Are Democrats Really Pro-Choice? Emily Ekins Explains December Reason-Rupe Poll Results

|

Ekins sat down with ReasonTV's Tracy Oppenheimer to discuss public perception of topics like minimum wage, government regulation of consumer products, mandatory minimums and local law enforcements' use of drones. These results were posted in December's Reason-Rupe Poll.

According to the poll results, a majority of Americans say the government should allow for most consumer products like genetic testing kits, caffeinated energy drinks, and violent video games. The exception is 3D printed guns, which most Americans think the government should regulate.

For the full poll results, visit Reason.com/poll and check out ReasonTV's interview on poll results related to Obamacare.

Approximately 4 minutes long.

Produced by Tracy Oppenheimer. Camera by Zach Weissmueller and Paul Detrick.

Scroll down for downloadable versions and subscribe to Reason TV's YouTube page to receive automatic notification when new material goes live.

NEXT: Mike Rowe on the Hidden Cost of Compliance

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Obviously, the new Google+-based comment system has improved the quality of discourse on YouTube immensely:

    robertmike57

    This blonde bimbo twat could do her shit stupid poll in anther way: would you favor LOWERING the minimum wage if employers will hire more? Hell, the minimum wage is higher to far higher in parts of the world with low unemployment, you cocksuckers have no causation for raising the minimum wage means more unemployment, it just doesn't fucking exist.?

    1. This is why there are no female prog-

      Never mind.

    2. Wait, a TEAM moron hates a poll that doesn't tell them what they want to hear? I'm shocked.

      1. I'll bet he gets his news exclusively from TPM and Addicting Info. Have you ever read an Addicting Info article? It's like a black hole where logic, facts, and reason are consumed by progressive bitterness and impotence.

    3. I love these idiots who don't understand why the minimum wage results in higher unemployment.

      The minimum wage results in higher unemployment if, and only if, it is set above the what that group of employees would otherwise earn.

      In other words, in a country like Australia, with virtually no low skill immigration and a population that is overwhelmingly educated and middle class, a high minimum wage would have minimal impact on unemployment because the wage most workers can earn is already very high.

      On the other hand, when America has massive amounts of first and second generation immigrants, most of whom have very low skills, those people would all be unemployed by a high minimum wage.

      I also like the sexism of that comment. Blonde bimbo twat?

      Yeah, progs really care about women.

      1. I also like to compare these numbers with these.

        Huh. The five places in America with the highest unemployment (including D.C.) all have minimum wages higher than the federal rate.

        Of the ten states with the lowest unemployment, only Vermont is above the national average.

        Five worst: Higher minimum wage.

        Ten Best: Nine don't have a higher minimum wage.

        I'm sure this is a coincidence.

        1. Correlation isn't causation -- lots of other factors result in employment or the lack thereof.

          That said, government coercion raising the price of something above current market prices will obviously lower the demand, be that labor or oranges or sex.

          1. Quibble: Government price raises will lower legal demand, and set up the conditions for a black market.

          2. The rationale behind "sin taxes" is the government's acknowledgment that raising the price of a practice they want to discourage will cause less of that activity. Why don't they see that with raising the minimum wage!

      2. The minimum wage results in higher unemployment if, and only if, it is set above the what that group of employees would otherwise earn.

        I think t is simpler then that. Min wage is the wage unskilled workers start at.

        If the cost of employing unskilled workers is too high then they never get a job and therefore never make the unemployment numbers.

      3. In other words, in a country like Australia, with virtually no low skill immigration and a population that is overwhelmingly educated and middle class, a high minimum wage would have minimal impact on unemployment because the wage most workers can earn is already very high.

        For comparison, Singapore has lax immigration laws and no minimum wage and its unemployment is something like 2 percent.

      4. I am living a similar effect. In the 90's and early 00's I was making a pretty good living as a software developer. Now, with outsourcing and the influx of developers from other middle-eastern and Asian countries, I make about 2/3 of what I used to.
        More of a commodity reduces it's value.

        Now tell that to the Federal Reserve, please.

