The myth that gun control is unpopular

It comes up a lot: the idea that Dems should abandon gun control because it costs them votes -- guns are part of Americana, and gun control is only popular with bicoastal urban elites.

As with other pro-gun mythology, this doesn't stand up to numbers. The reality is that moderate gun control measures (such as a nationwide ban on high-capacity magazines) are in the same category as things like higher taxes for the rich or stricter regulations for wall street banks. They are broadly popular with the general public, but have been successfully opposed by well organized and well funded right-wing special interest groups.

Let's take a look at some data.
http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm

The "generic" pro/anti gun polls come out about 50/50, with Democrats significantly more anti and Republicans significantly more pro. On specific policies, we see support for moderate gun control, and opposition to very strict gun control:

Ban handguns nationwide: 32 favor, 65 oppose
Ban assault weapons: 63 favor, 34 oppose
Ban high-capacity clips: 63 favor, 34 oppose

So, yes, a handgun ban is tremendously unpopular, but a nationwide handgun ban is not even remotely under consideration. The more moderate and realistic measures -- assault weapons or high-capacity clips -- are in fact tremendously popular. Moreover, while this particular site does not have polls on the truly nutty policies like guns on college campuses, a little research shows those to be unpopular as well. For example, even the James Inhofe-electing voters of Oklahoma oppose guns on campus by 73.5 to 19.6.
http://soonerpoll.com/majority-of-likely-oklahoma-voters-oppose-allowing-guns-on-college-campuses/


Just for a comparison, a recent Quinnipiac poll shows that privatizing medicare is opposed by a margin 60 to 34
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1595 (you have to scroll down a bit)
In other words, moderate gun control policies are comparable in popularity to medicare, one of the most consistently winning liberal issues of all.

Irresponsible gun owners - along with astroturf RW front groups like the NRA and corporate weapons manufacturers - don't.

Be specific, please.

Registration allows guns which are used in crimes to be tracked to help law enforcement to learn where they came from, and to target that source. The only reason to oppose such a measure is to allow the trade in illegal guns to continue, and to allow people to be killed by them.

The universal licensing of gun owners, with comprehensive background checks, would ensure that people like Jared Loughner would have a more difficult time obtaining guns legally. A minor inconvenience for lawful gun owners would be totally devastating to people with unlawful or violent intentions.

The RW wants to destroy this country, and uses lies & demagoguery to instill fear in the public to do it. Pushing for unrestricted gun ownership and lobbying against rational gun laws only helps them toward that goal.

however I have absolutely no interest in registering ANY of my firearms and even if I wanted to it's against the law to register firearms in Florida.

1. Registration - Guns can be tracked very easily right now. Your "registration" would serve only to spend more tax dollars to no purpose (never a good idea), as has been demonstrated multiple times here in the U.S. and in Canada. It would only provide a list for the government to seize firearms, also demonstrated multiple times. No thanks. (Note also that case law has stated that registration is a violation of a criminals Fifth Amendment rights, and can not be used against them.)

2. Licencing - May I see your First, Fourth and Thirteenth Amendment licences, please? And again, lack of a licence in no way inhibits criminals from obtaining firearms, as evidenced daily. A "minor inconvenience" is unsupportable in the face of that fact.

Any violation or hinderance of Civil Rights, from either end of the political spectrum, is what will destroy this country.

The reason is that law enforcement told parliament that is was pissing money and officer's time on bullshit theater. Gun control is just that, theater. Do you have any evidence that registration would actually do what you claim?

Lies and demagoguery to instill fear? That is projection because that is Brady and company do. Every training course is a school for assassins, the AWB passing allows people to run the streets with machine guns, shall issue lead to gun fights over parking spaces.

"Responsible gun owners support rational gun restrictions. Irresponsible gun owners - along with astroturf RW front groups like the NRA and corporate weapons manufacturers - don't."


"Responsible" -> whatever I believe
"Irresponsible" -> anything contrary to what I believe
"astroturf" -> any group or organization opposed to what I believe


Hopefully this helps with interpreting comments form the antis.

yes, that's what I needed. Thanks! :toast:

four million members and several million more sending their lobbying arm is not astro turf. The NRA is not astro turf
funded by a few foundations and a couple of rich people, few members is astro turf. All of the gun control groups are astro turf.

Yet you claim the NRA is astroturf? No wonder you lot keep losing the political fight...

I wonder what the results would be if the used the phrase "ban the most popular, safe, and effective firearms for sport, hunting, and personal defense.

Gun control is ubiquitous and reasonable measures wouldn't exist without the support of the gun owners and the NRA. The Democratic party should adopt the reasonable and moderate position held by the vast majority of gun owners, non-owners, and the NRA.

None can be imported or manufactured for sale to the public today, REGARDLESS of the Assault Weapons Ban. Only ones imported and registered before 1986 are legal.

They command prices upwards of $15,000.


(The AWB had nothing to do with UZI's.)

Or something. I suppose you thought you had a point there, but damned if I can tell what it was...

Those guys would be using the ARs for prairie dogs, coyotes, or other small game. They would be using an AK pattern saiga 12 for shooting waterfowl.

Oxymoron much? Guns are designed to kill things. How can they be safe short of making then incapable of being fired?

Also we need to stop lumping all guns into one group. There needs to be at least two well defined groups. Hunting rifles/shotguns and the rest of them.
It is the rest of them that are the problem. I think Canada has the correct idea.

