The conventional wisdom seems to be that the American mainstream opposes any new restrictions on firearm ownership, but it may be time to revisit those assumptions. A new Washington Post/ABC News poll shows most of the public is against a ban on the sale of handguns, but for bans on semi-automatic handguns and high-capacity ammunition clips.
What's more, when the poll asked, "Do you favor or oppose stricter gun control laws in this country?" a 54% majority said they favor restrictions, which is the highest percentage in more than five years.
But in terms of electoral salience, it's especially interesting to see a more detailed breakdown. Greg Sargent reported:
What's really striking is that opposition to stricter gun control is largely driven by white men -- blue collar white men in particular. By contrast, college educated whites, white women, moderates, and minorities all show majority support for stricter gun laws. These are the emerging pillars of the Democratic coalition.
First, the toplines. The Post poll finds that Americans favor stricter gun laws by 54-43. The Post polling team tells me that whites oppose them by 48-50. But this is driven by opposition among white men (42-56) and non-college whites (44-53). By contrast, college educated whites favor stricter laws (54-43), as do white women (53-44).
The pattern largely applies to the other related poll questions -- white men and non-college whites are driving the opposition to gun laws.
As Democrats ponder strategies going forward, this clearly matters. Dem policymakers have been conditioned to fear an intense voter backlash to any new limits on firearm ownership, but the polling suggests the voters most inclined to hate new gun laws are already the voters most inclined to vote Republican.
Leave a Comment:
So, non-college-educated white men are against firearm restrictions.
Unfortunately, college-educated men and women of all backgrounds have made the internet so easy to use, that we are inundated with NRA neanderthals even on this site.
(sigh)
If you haven't yet, please go sign the gun control petition at the White House website.
petitions/whitehouse.gov
And that is the point . They are a minority. They are a superpac. They have lots of money. We stood up to them last election , we can do it now.
The message we should be sending: We've had enough. This is happening. Now. And we don't care what you have to say on the matter any more.
No more excuses, no more delays, no more exploiting doubts or tangling us up in endless debate.
I am also college educated, not a neanderthal use the internet all the time (in fact I built a peer to peer net for a company many years ago) and unlike you I prefer not to vacate my freedoms just because some kooks misuses tools.
I prefers to blame the users of tools rather than the tools themselves, as in when fools pick up theirs lawnmowers an uses them as hedgers you must want to make all lawnmowers illegal! since we can't make idiots foolproof!
That's the old "guns don't kill people etc" quote. Actually, the law that they ought to pass is this. If you own a gun or guns legally, you are also responsible for the guns. If someone from your household takes YOUR gun and kills innocent people with it, you are an accessory to murder. If you have son between the age of 12 and 20 who you know has a problem, and you keep your guns accessible to them, and you are not smart enough to move them off site or put them into a safe, then you are probably not smart enough to be a gun owner.
Lynne ...... you make a lot of sense!
Here's a statistical eye opener:
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mike-friends-blog/its-guns-we-all-know-its-not-really-guns
Around 30,000 gun related deaths in the US per year. Japan, for ex., has around 20, TWENTY. UK, 200, TWO HUNDRED. USA, 30,000, THIRTY THOUSAND.
WHY? WHY? WHY? How did this happen and how can it be stopped?
Sad to note that the average white American male is a moron.
So far as Rose White is concerned, good to see that illiterate stupidity among white people isn't limited by gender.
Dear TC --
Agreed. And this is news?
</snark>
Wow, a bunch anti-white racist comments on this issue. Maybe my few right leaning friends were right about my side. TC and Helena should be ashamed for the way they speak.
India-It's because none of those countries have guns and most of their murders are committed by objects like knives. Over half of that US 30k are suicides, about 20% are gang murders, about 10% are accidents and police shootings, about 6% are justified killings. That leaves about 14% or roughly 4200 murders committed by citizens against another citizen, including mass killings. For a out of control downward spiral society nation with 350 million + guns and 320 million + people that's pretty darn good numbers.
Lynne-only sensible comment in this bunch
Rosewhite-correction, your comment makes much sense as well
As for the rest, learn to control your hate.
When trolls start spouting nonsense about "anti-white racism" you know there's a rabid Neo-Confederate loose.
ERules-I'm just a democratic socialist. I'm for amnesty, I'm for single-payer, I'm for unions and raising taxes and the minimum wage. It's sad to see people like you making assumptions about others. You must be so empty inside.
You are a lying Neo-Confederate. I'd love to stick around and smack you down some more, but I have more important things to do. I'm sure you get a "thrill" out of trying to hijack threads. Your sort always does.
You are a horrible person. Good luck with that.
Whoa now. We're not making assumptions about each other here. We're just looking through different lenses.
There are two different and valid rationales between rural and urban approach to gun control. We need common sense laws, but must respect and compromise between the cultural differences and concerns. I've already seen some lefties get overexcited and spout off an all or none type of extremist position. We all know this is not what we mean.
And rurals deal with different dangers.
The response time for emergencies is much longer in many rural areas than urban.
Work environments often expose laborers occasionally to aggressive predators, the two legged and the four legged variety.
We have more than our share of registered sex offenders. Every time urban centers safe guard their children with things like restrictions on registered sex offender residency, we get the surplus moving into our rural areas. My area is now in the top ten of harbored offenders per capita. Our local governments do not have the independent power or money to match these residency restriction laws without risking general state support. (You KNOW what I mean.)
