Quote of the day—Red Nation Rising @RedNationRising

The democrats will stop at nothing to push their agendas. I’d love to know how many acts of violence have been orchestrated by them to push gun control. I suspect the results would match our suspicions.

ConspiracyTheory

Red Nation Rising @RedNationRising
Tweeted on September 8, 2019
[Back in the late 1990s this was a common suspicion. I never heard anyone say they thought the shooter themselves planned it as a means to pass gun control bills. They mostly suspected it was some sort of mind control or “programming” of mentally unstable people. I thought it extremely unlikely.

The probabilities increased dramatically with the Las Vegas shooting. A rich, old, white guy was a different demographic than we had ever seen before. There was picture of the murderer at a Hillary rally wearing a vagina hat but there was little else to gives us clues as to his political persuasion or possible motivation. The expense, planning, and horrendous number of victims indicated something well beyond what other murderers had demonstrated.

Then there was another mass murder, I forget which one, with a manifesto explicitly advocating more gun control. There are no more probabilities. There is only certainty that it has happened. The questions are now, “How many times has it happened?” and “How many more times will it happen before we can put an end to, or dramatically reduce, their incredibly evil activities?”—Joe]

Quote of the day—San Francisco Board of Supervisors

RESOLVED, That the City and County of San Francisco intends to declare the National Rifle Association a domestic terrorist organization.

San Francisco Board of Supervisors
September 3, 2019

[See also here and here.

Did it every occur to these people that if gun owners are going to be treated like terrorists some of them might decide it’s time to act like terrorists? Probably. That could even be the prime objective.

That the Board of Supervisors, unanimously, voted to declare the nations oldest civil right organization a “domestic terrorist organization” tells us a lot more about the Board of Supervisors than it does the NRA and its members.—Joe]

Quote of the day—J.D. Tuccille

While weaponizing laws against political opponents may buy votes among the faithful in the short term, it delegitimizes laws and their enforcers in the eyes of their targets. That further reduces any possibility of compliance with laws that already have a history of being honored only in the breach. When the dust settles, the government ends up looking weak and the law pointless. And the country will be more divided than ever.

Maybe O’Rourke and his colleagues will eventually be able to turn their gun confiscation wishes into law, but history is very clear that most people will defy the prohibition.

J.D. Tuccille
September 4, 2019
Beto’s Impossible Gun Ban Dreams
[Not only will such a prohibition be defied, there is a greater risk. It’s possible the people will implement a prohibition on prohibiting politicians. If they do, one should expect the people will have a higher success rate than that achieved by the politicians in banning guns.

Let’s keep them from being elected, get some good court rulings, and avoid the whole mess.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Alan M. Dershowitz

No university student has the right to be safe from uncomfortable ideas, only from physical threats, and any student who claims to be in physical fear of politically incorrect ideas does not belong at a university. The most extreme example of this distortion of the role of higher education took place at my own university when a distinguished dean of a Harvard residential college was fired from his deanship because some “woke” students claimed to feel unsafe in his presence because he was representing, as a defense lawyer, a man accused of rape.

Alan  M. Dershowitz
August 31, 2019
The Dangerous Stalinism of the “Woke” Hard-Left
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Carl Bussjaeger

This is the 21st century; the firearms cat is out of the bag. If you want to use gun control to stop shootings, you need to reduce the nation to a sparsely populated Stone Age society.

Carl Bussjaeger
September 2 2019
Nasty, Brutish, and Short
[For the stated assumption this is true. But it’s not about stopping shootings. It’s about making the resistance of tyranny difficult. Certain types of gun control, such as successful gun registration, can accomplish that.

The obvious conclusion is that those insisting on gun control which has no possibility of stopping the mass shootings must have an incredibly evil agenda as their real goal.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Alan Gottlieb

Evidently the five senators signing onto this brief are terrified that the nation’s high court is about to examine the extreme nature of local gun control laws and their constitutionality under the Second Amendment.

