Skip to main content

A sign, flag and flowers are seen outside a home honoring victims who died in the December 14 shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School, in Newtown, Connecticut December 19, 2012. Six more victims of the Newtown school shooting will be honored at funerals and remembrances on Wednesday, including the school principal who was killed with 20 of her students and five other staff members at the Sandy Hook Elementary School.   REUTERS/Shannon Stapleton (UNITED STATES - Tags: CRIME LAW EDUCATION)
We don't know why, but as to how we're going to prevent future massacres, Americans are ready for major gun reform
Before we get to the results, one word on the sample composition of this Public Policy Polling poll for Daily Kos -- 54 percent of respondents say they own a gun, while the University of Chicago’s General Social Survey reported households owning firearm fell from 54% in 1977 to 32% percent in 2010.

In other words, this poll oversamples gun owners. It's skewed toward those who own guns. So remember that little tidbit as you digest just how awful these numbers are for the NRA and its allies.

Public Policy Polling for Daily Kos. 12/18-19. 1,000 Registered voters. MoE 3.1% (No trendlines)

92 percent of conservatives and 94 percent of Republicans agree. So do 93 percent of southerners. There is no partisan or geographic split on the question. 90 percent of gun owners agree.

More below the fold.

Conservatives support this 59-31 (compared to 71-21 among liberals), Republicans support it 57-35, Southerners are more like to support this than Midwesterners or Westerners, gun owners agree 55-36, and hunters agree 52-38.

Conservatives support such a ban 50-43, compared to liberals 74-24. Republicans support it 50-44. There isn't big geographic differences, as Southerners support a ban 60-35 and Northeasterners support one 68-30. Gun owners support a ban 51-44, but hunters oppose it narrowly, 47-48.

Conservatives support such a ban 61-34, Southerners (at 69-25) support such a ban more than Midwesterners and Westerners, though there is little difference, gun owners support it 59-36, and hunters support it 57-38.

Conservatives support closing this loophole 71-23, Southerners support it 73-22, and Hunters support it 64-30.

Everyone agrees this is a no-brainer. Well, except the NRA.

Conservatives support such a ban 51-42, Southerners support it 60-33, gun owners support it 53-42, and hunters support it 50-46.

There is little partisan difference. Conservatives think hunting with assault rifles is unnecessary by a 70-22 margin, for example. But what's crazy is we cross-referenced this question with the 73 percent of respondents who had a favorable opinion of hunting, and among that crowd, 21 think assault weapons are necessary to hunt, while 73 percent don't.

In other words, the vast majority of people who like hunting think hunting with assault rifles is idiotic stupid ridiculous unnecessary.

There are places where partisan differences did arise. For example, 36 percent of conservatives said they were more interested in buying a gun after the Sandy Hook massacre, while 23 percent were less interested. Among liberals, it was 10 percent more, 40 percent less, and among moderates it was 16 percent more, 32 percent less.

And asked whether gun violence can be solved with more guns, or more restrictions, 46 percent of conservatives wanted more guns compared to 35 percent who wanted more restrictions. It was 22-56 among liberals, 23-56 among moderates.

That's quite the contradiction, isn't it? While conservatives backed all those common-sensical gun restrictions, they still thought more guns were the answer to gun violence. Don't ask me to decipher that little bit of cognitive dissonance.

Finally, 51 percent of conservatives think guns are a "necessary check on government tyranny", while 25 percent aren't paranoid. Among liberals, the numbers are reversed, 26-51. The teabaggers are particularly enamored with that fantasy, with 65 percent thinking that a bunch of pretend militia members with rifles can provide a check on a government that can employ drones and Seal Team Six to take them out. Only 17 percent are too smart to believe that.

But whatever the motivations, or pretensions, or cognitive dissonance, fact is that even conservatives support strongly the common-sense restrictions of requiring background checks and mental health examinations before buying guns, support the banning of assault rifles, support banning the sale of guns and bullets over the internet, support closing the gun-show loophole, support prohibiting violent felons from owning guns, and support banning high-capacity magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.

So it's not Americans standing in the way of such regulations. It's the NRA and its allies in Congress, on behalf of a distinct outlier minority of crazies.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 06:00 AM PST.

Also republished by Shut Down the NRA and Repeal or Amend the Second Amendment (RASA).

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  OK. What? (16+ / 0-)

    You compared two polls with different results on percent that own guns and concluded one was wrong?  How'd you do that?

  •  This is typical of so many issues... (37+ / 0-)

    ...common sense, AND supported by a huge majority; but effectively blocked (often for decades) by an even bigger moneyed interest.

    Buy Aldus Shrugged : The Antidote to Ayn Rand, and tear Ayn and the GOP new orifices. ALL ROYALTIES BETWEEN NOW AND JANUARY 31, DONATED TO THIS SITE, DAILYKOS!! @floydbluealdus1

    by Floyd Blue on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 06:05:24 AM PST

  •  NRACEO Wayne LaPierre on“Meet the Press”Sunday (15+ / 0-)

    I guess Porky Pig and Generalissimo Franco were either busy doing last minute shopping or dead.

  •  cognitive dissonance (15+ / 0-)
    What did you expect? "Welcome, sonny"? "Make yourself at home"? "Marry my daughter"? You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons.

    White-collar conservatives flashing down the street, pointing their plastic finger at me..

    by BOHICA on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 06:07:27 AM PST

  •  I have never brought a gun that didn't require (5+ / 0-)

    background checks already.  Buy at a gun show....background check.  Buy at a pawn shop...background check.  Buy at Academy....back ground check.

    The only time it is not done is if you buy from an individual and yet, if we mandated that.....people still wouldn't do guns brought on the street are usually brought on the street for a reason.

    •  Gun show sellers do background checks, do they? (3+ / 0-)

      Guns bought anywhere are "bought for a reason." Mrs. Lanza bought her assault weapon for a reason.

      2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

      by TRPChicago on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 06:12:13 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, they do (7+ / 0-)

        Generally speaking, any transfer from an FFL requires a background check, regardless of where it takes place.

        The problem is that a transfers not involving an FFL do not require a background check. This needs to change.

        ‎"Masculinity is not something given to you, but something you gain. And you gain it by winning small battles with honor." - Norman Mailer
        My Blog
        My wife's woodblock prints

        by maxomai on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 06:18:28 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I still say..... (6+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MBNYC, cybersaur, msmacgyver, peteri2, belle1, gmats

 the shit out of the ammo. Can't take their precious guns away, so just make it a hell of a lot more expensive to shoot at stuff (or people).

          Or for that matter, outlaw the possession of more than, say, 100 rounds of ammo. Can shoot a ton of deer with 100 rounds. Cuts down on the slaughters, too.

          •  In practice (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            maxomai, MPociask

            what you are really doing is making it more expensive to shoot guns, which would make sense if the only thing gun owners shoot at is people.

            But that's not what 99.999% of gun owners shoot at.

            •  Bummer how much inconvenience this would cause. (13+ / 0-)

              Ask those kids how convenient it was to be shot up.

              And, yes, making shooting expensive is exactly what I'm proposing.

              You want sport? Go play soccer/softball/golf/touch football.

              We outlaw other "sports" - bull fighting, cock fighting, dog fighting, etc. "Senseless shooting" should be added to that list of banned sports.

              Here's a 100 rounds. Go shoot your deer and eat hearty tonight.

              •  Spoken by someone (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                MPociask, Bailey2001

                who doesn't own a firearm or particularly enjoy shooting firearms and can't imagine why anyone would.

                I'm only guessing, of course.

                'Think like I do.  Enjoy my hobbies, or the hell with you.'

                Compelling argument ...

                Getting to your 'analogies', bull fighting, cock fighting, and dog fighting are all outlawed because they inflict cruelty towards animals.  Hunting is as humane (oftentimes more-so) as obtaining one's meat from the grocery store.  In fact, one gains an appreciation for where one's food comes from.

                More to the point, lifeless, paper targets are probably the most shot at object in this country ...

                •  Jeeze. Can't you see the difference... (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  peterfallow, RadGal70

                  ...between "lifeless, paper targets" and REAL HUMAN BEINGS?????

                  Gun Owners are from Mars, Gun Control Advocates are from Venus.

                  •  Of course I can (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    MPociask, Bailey2001

                    and I think you know that.

                    I'm trying to make you understand that what you believe to be a rational, cut and dry response to these continuous shooting tragedies has implications beyond the scope of the problem.  And lawful, responsible people that would be affected by your proposal would wonder what they did wrong to be targeted in such a manner.

                    •  So what are your solutions? (0+ / 0-)

                      To the killing of people, that is.

                      •  My personal opinion (5+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        MPociask, Odysseus, m2old4bs, BachFan, Smoh

                        is that laws are there to protect us in society from greedy/stupid/crazy people.

                        The best laws are those that limit the ability of those people from hurting society without undo hardship on those of us that are not greedy/stupid/crazy.  In that light, my own ideas regarding limiting/lessening gun violence are:

                        1) Mandatory, federal registration of all fire-arms owned within the US. Doing away with loopholes that allow unregistered weapons being sold at gun shows (such as those in Virginia).

                        2) Mandatory, federal licenses prior to the purchase of any semi-automatic rifle/hand gun within the US.  Similar to hunting licenses in the state of Virginia, a license cannot be obtained until the owner completes a federally managed weapon's safety class, has undergone a mental health evaluation (that will be fair, unbiased and not open to the interpretation of whatever state you happen to live in), and shows proof of the purchase of a storage device/location for said semi-automatic rifle/handgun, proposed below.  License renewal every 2-5 years.

                        3) Mandatory federal regulations regarding the storage of all semi-automatic rifles/handguns.  The details could be hashed out, but I would argue that either a storage facility away from the home or a gun case in the home would meet the needed requirements.  You could also impose rules such that if the weapons are to be stored in the home, all members of the home over the age of say 12 (the age you can legally hunt alone in the state of Virginia) would be required to have undergone the process of acquiring a semi-auto license.  If not everyone in the home over 12 has a license, the weapons must be stored in an alternate location (potentially a federal/state run storage facility).

                        I believe you will find that, as long as the costs to gun owners is not particularly high (no $100 licensing fees ...), they wouldn't have much problem with any of these ideas.  All guns must be registered, if you want a semi-auto you have to take a weapon's safety course (something most gun owners already do) and if you want to keep your guns at home, you have to ensure that they are safely kept and not accessible to anyone without a license (who have been screened for mental instability).

                        Had these rules been in place (and enforced), I find it very hard to believe that incidents like this most recent tragedy would occur as frequently as they do.

                        •  I applaud your proposals! (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          RadGal70, Smoh

                          How about allowing individual states to ban certain weapons?

                          You wanna shoot up Wyoming with autos, fine.

                          We don't need autos in Illinois, NY, California, etc., so we can ban them in our states. OK?

                          •  Autos are already banned (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Odysseus, Otteray Scribe, BachFan

                            We are talking semi-autos here.

                            You pull the trigger and you fire a bullet for each trigger pull, without having to reset the action: that's the 'auto' part).  Full auto = you press and hold the trigger, and bullets keep firing: these are already very illegal.

                            You will be hard-pressed to ban all semi-autos, as I have mentioned in other posts, as almost all modern hunting rifles / handguns are semi-automatic.  The Supreme Court has already ruled on this I believe, and indicated that bans on something as broad as 'handguns' was unconstitutional.

                            You can try, but I don't think the outcome would stand up to the Court at this time.

                          •  Why not just ban the "semi-auto" part. (0+ / 0-)

                            I'm pretty sure hand guns (or any guns) don't have to be semi-automatic.  As I've been told by someone else on Kos today:

                            any gun can kill a lot of people efficiently and quickly in the wrong hands. Oswald didn't need an AR-15 to kill Kennedy. He used an old Mosin-Nagant variant. Something most people consider a junk gun, even by 1960s standards.