When we consider common sense gun safety laws, please, let's not dismiss rural concerns. They are often very real.
India, I see you failed to notice that their country is not only much smaller than ours, but also much more honour based. (Japan that is.) Why is that? Because Japan doesn't have the Gang cartels of California(Compton, Stockton, Sacramento, Oakland etc), the drug cartels coming in from Mexico into TX and NM, the Rednecks in the south, or the Five Point's of the North East.
I believe we should have stricter gun laws, but if your gonna use statistics, make sure to back it up.
rosewhite
When we put restrictions on gun ownership we are not regulating the guns, we are regulating people's behavior. Your "guns don't kill people" mentality is absurd. Progressives understand that we are not trying to legislate the behavior of inanimate objects ..... do you?
MikeinMichigan
So, non-college-educated white men are against firearm restrictions
Mike , 44% of non-college whites are FOR gun control laws , that makes your statement a bit narrow minded , for the record I always enjoy your comments on here , not trying to dis you
Oh dear, I've been called a horrible person...how will I ever live with myself? (guffaw)
It's time to have rational discussions about gun control, minimizing if possible the exaggeration and hyperbole that usually dominates these conversations. Most people who believe in gun control are not trying to ban all guns, just as most gun owners do not believe that everyone should be able to own any gun (assault weapon, anti-tank missile launcher, huge ammo magazine, whatever) without any background check or use restrictions.
The leadership of the NRA represents the interests of gun manufacturers more than the wishes of its membership, the majority of whom think that background checks should be required for all firearm purchases and other transfers of ownership.
When I say I believe in gun owner controls I am not "anti-gun," nor am I trying to control the guns themselves. I understand that "guns don't kill people; people kill people", so make no mistake about it -- the laws should be aimed directly at the gun owners, not the guns themselves. When people violate those gun laws, the people, not the guns, should go to jail. Gun owners should have restrictions and some people should not have the right to bear any arms whatsoever. The Second Amendment provides for gun rights, but nothing in the Second Amendment says that those rights should not come with the appropriate level of responsibility.
Just because I think that background checks should be required of all gun owners does not mean that I am "anti-gun" any more than my belief that all motor vehicle drivers should be tested and licensed makes me "anti-car."
Just because I believe that certain military weapons should not be available to the general public and that there should be a restriction on the size of the ammunition magazines does not make me "anti-gun" any more than my belief that military tanks do not belong on neighborhood streets makes me "anti-motor vehicle."
To read your post it sounds like you believe that there are not already restrictions on firearms.
In fact, I see nothing that you suggest that isn't already law. You must pass a background check already, machine guns are extremely difficult to get (as in you get to meet several fbi agents as part of the process and pay for the $1000 tax stamp). You must pass the background check every time you buy a gun.
Severe penalties and restrictions already exist. If you don't believe me, go ahead and try to buy a gun and see how hard it can be. CT is the 5th most restrictive state in the country.
Sorry sir, but you offer nothing that would've affected the CT guy at all or even isn't already in place and has been for many years.
Actually, Hanover, at least 40% of all weapons are bought without any background check because of gun show loopholes or private sales. Assault weapons are readily available and in states such as Arizona with very weak gun laws people are able to buy a dozen or more assault weapons at a time [Many of those weapons cross the border].
The problem with firearms goes far beyond Connecticut and no one believes that gun laws are going to prevent every gun death. It appears that one of the major problem in the recent school shooting is was that the mother who knew her son was mentally ill did not secure the guns so that the shooter could not get them. But because she was able to buy extreme firepower the tragedy was also extreme.
My point exactly
My point exactly
"The leadership of the NRA represents the interests of gun manufacturers more than the wishes of its membership," don97524
This is what I believe is going on. Find a way to promote more gun sales.
Does it seem odd, even absurd, to anyone else that the Republicans wish to ban all abortion but resist any ban on firearms, even military-style assault weapons? Before anyone starts nit-picking that statement with observations about some Democrats going along with the GOP on those issues or that some Republicans do not share those positions, please look at the Republican platform for the recent election.
I've stated this many times, But I will repeat this. In my group of friend's that Hunt, And this totals about 20 People, After the Colo Incident, I polled my friends on 2 points, NRA membership and Any and all Assault Wpns. Not one belong's to the NRA, And only one was against a Ban. All of the others , If they where gone so be it.
I think that the semi-automatic section of this poll just shows that people don't know what semi-automatic means. If you have reloading clips and 20 minutes of practice with a revolver (not a semi automatic) you can fire as many rounds or more than if you're using a semi-automatic (high capacity clips is probably a legitimate beef). Semi-automatic just means that when you pull the trigger after having fired, the gun prepares itself to fire again, which is exactly what a revolver does, but using a very different mechanism. The fastest shooter in the world uses a revolver (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DpCellB_UQ) and revolvers are significantly easier to use by someone who's never been trained to use firearms. They don't jam (there is no jammable mechanism in the device) and they have very few buttons that the user needs to remember to use properly. So the desire to ban semi-automatic firearms is probably largely being carried out by those unqualified to speak on the subject.