Instead of the Supreme Court dismissing the case we believe the court should reject the amicus brief. It is an insult to the court’s integrity, and to the Constitution, itself.

Contrary to what the Whitehouse Five contends in their brief, the nation needs the Supreme Court to take Second Amendment cases and determine whether laws such as the one in New York are infringements, and then provide guidance to the lower courts about where the constitutional line may be drawn.

Alan Gottlieb
August 30, 2019
SAF APPLAUDS SENATE REPUBLICANS FOR CONDEMNING DEM. THREAT TO HIGH COURT
[Dismissing the brief… Hmmm… I kind of like that. But I wonder, without further justification, if that would be unconstitutional in some way?—Joe]

Quote of the day—David French

The battle for freedom has been fought and won. Your speech may be free, but that doesn’t mean it is easy. Truly confronting illiberal political correctness requires personal courage. Without it, the battle for the First Amendment will have been fought in vain.

David French
August 20, 2019
Courage Is the Cure for Political Correctness
[Via email from Chet who adds, “I would add for rights in general.”

He has some good points. But a case can be made that the battle isn’t over until the culture has been changed and is accepting of diverse speech and thought without a lawsuit to back up your coming out of the closet.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Kurt Schlichter

We’ll get lots of the “Orange man bad, orange man not nominate a judge because he bad” babble from the libs and their gimp media. Maddow will cry, Don Lemon will pound an umbrella drink and Tater Stelter will sweat profusely as he reads off the teleprompter about how Trump is literally Hitler. The Fredocons will weigh in with their patented brand of sissy submission to their elite tops. We’ll be informed how taking back the Supreme Court like the geebos of Conservative, Inc., promised for three decades is actually not who we are and how we’re better than that and how oh well I never. Can you imagine Jeb! or Mitt in this situation? They would eagerly, whole-heartedly buy into the compromise unity candidate ploy to stick some moderate muggle on the bench in order to “repair the heart of our country” and “build bridges” of bipartisan love.

Trump builds victories, and he’s going to blow up that bridge.

Kurt Schlichter
August 26, 2019
Get Ready For Apocalypse Ruth
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Quote of the day—herbn

At what point does “they are saying I am by definition worse than Hitler and need to be in a camp” cross over from “a stupid narrative they believe” to a “clear and present danger to me and mine I must actively respond to.” I’m already passively preparing, but at some point I have to choose, and choose wisely, to move to active interference.

That is what worries me. Both the need to make that call and making it wrong.

herbn
August 8, 2019
Comment to But Then That Must Mean
[Many years ago John Clifford., the owner of a gun range I frequented, told me, “When you draw your gun is far more important than how fast you draw your gun.” It took a while for me to really understand what he was saying. See this post for elaboration on that point.

herbn’s dilemma captures the essence of what John was telling me.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Sarah A. Hoyt

If you find yourself reading the other person’s mind. As in, thinking “I love American” means “white America” realize you’re not psychic. Those thoughts in your head? they’re yours. Examine why you want to believe this, and what purpose it’s serving FOR YOU. Because your mind is the only one you can read.

Sarah A. Hoyt
August 7, 2019
But Then That Must Mean
[H/T to Harvey.

You may think this is just some abstract or exaggerated “thing”. No. It is not. This strongly resonated with me because of personal experiences with people like this.

I have a true story to illustrate. There are many similar true stories but this is the one I tell most frequently:

Several years ago I received a phone call which went like this:

Caller: Can you pick up Sister 1 at the airport?

[Because of the circumstances it was conceivable it could be any one of five different airports. I needed to know a critical piece of information before answering.]

Joe: Which airport?

Caller: I think she is coming in this afternoon.

Joe: Which airport?

Caller: She usually flies on Delta.

[Yay! This actually eliminates one of the airports! Only three more to go. We are making progress.]

Joe: Which airport?