    4. robertmike57 is another NSA controlled state worshiping troll account.?

      At least his detractors comport themselves well.

    5. ..."you cocksuckers have no causation for raising the minimum wage means more unemployment"...

      You have to wonder if this is willful ignorance or just plain ignorance.

      1. Most people will go on what they hear, rather than actually learn some science on the subject.

      2. I wonder what he means by "cocksuckers"

        1. Some HNR commenters are cocksuckers, but in his case it might be projection.

          1. Or bigotry. Or ...

        2. Michael Ejercito|12.15.13 @ 6:06PM|#
          "I wonder what he means by "cocksuckers""

          Random insult, prolly.

          1. E jerci to

            An accident of birth?

    6. I like the part where he calls people idiots for thinking government-imposed miminum wage laws are a form of government regulation.

      1. Yeah, who could ever think that?

    7. Hang on, such dazzling brilliance requires I put on my welding goggles.

  2. Schiano needs to be fired. The Bucs can't tackle, they lead the league in penalties and penalty yards, they keep falling for the same play, and the defensive play calling is shit.

    1. Poorly coached players and bad play calling.

      1. Just like that. On the kick-off instead of kneeling and starting on the 20 the Bucs try a trick play by doing a hand-off on the runback. They fumble and the 49s score.

        Stupid stupid stupid.

  3. You know what I'll always be pro-choice for? The choice to watch Sad Tom Brady throw a pick in the end zone to end the game.

    1. And to think I didn't get the game out here and couldn't see Brady Sadface. I'll have to catch it in the roundups.

  4. At least the Democrats want to keep government out of our bathrooms.

    1. You have any non-FDA approved meds in your bathroom cabinet, comrade?

    2. Low flow toilets?

    3. A non-conforming shower head?

    4. Incandescent light bulbs?

      1. Did not SoCons push these laws?

        1. The vote in the House to repeal the light bulb not-quite-ban failed along almost partisan lines, Republicans almost all in favor of repeal, Democrats almost all opposed to repeal (needed 2/3 to repeal):

          http://politics.nytimes.com/co.....ouse/1/563

        2. Michael Ejercito|12.15.13 @ 6:07PM|#
          "Did not SoCons push these laws?"

          One or two might, but I can't see any of them having appeal to SoCons in general.
          It's not like non-conforming shower heads are going to encourage abortions.

          1. Have to agree with Sevo. I have spent the past few months looking at SoCons quite a bit and I have never seen them object to certain shower heads.

            1. Depends on who is on their knees giving it to whom.

  5. According to Slate, Facebook records everything you type. Even the stuff you erase and choose not to post. And Facebook doesn't like it when you do that because it reduces the value the both Facebook and the other users.

    http://www.slate.com/articles/.....blish.html

  6. Am I a bad person if I was genuinely interested in what these two young women had to say AND was also extremely attracted to them at the same time?

    Just askin.

    1. No, you're not a bad person for that.

      You're a bad person for....well, you know.

      1. I thought you said you were never going to bring that up again?

        1. Did I mention dwarf livestock, Tapatio sauce, or the Treaty of Westphalia?

          No? Then, shhh.

          1. Also don't mention the midgets, trampolines, and wesson oil.

            1. And something about seals. Lots of seals.

              1. And crofts.

    2. You read reason? for the articles. Yeah, sure you do.

    3. It would be weird if you weren't. NTTAWT.

    4. TIWTANLW

  7. Are Democrats Really Pro-Choice?

    No. Next question?

    1. Are Democrats Really Anti-War?

      1. Are Democrats actually Anti-Cronyism?

  8. Are Democrats Really Pro-Choice?

    This title stoops to the same pathetic level of equivocation that Democrats routinely use. "Pro-choice" is simply a nice sounding phrase describing opposition to any actions that hinder abortions. It has nothing to do with personal choices.

    Accusing "pro-choice" Democrats of opposing choices is like accusing "free market" libertarians of opposing laws that force markets to give out free shit.