I have no interest in hunting, therefore I don't own any hunting weapons of any kind. The primary purpose of the RKBA in the American system is defense of one's self, family, and home. I'm not interested in any policy from any group, or any other nation that infringes on this concept of self-defense.

And this whole "Hunting rifles/shotguns" meme is just a long term effort to ban all guns. If "the rest of them" are banned, and the only thing left is hunting guns, then when hunting is banned, that removes any justification for any any gun.

So no, 'the rest of them' are not the problem.

'Assault Weapons' are a canard.

Look at this map and ask yourself what type of firearm is carried by a person with a concealed carry permit.

So sad to see.

Nope, didn't think so....

P.S. It's obvious you know little about firearms history. All "hunting" weapons have ancestry in military firearms. And many military small arms are adaptable for hunting.

Letting 12 year olds buy ammunition after passing a hunting safety course? Do you know what Canadian laws are? Sorry, needing a note from an old girl friend to buy a target pistol is absurd. Also, had this post happened in Canada: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=419534&mesg_id=419534

The Crown would charge her with unsafe storage at the least and if the Crown prosecutor had enough zeal, assault with a deadly weapon, using more excessive force since she had a gun and he had knife while giving press conference decrying vigilantism. It has happened.

Oh yeah, the 1977 law you describe did zero to reduce crime. It was a half assed response to Quebec separatists blowing stuff up.

There are a lot of things that Canada does I agree with, their gun laws are not one of them.

and ease of attachment of lights and optics. All of which reduce the potential for accidental misuse.

Intentional misuse of rifles is exceedingly rare, as I've pointed out elsewhere. Don't take my word for it; check out the http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_20.html">FBI rifle crime stats. If you download the Excel version and sum the columns, you'll find that rifles are the least misused of all classes of weapon in this country, including clubs, knives, and shoes/fists.

FWIW, I shoot competitively with a centerfire .22 carbine of the type you're proposing to ban. I'd like to keep it, thanks.

was not written to protect my right to keep and bear "sporting goods".

Automatic weapons have been highly restricted since the 1930's. Restrictions widely supported by hunters and sport shooters.

Common sense gun owners have ALREADY done the separating into well defined groups for you, and they did it decades before you were born. They did it based on reasonable analysis of the functions of the guns, as opposed to arbitrary, capricious, non-objective, and non-fact based methods.

Learn it, live it.

why does the NRA continue to win elections?

Weird thing about pro-gun Dems. Surely you must be aware of the influence right wing lobby groups like FreedomWorks have other issues like health care, taxes, global warming, etc. But you fail to recognize the exact same pattern when it comes to the guns: a well-funded minority on the far right exerts a disproportionate influence on policy.

In a sense, at least pro-gun teabaggers (which is to say all teabaggers) are consistent, in that they support the entire canon of right-wing propaganda, rather than just the gun stuff.

Paul Helmke?
Sarah Brady
James Brady?
Josh Sugarman?

But you fail to recognize the exact same pattern when it comes to the guns: a well-funded minority on the far right exerts a disproportionate influence on policy.

Sounds like a perfect description of VPC

I realize that the hardcore pro-gun people will believe anything.

But this last post contains valuable information for people following the gun issue who haven't fully made up their mind. Take a look at the NRA and who they invite to give speeches (Palin, Gingrich, Huckabee, Beck...). Listen to what the NRA says about Obama, the attack ads the NRA runs. Look at what the teabaggers, Scott Walker, pretty much every prominent right-wing nutjob says about guns. And then decide where the far-right stands on the issue.


And then, take note of the fact that the pro-gun side would actually have you believe that the far right-wing is trying to promote gun control. This truly is a "kool-aid" moment.

If you want to live in fantasy land, that's your own choice.

It is called paying both sides against the middle and breaking the FDR coalition. That is my theory why you have Republicans leading on both sides. The temperance movement also had left and right factions. Gun control can serve both left and right autocrats.
As for as Walker, he is simply a marionette for the Koch brothers. This is a guy that was cheating in school and still was flunking before he got caught. He is fed his orders that will get popular support until he consolidates his power. Being for gun control would have never got him elected. If it is in the interest for his oligarch masters to take everyones guns, they will tell him to be anti gun.
Another example Rudy Giuliani. He stated many times that federal gun laws should be based on New York's. It played well in NYC. When he decided to make the national scene, he changed his tune to "what would make sense in New York would not make sense in Wyoming and vis versa".

Again, I highly advise anyone who is not hardcore in the pro-gun camp to read this stuff. First we have the claim that the far-right is pushing gun control. Now we have the suggestion that Scott Walker's rabid pro-gun beliefs ("A" rating from NRA) might just be a ploy to get elected, but maybe at some point he'll do a 180 and suddenly turn into a gun control advocate.

"If it is in the interest for his oligarch masters to take everyones guns, they will tell him to be anti gun."

Yeah, and maybe the whole union busting thing was some weird reverse-machiavellian gambit. Pretty soon he'll be calling for raising the minimum wage, a 35-hour workweek, single payer healthcare, and higher taxes on capital gains and inheritance.

Or maybe he, like just about every other prominent far-right teabagger you can think of, is actually fiercely opposed to gun control.


The question is, when none of this stuff actually happens, and instead Walker pushes for looser gun laws, will you fess up and admit you were wrong? Or will you just make some excuse to keep propping up your faulty beliefs.

