E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSMore Americans say they are now in favor of stricter gun laws than at any time since 2000, after the Columbine shooting, according to the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.
Sixty-one percent said so, a nine-point jump from before the December 2012 Newtown shootings. The last time the question was asked before the shooting was in January 2011. Then, 52 percent said guns laws should be "more strict."
What’s responsible?
The shift is largely due to the Obama coalition of city-dwellers, African Americans, Hispanics, and Democrats, groups that also said they do not own as many guns as rural and white respondents. But there are shifts with most other groups as well. And even though only a minority of Republicans -- 37 percent -- support stricter gun laws, that's a 13-point jump from 2011.
In the latest poll, 86 percent of African Americans, 82 percent of Democrats, 72 percent of Hispanics, and 71 percent of urban respondents said they were in favor of stricter gun laws, all up double-digits from 2011.
Urban: 71% (Feb. 2013) - 55% (Jan. 2011). Net change: +16
African Americans: 86% (Feb. 2013) - 71% (Jan. 2011) Net change: +15
Republicans: 37% (Feb. 2013) - 24% (Jan. 2011). Net change: +13
Hispanics: 72% (Feb. 2013) - 60% (Jan. 2011). Net change: +12
Democrats: 82% (Feb. 2013) - 71% (Jan. 2011). Net change: +11
Men: 51% (Feb. 2013) - 42% (Jan. 2011). Net change: +9
Women: 69% (Feb. 2013) - 61% (Jan. 2011). Net change: +8
Suburban: 59% (Feb. 2013) - 51% (Jan. 2011). Net change: +8
Whites: 55% (Feb. 2013) - 48% (Jan. 2011). Net change: +7
Rural: 48% (Feb. 2013) - 41% (Jan. 2011). Net change: +7
Independents: 49% (Feb. 2013) - 48% (Jan. 2011). Net change: +1SOURCE: NBC/WSJ poll
There has been virtually no change with independents. In the current poll, 49 percent say gun laws should be stricter, just a one-point increase from January 2011.
Whether or not someone owns a gun in the household is the biggest factor in supporting or opposing stricter gun laws.
Among those who do not own a gun in the household, 75 percent support stricter laws. Among those who do, just 45 percent support stricter laws.
Overall, 42 percent said someone in their household owns a gun.
So who are they?
There’s a gender split, with more men saying they own one (48 percent) than women (36 percent).
It also varies, of course, by region. There are more gun owners in the South (50 percent) than anywhere else. The Northeast has the fewest (28 percent).
There’s also an urban-rural split. Just 34 percent of those who live in cities said they own a gun, but six-in-10 rural respondents do (59 percent). (Just 41 percent of those who live in the suburbs do.)
And there’s a Democratic-Republican split as well – just 30 percent of Democrats say they own a gun, while 55 percent of Republicans do. Forty-nine percent of independents said so.
Reflecting that divide, just 34 percent of Obama voters said someone in their home owns one versus 57 percent of Romney voters.
By race, whites own more guns than minorities. Nearly half of whites (47 percent) said they own a gun. Just one-in-five African Americans said so (20 percent) and just 28 percent of Hispanics.
Gun ownership does not vary much by age, but younger voters (18 to 34) are the least likely to own a gun (39 percent).
And gun owners are more affluent. Those making more than $75,000 a year are the most likely to own a gun (50 percent) – even though professionals (40 percent) and white-collar workers (40 percent) are among the least likely to own one.
This story was originally published on Wed Feb 27, 2013 11:44 AM EST
Leave a Comment:
States with Extremely High Populations of Gun Owners(more than 50%)- 1. Wyoming - 59.7%
- 2. Alaska - 57.8%
- 3. Montana - 57.7%
- 4. South Dakota - 56.6%
- 5. West Virginia - 55.4%
- 6. Mississippi - 55.3%
- 6. Idaho - 55.3%
- 6. Arkansas - 55.3%
And yet...the majority of citizens in these States are for UNIVERSAL GUN CONTROL BACKGROUND CHECKS.