    Democrats don't even have a principled definition of what choice is (e.g. McDonald's ads make people fat). Demonstrating that they're idiots doesn't require word games.

    1. Uh, that's the point...

      1. Give 'em some flip cards.

        1. They're "pro-choice regarding abortion, and maybe some stuff regarding sex and milder drugs", but that more precise phrasing polls badly.

    2. Uh, that's the point...

      If they titled their cause "pro-cheese" instead of "pro-choice" would you attack them for their opposition to raw dairy products? No. You'd just point out their stupidity and move on.

      1. This title stoops to the same pathetic level of equivocation that Democrats routinely use.

        The title is making fun of Democrats for using the term "pro-choice" when that's not actually what they mean.

  9. Accusing "pro-choice" Democrats of opposing choices is like accusing "free market" libertarians of opposing laws that force markets to give out free shit.

    Name one thing, one, that the proglodytes think that you should have a choice in without interference from the state. Even abortion doesn't count, since the state should be paying for them.

    There's nothing wrong with pointing out the cognitive dissonance that sweeps through the leftist hive-mind like an epidemic.

    1. Control freaks gonna get freaky! Always.

    2. There's nothing wrong with pointing out the cognitive dissonance that sweeps through the leftist hive-mind like an epidemic.

      My point is that "pro-choice" doesn't imply any cognitive dissonance on the part of Democrats. The phrase is used because it polls well, not because it has anything to do with choice.

      1. The Left says you are free to make choices as long as your choices have no bad effects on society. The Left will determine what is a bad effect on society, and they have found almost all choices may have bad effects on society.

        1. If you do not include libertarians, does not the Right say exactly the same thing?

          1. Reason does not seem to think that the Right in general favors free choice as a premise to begin with.

            1. Perhaps. For my part I think the Right has a great deal of rhetoric valuing free choice, but their actions often do not match it. The Left does not even have any real pro-choice rhetoric.

              To me one of the ways to tell if someone is a libertarian is if they can look at something they abhor and say 'well, it should still not be made illegal.' Statists of whatever stripe do not get that.

              1. The Left does not even have any real pro-choice rhetoric.

                Uh...except for all the times the left claims that 'socially liberal' means you're in favor of social freedom. If you asked a liberal if they are in favor of freedom in the personal sphere, they'd say yes and use abortion, gay marriage, and weed as their examples.

                1. That is why I said 'real' pro-choice rhetoric. Even in their stands they want abortion available, but publicly funded, gay marriage allowed, with federal benefits, and weed decriminalized, but taxed/regulated.

                2. If you asked a liberal if they are in favor of freedom in the personal sphere, they'd say yes and use abortion, gay marriage, and weed as their examples.

                  They would be kind of silent on how they aren't really in favor of polygamist marriage and not taxing the fuck out of weed, or legalizing all drugs not just weed, which would undercut the case that they are for full-frontal freedom on even these limited topics.

              2. "The Left does not even have any real pro-choice rhetoric."

                I think you are correct in that but apparently Emily Ekins thinks differently.

                1. I think there are virtually no issues where the Left does not see some hand for the state in it, and so it is not really for choices. But that does not mean that on any given issue they may not offer something less restrictive overall than the Right. Perhaps they are harping on these issues and that is what Ms. Ekins is thinking of.

        2. Basically that is what SoCons say when justifying laws banning buttsecks.

    3. They are ok with Amazon.com making the choice to deliver stuff with drones...

      Well at least the men proglodytes do...women proglodytes not so much.

    4. Is it cognitive dissonance? Or does the left know what they are advocating? It seems to me it is the Reason staff that seems eternally surprised that the left opposes choice in most things on principle.

      1. Reason staff that seems eternally surprised that the left opposes choice in most things on principle.

        Drink!!

        Also articulating a hypocrisy of the left is being surprised by it.

