Comments on: Guns and bling

By: Ron W

Ron W — Wed, 05 Apr 2006 14:45:31 +0000

It’s good to see that more money and passion is still with those of us who want to defend the right of armed self-defense against the unarmed pacifistic idealists and the much more sinister politicians who want their hired (paid by us) guns to disarm us–while they enjoy protection by the same.

By: Xrlq

Xrlq — Wed, 05 Apr 2006 13:09:35 +0000

That was my suspicion. It�s a strength-of-preference thing.

Indeed. As a general rule, people are more motivated to defend their own property than they are to try to take away someone else’s. IIRC, assuming the two armies are comparably skilled and equipped, it takes about a 3-1 advantage to invade a country successfully, for basically the same reason.

By: Joe

Joe — Wed, 05 Apr 2006 01:39:39 +0000

I’ve come to believe this is why the NRA is the wolrds largest gun contol org.. If the gun control issue is resolved all their big $ go away. By keeping the pot stirred they guarantee their fund raising income. A number of the board make big money off the NRA.

By: the pistolero

the pistolero — Tue, 04 Apr 2006 22:41:10 +0000

“I think it says that pro-gun activists are more involved and passionate than anti-gun folks and really not much more than that.”

I think that’s a reasonable conclusion; tgirsch and everyone else, if I came across as implying that the money was any kind of accurate gauge of the level of public support for gun control, I apologize, as that was certainly not my intention. Of course, gun control is a hot-button issue and you’re going to have passionate people on both sides, people passionate enough to part with their hard-earned cash to advance their causes. So…

“…Or does it mean that gun supporters have more money to give than gun opponents? Or does it mean that gun supporters are simply more likely to give money to pro-gun causes than gun opponents are to do so for anti-gun causes?
“I suspect it�s mostly the last one.”

I’d agree. And, for the record, I hope it stays that way…

By: tgirsch

tgirsch — Tue, 04 Apr 2006 22:10:54 +0000

That was my suspicion. It’s a strength-of-preference thing.

By: Manish

Manish — Tue, 04 Apr 2006 20:50:51 +0000

tgirsch..I think it says that pro-gun activists are more involved and passionate than anti-gun folks and really not much more than that.

By: tgirsch

tgirsch — Tue, 04 Apr 2006 20:33:38 +0000

The question is, what does this mean? Does it mean that there are more gun supporters than gun opponents? Or does it mean that gun supporters have more money to give than gun opponents? Or does it mean that gun supporters are simply more likely to give money to pro-gun causes than gun opponents are to do so for anti-gun causes? I suspect it's mostly the last one. I know of a lot of single-issue voters who are decidedly pro-gun, give money to pro-gun causes, etc. I don't personally know any single-issue voters whose single-issue is gun control -- and I know some pretty out-there leftists in Midtown... It's a mistake to judge on the basis of absolute dollars. In the 2000 elections, for example, pro-voucher groups received many times more in donations in California and Michigan than did anti-voucher groups, yet the voucher initiatives in both states were defeated by a better than two-to-one margin. I'm not saying that guns and vouchers have the same types or ratios of support. I'm just saying that it's a mistake to think that dollars donated gives an accurate picture of what public support looks like.

By: Sebastian

Sebastian — Tue, 04 Apr 2006 17:47:24 +0000

I wonder how much of that 1.7 mil came from George Soros

By: Doug In Colorado

Doug In Colorado — Tue, 04 Apr 2006 17:20:27 +0000

And we’d better keep it that way!