The White House is set to release a series of recommendations from Vice President Biden's task force on gun violence, which will no doubt face intense criticism from groups like the NRA and their allies. But two new polls suggest that a month after the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary, there's a growing public appetite for meaningful gun reform.
A Pew Research Center report released late yesterday found a majority of Americans support a wide variety of new measures, some by enormous margins. For example, 85% of Americans favor making private gun sales and sales at gun shows subject to background checks, while 80% support laws to prevent mentally ill people from purchasing guns.
It's worth emphasizing that in our current political climate, 80% of Americans don't agree on much, but they at least agree on measures like these.
What's more, two-thirds of Americans (67%) favor creating a federal database to track gun sales. In a bit of a surprise, nearly as many people (64%) support having more armed security in schools, boosted by large numbers of self-identified Republicans backing the idea.
Indeed, there are, not surprisingly, significant partisan divides on most of the proposals, with Democrats and Republicans more likely to back new measures than Republicans. That said, looking through the results, it's hard not to notice that GOP voters are not reflexively opposed to new gun laws -- among Republicans, 49% support a federal database, 49% support a ban on semi-automatic weapons, and 46% support a ban on high-capacity ammunition clips.
Obviously, those are short of majorities, but the point is, nearly a majority of Republicans support new limits that are likely to be proposed in Washington, suggesting a mainstream consensus is coalescing around a set of sensible new restrictions.
The latest Washington Post-ABC News poll reflects similar attitudes. Of particular interest, the survey found, "More than half of Americans -- 52 percent in the poll -- say the shooting at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn., has made them more supportive of gun control; just 5 percent say they are now less apt to back tighter restrictions. Most also are at least somewhat worried about a mass shooting in their own community, with concern jumping to 65 percent among those with school-age children at home."
A month ago, many, including me, wondered whether this tragedy was different from other recent mass shootings, and would set a new trajectory for a policy conversation that has been stifled for many years. With each new poll, the answer is becoming clearer.
Leave a Comment:
There has never been a more appropriate time for serious and substantive action on our nationwide gun problem. The NRA and its pro-gun violence ilk do not speak for the majority. These cowards, all shills fro gun manufacturers, blame everyone and everything but guns for mass murders. How can any organization stand up and protect the "right" to own and use 100-round ammunition drums, only designed for mass killing and nothing else? America is awash in an epidemic of gun violence because we have the most lax and reckless gun control laws in the civilized world. Cities are dealing with waves of shootings and terrorism at the hands of criminals with easy access to legal guns. - progressive
There is no gun problem. We have a policy problem. For some reason the left wishes to promote the rights of mentally infirm, while diminishing the right to self defense for everyone else.
I have to ask. Why is that?
I have the right to move about in public without the fear of being gunned down .
People have big balls when they are armed. Self defence my a$$
Want to defend yourself Shooter, take a handgun, hunting rifle and a shotgun with you. What you or anyone else doesn't need, is an AR-15, AK-47, or a SMG. Weapons designed for a Battlefield or CCQ, doesn't need to be in the hands of anyone outside of it's design.
Anyone who says that they need an AK-47 a FAMAS, MP7 or UMP45 to defend themselves, is one of two things, lying or full of sh!t or both. The only reason people want weapons like that, is because this retarded ass country of ours, allows them to have them. Not because anyone actually needs them, or even needs the option to have them.
Shooter, and of course Republican's will provide the money to diagnose and treat the mentally ill. Oh wait a minute, they already voted that down! How sloppy! I guess that means they'll have to throw them in jail, which, after all will make the people who build and run prisons richer.
No citizen needs an assault weapon, and until we can address mental illness more effectively, let's take the weapons of mass murder out of circulation.
All of the proposals on the table make sense. If you can force me to get searched and xray'd in order to get on a plane, then we can force background checks for purchasing a gun anywhere and everywhere. Makes sense to me.
Ban and confiscate assault weapons and the ammo. Do it now!
I'm sorry, but yes, the people need AR 15's. We need them to protect ourselves from do-gooders.
Annie Oakley: That is decidedly not funny. This is not a laughing matter. AR15's make killing large numbers of humans much easier than virtually any handgun or hunting rifle.
Wait - what? There are more people that support banning all semi-automatic weapons than there are that support banning assault-style weapons and high capacity clips? Does that seem a little... off to anyone else?
Has Pew published the wording of these poll questions? I'm not questioning the validity of the whole poll, but those results to me suggest that people didn't know what "semi-automatic" actually means.