You just don't fucking get it. You are stuck in some simplistic and shallow paradigm that exists only on CNN. Follow events in Wisconsin and Michigan closer. Both are pushing for more centralized powers in their office. Michigan has its financial marshal law. If it serves their corporate masters to maintain control, yeah. It would be a very stupid mistake and the Kochs are smart enough to know that and the blow back would make the march on Madison look like business as usual, it is unlikely to happen.
The minimum wage has nothing to do with guns. Here is a history lesson, most of the gun control laws written during the progressive era were written by union busters to protect Pinkerton thugs against gun toting workers.

I guess you are thinking that South Carolina banned handguns in 1911 to protect African Americans and poor whites from the Klan right? The law was repealed in the 1960s.

I'll repeat, if Scott Walker turns into a gun control advocate, I will eat my words, but if he instead decides to expand gun rights, will you? Does what actually happens in the world matter at all to you?

Because nutty conspiracy theories are a dime a dozen. It's great to drop the names of some historical incidents from a century ago, but what is more important is to take your little theory for a spin and see how it fares in the "simplistic and shallow paradigm" called reality.

In the mean time, I am pretty confident the sane koolaid-free people reading this will agree that, from the NRA and CPAC on down to militia groups and ordinary teabaggers, the far right in this country is most definitely on the pro-gun side.

he will do what the Kochs tell him. I also said that is very unlikely to happen because the shit will hit the fan if it does. If you think Thom Hartmann and Rachel Maddow are wearing tin foil hats, so be it because they said that Walker is a sock puppet for the Kochs too.
As far as the NRA is concerned, the present leadership are right wing nuts. That has nothing to do with the rest of us.

Again from a respected lawyer sociologist Raymond G. Kessler who researched this issue more than anyone else:

"(1) increase citizen reliance on government and tolerance of increased police powers and abuse; (2) help prevent opposition to the government; (3) facilitate repressive action by government and its allies; (4) lesson the pressure for major or radical reform; and (5) can be selectively enforced against those perceived to be a threat to government."

Therefore, it could serve both extremes just as easily.
I did not fabricate shit. I simply put events, observations by progressives and applied Kessler's observations and asked what if. I said possible, nothing about probable. It is not a theory. Simply looking at things in technicolor rather than varying shades of gray or simply black and white.

They're both great liberal voices. Ever hear their views on guns?

Apparently you are the one who believes they are wearing tin foil hats, because they, along with most of the sane universe, believe that it's right-wing special interest groups pushing the pro-gun agenda to harmful extremes. And that teabaggers are not just behaving like pro-gun extremists as some kind of political ploy to appease the public. They are doing it because, well, Walker, Beck, and the rest of them actually are pro-gun extremists.

Maybe you should explain to Hartmann and Maddow that their anti-gun views are actually totalitarian. Odd, because they don't seem like totalitarians, and they both seem exceptionally acute understanding of politics. I'm particularly fond of Rachel Maddow, who as I'm sure you know has an extensive background in political theory and history, with her doctorate from Oxford.


So while you can probably impress your pro-gun buddies by quoting Kessler, I'm pretty sure that someone the caliber of Rachel Maddow would find your little theory pretty unconvincing -- you really need to work on the whole theory-versus-reality thing. Come to think of it, that last statement applies just as well to your "guns prevent crime" nonsense.

Maddow has no credibility because she routinely spreads lies and falsehoods on the gun issue.

Yes, she's quite ignorant on the subject, or has an agenda, neither of which are complimentary to her.

No, I would not call it totalitarian. You are still missing the point. There are a number of reasons why some one would be anti gun. Carol McCarthy and Sarah Brady because of personal tragedy crusade. Some liberals in urban areas just hate rural people because they seem uncouth. Rudy because he is opportunistic. I always figure Helmke just found an easy job that pays more than being president.

Maddow's is inconsistent and based on misinformation. I would call her gun curious. Her and Susan's first date was at a shooting range and she likes to rent guns at local shooting ranges. She also dusted off the plastic gun urban legend as fact, so she is not infallible. While she is degreed and does a good job. but she has been working as a TV personality. I don't know but based on her work history and age, I doubt she has done scholarly research in any particular area. Kessler has.
I like her too, but her opinions are her opinions. No ideology is infallible. If you are saying that her opinion on a subject, which she does not seem to know much about but is curious,is more valid than mine simply because she went to Oxford, you can guess what I am thinking.

Her opinion on this subject could be based on any number of things. I am sure her an Susan's NRA member sister have some interesting conversations.

Thom is more anti NRA and naively believes Brady talking points even when demonstratively wrong. For example, he repeated the claim that thousands of children are killed by gun accidents. CDC puts it in the two to three digit range depending on the age bracket. On his show he gives the party line. His view is that it should be up to the local area. That is to say, he has said, he has no problem with Vermont having no gun control at all. He has no problem with DC's law. Basically he believes in local control and is consistent on it. He enjoys target shooting with his brother Steve. I would not call him anti-gun. He is more of a moderate. More anti gun than me, more pro gun than you seem to be.

When did I say it was Totalitarian? I said that it could be used by authoritarian governments. Could. I said could.

I still have a question. I never said guns prevent crime. Individuals with a gun can and do prevent a specific crime. I pull the comparisons out only to shoot holes in your law abiding people with guns cause crime nonsense.
Speaking of nonsense, why when asked specific questions the anti side never answers the question. You try to attack you points without fully understanding what I am saying. You never try to defend your points when challenged. Even asked specific questions, your side never seem to have an answer other than ad hominem attacks or just plain bullshit. If you hate guns, fine just say so. If Roy Wortmann is right and you are one of those urbanites that hate all things rural just say so. Be honest and tell us exactly why.


http://faculty.sulross.edu/rkessler/

I must say, when you suggest that I might be "one of those urbanites who hate all things rural" and say "some liberals in urban areas just hate rural people" you are engaging in exactly the kind of small-minded stereotyping that you are accusing me of.

