Those questions are essentially meaningless. If Trump loses the election, declares himself president anyway and tries to use force to do so, and the US government uses force to stop him, is that not "the use of force to prevent Donald Trump from becoming president?" On the other hand, it could be interpreted to mean, Trump wins the election and you personally go out and shoot him, and the way the question is framed, followed up by whether or not they owned guns and quotes about lone wolf attacks, creates the impression to the reader that that's what's meant, but it's unclear how anybody was interpreting that. Of course, unless you're a strict pacifist, virtually everyone agrees that violence is sometimes justified, but that tells us nothing about under what circumstances and by whom.
politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
Worth keeping in mind that polls measuring support for violence come with several caveats. For example a 2021 study assessed how question wording, respondent disengagement and illegitimate answers affected the results, finding that accounting for these factors lowered estimates of support for violence from 18.5% to 2.9%, or at most 6.9%. Even then there are arguments to be made about how social desirability bias and the specific scenarios presented can actually lead to underestimations.
It's always telling how these headlines talking about "support for political violence" remove any distinction between aggression and self-defense.
Is this what happens when you dedicate your lives to stopping gun regulation, while simultaneously making literal calls for political violence? Feels like every republican shocked by gun violence against them is in serious leopards-ate-my-face-mode. I don't have an ounce of sympathy for them.
Self-awareness is not something that extremists are known for having.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
It found that 10 percent of those surveyed said that the “use of force is justified to prevent Donald Trump from becoming president.” A third of those who gave that answer also said they owned a gun.
Seven percent of those surveyed said they “support force to restore Trump to the presidency.” Half of them said they owned guns.
The shooting at Mr. Trump’s rally “is a consequence of such significant support for political violence in our country,” Mr. Pape wrote in an email.
“Indeed, significant lone wolf attacks motivated by political violence have been growing for years in the United States, against members of Congress from both parties as well as federal officials and national leaders.”
In October, the Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California, Davis, published a report that found nearly 14 percent of those surveyed strongly agreed that there would be a civil war in the United States in the next few years.
Nearly 8 percent of respondents to the study said they believed there would be a situation in the next few years where political violence would be justified and were intending to arm themselves.
The original article contains 258 words, the summary contains 192 words. Saved 26%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!