And yet 100% of the citizens in the country would like to see current laws enforced. I bet you'd get that percentage too in support of tougher laws for criminals!
RI Mom,
No one knows yet what a "Universal Background Check" is. The definition is still being evolved. Generally, as a gun owner, I don't have an objection to it assuming it's the same as what is required currently by licensed gun dealers. Politicians have a bad habit of calling something one thing and then adding a bunch of other stuff to it later. Research "pork" and you'll get the idea. The practical side of the problem is how or if it could be instituted and enforced.
Requiring background checks at gun shows sounds good in principle. Many gun shows do already. However some of the sellers are private gun owners, not dealers, and can't process the paperwork and don't have access to the NICS National Instant Criminal Background Check System". Presumably licensed dealers would have to do the paperwork and would have to be paid to process it. I assume this would add $35 to $100 per purchase and in some states add a couple of weeks to delivery time. Inconvenient and pricey yes, but not terrible. Also, the NICS system is currently heavily backlogged. Will the government guarantee a reasonable response time?
I don't see how the government could force private sellers to go through dealers with private gun sales outside of gun shows. If a guy standing at home sells to another guy how would the government ever know? It not like there's a gun registration data base to say what gun went where. If Bad Guy A decides to sell his gun to Gang Banger B in his garage, who's to know?
Back to the gun show. What's to stop a private buyer and seller to agree to a price and meet later after the gun show to exchange the gun, thus avoiding extra cost and wait time? True, if law enforcement had the resources and desire they could conduct sting operations at gun shows enforcing background checks for gun show sales. I think that would be an unlikely scenario.
A wider universal background check law could be passed that affected all sales. It could require that all private buyers have a background check. Remember what I said about two guys at home and no government oversight. This wouldn't be enforceable. Do you think two gang members exchanging guns are going to run down to their local gun shop to pay the dealer to legally transfer a gun? I doubt it.
Again, I'm not opposed in principle to "Universal Background Checks", whatever that can be reasonably
assumed to include. I just don't see any way to make it work in the real world. Maybe it might work if expanded to all gun shows, assuming law enforcement has the time to audit it regularly.
Nothing changes if nothing changes.
Right. I got some changes.
Execute every violent felon in the US that has committed more than 2 felonies. That should be a few hundred thousand scum wiped from this Earth.
If that doesn't reduce gun violence and crime, I'd be very surprised.
RI Mom,
Change for the sake of change is ridiculous. Only meaningful changes will help. There are over 11,000 people killed a year by guns in the US. We should focus on the areas where the most benefits will be realized. An average of 33 people are killed a year in "mass" murders by gun. What about addressing the other 10,967, most of which are by handguns in inner cities? What about addressing the underlying issues that cause people to want to kill others without provocation?
We've always had a lot of guns in this country, but the violence in some areas like Chicago and Washington DC are especially bad. We need new solutions to new problems. I believe we should bring back the draft to teach young people to serve their country, to own a stake in it. Teach them respect for authority and for others, to work in teams of all racial makeup, to build self respect and independence, that gang life isn't the other possibility. Lastly, to teach them to store and use firearms safely. I think in one generation we would see a positive change. That's a real, meaningful, new solution.
Yah. I saw that quote right under "We have to pass it to see what's in it."
157.5 Atavist
Give your advice to your Senator & Governor....see how far you go with the "draft" idea.
And then look up "straw sales"...the kind that are intended for violent acts. Curently, from State to State, county to county, town to town, there is not a universal law for a background check, or trafficking.
Then...look up the NRA's position on locked guns...they are against that.
Let us know how that "expertise" of yours is received.
157.6... what is in the Health Care that has inflicted harm on you?
So was the SCOTUS in D.C. vs Hellar. They found it unconstitutional for the guns to be required locked on the grounds that a locked gun is inoperable and therefore keeps it's owner from using it for self defense.
157.8
Tell atavist...not me. I'm well versed . He's the one with all the advice (?).
RI Mom,
People should store their guns safely. Most do, some don't. I don't need the government mandating what I do in my home with my private property. I'm an adult and responsible for my actions. I don't need a nanny government dictating what is best for me.