                            The priest said, "Today's sermon is called 'Liars', but first I have a question. How many of you have read Chapter 66 in Matthew?" Nearly every hand went up. "You're just the group I need to speak to," the priest said. "There's no such chapter."

                            by Back In Blue on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 12:27:52 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Not a junk gun at all (0+ / 0-)

                            One of the best sniper rifles from WWII.   Vasili Zaitsev and Ivan Sidorenko both used modified Mosins.

                            The thing is, you have to be well-trained to effectively use one.  The same can be said for any bolt action / single shot firearm.

                            If you want a second shot quickly and on target, you really need a semi automatic.  Which is why they have surpassed the bolt action and make up the majority of the weapons manufactured today.

                          •  Thanks for the info. (0+ / 0-)

                            I have to say I do appreciate the technical info I'm learning from RKBA'ers and others here.  

                            The priest said, "Today's sermon is called 'Liars', but first I have a question. How many of you have read Chapter 66 in Matthew?" Nearly every hand went up. "You're just the group I need to speak to," the priest said. "There's no such chapter."

                            by Back In Blue on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 12:55:22 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  License fees should cover costs. (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          gmats, cany

                          No reason that tax payers should subsidize some people's hobby.

                          Registration should also be checked. I'd like to see that gun owners have to take all their guns to the police station once a year, and if a gun that you owned last year isn't there this year, you either bring the relevant paperwork or prepare for a vacation in Club Fed.

                          Repeal the 2nd amendment.

                          by Calouste on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 09:06:02 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  You can make that case (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:

                            ... but I am keeping costs removed from the establishment of the regulations because the issue of cost is something the NRA and gun manufacturers love to use as arguments against all regulatory efforts and it resonates with gun owners.

                            If it is easy, fair, and doesn't take money out of their pocket, they really have no reason but to go along with it (unless they are a greedy/crazy/stupid person of course, but we'd be targeting them anyhow).

                        •  I would add a liability insurance component. (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          gmats, Smoh

                          No liability insurance, no license, no registration, no ownership.  Ownership means responsibility for any damage it causes to another person and/or the family of a person, self defense exempted, whether it is used by the owner or by someone who "borrows" it with or without consent.  

                        •  asdf (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Mandatory, federal registration of all fire-arms owned within the US. Doing away with loopholes that allow unregistered weapons being sold at gun shows (such as those in Virginia).
                          Registration might not actually be necessary if you require purchasers to be licensed, even for private-party sales, and enact severe penalties for selling to an unlicensed buyer. Sellers would be required to keep the documentation in case there is an issue, if it weren't submitted to a registry.

                          Canada (under Harper's conservatives, who I almost never agree with on anything) federally registers handguns but not (non-semi-auto) long guns. This came about because registering hunting rifles turned out to be the major point of contention between the rural community and the gun laws (a considerably more moderate dividing point than we have here, that's for sure). That might be a reasonable compromise here, as well; it could reduce the amount of political backlash, which given the shaky condition of US politics should still be a core concern. Sellers might still be required to check the license of any purchaser regardless of the weapon.

                        •  Deep Breath: Mrs. Lanza might have complied ... (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:

                          ... with your proposal that "... if you want to keep your guns at home, you have to ensure that they are safely kept and not accessible to anyone without a license (who have been screened for mental instability)."

                          What they have stopped her son from taking one? She's dead, he's killed 26 individuals and himself.

                          From conversations with gun owners (small sample, I admit), I think they'd accept your list. But you could have 100% compliance and Adam would still be able to get at the four guns he had in his possession (the three he took to school and the shotgun in his car) and massacre people without so much as reloading. As for "screening for mental instability," ask professionals in the psychiatric field - who have a legal duty to turn such people in - how well they can identify psychotic shooters in advance.

                          As for taking America back to where it was with guns sometime in the 1800's, I'd take it all the way back to the muskets that were in vogue when the Second Amendment was passed. I believe America and its gun culture has gone far beyond that of any other civilized nation on earth ... and with all those dangerous weapons about with their manufacturers and defenders arming them to the teeth, we're risking being known as civilized.

                          2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

                          by TRPChicago on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 12:27:02 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  If these rules were compiled with (0+ / 0-)

                            ... he should not have been able to access the weapons she kept at her home.

                            He would have needed a semi-auto license to live in the home were those weapons were kept (he is over 12), and if he owned them himself, he would have had to pass the criteria for the license anyway.

                            I admit that, a gun safe will only work if you put your guns in it, lock it, and prevent the key from being easily obtained by others.  If this is an issue though, then the offsite storage of the fire arm is the reasonable alternative.

                            I would argue that mental instability of a family member of such degree as to require a trip to the psychiatrist would be reason enough for most people to either secure their firearms or move them to an off site location.

                            Regarding the mental health evaluation, the psychiatrist doesn't have to turn anyone in; they only have to sign a piece of paper endorsing a persons application for a semi auto license.

                          •  True, he "should" not. But unpack your rules ... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:

                            ... for me.

                            Just "to live in a home where [Mrs. Lanza's] weapons were kept" and be over the age of 12, you would license every occupant older than 12 of a household with a semi-automatic of any kind? That is one powerful lot of licensing and mental testing, not to mention privacy issues. Cover guests? Occasional visitors?

                            And if "mental instability" means having a prescription for meds for, say, depression, putting that together with your anyone-who-lives-in-the-house standard ... wouldn't that be likely to deter gun owners from fessing up to possessing a semi-automatic? Or going back to the prescribing psychiatrist for their required gun licensing checkup?

                            (My comment about reporting psychotic tendencies wasn't aimed at your required evaluation, but to the current legal obligation to report patients evidencing such behavior.)

                            Forgive this light reference, but I think your rules are trying to stop up the fire hose from the wrong end.

                            2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

                            by TRPChicago on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 01:46:50 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Your points are good ones (0+ / 0-)

                            Suffice it to say, it certainly would not be easy.  Implementation of broad, multifaceted programs like this never are.  It's easier to just say, "lets ban guns" but honestly, we've tried that, and any law that eventually gets on the books would be watered down to near irrelevancy.

                            Yes, I do believe that everyone over the age of 12 that lives in a home where semi automatic weapons are housed should know how to safely handle and store those weapons and have been screened for mental health problems.  Visitors and guests I think would be pushing it, but those that live in the house having licenses would have been trained in their proper handling and storage, and therefore should be responsible for those weapons.

                            I don't like speaking ill of the dead, but there is absolutely no reason Adam Lanza should have had access to those fire arms and the fault lies largely with his mother, who did  not store them in an appropriate manner; either in a locked safe or in an alternate, secure location.

                            Your point about gun owners not admitting that they have semi automatics, due to concerns about failing their mental health assessment, is a good one.  If this is worrisome, the plan could be implemented in stages, with the priority first being registration of fire arms, the weapon handling/storage workshop class, and proof of safe storage components.

                            The mental health assessment is quite critical however.  If the matter were addressed separately, that might be a work-around; the establishment of standard mental health assessments for anyone and everyone.  It really is something we have to address, as the results of the status quo are presently before our eyes

                          •  You are arguing political reality, usually my ... (0+ / 0-)

                            ... point on Kos. "Watered down to mere irrelevancy" says it all. After all, it took five years to get the highly flawed 1994 Assault Weapons ban.

                            I hope that now we have more political heft on the issue, a more nuanced approach than the public opinion poll that asks a big yes-or-no question, but instead asks questions about the details. After all, the results on public issues of significance, typically, are more telling and better guides about how to reach policy solutions than questions that are high altitude abstractions.

                            As for mental health, I must profoundly disagree with you. I'd worry very much about a society that required "mental health assessments for anyone and everyone." More mental health professionals, yes, as well as including coverage in insurance, Medicare and Medicaid, much better attention to meds and their side effects,  lessened stigma to those who suffer, etc. But the profession is far from the ability to identify the mentally ill, much less to know what to do when encountering someone who might have dangerous propensities.

                            2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

                            by TRPChicago on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 06:27:59 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I am not a mental health professional (0+ / 0-)

                            ... but I would bet that if they weren't worried about being sued/dragged into court, mental health professionals could paint a pretty good picture as to the mental state of an individual, and come to a reasonable conclusion as to whether or not they should have access to fire arms (semi automatic fire arms in particular).

                            As loath as I am to do this (probably a ban-able offense here) I recommend you read ... man, I can't believe I am writing this ...  Charles Krauthammer's editorial in the today's WaPo.  He brings up the three things he believes to be present in most mass killings: the weapon, the killer, and the culture that helped set things in motion.

                            Rather then laying blame on any one of them, he writes that all contribute to the problems we face, and that in combating each of them, we would have to curb the rights of various portions of the population.  A good read, even if you disagree with his argument and think we only need to target guns.

                    •   (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:

                      "And lawful, responsible people that would be affected by your proposal would wonder what they did wrong to be targeted in such a manner."

                      It's not the's the guns. And the killing of people. That's whats wrong.

                      Find another "sport" that doesn't involve killing people. Or lifeless, paper targets. Try bow-hunting. That involves skill and doesn't slaughter people. Can kill a deer that way. (My cuz bow hunts bears, successfully, so I know this can be done.)

                •  If you're shooting at paper targets (6+ / 0-)

                  then you don't need the kind of weapons that are commonly used in mass murders.

                  If you honestly believe that "sport" guns should be available, fine, work for that. But to argue for the availability of any and all guns to any and all comers is insanity. The "slippery slope" argument that stopping the distribution of one kind of gun will lead to the black helicopters descending on your house to take all your guns is also insanity.

                  We have speed limits in this country (even though some people enjoy driving fast). Does that mean that the government is coming to take your cars?

                  Please, think for a minute about the price everyone in this country is paying so that you can continue to shoot at paper targets with whatever the hell weapon you want.

                  I've often said that the main difference between modern Republicans and Democrats is that the former have no empathy, and can only think about governing in terms of what helps "me." Democrats are the people who think about how our decisions affect society at large; people who are not "me."
                  Please - think about the hundreds of thousands of people murdered by people using guns over the past 20 or 30 years.
                  Really stop and think about them.
                  Think about the children as their bodies were being torn to shreds by bullets that are designed to eviscerate their (human - not paper) targets.
                  Think about the lives that will never be lived.
                  Think about the holes in families' lives.
                  Think about the damage that we do to our present and future every day that we don't face this insanity.

                  You want to shoot paper targets? Go ahead.
                  You want to shoot deer? Well, we need that to be done, so go ahead. But remember not to use the kind of ammo that was used in Sandy Hook, because that kind of bullet is made to destroy the flesh that it enters, so your deer won't be edible afterwards....

                  •  Anyone watch the Olympics - Biathlon (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    beth meacham, m2old4bs, BachFan

                    you know the one skiing and shooting. they use .22 with 5 round magazines - and this is Olympic level.

                    Each time they stop for a shoot, they need to load a magazine. Ever watched closely? These rifles aren't semi autos,they are bolt action -  they operate the bolt with their thumbs.

                    So don't say a sportsman needs an AR15 with 30 round mag.These athletes can eat your NRA warrior for lunch.

                  •  I understand your points (0+ / 0-)

                    We both want the same thing.  Are approaches are simply different.

                    I simply believe that we can get to where we both want to be (less gun violence) with my proposal, without banning all guns made/sold in this country since the late 1800s.

                    Not only that, but as far as implementation, I feel that these three regulations stand a far better chance of actually becoming law then the ban of all semi automatic rifles and handguns.

                    Personally, I don't target shoot.  But I know that millions of Americans do.  If you can make proposals that are inclusive enough to get enough support and yet surgical enough to eliminate the root of the problem without going over board, you stand a real chance of getting something done that will safe lives.

