5 ms·

A QUARTER of Americans say they are ready to take up arms against the government

13 points by mardiyah 4y ago

Geonode 4y ago
Polling is the phrenology of our time. Sane people don't have time for pollsters. Revolutionaries don't tell pollsters. Gun owners mostly won't tell pollsters.
- hsnewman 4y ago
  "Sane people don't have time for pollsters." Can you explain this and show some quantative studies showing this? Broad sweeping statements are "crazy".
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - russelldjimmy 4y ago
    > Broad sweeping statements are "crazy". Can you explain this and show some quantitative studies showing this?
    - JieJie 4y ago
      "Only Sith deal in absolutes."
  - yucky 4y ago
    >Can you explain this and show some quantative studies showing this? How about a poll, would that suffice?
- bediger4000 4y ago
  Mostly, I agree, but I do think gun owners are all to willing to talk to anyone about guns. I'm not sure they'd answer direct questions about the guns they own, but I do think that carefully worded pollster type questions about "taking up arms" would get ready answers, especially from Meal Team 6 or Gravy Seal types. The answers wouldn't bear any relationship to the reality of armed conflict, but there would be answers.
sigzero 4y ago
I have a feeling that 25% is probably where it is always sitting. lol
hunglee2 4y ago
no chance of this, the era of armed insurrection is over in the United States. The country is simply too big, population centres too dispersed and the only institutions able to operate in a sustained, coordinated fashion nation wide are the military, the police and the national security apparatus - each of which extraordinarily well funded, and therefore will be powerful forces in suppressing any kind of citizens revolt. Palace coup is plausible, a street revolution? No chance
patchtopic 4y ago
however, a quarter of Americans could be full of shit bigmouths
- kcplate 4y ago
  And a whole other quarter may be people willing and capable of taking action and are not willing to tell anyone about it.
ibigb 4y ago
Maybe more people would vote before taking up arms?
- scarface74 4y ago
  Voting doesn’t matter. Between the “small state bias” in the electoral college - which has allowed the the President to be chosen without winning the popular vote twice in the last 30 years, gerrymandering which allows Republicans to be over represented in Congress and the continuous erosion of the separation of church and state, the majority doesn’t stand a chance.
  - sofixa 4y ago
    You forgot voter registration laws, the fact that voting is done on a regular working day, and the lack of density of polling stations in some areas.
  - throw0101a 4y ago
    * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REDMAP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REDMAP
geuis 4y ago
Does not belong on HN.
_Wintermute 4y ago
Just in case the HN crowd aren't aware, you should probably ignore anything the Daily Mail publishes.
- nkurz 4y ago
  Should we also ignore the University of Chicago Institute of Politics which the article links? https://uchicagopolitics.opalstacked.com/uploads/homepage/Polarization-Poll.pdf https://uchicagopolitics.opalstacked.com/uploads/homepage/Po... Somewhat surprisingly, it's a well sourced article for what is presumed to be a low quality source. From what I can tell, they even summarized the poll correctly.
  - cmeacham98 4y ago
    I'm very skeptical of this poll and (especially) the article: 1. Only 1000 people? I'm not a trained statistition, but is that really enough to generalize about the American public as a whole? 2. The question is worded way more softly than the headline would make you think (actually, to be more specific, the headline is a straight up lie - the poll asks nothing about respondents 'readiness') 3. Any crazy answer will always get some minimum number of responses, whether it be from people filling in the poll at random or intentionally trolling - I highly doubt the true number is 25% 4. Who was even surveyed? Was it all college students? I read through the entire release from UChicago but all it said was "voters". 5. Are there any other polls backing this up? You can often find a poll for almost anything, I would love to see what other polls asking a similar question show.
    - nkurz 4y ago
      1. A thousand people is enough if they are well chosen. A million people is not enough if their choice is not random. It's hard to know which is the case here, but the general presumption should probably be that there is significant bias. They describe their methodology a bit here: https://uchicagopolitics.opalstacked.com/uploads/homepage/Disinfo-Poll-Methodology.pdf https://uchicagopolitics.opalstacked.com/uploads/homepage/Di... 2. The wording of that question seems to be "It may be necessary at some point soon for citizens to take up arms against the government." (https://uchicagopolitics.opalstacked.com/uploads/homepage/IOP-Poll-Topline.pdf https://uchicagopolitics.opalstacked.com/uploads/homepage/IO...) I'd call that softer, but not way softer. It would definitely alarm me if it was true. 3,4,5: Yes, it would be useful to know the answers here. They describe some of this in the Methodology page I linked in 1, but more detail would be helpful. Probably the best use of this poll result is to suggest ways for someone else to perform a better poll. But I did find it to be pleasantly well sourced for a newspaper with a poor reputation for accuracy.
uwuemu 4y ago
Good. The government should be afraid of the people 100% of the time. Because when the people are afraid of the government, that's called tyranny. Also, it would do a lot of good for the politicians to be afraid a little, just to remind them that they're SERVANTS not RULERS and that they provide a service not to the government, but to the public.
- sottol 4y ago
  Good? Isn't that why we have frequent, regular elections? Or is it so far gone that the whole thing needs to be replaced... with some_one_ outside the "system"? Imo discarding democratic process and violently overthrowing an elected gov't is the fastest way TO tyranny.
  - nathanaldensr 4y ago
    The Founders, through the Declaration of Independence[1], explicitly answer your question: > But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Your argument assumes that the people have discarded democratic processes, but this is not guaranteed to be the case; in fact, nearly every time this happens, it's a corrupt government fixing elections. The definition of "elected" is not as pure as your statement implies. [1] https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcrip...
    - locopati 4y ago
- karmakurtisaani 4y ago
  You know what happens when the government is afraid of it's people? You get police with military gear and efficient mass surveillance.
h2odragon 4y ago
Not all for the same reasons, tho. I wonder how many are ready to start shooting neighbors over "national politics" questions; vs the usual fence disputes.
TruffleLabs 4y ago
The paper's title "A QUARTER of Americans say they are ready to take up arms against the government" compared to the cited report from University of Chicago's Institute of Politics "And 28 percent of voters, including 37 percent who have guns in their homes, agree that “it may be necessary at some point soon for citizens to take up arms against the government.” " The tone and meaning are not the same. Paper's headline is sensational by design (it's media for clicks)
- nathanaldensr 4y ago
pru567 4y ago
Even if this ridiculous poll was true, and somehow the attack materialized; I think the Federal Government would make quick work of them -- with sonic crowd control weapons, tanks, fighter jets and who knows what else. Its kind of a libertarian fantasy that a modern government can be overthrown.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- klipklop 4y ago
  You mean that same group(s) that could not even handle Afghanistan? We are lucky in the US there is not violent sectarian groups. They would be very hard to deal with despite your feelings otherwise. The reality of it would not be boomers wondering around the capital building. It would be a hard to identify group that conducts attacks and then goes back to looking like a regular suburban Joe. It would be a total nightmare.
ch_123 4y ago
I feel like the author is trying to shock the reader by writing that 37% of the people who supported armed insurrection have guns. Another way to read that statement however is that almost two thirds of those in favour of this do not own guns, and therefore are probably talking the talk without having the intention of walking the walk.
- choko 4y ago
  Most of the ones that are gun owners won't "walk the walk" either. It's one thing to bitch or give an answer to a pollster, but a completely different thing to leave everything you care about and march off to civil war. I bet even some of the ones that think they are serious right now might buckle when the reality sets in.
sgammon 4y ago

