America Not As Gun Happy As You Might Think (Gallup)

http://www.gallup.com/poll/160085/americans-back-obama-proposals-address-gun-violence.aspx

So the basic thrust of this poll is that America generally supports what is considered to be the filthy liberal point of view in terms of gun control. Whether or not you think these measures go far enough isn't as important as the fact that realistically, nothing changes overnight. The fact that there is sizable support for gun control is still a heartening thing to me in the wake of all the shouting down of such legislation.

I think there's probably plenty of discussion value to be found here without herding you lovely folks, but I figure I'll at least ask this as a starting point: do these results surprise you? They surprised me a little, and I'm American, so I'm especially curious about folks from other nations who might have even lower expectations than I did.

I'm not surprised in the least. For the most part, the proposal isn't actual gun control, but people control. It mostly aims to increase funding to police and mental health programs in order to try and prevent shootings from happening, and add funding for programs to try and instruct people on how to deal with shooting when they occur.

Also, I believe this poll is the most telling:

image

The majority of people are more interested in school security and mental health issues than actually making gun control laws.

It's also telling that the issues of reinstating the assault weapon ban, banning the sale of AP rounds to civilians, and limited magazine capacity are the lowest polling, the only motions that even deal with gun control. And of those three, only the AP round ban has a majority agreement between Dems, Repubs and Independents.

Seems more that people want the whole issue looked at, not just a part of it.

wintercoat:
I'm not surprised in the least. For the most part, the proposal isn't actual gun control, but people control. It mostly aims to increase funding to police and mental health programs in order to try and prevent shootings from happening, and add funding for programs to try and instruct people on how to deal with shooting when they occur.

Also, I believe this poll is the most telling:

(image snipped)

The majority of people are more interested in school security and mental health issues than actually making gun control laws.

It's also telling that the issues of reinstating the assault weapon ban, banning the sale of AP rounds to civilians, and limited magazine capacity are the lowest polling, the only motions that even deal with gun control. And of those three, only the AP round ban has a majority agreement between Dems, Repubs and Independents.

Seems more that people want the whole issue looked at, not just a part of it.

There's a giant risk of a confounding factor here though since that poll apparently bunches school security and mental health system together. One might wish for one and not the other but you still only get that one choice.

Gethsemani:
There's a giant risk of a confounding factor here though since that poll apparently bunches school security and mental health system together. One might wish for one and not the other but you still only get that one choice.

Or people want gun control, but think one of those other two measures is more effective.

Most of the people who are in favor of guns actually support the kind of laws Obama just finished pushing through. So yeah, no surprise there. Even the worst gunpowder addicts in the world recognize that there must be some limitations for the general public.

The problem is twofold:

1.)Many of the more radical individuals in the pro gun lobby may or may not give a damn about these specific measures, but feel that this move can and/or will lead to significantly stricter control. Which is, to be fair, something to be cautious of.

2.) As with every other political issue to come up within the past 3-4 decades, people will oppose it just because it is endorsed by the evil and demented members of (any group that isn't the same as me)

I think we should mandate a special school uniform that involves kevlar-plated body-armor. That way, our children stay safe, and we can keep our guns.
Really, it's the only feasible option.

Heronblade:
Most of the people who are in favor of guns actually support the kind of laws Obama just finished pushing through. So yeah, no surprise there. Even the worst gunpowder addicts in the world recognize that there must be some limitations for the general public.

The problem is twofold:

1.)Many of the more radical individuals in the pro gun lobby may or may not give a damn about these specific measures, but feel that this move can and/or will lead to significantly stricter control. Which is, to be fair, something to be cautious of.

2.) As with every other political issue to come up within the past 3-4 decades, people will oppose it just because it is endorsed by the evil and demented members of (any group that isn't the same as me)

It's less the what than the how. If the content of Obama's executive orders had passed through Congress, the reaction would have been a lot more anemic. But, Obama couldn't get the votes for a new AWB, so used the executive privilege route which pissed A LOT of people off, many of whom might have supported the reforms in question. Granted he wasn't able to go as far as he would have liked, (the executive order privilege can only be used to reinterpret existing laws and policy) But, the fact that he did use an executive order to pass his agenda rubbed even some of his own allies the wrong way. Hell, the conservatives are mostly mocking on the gun issue, largely because the Dems aren't helping themselves much when they post images of gun strap rings and claim them to be bayonet mounts (and the Republicans are having a ball poking fun of the Dems for even caring about bayonet mounts in the first place). If you actual read some conservative blogs most of the heat is about the executive order rather than the gun issue.

Don't get me wrong the "ther gonna tak our guns!" group is out there, but they are starting to get seriously overshadowed by people complaining more about "executive overreach" since that is a lot easier target to hit right now without the media hysterically screaming "you are siding with dead children" over even the slightest objection.