                    That's my feeling anyway.

                    •  Nice NRA talking point (0+ / 0-)

                      Your repeated claim that I am trying to ban "all guns made/sold in this country since the late 1800s" is a straw man. I haven't said that.

                      I do think we should not allow most citizens access to any guns that are made to kill large numbers of humans in a short period of time.
                      Use whatever terminology to define those guns that you want to use, but it doesn't change the fact that there are many guns made and used in the US that do not fit that description. I know that a lot of my neighbors use guns that don't fit that description to hunt around here.

                      So if you want to have a real conversation, please don't set up straw men.

                •  People like to smoke cigarrettes (4+ / 0-)

                  yet we tax the shit out of it. Alcohol too.

                  "I enjoy it" is no reason for anything. Particularly if that thing you enjoy doing has high societal costs.

                  And I'm saying that as someone who has shot more types of guns, and bigger guns, than 99.99 percent of Americans.

              •  Here's a compromise. (0+ / 0-)

                Now this would involve some R&D into inventing this, but how about creating a new kind of bullet that is like a combination of a blank and a paintball, so that those who are actually using for target practice can shoot so that it'll leave a paint mark where it hits, but which is much less lethal than regular bullets.

            •  Target shooters should just use non-lethal guns (0+ / 0-)

              Paintball, airsoft, BB guns, etc. A projectile doesn't have to have the kinetic energy of a lethal round to make a hole in a paper target, after all.

              Then we can make lethal ammo prohibitively expensive to buy in large quantities, and non-lethal ammo can remain taxed at the same rate. Everybody wins!

          •  So the sane version of that proposal (5+ / 0-)

            is that we do background checks for ammo sales and investigate anyone who's bought more than (ballpark) 1000 rounds, just to make sure there's nothing hinky going on. We do the same when someone buys a lot of fertilizer who doesn't own a farm.

            ‎"Masculinity is not something given to you, but something you gain. And you gain it by winning small battles with honor." - Norman Mailer
            My Blog
            My wife's woodblock prints

            by maxomai on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 07:08:04 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Won't work for a number of reasons. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MPociask, Odysseus

              Competition shooters may shoot 1000 to 5000 rounds per week.  They may increase that to as many as 10,000 rounds in the weeks leading up to a national championship.

              Generally, competition shooters refer to themselves as 'used brass generators.

              There are perhaps 80,000 to 100,000 very active competitive rifle and pistol shooters.  There are many more trap, skeet and sporting clay shooters.

              Many competitors reload their own ammunition due to cost considerations.  Some, but not all, cast their own bullets.

              It would make sense to show a drivers license when purchasing ammunition and require the same for internet sales.

              •  I have no problems with this kind of shooting. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                belle1, gmats

                The kind of shooting I'm trying to address are the daily, senseless slaughters on the streets of Chicago/NY/Detroit/Philadelphia/Miami/LA and so on and so on and so on.

                Read the Sat. and Sun. morning papers from those cities - shootings, killings, rampages, etc. on a DAILY basis.

                Chicago, for example, is happy to keep annual murders below 500! (That's 20 Sandy Hooks for those that can't count.) And that's just in the City of Chicago. Ask about the rest of the cities in America.

                This ain't about your skeet shooting or deer hunting. This is about people-killing. Surely you can see the difference.

              •  How about this. (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Odysseus, BachFan, gmats

                I don't know much about about competition shooting, but I do know a lot about competitive sports.  How about buying and keeping ammo for competitive shooting only where you shoot it.  Kind of like a driving range where you get buckets of balls that you hit, same as a batting cage, etc.  I suppose there are those that practice elsewhere, but I'm not sure where and how and what laws govern that.  It's just meant as a suggestion and question of feasibility.  Clearly it would be an issue for those reloading and casting their own.

                The priest said, "Today's sermon is called 'Liars', but first I have a question. How many of you have read Chapter 66 in Matthew?" Nearly every hand went up. "You're just the group I need to speak to," the priest said. "There's no such chapter."

                by Back In Blue on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 08:22:55 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  Are you sure of your numbers -or are you making (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                shit up?

                Taking the low end of your ranges, you are saying these guys use 80 million rounds per week. At the high end you are saying that they are using 500 million rounds per week.

                And as for casting their own bullets, maybe you can answer the following questions

                How long does it take to make 1000 bullets in your kitchen/ Does it leave you anytime to actually shoot them.

                How much powder/cordite or whatever would you need to make 5000 bullets a week, and would this not attract a little attention from the ATF?

                •  A weekend match, depending on shooting (0+ / 0-)

                  discipline will run between 120 rounds to 200 rounds.  

                  With a little practice before hand, that is easily 500 rounds a weekend.

                  There are over 10,000 western 3-gun shooters every weekend...except in very bad weather.  So, just for this one discipline, that can be 5 million rounds per week.  

                  A normal 38 special load with most powders would run aroun 3 grains (7000 grains to the pound).  So that will produce around 2000 and change cartridges.

                  So, 2 to 3 pounds of powder and about 90 pounds of lead for bullets for 5000 38's with 125 gr bullets.

                  ATF is interested in firearms or if you sell the ammunition you reload.  If you make it for yourself, no regulation.

                  •  By the way, in almost 30 years of the western 3 (0+ / 0-)

                    gun sport, there has never been a fatality.

                  •  I just saw that: Make shit up. (0+ / 0-)

                    Thanks.  Nice way to call someone a liar.

                    I gave you a 'normal scenario' right above this.  But, the top shooters do practice what I mentioned at first.  And there are more people who want to be top shooters, so they practice too.

                    It's unbelievable the amount of lead they can use in a weekend.

                    In many cases, it's recycled every couple of years.

                    •  Yeah well - numbers don't add up. (0+ / 0-)

                      80 million bullets - low end estimate - per week equals around 4 billion per year, your high end estimate 500 million per week comes to around 25 billion a year.

                      But according to Oxfam, world production is around 12 billion rounds per year.

                      So with your low end case, your US sport shooters are consuming one third of the world's supply, at the other end they are using 200% of the world's supply.

                      Doesn't leave much for the US army, Chinese army, Syrian rebels hunters, LEO's etc.

                      •  Your math sucks asshat. (0+ / 0-)

                        500 per week times 10,000 shooters equals 5 million.

                        Say, half of the weekends, on average is 26 weeks, equals 130,000,000 cartridges per year.

                        Add to that the serious competition practice and training end up with a very sizeable number.

                        And, these guys don't BUY cartridges, as a rule.  They build their own.  They are reloaders.  That won't show up in any government statistic.

                        That doesn't count, skeet shooters, trap shooters, sporting clays shooters, modern 3 gun shooters, long range precision shooters.

                        •  Heh SFB - your math is as bad as yr comprehension (0+ / 0-)

                          The comment I replied to this one was talking about 5000, that is thousands, rounds per week, and 80,000 shooters.

                          Before you criticize read the post, and then don't try to piss on me by changing the data.

                          I guess by the fact you are now downgrading the numbers to more realistic estimates, you agree that the original numbers were pulled out of someone's ass.

              •  Yes, and they don't use semi-automatic weapons (3+ / 0-)

                The issue isn't sports.  Trying to make it about sport shooting is derailing discussion of the very real problem of semi-automatic weapons and extended magazines.

                •  It isn't, but it is. (0+ / 0-)

                  There are more and more "modern" 3-gun competitions.  They involve semi-automatic pistols, rifles and shotgun.

                  It's one of the fastest growing disciplines.

                  Competitors use more ammo than anyone else besides the military & police.  So, it's where you will get the most pushback if someone tries to tax or regulate them.

                •  They don't? (0+ / 0-)

                  The hell they don't. Pretty much every competition gun I've seen is semi-automatic.

                  ‎"Masculinity is not something given to you, but something you gain. And you gain it by winning small battles with honor." - Norman Mailer
                  My Blog
                  My wife's woodblock prints

                  by maxomai on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 01:31:40 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  No, they don't. (0+ / 0-)

                    Western shooters use two models based on an 1873 design for the most part.  The modern equivalent is the Ruger Vaquero.  They use reproduction rifles based on designs from 1873, 1892 and 1894.  Their shotguns are old double barrels or pump Winchesters based on the 1897 design.

                    For more info, go to youtube and watch 'cowboy action shooting".  For the fastest men and women, look at 'cowboy action shooting world records".

                    This is probably the largest shooting group out there almost every weekend.  Something like 50,000 members and 10,000 very active shooters.  Shotgun shooters are a MUCH larger group of shooters, but they only use shotguns of course (skeet, trap, etc.)

              •  Actually, I disagree (0+ / 0-)

                I think it would work just fine.

                Investigator: Hey, we noticed you bought 10,000 rounds of ammunition, and that raised a red flag. Can you tell us what you're doing with it?

                Ammo owner: Not a problem. I'm a competition shooter. Here's my competition AR-15. Here's my competition 1911. Also, here's the .30-06 I use for elk hunting, which I'm going to spend the next week zeroing.

                Investigator: Looks legit. Okay, thanks.

                Case closed.

                The point is to get a human being to at least look at the situation.

                ‎"Masculinity is not something given to you, but something you gain. And you gain it by winning small battles with honor." - Norman Mailer
                My Blog
                My wife's woodblock prints

                by maxomai on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 01:30:15 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Yah. No problem. (0+ / 0-)

                  If you don't restrict the sporting folks, they really don't care if you know what they use.  It's not a secret.

                  Most likely, they'd invite you out to try out the sport with their gear.  Happens all the time.

      •  It wasn't an "assault weapon" (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        deepbreath, MPociask, Boris49, BachFan

        By all technical classifications, that Bushmaster could not be called an assault weapon.  It was modified to meet Connecticut standards of legality.

        •  Exactly (5+ / 0-)

          Which is why any "assault weapon ban" is going to be very hard to implement.

          They would literally have to put all semi-automatic rifles on the table, and that would never pass.

          •  Exactly.. (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MPociask, deepbreath, Boris49, DSPS owl

            They will pass something tough sounding, but with so many exceptions it will be worthless.

            •  If I heard correctly, (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Bon Temps

              Feinstein's proposed bill already has 900 exemptions and it hasn't even been introduced yet.

              "I'm totally pro-choice in the matter of abortion. But of course I'm also so radically pro-life that I think every person from birth onward must have full and affordable access to healthcare." - Gail Collins

              by gritsngumbo on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 08:29:57 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  Is there a way (0+ / 0-)

            They could put all semi-automatic weapons on the table, by requiring all new semi-automatic weapons that can only use cartridges of a certain design?  And then require all new cartridges sold to be of a certain design, and limited in number of rounds? (not sure why 10 is sacrosanct either, personally I'd say 6) That wouldn't make possession of the old ones illegal, but it would make ammo impossible to get eventually.  I don't know what you do about people that have gigantic stock piles.  

            •  For new rifles (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              sure, you could force manufacturers to do whatever the government wants, if you have the votes.

              But there are plenty of guns out there already.

              •  That is the real sticking point (4+ / 0-)

                We have a sea of guns and ammo in America.  If we could agree as a society that certain types are too lethal, I would hope we could implement a program where you had a one year grace period to take part in a buy-back program, and then afterward possession of those guns was either a) illegal or b) heavily regulated the way we now regulate machine guns.  

                •  I don't think that full-autos (0+ / 0-)

                  ... were ever allowed to reach the popularity that semi-autos were in this country.  That is the main reason it was easy to ban their use by civilians.

                  Semi-autos are now, quite frankly, the norm.  You don't need a full auto to hit a deer.  However, if you miss a deer with that first shot, whether you get a second shot or not will depend heavily on whether you have a semi-auto or not.

