No surprise

The new (anti-) gun blogger (Baldr Odinson at New Trajectory) on the block is running a poll to “gauge the philosophy of visitors to New Trajectory”.

When I last looked at the poll results the voting was 70 to 3 (95% to 5%) “very much against stricter gun legislation” versus “very much for stricter gun legislation”.

This is consistent with the impressions of nearly everyone I have talked to and read on the blogs. About the only people listening to the anti-gun message are gun rights activists. If it weren’t for the traffic we give them they wouldn’t have any traffic worth talking about. Any one of the top 10 or 20 gun bloggers has more traffic than all the anti-gun bloggers combined.

Online life for them must feel a lot like showing up alone at a NAACP convention dressed in their whitest sheets and pillow cases—as it well should.


28 thoughts on “No surprise

  1. Perfect. Soon those blogs will realize there’s a revenue opportunity to advertise for firearm vendors given the traffic demographic.

    First person to spot a brownells ad on (or other), gets a drink on me!

  2. Nice — and he’s moderating comments, so no doubt what I just posted over there will be deleted before the public ever sees it. Just the same, what I sent him was something to the effect of:

    Very interesting results indeed. So, if the poll results turn out in clear opposition to your viewpoint, can we expect that 1) the poll will disappear, 2) that you’ll try to find a way to spin the results in your favor, 3) there will be claims that the poll was too difficult for the average person to understand, or 4) that maybe, just maybe, you’ll open your eyes and see some reality?

  3. Quantcast does not bother tracking the three largest independent anti-rights weblogs I am aware of (Mike Bonomo, Joan Peterson, and Baldr), but Alexa claims their ranks are 1,571,408, 5,129,127 and 18,648,661, respectively, while yours weighs in at 845,329 (lower numbers are better). Actual traffic numbers were not available, but it is easy to see that you outmass both of them in the SEO field.

    My prediction regarding the poll is that he will claim it was script-kiddied, throw it out, and ignore it – after all, that is what anti-rights cultists do with any facts that disagree with their preconceived bigotry.

  4. John, your comment there appears to have been posted.

    Also, the rate is now 98%, with 470 votes “Very Much Against” out of a total of 478.

  5. So he makes a poll specifically to judge the viewpoint of his visitors and then complains about those visitors when he gets an unfavorable result.

    I’m shocked I tell ya!

  6. MikeB302000,

    While I strongly suspect pro-gun people who don’t normally read his blog flocked to the poll, you are fail to address the bigger issue. That is that pro-gun people have the capability of doing that. The anti-gun people don’t have the numbers to do anything like that. The same sort of thing happens with letters to the editor, votes for politicians, and calls to our legislators. We outnumber you by a very large margin and we are very active.

    In addition to having the high moral ground we have numbers to make a difference. We are grassroots. At best, you have Astroturf.

  7. “In addition to having the high moral ground we have numbers to make a difference. We are grassroots. At best, you have Astroturf.”

    And that Astroturf is wearing out…

  8. Bullies.
    When the little guy turns and pops the bully in the nose, that’s bullying, too, I guess. Or more accurately that is the sort of bullying that gets the bully’s attention; before that, bullying is invisible.

    And what do the anti gun blogs have to say about Mahatma Gandhi’s statement that disarming the Indian population is one of the blackest deeds of the British? Considering that for the anti-gunners reasonable gun regulation is always “more restrictive than now”, we can only assume the anti-self-defense people want Americans to be as disarmed as Gandhi considered the Indians under the British.

  9. “It’s disgraceful, I tell you.”

    No, what’s disgraceful is you and the other unscrupulous antis making false accusations of conspiracy just because a large number of people voted for good instead of evil.

    You just can’t accept the fact that these people vote for pro-gun because it’s the right thing to do, because you’d have to accept the quite undisputable fact that what you are campaigning for is wrong.

  10. When the conference calls to organize a pro-rights gathering are larger than the turnout for any gun control protest, they have a problem.

  11. So, participating in an open online poll is bullying, but wanting to use the coercive power of the state forcibly to limit our rights is not?

    Interesting moral inversion, that.

  12. “participating in an open online poll is bullying, but wanting to use the coercive power of the state forcibly to limit our rights is not”

    Zing! Exactly the point.

    We are, once again, looking at an example of projection. The left’s founding principle is that coercion has a good and proper place in society- bullying as a founding philosophy. Everything they ever do is an attempt to find new ways, or harsher ways, to push people around. The slightest resistance, as with the schoolyard bully, is met with cries, sobs, and loud accusations leveled at the defender.

