PRESS RELEASE - "National Poll Redefines the Gun Issue"

[CO Liberal]

National Poll Redefines the Gun Issue

Press Release
Americans for Gun Safety
Washington, DC
www.americansforgunsafety.com

Democrats Can Eliminate "Gun Gap" With Centrist Stance

Washington, DC - Democrats have had trouble with gun owning voters in recent years, but can make substantial headway with a moderate message of supporting gun rights, closing gun law loopholes, and vigorously enforcing existing laws, according to a poll and seven-step blueprint released today (Thursday) by Americans for Gun Safety (AGS).

The poll found that gun owning voters often assume that Democrats, particularly if they are silent on the issue, are anti-gun, anti-Second Amendment, and disrespectful of the values held by those who own firearms. It also found that a plurality of gun owners define themselves as moderates and will flock to Democratic candidates with a moderate gun position.

The poll was conducted for AGS by Penn Schoen & Berhland Associates with 802 interviews between October 1-6, 2003 among likely 2004 presidential election voters. In a generic congressional ballot, a Democrat trails a Republican who supports Second Amendment rights by a margin of 42-45%. When the Democrat is described as one who supports Second Amendment rights, closing gun law loopholes, and vigorous enforcement of existing laws, the Democrat wins 57-32%. Support for this "rights and responsibilities" Democrat increases from 30% to 44% among gun owners and from 52% to 68% among non-gun owners.

"If Democrats adopt a platform that balances gun rights with responsible policy the 'gun problem' could soon be a Republican problem," said AGS President Jon Cowan. "However, unless Democrats take back the Second Amendment, they could soon be extinct in many of the states that determine critical elections." The findings and the AGS document entitled "Taking Back the Second Amendment: A 7-Step Blueprint for Democrats to Promote Responsibility and Win the Gun Vote," take on conventional party wisdom suggesting that Democrats must avoid talking about guns. The poll shows that an enormous "gun gap" exists between gun owning and non-gun owning households. Gun owners have such hardened views on where Democrats stand on the gun issue that silence is not an option in so-called "red states" - states that voted for President Bush in 2000 and, not coincidentally, have gun ownership rates 35% higher than states that voted for Gore.

<more>

http://www.jointogether.org/gv/news/alerts/reader/0,2061,567255,00.html

[donco6]

1. Why not just join the damn NRA?

That's their platform exactly.

[slackmaster]

3. What part(s) of it are unacceptable to you

The part about balancing gun rights with responsible policy, or the closing of "gun show loopholes", or do you not agree that vigorously enforcing existing laws would be a good idea?

[papau]

2. Good point - most folks accept controls on Guns - and the motherhood

comments by the GOP should be met by Motherhood comments by the Dem for President.

[MrBenchley]

4. Wonder how many of those

"red state" folks also are opposed to gay rights, reproductive choice, labor unions and diversity?

[slackmaster]

5. Most people don't link unrelated issues

None of the items you list except perhaps for gay rights and diversity have any logical connection to one another. Sure there are some "slate mailer" mentality voters just as there are those who blindly vote for members of their preferred political party, but I think the results of the recent California gubernatorial recall election demonstrate that at least in California voters have more nuanced thought than to go strictly "liberal" or "conservative" on everything.

I personally know several Hispanic Republicans, and people who identify themselves as flaming liberals who voted No on the recall but selected Arnold Schwarzenegger as a replacement goobernator.

[MrBenchley]

6. Gee, slack...

Most people don't want assault weapons on the street...most people want guns registered and gun owners licensed...

"None of the items you list except perhaps for gay rights and diversity have any logical connection to one another."
Gee, reproductive choice has no connection at all to civil rights issues? Amazing you think liberal issues don't matter to liberals..or right wing loonies...


"Linda Chavez-Thompson, executive vice president of the AFL-CIO, said she wanted to send a message last night by speaking at the National Gay Lesbian Task Force convention here.
The message was that organized labor would fight for people's freedom from harassment and discrimination regardless of their sexual orientation.
In an interview before her speech, Chavez-Thompson said organized labor's involvement with the gay rights movement was a natural extension of its decades-long work for civil rights.
"Labor has always been there with the civil rights movement at all levels," she said.
She said unions helped fight against segregation in the 1960s and continued to fight for fair and equal treatment for racial minorities and women."

http://www.post-gazette.com/regionstate/19981113gay6.asp

Tell us, where does Trent Lott stand on gay rights, reproductive choice, labor unions and diversity? Where does Newt Gingrich stand on those issues?