                  Similarly, regarding semi automatic handguns vs revolvers, there are times when the ability to produce more then a single carefully aimed shot is the difference between life and death, and as the Supreme Court noted when it struck down the handgun ban, semi automatic handguns are currently the preferred home defense choice for the majority of Americans.

          •  please (5+ / 0-)

            a real assault weapons ban would work (as it has in Australia, for example).
            The Connecticut ban had more holes in it than a window screen. There were especially loopholes for Colt, which is based in that state.

            •  4 nt (0+ / 0-)
            •  It isn't as cut and dry as you might think (0+ / 0-)

              Apparently, 85% of firearms used to commit murder in Australia between 2002-2003 were simply unregistered and 80% were never legally purchased.

              It is also worth noting that as suicide rates by gun declined there, suicide rates by hanging/other methods increased.

              Note that every time you see a news article quote the success of the Australian ban, they always are very careful with their wording.  Drop in suicide rates by assault weapons.  Drop in murder rates by assault weapons.

              Apparently, the trends don't mirror drops in overall suicide or murder rates, indicating that the tools may have changed, but the under lying criminality/mental illnesses still results in the same damage to society.

              •  and whenever you see gun users citing Australia (0+ / 0-)

                they tend to ignore the fact that the "increases" in non-gun violence recorded there are actually increases in the percentages of violent acts that did not use a gun. As the numbers of violent crimes decreased, the NUMBER of those crimes committed with other weapons stayed about the same, but the percentages increased (because many of the guns were not in the hands of citizens any more.)

        •  Technically, it killed 27 people in 10 minutes. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Oh Mary Oh, cybersaur, jaywillie

          Call it whatever the hell you want to call, but ban it.

          The good we secure for ourselves is precarious and uncertain, is floating in mid-air, until it is secured for all of us and incorporated into our common life. Jane Addams

          by Alice Olson on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 07:15:43 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  These were little kids. No defense was mounted. (0+ / 0-)

            A single shot rifle could have accomplished the same thing in 10 minutes, I think.

            •  I don't think so (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              Committing that much carnage with a single-shot rifle would require sharpshooter skills and tactics - including a high vantage point that couldn't be easily found and targeted.

              You couldn't do it indoors, and as for outdoors - kids can run far and fast in 10 minutes if they have to.

              The Austin sniper took twice as long and killed half as many.

              If it's
              Not your body,
              Then it's
              Not your choice
              And it's
              None of your damn business!

              by TheOtherMaven on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 09:36:14 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  Exploiting "technical" is what makes "assault ... (3+ / 0-)

          ... weapons" as opposed to "semi-automatics" so hard to define.

          But it can be done, can't it! California has done it. Perhaps not elegantly, but it's gotten closer than the 1994 Federal act. Connecticut's law wouldn't be one I'd use as a model.

          So were the three guns Adam Lanza used in his massacre "assault weapons"? He brought three guns into that school: a Bushmaster AR-15 rifle and two handguns, a Glock 10mm and a Sig Sauer 9mm. All three accept high capacity magazines. Lanza's rifle reportedly had 30 rounds. He shot 20 schoolchildren and six adults without - apparently - having to reload.

          What should be the law? Can anyone responsibly argue that a weapon capable of high capacity "clips" is not an assault weapon?

          2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

          by TRPChicago on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 07:17:34 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  If it takes a magazine (0+ / 0-)

            then you can make a high-capacity magazine for it.  Do you ban all guns that accept magazines? No, I don't think you could.

            So then, we are back to banning high capacity clips, which to me, makes sense.  But the second you move to semi-autos, I don't see how you can sufficiently differentiate.

            •  sorry (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              salamanderempress, gmats

              but I think we could - and should.
              I understand that you think everyone in the country needs to live in fear so that you can shoot at paper targets.
              What I don't understand is how you can think that way.

              •  I think that way because what you are suggesting (0+ / 0-)

                ... would pretty much attempt to take fire arms in this country back to pre- World War I.

                I don't think you appreciate the scale of this proposal.  If you wanted to ban all semi automatics, you would essentially be banning the production, trade, and ownership of the majority of firearms built/designed in this country after the late 1800s.  You will never see this happen.

                As for everyone in this country living in fear, people who are afraid tend to make very irrational decisions.  You cannot put the genie back in the bottle; these weapons exist, and are the vast majority of gun sales in the present day.  The best you can potentially hope for is to limit their access by the dangerous elements in society: criminals, those that suffer from mental disorders, children, etc ...

            •  IF we "couldn't" ban all guns that accept ... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              ... magazines, then why not either ban semi-automatics or ban magazines? Or better ... both.

              We really do not have to accommodate high-cap shooters, do we?

              2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

              by TRPChicago on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 08:50:31 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  I would (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              bsegel, salamanderempress, TRPChicago

              certainly ban all guns that accept magazines. Won't happen, but that's what I would do.

      •  In many states, background checks are mandatory (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DSPS owl

        at gun shows.  In other states, like Indiana, they are not.

      •  Yes, gun shows do. Required by federal law. (0+ / 0-)
    •  There are 33 states where private sellers can sell (12+ / 0-) gun shows, which would also mean no background checks.

    •  can I ask you: where are the criminals getting (7+ / 0-)

      the guns? Those who wouldn't pass a background check?

      They aren't getting them from gun shops. They aren't stealing them en masse. There is a conduit for them to get them and we need to find it and do what's necessary to slow it down or disable it. That would lessen the amount of gun violence and death in inner city communities.

      As for the rest, domestic and family and work violence - gun violence between folks who know each other - this is where availability of social services matters most. I'd assume most of those guns are owned by folks legally. So there must be increased availability of things like domestic violence counseling, anger management, etc.

      Then there's the mass murders carried out by crazy people. The least common but most shocking types of gun violence. I'm not sure how to implement mental health screenings before a gun purchase. I have concerns about privacy and access to such information. I'm also unclear on how exactly, if, for example, someone in the community notices that Person X is "looking like he might be dangerous" - what are we doing about that and how much leeway does the state have?

      These are all interesting issues. I'm somewhat relieved to see the polling, but I understand that it doesn't mean the knuckleheads in DC get it or care. It's always about the money.

      This will interesting to watch develop. this needs to be a multi-tiered approach.

      •  "if you see something, suppress something" (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        yet another liberal, msmacgyver
        I'm also unclear on how exactly, if, for example, someone in the community notices that Person X is "looking like he might be dangerous" - what are we doing about that and how much leeway does the state have?

        yksitoista ulotteinen presidentin shakki. / tappaa kaikki natsit "Nous sommes un groupuscule" (-9.50; -7.03) 政治委员, 政委‽ Warning - some snark above ‽

        by annieli on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 06:44:47 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Self defense as a Fashion Statement (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Backpack Shield:

          When someone is impatient and says, "I haven't got all day," I always wonder, How can that be? How can you not have all day? George Carlin

          by msmacgyver on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 08:16:02 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  more ubiquitous than one thinks (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MPociask, msmacgyver
            Obama wore bulletproof suit at inauguration: report  When Barack Obama was inaugurated as the 44th President of the United States, nobody wanted to say it, but everyone was thinking it. Speaking in front of thousands, just how safe was the new leader of the most powerful nation on earth? According to sources in the US media, more safe than we realised. Obama was wearing a stylish bulletproof suit, and there is only one company in the world who makes them. Miguel Caballero, the famed Bulletproof Tailor of Bogota, has for years been designing high-end armoured fashionware for the world's paranoid elite. The company has been so secretive about its clients, many believe it is an urban legend. But in fact it exists on an unassuming city street in a low-rise white building in Bogota, Colombia. The factory of Miguel Caballero has over 100 employees, and a cleverly selected worldwide spokesman in action movie star Steven Seagal. The Armani for Moving Targets, Caballero manufactures stylish armour-plated leather coats, suits, vests, sweaters, and even ties, for a clientele that extends far beyond Colombia's borders - a full 80 per cent of their business comes from overseas orders.
            Read more:

            yksitoista ulotteinen presidentin shakki. / tappaa kaikki natsit "Nous sommes un groupuscule" (-9.50; -7.03) 政治委员, 政委‽ Warning - some snark above ‽

            by annieli on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 08:28:43 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Reading more... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Employees are dedicated and committed to the product, so much so that everyone who works for Miguel Caballero is required to try on a vest, and be shot by Mr Caballero. And you thought your job interview was tough.

              It is also common for the rich and powerful to put their brave and boldest bodyguards in the line of fire to ensure that purchased garments meet their own particular standards of quality.

              I would have liked to have tried this experience on for size myself, but was told that only Mr Caballero is permitted to shoot prospective clients.

              Since he wasn't in town, there went the one legitimate shot I had at getting shot. Still, it's one thing to be told a fur coat can stop a bullet, and another to see it.

              When someone is impatient and says, "I haven't got all day," I always wonder, How can that be? How can you not have all day? George Carlin

              by msmacgyver on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 09:58:37 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  I'll tell you how they get them. (6+ / 0-)

        Yes, they are getting them from gun shops--though not directly, and not in the inner city.

        Got a felony record? Can't pass a background check? Find someone with a clean record who will go and buy the gun for you, for a price.

        And actually, if you can't find that person, no worries, that person will be looking for you: buying illegal guns for you is his job, I mean, what the hell else is he supposed to do with his life, considering the absolutely substandard "education" he got in the public schools, combined with the fact that there are absolutely no jobs available for him, with his skill set, and his "circumstance", combined with the fact that in this society, he's most likely to be considered a criminal no matter WHAT he does, so he may as well do what's "expected" of him.

        The gun shops are not even in the inner city. They're out in the suburbs...doubly cruel/ironic....the revenue doesn't even stay in the community, it goes out to the burbs. But the guns? Yeah, the guns stay here in the inner city.

        •  My Local Gun Store (6+ / 0-)

          I've been in there a LOT of times when they turned down people who were obviously straw purchasers.

          A lot of times it's been guys who were felons who came in with their Girlfriends and were getting the GF to buy the gun and it was pretty obvious what was going on.

          I've seen those people get SERIOUSLY pissed at the owners but they are just doing their part to protect the rest of us.

          •  "to protect the rest of us"? (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Alice Olson, cybersaur, belle1

            Gee, maybe finding another line of work would be a more effective strategy to that end. ;(

            Personally, I think going after the sellers and manufacturers is going to be as important as legislation in getting guns out of our lives--after all, it's all about the pocketbook.

            Shut em down.

            •  Think that all you want. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              mdmslle, Boris49

              All what you are proposing will do if made law will guarantee all rural democrats will lose and a republican majority will emerge.

              I remember what happened after Brady and AWB in the past even though at the time the polls were FOR it.

              So what did we get after Brady and AWB? 2 wars, economic collapse, huge deficit, republicans elected at both the state and local levels that did noting but pass more gun laws to allow MORE guns.

              I think people here on the left are totally blind right now to the political consequences of some of the stuff they are proposing.

              The way the senate works loss of rural dems will really hurt us and we WILL lose some if a bunch of tough gun control gets passed.

              The house districts are so gerrymandered that you can be pretty sure that republicans are safe and rural dems are vulnerable.

              We do need to do something about the mass shooting with guns issue, but as a democrat I'd rather not lose everything we've got under Obama to do it.

              Now to a lot of Democrats I'm guessing that banning guns would be worth losing power for. That's their right.

            •  That is unfair, methinks. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              Most gunshop owners make a very small margin on each gun.  I know most of them would be happy to make $50 on each gun they sold.

              To risk losing their license and have their inventory confiscated by the ATF, along with thousands of dollars in legal fees, doesn't work for a $50 profit.

              Gun shops truly represent the first line of defense against getting guns into the wrong hands.  Many off-duty cops work in them. Or retired cops.