13 points by mardiyah 4y ago

Polling is the phrenology of our time. Sane people don't have time for pollsters. Revolutionaries don't tell pollsters. Gun owners mostly won't tell pollsters.

hsnewman 4y ago
"Sane people don't have time for pollsters." Can you explain this and show some quantative studies showing this? Broad sweeping statements are "crazy".
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- russelldjimmy 4y ago
  > Broad sweeping statements are "crazy". Can you explain this and show some quantitative studies showing this?
  - JieJie 4y ago
    "Only Sith deal in absolutes."
- yucky 4y ago
  >Can you explain this and show some quantative studies showing this? How about a poll, would that suffice?
bediger4000 4y ago
Mostly, I agree, but I do think gun owners are all to willing to talk to anyone about guns. I'm not sure they'd answer direct questions about the guns they own, but I do think that carefully worded pollster type questions about "taking up arms" would get ready answers, especially from Meal Team 6 or Gravy Seal types. The answers wouldn't bear any relationship to the reality of armed conflict, but there would be answers.

sigzero 4y ago

I have a feeling that 25% is probably where it is always sitting. lol

hunglee2 4y ago

no chance of this, the era of armed insurrection is over in the United States. The country is simply too big, population centres too dispersed and the only institutions able to operate in a sustained, coordinated fashion nation wide are the military, the police and the national security apparatus - each of which extraordinarily well funded, and therefore will be powerful forces in suppressing any kind of citizens revolt. Palace coup is plausible, a street revolution? No chance

patchtopic 4y ago

however, a quarter of Americans could be full of shit bigmouths

kcplate 4y ago
And a whole other quarter may be people willing and capable of taking action and are not willing to tell anyone about it.

ibigb 4y ago

Maybe more people would vote before taking up arms?

scarface74 4y ago
Voting doesn’t matter. Between the “small state bias” in the electoral college - which has allowed the the President to be chosen without winning the popular vote twice in the last 30 years, gerrymandering which allows Republicans to be over represented in Congress and the continuous erosion of the separation of church and state, the majority doesn’t stand a chance.
- sofixa 4y ago
  You forgot voter registration laws, the fact that voting is done on a regular working day, and the lack of density of polling stations in some areas.
- throw0101a 4y ago
  * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REDMAP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REDMAP

geuis 4y ago

Does not belong on HN.

