Poll: Political vitriol not to blame for Arizona shooting - Macleans.ca
 

Poll: Political vitriol not to blame for Arizona shooting

More than half of Americans think inflammatory conservative language not a cause


 

Though much of the discourse around the assassination attempt on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords has centered on whether inflammatory political language by a certain political party is to blame for the crime, a new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll shows that most Americans disagree that heated rhetoric is to blame. Of those surveyed, a 53 per cent majority dismissed the idea as an attempt to denigrate conservatives, while 35 per cent agreed there is a legitimate point to be made about how dangerous language can be. Stricter gun control laws didn’t find much support, either, with 72 per cent saying tighter controls wouldn’t have prevented the tragedy. Most of those surveyed see inflammatory language being used by both Republicans and Democrats. And the Tea Party movement gets slightly less blame than the two major parties, although the difference is too small to be statistically significant.

Daily Mail


 
Filed under:

Poll: Political vitriol not to blame for Arizona shooting

  1. Well, as Sarah Palin said "Crimes begin and end with the criminals who commit them." Therefore we can shortly expect her to endorse the mosque near ground zero.

    • 2,752 dead isn't a crime. It's an atrocity.

      • True, but it still doesn't mean that every Muslim is to be held accountable, any more than every Republican is responsible for the Arizona shooting.

        • But the shooter wasn't a Republican

    • There are no two-way streets in Alaska I suspect.

    • Right, and we're going to move former Col Williams home next to yours.

  2. Hmmm…just on the news "60% increase in gun sales in Arizona, 5% increase across U.S."

    Makes you wonder just how many people are Alex Jones fans.

  3. Apparently public opinion now means undisputed act. Good to know.

    • and by "act" I intended to type "fact".

      • Same point I was going to make (the first one…not the typo.)

        So a poll is suddenly the answer to what was actually going on in the shooter's head?

        Don't think so.

  4. Poor Sarah–so many left wing whackos in Canuckistan. Honesty and facts never, ever matter to these people. The world has never seen such huge liars as todays wingnuts on the left. There are numerous right wing commentators in the States todya who are threatened daily but again, that doesn't matter to the scum on the left. Where the heck are we going? Soon there will be no going back from the rhetoric.

    • Global warming denialism, intelligent design, young earth creationism, yup all "facts" pushed by liars on the left with tonnes of supporting evidence. Methinks you project too much my friend.
      Most of those on the left in the US who use inflammatory language are unknown wanna-bees, those on the right include an entire cable channel, most talk radio hosts, several congressional candidates, actual congress people and a former Vice Presidential Candidate. Are the water carriers on the right comparing like with like here? Or valiantly setting up a smokescreen while they regroup.

      • Denialism? If sticking your head in the sand and ignoring the many political and scientific discrepancies behind many of the methods of the climate change movement isn't denialism then I'm not quite sure what is anymore.

        • keep plucking that chicken.
          nothing will ever satisfy you because your mind id made up. Any tiny defect is enough to dump the entire other side, whereas just one pro is weight enough on the denier side.
          To me e-mails complaining about access to information requests doesn't outweigh facts like the NOAA stuff above.

          • It's been a long time since i last saw someone able to so expertly double back on their own words. Well done. You deserve a medal for your seeming lack of irony, if not for grammar. let's break it down shall we? First off, ONE tiny defect? The fact that many scientists (not all) twisted data for their own political gain is nearly common knowledge at this point. And i say NEARLY because people like you still number in the thousands. Many Prestigious scientists have pointed to flaws in the theory of AGW, and nearly every one of them was ruthlessly torn apart and discredited by their peers for presenting unpopular facts and ideas.

            However all this is not to say one side is necessarily entirely right either. Hard, reliable study of external effects on climate is still in its relative infancy, and the study of Man Made effects on it is even younger. Contrary to what propagandists like Gore say, the debate is not over. The debate is never when alternate (and legitimate i might add) evidence is still being brought forward. The problem is that the debate was shut down by crooks like Hansen and Mann prematurely for their own gain. That is not how the scientific process is supposed to work.

          • " The fact that many scientists (not all) twisted data for their own political gain is nearly common knowledge at this point" No, it is a lie and you are a liar.

            "Many Prestigious scientists have pointed to flaws in the theory of AGW," Another lie. The few who are dishonest oil company shills are not torn apart, they are mocked mercilessly for their transpant idiocy.

            You are commiting libel.

          • The science is not complete yet, hmmm tobacco denialist strategy I thought the pattern was familiar.

            AGW isn't completely understood and scientists disagree. Scientists still disagree over aspects of many theories that we use everyday, but that doesn't mean the overall premises are rejected by them.

            Twisted data is common knowledge.. no it isn't. Hyperbolic overemphasis of points that change nothing by the deniers are common enough.

            Sad at the cut and thrust of the scientific process. Have you ever tried conducting science? It's pretty brutal stuff. Einstein worked hard to point out where Newton might be in error. So far nothing serious has challenged the overall thesis that the earth's climate is changing and that we have something to do with the process. Rates and levels of degrees are all being fought over, as they should be, but the fact it is happening is only disputed by the intellectually myopic.

          • typical alarmist response. yes holly, the e-mails are pretty much common knowledge although they have been more or less swept under the rug by whitewash commissions. i never said AGW was completely rejected by all scientists. some reject it, some partially accept it, and some fully accept it, and everywhere in between. so everyone who attempts to bring up a different opinion is an idiot oil shill? tell me holly, what would happen if somebody were to bring up legitimate evidence against the theory of AGW? do you think the whole gravy train that corporations, celebrities, politicians and scientists have been riding for over a decade would just grind to a halt in the name of honesty?