              Straw purchasers are prevented frequently.  This isn't an internet sale.  Prospective purchasers go through an 'interview' with the seller.  Sellers are very experienced in talking to the potential customer and it becomes somewhat apparent if a person has a problem.  Not always, of course.  But they do one heck of a lot of screening.

              •  not in these parts. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                Did you read the Sun Times link I posted?

                Frankly, my concern is less the "mass shooting"-scenario, and more the daily slaughter of folks in my own neighborhood.

                And is it doubly ironic to know that the guns they're getting are from some silly-assed gun shop owners who can't think of any better way to make a living than by selling guns?

                Yes. it is.

                If, as you say, the profit margin is so small--all the more insulting. How low do you have to go to make a buck, seriously, how low?

                •  I didn't read it, but I'll go back and find it. (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  annieli, grumpelstillchen, MPociask

                  I deal with a lot of shops because I'm a gunsmith.  Most of my work is with law enforcement.  The rest is primarily competition shooters.  Generally a very sane bunch.

                  I get bulletins from the ATF by email about once a week.  They describe their activities and investigations of gun shops.  There is an occasional shop that gets busted.  But, with over 50,000 retailers, it is a very small number.

                  I'll read your ref.

                  •  I've read it. It has a few very solid points, but (0+ / 0-)

                    some of it is clearly hype on the part of the reporter.

                    It is not "difficult" for the ATF to take away a license. It is sometimes expensive..on both sides, but the ATF normally wins.

                    The ATF agents in my area are more concerned with the "E" in their name (Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and EXPLOSIVES).  Why they are more concerned should be obvious.  That they spend much of their time on this subject is frightening.

                  •  my point is, whether it's "willful ignorance" (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    or the case of a gun shop owner being "bamboozled" matters not. The fact is, as long as guns are "out there", you will not ever be able to control who has them and who doesn't.

                    Therefore. The guns have got to go.

                    Here's another link,

                    And a recent (August 2012) Chicago Tribune article concludes that

                    suburban gun shops are a main source of guns used in crimes in the city.
                    It galls me. Really, really galls me. Hey gun shop owner, dontcha just love your safe little suburban enclave? But please remember, the price that I pay for your ability to make your mortgage payment is having to dodge bullets every day.

                    My neighbor? Finest, most upstanding, kind, smart, wonderful woman I know. Solid middle class, hubby works in financial aid out in the suburbs, but they've lived in this community forever.

                    She has lost 2 children and one grandchild to gun violence.

                    I sure wish these suburban gun shop owners would  just keep their fucking guns in their own communities. Seems like the least they could do. Yeah, my neighbor kind of agrees. :(

                    •  2 children and one grandchild... (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      DSPS owl

                      in three separate,  unrelated incidents over a ten-year period.

                      Saw the look on her face the other day....twas not pretty. And I know exactly what she was thinking, "when oh when will they ever get ret of the fucking guns"??

                      No doubt  in my mind that this most recent mass shooting of young children brought back excruciating memories for her.

        •  I think that varies by state, honestly. I'm (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MPociask, DSPS owl, BachFan

          a legal florida resident. Guns grow on trees.

          But right now I'm living in maryland, just outside DC and I was shocked at all the rules and regulations to buy a gun. Every gun shop I went in I'm quite sure there aren't going to be any "straw purchases" going on. The amount of paperwork and shit you have to fill out was shocking to me. Not saying I;m against it...I just wasn't used to it.

          I think it varies from state to state and even from shop to shop.

          In FL you can guy a gun anywhere, pick one off a tree.

          •  another quote (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            from a local gang member:

            "We get half our guns through trade-ins with dope fiends," said a gang member on the South Side. "If you wanted a gun right now, we could put in an order and you'd have it. It's like going through the drive-through window. 'Give me some fries, a Coke and a 9-millimeter.' "

            Oh, and I wouldn't be surprised if the retired police officer in this part of the report considered himself a "responsible gun owner."

            Terry spoke to one gang leader who got his first gun from a drug addict, had just bought 27 guns an addict stole from a retired police officer's house, and regularly went to gun shows to buy and then resell at a substantial profit on the black market—a combination of the many ways guns are exchanged in the city.
            And this is why the guns simply have got to GO. Because there is nothing you can do to insure that the guns don't end up where you (as a gun owner) never expected them to be.
      •  Chicago Sun TImes Link (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MPociask, Alice Olson, mdmslle, jaywillie

        These suburban gun shops need to be SHUT DOWN. And if law enforcement can't do it, then the consumer public must.

        Chicago Gangs Don't have to Go Far To Buy Guns

        Roseanna Ander, executive director of the lab, said the new findings suggest a key strategy to keeping guns off the street is for law-enforcement agencies to target the local gun stores most likely to sell firearms to straw purchasers.

        But the laws on the books make it tough for prosecutions against shady gun dealers who follow the letter but not the spirit of the law.

        And that’s against a backdrop of a well-funded gun lobby and an underfunded federal enforcement effort — a combination that undermines crackdowns on gun dealers.

      •  change in attitude (0+ / 0-)

        I think it just needs a change in attitude.  The toys that gun nuts play with are not going protect anyone against reasonable advisory be it a government or zombie attack.  Those who do want to defend against such an attack better learn some physics and chemistry.  Otherwise it is just delusional game.

        The purpose of guns in an urban and suburban situation are to kill and intimidate.  Some people think killing and intimidation is reasonable manner in which to solve or negotiate a situation.   In many cases these are the people who need to own guns.  I believe that such people should be identified as, we say in the south, not quite right, and given help.

        I would argue that these mass killing are not the most shocking, just the most readily available PR for people who are looking for a cause.  What is shocking is the number of children that are murdered every day.  Which is not going to minimized by a ban on guns, but by a ban on the proposition that guns are a good and reasonable way to solve problems.  But ideas can't be banned.

        So this poll tells us what we already know.  Everyone wants to stop these high profile events so we can continue to believe that hate and violence are acceptable.

        •  Yeah, the zombie thing has got to stop. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Weapons manufacturers and accessory manufacturers were putting lime green biohazard logos on their products for use on zombies.

          That attracts young men (I'd be embarrassed to show up with a zombie designated firearm).

          Stop the stupid advertising.

      •  Virginia ... and states like it. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Oh Mary Oh, mdmslle

        I would wager most illegal weapons linked to crimes committed in Maryland are from VA gun shows.

      •  They aren't stealing them en masse (5+ / 0-)

        here in Costa Rica. They are stealing them one or two at a time, from Gringos.  A once totally unarmed society is now getting dangerous.  We in the US have a communicable disease and we're busy spreading it around the world.

        The good we secure for ourselves is precarious and uncertain, is floating in mid-air, until it is secured for all of us and incorporated into our common life. Jane Addams

        by Alice Olson on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 07:17:50 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  2 of every 5 guns sold in the US (7+ / 0-)

      are done so without a background check.

      Why is it that, as a culture, we are more comfortable seeing two men holding guns than holding hands?

      by jsfox on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 06:32:05 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Virginia is pretty lax ... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Miggles, Oh Mary Oh, science nerd

      Gun shows here are a smile and a handshake.

      I like the idea of adding to it though: mental health assessment.  Sounds good in principle, but in the implementation, I'm sure it would be a nightmare.

      That and it wouldn't be good enough that you were mentally healthy at the time of purchase, but throughout your life ... in fact, everyone that you live with that could have access to your fire arm would also need regular mental health assessments.

      That said, society would probably benefit from regular mental health assessments.  Maybe some day ...

      •  In the case of Aurora and Newton, people were (4+ / 0-)

        aware of obvious mental health issues but failed to act.

        In Aurora, I'd say it bordered on criminal negligence.

        Perhaps we need a campaign to alert people to the effects of mental health and firearms.  It has somewhat worked for firearm locks...not perfect of course.

        •  My guess is (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Boris49, MPociask, BachFan

          its an implementation problem.  The people want Congress to act, and act immediately.

          It is easy to say, 'OK, lets ban assault Weapons.'  You write it up, it's the law.  Doesn't matter if crazy people still get their hands on killing devices. You 'tried'.

          Try implementing a nation-wide mental health awareness and screening program, that is fed to the federal government, who then needs to feed that into its registry and then to the gun store owners.  Oh yeah, and the mental health screens would have to be mandatory, and yearly, for the purchaser and their immediate family ...

          Not to mention doctor/patient confidentiality ... and the fact that mental health registries would start to be demanded by employers, insurance providers, etc ...

          •  The other thing with mental health (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            Understand, I am 100% for a better mental health system.  I am for Kucinich's Medicare for All Plan, that would provide health, dental, and mental benefits to all Americans.  But for everyone says, we need a better mental health care system to catch these people!

            Mental health care is for the most part a completely voluntary system.  And say you force a mental check when you register for a gun - well, what does that mean?  What if you're being successfully treated with medication for clinical depression?  Do you have less rights because your brain is different than other people's, even though you're treating that condition?  Or, if you do get the license, then do you then do random inspections to make sure every gun owner is taking their prescribed medications?  And where do you draw the line?  Half the victims of gun violence every year are suicides - do we start mandating mental check ups for everyone?

            There are no easy answers, on any of this.  That's not an excuse for inaction, but it is a call to really grapple with and understand the challenges any solution offers.

            •  4 (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              I would especially say that medical records should be sacrosanct. We don't need to add to the stigma of mental illness by doing anything that encourages potentially dangerous people to not seek treatment.

              If a psychologist or psychiatrist believes someone is a clear and present danger to others, they should be able to flag that patient for further examination if they were to try to buy a gun. But for everyone with medical records indicating treatment (and not commitment, etc.) there are 2 people who are untreated or undertreated that are likely to be more dangerous.

            •  Good points all (0+ / 0-)

              The fact that half the victims of gun violence are suicides by itself I would argue makes the case that gun possession or access should be dependent on the mental state of the individual.  It is tough though, because you only need one bullet from a gun to kill yourself.  An assault weapons ban isn't going to do a thing in this regard.

              Common sense dictates that people suffering from depression probably shouldn't own fire arms (like people who experience seizures or the elderly who's reaction time is questionable probably shouldn't drive cars, etc ...) but it really isn't cut and dry.

              And you are correct.  A person with mental problems may in fact chose not to seek treatment is they knew that by doing so they might lose possession of their fire arms.  However, the safety of the community dictates that crazy people shouldn't be armed.  Tying the mental health assessments to some sort of gun ownership license might be a way to address this.

              And if the problem is public stigma, then the signature of a practicing (accredited) physiologist should be perfectly reasonable.  The government wouldn't know the intricate details of your personal psyche.  It would only know if your physiologist signed on the dotted line.

          •  There's no problem with any of this. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            People who want to own lethal weapons would have to subject themselves to regular mental health examinations.  It's simply a condition of licensure.  We require examinations for a number of occupations.  For example, pilots and truck drivers are regularly tested for mind-altering substances.  This is no different.

            As far as doctor/patient confidentiality, I'm not sure what you're talking about.  The state and federal governments already collect a lot of very sensitive personal health information about people.  I am listed in a registry maintained by the state of California's department of public health as a person who is infected with HIV.  The registry is confidential, but the state has an interest in tracking people with communicable diseases.  It has no less an interest in tracking mentally unstable people with access to guns.

            You say employers, insurance providers, and others would start demanding these mental health registries.  That's an entirely hypothetical scenario, and even if those entities were to do so, the law could simply require that the registries be kept confidential, just as states' registries of HIV+ people are, or as patients' medical information is under HIPPA.

            Sure, this kind of program would cost money, but gun rights advocates are the ones claiming that mental illness is the issue, rather than the ridiculous number of firearms available in this country.  If that's what these advocates truly believe, and assuming this whole mental illness discussion is sincere and not a smokescreen, then they should be pushing hard for this kind of program.