    The bully must portray himself as the righteous victim. As I have said before; there is nothing on Earth more precious to a leftist than his status as victim, for that, in his mind, is his source of vindication– the justification for his hatred and evil.

  13. captainmalcolmreynoldsv(“What a whiner.”);

    The only thing worse than a bigot trying to use an “Appeal to Popularity” logical fallacy to support his desired abrogation of basic human rights is a bigot failing at doing the same and then blaming everyone else.

    His first mistake was thinking individual rights are subject to public opinion… his second mistake was thinking that public opinion was on his side…

  14. Please note that due to my lack of attention to detail, the poll is no longer embedded directly in the post – instead, it is available at the top of the left page bar, from every page and post. This turned out to be a net improvement, but I apologize for the confusion and brief disconnect.

  15. You guys have no sense of humor. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again.

    Joe, you don’t have the moral high ground, you just say you do. You do have the numbers, though and that’s how you compensate.

    But even the numbers are deceptive. Most gun owners, just like most non-gun owners are not interested in the debate. Those on your side who are interested, are very interested, passionate I would say. The reason for this is they have something at stake, their beloved gun rights. The gun control side has nothing to compare.

    Does that prove something, though? I don’t think so.

  16. Prove something? Not exactly. But it is a strong indicator that we will win.

    The situation is analogous to the civil rights struggles by blacks and gays. Except there are a lot more gun owners than people with dark skin or an sexual interest in their own gender. And we are specifically called out for protection in the Bill of Rights.

  17. The push for increased gun regulation is nothing at all like the centuries of torture, slavery, death, and discrimination suffered by African Americans. Nor is it anything like the humiliation, discrimination, and physical attacks waged against gays.

    Just because you might not be able to buy a particular assault rifle or extended clip, or have to be a little inconvenienced for a background check, or have to register for a conceal carry permit is nothing at all like discrimination of gays and African Americans. It’s a ridiculous analogy and exposes you as ignorant of their plight and history, which is itself a sign of discrimination on your part.

  18. Why is one individual right better than another individual right, Baldr?

    Alternatively, why is it acceptable to discriminate, to any degree, against one individual right, but not another?

    Where does the differentiation lie? How do you make the differentiation? What is “acceptable” discrimination and what is not? How do you know? If you are going to argue in shades of grey, you had better have the means to defend your position, otherwise those of us who are quite comfortable with “intolerance against all individual rights is unacceptable” will win the day, every time, your risible claims of “sign of discrimination on [our] part” or not.

    But since you are here, are you ever going to stop by and vote in my version of your poll, or get some friends to help you out? Unlike you, I was honest from the very beginning, I am genuinely interested in the outcome of the poll, and I heartily encourage you to go out and gather up any like-minded individuals you can to vote in it. Or do you not only not like the answers, but not like it when you cannot control the answers?

  19. mike, given the amount of intentional falsehoods that the VPC/Brady crowd traffic in and the fact that we support individual liberty, we do have the moral high ground. Period.

  20. If there were a organization advocating the registration of gay, blacks, or gays and there would be talk of tar and feathers. But the existence of licensing of a constitutionally protected class of people known as gun owners is viewed as a good thing by the Brady Campaign and their fellow bigots.

  21. Mike:
    “Joe, you don’t have the moral high ground, you just say you do. You do have the numbers, though and that’s how you compensate.”

    Once again Mike, you’ve analysed the situation, put your keen and penetrating mind to the issue… and ended up with completely the wrong answer.

    You say they compensate for being wrong with their numbers, their political might. This is, I assume, what you think makes them considered right in the debate.

    You’ve got it the wrong way around. They’re not considered right because of their might, they have that political might because they *are right*.

    Contrary to the lies of such unscrupulous groups as the Bradys or Ceasefire, the pro-gun people like Joe are not advocating for criminals. They’re saying that the law abiding should not be penalised for something that is not their fault. As much as you claim to argue for “good and right”, Joe and the gun owners are the only side of the debate actually asking for what’s good and right.

    You might not like it, but it can’t be disputed that your side is in the wrong. Whenever you demand unneccesary evils like registration, bans and restrictions, you’re demanding that the innocent pay for the actions of the guilty, and that is *wrong*. No ifs, buts or maybes about it.

    Even if Joe and the other pro-gun people don’t have the moral high ground (and that’s a damn big “if”), they’re still a great deal higher up than you.

    “It’s a ridiculous analogy and exposes you as ignorant of their plight and history, which is itself a sign of discrimination on your part.”

    I don’t know, thare are some parallels between them.

    All of them wish to live their lives in peace.

    All of them have had irresponsible people demand laws to restict them.

    All of them have “anti” groups that are nothing but liars and unscrupulous people.

Comments are closed.