Re: #2
It does not seem off to me, because I am always skeptical about polls.
As with any poll, there is a "margin of error".
I followed the link to the graph to this page.
On the second page, there is a graph with sample sizes and margin of errors.
total sample = 1,502 margin of error is 2.9%
And this statement:
Thank you, maphi - I figured there was something off about that data, but I wasn't sure of the details. Technique and margin of error are always important and they tend to get ignored a lot.
So...Let's say that the first 8 of the 9 measures above are implemented (I am dismissing the arming of our teachers as flat out insane).
Guess what? Everyone still can have a bunch of guns. Sure, you might not have that AK-47 to defend yourself against the impending threat of Obama tyranny, but at least it saves you from the embarrasment of getting all studded up in your he-man fatigues and running around waving your precious machine guns when you get drone-bombed from a couple miles up.
The sad irony of this is that somewhere some angry nut is going to shoot someone because of this...
How do you distinguish between someone who is mentally ill, and someone who collects high-power guns because they are afraid of losing the right to own a gun?
Dan, the DSM-IV-TR does not list "collecting guns" as a mental disorder. That's how you distinguish between the two.
By the way, suppose you really like a certain kind of car. Let's just say you really like the Ford Mustang. Now suppose legislation was being considered to ban the sale of Ford Mustangs.
Wouldn't you want to buy one before it becomes illegal to do so?
You don't see a difference between a car and a gun? Perhaps you would like to explain what there is about a gun that a person can fall in love with. The stylish physique? The tone of its discharge? The sensuality of the trigger?
Now suppose legislation was being considered to ban the sale of Ford Mustangs.
Or cars without seat belts. Because they, y'know...kill people.
I wonder if the people asked these questions realize whether or not that a total ban on semi-automatic weapons would outlaw every pistol made. Gun owners would be left to own revolvers and nothing more. Legislation banning it could prohibit the sale of most revolvers too, and require us to go back to single action only revolvers. In which case, gun owners would have to learn their "quick draw" technique like they did in all those old spaghetti westerns.
I seem to recall that Rachel made a very strong and eloquent argument about letting voters decide gay marriage rights. She said something along the lines that it is totally unjust to allow people to vote on what rights the minority are allowed to have. Rachel was right about that.
You first paragraph is a bunch of absolutist nonsense, as if it were impossible to write a compromise legislation.
And on your second point, tell you what - When a gay couple radiates enough gayness to kill 20 kids, yeah, I'll consider putting that up for a vote.
Alva: Sorry to be so blunt... but after last night crying like a baby watching fellow parents who lost children at Sandy Hook, it made me think of your disgusting strawman arguments and red herrings. The pettiness of your gun obsession simply does not stand up to real people losing loved ones. Please find another blog to spew nonsense in, or prepare to be made into the ogre you appear to be...
Large, the point is that rights ought to be sacrosanct. They're not something that should be voted on.
Lebowsky, do you not think that I haven't spilt tears in this whole ordeal? The Wheeler family interview was nearly unwatchable. I don't want to even imagine the suffering they're going through right now.
But David Wheeler said that we should continue to have the conversation. And I don't think we get anywhere unless we're brave enough to challenge our our beliefs and question what we believe.
I believe the things I do because I believe it is moral, just, and right. There are probably no issues that we part ways on with the exception of this one. I came to those conclusions after struggling with every single one of my beliefs. And the position I have come to is that being pro-gun is a progressive value. I realize that's not a very popular sentiment on the left, but I do believe it is the right one.
So, please, let's remain civil, and feel free to discuss the issue.
Large, the point is that rights ought to be sacrosanct. They're not something that should be voted on.
This is about where we draw the line. Free speech is not an absolute right (Fire in a crowded theater). We are free to express our religion...Unless it impinges on the freedom of others. There have been many cases over the decades that lay out draw those lines...Some more successfully than others. How these lines get drawn is a messy combination of voting and legislation and protests all at both the state and federal level, and I wish things were cleaner, but the Great American Experiment is a messy lumbering beast.
You seem to believe is some absolute right to own whatever gun you want (I don't know if that is hyperbole - Seems to be more or less the case) What about machine guns? Surface to air missiles? Grenades? These are all "Arms", yet a line has been drawn to exclude those from the general public, with varying degres of restriction. Just because two things have a similar "gun" shape, doesn't make them equal to each other. You have used a lot of paranoid black-and-white "they're coming to take our all our guns away" language on these pages, and I feel it is a dishonest argument to make.