            "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

            by FogCityJohn on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 12:18:53 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  The problem with the registry (0+ / 0-)

              and the sharing of that obtained information is that to this point, these are at the state level (at least the ones we know about...).

              California and other liberal states are much more likely to be open with this type of information, whereas conservative states don't like the idea of their information being collected.  I'd wager that it is these conservative states that possess the vast majority of semi automatic firearms.

              •  That's why you create a national registry. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                The only way to control the proliferation of guns is to do it on a national basis.  Lax gun laws in one state make controls in adjoining states far less effective.  Just look at what Virginia's lack of regulation has done to places like DC and New York City.

                This is a nationwide problem and it therefore requires a nationwide solution.  

                "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

                by FogCityJohn on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 10:20:12 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

  •  But haven't you heard? (23+ / 0-)

    Widespread gun possession isn't the problem, no sirree.

    Rather, we should focus on video games, mental health issues, inclement weather for all we know, but the idea that we should restrict access to any gun, for anyone, for any reason whatsoever, just ain't gonna work. Because evil.

    Now if you'll pardon me, I'll go polish my constitutionally-protected Kalashnikov.

    Fuck you, I put on pants yesterday.

    by MBNYC on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 06:09:27 AM PST

  •  Insightful poll, except for the question ... (7+ / 0-)

    ... "Would you support or oppose requiring a mental health examination before any purchase of a gun?"

    That looks like a litmus test question aimed (!) at the gun lobby argument that only crazy people use assault weapons - or any other kind of gun - to massacre people. So ... that's that, isn't it? Just detect and treat mental illness, cure poverty and drugs, stop showing kids and adults violent movies and video games ... and leave our guns alone.

    Costas had it right; our "Gun Culture" is the problem. That is too amorphous a problem to solve. But substantial legislation to dramatically reduce the availability - the manufacture, sale and trading - of guns of all kinds, while a Big Solution, would be a good starting point for bargaining with the Gun Crowd in Congress.

    2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

    by TRPChicago on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 06:10:13 AM PST

  •  Don't worry, gun fetishists, the filibuster will (14+ / 0-)

    protect you, and if that doesn't work, the ignoramistas in the House will also.  

    For everyone else, make sure and save all your editorials and blog posts for reuse following the next massacre.

    You have exactly 10 seconds to change that look of disgusting pity into one of enormous respect!

    by Cartoon Peril on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 06:10:52 AM PST

  •  I'm picturing Ted Nutjob (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Alice Olson, Churchill

    standing alone and naked, dressed only in his demented cowboy hat, with two assault rifles held high,  And, it's not a pretty image.

    In the GOP your status is inversely proportional to your integrity.

    by anothergreenbus on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 06:12:38 AM PST

  •  What % favor repealing &/or amending 2nd Amndmnt? (5+ / 0-)

    Might be worth starting to track in surveys, over the next 20-30 years.

    I hear there's some discussion of this on DailyKos. ;-)

    (Fwiw, 70%-78% of respondents here favor repeal &/or amending the Second Amendment. Naturally, that puts us considerably ahead of the population -- our work is cut out for us.)

    Opening up this conversation, in calm dialogue, is in the national interest.

  •  I think most Americans really (5+ / 0-)

    don't know there is almost no federal law regulating the sales of guns and ammo.  

    The liberty of democracy is not safe if people tolerate growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself.---FDR

    by masslib on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 06:15:06 AM PST

  •  Our opinion doesn't matter in a broken democracy. (8+ / 0-)

    Exhibit A: The Public Option
    Exhibit B: The soon-to-fail gun control attempt

    The media will tell us that we are at each others' throats, when we're not.  The politicians will tell us that we just don't understand the complexity, when we do.  Then they'll stick the envelope of cash in their pocket and look the other way.

    Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!

    by bigtimecynic on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 06:15:39 AM PST

  •  There's no need to repeal Second Amendment (8+ / 0-)

    Our firearms regulation is so slack we are miles away from whatever limits it might impose.

    You have exactly 10 seconds to change that look of disgusting pity into one of enormous respect!

    by Cartoon Peril on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 06:17:08 AM PST

  •  What's missing from the list of questions, but (9+ / 0-)

    is a big piece of the puzzle, is one aimed at finding out how many gun owners own their guns because they think that the federal government is going to invade them and make them UN prisoners, or own guns because they think that the country is now run by communists and socialists, etc.  

    In other words, how much of the gun-owning craze is due to right-wing paranoia and the spread of its conspiracy theories?

    These are people whose answers to questions about gun owning are qualitatively different from the answers given by hunters, gun collectors, etc.

    That's one more thing to add to my long list of small problems. --my son, age 10

    by concernedamerican on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 06:18:18 AM PST

    •  I would wager its a small amount (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mdmslle, MPociask

      Your average gun owner, I would argue doesn't own a gun or two because he is afraid of the government.

      The truth is that gun owners own guns because ... they like to shoot guns.

      Pure and simple.  People who don't like to shoot guns obviously don't see the appeal, but they should take that into account before lumping in the majority of gun owners with the crazies.

      •  I don't think my comment lumped anyone together, (0+ / 0-)

        but I do think that poll questions tend to lump all kinds of groups together, in the sense that they filter for only very particular characteristics (e.g., political affiliation, age, gender, etc.)

        That's one more thing to add to my long list of small problems. --my son, age 10

        by concernedamerican on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 06:48:53 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  You're so right about this. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Miggles, MPociask, cybersaur

      And frankly, I'm tired of listening to ANYTHING this fringe minority of lunatics has to say. If they hate America and its government so much, they need to get the hell out of here.

      It's a "free" country: love it or leave it. (Funny, how times have  changed. I can't believe I just seriously posted what used to be a right-wing meme!)

      It is time for us to take this "majority rules" shit seriously and move forward, not with "conversation" but with legislation.  

    •  I'm thinking that's the 6% in the survey (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      who appear to oppose any restrictions whatsoever.

      The good we secure for ourselves is precarious and uncertain, is floating in mid-air, until it is secured for all of us and incorporated into our common life. Jane Addams

      by Alice Olson on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 07:43:19 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Just Like with Social Security (4+ / 0-)

    Contrary to overwhelming public opinion, policy is dominated by the Peterson Institute and its allies in Congress on behalf of a distinct outlier minority of crazies.

    This aggression will not stand, man.

    by kaleidescope on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 06:19:05 AM PST

  •  I concur with all the (6+ / 0-)

    above rational restrictions except one.  When all Americans who are required to have a psych exam prior to having children, I'll agree to a psych exam prior to purchasing a gun.  National Child Abuse Statistics as of 2010.

    " My faith in the Constitution is whole; it is complete; it is total." Barbara Jordan, 1974

    by gchaucer2 on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 06:20:17 AM PST

    •  And then what? Should someone fail that (0+ / 0-)

      exam would you castrate them?  Force them to have hysterectomies or abortions?  Not very likely.

      I admit to the complexity in the case of guns, but at least there's an appropriate next step.  In the case of childbearing?  Not so much.

      The good we secure for ourselves is precarious and uncertain, is floating in mid-air, until it is secured for all of us and incorporated into our common life. Jane Addams

      by Alice Olson on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 07:45:56 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  This again. (0+ / 0-)

      The argument is as follows:  "Until you come up with a solution to X problem, I will not agree to your solution to Y problem."  

      Another variant of it is this:  "Because your proposal will not solve [insert list of serious problems here], we shouldn't be considering it until we deal with [repeat previous list of serious problems]."

      This is just a deflection.  It's invariably an argument for inaction, because the person making it knows full well that we cannot and will not be able to solve all problems simultaneously.

      Nice try though.  And I give you bonus points for the pull-the-heartstrings aspect of the argument.  Unfortunately, it's obvious you're trying to create a false conflict between gun control and measures to combat child abuse.  It's a pretty transparent ploy, but one that will probably have some emotional appeal.

      "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

      by FogCityJohn on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 12:28:01 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Not just the NRA and the GOP, plenty of Democrats (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    are complicit and are responsible for allowing/assisting the NRA to institute a regime of terror where we all have to live in fear.

    Even among us plenty of "responsible" gun owners espouse the NRA absolute line and come out to attack any suggestion of reasonable regulations.  The arguments get circular and they always end up with personal attacks and HRs.  In my case, they attack my screen name, basically saying that it is laughable I consider defending the Constitution so important. I couldn't understand this until this past week: to the NRA and all of their apologists (especially politicians) the US Constitution only has 27 Words - of course the "well regulated" part is always ignored by them.

    Then they came for me - and by that time there was nobody left to speak up.

    by DefendOurConstitution on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 06:22:48 AM PST

  •  Gun Control - Are our "babies" safe? (4+ / 0-)

    From a Democratic candidates debate in 2007. A viewer asks will Democrats take away his "baby".

  •  I have several issues with this post (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I find that a number of these polling questions appear to have been written specifically with the intention of maximizing the difference between the two choices.  As everyone here knows, you can alter polls dramatically by the words you chose to use.

    The use of "assault rifles" in all the queries instead of "semi-automatic rifles" for example.

    In terms of functionality, the two are the same.  But if you were to ask "Do you think semi-automatic weapons are necessary for hunting?" instead of "Do you think assault weapons are necessary for hunting?" I bet you get two different poll numbers.  As the majority of hunting rifles sold today are semi-automatic, I would expect that to hunters, the question would often times be yes, they are.

    I agree with the mental health assessment question, but worry as to its implementation.  It's often a slippery slope, and I can imagine the more liberal areas of the country taking advantage of such a rule and pushing their own agendas (ie. you want a gun? you must be crazy ...).

    Context and buzz words do matter.

    •  Yes, this (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Even if you had said assault rifle, that would be one thing, but to say assault weapon, that's a very ambiguous phrase.  People who don't know guns will says, of course not!  People who do know guns may or may not think of what qualified as an assault weapon under the old ban, and think, well, no, not that.

      These polls are great for making an argument - but not great at finding out what people think.

      •  If it is true that 54% of respondents own guns (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        then a lot of (ignorant?) gun owners answered that question with a preference for banning.

        The good we secure for ourselves is precarious and uncertain, is floating in mid-air, until it is secured for all of us and incorporated into our common life. Jane Addams

        by Alice Olson on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 07:48:34 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I was not saying they were ignorant (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Let me say this a different way.

          The phrase "assault weapon" does not refer to any particular type of gun.  As pointed out by others, the 1994 Assault Weapon ban is based upon types of guns that have a variety of cosmetic features attached - essentially, scary looking guns.  

          If you're not familiar with that history, you just hear the phrase assault weapon, import your own understanding of what that means, and say yes, we should ban those.

          If you are familiar with the history, when someone asks you, "Should we ban assault weapons?" you may understand the question to mean, "Should we reinstate the Assault Weapons Ban"?  You could very well answer that question yes, but while thinking about a different class of guns than the ones imagined by the people in the first category.

          I think gun owners are more likely to be in the second group than the first, but the real problem is the ambiguity in the question which allows people to hear the same thing but understand it to mean completely different things.  

          I'd like to see a poll that got down to brass tacks, and avoided the use of jargon.  For example, "Would you support banning handguns that can fire more than 6 shots in less than X seconds?  Would you support banning rifles that can fire thirty shots in X second?  Would you support banning ammunition cartridges than enable you to fire X shots in X seconds?"