        1. It is not actually hypocrisy, they don't actually claim to be in favor of free choice in most things.

          1. They do (or did rather) on social issues, and they still claim to. That's the point of the piece.

            1. No, they always have caveats. They do not always emphasize those caveats, but they are always there.

          2. It is not actually hypocrisy, they don't actually claim to be in favor of free choice in most things.

            Sadly, they do. I've had leftists tell me flat out that they believe that they are truly advocating for liberty when they clamor for the latest in free shit or banning the latest thing to catch the eye of their masters.

            These people are fucking deluded and they need to have their face rubbed in the mess they've made as often as possible.

            There is hope that things like Uber, Lyft and AirBNB might make a dent in those thick fucking heads of theirs that it's OK that the state doesn't burr its way into every fucking commercial activity, like a tick on a hot day. Still, I'm not holding my breath.

            1. That is accurate, "freedom" for a leftitst is not making your own choices, it is avoiding the consequences of your choices.

    5. Name one thing, one, that the proglodytes think that you should have a choice in without interference from the state.

      Most would be in favor you having the choice to fuck a tranny without any government interference ... if no money changed hands.

      1. ...if no money changed hands.

        Choice!

  10. If the gay gene is discovered, will DNC supporters, progs, leftists, Marxists, communists, socialists and American liberals be okey-dokey with aborting all gay pregnancies?

    1. They have already discovered the gay gene (genes) and I am sure there have already been abortions.

    2. I do not think supporting the right of people to engage in voluntary medical transactions that you do not think harm any person=okey-dokey with aborting all gay pregnancies, so I imagine the answer is no.

      1. If no one being harmed, why would they object?

        1. I would think because of the anti-gay sentiment of it.

          1. Bo, if this started occurring, I'm willing to bet the left would actually try to outlaw the practice. If there were major sex-selective abortion occurring in America, the left would suddenly find their inner SoCon and start considering whether or not abortion is really such a great thing.

            You give them too much credit. They have no principles. They have feelings, and anything that hurts their feelings must be outlawed so that they can pat themselves on the back for a job well done.

            1. I think they might try to outlaw it, but my point is they would not allow it because they think a person is being murdered, but because the goal represented anti-girl or anti-gay sentiment.

          2. So, there is someone being harmed?

            Do people have an ethical obligation to bring a homosexual tending child that they don't for a heterosexual tending one?

            1. I was simply thinking of the leftist who oppose, say, sex selection abortions in China for example. They do not oppose it because of the abortion, they oppose it because of the anti-girl sentiment behind it, and the goal.

              1. Which says you think the leftist sees inherent moral value in female and homosexual tending children that they do not in ones that are not.

                If nothing is being harmed by the abortion then the reason for the abortion does not matter.

                1. It is not favoring girls over boys or gays over straights, it is opposing the opposite of those stances. As to your last statement, your conclusion does not follow from your premise. Leftists who oppose sex-selection abortions in China have told me it is not because abortion 'murders a girl,' it is because of the cultural sentiment which drives it that girls are valued less than boys.

                  1. "...it is because of the cultural sentiment which drives it that girls are valued less than boys."

                    It says that you see Leftists puts an inherent moral value on a girl (or a homosexual tending child) over a male or straight child. Perhaps this is because they value the group identity of the child rather than as an individual, but it is putting a moral value on the child pre-birth. Again, the conclusion is that parents have an ethical obligation to bring female and potential homosexual children to term that they do not for male and heterosexual children. It goes against the ethic of abortion on demand for whatever reason.

                    1. "It says that you see Leftists puts an inherent moral value on a girl (or a homosexual tending child) over a male or straight child."

                      Opposing a sentiment that puts more value on a boy or a straight does not = putting more value on a girl or a gay

                    2. The Left puts a moral value on those type of children that they do not for others, especially if they would seek legal avenues to prevent such choices being made. You cannot argue that abortion is a values neutral choice that cannot be judged and then say that abortion for certain reasons violates values.

                      Secondly, as I wrote below, sons in China have economic value to their parents that daughters do not. To oppose sex selection says that girls have a moral value that trumps a boys economic value, a moral vale that boy children do not have in the Left's consideration.

                    3. Also, the cultural sentiment in China that values boys over girls is largely utilitarian. Sons are more economically valuable than daughters are. The Left would impose their moral values over practical ones.