Like I said though, high capacity mags are not really needed for anything. Law enforcement probably doesn't even need them, because police officers are required to be able to reload their guns quickly and safely. It's not unsafe for an officer to have larger magazines, but it's certainly not a prerequisite for being in an area that doesn't respect law officers.
Thank you for taking the time and trouble to explain that.
You know, it's not often my conscience will let me say this, but I could have easily gone another 30 years (roughly my current life expectancy) happily not knowing the ins-and-outs of semi-automatic firearms or related subjects. No, I don't want to see a gun loaded and fired on youtube. No, I have no curiosity about them. No, I came of age long before video games. Yes, I was an adult during Viet Nam.
Seems there are fundamental differences among us that may even transcend our politics.
You may be right about the public's knowledge of the working definition of "semi-automatic." But the general sentiment is against handguns that fire large numbers of bullets in a short amount of time. As such, it does not matter whether you are using a double-action revolver with reload clips, or a semiautomatic regardless of clip size.
The Newtown shooter was apparently able to expend multiple 30-round clips. On the other hand, the Arizona shooter was subdued when he tried to reload.
Having to stop, even for a few seconds every 6 or 10 shots, can make a difference.
Am I wrong here? Even low capacity cartriges are easier/quicker to change than reloading a revolver. So the problem isn't so much a matter of how fast you can fire one bullet after another, but how fast you can reload.
The bad guys will just circumvent any law you make.. they'll use 2 guns or practice reloading quickly or build a bomb and kill 160 people instead of 30 because the spectacle and media attention rewards them for doing so.
If you know nothing about guns or refuse to accept that people you don't like have rights, I cannot respect your opinion any more than a bible thumpers' opinion on gays.
Dan, yes you are wrong. There are simple devices called "speedloaders" that allow you to reload a revolver with comparable speed. Also many revolvers' rotating chamber section is easily swappable, such that you could pre-load several and do just as much damage.
Also revolvers can be significantly smaller than a semi-auto and hence much more concealable. A semi-auto needs to have the slide mechanism be able to travel far enough to push the next round forward and are limited in how small they can be.
A reload clip for a revolver is a nifty little invention from WW I. It holds the 5 or 6 cartridges in the proper orientation to reload the cylinder in one movement. With practice it can be done as quickly as changing the magazine in a semi.
In some old cop shows (when the cops still had revolvers) you would see them reload with these clips, all six in one movement.
@Y Kant Bob Reed, I agree completely. General public hears semi-automatic and I bet good money they think fully automatic. Speed loaders for revolvers make them just as quick to fire as semi-automatic handguns. The only difference is capacity. As @MikeinMichigan referenced the Arizona shooter was taken down when he had to reload his semi-automatic pistol--but he was using an extended clip which allowed him far more shots before needing to reload. I think we could start with assault rifles as a whole and extended clips for handguns as items that could be ban-able. If that is too much then just put a hard limit on rounds in a clip even for the rifles much like there are capacity limits in place for shotguns or other rifle forms for hunting. If clips for handguns and rifles were hard locked to say 10 rounds in a hand gun (or less) and 5 rounds in a rifle it would help hinder their killing capacity but maintain the weapons' "legitimate" purposes of self defense and whatever the heck someone needs an assault rifle for.
@GentlemanfromHanover the ability to circumvent is not the litmus test for whether or not the law should exist. I can easily go beyond the speed limit in my car. That does not negate speed limit laws. Fully automatic guns are illegal, but with mechanical know how and illicit parts one could convert certain semi-automatic weapons to be fully automatic. This does not negate the ban on fully automatic weapons. Really all you are stating is that people will criminal intent will break laws, which is hardly that earth shattering now is it? The difference would be how readily available said assault weapons or extended clips would be. Making them illegal would make them more difficult to obtain--not impossible, but more difficult.
Always an excuse, a reason not to do things. We're fed up and no longer care.
This is happening. Now.
I don't think you need to be an expert on guns to have an opinion about gun control laws. I'm not interested in spending three hours making sure I get all my vocab right, so that my opinion isn't arbitrarily invalidated.
I'm fine with responsible people responsibly owning a handgun for self-defense. I'm fine with those responsible people responsibly owning a hunting rifle. Neither of these choices is one that I would make, because for my comfort, there are too many ways that having a gun in the house can go wrong.
But private citizens have no legitimate need for weapons that are engineered to kill lots of people really fast. And there can be no valid argument for placing fewer restrictions on gun operation than car operation.
In my years in LE, I carried both a revolver and a semi-automatic. Speedloaders aside, there is no comparison in reload speed for the average shooter. With a revolver, you have to take your weapon off the target and use gravity to reload. With my Glock, I could keep my weapon on the target with a round still in the chamber, eject the clip, and reload. With my revolver, I carried a total of 18 rounds: 6 in the gun and 12 more in two speedloaders. With my Glock, I carried a total of 43 rounds. Yes, professional competitive shooters can reload revolvers very quickly. But they also modify their weapons for speed. Then, there is the pressure required to pull the trigger. A baby could pull the trigger on a semi-automatic. It takes a lot more strength to pull the trigger on a revolver. At the police academy, we had to do exercises to build our hand strength for prolonged shooting. When we went to the range with our revolvers, we would leave with bloody hands from the blisters that would develop from firing repeatedly. The semi-autos were nothing compared to that.
I would also add that revolvers are a heck of a lot safer. You can actually see if there are any rounds in the cylinder, even if it is closed. With a pistol, you cannot.