Caller: Can you bring her to the motel we are staying at?

Joe: Which airport?

Caller: She has done a lot of things for you, can’t you do this for her?

[I’m getting frustrated. I would be glad to do this if I can physically make it happen. I just need to determine some critical pieces of information. I almost yelled at my caller.]

Joe: Which airport?!!!

Caller to Sister 2 as she is terminating the call: We should find someone else to pick up Sister 1 because Joe can’t do it.

I’m now infuriated. Not only they wouldn’t answer my question, they are now telling Sister 2 I refused to help them out. I called back, eventually got the information, and agreed to pick up Sister 1 at a local airport.

I met Sister 1 at baggage claim. Wondering if I should get a cart for her bags I asked, “How many bags do you have?”

Sister 2: They’re green.

How does this relate to mind reading? It is because in further talks it came out my words were interpreted as meaning something completely different from what I said. In some cases when this would happen I would ask them to repeat my question back to me. They were completely unable to do it. I could repeat the question and even coach the words out of them, one by one, and five seconds later they would be unable to repeat a simple question such as the one above. Their brains were wired in some weird way that plain and simple words mapped into some completely different concept, perhaps completely unrelated to the speaker’s words and/or actions and the original words would be completely lost.

The original words could even be written down and they would be mapped into something different. In once written case I had them read the words out loud to me. They were able to do so. I asked, “How did you get from those words to your interpretation?” They agreed they were wrong. I hadn’t said what they thought I had said. They looked away from the words and, literally, in less than five seconds they were back to insisting their original interpretation was correct. We repeated the reading of the words and them agreeing I was correct. Again, within a few seconds, they reverted to their original, incorrect, interpretation. I gave up in extreme frustration after about three tries.

It turns out that the entire family did this. They would literally believe they knew you meant something completely different from what you said, no matter how many times and how many ways you said what you really meant. They would insist they “knew” what you really meant. They also believed I was the borderline crazy person because I didn’t know what they really meant when they presented me with highly ambiguous information. In their minds, I was somehow handicapped.

I grew to avoid participating in their family conversations because it was so bizarre. I made it a game to just listen and attempt to disambiguate the meanings of what they said. It was extremely challenging. When confronted with an ambiguity I would form one or more branches of the conversation in my mind and wait for more information to come in. As the additional information came in I could determine which one of the branches was the correct one. Or, at least, trim a branch or two off if it had many branches. And, of course, the branches grew branches. Usually some new bit of data would come in and “Poof!” all the extraneous branches would fall away and I would be caught up on the conversation again.

Keep in mind I doing this for each of two, three, or even four people when sometimes no two of them were on the same branch. It was tough work, but at least my brain was getting practice with logic puzzles. Most of the time the parties to the conversation were essentially in synch with each other. But perhaps a quarter of the time they would actually diverge and never resynchronize on their own. One of them could be talking about their dog making a mess on the kitchen floor and another other believed they were talking about a husband instead of a dog (true story). For a while I thought it was funny and didn’t bother to correct the mistakes. It just didn’t matter that much and I would get in a little bit of trouble for being so nitpicky about details. So, why bother?

Sometimes a day or so later I would hear a mention of the previous conversation with a serious misunderstanding and consequences of what was said. I would inform them that they misunderstood what the other person said. I would explain that I too momentarily went down that same branch but then realized that wasn’t what they really meant. Frequently, I wouldn’t be believed. They KNEW what the other person meant. If the truth was important I insisted they call and verify their understanding of the original conversation. I was always right and the person who “KNEW” couldn’t really understand how I really knew.

Once, in extreme frustration at being repeatedly misunderstood on an important point I demanded and received an answer which explained this bizarre behavior. After being told they KNEW what I really meant despite my repeated attempts to explain I meant something completely different from what they clearly believed I asked one of them, “How do you determine truth from falsity?” The answer was like a stoichiometric mixture of oxygen and gasoline vaper onto a lite match, “It depends on how I feel.”