                    4. "the cultural sentiment in China that values boys over girls is largely utilitarian. Sons are more economically valuable than daughters are. "

                      And they lament that, that is kind of the point.

                    5. And the reason they lament is that girl's have a moral vale that boys do not in their world view. That is the point.

                      You can abort a boy for any reason, but there are certain reasons aborting a girl is unacceptable. You cannot do that if you truly consider abortion a values neutral decision.

                    6. You are just repeating yourself at this point without referring to the points I have been making.

                    7. Yes, I have, your point just is not very substantial. It is simply denying that making a moral objection to certain reasons for abortion should not be considered a moral objection.

                    8. I will try this once more.

                      Just as a supporter of gun rights can think guns are not a bad thing but that using guns for a certain purpose is bad, supporters of abortion can think that abortion is not a bad thing but that having abortions for a certain purpose is bad.

                      To add to this, a person who objected to, say, the use of guns to murder gay persons because they are gay does not necessarily value gay persons over straight persons.

                    9. "...a person who objected to, say, the use of guns to murder gay persons because they are gay does not necessarily value gay persons over straight persons."

                      It does if that's the only reason they object to using a gun to murder someone. No one disputes that certain uses of guns are unethical and should be constrained. In what other way does the left consider abortion ethically wrong?

                    10. "In what other way does the left consider abortion ethically wrong?"

                      They think it wrong when motivated by racism, sexism and antipathy against gays I think.

                    11. I think you just proved my point. Those are the only things they value.

                    12. Your point was that pro-choicers support abortion for some reasons, but not for several others?

                      I thought that was my point.

                    13. The only thing they are objecting is an offense against group identities they value and therefore a woman's personal autonomy should be subordinate to those group identities.

                    14. I don't think anyone here really disagrees with that. What we disagree with is your assertion that all of these people would be totally ok with aborting boys for sexist reasons, or straight babies for that reason, or white babies because of their race(in the latter case, any abortion for that reason would in almost all possible circumstances be forced, for obvious reasons, anyways). Your argument is that pro-choicers place a higher value on girls and gays. Until you can give an example of a significant number of such people who criticize abortion on the basis of sex or sexual orientation, when the baby is a girl or gay, but would not have a problem if the baby was a boy or straight, you haven't proven your argument.

                    15. "Your argument is that pro-choicers place a higher value on girls and gays."

                      No, not "pro-choicers", Leftists. Also, what I am saying is that thrational for abortion says that the woman's reasons why she chooses an abortion are not up for public criticism. In other words, they should not care what her reasoning is. Bo asserted that they would care for those reasons. Which are a rather ugly sop to identity politics that is difficult to intellectually reconcile with an unfettered right to abortion.

                    16. "No, not "pro-choicers", Leftists."

                      That's a pretty broad and vague category. Most pro-choice people tend to be left-leaning, at the very least, and I'd bet that a lot of pro-choice moderates and libertarians would still find sex selective abortion morally repulsive, even if they don't think it should be illegal. I suppose if you defined "the Left" to include only the people you're referring to, then yeah, you win, but that's a bit disingenuous. Again, can you give me an example of a leftist saying that aborting a fetus because it's a girl is wrong, but aborting a fetus because it's a boy is ok?

                      "Also, what I am saying is that thrational for abortion says that the woman's reasons why she chooses an abortion are not up for public criticism. In other words, they should not care what her reasoning is."

                      I answered this below, but again, you're begging the question. Not everyone would agree (completely or even partially) with you regarding the rationale for abortion. There are plenty of people who think abortion should be legal, but who nonetheless may find particular motivations for abortion repugnant. Unless they say in other contexts that women who get abortions should never be criticized, that's not hypocritical. I'm sure you could find some leftists and pro-choicers who would say that, and then when asked, criticize sex selective abortion, but that's certainly not every leftist or pro-choice person.