Great post Bob. Unfortunately most of the replies you have got are spouting more nonsense then agreement. Especially Michigan and eddie, just vile anti-American people.
DAN P.: You're not wrong in general, but they do sell reloaders that speed the process. They look like this http://hellinahandbasket.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/speedloader.jpg] and you just turn the knob to drop the bullets into the cylinder.
And the petulant whining from the trolls starts.
ERules-and your trolling continues. You are weak.
You've been trying to hijack the thread with a barrage of hogwash, and it isn't working. That probably p!sses you off plenty.
The leftosphere seems to be ignoring the crying need pointed up by this tragedy in favor of rearguing the case for gun control. The latter is important and long overdue, but it's not as vital as the discussion of decent mental-health care, which is practically nonexistent in this country for us 98 percenters. And for every case where someone comes completely unglued and shoots up a mall or a theater or a school, tragic as that is, there are at least a thousand people unable to live productively while struggling with depression and other common mental-health issues. Treatment is expensive (especially as it tends to involve a lot of trial and error), but stigmatizing mental illness or pretending it doesn't exist is far more costly.
Sorry, the mental health passive-aggressive argument is just too stupid. That earns an "Ignore this user"
Fuch: You folks rail against spending nickel one on healthcare of any sort, so why are we supposed to beleive you when you scream about mental health?
how can you possibly say the "mental health passive-aggressive argument is just too stupid"? It is an extremely important aspect of trying to fix this problem of violence is a systemic way. Ignoring the mental health aspect is dangerous, ignorant and well, to use your own words, stupid.
Dear DWIA -- If Fuschia hadn't suggested that mental illness was far more at issue here than guns, he/she/it might have had a point.
Mental illness is severely problematic and severely under-addressed. Most mental ill people, me included, are not tools built and intended to kill. Guns are.
I believe, helena vargas, society does need to pay more attention to mental illness, but I would prefer anyone who is in an emotional state not have the ability to go and pull out a high power military grade weapon.
You hit the nail on the head. The left is going after the wrong issue, as usual. And I'm a liberal, and I'm just so frustrated with my fellow liberals on this issue. Every single case of mass shootings this year have been related to the lack of needed health care services. On something so important the left's ignorance really frightens me.
Since when is this an "either/or" issue? This is a "this+that+that+andthat" issue if we really want to work toward a solution.
Scout .. exactly ! A multiple issue problem however .. remove the assault rifle first ... remember, guns don't kill people .. people WITH guns do ..
Amber -- I think we agree fully. Should we be arguing?
If heinous leftists are so terrible, why do the poor pitiful "real American" right wingers come to sites like this? To get their "fair share of abuse"? When they whine about how badly they are treated, they are making a tacit admission of masochistic tendencies.
eRules-you are so angry. Maybe take some time and actually contribute to this conversation.
Oooh, now the troll gets pompous!
ALL pistols are automatics. Revolvers are just that-have a revolving "magazine", usually holding five or six rounds. Both have their attributes and limitations.
Just another useless poll by someone ignorant of the topic, but with an agenda.
Sorry Day, Wrong again. Automatic is when you pull a trigger and the weapon continues to fire until you release the trigger.
Semi- automatic: You must click the trigger every time to get the round out of the chamber.
If you ever served in the military, you would know the distinction.
"MOST pistols are semi-automatics." There, fixed that for you. I'm guessing you meant semi-automatic, and I'm also guessing you forgot about single action revolvers. Kinda funny in a post attacking other's knowledge of the subject.
Castigated for a typo!
I spent a number of years in the Army, qualified as Expert with a number of weapons, individual and crew served.
By definition a 'pistol' is an auto loader- Glock, Beretta, the famous 1911 ACP- Automatic Colt Pistol.
Yes, there was a German Maschinepistole ,(the MP40), the forerunner of the assault rifle, and the American M3, .45 cal "Grease Gun" Both were automatic ("machine" guns). Today's Secret Service carry very small fully automatic weapons that are about pistol size, but the handguns available at your corner gun store- and the sidewalk outside- are semi automatics of variable quality.
@1Opinion- the Gatling Gun is also a 'revolver'.
It is madness to have a nation this large where anyone who tries can buy a semi automatic weapon. This is not a gun! It is a weapon, it's purpose it to kill large amounts of people quickly. The large clips for pistols are the same thing, people will never be safe till all of these are not just banned but confiscated. I can't imagine what someone could say to justify this kind of total madness in this country. I want the press to inform all of us of the people who fight for the NRA against the safety of our children and all people in this country. Let's out them and have a national fund to fund candidates to run against them in 2014. Enough of this nonsense.
Public opinion is not the obstacle to passing gun control laws. It is the NRA which has taken a rabidly anti-gun regulation stance on ANY gun control laws. Even members of the NRA support reasonable laws and regulations. But the NRA has a powerful lobby with a lot of money to stop any and all laws concerning gun control. The NRA has become a political wing of the Republican party because the organization uses its money and influence. And the NRA will use its influence to stop and/or water down any laws that may be passed as a result of this shooting. I would venture to say that the NRA is already talking to people in Congress as well as preparing its strategy to counteract the current demand for action. Dems in conservative districts will be targeted if they support any gun control. Look back at what the NRA was saying about Obama's re-election.