I blew up. How is it even possible to have a conversation with someone like this? We live in almost completely disjoint realities.

It gets worse.

One time there were three of them talking and I was doing my usual branching and pruning when a new bit of information came in that caused all the branches to disappear in great ball of fire in my head. No one else seemed to notice. I had to interrupt.

“Wait, wait, wait! I don’t understand. A little bit ago you said, ‘[data point A]’. Just now you said, ‘[data point B]’. Both can’t be true and nothing you have been saying makes sense.”

The answer was, “Oh Joe, it doesn’t matter. We are just talking.”

I went slack jawed and the other two family members laughed. They then all continued as if nothing of significance had occurred.

In the span of a minute or less the same person said two things which were completely and totally, contradictory. Not only did they brush it off as irrelevant, they and other parties to the conversation thought it was obvious that I was just being silly for trying to make sense of it. I slunk off into a corner and took a nap. There was nothing further of value to be gained from listening to these people make sounds at each other.

Years later, reading about personality disorders, I discovered that it is characteristic of certain disorders for people to believe they can read other people’s minds.

They might not explicitly say it because they know it will not be well received. They may not believe they can determine the explicit thoughts. But they will “know” the gist of what the other person thinks regardless of what the other person says and does. They can create an entire, frequently conspiratory, narrative which “explains” the contradictory evidence such that what they “know” to be true is not shown to be false. Paranoid people are perhaps the best known example although they are far from the only ones.

This is also particularly easy to see with many of the present day claims of racism. A statement with no mention of race will be claimed as clear and convincing evidence of racism. The political left will go absolutely bonkers about the white supremist, etc. when there is no evidence to support these claims. And, frequently, there is contradictory evidence. These people have mental problems and should be treated as such.

I think a good case can be made that, as many others have said in one way or another, “Liberalism is a mental disorder.”—Joe]

Think about it

Via Elisabeth Diamond @diamactive2001:

ForefathersVsTyrantsAnyQs

At first I thought this was awesome. It’s not just old white guys supporting the right to keep and bear arms to protect themselves from a slave rebellion. Gandhi in this category might be a surprise to some, but it’s true (see also here). Martin Luther King Jr. is another which might also surprise people, but again, it’s true.

But after more thought I realized the tyrants listed are actually admired leaders to some. For example, Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong each murdered 10s of millions of their own citizens after disarming them. But yet, there are still people today that not only advocate for the political philosophy of these tyrants but admire the tyrant for their accomplishments.

Hence, freedom lovers, as well as hard core Marxists, can both look at this image and find it supporting their world view. When you think about it, that’s kind of weird and messed up.

Quote of the day—Brian Malte

We used to fall into this trap as advocates when reporters would ask, ‘What would have stopped this shooting?’ We’d be trying our very best to say, ‘This policy would have.’ And that was the wrong answer because it’s not true. There’s no one policy that’s going to stop any shooting—it takes a multitude of solutions. Many times our movement would play into the NRA’s defeatist…attitude.

Brian Malte
August 21, 2019
Trump Thinks Background Checks Won’t Stop Shootings. He’s Wrong.
[Although isn’t not in the form of a direct quote Malte is also credited with:

For their part, gun control activists have learned that it’s better to steer clear of the debate over what caused a particularly horrific shooting, explains Brian Malte, who was a senior official at the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence—now known as Brady United—in the aftermath of the Newtown massacre.

What I conclude from this article is significantly different from what the author and those interviewed conclude.

What I conclude is that they admit to knowing that the “solutions” they push in response to a mass shooting could not possibly have prevented those deaths. They push for them anyway.

They are admitting they are not stupid. They are admitting they are not ignorant. They are admitting that it is a deliberate infringement of the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms with no possibility of reducing the harm they claim to be so concerned about. They are admitting they are evil.

