Before Recent Shootings, Gun-Control Support Was Fading

[derby378]

In Gallup polling conducted prior to last week's gun massacre at an immigrant center in Binghamton, N.Y., only 29% of Americans said the possession of handguns by private citizens should be banned in the United States. While similar to the 30% recorded in 2007, the latest reading is the smallest percentage favoring a handgun ban since Gallup first polled on this nearly 50 years ago.

...

Separately, the October Crime survey found just under half of Americans, 49%, wanting the laws covering the sale of firearms to be made stricter than they are now. This is the lowest percentage favoring stricter gun laws in Gallup trends since the question was first asked in 1990. While only 8% say gun laws should be made less strict, 41% say they should remain as they are now.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/117361/Support-Gun-Control-Laws-Time-Lows.aspx#1

[tularetom]

1. Gun bans accomplish nothing

It appears that AG Holder realizes this.

Bans of anything do not work in the US of A.

Like guns. Or booze. Or weed.

We really need to forget this banning urge.

[northzax]

2. sure they do

when's the last time anyone was shot on an airplane? the reason gun bans don't work is because there are always places to buy more, and since we have free transit, guns can move from place to place as well. you can't buy a gun in DC, but there are plenty. so where are they buying them? someone's breaking the law to sell to them.

[virginia mountainman]

3. Yea, they get rethugs elected...

[northzax]

4. So do homophobia, xenophobia and racism in general

You're not suggesting we embrace those ideas, are you?

[virginia mountainman]

6. No...But when we Democrats..

Turn out backs on the US Bill of Rights....

Lets just say that it is extremely "unbecoming"

[northzax]

14. true, it needs to be amended

the second amendment was written by a rural, mono-ethnic society where the only people really considered to count were white male landowners. they never foresaw cities of 16 million people. they never imagined the urban underclass having ready access to pistols (if they did, they would have put a stop to it) the second amendment is obviously written to allow the 'militia' to possess similar weaponry to the government. and in 1792, that was fairly easy to do. you could, in fact, arm your personal yacht with the same weapons that the Navy used. you could easily possess the same muskets. So we already violate the spirit of the 2nd by restricting people's access to military grade weapons. the fact that I can't purchase legally, for any price, a minigun to put on my surplus Apache, means that the spirit has been violated. so let's just get on with changing it.

[ChickMagic]

25. The 2nd amendment

The Second Amendment was written so people would have
access to guns against a tyrannical government. It doesn't
matter if people are in rural areas or in the city, the
amendment stands. My opinion isn't popular among some
progressives, but I kind of like all 10 amendments in
the Bill of Rights.

[Tim01]

5. Bans work on airplanes? You're kidding right?

9-11

[JonLP24]

8. They didn't have guns boxcutters I think

The poster said "shootings on an airplane" so I thought your post was irrelevant in response.

[northzax]

19. and, in fact, boxcutters were not forbidden on planes at that time

maybe they should have been. notice no one has tried to hijack a plane since?

[virginia mountainman]

7. Lets see, all these school shootings..

All in "Gun Free" zones..

And that was just for starters..

[JonLP24]

9. As well as drug free zones

And that's been effective. :eyes: Zero tolerance policies really affects the students rather then help them. I remember in high school they discovered a crumbled up piece of resinated tin foil that was in my bookbag for months, if you seen my bag it had numerous items of trash. I had to do a plea bargain in order to avoid a felony charge.

[virginia mountainman]

10. Zero tolerance = Zero Thinking

[northzax]

17. proves my point exactly

because of free travel, gun restrictions are as useless and drug laws or kiddie porn laws, if you really, really want one, you're going to get one. this is why I believe in open carry and no restrictions on what types of guns you can possess. I don't see why I can't sit in Lafayette Park eating my lunch with a .50 sniper rifle across my knees, after all, given the hundred or so armed men in the White House, I would be deterred, right?

have you ever been to a city without any gun control laws at all? I've been to two. Mogadishu and Darfur. Care to move there? since everyone has a gun, it's totally peaceful.

[Statistical]

13. So you would want to turn the entire country into one giant TSA security zone? (n/t)

[northzax]

18. nope, I want the exact opposite

I want every adult male to carry a firearm, the way the Founders intended. I dream of a world with no gun restrictions at all.one where every male above about 12 has a weapon. I've seen it you know, it's paradise. it's called Darfur. that was totally awesome.

but hey, it's worth a try here, right?