      •  If you went hunting with an AWB "assault weapon" (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        I'd think you were a--well, all sorts of descriptors come to mind, none of them flattering (and several would probably get me yelled at by other posters.) If you asked me if an assault weapon was needed for hunting, I'd say no. A semi-auto, I'd say yes. While I don't really see a need for most of the features that were listed under the 1994 AWB (I understand wanting a magazine and an adjustable stock) I don't like the idea of banning guns on what are essentially cosmetic features. But I reserve the right to laugh at a collection of military-pattern AR-15s the same way that I laugh at people who collect those cheap katanas. Use the right tool for the job (which might just be a non-military style semi-automatic .223.) Collect guns if you like to collect guns. But don't make me think that you're like a thirteen-year old boy with a flashy (and barely useable) knife you bought at a flea market.

  •  Also on behalf of the manufacturers. (0+ / 0-)

    The "distinct outlier minority of crazies" only matter as long as they keep the manufacturers busy.

  •  Easy (8+ / 0-)
    That's quite the contradiction, isn't it? While conservatives backed all those common-sensical gun restrictions, they still thought more guns were the answer to gun violence. Don't ask me to decipher that little bit of cognitive dissonance.
    Just a minor tweak to what you wrote:
    conservatives backed all those common-sensical gun restrictions for other people, they still thought more guns for themselves were the answer to gun violence.
    That's the standard-issue conservative cognitive dissonance.
  •  I still don't think it... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    grumpelstillchen, Alice Olson

    will matter...this country has minority rule when the GOP is the minority. Only when the GOP has the majority does majority rule.

    "It's almost as if we're watching Mitt Romney on Safari in his own country." -- Jonathan Capeheart

    by JackND on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 06:34:01 AM PST

  •  Tere are responsible gun owners, and the ones (4+ / 0-)

    that I know have no problem with sensible gun regulations:

    1. Federal laws, no more state laws
    2. An assault weapons ban with teeth that addresses all the weapons that can fire dozens of bullets in very few seconds (or the cheap conversion kits to make ones that are not shoot that fast anyway)
    3. Licensing and training
    4. Registration of all firearms

    I have yet to meet a responsible gun owner that is against any of the above, but there are plenty of apologists that are complicit in the daily carnage by aiding and abetting the NRA's absolutist position.

    Then they came for me - and by that time there was nobody left to speak up.

    by DefendOurConstitution on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 06:36:41 AM PST

    •  The problem (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      is in #2.

      An assault weapons ban with teeth that addresses all the weapons that can fire dozens of bullets in very few seconds
      Anything that is semi-automatic could do exactly what the Bushmaster did in that school.  A smaller magazine could have meant more reloading, but semi-auto is semi-auto.

      An 'assault weapons ban' sounds all fine and dandy, but what you would really need is a 'semi-automatic ban'.  This is largely the reason that the first assault weapon's ban didn't work.  But you are never going to get a semi-automatic weapons ban passed.  It just won't happen.  Taking guns in this country back to pre-world war I isn't realistic.

  •  To the 6% opposed... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Alice Olson

    Who are you and get ready to have a full twenty year background check on your asses!!!

    "I think it's the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately." -- George Carlin, Satirical Comic,(1937-2008)

    by Wynter on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 06:39:18 AM PST

  •  Here's what really counts: (0+ / 0-)
    allies in Congress
    Frankly, what the NRA wants is irrelevant.  It's what those people with power who have been BOUGHT by the NRA that matters.  If these lawmakers either 1) side with their purchaser over their constituents or 2) decide that "winning" against Obama and the Democrats is the most important thing, and thus vote as a block against sensible legislation, then we will continue down our present road.

    On a side note: I really believe that anti-gun control lawmakers should be required to go to the morgue and see the effects of these weapons on the bodies of victims.  (And they should bring along the morons given a public forum who have fantasies of heavy-set boys or heroic custodians charging gunmen to prevent carnage).

    Time will tell.

    “If we, citizens, do not support our artists, then we sacrifice our imagination on the altar of crude reality and we end up believing in nothing and having worthless dreams.” ~ Yann Martel

    by SottoVoce on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 06:40:05 AM PST

  •  Take the NRA out with a Drone. ;) nt (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    "I think it's the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately." -- George Carlin, Satirical Comic,(1937-2008)

    by Wynter on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 06:43:20 AM PST

  •  NRA works its extremes... (0+ / 0-)

    In the way many organizations do.  I have in mind AIPAC, which doesn't properly represent the sentiments of the American-Jewish community it purports to represent.

    What AIPAC does represent are its most vocal participants and, even worse, heaviest contributors.  The NRA, in some ways, draws on the same dynamic.  Sensationalize the issue to the point of absurdity (government tyranny; Israel's imminent destruction), then empower your most vocal supporters (who empower their leadership in turn): lather, rinse, repeat.

    Breaking the cycle involves both posting counterweights to the sensationalistic tirades at the national level on a regular basis and splitting off supporters.  (Peter Beinart did a nice job analyzing this issue as it affects AIPAC, which has steadily lost its American-Jewish secular supporters--and continues to do so at a slow but steady drip).

    •  NRA also draws on (0+ / 0-)

      a lot of money from the gun industry. And the most dangerous guns are also some of the most profitable.

      That's why despite their hints that they will bring something to the table, I won't expect to see any support from them for a renewed assault weapons ban, or even any other classification of guns with greater hoops to jump through depending on how dangerous the gun is.

      Maybe, just maybe, they'll be OK with limiting magazine capacity.

      •  it's.. (0+ / 0-)

        Because trying to define one gun as more dangerous than the other is silly. One of the first things you learn in any gun safety class is that all guns are dangerous. They're all capable of killing whatever you point them at.

        Magazine size, type of action, whether it looks like a military version of another gun - all fairly irrelevant to that basic premise.

  •  Million-Retiree March on DC (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    We need to show Congress and our president that we won't tolerate their lying to us anymore.  They must stop chiseling away our social security benefits - the cost of which we were required to pay throughout our entire working lives.

    It's time for a million-retiree march on Washington.  We can stop this stealth-theft of our earned benefits if we act now.

  •  We DO know why (0+ / 0-)

    The "why" is the easy part. It's because everybody in the US, psychopaths and lunatics included, can easily obtain an assault rifle and as much ammo as they want.

    The "how do we fix it" question is the hard part. The 2nd amendment says we're allowed to regulate this, so let's at least start with common sense regulation. Of course, half of Congress is controlled by people who are impervious to logic and allergic to common sense, so.....

    The Bush Family: 0 for 4 in Wisconsin

    by Korkenzieher on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 07:02:57 AM PST

  •  Dumb questions. What is an "assault weapon"? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Of course most agree assault weapons should be banned.

    But that's because everyone has their own idea of what an assault weapon is!

    The devil is in the details on that one.

    Next, an even worse is the wording:

    Would you support or oppose banning assault weapons?
    What does that mean?  Banning sales of NEW assault weapons?

    Or, does it mean confiscation of private property of all existing such weapons?

    You might get some different responses on that one!

    •  here's one (0+ / 0-)

      In defense of Custer, some historians claim that some of the Indians were armed with repeating Spencer, Winchester and Henry rifles, while the 7th Cavalry carried single-shot Springfield Model 1873 carbines, caliber .45–70. These rifles had a slower rate of fire than the repeating rifles and tended to jam when overheated. The carbines had been issued with copper cartridges. Troopers soon discovered that the copper expanded in the breech when heated upon firing; the ejector would then cut through the copper and leave the case behind, thus jamming the rifle. Troopers were forced to extract the cartridges manually with knife blades; thus, the carbines were nearly useless in combat except as clubs

      yksitoista ulotteinen presidentin shakki. / tappaa kaikki natsit "Nous sommes un groupuscule" (-9.50; -7.03) 政治委员, 政委‽ Warning - some snark above ‽

      by annieli on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 07:22:18 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Please. (0+ / 0-)

      These are what is known as attitudinal questions, not specific definitive should this model with these features be banned kind of question.  Those details can be sorted out and hopefully by a set of criteria that makes sense.  Gun owners should get on the ball and help figure out what that criteria is so they can be heard on the issue instead constantly saying that none of this can be done.  It can be done, poorly or well.  Gun owners can help it do be done well if they want to.  

      You can start assault weapons criteria with any weapon designed to kill a lot of people, efficiently and quickly.

      The priest said, "Today's sermon is called 'Liars', but first I have a question. How many of you have read Chapter 66 in Matthew?" Nearly every hand went up. "You're just the group I need to speak to," the priest said. "There's no such chapter."

      by Back In Blue on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 08:38:48 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  the fatal flaw in your thinking (0+ / 0-)

        Is that any gun can kill a lot of people efficiently and quickly in the wrong hands. Oswald didn't need an AR-15 to kill Kennedy. He used an old Mosin-Nagant variant. Something most people consider a junk gun, even by 1960s standards.

        It's not about the tool - it's about who's using it. The sooner people get that through their heads, the better.

        •  It's about both. (0+ / 0-)

          I'm open to most ideas in how to control guns, and they do need controls.  What we're reacting to now is these mass shootings.  The shooter in Newtown might never have gotten in or would have taken him much longer if he didn't have the firepower he did.  Any additional delay would have given them more time to make decision that could have saved lives.

          There's ample evidence of gun control that works all over the world working to reduce firearm related death.  It must be comprehensive to include the "about who is using part" which is actually much more complicated than addressing weapons is.

          We can start with Israel's gun laws as a model of comprehensive policy.

          The priest said, "Today's sermon is called 'Liars', but first I have a question. How many of you have read Chapter 66 in Matthew?" Nearly every hand went up. "You're just the group I need to speak to," the priest said. "There's no such chapter."

          by Back In Blue on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 12:20:41 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Here's what should be done. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Ok the #1 opposition to any gun control in the gun community is the fact that they believe that any gun control will eventually lead to a total loss of their guns.

    But we have HELLER that says that people now have a right to own guns. But rather than making them feel safer they still feel scared due to the NRA.

    Sadly I think some of the posts on this forum are being used to justify the fears.

    First 100% federal subsidy for sale and delivery of a gun safe. This would help to secure firearms from thieves and mentally impaired family members.

    Second anybody who has been found disabled under Social Security Disability and SSI as being unable to work due to a mental disability should be excluded from gun buys by the instant check system.  

    Third allow for background checks at gunshows.

    Fourth cease production and sale of all clips over 10 rounds.

    Fifth move semi autos that are similar to military assault rifles into the machine gun category which would restrict them further.

    The bottom line is eventually all guns in the US should be registered, and then have a title just like a car. Before a person could take posession, they would have to go thru the background check.

    So called assault rifles and other guns with big clips should be hard to get. Like cigarettes advertising should be prohibited and you should have to ORDER them at a gunstore they shouldn't be on display.

    •  the disability thing... (0+ / 0-)

      The reason why people think gun control advocates the eventual loss of all gun rights is because that's the stated goal of many anti-gun organizations. The whole "we believe in the 2nd amendment" statements on the part of these organizations is largely lip service.
      They point at cities like New York as shining examples of gun control. Owning a gun is technically legal with a permit in New York City. The problem is the city refuses to issue permits until compelled to do so by the courts.  You quite literally have to threaten to sue to get a permit in many cases. So while it's technically legal as a matter of law, in practice it is not. THAT'S what people are afraid of.
      That's why "shall issue" versus "may issue" is such a big deal.

      Your 5th point is also a point that makes people bristle. We ban X - but Y is still legal. Let's just redefine Y so it falls under the same category as X.

      As far as magazine size - why is 10 the magic number? Can anybody explain that to me? It's just a nice round number somebody pulled out of thin air at some point. 10 has no significance what so ever. Since when do we legislate based on something pulled straight from someone's rear end?