                    17. I don't see how you have at all proven your argument. Unless you can find an example of a significant number of these people stating that they would be ok with a couple aborting a fetus BECAUSE it's a boy, but not because it's a girl (or that it would be hypothetically ok for a gay couple who conceived via in vitro to abort a fetus for being straight, but that it would not be ok for a straight couple to abort a fetus for being gay), then I don't see how you can say that they're putting extra moral value on female or gay babies.

                    18. It is a revealed preference. If you insist that abortion be considered values neutral for every other reason, it is logical to conclude that what you would consider an unethical abortion practice is what you value.

                    19. Where has the Left insisted that abortion for sex selection against boys are straights is value neutral to them?

                    20. or, not are

                    21. Where have they said it is not?

                      Furthermore, what is the basis of that ethical objection? Who, or what is being harmed by a woman basing her choice for abortion for that reason? In who or what's interest is the woman ethically obligated to carry her child to term for? Surely, not the child's interest, you said it does not exist as a moral entity. So who's interest is it in?

                    22. "Where have they said it is not?"

                      That's not how proving an argument works. But to answer that, when has the issue ever come up? Is there any culture where aborting boys for sex selecting reasons is common? It's not even possible at the present time to determine if a baby is gay, let alone give an example of a culture where babies are aborted for being straight. Unless you can give me a specific example of these things happening with the approval of the people you're criticizing, you're failing to make your case. It's difficult to object to something that isn't happening and/or isn't a significant problem.

                      As for the second paragraph, I don't think pro-choice people (at least for the most part) who criticize sex-selective abortion think it should be illegal. What they're criticizing is the sexist motivation and culture (and hypothetically, the homophobic motivation and culture) that produces these abortions. You can think abortion is totally fine, and still criticize someone (or a culture) for being sexist or homophobic without being a hypocrite.

                    23. Bo's original assertion was that the Left could make abortion illegal for these reasons because they objected to "anti-girl" motivations. He subsequently walked that back. So I do think it on him to prove it is more than that.

                      The assertion of abortion rights is based on privacy which puts the reasoning behind why a woman would choose abortion a private matter beyond public criticism. So, yes, a pro-choicer criticizing a choice for abortion is hypocritical.

                    24. "Bo's original assertion was that the Left could make abortion illegal for these reasons because they objected to "anti-girl" motivations. He subsequently walked that back. So I do think it on him to prove it is more than that."

                      It wasn't really clear whether he or you, or anyone was referring to the legality of it (one post of Bo's hints at it, but you didn't respond to it). One can criticize something without calling for it to be outlawed.

                      "The assertion of abortion rights is based on privacy which puts the reasoning behind why a woman would choose abortion a private matter beyond public criticism."

                      Begging the question much? People, even leftists, can have different reasons for supporting or opposing something, and believing someone has a right to do something doesn't necessarily mean you approve of it. If a given leftist were to argue that no woman should ever be criticized for having an abortion for any reason, and then criticized sex selective abortions, then yes, that would be hypocritical. But leftists aren't a monolithic blob and not all of them believe the first part of that sentence. I think you could make a pretty good case that someone who is pro-choice but thinks it should be illegal if done for sexist reasons is a hypocrite. But not all people who disapprove of something think it should be illegal (should I really have to explain this on a libertarian website?)

                    25. And you still have not proven your assertion that leftists who oppose sex selective abortion of girls are ok with sex selective abortion of boys (which is the main thing I've been disputing in this thread).

                    26. Sons are more economically valuable than daughters are.

                      I'd say that with the current sex ratio imbalance in China, a woman will tend to wind up controlling a lot more assets over time than women in countries with more balanced sex ratios.

                      Nothing like a shortage of pussy to make a woman's value in the marriage market go up.

                      Dunno if that is what you mean by "economically valuable".

                    27. Seems like the smart money in China would be on selecting for female babies to capitalize on the scarcity of pussy.

                    28. No, it is that it is considered a son's duty to take care of his parents in their old age. A daughter's duty is to take care of her husband's parents. That is what primarily drives sex selective abortions in China and other similar cultures. Until that changes, it does not matter how valuble a woman is in the marriage market.