          • Okay first the use of "some." The same word used to apply to all the folk involved in the process. It's hardly original, some scientists disagree with evolution and some don't, no attempt at quality control here. Classic obfuscation by denialists.
            Second, gravy train, really, you are going to go there? The massive coffers of the pro AGW side verses the tiny war chest of the carbon fuel industry, not to mention the work involved in change verses the safety of the status quo.
            Unlike denialism, if the evidence is sound science changes. Germ theory and relativity put paid to a couple of sciences holy cows because the evidence was too overwhelming to deny it. A giant like Newton and the solidity of the status quo were overcome by new comers to the scene.
            It's the deniers who want impossible evidence from their opponents and look for just one discrepancy to justify their case.
            But this has been pointed out time and time and time again, but still an ex TV weather man's blog is regarded as more authoritative than real work.

          • Hey "theintellectual"! harebell is harebell; I'm Holly. And you're wrong about the majority of scientists who are far more honest than you rightwing smear-and-jeerers.

          • Holly i barely know where to begin with you. First, i was talking to both of you, seeing as i'm being attacked by both of you at once. smears and jeers is rather catchy, although extremely hypocritical when used in this context. to say that the left if somehow more dignified and honest then the right is pure idiocy and horribly dishonest. to say that scientists are exceptionally honest would be to say that they are somehow better then the rest of the human race. they aren't, although they are not exceptionally dishonest either. When politics is involved in a scientific issue, corruption is all but inevitable.

            harebell, scientists who disagree with evolution cannot be considered scientists at all by any stretch of the imagination. And it is certainly not a neat and tidy as Al Gore would tell you it is. Even you admit that there is a divergence of opinion among the scientific community, although the true extent of it is rarely acknowledged and often covered up. 'denier' is a cheap term just as 'alarmist' is. however the AGW movement is closer to the deniers you describe then any skeptic. If a climatologist so much as suggests an alternate theory, his funding is totally cut off and he is torn to pieces and discredited, and is slandered by the media. If the scientific community cannot so much as allow the suggestion of new ideas, then the theory AGW is the new holy cow.

        • Apparently the WWF or Greenpeace articles are proof of CAGW. The key is give billion for FIT and trading credits. Billions have gone missing and organized crime is Europe has done very well.

          Now that Europe is failing those Feed In Tarriffs are being revoked and the Ponzi scheme is going to cause alot of pain. The good news is many of these Green Energy Speculators have found a new maket to pedal their snake oil.

          It makes sense for Ontario to increase our Hydro rates by 50% for Giant Bird Choppers and giant mirrors. It has worked so well in Europe.

  5. It's somewhat comforting to hear that most Americans are not duped by the lefty media activists with their shallow, superficial, "interpretations", portraying speculation as fact, blame Bush, blame Palin… for everything schtick. The lefty extremists and agents encrusted within the media are simply nurturing the herd, and continuing to polarize political discourse. The media are essentially doing what they accuse others of doing. Their obviously, transparent, self serving, partisanship is seen by most for what it is, political vultures scavenging for political gain on the back of an inexplicable act of horrific violence.

    • and yet you never hear the pure vitriol coming from the left that constantly spews from the right. It's kind of funny actually.

      • It would be funy if it were not so revolting.

        • your opponents are revolting? nice of you to lead by example and to use such kind and fair language. not vitriolic at all.

          you guys are such hypocrites I dont know how you live with yourselves.

          • You should know that liberal = hypocrit by now..

      • you might not see it but I see it every day. the left is as nasty as the nastiest of nasty teabagging rightwingers. kerry joking about assasinating bush, the bush=hitler we've endured for 8 years, the demonization of palin as soon as she entered the national political scene, the anti-jewish hatred common in most union circles and academic circles, the anti-human philosophy of the green movement which actually directly led to a rampage by a certain James Lee at dicovery channel headquarters, …

      • you dont notice it because it's from your political ideology. so naturally you just automatically agree with it. i see it on both sides on a regular basis.

  6. 53%! lol. About the same percentage of Americans who vote republican. These polls are generally garbage. You can pretty much get any result by tweaking how a question is phrased.

    "35 per cent agreed there is a legitimate point to be made about how dangerous language can be"

    So they asked respondents if they thought language could be dangerous?

    Waste of time.

  7. Kevin is right. This navel gazing can be nonsense. Attempting to attribute one man's insanity to public discourse may not make sense. What makes far less sense is many of the comments on blogs. Notwithstanding the level of public discourse in the US is way below what goes in the toilet.

    • exactly. the man has barely said two words, and yet already the media is swarming to pull something out of it. the only thing i can think to possibly pull out of all this is that Arizona's gun laws are too loose. thats it.

  8. it's interesting that americans believe arming themselves makes themselves safer but they have one of the most unsafe western democracies partially because of all the guns.. in vancouver you can walk the streets at night but i surely wouldn't want to do that in seattle or san francisco

    • Fuddle duddle, I respectfully ask what statistics you have to make this comment.

      • It's common knowledge prairie. we don't have so many people getting shot, because there's not many guns to shoot them with. yes that means the average citizen is unarmed, and technically defenseless, but so are the deranged criminals and muggers.

    • I've walked the streets of New Orleans at night many times…also, Seattle, San Diego, Chicago….nothing. I am much more scared walking around Vancouver, Winnipeg, Edmonton at night than anywhere down south.