I choose to keep my guns unloaded and locked in a safe. That's my choice. I don't think I should choose for the other 80 million gun owners in this country.
Sadly, I lost all my guns in a tragic boating accident....
Nothing to see here-
Blacks are the problem. They've always been the problem. They're subhuman beasts.
This poster (161) is indicative of the the extremist loud-mouthed gun arrogance.... who speaks for the posters who tolerant his stuff.
RI Mom,
You are prejudiced and bigoted. You are saying that anyone who hates blacks must be an extremist gun owner. Oh, the irony. You and VoiceAmerica are two of a kind.
Just for the record, there are a few gun owners who aren't racists. Hard for you to believe I'm sure.
Blacks as a whole are not subhuman beasts. Just a certain percent, a certain subculture, the same as white folk or any other folk.
Culture is always the problem though, not race. Maybe its just stereotyping, but on average, I'd trust a black businessman in a suit more than I would a scruffy, ragged-dressed, meth-looking white guy.
Pro-gun people also get stereotyped. I used to be anti-gun back during the Bush Administration, until I realized that that the liberals and conservatives both take turns from different angles on the pinata known as "The Bill of Rights".
The "Bill of Rights" is not intended to make government's jobs easier; it is intended to limit government. Even the phrase "can't shout FIRE in a crowded movie theatre" is misconstrued in terms of how rights should be limited. The act of shouting "fire" would by itself directly endanger others and it is likely that the INTENT of such an act was also to try to endanger others. A law-abiding citizen of which there are tens of millions purchasing a gun does not directly endanger others nor can INTENT be construed as malignant.
pagan,
Don't get all logical and thoughtful on us.
151.2
EXTREMISTS ...I said EXTREMISTS.... like you...who just blow off dumb statements (the draft ???) and expect to be taken seriously.
Call me a bigot...but you know damn well who really made the racial slur....the EXTREMISTS.... and it wasn't me.
Enjoy your adoration for 161... it defines you.
RI Mom,
Your words, "This poster (161) is indicative of the the extremist loud-mouthed gun arrogance". You directly associated VoiceAmerica's racist rant to "extremist loud-mouthed gun arrogance". Your words, not mine. You sound like the arrogant one. Your denial of what you said makes it even more grevous. You own it, get over it.
RI Mom,
I just realized how hypocritical it was of you to also "blow off" my suggestion for change about the draft. You profess that you want change. I suggested a change stating reasons why it might help. Your statement "like you...who just blow off dumb statements (the draft ???) and expect to be taken seriously." suggests that the only change that's meaningful is change that YOU suggest. It's difficult to change anything for the better with such a self-righteous attitude.
RI Mom is the quintessential Leftie Liberal. Just listen to whatever the media says, accept it as true, and just have faith in your political leaders.
Leftism is the Liberals' substitute for religion. Hence they pursue it with the same religious fervor. And with that fervor, they are unwilling and unable to compromise. And with that same fervor, their opponents become evil enemies whom they must destroy, not just political adversaries, because who would want to compromise with evil??? In their zealotry, the president is not only their President, he is their Pope.
RI Mom is a true Acolyte of Leftism. She is a woman of great faith. Faith in human beings, not God.
161.6
Hogwash... every gun topic post by that proud racist (161) is bigoted... and often advocates violence.
Defending him discredits you...not me.
.
.
How did your Governor/ Senator/ Mayor/ like all your gun ideas... ?
Are you considering another WMD war?
This independent woman thinks you haven't got a snowball's chance in hell of being a good male model with realistic solutions....
MesaMax,
I think you are on to something. Also, RI Mom seems to be stuck on Voice America (aka: 161). No one in this discussion is defending or agreeing with (161), but she keeps harping on about him like we care about his opinion. Maybe RI Mom is a person of color and is overly sensitive to racial remarks. That would account for her over-reaction.
VoiceAmerica (which you're not)
That was pretty disgusting. Your parents did a bang-up job with you.
VoiceAmerica and RIMom are proof you can have two idiots both espousing opposite opinions.