[Stellabella]

11. Wrong. They do work. Just look at other countries and compare death rates.

And I really hate the whining by gun nuts that 'we should just enforce legislation already on the books instead of enacting new laws!'

You people fought those laws tooth and nail too. Hypocrites.

[virginia mountainman]

12. Compare violent crime rates...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4257966.stm

[northzax]

21. you know, it's strange

as a society, we create all sorts of laws to avoid mistakes that will kill or injure people. we mandate seatbelts, because they will save your life if you fail to operate a car correctly. same with airbags and child seats. we regulate airplanes to minimize mistakes that will kill people. we test medications to ensure that their side effects will kill as few people as possible. we inspect food to ensure that accidents don't kill people. we have building codes to minimize accidental death or injury. heck, we try and stop people from smoking, because a side effect is probable death. but for some reason, we celebrate the one tool in our society which, if operated correctly and as intended will kill or maim people. that's what handguns do. that's why they were invented, that's what they are designed for. killing isn't a side effect to be minimized, it isn't a bug, a mistake, it's the feature. so we're fine with speedlimits, because they help stop people from making mistakes and killing others, but we allow, ay celebrate, those same people buying a tool designed to kill people.

and don't say the palaver about 'target shooting' there are specialized handguns for that. you can keep your olympic air pistol. and hunting, you can keep your shotgun and rifle. but why do you need a handgun? they are designed to kill humans at close range, that's it. their sole purpose. we minimize devices and products that may accidentally kill people, but ones that are designed to kill people? hey, that's totally cool. why do you figure that is?

[Statistical]

22. The only purpose of police officers is killing?

They carry handguns. Why?

Has anyone life ever been saved as a result of LEO having a handgun?
Has a LEO ever been able to convince someone to stop because he/she had a handgun?

Of course not. They can only be used for killing.

[northzax]

23. LEOs carry handguns to kill people, yes

that's why they have them. same reason the Army carries guns, you think that's for show or something? ever heard the saying "don't point it at anything you aren't willing to shoot?' where you think that comes from? notice they don't carry wooden spoons, because you can't kill anyone with a wooden spoon (well, I guess you can, but it seems unlikely) maybe pillows? the Army should carry pillows, since they don't intend to kill anyone with them, right?

but I bet Abmer Louima wishes they carried wooden spoons, huh? oh right, they're not for killing. my bad.

[Statistical]

24. Strawman.

I never said LEO don't need to kill.
I never said LEO don't use handguns to kill.

However the threat of lethal force has ended many confrontation.
The threat of lethal force has convinced a criminal it is better to go to trial then end up in the morgue.
The threat of lethal force has saved lives.

Handgun is no different than a rifle except that it is more compact and can be used easily at a short distance.

[FudaFuda]

20. that's not hypocrisy - it's holding the line

We know the gun control lobby's strategy is 'death by a thousand cuts.' You argue for 'reasonable gun control laws' and when you get what you wanted you find some new gun to target, some new restriction to impose. This time it's trying to recapture lost ground, i.e. the 'assault weapon ban.' Next it'll be all semiautomatic firearms of any kind. After that, any type of repeating arm (including lever and bolt guns) because 'you only need one shot for hunting.' And along the way, between each incremental step, there will be little battles over .50 caliber rifles, or lead bullets, or reloading supplies - anything to infringe and hinder, because it's not limiting death that gun control people are concerned about. It's limiting, and controlling, the people.

So when you come calling for more of your 'reasonable gun laws', yes we point to the ones already passed and say 'enforce those first.'

[leftstreet]

15. M$M COVERAGE of shootings & "Obama wants my guns" is the problem

They're pulling this wedge issue out their ass!

What we should be talking about is the death of capitalism, and economic and social justice.

But no - the voters give the Democrats a mandate for radical change away from Reaganism and Piss Down Economics and they crank up the Wedge Issue Machine.

[moondust]

16. They don't know any better.

This is like asking a bunch of Americans if life is better in the U.S. or in Denmark. Most will say the U.S. even though they don't have a clue as to what life is like in Denmark. It's what almost all Americans grew up with and all they really know.