A new poll conducted by ABC News and the Washington Post was just released. Specifically, pollsters asked Americans what they thought about various gun control proposals. Gun rights advocates have long said that using correct terminology and being familiar with laws that are already on the books is important. Terminology matters because it can mean the difference between a person breaking a law or not. The same goes for knowing what laws already exist.
Radio host and Second Amendment advocate Dana Loesch took to Twitter to explain some of the issues with the ABC News/WaPo poll.
"I’ve never before seen a topic where a lack of education isn’t just encouraged, but is seen as a virtue by leftists politicians and certain members of media. That’s not a convincing enough argument to engender trust in the proposed policies or reporting. Terms matter. Law is written based on certain terms. In some cases, certain terms are the difference between a misdemeanor and a felony," Loesch told Townhall. "Regarding loading mechanisms: A magazine feeds a chamber and a clip feeds the (internal) magazine. In discussions about magazine bans and capacities, this is an important distinction. So one magazine is the limit but numerous clips are fine? I want to believe that these people are interested in actual solutions, but refusing to learn important terms and why those terms are important makes it hard to believe so."
The polling here is problematic. I’ll explain why in a thread — and on air. https://t.co/EHiZEFulOo— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) September 9, 2019
This is one question. First of all, the terminology is incorrect (this matters for a couple reasons) and who determined over 10 rounds means “high-capacity?” In some, that isn’t even standard, it’s below standard. pic.twitter.com/EKOeiBbAqV— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) September 9, 2019
Anti-gunners have automatically assumed that more than 10 rounds designates a magazine as "high-capacity." The number is extremely arbitrary. After all, how did they decide on the number 10?
Second problem: the terminology.
What the pollster is actually referring to is a magazine. The magazine is what holds the rounds of ammunition and actually slides into the firearm.
A clip is used to feed the ammunition into the magazine. It's essentially a way to push the ammo into the magazine all at once. It's easier on your fingers and faster in the long run.
See how that's a problem?
It’s like the people crafting the questions weren’t familiar enough with current law to accurately conduct polling. BGCs are standard (unless you’re in antiquities or legal and still-regulated transfer, neither of which are part of income) and online buys MUST go thru FFL. pic.twitter.com/CtPvWvsUwk— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) September 9, 2019
One of the biggest misconceptions is that there's a "gun show loophole," that people who show up and purchase firearms at a gun show don't have to go through a background check. Most of people who sell at gun shows are Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs). Because they're a business that has firearms continually coming and going, they have to conduct a background check on all buyers. It doesn't matter if the buyer was found at a gun show or the person walked through their brick and mortar store. They have to go through the background check process.
Anyone who purchases firearms online must go through a background check. The firearm is sent to your local FFL. When the firearm comes in, you fill out a 4473 and go through a background check. Anti-gunners assume purchasing online is like buying from Amazon. The gun doesn't just ship straight to your door step. That is a completely false notion.
OK, so this law already exists, but in combination with due process. Get a psych hold, PO, etc to render ineligible a dangerous person. The new red flag proposal removes any and all due process. pic.twitter.com/xtjxGQRAWx— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) September 9, 2019
Apparently recidivism, pattern of reducing penalty for or dismissing altogether charges for felony gun crimes isn’t part of this, despite driving the homicide rate of felonious activity involving an illegally possessed firearm. Also not mentioned: actually following current law. pic.twitter.com/tw3DeAbElL— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) September 9, 2019
One of the biggest things recent mass shootings have showed us: we have laws on the books that aren't being enforced.
Psychiatrists recommended that the Parkland shooter be involuntary committed for behavioral issues and making threats against others. A school resource officer wanted him involuntarily committed as well. Instead of doing that, he was bounded between various schools as a means of "fixing" his behavior. The Broward County Sheriff's Department received more than 23 calls about the shooter before he carried out his attack. And they did nothing.
The Charleston shooter was able to legally obtain his firearm despite admitting to narcotics use. A paperwork error allowed his background check to go through. He should have been denied.
The likelihood that those being polled think this means full-auto firearms is high. That’s the error in using made-up terms. pic.twitter.com/oKL6QB2Plo— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) September 9, 2019
The term "assault weapon" is thrown around without actually being defined. It's not strictly used to talk about fully-automatic firearms or semi-automatic firearms. It's typically used to provoke emotion and is generally applied to guns that look big, black and scary, which means AR-15s are generally targeted.If the pollster wanted to know how people truly felt about an "assault weapons ban" they would ask if people wanted semi-automatic rifles, like AR-15s, to be banned. Then again, the pollster probably doesn't know that it's illegal for anyone to own a fully-automatic firearm produced after May of 1986. Even then, those who sell full-auto firearms, as classified by the National Firearms Act, have to go through a rigorous process to obtain a SOT (special occupational tax) or Class 3 FFL on top of a normal FFL. Regulation already exists.
If so-called news organizations are going to conduct polling, they have an obligation to know the facts surrounding the topic they're asking questions about.
This post has been updated to include comment from Loesch.