I'm pretty much an atheist/agnostic (influenced at least by the more mystical religions such as Sufism and druidism rather than dogmatic religions) and I can recognize dogmatic religious fervor in secularist liberals. They are such similar creatures to right wing religious nutjobs. They both try to ram their agendas down people's throats when they get in power.
Here's a clue for ideologues in general: most adults just want to be left the f**k alone. Whether it is police, reporters, telemarketers, criminals, Homeland Security, Jehovah's Witnesses & other zealots--they want to be left alone.
Apparently, the EXTREMIST gun advocates were not incensed enough to "report as inflammatory" post 161...because ALL of his gun themed posts are still on the vine.
So because I pointed this out... you attack?
Hard to take any conversations as objective or productive when you derail the"gun" talk by calling me an idiot for advocating for what 92% of Americans want.
Americans want Crispy Creme donuts until the Mass Media tells them they don't.
If 99% of Americans wanted to establish Christianity as a state religion against the 1st Amendment, I would oppose it as idiotic. The Bill of Rights exists to limit government; the government doesn't exist to limit the Bill of Rights.
I'm not sure what the point of this story is and it sure doesn't touch on gun violence. I would be shocked if the major media took a deep dive into the gun culture of the inner city because that's where most of gun murders are committed. I would be further "shocked" if they actually researched the causes of gun violence in these inner cities. I guess the media has become more of a political movement than anything else because their stories never touch on the real issues. You have to wonder why liberals are so bent on taking everyone's rights away in the name of "safety" or "health" when they aren't willing to look at the cause and effect.
Reminds me of most government programs that throw money or a law at a problem but never look back to see if it was successful.
All news organization are fighting to stay relevant. The Internet allowed thousands of start up news sites to challenge the established "main stream media". NBC, CBS, CNN, etc are all fighting for survival. Ratings and revenues are what matter most to them nowadays. The public is overly accepting of poor journalism, or what passes for journalism nowadays. "If it bleeds, it leads" is more true today than ever before. Sad.
Gun ownership is just another aspect of American Exceptionalism. And yet, how easily are people willing to give up the rights that our Founding Fathers fought and died for. How easily. And all in the false hope that government can guarantee greater security. As our Founding Fathers said, “He who is willing to trade Liberty for Security deserves neither”.
Many Americans today are very short sighted. They either don't realize or maybe don't care, that the Rights they give up today will be lost to future generations. Our 2nd, 4th and 5th Amendment Rights have been under attack since 9-11. We lose a little more each day. In a generation or two, we won't be the free America we were. We'll be another Europe.
Only fools would voluntarily hand over their lives to government which, by its nature, is full of bureaucracies led by those with their own private agendas.
I'm not voluntarily turning anything over to the Gov.
I'm not willing to see CONSERVATIVES take away the woman's right for PRO-CHOICE...or retract Roe V.Wade or undermine the civil rights act... or any voting rights.
But enforcing gun background checks IS NOT giving up anything... unless you are paranoid, delusional or criminal.
RI Mom,
Again, you lump all CONSERVATIVES into one pile. I'm a registered Republican, but I don't agree with many of the Party's general views. I'm not religious, I'm pro-choice, and I believe everyone should vote freely as they wish. I don't care either way if gay people get married. The government shouldn't even be involved in marriage issues. Why does anyone need the Gov's permission to get married?
On the other hand, I believe people should earn a living, pay their bills, and not be dependent on the Gov to live. The only exceptions I can think of are handicapped people, very old people, disabled people, and the mentally handicapped. Occasionally almost everyone needs temporary help. This does not mean a free ride for years or for life.
Right! We should be enforcing background check laws we currently have right now. We're not! We should vigorously use the laws we have right now to go after criminals. Do that first, then come to me with ideas for new laws that would help!
Gun show loopholes....
What say you
?
http://www.policymic.com/articles/22816/40-percent-of-guns-are-sold-without-background-checks-because-of-people-like-larry-pratt
I say make a way for private citizens to submit a background check if they CHOOSE to do so. It's still illegal to sell a gun to a felon. Doing so privately or otherwise will get you prison time if current laws are enforced. If the person who wants to buy your gun doesn't want to do a background check, you probably don't want to sell him a gun! Especially if you can now be held liable!
