Once again, as I wrote a few weeks ago, polling shows more support for stricter gun laws than press coverage would suggest. A few new polls show continued broad support for a variety of stronger gun laws, and for the presidential candidates to devote more time to this issue.
CNN/ORC, using a different question format than most outlets, shows as much support for "major" restrictions on guns (38%) as "minor" restrictions (37%). It's very much worth noting that even among Independents, Republicans, and Conservatives, more say there should be "major" restrictions on guns than say "no restrictions."
But as is typical with gun polling, specific gun laws are far more popular than the broader issue of gun laws, generally. This recent Quinnipiac/New York Times poll in three swing states shows majority support for a ban on high-capacity magazines. The poll was conducted in Virginia, Colorado, and Wisconsin--all swing states that have experienced mass shootings in recent years. Recall my firm's January 2011 national survey for Mayors Against Illegal Guns showed this to be one of least popular gun measures tested nationally. Yet even this proposal continues to receive majority support in swing states.
The CNN/ORC survey also demonstrates clear majority support for a lengthy list of stronger gun laws. Some, garner near universal support, such as "preventing certain people, like convicted felons or people with mental health problems, from owning guns" (91% favor). Even Tea Party supporters strongly support this law (92%). In fact, only two of the proposals tested were unpopular, and they are not even up for real discussion: limiting the number of guns a person could own (45% favor, 54% oppose) and preventing all Americans from owning guns (10% favor).
Further, voters say they want to hear more from the presidential candidates on guns. In the Quinnipiac/NYT poll, pluralities in the three swing states say the candidates are "spending too little time talking about laws covering gun sales."
Despite this support for stronger laws, generally, for many specific stronger laws, and for an increased dialogue with the presidential candidates, press coverage on gun polling misses the mark. "Despite recent shootings, no change in support for gun control" reads one recent story. "No shift in opinion on gun control, post-Aurora" reads another, and this AP piece says opens with "Gun control advocates sputter at their own incompetence." Instead of focusing on the lack of change in support, press outlets should acknowledge the support for stronger gun laws that's been here all along.
Follow Margie Omero on Twitter: www.twitter.com/MargieOmero
Rev. G. Jude Geiger: Faith, Freedom and Guns
step 2 do not do the math correctly on the fake data
step 3 make the results appear to support my crazy ideas
step 4 repeat as often as possible
For example, the 1994 "Assault Weapon Ban": Many people supported it because they mistakenly thought it banned machine guns.
Another example, machine guns: Many people think machine guns should be banned or very tightly controlled items, but this has been the law for many decades now.
When people actually undertsand what tthe terms used mean and what the current laws are, you will see support for more gun control laws dwindle.
According to FBI statistics, so called "assault weapons" account for less than 0.01% of gun crime. Way to be emotionally passionate about the thing that is the least part of the problem...
A politician exists to promote themselves, and counts votes. Even if a majority favors an issue, they will not stand up if they know some of their fragile coalition will abandon them on their own principles. This is oppression of a majority. It makes a Politician unprincipled. Think of the President's shifting public stance on traditional marriage, or gun control. Or Romney's. Both unprincipled . A few are true to their principles,, and they will let you know where they stand. These are Statesmen. There are not many. . I can respect a Lib or Conservative that stays consistent on an issue because of principle, even if I disagree with them, but not those who do calculus. Especially if that calculus ignores the majority to appease a few. Or oppresses a minority.
"A boutique polling firm serving Democratic and Progressive causes....."
She then goes driveling on about how to conduct a poll to reflect the exact message you want to pay HER firm to show support for.
Keep watching tv...
The problem is NOT the guns, but the nuts who get them. In most of all the shooting except this last one, the shooters should not have been allowed to own guns. In the VA Tech shooting the law did NOT allow the shooter to legally buy a gun, but they screwed up on reporting him. The other shooters had clear mental issues that should have been acted on to prevent them from getting firearms. THAT is where the laws need to focus on, not cosmetic changes to guns and magazines.
Sometimes I feel like I am overstating the obvious, but considering the number of people who apparently believe that "guns cause crime" etc.... I will repeat that now, myself:
The problem is NOT the guns, but the nuts who get them. Thank you.
George Washington
Seriously HuffPo, at least read the stuff before you post it, since your writers are just randomly throwing words together that read like gibberish.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/08/10/160412/commentary-nra-prevents-funding.html
I think you have not covered the gun control issue enough.
Perhaps you need more articles about the subject, particularly ones that are pro gun control.
I'm frankly surprised at how little you have covered the subject.