The fact is that gun violence affects cities much more than rural areas. In cities, gun violence is not some theoretical thing that you read about in NRA press releases and sociology texts. It's fun to paint urban liberals as the bad guys and rural conservatives as the victims of gun grabbing. But the reality of gun politics is that the pro-gun right is forcing guns into cities like DC and Chicago, against the will of the local urban population. Or onto college campuses against the will of the vast majority of students, faculty, administration, and campus security.

As far as why people favor gun control, you left out the most important reason. I favor gun control because, frankly, I am anti people getting killed. Combined with the ability to see through transparent right-wing gun propaganda.

As for your conspiracy theories, and your buddy Kessler, hey, if you can find people to believe you, then go on with your bad self. I tend to think that Brady got into the gun issue because he got shot in the head, not because of some Machiavellian plot by the right to play both sides against the middle. But as I've said, ridiculous arguments like this just go to show how out of touch with reality the pro-gun side is. I recall in another thread you were trying to draw conclusions from the one murder that occurred in Liechtenstein in 2008. Now you've got this sociological theory and you're trying to deny that the pro-gun movement is driven by the far right. There's always a new bogus argument around the corner.

Sometimes the truth is plainly obvious. You don't need any abstract theory to understand why Scott Walker is pro-gun. Because almost all teabaggers are pro-gun extremists. It's entirely ideological. Yes, it's that simple. Teabaggers all understand that easy access to guns is a core part of the far-right vision of American society. Most Democrats understand as well. The only people who don't seem to get it are pro-gun Dems.

It's a fucking Civil Right, which people are free to use or not, choseable as individuals.

No-one is "forcing" anything, (edit) except the ability to have the choice (endedit), and you lie when you make that claim.

And I explained it to you. I read and listen closely, which is more than I can say for you. At least I answer points. You have yet to answer any of mine other than this academic exercise. Again I did not say that I thought that was the case. I simply noticed those facts and asked what if. You are making a bigger deal out if it than what is worth. You are freaking over my what if exercise, one that I doubt anyone else on the planet pondered, and that is your main rant.

I tend to think that Brady got into the gun issue because he got shot in the head
No shit, I said as much. For all I know maybe he was always anti gun. I don't know the guy and don't assume things about people without evidence. I simply pondered why there are no liberals or Dems on the boards of any of these groups. What do you think?
Liechtenstein that was the only year I could find. So fucking what. So, explain the other countries. You won't because it challenges your thesis.

The pro gun lobby is not forcing anything on anyone. It is the other way around. None of those ordnances were put there by referendum. Heller was a security guard that simply asked why he could carry a gun to protect his employer's money, why could not he have one to protect his family. It is a legitimate question. His city reps told him to go fuck himself. I never said that the far right did not have anything to do with it. The far right is for gun rights and they make the news. The NRA was taken over by the far right in 1977 during the Cincinnati convention. So what? Are you saying that Bernie Sanders should be against auditing the Fed because Ron Paul is for it? As for the teabaggers, I agree with Thom Hartmann, most of them are Dems but just don't know it yet. They been brainwashed by Rush and the gang.

I must say, when you suggest that I might be "one of those urbanites who hate all things rural" and say "some liberals in urban areas just hate rural people" you are engaging in exactly the kind of small-minded stereotyping that you are accusing me of.
Could apply to urban conservatives and moderates as well. Snobs come in both red and blue. Those people do exist. Find a lot of them in Think Progress forums. Some of their threads read like free republic. All references to trucks, external organs, etc is code for exactly that. Speaking of stereotyping, not all rural people are conservatives as you define it.

Do you seriously think gun violence will magically end when there are stiffer regulations on people like Thom Hartmann's brother or myself? That is absurd. Defies history. There was less gun violence before Nixon's war on drugs. Drugs became more profitable. To put it bluntly, the typical pot smoker contributes more to urban gun violence than all of the gun owners combined. Gun control is as popular as privatizing medicare. We learned that in 1994. Pro gun Dems know it. Pro gun Dems are smart enough not to by in to the package deal bullshit just like pro choice Republicans. Howard Dean as far as I know is one of those pro gun Dems, or at least he knew not to try to pass any in Vermont.
Answer me this Batman:
What exactly do you think gun regulations should be?
Do you know what current federal regulations are?
Do you know what gun laws the NRA has and has not supported?
Show me where stricter gun control lead to lower murder rates.

The odds of you answering these are pretty slim.

Paul Helmke
Sarah Brady
James Brady
and Josh Sugarman
are NOT repukes?

and sometimes they are on the right (sane) side of an issue, as the 4 above are. You criticize them for wanting to make America safer and at the same time click heels with the NRA, one of the most despicable RW organizations in this country. You need to decide which side you're on.

those named are repukes while the person I responded seemed to imply that they are not. I'm still waiting for clarification from that poster. Or are you two one and the same person?

Do you disagree? Would you really describe the Brady campaign as a "far-right special interest group". Because that's exactly what the NRA is. As evidenced by not just their president, but also the speakers that they regularly invite to their events (Beck, Palin, Gingrich, etc.), as well of the content of what those people say, and the ads they run, etc.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, but as I said, the more the pro-gun side tries to deny that far right-wing teabaggers are driving the pro-gun movement, the more absurd you all look to the non-koolaid crowd. So by all means, keep pretending that a handful of largely moderate (and primarily single-issue) Republicans in the gun control movement is remotely comparable to Beck, Palin, Gingrich, Bachmann, Walker, and the rest of the pro-gun teabaggers.