"I think the results of the recent California gubernatorial recall election demonstrate that at least in California voters have more nuanced thought"
<sarcasm>Yeah, California results sure showed a LOT of intelligence, slack. </sarcasm>

[slackmaster]

7. Most people don't know an assault weapon from their elbow

Who cares what they say about a subject they don't understand?

most people want guns registered and gun owners licensed...

Cite please.

Tell us, where does Trent Lott stand on gay rights, reproductive choice, labor unions and diversity? Where does Newt Gingrich stand on those issues?

Irrelevant. It's not even a good fallacy of composition since Newt Gingrich is not known for being pro-RKBA.

<sarcasm>Yeah, California results sure showed a LOT of intelligence, slack. </sarcasm>

Actually I think they did. Note that they defeated both propositions 53 and 54 soundly.

[MrBenchley]

8. Sure they do, slack

http://www.norc.uchicago.edu/new/gunrpt.htm

Click the Adobe link on the bottom.

And the hell it's irrelevant to point out that these liberal issues you claim are unconnected are all opposed by hate-filled right wing nuts.

[slackmaster]

9. Survey data is four years old

And it certainly does not provide any evidence that people understand what assault weapons are. In fact the survey doesn't even include any questions about assault weapons.

Got anything more current, or that demonstrates that people in general have a clue about assault weapons? A lot of attitudes about a lot of things have changed since 1999.

And the hell it's irrelevant to point out that these liberal issues you claim are unconnected are all opposed by hate-filled right wing nuts.

Depends on how you define "hate-filled right wing nuts". If an HFRWN is someone who is opposed to gay rights, diversity, etc. (and surely there are people who are that way) then your statement is true in a tautological sense. You persist in a fallacy of composition by suggesting that because some pro-RKBA people are hate-filled right-wing racist that all people who support gun rights are the same.

Or here's a source that defines that kind of reasoning as a "Package Deal Fallacy":

The logical fallacy of the package deal consists of assuming that things often grouped together by tradition or culture must always be grouped that way.

It is particularly common in political arguments: "My opponent is a conservative who voted against higher taxes and welfare, therefore he will also oppose gun control and abortion." While those positions are often grouped together as "conservative" in American politics, there's really no reason someone couldn't approve of some but not others.

What a coincidence that the author would choose gun control as one of the issues. See http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Package_deal_fallacy

I still say people think more deeply than to choose all of their beliefs off of one side of the page. I don't know very many who do. For example, I work with a man who says he's a "strict old-fashioned Republican" but believes that marijuana should be legalized. People are not as simple as a few headlines and one-dimensional poll results would seem to suggest.

Why would 64% of California voters choose a Republican as a replacement governor in the event Gray Davis got recalled, yet resoundingly vote no on Proposition 54?

[MrBenchley]

10. Gee, slack

"A lot of attitudes about a lot of things have changed since 1999."
Yeah? Prove it.

"Depends on how you define "hate-filled right wing nuts". "
How about the sort of asswipe that sits on the NRA board...somebody like Grrover Norquist.

""My opponent is a conservative who voted against higher taxes and welfare, therefore he will also oppose gun control and abortion." While those positions are often grouped together as "conservative" in American politics, there's really no reason someone couldn't approve of some but not others."
Gee, slack...maybe you're right.. What WAS Trent Lott's position on the gun rights horseshit again? WAS he for gun control?

How about Newt Gingrich....surely he wants to close that gun control loophole?

"I still say people think more deeply than to choose all of their beliefs off of one side of the page."
You keep on saying that, slack. Meanwhile, I'll stick with liberal ideas like reproductive freedom, labor unions, gay rights, diversity and gun control....among otehrs.

"Why would 64% of California voters choose a Republican as a replacement governor in the event Gray Davis got recalled, yet resoundingly vote no on Proposition 54?"
Gee, slack, why don't you tell us why they picked Steroid Boy? Oh, and by the way, what was HIS public position on gun control again?

[slackmaster]

11. I'm not swayed by appeals to popularity

Surveys can be engineered to produce any result the sponsor wants to see. Our system of government is not based solely on majority rule anyway.

What WAS Trent Lott's position on the gun rights horseshit again? WAS he for gun control?... ...How about Newt Gingrich....surely he wants to close that gun control loophole?

I don't know and I don't care.

Meanwhile, I'll stick with liberal ideas like reproductive freedom, labor unions, gay rights, diversity and gun control....among otehrs.

I'm solidly on the same side as you on four out of five issues there, MrBenchley.