Everybody needs to ignore any defeatist arguments. No matter what.
You guys read the Joe Baca story, right? (story) He was a pro NRA (A rating) who was successfully targeted by an anti NRA PAC funded by Bloomberg, and defeated by another Democrat.
8.1 THIS. Exactly.
Search youtube for "Archie Bunker on gun control", and realize that the clip you will find first aired about 42 years ago.
I've had my fill, and frankly no longer care what the gun nuts have to say on the matter. This is the time for action, not endless debate.
Actually, if you look at unbiased polls you'd know the majority of Americans are against more gun control. I don't give credit to the voting public often but even they know there are already enough gun laws on the books.
i am so glad you are wrong.
Cin
Actually, a majority of NRA members are in favor of background checks for all gun purchases and other gun ownership transfers, not just the sales at licensed dealers. Not surprisingly, the NRA does a better job of representing gun manufacturers than they do of representing their membership.
@don. I know this! There are already background checks. I want 30-60 day waiting periods. You are barking at the wrong dog. I'm talking about NEW MORE gun control, not existing gun control laws like I mentioned. Jeez
Phoooooney!
Cin
Did I sound like I was disagreeing with you? I am criticizing the NRA. And 30-60 day waiting periods don't do much good if you don't do background checks for ALL transfers of gun ownership.
I say ban all guns.
Ya wanna hunt? Do gun rentals in hunting zones and return the guns when you're done.
Unless you're being chased by a 550 pound grizzly bear in midtown Manhattan, there's no reason to have any gun of any kind in an urban/city setting
You are just an idiot.
calling people names is just a tad immature, and really does nothing to make your point.
@ Chelsea lol Really? Who else is name calling? Hmmm Chelsea maybe? Please let go of your emotions and come back and debate like a champ.
All the trolls should go back to Red State, World News Daily, Free Republic, etc.
eRules-then where should the blue state trolls like you go? Such a self-righteous one you are.
More "I know you are, but what am I" petulance.
Let us be honest for a moment here. I agree something needs do be done with our gun laws. But we all have seen and been on this road before. NOTHING IS GOING TO HAPPEN! Republicans will not allow any talks about gun law regulations and none of them and including many Democrats are in the pockets of the gun lobbiests. Already we hear that Obama wants to take away our guns. All this is moot point. No laws will be passed and all this talk about a discussion about gun laws will be only talk. Sorry.
Ah yes, the illuminati-UN shock troops going door-to-door nonsense.
And sensible gun control can be done. It is happening. Now.
Game over, man.
Lupe- just watch, it will happen, laws will be passed, it is happening right now. and it makes me very, very happy. the good guys will win.
You are right Lupe, nothing will happen. It's all a PR stunt by political left for the left, most of them are just blind to political reality. It's biz as usual. Guns are here to stay and IMO I think that is just fine.
CinUSA- i am so thankful your opinion is the minority.
@ Chelsea Well I guess depending on what poll you read you can be right. lol Enough jibber jabber, get back to the issue if you want to continue with this.
Please, show down. I want these gun controls to happen. I hope to God they and we do what we must and we talk about all this and do something good to make our world a better place to live in and a safer place for all our children. I am just saying the Republicans are not going to allow this to happen. We have been down this path many times. Name one thing good which has happened so far? Just being a realist here and I agree with you guys. I pray we do have the means to do something.
Maybe a gated community would be a good idea for you and your family Lupe. IDK. IDK what to say to folks who are so scared of guns and dying. We lose about 3-4k a year to murders at the hands of citizens, the rest is suicides, gangs, police, accidents and justified. Most likely in your and your families lifetime you will not experience gun violence.
Those on the right love to project their own cowardice and malice onto others.
ERules-yep, you should know.
Gated? Does that really keep people with mental issues outside those gates? Nope. it does not. We deal the best we can and with what we got in life. I for one do not believe owning more than one gun makes you a gun nut. I do believe some people who are nuts should not own guns. Some are just not responsible and anything in their hands are a danger to the rest of us. We need to know who the nuts are and why are they allowed to own WMDs. I have come to believe the issue may be more simple than we may think? Your personal doctor knows if you are stable or not. When a person wants to own a gun, the NRA or those who are selling over the counter should call the person's personal physician and simply ask him or her, do you think the person in question are sane enough to be responsible with a weapon.
Troll sticks out its lower lip.
Frankly, if I lived in an area where I felt I needed a gun to feel safe, I would move. That said, I allow hunting on my land, and the hunters show up with bows, muzzle loaders, and an occasional rifle. I have no issue with responsible hunters that keep their unloaded guns stored carefully to protect their own families from accidents. I see no argument for high capacity clips or guns that can fire them.
I love how you say that like most have the choice to move if they wished. And then you go into how you have land. Everyone is not you! Pick and choose, typical selfish behavior.
Cin- jealous much?
@ Chelsea. Huh? Jealous of what exactly? I was pointing out the fact that many do not have the means to move if they want to, at least not in the short-run. I own land as well, but I live in a highrise in Minneapolis. Doesn't mean anything. Does it to you? Do people with less means have less of a right to an opinion. I just don;t get your reply.
Typical right-wing crocodile tears. Those on the right are so bad at trying to show empathy.
ERules-Not sure if your random gibberish is meant for me but just to clarify, I'm a democratic socialist, I'm more left then most liberals on most issues. Make a comment that makes sense.
