Wait! How can logic be illogical?
When it’s the NRA doing the talking, logic often times arguably becomes illogical.
New legislation has been introduced in Congress to expand the existing National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS :
Yesterday, we introduced a bill to expand our background check system and save lives. Here's what that Background Check Expansion Act would do and why it's so important to get it passed. pic.twitter.com/tpqWR5JWDj
— Chris Murphy (@ChrisMurphyCT) January 9, 2019
The NRA has historically opposed expansion of the NICS.
Their response to the proposed legislation was immediate:
(1/5) The gun control lobby likes to cite that 97 percent of Americans support so-called universal background checks. That is not accurate. Even in the most liberal anti-gun states, the measures did not come close to garnering 97 percent of the vote.
— NRA (@NRA) January 8, 2019
The NRA asserts “the gun control lobby likes to cite that 97 percent of Americans support so-called universal background checks”.
They also state that figure “is not accurate”.
The NRA didn’t say ‘in question’.
They didn’t say ‘may not be accurate’.
No Siree. They said, and I quote once again, “IS (emphasis and all caps mine) not accurate”.
That matters.
How so, you ask?
Well, because in the next sentence the NRA mentions background check measures put before voters in three states as their metric for comparison:
The states of Washington,
(3/5) In #WashingtonState, anti-gun activists spent almost $11.3 million pushing so-called universal background checks. That initiative, I-594, passed with 59.27 percent of the vote. In contrast, opponents spent $602,980, almost $10.7 million less.https://t.co/i5IgNVJGG5
— NRA (@NRA) January 8, 2019
Nevada,
(4/5) In #Nevada, anti-gun activists spent more than $19.8 million pushing so-called universal background checks. That initiative, Question 1, passed with 50.45 percent of the vote. In contrast, opponents spent $6.7 million, almost $13.2 million less. https://t.co/CICmWricvI
— NRA (@NRA) January 8, 2019
and Maine:
(5/5) In #Maine, anti-gun activists spent more than $7.3 million pushing so-called universal background checks. That initiative, Question 3, failed, receiving only 48.20 percent of the vote – even though they spent $6.1 million more than the opposition.https://t.co/3anMSdDxlu
— NRA (@NRA) January 8, 2019
It’s pretty safe to assume the NRA was referring in their original tweet to a February 20, 2018 Support For Gun Control poll conducted by Quinnipiac University in which results showed:
“Support for universal background checks is itself almost universal, 97 – 2 percent, including 97 – 3 percent among gun owners.”
This statement appears to be the one the NRA focused in on.
Why is that? Could it possibly be because of something else the poll pointed out?
The breakdown of findings regarding background checks:
Please note the “TREND” at the bottom of this screen capture.
From October 12, 2017 to February 20, 2018, a mere five months give or take, the NRA’s ‘image’ among those being polled arguably tanked.
The massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School happened February 14, 2018.
The Quinnipiac University poll was conducted February 20, 2018.
It doesn’t take rocket science to be able to connect those dots.
Is it reasonable to assume the NRA is trying to debunk that 97% support figure?
There’s a problem with that because Quinnipiac University isn’t the only polling organization alleging strong support for gun background checks.
According to Politifact Wisconsin from October 3, 2017:
“Experts say support at or near 90 percent has been consistent for years.”
Also according to Politifact Wisconsin from March 12, 2015:
“The most recent national poll of NRA members that we could find, done in January 2013 by Johns Hopkins University, found that 73.7 percent of the members supported requiring background checks for all gun sales.”
NRA members….support….background….checks….for….all….gun….sales.
Let that sink in. Take all the time you need.
Old polls you say?
Well, remember those elections mentioned earlier?
Those elections in which gun background check measures went before voters?
Those elections the NRA used as their metric for comparison with the Quinnipiac University poll?
As it turns out, those elections are from 2014 and 2016. If the NRA can use old election results, then I can use old polls, too.
Also, in two out of three of those elections the gun background checks measures passed.
Breaking it down using the NRA’s source for their citations, BALLOTPEDIA:
State of Washington Universal Background Checks for Gun Purchases Initiative 494 (2014)
- “Yes: 1,242,734 Percentage: 59.27%”
- “No : 853,990 Percentage: 40.74%”
Nevada Background Checks for Gun Purchases, Question 1 (2016)
- “Yes: 558,631 Percentage: 50.45%”
- “No: 548,732 Percentage: 49.55%”
Maine Background Checks for Gun Sales, Question 3 (2016)
- “No: 394,157 Percentage: 51.80%”
- “Yes: 366,770 Percentage: 48.20%”
If my math doesn’t fail me (I’ve never been accused of being a mathematical genius) there were a total of 3,965,014 votes cast in those three states.
Of those votes, 2,168,135 voted for background checks, and 1,796,879 voted against.
Figuring the percentages reveals 54.68% of those who voted did so in favor of gun background checks.
Only 45.32% of those who voted did so against gun background checks.
While these numbers do not appear to support the 97% figure the Quinnipiac University poll came up with (arguably what the NRA was going for), it’s undeniable they show a sizable aggregate majority of voters in those three states favor gun background checks….by a 9.36% margin.
That’s just three states.
The NRA used stats that blew up their own argument.
Plus, twenty additional states and Washington, D.C. have already codified into law “extended background check requirements beyond any federal law” according to Giffords Law Center. They didn’t put gun background checks measures before their voters. They passed gun background check laws to address this issue.
BOOM!!!!
Illogical logic…..NRA style.
My two cents.
- My Two Cents: The Illogical Logic of the NRA - January 11, 2019
- My Two Cents: School Safety Is An Enigma - January 3, 2019
- My Two Cents: ‘To Protect and To Serve’ vs the ‘Public-Duty Doctrine’ - December 22, 2018
- My Two Cents: Quiet Rooms - December 15, 2018
- My Two Cents: Stay in Your Lane Road Rage NRA Style - November 26, 2018
- My Two Cents: School Safety Hoplophile Style - November 17, 2018
- My Two Cents: NRA, All Y’all Might Want to Consider Staying in YOUR Lane! - November 14, 2018
- My Two Cents: NRA….Your Bluff Just Got Called! - November 11, 2018
- My Two Cents: Wagon Train Advocacy - November 4, 2018
- My Two Cents: Fundies, Gundies, And School Safety - October 26, 2018
