Rasmussen’s telephone and online survey of 1,000 American adults asked the question point-blank: “In crimes involving use of a gun, which is more to blame—the shooter or the availability of guns in America?” An astonishing 31 percent of people placed the blame on the inanimate object, the gun, and not the person pulling the trigger. Unsurprisingly, Democrats were much more likely than Republicans—51 percent to 13 percent—to blame the object over the person.
It’s worth asking: Do these same people think access to vehicles is more at fault than drivers? Are knives more at fault than stabbers? If not, why? What makes guns different?
Actually, we can tell you what makes guns different—a political agenda. Liberals have long been on a mission to obliterate guns, the Constitution and freedom in America. Gun control has never been about guns; it has always been about controlling people. The only difference today is that anti-gunners are openly admitting their end game. And if they must give ridiculous answers absolving human beings from any responsibility governing their own actions, well, so be it.
America’s 1st Freedom Staff
December 25, 2018
Blaming Guns, Not Killers
[They are twisting things a bit here. The question wasn’t about whether guns or people were to more to blame. The question was whether the availability of guns or the shooter were more to blame. Still, it’s an interesting insight into the mindset of people.
I suspect that if the question about gun availability had been preceded by appropriate other questions the result would have turned out much different. For example:
Question 1: In crimes involving alcohol such as spousal abuse and date rape which is more to blame—the person or the availability of alcohol in America?
Q2: In crimes involving knives such as murder and assault which is more to blame—the person or the availability of knives in America?
Q3: In crimes involving cars such as bank robberies and manslaughter will driving at high speeds which is more to blame—the driver or the availability of cars in America?
Q4: In crimes involving use of a gun, which is more to blame—the shooter or the availability of guns in America?
Then, what I would like to see is how many people, if given the opportunity, would go back and change some of their answers.
If I had a big enough sample I would order the questions at random for each person and see how many “preloading questions” were needed to get a different answer to the gun availability question.
And then perhaps a week, a month, and a year later, ask each of the people who seemed to be responding to the “preloading” just the gun availability question. Is it possible that if they were lead to a certain conclusion by asking questions in a particular order of they will remain of that mindset for an extended time?
Psychology is so very interesting. Rational thought is just a thin veneer over a swamp of emotions.—Joe]
Surveys are an ‘art’ even if science is used to used to analyze the results. Reordering questions, changing words, changing the title, the survey sponsor, how the taker is asked, and other factors can make a difference. All surveys have garbage in garbage out (GIGO) component.
It’s sad that so much is made of them. Surveys are the basis of the new gender science, white privilege, …
My conclusion from those survey results is: “propaganda works”.
The enemies of the perfect law of liberty have turned this into an advanced, applied science.
“Is it possible that if they were lead to a certain conclusion by asking questions in a particular order…they will remain of that mindset for an extended time[?]”
In politics, this concept of “temporary mindset” based on flimsy manipulation need last only a very short while. If it’s timed right, no more than a week or two, or even a few days of this sort of “altered response” is necessary. In the House or Senate, it need last only a few minutes, or just long enough to take the vote. Practitioners of “Mentalism” understand this very well because they know more about what influences your decisions, especially what we might call “decisions of circumstance”, than you know yourself.
On the other hand, most anyone you talk to about this will believe that, although other people are being manipulated regularly, he is not.
So; if someone actually believes he isn’t being manipulated, does that belief constitute all the evidence necessary to conclude that he is? For surely, if you believe that all your thoughts are your own, that can only mean you’ve been tricked into that belief.
Bob Dylan had something to say on this matter;
You may be an ambassador to England or France
You may like to gamble, you might like to dance
You may be the heavyweight champion of the world
You may be a socialite with a long string of pearls
But you’re gonna have to serve somebody, yes
Indeed you’re gonna have to serve somebody
Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord
But you’re gonna have to serve somebody
You might be a rock ‘n’ roll addict prancing on the stage
You might have drugs at your command, women in a cage
You may be a business man or some high-degree thief
They may call you doctor or they may call you chief
But you’re gonna have to serve somebody, yes you are
You’re gonna have to serve somebody
Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord
And so it is that some sort of reliable test is required, to weigh against all the various assertions and see where they stand in the large scheme of things. A test unaltered and unchanging with time.
The Protestant Reformation, for example, which lifted Western Civilization up out of the Dark Ages, relied on the test of Sola Gracia, Sola Christos, Sola Scriptura. In that way they could readily determine that the ludicrous assertions of the papacy were non-Christian, and in many cases outright anti-Christian. The papacy of course banned the Bible for that reason; if no one could read it, no one could discover the giant ruse being perpetrated against them.
Likewise today, universities are altering their canons and pedagogies to dilute and de-emphasize, if not directly attack, Western Cultural influences. That’s where we’ve gotten the now widely held belief that “all cultures have something wonderful to offer the world [except ours]”, etc., and that nationalism is well and good for all nations except those of the West in which case it is horrible and racist and probably genocidal.
Remove the bedrock standards and anything goes. By what shall we then test the conflicting assertions of right verses wrong? By our wants and feelings of the moment, and ego of course. And if we change our minds from week to week that is all well and good, and we’ll call it “freedom” and we’ll call it “open-mindedness” and “progressive”.
Then the authoritarians will actually get their genocide, and they can bring the world population down to their target of a few hundred million of the easily controlled. So long as Western Judaeo-Christian Civilization held they didn’t stand a chance, but that’s being fixed now.
The results of this “survey” are merely additional proof that vast numbers of people in society are basically dumber than a sack of hammers.