      Many of us gun owners do think something needs to be done, and there are changes that need to be made. But let's make them based on research and what's proven. Not based on emotional reactions, numbers pulled from god knows where, or what "sounds good"

    Recommended by:
    Oh Mary Oh, belle1, BachFan

    Hey folks! The NRA was founded and grew through the mid-20 th century as a sportsman club that promoted hunting, gun safety and shooting skills. It no longer exists. The NRA is a nameplate for gun and munitions manufacturers whose sole purpose it is to sell more guns! Any other explanation is pure BS. So if your elected official hides behind the NRA endorsement, he/she is really in the employ of the gun manufacturers and does not represent the US constitution as you representative. The easiest and possibly the best law that can be passed right now is to make it a felony offense, with a mandatory jail term, for anyone who fails to secure registered weapons or munitions and allows them to be in some others possession without documentation. It would also be a mandatory jail term for anyone to legally purchase a weapon for the purpose of reselling it without documentation to anyone.   Of course, the myriad gun show operators would violently protest this.

    •  a group like this needs to reemerge (0+ / 0-)
      The American Hunters and Shooters Association (AHSA), founded in 2005, was a small United States-based group, which has set itself apart from the much larger gun owner organization, the National Rifle Association, founded in 1871, by advocating for increased gun control. Critics questioned the legitimacy of the group, including whether the membership was composed of or representative of gun owners, or was merely a front organization for misleading political endorsements...The AHSA endorsed U.S. Senator Barack Obama for President in the 2008 General Election.... As of October 19, 2010 The AHSA website has been taken down.

      yksitoista ulotteinen presidentin shakki. / tappaa kaikki natsit "Nous sommes un groupuscule" (-9.50; -7.03) 政治委员, 政委‽ Warning - some snark above ‽

      by annieli on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 07:36:58 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  "Too smart" and "Tea Party" (0+ / 0-)

    Don't exactly go together:

    "The teabaggers are particularly enamored with that fantasy, with 65 percent thinking that a bunch of pretend militia members with rifles can provide a check on a government that can employ drones and Seal Team Six to take them out. Only 17 percent are too smart to believe that."

    Trouble is that the anti-government guys are the ones taking pot shots at local law enforcement.  How many of you want to be the County Sheriff sent out to a cabin in the woods in western Montana to enforce a tax lien?

    I do not feel obligated to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use -- Galileo Galilei

    by ccyd on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 07:12:23 AM PST

  •  The answers are not surprising. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Most gun owners do not have an 'assault' weapon.

    If you asked whether they would like to see their semi-automatic .22lr's banned, you would get a different answer, methinks.

    What about their Ruger mini-14's?

    Would you ban a semi-automatic rifle for varmint control (such as coyotes)?

    It's just a very broad question and one that resulted in 900 exemptions the last time.  If you would like to see fewer exemptions, such polling needs to ask more specific questions.

    But, overall, I think most gun owners would fall in line with the poll %'s.

    Good job.

  •  I hadn't realized that gun ownership had dropped (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    So much. Politically, it would seem that Democrats would have little to lose by taking an aggressive pro gun control stance.  The demographics of guns and the change in values prompted by too many shootings provde a new opportunity to shif this debate back to the center.

    Alternative rock with something to say:

    by khyber900 on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 07:25:57 AM PST

  •  Jake Tapper,where u been on gun violence last 4 Yr (0+ / 0-)

    ABC News’ Jake Tapper confronted President Barack Obama about not doing more earlier in his administration to combat gun violence following last week’s horrific elementary school shooting in Newtown, Conn.

    “This is not the first issue, the first incident of horrific gun violence of your four years,” Tapper said Wednesday after Obama announced a new task force to bring him “real reforms” to reduce gun violence. “Where have you been?”

    “Here’s where I’ve been Jake,” Obama said. “I’ve been president of the United States dealing with the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, an auto industry on the verge of collapse, two wars, I don’t think I’ve been on vacation. I think all of us have to do some reflection on how we prioritize what we do here in Washington.”

    80 % of Success is Just Showing Up !

    by Churchill on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 07:41:38 AM PST

  •  OK Corral mythology (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Why doesn't Mythbusters tackle the shoot-out scenario, and see how some teachers would do with an intruder -- use paintballs and run the scenario over several times with different populations and different buildings.  It would be nice to have some data and some visuals on this popular fantasy.

  •  Plus, the money (0+ / 0-)

    Of course, it's the NRA and congressional allies on behalf of crazies but, more importantly, the gun industry.

  •  THANKS MARKOS! (0+ / 0-)

    Now how do I get this poll out to people? Is there a link for PPP? I'd love to share this with my congressmen and woman, Elizabeth Warren.
    Funny how conseratives can so easily contradict themselves in one poll.

  •  Mental health exam is crazy (0+ / 0-)

    A mental-health examination?  To get a meaningful result such an exam would be very time consuming and very intrusive. The positive result on this question makes me suspect the whole poll. It would be reasonable to consult mental-health records (if they existed) as part of a background check, but Walmart is not going to administer the exam, nor are people going to pay for it themselves, nor are they really going to approve of the government doing it.

    •  A mental health exam might eliminate those who (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      think guns are a "necessary check on government tyranny"
    •  They do it in Israel. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      They do a lot more than that, too and frankly we should do the same.

      The priest said, "Today's sermon is called 'Liars', but first I have a question. How many of you have read Chapter 66 in Matthew?" Nearly every hand went up. "You're just the group I need to speak to," the priest said. "There's no such chapter."

      by Back In Blue on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 09:53:22 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  the other tricky part (0+ / 0-)

      with mental health exams - is unlike medical testing much of psychology is in the eye of the beholder. It's fairly subjective analysis on the part of the doctor. It's not like running a blood test where there's hard science behind it. Instead the shrink asks questions, and interpret the answers. You can have pretty differing opinions between doctors on the meaning of those answers, so how can  you really have any kind of fair or uniform test?

  •  Where are the sane gun owners (0+ / 0-)

    In these discussions?  Don't any gun owners agree that assault weapons that can spray hundreds of bullets in 3 minutes do not belong in the hands of regular citizens? Do they really think that our kindergarten teachers should be outfitted like Rambo?  

    Do any of the gun lovers really think China is about to invade our shores?  Or do they think their Bushmaster rifles would be any match for helicopter gunships or H-bombs or Abrams tanks or bunkerbusters or the hosts of other biological weapons and chemical weapons the US gubmint could turn on its citizens, if it ever came to that?!  

    Most of us don't really care if somebody has a rifle for hunting or even a gun in the house to scare off an intruder.  But the stockpiling of assault weapons is bizarre and troubling, as is the notion that ANY attempt to regulate guns and/or ammunition pure evil.  Both Lanza and that monster in Colorado had been buying up piles of ammunition but the NRA had thwarted any attempt by the government to regulate that type of hoarding, all in the name of "freedom".

    It would be nice if Republican gun owners took the lead on real, meaningful gun control.  And give it up already with the "slippery slope" arguments, and the conspiracy shit that the NRA has been spoon feeding to its paranoid membership.

    •  i'm not a member of the nra... (0+ / 0-)

      ... but I do agree with the "slippery slope" theory. The problem is once you allow government the power to start restricting rights based on "the public good" - it opens up a pretty big window. Take the arguments about gun control, and apply them to other rights. Say - freedom of speech. Illegal search and seizure. Right to a fair trial.

      "This speech is dangerous to our children and has become a stain on our culture. We need to restrict it". Doesn't have a very good ring to it does it?

      "This person is dangerous and needs to be removed from our society - despite some silly amendment written 200 years ago about having a fair trial" doesn't seem very settling does it?

      The vast majority of gun owners are not opposed to controls or restrictions, but do it fairly. Do it based on what actually has been shown to work. Do it in a way that actually puts pressure on those who are committing crimes. THAT'S reasonable. Rehashing the same policies that have been floating around for 30+ years just doesn't make sense. If assault weapon bans and high-capacity bans, and all these other things worked so well - why are we in this position?

      As far as "sane gun owners who think assault weapons should be banned" - your premise is rather flawed. You're pretty much saying that anyone who disagrees with you is not sane. Count me in the insane category then. You're going to be hard pressed to find a lot of gun owners who agree with you for the simple fact that most of us understand that whether it's an assault weapon or not is somewhat irrelevant. Guns are not toys. They do kill people. A bullet is not aware of the gun it was fired from - it simply hits what it was pointed at. Whether it's fired from an AR-15 or daddy's old deer rifle - if you get shot, you will be injured or killed. Period.

      As for the "well we have gunships and bombs and missles and all that". Funny - bunch of Afghans in caves held off the entire Russian army for close to a decade. They've been holding off the might of the US Military for many years as well.  Just sayin.

  •   An ever smaller no. of people have all the guns. (0+ / 0-)

    I'm amazed this didn't jump out to anyone, but this statistic should be alarming:

    households owning firearm fell from 54% in 1977 to 32% percent in 2010
    With all the reporting of "record sales" of firearms yet an ever smaller number of people owning firearms can only mean that stockpiling is growing.  

    I know there are a lot of responsible gun owners in that number and there's a lot more to know about that statistic, but yikes!

    The priest said, "Today's sermon is called 'Liars', but first I have a question. How many of you have read Chapter 66 in Matthew?" Nearly every hand went up. "You're just the group I need to speak to," the priest said. "There's no such chapter."

    by Back In Blue on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 10:02:29 AM PST

  •  cherry picking data.... (0+ / 0-)

    Over the years, polling on gun ownership has never been terribly reliable, as you're relying on self-identification. Not all gun owners like to talk about what they own to random strangers on a phone. To get an accurate picture you generally have to look at data from multiple sources. The fact that PPP says 54%, UoC says 34%, and Gallup says 47% should be the first indication that something's not right.  Slight variations are always going to happen but a difference of 20% between polling agencies just doesn't make sense. Simply claiming "oversampling gun owners" and picking the number that fits your thinking best is sketchy.

    It's also worth noting that the same sentiments were around before the '94 assault weapons ban. Public opinion was strongly in favor of "doing something", even more so than today. What happened after that got passed though? There was pretty big backlash when people realized that they were being told they couldn't own something. When people realized the law actually applied to them, quite a few attitudes shifted.

  •  So a friend just pointed out... (0+ / 0-)

    regarding this line:

    The teabaggers are particularly enamored with that fantasy, with 65 percent thinking that a bunch of pretend militia members with rifles can provide a check on a government that can employ drones and Seal Team Six to take them out. Only 17 percent are too smart to believe that.
    a bunch of lightly-armed, halfway illiterate militias did keep our technological power and special forces pretty well occupied throughout many of our wars in recent history, including but not limited to the Philippines, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.

    Not an endorsement of the "take our country back by force" insanity, but I tend to cringe whenever folk underestimate the carnage that unorganized militias can create.

  •  Thanks for posting this (0+ / 0-)

    The data are very interesting!

    "The water won't clear up 'til we get the hogs out of the creek." -- Jim Hightower

    by lartwielder on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 02:38:45 PM PST

  •  Flawed sampling (0+ / 0-)

    I think the Chicago sampling is skewed because the home city and home state where the sampling took place have outlawed concealed carry and made an attempt to ban gun ownership in some locations.  In the past 4 yrs, gun ownership has exploded.  I trust the DKos pole a little more.  
    I offer free marksmanship classes to liberals and progressives here in Central Texas. I taught 43 people in 2009, 87 in 2010, 122 in 2011 and 23 in 2012 because I was hospitalized several months of the year.  
    If guns are banned only the nutbag right wingers will have guns!  My town votes 85% Republican every election.  I have no statistics to prove it but I would say 90% of those suckers have firearms in the home.  Our population is 7,000 and we have have 6 gun shops plus Walmart.  
    It is time for progressives to wake up and smell the coffee!  The enemies of our way of life are armed to the teeth. And they are crazy enough to use those guns to "protect" what they see as the American way of life.  Who knows, they have irrational beliefs and act on them.  Don't look for a "why" as that infers reason and they are unreasonable.

    I am a card carrying and gun toting lleftist.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site