Soon. . . ..many who rushed out to buy their pricey AR-15 and other guns to add to their collection...will come to realize that this purchase was a knee-jerk reaction.
So...they will want to sell them.
Quick cash...to pay off the credit card bill.
Private sales....no checking.
or
they'll leave them to the kid in the family.... and hope that their impulse, irrational purchase gene isn't hereditary.
It's SIMPLE to get a private background check...but sadly, it isn't required.. . . yet.
Stubbornly refusing to accept the consequence of no universal gun background checks ....doesn't support the argument of "responsible law-abiding" gun owners.
As the topic of this column says... MORE AMERICANS favor stricter , reasonable, gun-ownership.
TRUE... you may get a "check" on a private sale ... and that person then traffics the gun illegally...but that paper trail will eventually catch up with the wrong-doer.
Guns flood the market.... want to protect your "rights"...then sell, own, and fire them with respect.
RI Mom,
You're right about the knee-jerk reaction. Every time a liberal politician at a high level threatens to ban guns it creates a rush to buy the very thing they are trying to ban. When Obama first took office, gun sales soared, because of his liberal history. So, in a way, liberals are working against their own interests. It is very possible that 20% to 30% of the guns in this country were bought because liberals sought to ban them. Now, according to you, many of those guns will end up on the street without background checks. Sounds like liberal Democrats own this one.
Gun manufacturers should be thanking Obama for their record profits this year.
NAME the politician....____________________________— who wants all guns banned.
And tell us which of the NRA's threat about President Obama limiting gun ownership.... was true.
Wayne lied...and the very foolish ran out and supported his major fundraiser...the gun manufacturers. Yes...you were duped.....by the same guy who once advocated for gun controls.
And if you bought a gun legally, with a background check...why are you opposed to selling it with a background check?
RI Mom,
I said "ban guns". I didn't say "ban all guns". Many liberal/Democrat politicians want to ban whatever they can. That realistically doesn't mean "all guns. I live in Kalifornia, so I'm pretty certain Diane Feinstein wants all guns banned. Her infamous "turn 'em in" comment is just one small indicator of that. It took me quite a few years to realize her full agenda. It's clear now. She knows she can't get all guns banned, so she is going for what she can get... again.
I don't give a hoot about what the NRA says publically. They are just a blunt instrument to oppose the anti-gun people. Most gun owners I've talked to don't agree with the NRA much. However, a lot of them, about 4.5 million, join the ranks because it's the surest way to keep our 2nd Amendment rights.
I never said, ever, that I oppose background checks. All I stated were the reasons that expanded background checks would have little or no effect on gun violence. There was a recently leaked DOJ memo echoing that. I don't care if the Gov wants to do "Universal Background Checks", whatever that really means, as long as it doesn't entail anything more than the current background checks conducted at licensed gun dealers.
You suppose to much. You really should read postings more carefully.
HISTORY LESSON:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/09/nra-endorses-mccain/
WRONG.
What did President Obama say in the 2008 campaign,that set off an alarm for gun ownership?
(Hint: N O T H I N G )
The NRA invented a whack-load of stupid untruths to SCARE the conservatives into buying guns because their major income comes through gun sales. They spent MILLIONS to endorse McCain (who had only rated a C+....)
OOOPS.... wasted $$$.... McCain & Palin...phhhht.
So again, Wayne La Pierre built up their war chest by promoting FEAR through libel and slander. Then they SPENT that money (unsuccessfully) to defeat President Obama in the 2012 campaign.
Frankly, they are piss-poor money managers.
NRA needed gun manufacturer sales...as less homes now owned guns. ..... Sadly, they resorted to huge fibs to make up their membership losses.
Gleefully...because of more "fibs"...they attracted some memberships...and sold guns.
And this makes sense?
