And this is one of the rhetorical games (i.e., lies) the Democrats always play that infuriate me:
A frequent claim by control advocates this year has been that 80 percent to 90 percent of Americans are in favor of expanded background-checks legislation. But the polls showing such overwhelming support really ask little more than whether people want to stop criminals from obtaining guns, not whether voters actually favor the legislation that the Senate was voting on.
The actual laws being discussed were much less popular.
For example, a mid-April poll by the Pew Research Center provides one such illustration when it asks voters whether they were happy that the Senate bill had been defeated. While 67 percent of Democrats were “disappointed” or “angry” about the defeat, more Republicans and independents were “ very happy” or “relieved” than upset by the defeat.
That’s an interesting conflation of objective and process – claiming support for what a public policy ostensibly seeks to achieve, rather than what it actually does. Needless to say, this tactic is hardly unique to gun control policy.
Yup. For instance, back when the economic ignorami, like Chuck Schumer, were pushing Porkulus, they said things like “almost every economist says that this is necessary,” when at best most economists only thought that some sort of stimulus was necessary. No economist with two brain cells to rub together thought that the Democrats’ payoff to public-employee unions would be helpful.
[Update a couple minutes later]
Also, remember this the next time someone talks about a “Republican” war on science. The Left clings to their gun-control dogma in the face of all empirical evidence. Because it’s not about controlling guns. It’s (as always) about controlling you.
[Update a few minutes later]
Detroit police chief: “Better start carrying.” When seconds count, the police are only minutes (or hours) away. A decade ago, when Michigan reformed its carry laws, the anti-gun nuts predicted blood in the streets. Just the opposite happened. But they remain firmly anti-science.
Yeah, I’d stop it with the “science” talk. You can’t do controlled experiments with legislation. For all we know, the change of the gun laws caused people to buy more fish and the fish contained elevated levels of heavy metals that suppresses anti-social behavior. I think the more direct explanation is better – but that has nothing to do with science.
Besides, the effect of a law is a terrible way to decide that a law should exist.
I agree. While I think the work that John Lott, et al have done has value, inasmuch as it informs us of reality and shows the lie/bad predictions of control advocates, utilitarian statistics are not a valid or firm basis for law or rights, nor for their infringement.
slightly off topic but related to the joke in the article:
A few years ago I won a game of Clue (with 4 total players) on my first turn, because logic. My proudest board game moment. Sadly I don’t remember the details (ex. Prof Plum, candlestick, study, etc.), I was too enraptured by the whimsy and self congratulatory euphoria. We put the game away after that. I got a lot of crap from my wife and friends for my megalomaniacal laugh after the my winning hypothesis was revealed.
Just thought I’d share. Thanks for caring.