Now we have another class of weapons...Weapons that, like grenades, would seem to serve little purpose in a civil society, yet have been allowed to be widely available. And they cause a lot of damage. A lot.
You seem happy to make that trade....Gun freedom for a few lives....For me, the value of that "freedom" is akin to shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater - A right that serves no purpose, and causes only damage.
Redraw the line.
Alva: Mr. Wheeler wants a conversation. What you do is make strawman arguments, there is a huge difference there. I'm all for a conversation myself as a handgun owner. The AR15 that was used in Newtown has as it's utility to either kill humans or shoot at a target. IMHO anyone who has a sense of society can see the price that civilian ownership of these weapons costs. The time has come to admit it was a big error to make these available to civilians, and the military and law enforcement agree. Again, I'm being blunt, but it is so terribly selfish of people to think that their personal ownership of those weapons trumps the damage that they do to our society, and I am far from the minority in thinking this way.
As in most other questions of national priorities, "The People" are a diverse and mostly ill informed group. Asking them what we should do is a lazy exercise in shifting the responsibility.
Empirical evidence reveals that "cops in schools" doesn't work- Columbine and VA Tech, for instance. Have the proponents thought about the cost? Billions per year. And about as useful as removing shoes at airports.
Speaking of air travel, instances of terrorism on planes is almost as rare as mass school killings. (passenger miles per annum vs students per day per annum)
Most of these mass murders have "mental health issues." Keeping "mass murder weapons" away from them is both a good idea and next to impossible to do.
But these people are an anomaly. Most gun deaths are by handgun, not assault rifle. And hand guns are too readily available to those who should not have them. Straw buyers, stolen, gun show loop hole, etc make acquisition easy for anyone intent on mischief.
So: Close loopholes, better record keeping by FFL dealers, and give the ATF both a budget and a Director.
MAYBE a ban on high capacity magazines, with a buy-back, or license fee/ fine for possession can pass congress. Anything else, not so much. We are a Rambo Nation.
The success of the Australian buy back was in its unilateral application , and melting of the entire accumulation , if I am not mistaken . In order to parallel that success here will require the acceptance of the indicated weapons disappearing from circulation as well as from homes . Now there is the making of a squawk of historawk proportion .
DAY, The loopholes, Google Badger Gun's, And read all about the Loopholes. To add Google TIAHRT Amendment's, Also Rehberg-Boren Amendment's. I'm having an issue with my Computer otherwise I would put the link's up.
Larry Ward gun advocate and 'pusher of gun appreciation day' said, and I summarize, that if the blacks had had the right to bear arms, slavery would not have happened. And next I imagine he will say that if Jesus was packing he would not have been killed. What a maroon!
Larry Ward might be onto something.
Saw this quote the other day.
“Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.” - Mohandas Gandhi, an Autobiography, page 446.
Every progressive gun control supporter should read this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Pacifism-Pathology-Reflections-Struggle-America/dp/1904859186
Re: #8.1
Right.
And that is why nobody is suggesting that we deprive a whole nation of arms.
How many revolts in the Caribbean sugar fields were there before the African slave was appreciated as an equal to the parliament sitting plantation owner , shareholder .
Dominica had the simplest expulsion of elites from power in Haiti . How are they doing ?
The thing that gun violence realizes best , is the establishment of a hierarchical "gun" response .
Alva: Larry Ward is a pathological liar. Anyone aligning themselves with this charlatan is guilty of associating with someone willing to say anything regardless of the actual truth.
Lebowsky, I've never heard of the guy before.
Alva: Look him up. The man is a lying creep.
I hope we pay as much attention to the mental health issues as we do to gun control.
We need BOTH.
The mental health issues developed by acquiring a weapon that , on the bottom line , is a straight forward contradiction when purchased to defend a family , must be fairly ugly .
MAPHI, Here is just one small part of Mental Health issue, That WHO or HOW will it be addressed? That is the Patient Privacy issues. Any Lawyer's or Doctor's on this Blog? How does this get addressed? Any idea's?
Proposed 28th Amendment: The Second Amendment shall not be interpreted to apply to weapons with one or more of its constituent parts designed or patented after 1900.
Lets put the responsibility where it belongs: back to the people who actually have to live with new restrictions. I don't care if Boise, Idaho wants 300 round, fully automatic, copkiller AK-47s. But by the same token, Boise, Idaho shouldn't care if Worcester MA bans any weapon that potentially can hold more than 5 shots.
I am in favor of a lot of them, but for sake of intellectual homesty I have to ask how would any of the proposed measures have saved a single life at Sandy Hook?