RI Mom,
Again, you fail to read and comprehend. I did say, "because of his liberal history", as you mentioned. I didn't say that Obama said anything during his 2008 campaign about banning guns. Obama history, e.g., being from Chicago (gun ban Heaven), and being a liberal leaning Democrat, is enough apparently for 10's of thousands of Americans to be concerned. It turns out they were right. Obama has publically made gun control a priority for this year. He said it, he's pushing his anti-gun agenda.
Again, I don't care what the NRA says. They are the lobbyist group like any other powerful lobbyist group. They can say what they want. They have the same 1st Amendment rights just like you and I.
Call Feinstein's office and VERIFY.... she wants CERTAIN guns banned... not ALL.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/01/24/dianne-feinstein-wants-to-ban-all-these-guns.html
and yes, after Newtown...gun control did become a Presidential priority. Rightly so.....and so did that crap-ola nonsene about "banning ALL guns".
It's tiresome.
That "anti-gun" agenda.... link please....? Where do you find that?
I heard a conservative once call a liberal "sick". Very inaccurate. As any doctor can verify, liberals have very good "knee jerk" reactions.
RI Mom,
You can't be that naive. Really? Of course Feinstein hasn't said publically that she wants to ban all guns. I've lived in Kalifornia a lot longer than she's been in office. I've read her anti-gun legislation, and I've emailed her many times. Although I don't know her personally, I've gotten to feel the results of her agenda first hand over many years.
Her most recent proposed Assault Weapon Ban is disingenuous. She had a big news conference to release her new proposed Assault Weapon Ban on the dais with gun victims placed behind her. She proclaimed that she wasn't going to ban all guns or take guns away from people. Instead of releasing the text of her proposed legislation, she released a 4 page summary. The summary didn't sound too bad. However the full text leaked out a week or two later. She neglected to mention a few key things that are problematic to gun owners, regarding the "bullet button" and what constitutes a "pistol grip". I'm sure she left those things out so she would be perceived as being reasonable. She was being underhanded. That's just one small instance of many that create a climate of distrust.
By the way, her proposed legislation contains a lot of language that the Kalifornia courts have already adjudicated in favor of gun owners, so I don't know what her game is there. Also, some the language is overly broad, something else the Kalifornia courts have already adjudicated in favor of gun owners. Curious isn't it?
Atavist,
All the demons in your head... (and yet, one of them, Feinstein, keeps getting re-elected).
I can't counsel you on all your fears...your "rights" are safe...and so is the logic behind the 2nd Amendment.
I know about California...(family of USC grads) so don't lecture me.....or dare to call me prejudiced and bigoted again.
I have no idea where your wobbled mind stands on a pro-active gun violence solution.... (that "draft" suggestion was ..... uh..... interesting). When you wrote to Feinstein, what did she say about that?
So good luck
God-speed.... and may an illegally gained firearm shot never cross your temple.... because then it would be too late for you to ask for a SERIOUS discussion on guns in America.
RI Mom,
Yes, Feinstein and Boxer both get reelected. It's a reality that Kalifornia is a very liberal state. I have to live with that. None of my votes count. Why? Every one of my representatives, from Assemblyperson, to Representative, to Senator, to Governor, to President are all Democrats. Most of them are very liberal. So be it.
It was your statements that appeared bigoted. I pointed out why I thought so. You probably aren't (I hope).
I too, am a USC grad. I earned my Masters there.
I'm all about the numbers, the biggest bang for the buck. If someone can present legislation that will truly address gun violence without undermining honest citizens rights, I'll support it. All I've heard publically is a lot of nonsense and pointless legislation.
Journalists of the mass media now more than ever are dependent upon the government for information in order for their outlet to make money. If they don't spout the government line, they can be cut off from information and lose money.
That factor alone may be the biggest reason why no matter which party gets in power you always see an inexorable movement towards police state power.
Any chance of limiting assault style weapons would require a thoughtful and reasonable analysis, debate, and consensus. Unfortunately, there are not enough thoughtful nor reasonable minds on either side of this debate. Guns and gun violence will always be a part of this society. There are already way to many guns out there in the hands of idiot gun owners, criminals, and future mental defectives. Limiting future purchases will have no positive effect.
