Quote of the day—Jane C. Hu

Staunch conservatives who reported feeling highly anxious after the Pulse shooting were more likely than less anxious conservatives to favor gun laws by around 40 percentage points. Highly anxious conservatives were 20 percentage points more likely than low-anxiety conservatives to think the government can prevent shootings. Liberals, on the other hand, were already likely to support gun control and to believe that the government could be effective in preventing shootings, so anxiety was less likely to change their beliefs.

Overall, the University of Kansas researchers conclude, anxiety leads to “a marked decline in ideological division.” In other words: post-shooting anxiety seemed to close the gap between liberal and conservative beliefs on gun regulation.

It’s not clear how long this effect would last after the initial shooting, but it suggests that the days immediately following a shooting might be the time people feel most compelled to act on gun legislation.

Jane C. Hu
September 21, 2018
The best time to talk about gun control is right after a shooting
[The study paper is here.

I find this very telling.

Hu regards achieving a particular end is more important than means. She is advocating people take advantage of people in a highly emotional state rather than let cooler heads and time arrive at a more reasoned plan.

This is evil and it should be treated as such.—Joe]


7 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Jane C. Hu

    • This is why the “Patriot Act” was passed so quickly in September 2001. Someone trotted out his or her wish list of liberty restrictions and it was passed after minimal deliberation.
      If immediately after a shooting is the time to pass restrictions on self defense, then after a murder or a kidnapping, particularly of a child, is the perfect time to discuss the passage of (Orwellian) surveillance laws to “prevent” it from happening again.

      We’ve got them figured out, every thinking person has; unfortunately, as Adlai Stevenson said, “Unfortunately, madam, I need a majority.”

  1. This is why agitation has always been a key tactic of authoritarians. It explains why they’re so comfortable saying the dumbest things. It gets us riled up. Agitation, no matter the cause, has a value unto itself.

    It’s also why one of the biggest lies of all time is constantly being promoted in our culture, that lie being the idea that our emotions are what define us. It’s why the seeking of excitement (as opposed to seeking knowledge, wisdom, serenity, discernment, understanding, etc.) is promoted as life itself, as though we’re not truly living unless we’re maintaining some elevated adrenaline level (which, in fact, will kill you, BTW).

    Emotions, and these idiotic notions, are foisted upon us so that we can be more easily manipulated, for a noble and rational people can never be overthrown.

    The Marxists have discussed these tactics for generations, and the papists, Jesuits and Freemasons have discussed them for centuries, so here we are. It will certainly get worse, and no one should be shocked, confused or surprised by any of it.

  2. I think a better interpretation of the data than anxiety leading to “a marked decline in ideological division” would be that anxiety leads people to think irrationally, and propose irrational ideas like gun control laws.

  3. Unchecked emotions prevent rational thought. And those in power HATE people who think. Thus the never ending traumatic events that are highly
    publicized by complicit media whores…..for the purpose of creating fear and
    anxiety….so the weak minded will bleat to those in office to “DO SOMETHING”.
    And come to think of it……with an election right around the corner…..aren’t we
    due for a mass casualty event of some kind? One perpetrated by a lib lefty….as
    is almost ALWAYS the case.

Comments are closed.