_Wintermute 4y ago

Just in case the HN crowd aren't aware, you should probably ignore anything the Daily Mail publishes.

nkurz 4y ago
Should we also ignore the University of Chicago Institute of Politics which the article links? https://uchicagopolitics.opalstacked.com/uploads/homepage/Polarization-Poll.pdf https://uchicagopolitics.opalstacked.com/uploads/homepage/Po... Somewhat surprisingly, it's a well sourced article for what is presumed to be a low quality source. From what I can tell, they even summarized the poll correctly.
- cmeacham98 4y ago
  I'm very skeptical of this poll and (especially) the article: 1. Only 1000 people? I'm not a trained statistition, but is that really enough to generalize about the American public as a whole? 2. The question is worded way more softly than the headline would make you think (actually, to be more specific, the headline is a straight up lie - the poll asks nothing about respondents 'readiness') 3. Any crazy answer will always get some minimum number of responses, whether it be from people filling in the poll at random or intentionally trolling - I highly doubt the true number is 25% 4. Who was even surveyed? Was it all college students? I read through the entire release from UChicago but all it said was "voters". 5. Are there any other polls backing this up? You can often find a poll for almost anything, I would love to see what other polls asking a similar question show.
  - nkurz 4y ago
    1. A thousand people is enough if they are well chosen. A million people is not enough if their choice is not random. It's hard to know which is the case here, but the general presumption should probably be that there is significant bias. They describe their methodology a bit here: https://uchicagopolitics.opalstacked.com/uploads/homepage/Disinfo-Poll-Methodology.pdf https://uchicagopolitics.opalstacked.com/uploads/homepage/Di... 2. The wording of that question seems to be "It may be necessary at some point soon for citizens to take up arms against the government." (https://uchicagopolitics.opalstacked.com/uploads/homepage/IOP-Poll-Topline.pdf https://uchicagopolitics.opalstacked.com/uploads/homepage/IO...) I'd call that softer, but not way softer. It would definitely alarm me if it was true. 3,4,5: Yes, it would be useful to know the answers here. They describe some of this in the Methodology page I linked in 1, but more detail would be helpful. Probably the best use of this poll result is to suggest ways for someone else to perform a better poll. But I did find it to be pleasantly well sourced for a newspaper with a poor reputation for accuracy.

uwuemu 4y ago

Good. The government should be afraid of the people 100% of the time. Because when the people are afraid of the government, that's called tyranny. Also, it would do a lot of good for the politicians to be afraid a little, just to remind them that they're SERVANTS not RULERS and that they provide a service not to the government, but to the public.

sottol 4y ago
Good? Isn't that why we have frequent, regular elections? Or is it so far gone that the whole thing needs to be replaced... with some_one_ outside the "system"? Imo discarding democratic process and violently overthrowing an elected gov't is the fastest way TO tyranny.
- nathanaldensr 4y ago
  The Founders, through the Declaration of Independence[1], explicitly answer your question: > But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Your argument assumes that the people have discarded democratic processes, but this is not guaranteed to be the case; in fact, nearly every time this happens, it's a corrupt government fixing elections. The definition of "elected" is not as pure as your statement implies. [1] https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcrip...
  - locopati 4y ago
karmakurtisaani 4y ago
You know what happens when the government is afraid of it's people? You get police with military gear and efficient mass surveillance.

h2odragon 4y ago

Not all for the same reasons, tho. I wonder how many are ready to start shooting neighbors over "national politics" questions; vs the usual fence disputes.

TruffleLabs 4y ago

The paper's title "A QUARTER of Americans say they are ready to take up arms against the government" compared to the cited report from University of Chicago's Institute of Politics "And 28 percent of voters, including 37 percent who have guns in their homes, agree that “it may be necessary at some point soon for citizens to take up arms against the government.” " The tone and meaning are not the same. Paper's headline is sensational by design (it's media for clicks)

nathanaldensr 4y ago

pru567 4y ago

Even if this ridiculous poll was true, and somehow the attack materialized; I think the Federal Government would make quick work of them -- with sonic crowd control weapons, tanks, fighter jets and who knows what else. Its kind of a libertarian fantasy that a modern government can be overthrown.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
klipklop 4y ago
You mean that same group(s) that could not even handle Afghanistan? We are lucky in the US there is not violent sectarian groups. They would be very hard to deal with despite your feelings otherwise. The reality of it would not be boomers wondering around the capital building. It would be a hard to identify group that conducts attacks and then goes back to looking like a regular suburban Joe. It would be a total nightmare.

ch_123 4y ago

I feel like the author is trying to shock the reader by writing that 37% of the people who supported armed insurrection have guns. Another way to read that statement however is that almost two thirds of those in favour of this do not own guns, and therefore are probably talking the talk without having the intention of walking the walk.

choko 4y ago
Most of the ones that are gun owners won't "walk the walk" either. It's one thing to bitch or give an answer to a pollster, but a completely different thing to leave everything you care about and march off to civil war. I bet even some of the ones that think they are serious right now might buckle when the reality sets in.

sgammon 4y ago