Voters Split on Need for Stricter Gun Control Laws, but Oppose City Handgun Ban

[camacho]

The latest poll on the subject:

Voters Split on Need for Stricter Gun Control Laws, but Oppose City Handgun Ban

Sunday, June 22, 2008


American voters are evenly divided on the need for stricter gun control laws but don’t think city government should have the right to prevent citizens from owning handguns in their city.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 44% say stricter gun control laws while another 44% disagree and 12% are not sure. Most African-American and Hispanic voters believe stricter gun control laws are needed while a plurality (47%) of White voters disagree. Sixty-two percent (62%) of Democrats say stricter gun control laws are needed and 63% of Republicans hold the opposite view. Among unaffiliated voters, 37% want stricter laws while 48% disagree. Overall, the desire for stricter gun control laws is little changed from last December.

However, while there is an even divide on the question of whether stricter laws are needed, only 26% believe that city governments have the right to prevent citizens from owning handguns in their city. Sixty-four percent (64%) disagree and say such a restriction is a violation of the Second Amendment. The United States Supreme Court is expected to announce a decision soon on whether a Washington, DC law banning handguns violates the Constitution.

The Second Amendment was ratified in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights, a collection of vital Amendments added shortly after the Constitution went into effect. The Amendment reads "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." Some have argued that this provides a right to bear arms only in the context of a well-regulated militia. Others reject that notion and say it’s an individual right. The Supreme Court has never ruled definitively on that question. That last major Court ruling on this Amendment was issued nearly 70 years ago when justices upheld a federal ban on sawed-off shotguns.

Not surprisingly, households where someone owns a gun are particularly inclined to believe that a ban on handguns violates the Second Amendment-- 80% of those from gun owning households hold that view. Among households without a gun owner, 35% believe the government has the right to ban handgun ownership while 50% say the Second Amendment trumps the city law.

Eighty percent (80%) of Republicans say that city governments should not have the right to ban handguns. That view is shared by 52% of Democrats and 63% of voters not affiliated with either major party.

The Washington, DC law before the Court was passed in 1976. Last year, he U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled against the city's gun ban and sent the case on to the Supreme Court.

If the Supreme Court upholds the Appeals Court ruling, the ban on handguns would be overturned. It is possible that other restrictions could survive such a ruling including background checks requirements.

Eighteen percent (18%) of voters say they’ve followed news stories of this case Very Closely and another 28% say they’ve been paying attention Somewhat Closely. Twenty-two percent (22%) of gun-owning households are following the case Very Closely along with 12% of those in households without a gun.

Thirty-seven percent (37%) of American voters say that stricter gun control laws would reduce violent crime while 19% say it would increase violent crime. A plurality—39%--say it would have no impact.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub..._gun_control_laws_but_oppose_city_handgun_ban

 

[Tyris]

Most people in favor of stricter laws have no idea what the current status is.
They argue from a point of ignorance.

-T

 

[Solo Flyer]

They argue from a point of ignorance.

Now that is the truth.
Educating these people(you know ,the ones in the poll who make no sense)to the truth is the answer.
Obviously ,this is easier said than done.

 

[camacho]

Educating these people(you know ,the ones in the poll who make no sense)to the truth is the answer. Obviously ,this is easier said than done.

Indeed! As Michael Bane said once (or maybe several times), we are winning legislatively but loosing culturally. I believe if we don't turn the tide culturally, we will eventually loose at the end.

 

[Standing Wolf]

Our rights should never be subject to public opinion.

 

[Robert Hairless]

Our rights should never be subject to public opinion.

Aren't they always, though?

Public opinion directs the laws that are made, the ways they are interpreted and enforced, and the selection of those who make and enforce them. The Bill of Rights was enacted in response to public opinion and amended because of it.

Perhaps the most serious blunder made by at least some gun owners is to fly in the face of public opinion. It is fatal to turn public opinion against gun owners and ownership.

 

[Zoogster]

Nations with some of the strictest gun control on the planet have an even higher number of citizens say they need stricter gun control. More gun control leads to less positive exposure to firearms, and hence the only exposure in society is negative.