I own several guns and I support any and all efforts to make those who wish to purchase them as hard as possible. Mental evaluations, drug usage or prescription drug usage should be tested and controlled (no one should be allowed to own a gun who is on meds for depression or any mind altering drugs or those that cause mental stress), multiple background checks, police blotter checks for 5 years back, etc.. if you pass the tests then by all means you should be allowed to purchase whatever gun you please. IMO far to many people are able to purchase guns that they know nothing about and many are not mentally capable of owning them. Sweep inner cities of all guns as well.. give them Beyonce tickets..
I got a better idea; execute every violent felon guilty of more than 2 felonies. A few hundred thousand dead felons would put a serious dent in violence.
I like the second idea.
comonsenz, how do you think that felons, who are federally prohibited from purchasing firearms, get them?
I'll tell you, because it's a hard question. They buy them on the black market. They avoid all the laws and guidelines, and they buy them illegally so that they don't have to submit to the background check which would prevent them from purchasing the gun. They steal them, kill for them, or trade drugs, stolen goods, even human slaves, etc, for them. People with no criminal records or mental health history purchase them and then sell them at a markup. The criminals will pay a higher price for convenience. They bypass all regulation. And still they get their weapons.
Why would these same people not bypass additional regulations? Why do you think that suddenly, they'd be standing in line for a mental health screening?
I don't even know what to say about the Beyonce ticket thing. Keep patting yourself on the back for being "progressive" I guess.
Grow,
A valid point already considered. View the problem as systemic, nationwide, black-market is an event that occurs outside the normalcy.. yes it happens and we can never stop that.. but gun laws being much stricter and enforced help the whole Nation.. you will always have their small percentage bucking the system, you cant stop it. We need logical, restricting gun laws for all citizens, then we can begin to work on those who feel a need to circumvent our system and catch them and give them a harsh lesson. Beyonce is handing out tickets for guns in NYC (an actuality)
Oregon as well.
seems like an improvement that 61% of the people are tried of building more coffins - the NRA's solution to gun related deaths. Have to wonder what the other 39% are thinking.
If you believe NBC or MSNBC, I have a bridge in the desert you might like to buy. Sheesh
What BS - these numbers are completely different from the poll NBC quoted a month ago which was different from the poll htey had the week before that - if it comes from NBC don't believe it - can;t wait for that first reporter there to break ranks and spill their guts to the real press - just look at Woodwards article today - the White House and Barry control what people hear on the internet - thats called propaganda in Russia and old Germany - I call it lies to the American citizen by their own govt - the first reporter to come out will make a big day - come on now do IT! By the way which side do you want to be on if it comes to social warfare on this issue? The day is coming folks - quit drinking the koolaid and pressure the WH to create jobs like promised!
Whether or not someone owns a gun in the household is the biggest factor in supporting or opposing stricter gun laws
Yes, certainly. There's no way that whether or not someone supports stricter gun laws could be a factor in whether or not they have a gun in their house. This article makes it sound like these idiots ran out and bought guns, and now feel the need to defend that. No, I'm pretty sure they were in support of citizens such as themselves rightfully owning firearms before they brought one into their homes.....or else they wouldn't have done it.
What you said sounds like "Being obese is the biggest factor in populations who consume too many calories." It's backwards.
Correlation vs. Causation, NBC. Take a 100 level course sometime.
So, 2/3 of the population is being held up by the NRA. I am sure in the NRA there is probably close to 100% who don't want to see any changes in gun laws. But, they are the Minority and our congressional leaders are going to have to take heed of what the majority of their voters wish, even if the big money for their campaigns is trying to discourage any change in the laws. Time to put the pressure on the wimpy congressmen and senators, that have been the water boys for the gun lobby too long. If these politicians aren't willing to start drawing up legislation to reign in the guns, then when election time comes around, Don't Forget what they failed to do. The NRA funded ads will do their best to promote these dead beat politicians, but don't fall for their lies.
