Bogus Poll from Bloomberg-Bankrolled School Misleads on Guns

Bogus Research
Bogus Research

Fairfax, VA – -(Ammoland.com)- Billionaire gun control benefactor Michael Bloomberg has paid a great deal of money to have is name grace Johns Hopkins University’s School of Public Health.

Back in 2001, when the university announced that they were changing the name of the institution to the Bloomberg School of Public Health, Bloomberg had already given his alma mater more than $100 million. By 2013, Bloomberg had given more than $1 billion to Johns Hopkins.

It’s curious then that both the Washington Post and Bloomberg.com have failed to give the aspiring oligarch his due credit for a new poll purporting to show a public consensus in favor of gun control.

A Bloomberg piece on the topic described it as a “new survey released today by the American Public Health Association.” The Washington Post item managed to note that the study’s authors were from Johns Hopkins, but conveniently left off the name of the public health school. The move might strike some as a deliberate attempt by the “journalists” to downplay the toxic former New York City mayor’s involvement in the research, as school’s website freely notes;

“Funding for data collection came from internal Johns Hopkins University sources and a gift from Bloomberg Philanthropies to the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research.”

Aside from the interesting press coverage of the study and concerns about the source, the public should give little weight to the researchers’ findings.

The conclusion that has garnered the most attention is the researchers’ claim that more than 80 percent of Americans support so-called universal background checks. Bloomberg could have saved his money. Support for the criminalization of private firearm transfers has already been tested at the ballot box in three different states with results wildly different than the Bloomberg study.

  • In 2016, gun control supporters asked Maine voters to vote for Question 3, which would have required background checks on private firearm transfers. Mainers rejected the measure 52 to 48 percent.
  • That same year, an unlawful ballot measure asked Nevadans to support the criminalization of private transfers. The poorly constructed measure barely passed; 50.45-49.55 percent.
  • In 2014, Washington voters approved the deeply-flawed I-594, which imposed a background check requirement on even some of the most innocuous conduct involving firearms. More popular than the other initiatives, the measure still only passed 59-41 percent.
Nazi Bloomberg
Michael Bloomberg

Parts of the Bloomberg gun control apparatus were involved in each of these campaigns. Therefore, it is safe to assume that the Bloomberg flunkies peddling the fanciful polling data are well aware of the demonstrated real-world support for onerous background check measures.

Part of the reason Bloomberg’s polling on this topic diverges from reality could be that researchers prey on the general public’s unfamiliarity with the subject matter. In a piece for the New York Times titled, “Support for Gun Control Seems Strong. But It May Be Softer Than It Looks,” Margot Sanger-Katz discussed this divergence.

The author noted that “While a wide range of gun control laws appear popular in polls, support may soften once details emerge and they’re subjected to a robust political debate.” Addressing the Maine anti-gun initiative, Sanger Katz wrote,

David Farmer, who led the Maine effort for universal background checks in 2016, said that supporters of gun rights can be particularly persuasive once a concrete proposal is unveiled. In Maine, polling support for the measure declined between introduction and the final vote, before failing, 52-48.

“We know for a fact we lost the argument at the kitchen table and the bar and the bowling alley,” he said. “The gun enthusiasts were talking to their friends and relatives and neighbors. They felt about it in a way that was so passionate that they won those one-on-one encounters, and they were very successful in bringing in people to their side.”

This pattern suggests that as ignorance recedes, so does support for gun control. Just don’t expect this predictable sequence to get as much coverage as Bloomberg’s dubious polls.

National Rifle Association Institute For Legislative Action (NRA-ILA)

About:
Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.org

  • 13
    Leave a Reply

    Please Login to comment
    7 Comment threads
    6 Thread replies
    0 Followers
     
    Most reacted comment
    Hottest comment thread
    12 Comment authors
    SteveColonialgirlSam W.Jim MacklinMark Recent comment authors
      Subscribe  
    Notify of
    Colonialgirl
    Guest
    Colonialgirl

    Bloomburg wants your firarms while he lives in a Gated estate with a platoon of over 20 armed guards who are former New York City Police officers.
    What a bloated jackass of a hypocrite.