I've seen plenty of phonies on the internet, and you are one of the lamest and most obvious.
Great day in the morning! In my field we call that a selection effect. Trouble is, someone may be
stupid ignorant naive unsophisticateddumb enough to believe it.Tell us you're not serious.
Nice diversion, Enid.
Hocus-pocus.
This last shooting much like most have more to do with our failed health care system then with guns themselves.
Glad to see someone with some sense on these boards, thanks.
Enid, you are right. this is a multi-faceted problem and mental health access and medication safety is a component. don't listen to these people who try to tell you different, they are working from their own agendas.
George Carlin
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ssYezFw_Qs
I don't like guns. Never have, never will. Yes, I've held them and I've even fired a gun once or twice. I can't own one legally, thanks to a past criminal history and not wanting to go through all the crap to be able to own one when I don't even want one. Bottom line is, I just don't like them. But I refuse to ban them completely.
What I AM for is responsible control laws. A written test required to buy one, with basic information on it. A 14-day period before you can take home the gun in EVERY state. No sales at gun shows without that same waiting period. Background checks, including mental health checks, conducted during that waiting period. Registering that gun with the state including a fee of less than $100 per gun. If you lose or have that gun stolen, a police report MUST be filed or you pay a hefty fine, garnishing wages to pay that fine if it's not paid within a certain time period or arrangements made to pay it in installments over 1 year. NO armor piercing bullets, no high capacity clips, and no guns that fire more than one bullet per trigger pull/squeeze, NO MATTER WHAT. If you're found with such a bullet, clip, or gun and you weren't on your way to turn the gun in to the police, jail time is automatic, no exemptions, no good time, no plea bargains. Extreme? Yep. Doable? Not in my lifetime.
It can be done, it's a matter of sustaining the will to do so. We may need to wait for the 2014 election cycle to run out enough GOteaP gun-worshippers, but it most certainly can be done.
And what about the large number of liberal gun supporters like myself? Quit assuming this is a dem/republican issue, it makes you look stupid.
Cin- she is not the one who is looking stupid.
So much for a friendly debate eh Chelsea?
Well, *I* certainly didn't come here to make friends.
I came here to do things. Same reason I'm also writing letters to congressmen and administrators.
Give me reasble legislative propsal toward sanity, I'll write letters to support it.
Give me pro-gun-control candidates, I'll work for their campaigns.
Give me an amendment to modify or replace the Second, I'll vote for it.
Those in the Gun Cult routinely prove that they have no interest whatsoever in honest reasonable debate.
eddie-Wasn't talking to you.
ERules-the far left and right act about the same in having an honest reasonable debate. You are proof most cannot debate. You throw a one-liner in and move on without giving any feedback. It's all about you.
Lol! Look whose talking! You've been babbling and whining non-stop ever since you got on this thread!
ERles-At least I contribute to the conversation. You have not one comment or reply on the actual issue.
Well, you would call what you've been doing "contributing". Baseless charges of "anti-white racism" are so constructive.
I see a lot of talk about one thing or another, but there have been a lot comparisons, including a couple above about the comparison of motor vehicles to guns. I know that I spent a lot of time when I was 16 taking driver's-ed, logging hours with a licensed driver before I could get insurance, which I needed to take and without guarantee, pass.
Has anyone mentioned the idea, as part of the larger conversation, of licensing gun owners? Requiring not only a background check, but participation in a NRA type safety class as well as a mental health check? Fees from the sale of the license might even be made to fund public mental health outreach if not more.
Bingo.
In OH you have to take a class to get your conceal carry permit, and you know what...when my friend wanted to divorce her husband he comes over with his gun and threatens to kill her. Well since he has a license and CC permit he is free to have his gun, even after the threat. Going through classes and getting background checks has NOTHING to do with the power a person feels when they hold a gun in their hands. And then we the public have to bear the consequences of how they choose to wield that power.
You far lefties want to tax the sh*t out of everything you are against. Amazing the hypocrisy.
@CinUSA: There's no hypocrisy in asking you and me to take responsibility for our actions, and as you might have noticed, the price of freedom isn't free.
@Amber: I understand your point, and that does seem like a huge hole in the Ohio CC law, and one that should be closed.
@lunch "the price of freedom isn't free" you seem to think so.
Get it through your thick skull, Cin:
It's over.
This is happening.
Now.
And there's nothing you can do to stop it.
You may as well try to hold back the tide, or the next sunrise.
LOL! Comical. Or I should say delusional.
Atta-boy (girl?)! Way to have a reasonable discussion! Not!
ERules-Look who's talking. lol Go back and look at my comments and then yours, most will see what you are really about. Nothing.
15.3 "You far lefties want to tax the sh*t out of everything you are against. Amazing the hypocrisy."
I rest my case.
The HOW if it is actually fairly simple. Two of the most politically regressive regimes in the US yield sufficient example of how to constrain any constitutional right, using simple ALEC-devised tools. Mississippi shows that we can successfully strangle venders of any protected activity...
by forcing them to surmount extreme, onerous, expensive and unrealistic hurdles to stay in business. And Michigan teaches us that a motivated state government can move to quash citizen rights, tackling legislation to completion literally within minutes, against the will of the majority and allowing for no citizen recourse.