In the mean time, a quick sample of notable liberals vs conservatives and their NRA ratings:
Dennis Kucinich (F from NRA)
Maxine Waters (F)
Anthony Weiner (F)
Barney Frank (F)
Nancy Pelosi (F)

Michelle Bachmann (A)
Scott Walker (A)
Paul Ryan (A)
Mike Pence (A)
John Boehner (A)


The fact of the matter is, the pro gun side is in bed with the teabaggers. And trying to deny this just makes you look less credible.

PS: Suggesting I might be a sock puppet is a bit crass, wouldn't you agree?

How about Bernie Sanders?

As far as being in bed with tea baggers, we existed before them. They latched on to us. Besides, isn't Beck on the no buy list?

Well DUH.

Have you for one moment ever looked into their Republican party roots?

is posting under 2 different names. Secondly, Texas Dan never suggested they weren't Republicans, just not far RW nutjobs like Palin, Beck, etc.. Because I agree with him does not mean I am him.

You're right. Special interests lobby with incredible power, and that power is being abused.

I'm still happy to support the NRA and glad of the power they wield on behalf of my interests. I guess you have to take the good with the bad.

When they start asking people that don't have to be spoon fed trendy anti terms I'll give their "polls" some credit.

Next thing you know they'll be talking about silencers instead of suppressors.

They definitely don't lack imagination.

is it a hair clip that likes to pull hair?:shrug:

And they ain't tellin. :banghead: :rofl:

Authoritarians and criminal all over the world love it.

They had to have been young people though.

lived to see Cornwallis surrender at Yorktown.

will remember Brian Terry . Very few , but still , some .

Hasenfuß (n.) ängstlich, bänglich, furchtsam, kleinmütig, kopfscheu, scheu, schreckhaft, zaghaft



I wonder how much of his plane’s cargo of 60 collapsible AK-47s rifles, 50,000 AK-47 rifle cartridges, several dozen RPG-7 grenade launchers and 150 pairs of jungle boots eventually found its way out of Nicaragua and into Mexico?

they made a bar and grille out of "The Fat Lady" fuselage ? Should that be in all CAPS , like a ship ?

The question if I understand correctly, was does the DC gun ban violate the constitution. That was 5-4. Individual right was 9-0 if I read the decisions correctly. It seemed like violated 2d 5-4, violated 9th 4-5.
Not being a lawyer, I may be in error and wishful thinking.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx


And it's dropped since then..
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-04-08/politics/gun.control.poll_1_gun-laws-gun-owner-rights-people


http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/downloads/pdf/luntz_poll_questionnaire_and_responses.pdf

In general, do you feel that the laws covering the sale of guns should be made more strict, less strict, or kept as they are now?
NRA..NON-NRA
48%..53%.....KEPT AS THEY ARE NOW
35%..18%.....LESS STRICT
16%..26%.....MORE STRICT
1%...2%......DON’T HAVE AN OPINION

Law-abiding Americans should have the freedom to choose how to protect themselves, based on their personal situation. No local, state or federal government should dictate this decision.
NRA..NON-NRA
92%..83%.....AGREE (NET)
79%..64%.....STRONGLY AGREE
13%..19%.....SOMEWHAT AGREE
5%..9%.......NEUTRAL/NO OPINION
2%..7%.......SOMEWHAT DISAGREE
2%..2%.......STRONGLY DISAGREE
3%..9%.......DISAGREE (NET)


In short.. keep dreaming.

percentage comes from urban areas. I live in a mostly rural swing district of Washington state...and I can tell you, it's been my experience restrictions on our 2nd Amendment rights are very unpopular. Party identification seems to have little to do with it. The thought of being told how to live their lives by big city liberals pisses folks off....and rightly so.

I think this issue is an urban versus rural thing as much as anything else...

While polls can shed some light on what average people think about a given topic, this is not an indication of the validity of ideas or opinions. With regard to the question of whether gun laws should be more strict, less strict, or remain the same, if the person polled is not familiar with current laws, what are the odds that they will provide an answer that should even be considered for the purposes of determining policy? How can someone come to a reasonable conclusion or opinion if they lack basic knowledge of the subject?

This question also extends to the subject of "assault weapons" and "high capacity clips". As has been demonstrated here on many occasions, mass media and gun control proponents, often conflate "assault weapons" with fully automatic, military weapons. This is misleading at best, and intentionally distorting facts to forward a purpose at worse. I wonder if the poll results would change if those polled were first given detailed and accurate information that explained what an "assault weapon" is and is not. Using the 1994 legislation as an example, do you think that support for it would be as high if the respondents knew that it focused largely on accessories, rather than function?

The same questions apply to "high capacity clips." Following the Arizona shooting of Rep. Giffords, we have seen an increase in the push for a ban on "high capacity clips", but proponents have made it sound as if they are asking for a ban of 32 round magazines, like what were used by Loughner, when in actuality the legislation focuses on magazines holding more than ten rounds. Once again, this is likely to cause confusion on the part of those that are not familiar with the issue. Is this intentional? Would accurate information change the results of the polls?