    Jim Macklin
    Guest
    Jim Macklin

    The reason for a constitution is to protect the rights of the minority from the pollsters.
    If 99% of those polled on the question, “should all potential rapists be castrated?” it would still be unconstitutional.
    Oh, there is also cruel and unusual punishments and punishment BEFORE a crime is unconstitutional too.

    But when you are as rich as Bloomberg, minor things like constitutions don’t matter, to him.

    Mark
    Guest
    Mark

    I have a dime, how much bullshit will that buy me.

    Jim Macklin
    Guest
    Jim Macklin

    The Nevada gun law passed only because the illegal Las Vegas hotel workers voted for it. That is the reason the Democrats are so set against voter ID laws.

    Steve
    Guest
    Steve

    The supports also outspent the anti’s 10 to 1. Also, I am sure if Question One had been written so that it was enforceable the NO’s would have had it by a wide margin. As it turned out their near 20 million investment was a PR stunt. They must have been betting on Brian Sandoval being defeated & the legislature staying a Dem majority in the 2014 election (bad bet based on 2013 & 2014 polling); because, the state legislature has the opportunity to adopt before it goes to the voters. If the legislature had chosen to adopt they could… Read more »

    Herb T
    Guest
    Herb T

    Liberals lied about facts, again? Intentionally? I can’t believe it.

    Leon
    Guest
    Leon

    Under these circumstances, any or all research will be in favor of Bloomberg! This type of research isn’t news as this is the job of lobbyists. Once you take the money, as in everyone has a price, one-sidedness has them doomed!
    Does one have to wonder what this Moriarty-like person has planned?
    I dislike the idea, but as we see our politicians (Clintons) removing their opposition, is it possible, some, if not all, of these significant gun atrocities, have been orchestrated?

    Brad
    Guest
    Brad

    I’ve wondered the same thing, Leon. Have these people been targeted by some group as ripe for maipulation? The timing of all these atrocities is far too pat to suit me. Compare the time of these events to contemporary political events such as mid-term elections, general elections, etc.

    Wild Bill
    Guest
    Wild Bill

    @Leon and Brad, I bet that there are people and groups standing in line to take Bloomberg’s money. I’m sure that they come to him. Our opponents are professionals. I don’t think that Bloomers would hire amateurs at the top. They are almost certainly well aware of timing, group ripeness, and palatable messaging. It is called Psyops campaigning. What is amazing is how often they get caught.
    Absent a president that called it by its simplest terms, fake news, where would we be?

    Tionico
    Guest
    Tionico

    Possible, you ask? More like somewhere between highly likely and dead certain. One factor supporting a higherlikelihood of certainty is the FACT that, after nearly every one of them, the press and deia and gun grabbing hordes were on it within minutes. And well organised. In my view, one cannot possibly separate the shooting itself from the ensuing grandstanding, celebration, nationwide “movement” in the instance of the Parkland shooting. The two phenomena followed each other so closely and seamlessly it has to be of one piece.

    Laddyboy
    Guest
    Laddyboy

    I agree. Looking at the two latest slayings in Florida, the Federal Bureau of Insanity FAILED both times in using EXISTING laws to stop the murderer and terrorist. In the night club – – the terrorist’s father had DIRECT TIES with the ‘fbi’. In the school shooting – – the ‘fbi’ “ignored” calls that told the name of the murderer. The “police” also ignored the actions of the murderer, even though they were WARNED over 20 times. The “school administrators” were using one of 0b0z0’s new “plans to stop violence” called the “promise program”. All of these law forces AND… Read more »

    Sam W.
    Guest
    Sam W.

    Anytime gun control stalls there is another shooting, to get it going again.

    Marc DV.
    Guest
    Marc DV.

    How Many Armed Guards Does He Have ?
    What Are Their Choice of Weapons ?
    He Views Himself As Better than Everyone Else !
    Good for Him , Bad For Common Folk !
    You’d Swear He Was From Hollywierd !