Friday, July 18, 2014

On the Lighter Side...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth


While checking polling data for the Massachusetts Gubernatorial race between Democratic candidate Martha Coakley and Republican Charlie Baker the following excerpt discussing firearm ownership in Massachetts compared to the national average was noted. Massachusetts, with one of the nation's strictest firearm regulation laws is only slightly below the national average.

Democrats as well as those with a college degree are less likely to own a firearm or have a family member who owns one than either Republicans or those with less education.

Despite Massachusetts’ strict gun laws, as well as its reputation as a liberal bastion, 30 percent of likely voters said they or one of their immediate family members own a gun. That is not much different from national rates of gun ownership. One national survey, for example, found that 34 percent of American households owned a gun in 2012.

The Globe poll found younger voters were just as likely as older voters to own a gun, although there was a split among voters depending on their level of education. Thirty-five percent of likely voters who did not have a college degree said they or one of their immediate family members own a gun, compared to 26 percent of college graduates.

Democrats, at 16 percent, were less likely than Republicans, at 37 percent, and independents, at 36 percent, to own a gun.

Certainly one can't draw sweeping conclusions from the above, however it does suggest it is not the regulations placed on firearm ownership by the government that accounts for slightly lower MA firearm ownership. Perhaps it is the level of education? As Massachusetts is largely an independent and left leaning state one would expect a greater gap between the national average and Massachusetts.

Got me to thinking, since regulation doesn't seem to kill ownership, political affiliations are unlikely to change all that much, and education apparently has a noticeable influence on lowering firearm ownership perhaps the NRA's next move will be a Reduce Education to Insure 2'nd Amendment Rights campaign.

Just sayin... :-)

Via: Memeorandum

21 comments:

  1. In the words of that legendary political humorist, Mark Russell, "Welcome to the great state of Massachusetts, where Democrats are old-style Democrats........and so are the Republicans."

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yeahl, if FDR were alive today he'd be a NY or MA republican.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Was talking to a fellow yesterday who was fixing our kitchen floor (dishwasher flood) and we got to
    talking about the new sporting goods place in town. He said he had all the guns he needed: a .22
    rifle and a couple of 30-06 for elk hunting. In looking at the demographics, it is instructive that household gun ownership has gone down overall (some surveys show new gun owners in urban
    areas), but that the majority of current sales are to a fairly low percentage of those that have dozens
    already and keep buying more; some legitimate collectors but mostly hard line gun folk, the mainstay of the NRA...and they have clout beyond their number.

    ReplyDelete
  4. It's not the ownership of guns that is the problem, it is the mental acuity of those who own them. Chances are that if a gun owner is stupid, he or she would probably leave loaded firearms where children would get hold of them and shoot themselves or someone else. Irresponsible people don't have common sense, and those are usually the people who do not practice gun safety.

    Another point is that there are so many guns circulating in our population that it is well nigh impossible to have any meaningful law to keep them out of the hands of mentally ill people, crimnals, and irresponsible jerks.

    All we can do is hope that we live among saner folks who care about gun safety. But that seems to be a lost cause as well. We have the highest number of firearmss in circulation than any other country on the planet, and we have the highest number of firearm deaths than any other country on the planet. This is something we do not give a damn about. It is what it is. And we just accept the thousands and thousands of deaths and the fact that it is no longer unusual to have a crazy or unhappy person shoot up students in school

    We've accepted the unacceptable.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Criminals will always have firearms, or shoulder rocket launchers.

    I refuse to accept we can't regulate firearm ownership in a reasonable way and protect the intent of the 2'nd amendment.

    More later no doubt.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The intent of the 2nd amendment was to provide for a citizen militia. Are you suggesting we ban firearm ownership for everyone who does not belong to one?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Interpret as you wish. And no to your asinine question.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So you're saying that the original intent of the Founders was "asinine"? Also, the argument that "Criminals will always have firearms, or shoulder rocket launchers" is the same as the argument that laws should not be passed because criminals won't obey them. Are you an anarcho-libertarian?

      Delete
    2. On the first - NOPE

      Oo the second - NOPE

      On the third - NOPE

      Delete
    3. The 2nd amendment discusses the right of the people to keep and bear arms not being infringed upon WITHIN the context of a well regulated militia. That is the way it was originally written. As for "interpreting", that is what the SCOTUS kings did when they legislated from the bench and reinterpreted the 2nd to be referring to individual rights - as opposed to collective rights (which holds that the right is dependent on militia membership). And with their reinterpreting they also rejected the original intent of the Founders. There is no individual right to bear arms in the Constitution.

      RN said we need to protect the INTENT of the 2nd amendment, but the 2nd amendment only (originally) applied to militia members. Given that, I say (if we're going with intent), any regulation on guns that applies to non-militia members that any state legislative body or the federal government passes (including outright bans) is Constitutional. If The People don't agree they can vote in new legislators to change the legislation.

      Delete
  8. I guess those educated folks are smart enough to talk their way out of a confrontation

    ReplyDelete
  9. Lisa, intelligent AND wise folks for indeed smart enough to resolve problems without the use of violence. Perhaps that is why the less intelligent AND those lacking in wisdom feel the need to use coercion and or violence when things don't go their way.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I am not sure what scenario you are referring to Les. Of course many people who use violence are not so much lacking in education per say but in mental stability or they are just diabolical.Take Ted Bundy for an instance.
    If you look at high crime gun violent areas you really think those areas are right leaning?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Some criminals are intelligent few are wise.

    Street wise perhaps, and yeah diabolical.

    Don't now the answer to your question. Perhaps you can link me to a reputable source with that data?

    ReplyDelete
  12. anyone knows,Baltimore,Cleveland Kansas City,Chicago,Memphis, all run by liberal Dems who keep getting re-elected

    ReplyDelete
  13. Templates are just that. Anyone can extrapolate from data something that will fit it. And so partisan spend their time endeavoring to do so.

    On the other hand there are those who spend their time searching for reasonable solutions to problems. Solutions that reduce violence and at the same time protect Constitutional and individual rights of responsible law abiding citizens.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Les, are you deleting all my comments?

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No. This site has not received a comment from you in sometime.

      Delete

As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 8/12/13 Anonymous commenting has been disabled. This unfortunate action was made necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or serve only to disrupt honest discourse..

I apologizes for any inconvenience this necessary action may cause the honest Anonymous who would comment here, respect proper decorum and leave comments of value. However, The multitude of trollish attack comments from both the left and right has necessitated this action.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.