If you have to start somewhere the question becomes why not here .
Oh, I understand. The old "don't just stand there, do something, anything" approach to public policy. Isn't that a receipe for stupid public policy?
Ron: No, not when human lives are concerned. This notion that there needs to be some sort of perfection in regards to guns is a bunch of baloney IMHO. Every single day thousands of guns are bought and sold. If we could eliminate the assault rifles from this, there will be thousands less of these. It's math.
I have no issue with people wanting to own guns. That is their right. However, could someone please explain to me why someone NEEDS an automatic weapon? Or NEEDS a clip that holds 100 bullets? I also think that it is a complete shame that I could just walk in and buy as much ammunition as I want easier than I can buy my children's cold medicine. When I buy them certain medicine, I am asked for my ID and my information is entered into a database to keep track of my purchase of that medication. Why can't that be the same for ammunition? I am really completely sickened by the youtube video I saw yesterday claiming that the Sandy Hook shooting was staged by people to further their agenda to ban guns. How sick do you have to be to downplay the tragedy that took the lives of children? Have your views and speak your mind on your stand on this issue, but don't sit there and say it was a way for the government to take away your right to guns.
Maybe we should back off the federal laws and instead try for an amendment granting states and localities absolute personal weapons control within their territories. What most people really want is that their own area matches their needs — well policed NYC with 911 a few minutes away is different than the middle of Montana. Could even republicans and the NRA fight a push for expanded state's rights? It would also let the Supreme Court stop using seances with the ghosts of the founders to determine the intent of the second amendment.
The violence bred into political dialogue is well framed , and best revealed by lovingly carressing its contradictions . The genius behind the adoption of the poisoned well style of grass roots corporate hiding in plain sight is founded upon a long string of successes starting around the basic delusional self denial putsch's . Beginning with the impossible to install an airbag auto safety measure in the sixties for a now familiar variety of in your face deceptions , and moving right along with smoking is healthy , Carbon Dioxide is a building block of life . In a reflection that brings clarity to the cacophonies symphony of sympathetic voices here is the confused battle leader in Vietnam who articulated the straight faced absurdity (paraphrasing here) "We had to destroy the village in order to save it". An utterance which comfortingly echoes the apocalyptic nihilism of Abrahamic based religions , an idea that gets its funding from the walled community , charity for the unwashed in a soap that goes Boom . That this also embraces a familiar destruction as victory , careers living like a silhouette of FDR's gut wrenching December Eighths "Infamy" , and never out of work .
The hitch hikers who thumb a career from this plague wagon need to have their relentless submission to death given all the glamour the flower of the disease of violence bequeaths . Which is the vehicle the social virus a comfortable elite relies upon to prevail upon its victims , a question exposing by insisting on the reduction the of circular reasoning which impels the walled safety of its advertising resources to its ride on a the convenient career seducing sinecure of death .
If only the media would not even name these "Crazy Fools" , The thrill would be gone ,Lets Pass A Law Outlawing The Naming Of The Crazy Killers , And Bar Sensationalism From The Act.. No Fame , No Game...Why Make These Beast Famous , Lets Stop Running Hours Of Pictures Etc. Of The Nut Jobs , Report The Act , But Not The Actor..
I take my gun/bullet philosophy from tornadoes. You only need one and it does not have to be huge size and super speed to ruin your life.
I'm pretty sure the most basic hand gun can mess up your body and if self defense is the reason, that one bullet with relatively little impact can give you time to get away from the person attacking you.
Needing a gun that would make the MythBusters jealous is totally unnecessary
One big question regarding gun violence and the governments role: Why is nobody talking about Australia and their policies? They had similar problems and John Howard's government made sweeping changes that had huge impacts on Australia's gun violence and mass shootings. Please bring this to America's attention.
the NRA denies there has been any success in Austrailia...
I like Rachel's assertion that the NRA isn't as powerful as they'd like us to believe. All we need are members of Congress to ignore the screaming idiot in the corner and do the right thing. Grow a pair and show the NRA that we're going to do the right thing.
I saw the advert for a Bushmaster assault weapon with the caption "Your Man Card has been re-issued" on Rachel's show last night.
It occurs to me that perhaps a more appropriate caption would be "Your Small Man-part Compensator has been re-issued". Seems to me that that's really what these kinds of guns are all about...
Regulate bullets. Make them 90 bucks a piece. I'd bet people would think twice before shooting then.
I rather liked that Chris Rock piece, but in reality, that would be unworkable. People would just start making their own ammo. I'd prefer trusted manufacturers to make ammo so guns don't blow up in people's hands.
