Thursday, January 13, 2011

Some Frightening Statistics

Politics is a very passionate thing for many of us.   We have beliefs, and we think our beliefs are the ones that can make this country a better place for all of its citizens.   This is true of both people on the left and on the right and those who are centrist in their thinking.   In light of the recent tragic shooting in Arizona (and other far too numerous political shootings), I think most Americans want to think that this kind of violence is understandably rare and only restricted to very few people.

But that may not be true at all.   A new poll for CBS News (conducted on January 9-10) shows that a belief in violence may be a lot more widespread that anyone would have thought.   The poll showed that 16% of the population thinks it could be justified to take violent action against the government (which is exactly what the Arizona shooter did).

Now 16% may not sound like a lot -- after all, that means that 84% of the population does not believe this.   But this is not a small country.   Considering our population is more than 305,000,000, that means nearly 49 million people in America believe a violent attack on the U.S. government could be justified.   That is more than a little frightening, especially considering the amount of guns in our society.

Here is the breakdown by party affiliation of those who think violence is justified:
Democrats...............11%
Republicans...............28%
Independents...............11%

3 comments:

  1. That is a very badly worded poll because it can be taken two ways.
    Here is how I would think of the question:
    1)Has the US Government gone to extremes in my lifetime that would justify an armed revolution? No!
    2) If the US Government went to the extremes that Germany did under Hitler (We are no where near that yet) would an armed revolution be justified? Yes.
    I think the poll question was to blame for the response.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Of course violence could be justified. The reasons for justifiable revolution are in the Declaration of Independence.

    If the government or government sponsored corruption interfere in elections, it may be justified, as in Chicago, or where Harry Reid brought in his SEIU thugs to twiddle with the voting machines in Nevada. Where fake ballots were produced to elect Al Franken. Where Al Gore wanted the recount restricted to Democrat counties so new ballots could be manufactured in the numbers required. Where Landslide Lyndon in West Texas got 200% of the registered voters to turn out for him.

    Where such corruption does not exist, we can depend on the electorate.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Those are ridiculous charges.

    ReplyDelete

ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED. And neither will racist,homophobic, or misogynistic comments. I do not mind if you disagree, but make your case in a decent manner.