John,
Just remember when you are talking about NRA, you're also talking about 4.5 million members. Many other Americans donate money to the NRA, but don't join. So, the NRA isn't some big animal, it's an advocacy group that represents a lot of gun owners. A lot of gun owners and some members don't agree with much of what the NRA says, but it's better than having our 2nd Amendment rights undermined.
It doesn't really matter anyway. The assault weapon and high capacity magazine thing is a hysterical red herring. So called assault weapons account for less than 2% on gun deaths per year. That means the magazine capacity has almost no effect in terms of preventing crime. As for "mass murders" in the US, on average 33 people are killed per year. While that is a tragedy, we should be focussing on the other 11,000 people that die from gun violence during the same year. Our priorities are messed up and buried in political hype. That's just my 2 cents.
JM, I hope one day a gun owner doesn't have to save you sorry axx from a criminal bent on robbing or killing you at gunpoint. You're a typical brainwashed liberal with no clue.
I should give up my guns and spend the rest of my life hanging out in Dunkin' Donuts where the cops can protect me ? Now I know why " liberal logic " is called an oxymoron .
This horse has so left the barn...
A liberal-conducted gun poll is not to be believed, the same as all the rest of NBC and MSNBC's propaganda.
A man who won't own a gun to protect his loved ones in this day and age is either a coward, or a fool.
Rural America better not give into this stuff.
Never ever forget the rule of civilized society. Those in the cities depend on those in the countryside for all their food, water and resources. In good times, city folk sniff down their noses . As soon as it gets too expensive to buy food in the cities the hungry worthless hoard in NYC will swarm out into the Hudson Valley like locusts. The fewer the guns the better I am sure the urbanites say.
A young black lady's take on gun control, "You can't ban evil"
www.youtube.com/embed/vn7bkncf1_E
The cities where gun violence is rampant are the cities with the strictest gun control, highest concentration of Democrats/Obama supporters and virtually no conservatives or NRA members and "assault rifles" are the real minority. Chicago, NYC, Philadelphia, etc.
And we want to model the rest of the country after Chicago style government?? I think we have had a bitter taste of that influence already.
Sure, a background check if it makes you feel better...but personally I would rather have a person who buys a particular type of weapon for the first time take some courses in how to use it effectively and how to be safe with it. From what I understand the local Concealed Carry courses here are a JOKE. All you have to do is be able to shoot down range to be qualified...dont even have to hit anything. Not to mention there is no instruction about how and when to use it. That's pathetic. Each individual is responsible for what they do with a firearm so my suggestion to all of you is if youre gonna own one take a class in how to use, care for, and be responsible with it.
Gun control doesn't accomplish a thing. Bad guys don't submit to background checks, and buy their guns in Mejico, not Walmart.
Too many guns on the streets, mostly with the bad guys, and in the homes of law abiding citizens. What are they going to do? Go around and bust in people houses to take the guns? Negative Ghost Rider!
I think the community would be better served by reaching out to our kids and educate them. The President could go to Chicago, and as a former community organizer, reach out to those gang members that are killing themselves and taking innocent people along with them.
The President and Congress didn't care about Gun Control until a bunch of "White" kids from Suburbia got killed. It is hard to take, but it is the truth. Even when the Congresswoman was shot in Arizona, they didn't do a thing.
Our country is in peril! Maybe I need to fly the flag upside down, so people understand we are in distress!
l like to say for all you that voted for Obama yall can go strait to hell like you doomed the U.S to........ this dum ass has done nothing for our country except backrupt it . he pushed a health care law that is now destroying alot of jobs out in the market or converting them from 40 hr a week to 30 hr a week so they can get around the law........ he give money to hundred of country threwout the worlk while asking the US citizen over here pay higher taxes and cut to goverment benifits for us .......... Obama is promoting drones in the United State to kill our citizen with out judicial court... in his first 4 yrs of office he and his adminastraining added 6 trillion to our national debt and he grew goverment by 13.2 percent compared to Bush jr. Obama is a slick talker and big spender that is also destroying our country to the point of no return.........on our national debt......... he a false prophet like you read about in the Bible...... also no mater how many gun laws you put on the books criminal do not obey laws........
Over 60% want this....WHAT BULL SH1T!