Gee, slack, why don't you tell us why they picked Steroid Boy?

Because he is better known than any of the other candidates, presents a powerful public image, expresses moderate views on social issues while being fiscally conservative, and he is not associated with the existing corrupt political machine.

Oh, and by the way, what was (Arnold Schwarzenegger's) public position on gun control again?

He said he supports the federal AW ban which is a non-issue in California politics except for the effect those words have on the uninformed and misinformed masses who don't understand it. He said he supports closing the misnamed gun-show loophole, which is already closed in California beyond any measure that is under consideration at the federal level over which the governor of California has no control. I doubt that either his stated positions or his demonstration of ignorance of existing California gun laws had much to do with how voters behaved on October 7.

[CO Liberal]

12. Yet You Pro-Gunners Expect Up Pro-Control Folks to Accept "Shall Issue"...

...just because a number of states have.

A number of states allowed slavery, too .... that doesn't mean it was right.

[MrBenchley]

13. You will notice that

the "attitudes have changed" claim turned out to be a loa dof hooey...

[RoeBear]

14. One of your favorite comebacks is...

...apples and oranges. Well, this certianly deserves that.

WTF does slavery have to do with 'shall-issue"?

[CO Liberal]

19. It's A Concept That Was Once Popular......

That was proven wrong. It's possible that "shall issue" falls into the same category.

[slackmaster]

20. Or not

It may be that discretionary issue is the failed concept being replaced by a more enlightened one.

[thetoolshed]

15. Why not?

Is there any reason not to?

The reason for shall issue laws is so that local officials can not legislate by proxy, and refuse to give a permit for no good reason. If there isn't a reason to deny a citizen his rights, then there is no reason why someone should be able to do so based solely on their own political beleifs.

[slackmaster]

16. It's not just "a number" of states CO

It's nearly enough states to pass a Constitutional amendment requiring all states to honor other states' permits. And why should you not accept shall-issue, CO? All of the objections I've heard, including yours, are based on fear and not fact.

A number of states allowed slavery, too .... that doesn't mean it was right.

Let us know when states start legalizing slavery again.

[MrBenchley]

17. Amazing what blood money and crooked Republicans can do, slack

"And why should you not accept shall-issue, CO?"
Because having a handful of armed neurotics prowling the street does nothing but decrease public safety.

"All of the objections I've heard, including yours, are based on fear and not fact."
Gee, here's a fact...the claim that "more guns mean less crime" turns out to be a deliberate LIE.

[slackmaster]

18. Got concrete evidence that shall-issue laws decrease public safety?

If you have statistics to show that people have become less safe when their states changed from no-issue or discretionary-issue to shall-issue let's see them.

[MrBenchley]

21. Been there, done that

"For several years now, the nation's crime rate has fallen – but the drop in crime has not been spread equally throughout the country. As a group, states that chose to fight crime by loosening their concealed weapons laws had a significantly smaller drop in crime than states which looked to other means to attack crime in their communities.

Violent crime actually rose in 3 of 11 states (27%) that relaxed CCW laws prior to 1992 over the six years beginning in 1992, compared to a similar rise in violent crime in only 4 of 22 states (18%) which had restrictive CCW laws or did not permit the carrying of concealed weapons.

Between 1992 through 1998 (the last six years for which data exists), the violent crime rate in the strict and no-issue states fell 30% while the violent crime rate for states that liberalized carry laws prior to 1992 dropped half as much — by 15%. Nationally, the violent crime rate fell 25%."

http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/research/conctruth.asp

[Romulus]

22. please show us

where the law had a causal effect on, or contribution to, the crime rate.

Thank you.

[MrBenchley]

24. Gee, rom...

Too funnny....

Show US where more guns equal less crime first....

[slackmaster]

23. And where is the causal link?

Documentation that the differences in changes in crime rates have anything to do with concealed-weapons laws?

For example, a pattern of violent crime directly attributed to people misusing their licensed, concealed weapons.

[MrBenchley]

25. Well, exactly....

Remember, the argument is that those laws are supposed to directly cause a DECREASE...which turns out to be horseshit.

[slackmaster]

26. Straw Man

I have never claimed that shall-issue laws reduce violent crime. I am aware that some people have advanced that theory, but I don't buy it without proof.

My position is and has always been that as long as they don't increase crime that shall-issue laws are good because they put more choice back in the hands of individuals, where it belongs.

[MrBenchley]

27. Gee, slack

Who cares whether YOU did? The point is that that was the argument pushed by the corrupt gun lobby....and it turned out to be complete horseshit.