This can and should be used at their trials.—Joe]

Quote of the day—The Babylon Bee

An exhaustive new study from the CDC reveals that the leading cause of gun violence in America is your political opponents. Researchers looked at a number of potential causes of gun violence such as mental health, family situation, cultural shifts, gun laws, rap music, videogames, sugar consumption, and the actual gunman, but by and large, the most prominent cause of gun violence was what most already suspected. The fault lies with those who you disagree with politically.

TheBabylonBeeGunViolenceCauses

The Babylon Bee
August 5, 2019
Study Shows Leading Cause Of Gun Violence Is Those You Disagree With Politically
[Yes, it’s satire. Still, a disinterested observer could listen to both sides of the issue and arrive at the above conclusion.—Joe]

Probably not a hunting license

H.R.5087 was introduced February 26, 2018 but I just now got around to looking at it and discussing it with some people.

It has some “interesting” provisions:

This Act may be cited as the “Assault Weapons Ban of 2018”.

The term ‘semiautomatic assault weapon’ means any of the following, regardless of country of manufacture or caliber of ammunition accepted:

“(A) A semiautomatic rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:

“(i) A pistol grip.

“(ii) A forward grip.

“(iii) A folding, telescoping, or detachable stock.

“(iv) A grenade launcher or rocket launcher.

“(v) A barrel shroud.

“(vi) A threaded barrel.

“(B) A semiautomatic rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds, except for an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.

“(C) Any part, combination of parts, component, device, attachment, or accessory that is designed or functions to accelerate the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle but not convert the semiautomatic rifle into a machinegun.

“(D) A semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:

“(i) A threaded barrel.

“(ii) A second pistol grip.

“(iii) A barrel shroud.

“(iv) The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip.

“(v) A semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm.

“(E) A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.

“(F) A semiautomatic shotgun that has any one of the following:

“(i) A folding, telescoping, or detachable stock.

“(ii) A pistol grip.

“(iii) A fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 5 rounds.

“(iv) The ability to accept a detachable magazine.

“(v) A forward grip.

“(vi) A grenade launcher or rocket launcher.

“(G) Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder.

“(H) All of the following rifles, copies, duplicates, variants, or altered facsimiles with the capability of any such weapon thereof:

“(K) All belt-fed semiautomatic firearms, including TNW M2HB and FN M2495.

“(L) Any combination of parts from which a firearm described in subparagraphs (A) through (K) can be assembled.

“(M) The frame or receiver of a rifle or shotgun described in subparagraph (A), (B), (C), (F), (G), (H), (J), or (K).

“(K) All belt-fed semiautomatic firearms, including TNW M2HB and FN M2495.

“(L) Any combination of parts from which a firearm described in subparagraphs (A) through (K) can be assembled.

“(M) The frame or receiver of a rifle or shotgun described in subparagraph (A), (B), (C), (F), (G), (H), (J), or (K).

It also defines “high capacity feeding devices” as devices capable of holding, or being easily modified to hold, more than 10 rounds.

“(w) (1) It shall be unlawful for a person to import, sell, manufacture, transfer, or possess, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, a large capacity ammunition feeding device.

It does provide for grandfathering existing firearms and accessories.

Minor off topic question, does such as thing as a semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine even exist?

Discussions at the range concluded that you didn’t need to squint very hard to read it as something other than the intended “Assault Weapons Ban”. If the courts were to rule the law constitutional then it would also double as a license to hunt politicians.

I could see that being the outcome, but I expect there are other sparks more likely to ignite the tinder before this bill runs it’s course. I’m thinking letting Antifa run wild is likely to “flip the switch” before the enactment of gun bans and the multi-year court delays does the trick.

They have admitted their guilt

Dean Baquet, the executive editor of the New York Times, recently admitted they structured their “newsroom” to bring down President Trump. When they failed with the false Russia conspiracy story they came up with a different plan and restructured accordingly.