If you banned all cars that go over 100mph, 20-40 years from now legalizing them would strike fear in hearts of most of the society. People would speak of street races and deaths everywhere if someone proposed such legislation. Everyone would talk about how nobody needs such a vehicle.
When asked most would say it was a bad idea, that stricter controls were necessary.

The only experience most would have of such illegal vehicles was those criminals that ignored the law, modified vehicles and were in horrific accidents.
Even car enthusiasts would say so.

The same happens when you ban guns. If the federal AWB had lasted another 10-20 years it would have had the same effect.
The machinegun restrictions have been in place that long, and the idea of legalizing machineguns brings out illogical fear that never existed when they were cheap and easy to get. You even hear many firearm enthusiasts unable to imagine how dangerous it would be if all could easily purchase them(again.)

The more restrictions put in place that then remain in place, the more people cannot imagine a lack of such restrictions or especialy a lack of any. More restrictions garner support and belief in yet more restrictions, and such situations create thier own 'proof' that a lack of them would be even more dangerous.

 

[H088]

Great times........................

 

[La Pistoletta]

Zoogster, you're right.

The same happens when you ban guns.

True. When I asked a relative how we are supposed to defend ourselves against the increasing violence here in Sweden when we can't have/use guns, she said "I guess you have to cover your head [when they come for you]" - and really meant it in a non-sarcastic way. She thought the idea of guns being legal for defense was "horrible". Why? Because of that which you described, Zoogster.

The effect of what you mentioned is so strong that apparently guns are more "horrible" than the picture of an innocent human being with peaceful hopes, dreams and aspirations rotting beneath the ground 50 years ahead of his time, or paralyzed in the hospital with a bashed-in skull.

I almost had to barf, that's how disgusted I was. Increasing crime is one thing but when the government itself not only removes the local police force but also legally bars self defense, that's downright perverse.

Can't wait to get out. Unfortunately it'll take a while. But I'm getting out sooner or later. Your country is the last bastion of liberty, do what you can to preserve it.

 

[Kind of Blued]

La Pistoletta, I welcome you with open arms!

There's a fine line between letting the government tell you what is good for you and letting the government tell you what is good for you. The line lies at the feet of the Framers and can only be crossed by today's government it seems. Without even saying that I love the Bill of Rights, I'll say that this country needs it and that it is a pre-existing condition, and that's just the way it is.

 

[La Pistoletta]

Thank you. The founding fathers, if alive today, would probably declare the current government renegade and illegitimate, don't you think?

Don't mistake the gradualism of the erosion of your rights for timidity or lack of direction. This approach is very much deliberate and by design. It's constructed so that at no particular point does the government violate individual rights so grossly as to cause a rebellion.

The "public anger" meter goes up every now and then but without a statement that "from this day forward no one may own guns or criticize the government in any way", it will never reach the boiling point. And they know that. Even Hitler failed with his political (and military) Blitzkrieg style in the end, and he came damn close.

Every infringement on individual rights, no matter how minute, is part of a greater plan that is only advanced because people are too myopic to see it for what it is.

No one would accept being stung to death by a small needle over the course of 5 days anymore than they would being decapitated. The same must go for those old papers describing your rights and delining the limitations of government, else you'll find yourself anemic and looking out over a world of victims writhing in the mud before long.

 

[HK G3]

I think polls like these are misleading, because a lot of people who support "stricter gun control" would be against a lot of Brady Bunch-esque legislation, and are simply saying that gun-related crimes are too high. I mean, let's be honest - gun-related crimes plague most US inner cities, and those areas, broadly speaking, tend to have a higher African American/Hispanic population, hence the poll results. I'm not going to preach to the choir here about how gun violence is committed by criminals ergo gun laws = irrelevant, we're all well-aware of the truth here.