Taken together, a sufficiently-motivated state legislature can pass and sign into law by close of business today legislation which would force gun shops out of business within an arbitrarily brief deadline. There is absolutely no need, nor desire for, federal intervention into what was once a constitutionally-protected endeavor.
Next, the state government can pass, again within minutes of introduction, a charge to consumers to force gun owners to carry separate insurance on each firearm to indemnify others who might be harmed by those weapons, along the lines of auto insurance protections. All persons carrying or possessing firearms within the state would be obligated to present (on the lines of Arizona law) proof on demand of ownership and insurance for each firearm.
All of this can be accomplished quickly and leave plenty of time for last-minute shopping and that office party. Moving with Michigan's alacrity and Mississippi's deadly focus, there is no excuse for unrestrained gun ownership to continue past January 1.
You could use these two states as shining economic success stories as well. lol
We're never going to be a country without guns; so we're never going to be a country without gun violence. The Founding Fathers put it into the 2nd Amendment, in part to protect the country from both itself and from other countries.
But to those who keep screaming "Second Amendment! Second Amendment!" I say this: When the Second Amendment was conceived and put to paper, there was no such thing as an assault rifle or even a semi-automatic firearm. Assault rifles came into existence in the 1940s - more than 150 years after the Second Amendment. If you wanted to kill 27 people in 1780, you probably needed about an hour, and had to reload about 9 times (assuming you had 3 guns). It just wasn't realistic to even try, so that scenario was never even in the minds of the Fathers.
Do you really think the Founding Fathers would have thought it was a good idea for anyone to be able to get an assault rifle and use it for anything other than military purposes? Do you think you can realistically predict what life will be like 150 years from now and make a law right now that will fit perfectly with that era?
I don't have any problem with people owning shotguns and normal hunting-type rifles. Handguns with limited ability (5-6 shots versus clips with 10 or more rounds) are probably okay too, in responsible hands. And yes, I realize that a single shot from any of those guns is just as deadly as a single shot from an assault weapon. The difference is how much destruction of life you can cause in a short time. We're never going to completely keep all crazy people from obtaining guns; they'll find a gun one way or another. So the answer is in fact to get rid of the assault weapons and make those impossible for a crazy person to obtain. Illegal to possess by anyone other than active, on-duty, trained, and mentally-evaluated military personnel. Period.
Amen! There was no way they could possibly forsee devices capable of pumping out bullets with the speed and efficiency of factory equipment.
Another dreamer.
Another self-important troll.
I grew up in Upper Michigan, and my Dad and I had two rifles and two shotguns, neither of which held more than five rounds. I have never gotten a second shot in the field, invariably every game animal in the area will run like hell after hearing the first report.
Dad was a freemason and a shriner, as square, straight and conservative a person as you will find in these United States. He had no use for handguns, and was apalled by military hardware given a minor makeover coming into the civilian marketplace.
What I'd like to see:
No large capacity clips or "assault weapons".
Licensing of gun owners, with training, testing, and criminal background and sanity checks.
Mandatory liability insurance.
The responsible and sane sportsmen will do just fine.
None of the items on your wishlist will come true, but I do suggest a sanity check for yourself.
cinUSA- just because you dont want it to come true doesn't mean it won't. it will, it is happening right now. the good guys will win this one.
So now the anti-gun folks are the good guys and people like myself who sport shoot and are a majority in this nation are the bad guys? When did this happen? I just think eddie is being unrealistic. I'm going by history, politics and law, not emotions.
More whining, narcissistic self-pity.
I'm glad the majority support stricter laws, but the country is close to being split down the middle. No wonder so many politicians in Washington sit on their hands and wait for the "hysteria" to die down. Our lawmakers will do nothing unless more of us demand it.
The majority don't support stricter gun laws. This poll is bias. Connecticut has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation. That's the irony here as well. This is a great example of how gun restriction creates the environment for violence like this.
Sure. Keep telling yourselves that.
Cin- more guns=more guns deaths. simple mathematics. it is awful that it has taken such a tragic event to make stricter gun laws become a reality, but it WILL happen.
You just committed the exact same act I did that when you scolded me, you are assuming what you believe should happen will happen. lol It's ok. It's easy to do.
"I know you are, but what am I?"
Just tax the livin' bejesus out of the ammunition! It's not protected by the 2nd amendment, and people won't treat bullets as cheap! It needs to be at least $100 a shot. Gun owners should also be required to carry lots of insurance, just like a driver. Existing ammunition could be taxed at a cheaper rate, to get it into the system.
That does seem to be the answer for you far left folks, tax everything more. You know who that hurts, the shooters who don't go nuts and kill people. Dangerous folks are paranoid and have long ago stocked up on needed ammo. Many make their own. Think before you speak.
To a certain mentality, anyone to the left of Attila the Hun is a "far-lefter".
ERules-Ironic thing is, I'm probably more left then you.
Which way is up, troll?
Bogus poll. The majority of Americans, that includes liberals like myself, do not want more gun control. I think a big reason for those against semi-auto handguns and high-capacity magazines is the wording. Sounds scary(george carlin voice). And a good percentage of Americans on the ropes really don't understand the meaning of these words. Many think machine gun when they hear semi-auto, and many don't know what to think about high-capacity. 500, 100, 50, 22? It's sad to see the far left use a tragedy like this to push for unneeded gun control, a battle they will lose in both public opinion and in congress. In this last case gun laws worked! The shooter was not able to buy the gun he wanted. He had to murder his mother by obtaining one of her guns by deviation or trickery. Sounds like failed parenting and a failed health care system. Not to mention a school in this day and age of terrorism not having one staff armed, not one!