"I am aware that some people have advanced that theory, but I don't buy it without proof."
Which we all notice doesn't keep you from leaping to your feet to defend it.

[slackmaster]

28. Stuff a little more straw in that man, MrBenchley

Who cares whether YOU did?

It's amazing how quickly civility and respect get tossed aside whenever the subject involves people carrying guns to defend themselves.

Which we all notice doesn't keep you from leaping to your feet to defend (the theory that concealed carry reduces violent crime).

Let's see some proof, MrBenchley.

[MrBenchley]

29. Who are you trrying to kid, slack

"It's amazing how quickly civility and respect get tossed aside whenever the subject involves people carrying guns to defend themselves."
Is that why the RKBA crowd is gloating and joking about the kids who got drowned in the bathtub, slack?

The plain fact is, who cares what your particular take on it was? The issue is public policy and the deliberate LIE from the corrupt gun industry that shaped public debate....not slack's private fantasies.

[Romulus]

30. thank you

for answering the question of "causality" with the only answer there is - NONE! :hi:

[slackmaster]

31. When did I ever say anything about kids drowned in bathtubs?

Drowning isn't funny MrBenchley. My own father drowned in a bathtub accidentally when I was seven years old. I was the first person to find him.

The plain fact is, who cares what your particular take on it was? The issue is public policy and the deliberate LIE from the corrupt gun industry that shaped public debate....not slack's private fantasies.

An ipse dixit. All you have done in this discussion is back up one fallacious argument with another.

[MrBenchley]

32. Gee, slack, don't go to this thread.....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=17082&mesg_id=17082

or this one

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=17134

You won't like what your fellow "enthuisiasts" have to say.

[slackmaster]

33. Not much levity there

Just an honest acknowledgement that killing happens even without the presence of guns.

[CO Liberal]

34. But Killing Seems To Happen Much More Often.......

...when a gun IS present.

[MrBenchley]

36. It certainly does...

As do shootings of innocent bystanders and the like...

[MrBenchley]

35. Nothing that any sane person would consider funny, no...

But it sure does have desperately leaden attempts at levity from the RKBA crowd....

"1a2b3c  (1000+ posts) Sun Oct-19-03 02:33 PM
Response to Original message
1. Hey
Where was the gun? Without a gun the story is a bit bland. Maybe add a little twist to the story. Lets say the 2 kids have a cousin who is upset about the drowning and takes a gun to school. She holds the whole class at gunpoint killing 6 students and wounding 13. Thats the stories we wanna hear down here."

"D__S (281 posts) Sun Oct-19-03 12:24 PM
Response to Reply #8
15. Spin?... here's a quick quiz.

D__S's post was meant as...
A) Sarcasm
B) Humor
C) Mockery
D) A and C
E) A and B
F) A, B and C
(and no, "spin", "pantload" or "hooey" aren't on the quiz)  "

"D__S (281 posts) Sat Oct-18-03 09:33 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Actually...
I bathe with my guns. Simplifies clean-up jobs and kills two birds with one stone (remember that
Seinfeld episode where Kramer prepared food and took a shower at the same time?... same idea).
It also helps to have one of those "pre-ban, high capacity" water wasting shower heads.
Tip: don't get Sweets bore cleaner on your scrotum! Some nasty stuff. Took the wrinkles right out of my bag
and it was red as a ripe strawberry for days (try explaining that to your girlfriend!)."

"juancarlos (31 posts) Sun Oct-19-03 02:28 AM
Response to Reply #2
10. PFFFFFFFFTTTT!
I have a certain anti-gun-nut on my ignore list, so I'm assuming that your response was to him. All I can say is that your post is one of the funniest things ever. I cannot imagine anything that would put an anti-gun-nut more in his place. Way to be a true progressive. "

By the way, slack, can you explain how a gun owner putting a caustic substance on his own scrotum puts anyone who stands for reasonable gun control in his place? Is it supposed to be like Gordon Liddy holding his hand over a candle to intimidate Chuck Colson, or what?

[slackmaster]

37. Your post appears to be in English but I can't make any sense of it

By the way, slack, can you explain how a gun owner putting a caustic substance on his own scrotum puts anyone who stands for reasonable gun control in his place?

Could it be that the event was accidental?

[Superfly]

38. Or a joke?

Me thinks that Bench is incapable of identifying humor.

[MrBenchley]

40. I can identify humor, fly

There just isn't any in that mess.