See New York Times chief outlines coverage shift: From Trump-Russia to Trump racism

They have admitted their guilt. Why isn’t this being treated as libel and the New York Times and staff sued into oblivion?

I’m a skeptic

Via a suggestion from Haunt Fox @Haunt_Fox I looked at a research paper claiming to show:

These findings illustrate the shooter bias toward both human and robot agents. This bias is both a clear indication of racism towards Black people, as well as the automaticity of its extension to robots racialized as Black.

See also Robots and Racism: New Study Suggests That Humans Apply Racial Biases, Stereotypes to Black and White Robots.

The study presented test subjects with a series of 128 images. Half contained a gun held by a person or robot. The other half had some other object being held. Half of the robots and people had a dark skin color and half were white. The test measured the response time of test subjects to make shoot/no-shoot decisions and their accuracy in making those decisions.

I found it “interesting” the researchers did not break out the supposed discovered bias by the various racial identities who participated in the study. Only seven subjects out of 163 in Experiment 1 identified as “Black or African American” so I could be persuaded this isn’t an adequate sample size. But 19 out of 172 subjects in Experiment 2 identified as “Black or African American”. I would think this should be a sufficient sample to test one or more additional hypothesis.

For example, were “Black or African American” people also biased against people and robots with dark skin tones? If these participants behaved essentially identical to “White, Caucasian, or European American”, “Hispanic or Latino American”, and “Asian American” participants then I would be strongly inclined to believe there was some aspect of the testing that caused what appeared to be the bias against dark skinned people and robots rather than actual bias. That is, unless it is claimed “Black or African American” people are also biased against their own race. From reading the study this could be true but it wasn’t made as clear as I would have liked it to be.

The authors did not mention doing this sort of validation of the test procedure and did not supply us with the raw data so that we could do this validation for ourselves. It would seem to me this is an obvious check on the validity of their experiment. If the racial identity of the subject did not correlate with the time required to make a shoot/no shoot decisions but there was a consistent bias toward shooting more quickly at black people and robots then doesn’t that strong imply it is an artifact of the testing rather than a bias of the subjects?

One could easily conclude they did not provide that information because it contradicted their predisposed conclusion. The study may well demonstrate the prejudice of the researchers rather than the prejudice of the study participants.

So, what could have the experiment measured rather than a racial bias? As suggested by Haunt Fox:

Just looking at the images of the targets it seems to me there are some serious visual-contrast issues that might prove major confounders.

The researchers supplied eight of the 128 images they used. Here are two of them:

image

image

As Haunt Fox observed there are significant contrast differences. The accuracy rates were generally slightly lower for the black people and robots. If the pictures above are representative then this is as expected. But if rapid identification of the gun in a low contrast situation contributed to time differences I would have expected the lower contrast images to take longer. This isn’t making sense.

I wonder about the 120 images they didn’t supply. Did they have contrast issues that were even worse and have some sort of bias not displayed in the pictures supplied? Were all the guns black? What about some chrome colored guns? Could an association of a dark skin colors with the presence of a gun have been created?

I’m skeptical this study tested what they claimed they were testing. I think there is a good chance they demonstrated their and/or test procedure bias rather than a “clear indication of racism” toward dark skinned robots.

Quote of the day—Kurt Schlichter

You can’t put anything behind you with these people, because there is nothing to put behind you. It’s all a lie. You are not a racist. Your guns won’t hurt anyone but criminals and aspiring tyrants. And the leftists know it. They know they are spewing skeevy slanders, and if you give in on this one – handing over your AR-15 and hanging your head over prejudices you don’t possess – the libs and their newsprint lackeys will just club you with another set of grievances that you can only atone for through further submission.

It will never end. They will always hate you. Always. Nothing you can do will change that. Nothing. So get used to it and invite them to pound sand.

Kurt Schlichter
August 8, 2019
They Will Still Hate You Even If You Disarm
[Via email from Chet.

