theatre. Most gun rights advocates have nothing against punishments for improper use of firearms, which is covered under the laws I mentioned above.
The problem is the laws trying to be passed that impose restrictions on ownership by citizens who haven't done anything wrong. Here is an article about a man more patient than I who had to battle with the government just to get a purchase permit. That's right, three years to get a purchase permit. If I remember correctly, it took me three weeks to get my carry permit, and with it, I don't have to put up with any waiting periods.
http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/2014/12/jersey_city_man_gets_gun_permit_after_three-year_legal_war.html
Im going to go out on a limb and guess that you agree with the High Priestess of Anti Americanism Mike in that that pew poll is skewed because of the way the question was asked and yet when I pointed out the very same problem with the poll that showed 80 something percent of Nevadans are for background checks on all transfers you threw a fit about how we pro freedom people are wrong about these polls being manipulated to get the result desired. All polls can be manipulated and only show what the respondents think on the issue not what a large percentage of the population thinks
ReplyDeleteActually, I'm not too convinced about that. If the wording of the question has remained unchanged, I don't think the poll results can be blamed on the wording.
DeleteIf the wording of the question has remained unchanged, I don't think the poll results can be blamed on the wording.
DeleteGood for you, Mikeb. Sometimes you surprise me.
We determined that to be the case here,
Delete"Is it clear that the wording of the questions was exactly the same?"
Apparently it was Mike,
"But Doherty also clarified that Pew has asked that same question in periodic surveys since 1993, with the aim of tracking general public sentiment on gun policy over time."
"Despite the limitations of the particular language of the question, Doherty says, "tracking it over two decades—asking the same question with identical wording—tells you a great deal about changing public sentiment on this issue."
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/12/pew-poll-gun-rights
http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2014/12/study-finds-public-support-for-gun.html
Leave it to idiots to argue numbers that can prove any outcome they want.
ReplyDelete