I think the anti-gun push is disgusting and this will only hurt the left in the future of politics. Just this weekend into today, ammo and guns sales have jumped in amazing numbers, all because a few politicians who want to tell us what they think is right. Great job left, great job!
Blah, blah, blah. Same old tired song and dance.
I am very curious, Cin, what is your idea for a solution to this growing problem of violence? you seem to be shooting down every suggestion, so lets hear your ideas?
Sure Chelsea, I'm all for friendly debate. Unlike our friend eddie.
Here is what gun control I am for. 1.Limiting the number of firearms one person can buy in a month, year and lifetime. There is no reason for anyone to own dozens of weapons 2.Ban bumpfire stocks(legal full auto) 3.30-60 day background checks, this will give more time to look for red flags. 4.Ban all private sales at gun shows but allow private sales within a state person to person forcing any liability onto the seller. 5.Raise semi-auto age restrictions to 25. 6.Force all public schools to have at least one trained armed staff for every 50 kids. Force private schools, like I believe this last school in the latest tragedy was, to have armed staff at some level.
End our current privatized health care system and put in place a single-payer system so everyone can get the care needed.
Make having a firearm openly available to any child a felony. This may get some to lock up their guns to prevent accidental shootings.
I can say bans do not work. Under the Clinton ban gun murders rose, so that had no effect. It's unrealistic to confiscate all or most guns in the nation. We have to remember the most gun deaths are suicides and gangs, about 70%. Seems to me we have more of a suicide and gang problem.
You're not for friendly debate, you're up for endless debate, sidetracking, exploitation of doubt -- anything to avoid action.
You are pathetic eddie. "You're not for friendly debate, you're up for endless debate, sidetracking, exploitation of doubt -- anything to avoid action." It's as if you are talking about yourself.
If you have nothing new to say don't say anything at all.
Any Gun cultist who claims to be a "liberal" is a pathetically obvious phoney.
ERules-You are so obviously a phoney. I'm liberal and I support gun rights. If that makes me a phoney in your little world then so be it.
Gun Cultist is spot-on. They really do worship guns.
http://cheezburger.com/6886936320
Um... where was I being passive-aggressive, when did I rail against spending money on health care, and who are the "you folks" I'm lumped in with? I'm absolutely for Obamacare (I'd prefer a universal single-payer system, but it wasn't in the political cards), and I also favor gun control, but I do think mental-health care is at least as important.
And I'm sorry if I implied that every person with mental illness was "built and intended to kill"; that wasn't my intention at all. Nor did I mean to say that mental illness = complete inability to function. The US health-care system, such as it is, gives mental health short shrift, and most health insurance includes little if any mental-health coverage: heaven help you if you need long-term outpatient treatment, never mind hospitalization for more than a day or two. We've seen horrible deadly consequences, and that's usually all we do see, because of the abovementioned stigmatizing/ignoring. The invisible thousands (millions?) of harmless gentle people fighting for such resources as exist break my heart as much as the bereaved parents in Newtown and elsewhere.
And, for the record, I'm a she.
ETA: A she who apparently can't figure out how to reply to a reply. I intended this to be nested under my earlier comment.
i totally agree with you and I was a bit confused by that "passive aggressive" remark as well.
I think the real explanation for this poll is that a lot of people don't know what semi-automatic means.
I call Bull@!$%#!NO ONE I know or have talked to supports banning semi-auto handguns or rifles.High capacity clips,yes.Gun show loopholes,yes.But the people I talk to are not ignorant on the subject,and don't follow the crap spouted on TV.The average person is a sheep,being led by talking heads who are ignorant of their subject matter.This Sunday,David Gregory said,"mabe now we will have more support for banning automatic rifles.They have been for almost 75 years,you idiot!
When I was 8, shot a bird with my BB gun. I watched it die. The next time, I was20 and shooting on a USAF qualifying range. In the ensuing 45 five years, I have never owned one and today, at 65 consider it to be unnecessary. That OUR siciety is dangerous goes without. The availability to walk in, put your money on the table and go home is responsible for the excessively high level of deaths. Growing up I played cowboys and indians. However, when I grew up I never wanted to be a cowboy. Getting back to the issue of gun control itself sim[le bans are no more effective than prohibition was. Laws need to be place to regulate ALL suppliers, retailers, gun show sale, magazine, and internet sellers. They should be required to vette every single buyer each and every time before selling them a gun and ammunition. Assault weapons should be banned. I have never known a deer hunter who used and M-1 or and AR-15. They're not even legitimate target or skeet shooting weapons. Besides the banning of automatic weapons, they should be stopped at the source, the sellers. In all of these cases, users and sellers should face stiff fines and/or jail time. These kinds of restrictions will do much to slow the availability of weapons thereby driving the price up. Adding a federal and perhaps state excise taxes to be collected at point of sale would drive the price up even higher.. If dealers fail to collect the taxes and pay them to the government, just as is done with sales taxes, they could be charged with tax evasion a prosecuted accordingly.