EXECUTIVE oRDER NEEDED "To provide public safety and Reserve the purchase of high capacity ammunition over 10 rounds per magazine or clip for the use of US military, federal agency, a well regulated militia of any state, public safety employee of any state, county, or municipal government. The purchase of such reserved ammunition will be considered an act of terrorism and dangerous to human life and subject to controls by The Department of Homeland Security which will have jurisdiction of regulations provided this executive order." This is on Whote.gov petition.
There is serious flaw in the NRA wishes gave arms at every gathering, not just children's schools and playgrounds, but all gatherings from the county fair to the town square, from the amusement park to the transit stations, to the Sunday picnics to the little league fields, the community swimming pool and the public beach.
If we went to see the horse pull, and saw arms being carried in, we should wonder what for, and turn and leave before we got to the ticket booth. With the recent run on gun purchases by unthinking hysterical mobs, any place of open carry needs to be avoided, boycotted and seen as place not do business.
This would be fine for someone not wanting to be a convenient target, but would infringe on their right to be in a place of peaceful public assembly, one of the primary freedom of any society to gather without intimidation. Events could be required to advertise gun free premises, excepting security forces are not that far from boredom of immune from insanity.
Those agreeing to Sniper Rifle Protection at public events, will eventually become accustomed to seeing rifle barrels dangling from positions in rafters, roofs, parapets and walled sentry walkways. So the Sunday picnic is held in the Church Yard under the bell tower where we see three guns aimed. From the fairground above the band box and office, we see a double gun each end, from the towers just added. Schools and playground protected by new clock towers, of from a rent all security outpost and lift service. The occasional concert permits shall have section requiring the organizers to provide parapets with sound insulation. Like schools, gyms, courts, football fields would have stations placed above the blinding light sports. Symphony Hall will have to make sound adjustments for needed protection.
The flaw is the fact that people might think that they are better safe than sorry, but by being accustom to these armed stations, the informed public might begin to think it as a normal way to live in a freedom loving society. These same people then will be less aware of the danger from imposter security stations, or unable to tell if one is a legitimate or a ruse. The flaw is the same feeling of safety cannot come the barrel of a gun, when it the absence of guns that are the sign of real genuine freedom. We want a bargain if we are to be free we cannot give that freedom to the gun, corporations are not people, and neither are guns.
In Afghanistan today, we have the finest armament we could ask for, but armed as we are, our soldiers die every day from the guns we have given the enemy. We can leave that country and be safe, but if Afghanistan and the like will celebrate, since those soldiers will die in their own country.
Why don’t you legislate morality, then you will have no more problem, Right??. Try again people. Evil is in the world to stay. An individual has a firearm, The Government has powders well beyond us and if they miss use it, what is the penalty. Not one thing.
Now who had the power? Who had the weapons?. The most dangerous thing we have to fear, is man and his brain. Ask your self how many people have been put into power and were psychopath or madman, come on you know, What? Don’t want to admit it. We have only our self to blame for our society, we have become ignorant of our responsibilities and then blame others. I call that passing the buck. You kill morality and you destroy a culture. Dear friends we are on that road and don’t even realize it.
This poll is as misleading as most. Here we have an alternate poll that goes against msnbc's latest poll
http://www.newsmax.com/surveys/Results/id/64
A clear 180 degree reversal. Facts are this. Gun control is nothing more than rights control. Like smoking bans, they where meant not to help but deny freedom of choice.
Dictators love dening people their rights and promising their followers with other ones that never materialize. Like free health care, Obamacare (aka Insurance Scam) I will surrender my rights only when you all leave America or hell freezes over. So be prepared to get bloody!
I am a gun owner, and I really don't understand how people can be so ignorant. Obviously, the majority of people who read and responded to this article do not like guns. I have a concealed carry permit and rarely carry a weapon unless I am going to an area that I feel is dangerous, or I'm going on a long trip and want some protection in case I have an emergency. I do not have more "balls" with a gun than I have without a gun. I do not flash my guns to people and I try to keep them as secure as possible. I have high capacity mags. They are a convenience and a means of security in case--God forbid--I ever need to use them. I love guns and have loved them since I was a kid....maybe some of you don't. You obviously wouldn't understand someone who does. Just like I wouldn't understand things that some of you all like. I really wish our elected officials would do their job to promote the welfare of the general public. Instead, they spend vast amounts of time and money grandstanding and making sure they stay in power. How much time do our officials waste putting on fronts for the general public? How much time do they waste on their self interest?