Stand up to them and tell them the adults are in charge. Temper tantrums from people that act like two year old’s and insults from people that act like they are in Junior High will be dealt with appropriately.—Joe]

Truth

Via Matthew Bracken @ Matt_Bracken:

The abuse of psychiatry was legendary:

See also Political abuse of psychiatry in the Soviet Union.

Expect little difference if implemented here. What is going to be the default decision of a judge or psychologist? Risk letting a potential mass shooter keep their guns or risk an nonviolent person losing their guns?

The Hunt

I’ve been reading email and websites which claim there is a new movie coming out in which rich elites hunt “deplorables”/Trump supporters. From watching the trailers it’s not clear this is the actual theme. It’s possible The Hunt is a politically neutral take-off of the short story “The Most Dangerous Game”. But that doesn’t match what The Hollywood Reporter and The Epoch Times claim:

The movie, “The Hunt,” from Universal Pictures, shows people hunting down “deplorables,” a term failed presidential contender Hillary Clinton used to describe supporters of Trump during the 2016 campaign.

Did anyone see what our [expletive]-in-chief just did?” one character asks others early in the movie, reported the Hollywood Reporter. “At least The Hunt’s coming up. Nothing better than going out to the Manor and slaughtering a dozen deplorables.”

According to the Reporter, the movie’s script features blue-state characters choosing to hunt red-state characters who expressed pro-life positions or were deemed racist.

Here are the trailers I have been able to find. You decide:

Quote of the day—Kalmoe and Mason

Items PV3 and PV4 from the CCES involve justifying violence by the inparty to
advance political goals. Terrorism, in other words. PV3 asks about violence today. PV4 asks
for responses if the outparty wins the 2020 presidential election, a hypothetical but realistic
scenario given recent alternation in party control of the presidency. Nine percent of
Republicans and Democrats say that, in general, violence is at least occasionally acceptable.  However, when imagining an electoral loss in 2020, larger percentages of both parties
approve of the use of violence – though this increase is greater for Democrats (18 percent
approve) than Republicans (13 percent approve).
 

image

Nathan P. Kalmoe and Lilliana Mason
2019
Lethal Mass Partisanship:  Prevalence, Correlates, & Electoral Contingencies
[H/T to J.D. Tuccille.

The questions PV1 –> PV4 were as follows:

Political Violence
PV1
When, if ever, is it OK for [Own party] to send threatening and intimidating messages to [Opposing party] leaders?
PV2
When, if ever, is it OK for an ordinary [Own party] in the public to harass an ordinary [Opposing party] on the Internet, in a way that makes the target feel unsafe4?
PV3
How much do you feel it is justified for [Own party] to use violence in advancing their political goals these days?
PV4
What if [Opposing party] win the 2020 presidential election? How much do you feel violence would be justified then? 
 
4 “Unsafe” was replaced with “frightened” in the Nielsen survey.

I’m surprised by two things in this study.

  1. The number of people supporting violent threats and action is higher than I would have thought. I would have expected it to be not over one or two percent for any of the questions for either party. Sure, there are a lot of people advocating violence, but they are just a noisy, extreme, minority, right? Well… maybe not such a small minority after all.
  2. I would have expected a much bigger difference between the Democrats and the Republicans with the Democrats leading by at least a factor of two on every question. Aren’t Republicans the one who follow the process and the rules more so than the outcome?

That nearly one out of six Democrats and one out eight Republicans think violence is justified if the other party wins the presidency in 2020 I’m seriously hoping for a Libertarian win (yeah, right, only if the Democrats and Republicans kill each other off at some extremely drastic rate prior to the election) and planning on avoiding what probably will be “hot spots”.

With that high of percentage of violent people available to surround themselves with people are going to find the courage to “take action”. Regardless of who wins, the 2020 election could just be the spark that ignites CWII.—Joe]