  11. A woman's body is her own property, and is hers to do with whatever she pleases in complete privacy.

    Except for selling her body for sex. Or selling parts of her body to medical science. Or choosing to own a gun. Or using drugs. Or looking at pornography. Or eating unhealthy foods. Or eating healthy foods that have been deemed unhealthy by the uninformed. Or buying things from corporations. Or saying things that might offend protected classes/races. Or to not pay taxes. Or choosing her own health insurance. Or to end her life peacefully if she finds out she has a terminal illness. Or sending nude pictures of herself via email or text to people without the government looking at them.

    Actually, I forgot. A woman makes the conscious decision to sign the Social Contract the moment she chooses to be born. As such, her body is the de facto property of the government, which knows better than she what is and isn't good for her. The only right she can be trusted with is the right to terminate a pregnancy. Preferably with money forcibly taken from someone else.

    1. Die spammer

  12. Democrats are pro-choice as long as the choices being made are those they approve of.

  13. Official st Gun Owners of America refers to gun-free zones as "murder zones." It's reported in Politico where hoplophobes are likely to read it. See the responses in the comments.

    http://politi.co/1k4aisT

    1. More Guns, More Suicides?

      "So in a new paper published in the International Review of Law and Economics, we studied the relationship between guns and suicide in the U.S. from 2000 to 2009. Using five measures of gun ownership and controlling for other factors associated with suicide, such as mental illness, we consistently found that each 1 percentage-point increase in household gun ownership rates leads to between 0.5 and 0.9 percent more suicides. Or, to put it the other way, a percentage-point decrease in household gun ownership leads to between 0.5 and 0.9 percent fewer suicides."

      http://www.slate.com/articles/.....shows.html

      1. So one in every two new cases of firearm ownership results in a suicide. A 50 percent rate of suicide per new gun per household.

        Sounds absolutely believable. But only because I'm an absolute retard. It's doubtful the higher retards with IQs of 20 or more are going to slurp up those obviously pulled-out-of-someone's-ass stats like I'm slurping 'em up.

        Mmmm! Good!

        1. I am not an expert but if they are dealing with rates then it is not quite what you are describing, right?

          Of course my objection to the article is this: while I understand that some people that choose suicide may be talked out of it before they could kill themselves if no gun was readily available (but this strikes me as a very low, low number), if an adult has made an actual decision to commit suicide then I do not think the use of a gun should be some morally condemnable thing (in fact, it could be one of the more humane way to carry it out for many people). Leftists tend to say they support assisted suicide, for example.

        2. So one in every two new cases of firearm ownership results in a suicide. A 50 percent rate of suicide per new gun per household.

          Not one in every two, but roughly one in 5740. A one percent change change in the number of gun owning households is 1.114 million more guns. A 0.5% change in the number of suicides is about 200.

      2. And if one goes with the 0.9 figure that's practically one suicide per household per new firearm.

        Derpyliciousness!!

        1. Well, I bought three guns in the last couple years, and my wife, son and I all killed ourselves, so....

      3. Someone should tell Japan that they need gun control to stop their suicide problem

        1. I thought the same thing reading the article. If I recall rightly Japan's rates are quite high, and jumping from tall structures is the most common way. Pretty disingenuous of them to not even address the Japanese experience.

      4. One of the co-authors is Alex Tabarrok of Marginal Revolution. Here's his post concerning the article:

        http://marginalrevolution.com/.....ments.html

  14. Driver hits homless pedestrian, drives away without contacting authorities. No criminal charges, though his employer suspends him for a brief period.

    I bet you can't guess the punch line.

    (From station WFTV in Orlando)

    http://shar.es/O5ve8

    h/t Lucy Stag

    1. "I bet you can't guess the punch line."

      The homeless guy was a fetus? 😉

      1. Just for you, Bo - a social conservative sings about the virtues of monogamy:

        http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ

        1. I am a big fan of monogamy.

          1. I'm not exastley sure you got the joke.

  15. Sometimes man you jsut have to roll with it.

    http://www.AnonGoes.tk

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.