While polls can be useful for many things, the results can be misleading based on many factors. Everything from the wording of the polls, the persons polled and their level of knowledge on the subject can act to skew poll results in many ways. Random sampling is used to try to mitigate such problems as lack of knowledge, but I think it has questionable effects in many instances because of the amount of misinformation that surrounds the firearms issue. This misinformation exists on both sides of the debate, however, I think that the average person is probably less affected by such sources as the NRA than they are by mass media, simply because of the exposure they are subject to.

Once again, I have to wonder how the results would change if the same people were educated about the specifics of definitions and the proposed legislation, and then asked the same questions. At the very least, I think it would be an interesting experiment.

JW

Agreed that polls do not determine what is right. After all Bush won two elections and, according to Gallup something like 40% of Americans believe in young-earth creationism (i.e. god created man like 10000 years ago).

My point in this thread is that the common belief that the gun issue hurts Democrats because gun control is unpopular is flatly false, and the polls demonstrate this clearly.

As far as your claim that if people were "educated" (presumably by you or other pro-gun people) then the polls would come out differently. That may be true. Of course, if it were me and not you who got to "educate" people before they answer poll questions, the polls would come out differently as well, in the opposite direction.

But that's not a valid way to gauge public opinion. It's called push-polling. That's why polls need to be done by a neutral organization. The polls cited are not by Brady or any other anti-gun groups, they are by mainstream polling organizations.


Re: your claim that things have been "demonstrated here" on many occasions.
That's plainly untrue. What actually happens is that the pro-gun people get into an argument with the anti-gun people, both sides think they are right, and nobody changes each others mind. What you think of as "detailed and accurate information" I would probably call "pro-gun propaganda". I'm sure the feeling is mutual. But let's not pretend that the pro-gun side is automatically right about things, and therefore we should use the preferred wording of the NRA in poll questions.



PS Speaking of push-polling, if it hasn't happened yet, I bet some pro-gun person is going to come on here and post some polls by the NRA of Frank Luntz or whoever. Let's wait and see.

When I suggest educating and conducting the same poll a second time with the same people, I am not advocating indoctrination, by me or any other biased source. I am suggesting that the respondents be given detailed explanation, free from bias from either viewpoint, of what the proposed laws would target. With regard to assault weapons, it should explain what the definition of "assault weapon" is with regard to the legislation proposed. In the case of the 1994 ban, the definition was based on features, not function. While the law did indeed ban specific firearms by model, it attempted to categorize weapons by the inclusion of specific features; pistol grip, bayonet lug, flash suppressor or threaded muzzle, folding stock and grenade launching attachment.

Even Josh Sugarmann, executive director and founder of the VPC, acknowledges that the general public's lack of knowledge lends to support of further controls.

The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons."

-Josh Sugarmann, Assault Weapons and Accessories in America, 1988<2><3>

My statements were not intended to argue which side of the issue is right or wrong, simply to show that the results may not be indicative of anything useful beyond uninformed opinions, and that uninformed opinions are not particularly a good basis on which to establish policy. If you would like me to research and post instances of media bias and misinformation, I would be willing to do so, but lack the time right now. Would you claim that the media, as a whole, treats the issue of firearms law with anything that approaches an unbiased view? If so, are you willing to research and post such information to back that opinion? If the media is biased, in either direction, there is the likelihood that it would have an effect on the outcome of the poll. In essence, it creates a push poll by in much the same way as biased education would. The only difference being that the "push" is given by the most prevalent source of information for the average person, rather than those conducting the poll.

JW

Here are a couple of good ones. In fact the first one is de-constructed in a college course on propaganda.

Cease Fire PSA




Part of the reason this ad is effective is it uses the image of a toddler to fix an image in your mind, then goes on to say 10 children a day are killed by a handgun EACH DAY. TEN A DAY!!! That's 3,650 children a year who the sponsors of the ad want you to believe are preschoolers who blasted themselves by finding a loaded gun "hidden" in the home. The intent is to have you tie the number "ten a day" to the image of "children" as innocent young toddlers.



http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/leadca...


According to the CDC, if you include everyone under voting age as a child the number is 111. If you pick the 4-5 age group as shown in the PSA it is 14.

So how do you turn 14 accidents a year into 10 a day, besides just flat out lie??

First, expand your definition of child. Why not define everyone as "children" up to age 23? After all the IRS will let you count your college student offspring as dependents at 23. Second, why stop at accidents when you can include suicides, homicides, and legal intervention?

This is a big boost to the numbers as the crime rate follows the proportion of young males in the population. Both the victims and the perpetrators of crime tend to fall in the 18-25 age category. This way you get to count in homicides both innocent victims, and any criminals dispatched by the police.

One of the leading causes of death among teenagers is suicide. The Centers for Disease control report that it is the third leading cause of death, behind accidents (all types of accidents, mostly motor vehicle) and homicide, of people aged 15 to 24. Even more disturbing is the fact that suicide is the fourth leading cause of death for children between the ages of 10 and 14.

For further discussion on techniques used to manipulate a message: techniques, part II

It's still a lie, even if it is well thought out exceedingly deceptive and slickly produced lie.

The President's choice for Director of the ATF is one who famously and deliberately staged an outrageously deceptive "demonstration" where machine guns were used to create dramatic footage to mislead a TV news audience. While the reporter is talking about semi-automatic weapons it is Special Agent in Charge of the Chicago office of the ATF, Andrew Traver who hands her a machine gun.

