To best learn from Tucson, we should examine not just the shooting's cause, but how to prevent more shootings in the future. This Gallup poll reveals the complexity of voters' views, but also the consistency with which stricter gun laws are central to the discussion of violence. It also confirms what my firm found in this bipartisan poll on behalf of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, released last week (and done jointly with Republican firm American Viewpoint).
Using their own words, Americans cite stricter gun laws as the best way to prevent more mass shootings. Gallup asked an open-ended question about what could be done to "prevent mass shootings from occurring in the United States." Not only was the number one response gun-related ("stricter gun laws"), but almost half (42%) responded in some way about stricter gun laws. Note this does not include "teaching children about proper use of guns" or "allowing people to carry guns for their own protection."
And whether thinking about Tucson specifically, or mass shootings generally, Gallup found Americans blame "easy access to guns" about as much as a mental health system failure. Our poll found something very similar, with heated political rhetoric receiving far less blame.
Gallup also notes that few feel stricter gun laws would have prevented the actual tragedy at Tucson, or, at that time, Virginia Tech. Perhaps, they hypothesize, this is "because of the intense focus in the news media on the accused perpetrator in each tragedy." Unfortunately this one data point pervaded much of the recent coverage.
This post-Tucson poll reporting--wrongly, in my view--suggested that despite Tucson, Americans continue to oppose stricter gun laws. In fact, as I wrote last week, for years overwhelming majorities have supported many of the stricter gun laws actually under discussion. And unaided, Americans decisively identify stricter gun laws as the best way to prevent future tragedies. One way to learn from Tucson is to truly listen to public opinion.
Follow Margie Omero on Twitter: www.twitter.com/MargieOmero
You have to ask yourself, "Do I feel lucky?" Well, do ya?
The gun people know what's at stake, and what is and is not in play. We're already making our plans, talking it up. Every gun-grabber threat makes us stronger, more focused.
BTW, we're still waiting to hear from President Obama. [Crickets--crickets--crickets]
Modern guns use either a combination of a hammer and firing pin or a striker. The hammer or the striker are spring-loaded and held back by the sear. Pulling the trigger moves the sear out of the way allowing the hammer to fall on the firing pin or the striker to move forward and to smash the primer of a cartridge which produces a flame to ignite the propellant charge inside the the cartridge case.
A trigger is a mechanism that actuates the firing sequence of firearms, or a power tool. Triggers almost universally consist of levers or buttons actuated by the index finger. Rare variations use the thumb or weak fingers to actuate the trigger
As you can see it requires a conscious thought of pulling a trigger to make a weapon fire, it is not the firearm it is the person using it that is the problem….The community college, Campus Police, and Sheriff’s office had several opportunities to stop the shooting in AZ simply by doing something to get the CRAZY some help and he would not been able to purchase a firearm….
Personally I don't like guns, but I do like liberty. I think it is reasonable for people to argue that they have the right to firearms for sport.
However, I don't think it is reasonable to argue that semi-automatic concealable handguns are necessary for any innocent purpose, including protecting yourself. It's likely you'd be much safer protecting yourself with a stun-gun.
I think this fight has really been caused by gun manufacturing lobby that has leverage over politicians who engage in 'culture war' to ginn up support.
That's not what the Constitution says.
"However, I don't think it is reasonable to argue that semi-automÂatic concealablÂe handguns are necessary for any innocent purpose, including protecting yourself. It's likely you'd be much safer protecting yourself with a stun-gun."
That's because you don't know guns and have not had any training with them. It is an absurd statement, particularly considering the record of concealed carry holder.
"I think this fight has really been caused by gun manufacturÂing lobby that has leverage over politicianÂs who engage in 'culture war' to ginn up support. "
You can thank the anti's who stir things up with their periodic forays against gun rights -- like RIGHT NOW. You may or may not have noticed that it's not the "gun lobby" that has posted these two dozen provocative blogs on HuffPo.
The line has been settled for decades.
Restricted to military/police/government, without special authorization:
* Automatic weapons or weapons easily convertible to fire automatically (machineguns, subguns, actual assault rifles)
* All weapons .51 caliber and up (except shotguns and over-.50 hunting rifles)
* Sound suppressed weapons
* Disguised firearms (cell phone guns, cane guns, wallet guns)
* Short-barreled rifles and shotguns (
"Most ordinary citizens who own guns lack the training and experience to defend themselves in a firefight. "
Then how come they're so successful, to the tune of hundreds of thousands (or millions) of times per year?
"If you have a gun at home the most likely person to be hurt with it is a member of your own family. "
What "research" supports this? (I bet I know what it is, but I want you to tell us).
Your spidey-sense is absolutely right. Studies were done. No effect was found.
Damn few countries exceed our wealth:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29_per_capita
Many of them are poverty-stricken, but they don't have the level of violence we find in our major cities.
Other countries don't have the TV shows, movies, music,etc that we are exposed to on a daily basis....
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita
In the last two years there has been a HUGE increase in the sale of guns and ammunition:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/02/AR2009110202712.html
Approximately 12 Billion rounds of ammunition are now being sold in the US annually and in the first year after Obama was inaugurated gun sales increased 42% over previous year - despite the bad economy.
The country that lacks the political will to deport 11 million illegal aliens damn sure lacks the political will to take these weapons away from anyone. Moreover, every time the dems have approached this issue, they have been burned. It is - in its own way - every bit the third-rail issue that Social Security is.
You may BELIEVE you can alter this situation, but with the recent Supreme Court decision that the right to keep and bear arms is - like the First Amendment - and individual right, and with the fourteenth amendment essentially pre-empting state law on this issue in favor of the Second Amendment, going after gun rights is a judicial and political waste of time.
2012 is crucial for gun rights in the future, for the Supreme Court locked in during the next presidential term will define the rights affirmed in Heller and McDonald. If the gun-grabbers weren't ranting like this, the gun-culture rank and file would stray after strange causes.
After all, see how well it is working out for Mexico.