This, IMHO, accounts for the racial divide, as areas with very high white populations tend to not be situated in urban sprawl, where most of these tragic crimes occur. Gang violence is truly epidemic within minority populations, and obviously needs to be contained through some means. I remember reading some article in a medical journal discussing how one epidemiologist who worked with the AIDS epidemic was working to try and treat gang-violence as a disease, and discussed how it kills so many within minority populations that it truly was a modern-day plague. Interestingly enough, he wasn't all that interested in gun control as a preventative measure, and instead believed in taking the fight to the source - the gangs themselves, by trying to have former gang members and others convince gang members to "turn the other cheek" and not go shooting up someone's house for dissing them, or w/e the alleged offense. Unfortunately, the gun-control types keep shouting at the top of their lungs and have convinced many people that they hold the only cure to this inner-city cancer. We would probably be well-served by pushing forth some effective anti-gang violence initiatives that don't involve gun control, just so we would have something to show as an alternative to their "solution" besides the tired "enforce the current gun laws" rhetoric that comes from our camp - it never helps to alleviate the problem either, since it's neither ever done properly or it just proves once again that gun control doesn't alleviate gun violence.

Anyway, back to my initial point, if you rephrased the question to be, "Should assault weapons be banned?" or "Should there be a mandatory 30 day waiting period on handguns?" I would imagine the poll results would be very different. Obviously getting out there and trying to change minds is never bad, but I don't think this poll is as bad for us as it may initially seem.

 

[divemedic]

They never tell you how the question was asked in those polls either. Asking "Do you think that too many criminals have access to guns?" is a leading question.

 

[TrueGrit]

Excerpt from an article at Survivalblog.com

From a South African newspaper comes more troubling news from Zimbabwe. Here is a quote: "We are not going to give up our country because of a mere 'X.' [on a ballot]. How can a ballpoint fight with a gun?" Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe said yesterday while campaigning for reelection, in warning that he won't give up power even if opposition candidate Morgan Tsvangirai beats him in the presidential run-off on June 27. Mr. Mugabe's threat coincided with a sudden worsening in violence in the townships around the capital, Harare, as mobs of hundreds of governing-party youths marched through the streets at night, chanting war songs, dragging people out of their homes and beating them up with sticks, iron rods and axes, the Times of London reports." Comrade Mugabe and his cronies must go! Of course, now that they have disarmed most of their opponents, that might prove difficult.

Sometimes the sword is migther than the pen--but only if the pen does not make all swords (Save the government's) illegal.

 

[Hook686]

20 years later, climatologist who sounded global warming alarm renews warning


"If we don't begin to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the next several years, and really on a very different course, then we are in trouble," Hansen said Friday at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, a NASA operation he has directed since 1981. "Then the ice sheets are in trouble. Many species on the planet are in trouble."

....

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/23/america/climate.php

I seriously doubt anyone will give up any of their energy consuming 'goodies', so I think the future of gun control in America is rather a moot point ... don't ya think ?

 

[LaEscopeta]

Most people in favor of stricter laws have no idea what the current status is.
They argue from a point of ignorance.

How do we know what people in favor of stricter gun laws know or don't know about the current status? (Is that irony I smell?)

 

[22-rimfire]

Most people in favor of stricter laws have no idea what the current status is. They argue from a point of ignorance.

I tend to agree with this statement as a generality. People hear the anti-gun buzz words like assault rifle, gun show loophole, armour piercing ammunition, 50 caliber, large capacity magazines, etc. and assume that the information presented is correct and takes into account the Constitution, human rights, and so forth. It's politics and they sometimes outright lie, misconstrue facts, or withhold relevant facts to further their objectives.

Let's face it, some of our citizens and politicans want a socilistic government. Some are outright communists. But they believe that the government should control the citizens and throw them bones to keep them in line. Guns allow a citizen to rebell against their government if that government becomes ultimately corrupt. Fortunately, our form of government allows for change and rebellion is generlly not the better choice to elicit change. Those people for extemely radical change for the most part are working on the fringes of our world and are certainly not the mainstream.

 

[Henry Bowman]

How do we know what people in favor of stricter gun laws know or don't know about the current status? (Is that irony I smell?)

From our daily conversations and observations. When someone speaks of banning "assault weapons," ask them what an assault weapon is. The typical answer is they it's a gun that you "spray bullets from the hip" at "hundreds of rounds per minute." When they say guns are too easy to get, ask them to explain the steps involved in purchasing a firearm (particularly in high crime states/cities). Then draw you own inference from their answers.