Using machine guns as stunt doubles for semi-automatics

While we get to see the reporter firing wildly "off the hip," it should be painfully obvious with her technique (at one point someone has to keep her from falling over backward) she is not responsible for the technical inaccuracies of the clip. Certainly, SHE did not direct the action. That brings us back to Agent Traver, a former Naval gunnery officer. How better to give 'credibility' to a massive and deliberate lie than to have an expert carefully stage an elaborate and dramatic illusion? It should come as no shock as Agent Traver has also been a shill for the Joyce Foundation, the VPC, and the Brady Campaign.

If you pay attention to the clip, the depth of the deception should be more apparent. At one point, an ATF agent is shown firing controlled bursts in to a vest clad mannequin. Contrast his technique to the reporter's. She is dangerously set up to shoot like she has seen on TV or the movies precisely because the minimal control would give the dramatic footage of bullets randomly striking all over the range and backstop.

The politics of the fight come to this: The TV footage of machine guns firing while talking about semi automatic firearms is not accidental. It is not from confusion, it is not from ineptitude. It is deliberate. The clear intent is to mislead the public to draw incorrect conclusions. It is bait and switch in its most reprehensible form.

This is not unlike the fraudulent piece CNN aired where, a deputy fired what was described as "a AK-47, the Chinese version," which is "currently banned."

Viewers saw bullets fired into a pile of cinder blocks and chunks of the cinder block flying off, leaving a big hole in one block. Then, the deputy fired into a bullet-proof vest. The CNN reporter observed that the bullets "clearly fired right through" the vest.

Second, they set up the next model to be tested: "This is an AK-47 also, but a civilian model. It has some differences and right now this only has a clip of 10 in the magazine -- or 10 rounds in the magazine. So this is a big difference than the 30 rounds in the previous magazine."

Viewers then saw the deputy fire four shots toward the cinder blocks, but nothing happened, not even a speck of the cinder block flew off, never mind any hole being created. The very clear implication: The illegal model punches right through cinder block with devastating and deadly force, but the legal model can't even cause a speck to fall off. Similarly when fired at the vest clad mannequin, nothing happens.

The deputy deliberately missed the targets with the legal weapon. In other words, the demonstration, in which the legal assault weapon caused no damage to the cinder block and failed to penetrate the vest, was very misleading and very possibly an outright fabrication.

CNN accused of faking story

Frame by frame analysis proved the story a sham and CNN was forced to "clarify" the report. CNN "claimed" in it's defense the camera operator didn't realize the sheriff's employee had switched targets and was firing into the ground....

The most charitable analysis would be that the CNN bureau chief (someone who had covered wars fought with real military weapons) was as naive as the girl in Chicago and was duped by Sheriff who arranged the demonstration.

Here is another point. The anti-gun propagandists purposely TALK "semi-automatic" while showing picture of machine guns firing fully automatic trying to force a false association first articulated by Josh Sugarmann of the VPC. "Assault weapons menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons."

To the extent the bait and switch has been effective, one only need to look at the Democratic party's own platform and the President's campaign websites:

http://obama.3cdn.net/84b2062fc4a5114715_ftxamv9ot.pdf

"As a long-time resident and elected official of Chicago, Barack Obama has seen the impact of fully automatic weapons in the hands of criminals. Thus, Senator Obama supports making permanent the expired federal Assault Weapon Ban."

Read that again, "FULLY AUTOMATIC WEAPONS in the hands of criminals" are a problem he proposes to solve by banning guns that are not fully automatic and not in the hands of criminals.

And the final irony in the bullshit bait and switch lies, none of the restrictions on magazines, pistol grips, bayonet lugs silencers applied to any REAL machine gun. Machine guns were completely unaffected by a law that applied ONLY to semi-automatic weapons.

So, yes, a handgun ban is tremendously unpopular, but a nationwide handgun ban is not even remotely under consideration. The more moderate and realistic measures -- assault weapons or high-capacity clips -- are in fact tremendously popular. Moreover, while this particular site does not have polls on the truly nutty policies like guns on college campuses, a little research shows those to be unpopular as well. For example, even the James Inhofe-electing voters of Oklahoma oppose guns on campus by 73.5 to 19.6.

So let's look at this.

A ban on handguns, which are the most commonly used firearm for criminal activity, is "not even remotely under consideration", but banning assault rifles, when all rifles, let alone assault rifles, account for half as many homicides annually as hands and feet, is "tremendously popular".

That is ridiculous.

All rifles, let alone assault rifles, only account for about 300 homicides annually. Yet the AR-15 is the most popular center-fire target rifle in America. Setting off on a mission to restrict these weapons is a waste of time.

The bottom line is that firearms are a huge, huge wedge issue that the Democrats could co-opt overnight. Literally in the space of 24 hours, the Democratic party could turn the NRA into a campaign juggernaut for itself, rather than for the Republicans.

The problem here is that the left is so hung up on collective problem solving that they just can't wrap their brains around the concept of individual self-defense. There is a massive distrust of the individual.

The facts don't matter, you know that.

Why not ?

...unless you are issued one.:-)

When I was in AFSOC, they gave them to everyone.

Oddly, I don't recall anyone ever misusing one in public...

Worked MH-53's and C-130's.

Now I'm stuck in an admin job. I'd trade 2 stripes for a tool box and some flightline in a heart-beat....

worked in VI with a stint in Combat Camera and a RF-4C squadron. Crossed trained to historian 3H0x1 for the last eight years. Loved Combat Camera the most.

http://kitup.military.com/2011/05/who-needs-a-pdw-when-you-got-m249.html



The load out


One would wonder if we was a mechanic before he was an infantryman before he was a pilot ! lol .

