Bloody Hands Crew Still Stupid

This poll got the wrong results, let's pretend they don't exist.

There is one question of any import here - what effect would tighter or looser gun control have on violence? The results:

The MSN-Zogby poll found that 59 percent of Americans do not believe stricter gun control policies would have prevented Cho Seung-Hui from killing 32 people and then himself in the worst mass murder in America's history. The poll found that only 36 percent of those polled believe stronger gun control could have prevented the shootings.

So, for the answer "Stricter control prevents violence," the split is 36-59.

However, arming more Americans with guns is not the answer either, most people say. Slightly more than half of those polled—54 percent—say that more guns would not stop killing sprees. Thirty-eight percent believe a better-armed populace could help prevent such mayhem.

The split is 38-54 on "Looser control prevents violence."

The numbers simply mean that more people subscribe to the view that stricter gun control is the problem than that stricter gun control is the solution, although both views are in the minority. I think someone's disappointed with these results, because instead of the normal media line that "THE NUMBERS DON'T LIE FOLKS," the poll results are being completely downplayed. Compare with Bush's poll numbers, which are thrown in our face constantly, even though he won the only two polls that matter.

The idiocy is strong with this one:

The gun lobbying groups have been very successful in "stymieing debate," says Everitt. "If you support any moderate gun control policy you're an enemy of freedom. That just dumbs down what really needs to be a serious and thoughtful debate."

Well, it seems like a very simple syllogism to me: If you want to take away freedom, you're an enemy of freedom. Gun control advocates want to take away freedom. Therefore, &c. To suggest that debate is being "stymied" by "gun lobbying groups" is intellectually dishonest, the real "dumbing down" of the debate. Invoking "lobbying groups" as if interest groups don't represent, you know, the actual views of actual people with actual interests who actually want to influence legislation in an actually republican government is sickening, an example of the utter misuse of language in an attempt to demonize the enemy. "Gun lobbying groups" are just trying to hold onto some part of the Second Amendment - you know, that part of the Bill of Rights right after the First Amendment? It's not at all a leap of logic to say that the same enemies of freedom trying to roll back the Second won't flinch at rolling back the First, so lay off, Stalin.

It's also worth noting that gun control reallly, seriously might have had something to do with these shootings. If anyone is avoiding serious debate, it's those who just cannot get it through their heads that gun control makes sure that only criminals have guns, only criminals can use the power of the pistol to threaten their victims, and that an armed populace is a safe and free populace. If logic is still too hard, think about this: Virginia Tech already had a campus gun ban. How's that gun control working, huh? There's really nothing more you can do than to ban guns totally, and it had no effect but to disarm the innocent.

Gun control advocates may find it hard to wash all this blood off their hands.