Quote of the day—Christopher Ingraham

There’s no question that gun rights groups like the NRA are winning the battle for hearts and minds.

Christopher Ingraham
March 5, 2015
America has more guns in fewer hands than ever before
[H/T to SayUncle.

This is in the Washington Post!

It makes me sad to say this but humans, in general, have a herd instinct. They want other people to like them and to be like other people. Facts, logical support, and consistency tend to be of less importance than being a member of large herd.

We have the facts, logic, and SCOTUS decisions on our side but for decades they had the herd. That is slowing changing. Their claim of “few hands than ever before” is probably false do to the justifiable concern by gun owners that gun ownership polls may be an intelligence gathering subterfuge by criminals (by this I intend to include people working for the government). There is also some funny business with the wording of things. If we are clearly winning hearts and minds then I find it difficult to believe that we aren’t increasing the size of the gun owner herd as well.

I can say, with increasing confidence, that my dream may one day come true.—Joe]


14 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Christopher Ingraham

  1. I think that statement is demonstrably untrue. The number of concealed carry permits – both in states where they’ve been allowed and in newly-freed states – has climbed at a phenomenal rate. Gun shops are seeing new buyers. “Beginners” guns are selling like hotcakes.

    In truth, the headline should read, “America has more guns in more hands than ever.”

  2. In the mind of the Left there is no such thing as truth, so ultimately it comes down to the quality and skill behind your bullshit.

    Once you understand that, you can see why the Post would concede a little defeat while offering up some bullshit. They’re rallying the troops. “Come on, guys; NRA bullshit is stronger than our bullshit, so we clearly need some better bullshit.” Don’t think for a second that they have any interest in portraying reality accurately.

  3. What about states that require FOID cards? The last report in IL that I saw said FOID card issuance was through the roof. I suppose those few gun owners are staking up on FOID cards as well?

  4. I’ve added 5 or 6 gun owners to our “herd” by taking a page from your book and getting people interested in the fun and taking them to the range. What might be even better than that, I’ve even managed to swing a few anti-gun people. They may not have become gun owners, but after a range trip and discussions on facts and safety, they became more understanding of why we own guns and why we get so uptight about new laws.

  5. Without polls, how would you figure out the gun ownership rate? That’s an interesting question. I’m sure you couldn’t get an exact number but I’m pretty sure you could come up with a reasonably good estimate based on data from insurance companies, etc.

    • Unless you have an unusually large or expensive guns the insurance companies don’t care. You don’t register your power tools or computers, right? I’ve asked about my guns before and they said they are covered. I have documentation of them for a claim but the insurance company didn’t need to know ahead of time.

      • Right, but insurance companies would know average ownership rates based on claims after fires, disasters, etc
        Insurance companies keep lots of data because that’s their business. .

  6. from the WaPo article “… in 2014, the number of American households owning guns remained at 40-year lows. ”

    from http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2015/03/bullsht.html
    “Yes, the General Social Survey says a smaller percentage of households contain guns than at some time in the past. However, Gallup says gun ownership is up. Either way, the total number of households has increased over time, resulting in the TOTAL NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS CONTAINING GUNS INCREASING, so there are MORE guns in MORE hands than ever before – the exact opposite of the WaPo headline.”

    The number of total households has increased faster than those with guns, so the PERCENTAGE of households with guns has declined while the NUMBER of households with guns has increased.

    Math is hard for reporters.

    • “Math is hard for reporters.”

      They’re perfectly capable of getting close to the truth unless it threatens the Progressive authoritarian narrative, in which case they become a little absent-minded or they realize that it just wouldn’t be “newsworthy”.

      Hey; “unemployment” is way, way way down now to. It’s all the way down to 5.5% don’t you know. That is unless you look at the real numbers, but seriously; who wants to do THAT? Who would it serve?

      That’s always the question; who would it serve? And its flip side; “who would it harm?

      • The WSJ had an article recent about the “seasonally adjusted” scam. The writer mentioned talking to a person working with those numbers, who had been involved in publishing them in the past. That person’s answer to the concerns about these fictional numbers: “We just use the data; we don’t care about the quality of the data”.

        In other words, they are happy analyzing garbage to produce garbage, and don’t see anything wrong with that.

        There’s actually some sense in that, if you view the exercise as a study in psychology rather than science. If it were science, you’d have to care about the validity of the data. But as a psychology research project, all that matters is how people response to what they are told; whether they are told truth or lies is not a consideration. Warmism is another example of this, come to think of it.

Comments are closed.