Heh, I wish. Aircrew get all the good toys...

But seriously, all the AFSOC helo crews arm up that heavily when flying combat missions. If they go down, they'll probably be on their own for a while before another rescue party can be scrambled.

Very well said! :toast:

Those who oppose firearms realize that there is absolutely no way that they can ban handguns at this time but they may be able to convince people that there is little reason to own a "black rifle" or a semi-auto pistol with a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds.

Of course, in order to accomplish this they have to portray semi-automatic rifles as fully automatic assault weapons and by this distortion convince people who have little or no knowledge about firearms that these weapons can be purchased by the average citizen at their local gun store for a very low price.

The problem that they face is that more and more people are becoming familiar with basic information about firearms and refuse to buy into the falsehoods put forth by the groups who oppose firearms. People hate being lied to and treated as if they they are unintelligent. The basic knowledge about firearms is not rocket science.

It was not an accident that the term "assault weapon" is so similar to and often confused with the term "assault rifle".

Firearms classed arbitrarily as assault weapons (as this definition is wholly arbitrary) are not FUNCTIONALLY similar to assault rifles, which are well defined. The grip style, presence of a muzzle brake, presence of a bayonet mount or other arbitrary aesthetic features do not make any particular semi-auto rifle more deadly. The appearance of a semi-auto being similar to some well known assault rifles has been capitalized upon by the control crowd. They are happy to have the less familiar assume that an "assault weapon" is a full-auto combat style rifle.

Such obfuscation should be lumped in with fraud.

Out of the people asked:
do they know what current federal laws are
since assault weapon is a Frank Luntz created buzz word, did most people think machine guns
did the responders think that 18 year olds will start carrying with out background checks, which is the impression opposition pushes in their argument.
In other words, were they making informed answers. I highly doubt it.

and you can tell (spin) it any way you want.

However, trying to sell it to anyone with any common sense may prove another story.

Semper Fi,

...nor that it is viable and/or effective.


Generally speaking.


"High capacity" and "assault weapons" (and "assault clips", now) are only arbitrarily defined.

"High capacity" has been set at 11 or more rounds... based on nothing more than we have 10 digits. Now, if the ban was based on, say, the average number of rounds fired in a self-defense situation, we'd have something. Let's say the average was 4. So if the limit was set at 3 times the average, we'd get a 12-round magazine limit. That at least is based on something concrete. Or if the ban was that a magazine can't extend more than 1" past the frame of the handgun, that would give us an effective limit of maybe 20 rounds of 9mm for a full-sized handgun, less for the smaller guns.

And "assault weapons" are just semiautomatic firearms that have more than the allowable number of cosmetic features.

:shrug:

but as a female who has been following the gun control debate, I can tell you that gun control, as alot of members of congress interpret it, is HIGHLY unpopular as evidenced in our shellacking in 1994.
If you want to hand control of congress back to the repukes, just keep on pushing for it.

I think you pointed out the crux of the problem. Democrats have the nasty habit of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Nothing like pushing for more misguided gun controls to turn off rural/swing state voters and throw elections away.

Those polls the OP posted supporting banning "assault weapons" and high-capacity magazines may very well be accurate, but I bet if you looked at the demographic break-down, most of the antis would be disproportionately concentrated in big cities, while the rest of America would be far less enthused about it.

It really is an urban vs. rural thing.

and a waste of money. I could be sending money to charities rather than pro gun groups but as long as there is a war against legal gun ownership, I will donate to pro gun groups.

Nor is trying to turn magazine capacities back to the 1860's for carbines and the early 1900's for pistols. Not going to happen.

The gun control lobby isn't talking about a 17- or 20-round limit for handguns and a 30-round limit for rifles; they're pushing a 10 round limit, less than the capacity of an 1861 Henry or 1873 Winchester, a 1935 Browning 9mm, or any number of Smith & Wessons, Springfields, Sigs, Glocks, and Berettas.

As I've mentioned elsewhere, banning all magazines over 10 rounds is like banning all abortions after the 10th week; it is far less "reasonable" than someone unfamiliar with the issue might realize. You're talking about roughly a quarter billion magazines owned by 40+ million ordinary people. These are not fringe items.

FWIW, I'd like to see why you think a partial ban on civilian rifles is even on the agenda at all. Rifles of any type are the least misused class of weapons (not just firearms) in the United States:

http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_20.html

Total murders...........................13,636.....100.00%
Handguns.................................6,452......47.32%
Firearms (type unknown)..................1,928......14.14%
Other weapons (non-firearm, non-edged)...1,864......13.67%
Edged weapons............................1,825......13.38%
Hands, feet, etc...........................801.......5.87%
Shotguns...................................418.......3.07%
Rifles.....................................348.......2.55%

I'd love to hear your rationale for such a ban.

When a poll asks about assault weapons, many people (even news casters and ATF agents) conflate semi-auto rifles with pistols grips and detachable magazines with select fire, full auto firearms. Why not ask if semi-auto rifles with pistol grips and detachable magazines be banned? Because that doesn't so scary.

Same problem with the phrase the phrase high capacity magazine. Why not ask if magazines with 11+ rounds be banned instead of a more ominous phrase such as "many bullets"?


You know the answer.

But the real money is in hog oilers .

You can produce as many opinion polls as you like. At the end of the day, what matters is how many registered voters turn out and vote for a candidate who supports increased gun control. Their number appears to have been inadequate since, ooh, 1994 or so, no matter what the polls report.