[Superfly]

42. That's right....you're brand of humor is

making fun of Slackmaster for losing his father in a drowning accident....and then not apologizing for that idiotic comment.

[MrBenchley]

39. Gee, slack, the fault's not on my end

[iverglas]

41. "Most people don't link unrelated issues"

And some people obviously DO link unrelated issues -- or at least completely fail to establish the link they allege exists. Right, Benchley? I mean, that's what you were saying, right? *I* didn't find it too hard to understand. Not hard at all, actually.

"red states" ... voted for President Bush in 2000 and, not coincidentally, have gun ownership rates 35% higher than states that voted for Gore.

I am absolutely positive that if you take the average annual rainfall for red states and the average annual rainfall for blue states, you will find that one is higher than the other. Either red states got more rain, on average, than blue states, or blue states got more rain, on average, than red states. Let's say red states got more rain.

So then I say:

Red states ... voted for President Bush in 2000 and, NOT COINCIDENTALLY, have average annual rainfalls "X"% higher than states that voted for Gore.


And the point?

SAYING "not coincidentally" DOES NOT PROVE that the correlation cited IS NOT COINCIDENTAL.

I suspect that it would be relatively coincidental if states that had higher average annual rainfalls voted more heavily for Bush. (Heck, it may be that a higher average rainfall led to better harvests, which led to more economic prosperity, which led to selfish people voting more heavily for a party/candidate that made promises in their interests and not in the interests of people in states with less prosperity ... who knows??)

And I'd need a whole lot more than someone's bald assertion that it was NOT COINCIDENTAL that states with high rates of firearms ownership voted Republican in 2002 to PROVE that there was actually a cause-and-effect relationship between the two facts, and that what causal influence the rate of firearms ownership had would not be replaced by another causal factor, with the same effect, if there were no firearms issues between the two parties.

Oh look. Benchley suggests that other factors may have been MORE CAUSAL in those votes -- factors like the voters in red states being anti-choice, anti-gay rights, anti-labour, anti-diversity.

And what *I* find interesting is that firearms ownership obviously correlates rather more closely with anti-choice, anti-gay rights, anti-labour and anti-diversity attitudes than with their opposites ... since both (a) firearms ownership and (b) anti-liberal attitudes apparently correlate more closely with voting Republican (i.e. for an agenda that stresses firearms ownership "rights" *and* anti-liberal policies) than with voting Democrat.

Maybe one could predict voting patterns by studying precipitation patterns. Maybe one can predict voting patterns by studying firearms ownership patterns. And maybe one could increase the Democratic vote by making it rain. Or outlawing abortion, or allowing people to be fired from jobs and denied housing because of their sexual orientation (or heck, their race ...), or banning trade unions, or mandating christian prayer in the schools ... .

(Is rejecting reasonable restrictions on firearms ownership LIKE advocating that abortion be outlawed, or discrimination be permitted, etc. etc.? ONLY in so far as doing so would apparently attract some people's votes, and would be contrary to some other people's social values. Rejecting reasonable restrictions on firearms ownership would be LIKE promising a chicken in every pot, in that sense. So don't let's anybody be squawking about "comparing" one to the other again, if we please.)

Or maybe not. Maybe it wouldn't matter a fig what position the Democratic Party took on restricting firearms ownership -- because maybe what CAUSED firearms owners to vote Republican is that they hate women and gay men & lesbians and unions and non-christians.

Or heck ... maybe a majority of the firearms owners in those states is actually progressive and rights-loving and voted Democrat, and it was the NON-firearms owners who accounted for most of those Republican votes ... .


But if we assume that firearms ownership correlates strongly with voting for a party that stands for all that anti-rights and freedoms shit ... does owning firearms cause people to have those anti-liberal attitudes ... or does having those anti-liberal attitudes cause people to own firearms??

Hmm. There's a correlation, so there HAS TO BE causation. And somebody here must have a theory.

.

[MrBenchley]

43. Don't be silly

A causal link is only required in this forum when somebody is mentioning that John Lott is a far right wing crackpot (and another racist to boot).

[FlashHarry]

44. Locking

Once again, if a topic cannot be discussed with civility, it will not be discussed at all.

MESSAGE BOARD RULES (SHORT VERSION)


1. This is a message board for Democrats and other progressives.

2. Treat people with respect. Don't be rude or bigoted. Discuss the message, not the messenger.

3. Don't post entire articles. Instead, post short excerpts (not exceeding 4 paragraphs) with links.

4. Respect the wishes of the moderators and administrators.

FlashHarry
DU Moderator