(shrug) im not surprised. Even the controversial NY gun bill, many gun owners supported....say...75% of the measures. The only issue is there are a few things that go too far in their (and mine) eye. The big thing is that gun owners in general dont want the government to ban any more types of guns (or make it so restrictive that perfectly balanced law abiding citizens cant get them or is extremely difficult to get) than they already have. Nearly anything else is on the table.

Heronblade:
Most of the people who are in favor of guns actually support the kind of laws Obama just finished pushing through. So yeah, no surprise there. Even the worst gunpowder addicts in the world recognize that there must be some limitations for the general public.

The problem is twofold:

1.)Many of the more radical individuals in the pro gun lobby may or may not give a damn about these specific measures, but feel that this move can and/or will lead to significantly stricter control. Which is, to be fair, something to be cautious of.

2.) As with every other political issue to come up within the past 3-4 decades, people will oppose it just because it is endorsed by the evil and demented members of (any group that isn't the same as me)

We already have sufficient limitations for the weapons available to the general public. The Assault Weapon Ban is so pants-on-head retarded that there really are no words to describe it. Which is why I'll use this picture that someone else posted to explain;
image

Who can justify something like that? And even without Feinstein's add-on, that Shotgun might still be banned. It has a telescopic stock as well as a pistol grip.

Ryotknife:
(shrug) im not surprised. Even the controversial NY gun bill, many gun owners supported....say...75% of the measures. The only issue is there are a few things that go too far in their (and mine) eye. The big thing is that gun owners in general dont want the government to ban any more types of guns (or make it so restrictive that perfectly balanced law abiding citizens cant get them or is extremely difficult to get) than they already have. Nearly anything else is on the table.

The reason being that is there is no stopping point with the banning of guns. That is the problem so instead of trying to ban guns at every turn why not compromise on a stopping point that's what the gun owners want.

If you have read the new 2013 firearms ban, you would know it really isn't based on logic. It is even hypocritical. The person behind the bill excluded herself from the ban. In the bill, it states that all federal agents and officials are excluded from the ban. The research done by this woman (and she does admit to it) is looking at pictures of firearms in 1993 and 2012. She didn't go to firearms experts. She didn't look up crime rates and the correlation to gun laws. She just looked at pictures and banned what she didn't like. Most of the items don't do anything special. It just changes the look of the firearm or makes it more comfortable to hold. I have looked at crime rates and it shows that in the U.S. violent crime drops drastically with lower gun restrictions. One town even passed a law stating all households must have a firearm and crime dropped by over 80%. I'm not saying that everyone should be forced to own a gun but if the numbers state that gun control does not work then it should not be done. Right now gun sales are through the roof in the U.S. If that doesn't say what Americans want I don't know what will. A large number of these guns are AR-15's (assault weapons.)Also the Second Amendment is not about hunting. Don't say you don't need a 30 round clip to hunt a duck for two reasons. 1) You used the word "clip" as oppose to "magazine." 2)The right to own firearms is not based on "needs." If you want to own an AR-15 with four 30 round magazines, a collapsible stock, and a pistol grip be my guest. Just take a safety course so you don't shoot your foot off or mine.

Kopikatsu:
The Assault Weapon Ban is so pants-on-head retarded that there really are no words to describe it. Which is why I'll use this picture that someone else posted to explain;
image

Who can justify something like that? And even without Feinstein's add-on, that Shotgun might still be banned. It has a telescopic stock as well as a pistol grip.

It's as though there was an issue with dangerous animals mauling children so they came up with a list of features that dangerous animals tend to have:
Whiskers
Tails
Eyes with vertical irises
Fangs
Six or Seven Lumbar Vertebrae

And banned animals that had X of those features. I am very much in favor of gun control, I just want a law that makes some bloody sense. Guns ought to be restricted based on rate of fire or stopping power or some other measure that has something to do with their effectiveness as a gun rather than what amount to accessories.

drnogood59:
Right now gun sales are through the roof in the U.S. If that doesn't say what Americans want I don't know what will.

That happens every time gun control legislation is discussed. It's simply hoarding.

wintercoat:
I'm not surprised in the least. For the most part, the proposal isn't actual gun control, but people control. It mostly aims to increase funding to police and mental health programs in order to try and prevent shootings from happening, and add funding for programs to try and instruct people on how to deal with shooting when they occur.

Also, I believe this poll is the most telling:

image

The majority of people are more interested in school security and mental health issues than actually making gun control laws.

It's also telling that the issues of reinstating the assault weapon ban, banning the sale of AP rounds to civilians, and limited magazine capacity are the lowest polling, the only motions that even deal with gun control. And of those three, only the AP round ban has a majority agreement between Dems, Repubs and Independents.

Seems more that people want the whole issue looked at, not just a part of it.

Thank you so much for posting that. You just made my day. It's wonderful to see that so many are refusing to give in to hysteria and instead taking a reasonable approach to a complex issue.

 

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked