|
||
Message to President-Elect Obama: After Heller, "Build a Bridge to Moderates" with Common Sense On Guns
Earlier this week we released the results of a poll on the gun issue, taken by the prominent Penn, Schoen & Berland firm, of 1,083 confirmed Election Day voters.
Before discussing the responses that may come as a surprise to some, I wanted to highlight the analysis of Rob Green, a principal at PSB, who evaluated the new political status of gun violence prevention after this election:
These findings suggest that sensible gun legislation provides a unique opportunity for the new Administration to build a bridge to moderate voters in both parties. It is no longer plausible for opponents of gun legislation to assert that gun laws will somehow lead to a total gun ban.
In fact, these results show that voters support a variety of basic safeguards for the public safety when it comes to keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous people.
This support is strong in every region of the country, among voters who own guns and those who do not, across partisan and ideological lines - and even in the "New Blue" states (states that George W. Bush won 2004 but that voted for Barack Obama in 2008). These "New Blue" states are a cross-section of America, including Colorado, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, and Virginia.
First consider the poll's general findings:
-- 76% of all voters "support the passage of laws placing reasonable restrictions on guns"; 78% of "New Blue" state respondents support reasonable gun restrictions; 66% of gun owning voters also agree;
-- 79% of all voters say the views of the NRA were not important to their vote for President; 78% of "New Blue" state respondents agreed; 74% of gun owning voters agreed.
Now, compare these results with voter attitudes on a few specific gun control policies:
-- 83% of all voters favor criminal background checks for all gun sales; 87% of "New Blue" state respondents favor them; 84% of gun owning voters favor them (virtually identical with voters overall);
-- 68% of all voters favor the registration of gun sales and licensing of gun owners; 70% of "New Blue" state respondents favor registration and licensing; even 60% of gun owning voters favor registration and licensing;-- 65% of all voters favor a waiting period of five days for handgun sales; 73% of "New Blue" state respondents favor a waiting period; 64% of gun owning voters favor this waiting period;
-- 65% of all voters favor banning military style assault weapons: 68% of "New Blue" state respondents favor banning them; 60% of gun owning voters favor an assault weapons ban.
-- 54% of all voters favor limiting the number of guns that can be bought at one time: 57% of "New Blue" state respondents favor such limits; just 42% of gun owning voters favor these limits, however.
What explains this strong, across-the-board, support for policies once considered controversial?
Perhaps the Supreme Court decision last June that Americans have an individual right to own a gun for self defense in the home, but that other reasonable restrictions are "presumptively lawful," helped lay the groundwork here. Law-abiding citizens' guns are safe.
This position is consistent with those taken by candidate Barack Obama, as well as the Brady Campaign post-Heller. Because of the Supreme Court decision, the gun violence prevention debate has shifted from the extremes to the middle.
We saw in this election that candidates who favor sensible gun laws won across the country, while those favored by the National Rifle Association lost races at all levels across the country to Brady-endorsed candidates.
These results indicate that we may be experiencing a sea-change in the politics of gun violence prevention. Rather than driving a wedge between voters, common sense gun laws may instead help elected officials find a sensible middle ground that protects American families and communities while gaining the support of most voting groups.
After so many years of division, that would be a welcome change, indeed.
(Note to readers: This entry, along with past entries, has been co-posted on bradycampaign.org/blog and the Huffington Post.)
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
When you outlaw guns then only the government will have guns... and judges, lawyers, congressmen- generally the well connected and other members of the privileged, ruling-class elite. What Paul doesn’t tell us is how he expects the government and law enforcement to deal with the millions of people who will resist. Gun ownership should be kept legal.
Seems another one of those 'honest' anti-gun advocates, the mayor of Birmingham, AL ,has been indicted for money laundering and bribery.
This is the face of Mayors Against Illegal Guns.
What is that they say about glass houses. Oh yeah, you should try to legislate the acts of others while you yourself are breaking the law. This is right up their with Million Mom director that shot someone in the back with a gun she was pushing to ban. Way to go anti-gun community.
Don't forget Annette 'Flirty' Stevens, the president of the Springfield, IL MMM chapter who was arrested for illegally owning a gun (no FOID, filed of SN) and having drugs.
Nor should we forget the founder of CA's "No Guns" program (funded w/ tax dollars) , Hector Marroquin Sr., arrested for being a felon in possession, and trafficking of firearms, including fully autos and silencers.
I think I prefer the ethics of the Mafia from the old days--they were after making money--but kept the innocent men, women and children out of the fights (a Korean war vet friend of mine told me that when he was a kid--one of the Mafia soldiers deliberately took him and his wagon well out of the line of fire before the fight started).
Don, Kelli, Milady Cabot, Toondud--as a way of building a bridge between the 2 sides---in exchange for improvements in the NICS to include inclusion of more of those who are mentally ill, longer jail terms for using guns in crimes or for felon possesing guns made mandatory and leaving the 1934 machne guns restrictions mostly in place; all bans on handguns, semiauto long arms, short barrelled shotguns, competitions guns and NYC/ Chicago licensing restrictions etc are permanently off the table and nationwide shall issue CCW is put in place.
(4th attempt)
Paul and Kelli completely ignore ANY evidence that can prove their assumptions wrong. Philosophy of Science teaches that the way to test a scientific theory (see Carl Popper's Falsification Theory) is through falsification. That is, a theory must make predictions that, if true, have the ability to falsify the theory. If the theory survives testing of these predictions/hypotheses then the theory remains valid.
Paul and the BC go out of their way to avoid making or acknowledging any such predictions. For example, all of their claims rest on the assertions that "X gun law is need to reduce crime" and then they (act as though they) seek to verify (rather than falsify) this claim by getting X gun law passed. Then, when they get X gun law passed they have a world of excuses ready for why the crime rate didn't drop.
How about this Paul, you say that adding more guns to the street will result in increases in crime, well how about trying to disprove this? Why not support allowing a limited time national CCW law and measure crime rates in cities like NY and Chicago? If crime rates don't rise, allow the CCW law to remain in affect.
"65% of all voters favor banning military style assault weapons: 68% of "New Blue" state respondents favor banning them; 60% of gun owning voters favor an assault weapons ban."
Oh Paul, how many times can you re-beat a dead horse to death? What, pray tell, does "military style" mean, anyway; it looks miltary? Still praying upon (and contributing to) the confusion of the gun unfamiliiar masses? What else is new.
You people even had Gen. Wesley Clark confused. Did you know that since the distiction between real assault rifles, and "military style" look-alikes was cleared up for him, he no longer supports banning semi-automatic versions? Sure you did, because I told you. And he's a damned Army general, for crying out loud.
I ask you again, if you and the BC are "not about banning guns", why do you continue to solicit funds to help support the Chicago gun ban, which is every bit as unconstitutional as the recently stomped on DC gun ban? Why have you and your fellow socialists supported every gun ban that ever saw daylight? Why do you you think everyone is too stupid to see right through you?
Since Paul's demonstratably false claims confused General Clark--what would you want to bet that Paul continues to use the same disproven claims to deliberately confuse the people in the middle (Kelli may or may not be confused, but no matter what info she is given she baas "guns evil, gun bans holy and sacred).
"What, pray tell, does "military style" mean, anyway; it looks miltary? Still praying upon (and contributing to) the confusion of the gun unfamiliiar masses?"
Precisely. When you use the description "military style" to someone who doesn't know that the BC has their own language, that person is going to think that you are talking about the same type used in the military. It's quite a sleazy, deceptive tactic.
Milord Holmes--of course you know that Paul and Kelli are Moriarty minions--I think they are deliberately trying to make Al Capone's people, Mumia, and Tookie Williams look good.
"Military Style":
It is like adding racing paint patterns, a roll cage and endorsement stickers to a stock Chevy Impala and thinking you all of a sudden have an actual Jeff Gordon or Mark Martin NASCAR.
Paul or Kelli,
Please have the integrity and honesty to address the mass shooting in Mumbai, India. India already has extremely strict anti-gun regulations in place, certainly above and beyond what the Brady Campaign says its wants to see enacted here in the US.
In fact, for most of these people in India the entire country is a "gun free zone." However, all of these extremely strict gun control measures, many of which The BC wants passed here in the US, failed to stop attacks far greater than anything seen here in the US. All these measure succeeded at doing was insure that those innocent law abiding people being targeted with violence were unarmed and unable to defend themselves against their attacker.
If you truly want to address gun violence with honest discourse, you'd take a look at how these gun control measures have failed to prevent the type of violent acts you says they are needed to prevent against. By failing to address this you demonstrate the inherent dishonesty and lack of integrity that the pro-gun side feels exists inherent in your position.
I have noticed that Paul and Kelli have several rather large blind spots:first, they both totally ignore the fact that firearms are used defensively far more than by criminals; second, they can not seem to grasp the idea that the 2nd amendment protects an INDIVIDUAL RKBA--making about 95% of their agenda (like "Brady assault weapon bans", handgun bans, blocking nationwide shall issue CCW, even the continued existence of the 1934 act) unconstitutional; and third, the best way of dropping violence is opening NICS to non FFLs and to focus on keeping violent felon in PRISON (and if they continue to be violent in prison--go the Sheriff Arpaio route--and ship them to Death Valley and put them behind nice high fences in old army tents (and Death Valley has another advantage--since they have to travel several days to walk out in temperatures that will kill them in hours--escape is not an option).
Kelli--what of the Brady campaign favorites are you willing to give up to establish a "bridge to moderates". At this point, the evidence shows that your basic goal is still complete civilian disarmament and you seem to be overlooking the basic fact that Heller protects AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR FIREARMS THAT ARE IN COMMON USE (meaning your usual opponents can not only continue to own revolvers, semiauto pistols, ARs, AKs, SKS, mini 14s and 30s, etc). Your insistence on handgun bans and bans on Brady "military style assault weapons" has been demonstrated to be code for banning all civilian firearms, thus demonstrating a complete unwillingness to compromise or "build a bridge to moderates"; therefore I see no reason for the pro RKBA people to give up any ground and a whole lot of reasons to do some serious taking back of ground with nationwide shall issue CCW with the only places these permits are not valid being behind the security check points in airports and courthouses (and yes I support CCW on school campuses since to get the permits you have to be an adult (and I also support dropping the age to purchase handguns to 18, same thing for CCW).
More on how John Q Public thinks:
If asked "What does the 'AR' in AR-15 stand for", How do you think John Q Public might answer?
a) Assault Rifle
b) Armalite
c) Automatic Rifle
d) Army Rifle
e) It is not an abbreviation. It is a sequential designation system used by the military to designate weapon systems and their major assemblies.
You are missing my favorites:
1) The Brady Bill, which implemented a 5-day national waiting period on handgun purchases, was named after James Brady who was shot by John Hinckley during his assasination attempt on Ronald Reagan. When did John Hinckley buy the handgun with which he shot Ronald Reagan and James Brady?
a) 4 hours before
b) 4 days before
c) 4 weeks before
d) 4 months before
2) NJ banned "assault weapons." According to the NJ State Police and reported by the NY Times, what percent of NJ crimes had involved "assault weapons"?
a) 26%
b) 2.6%
c) .26 of 1%
d) .026 of 1%
I will go with D on question 1,and for question 2--B is probably the maximum %
D. And in 2005, there was not one single homicide attributed to any rifle of any kind in NJ.
I don't know what John Q Public thinks--but the last time I checked AR comes from Armalite.
I run into people all the time who choose things other than b) . The most common answers are a) followed by c), but I have seen d) and e) as answers as well.
Nine on this Post of the 427 Gun Only bloggs. I checked One!!!! of you friends has a post not about guns but it was just one right.
Huh? Please be a bit more coherent.
And this refutes what I wrote how exactly?
Please look up the term "argumentum ad hominem".
You do realize that the M16 you were issued in 'Nam and the AKs you faced are not what Paul and company are talking about when they say "assault weapons" but are semi auto civlian only carbines that LOOK BUT DO NOT FUNCTION THE SAME, right? Please give a coherent reason why I should not be allowed to own semiauto carbines in either 223 Remington or 7.62X39 other than purely cosmetic ones?
RE: Toonadude
"Any other questions starting to form in your mind?"
Lots. She was trying to make a point with the manner of questions/responses, though, not aiming for accuracy in the asking. I'm a research student, so I emphasize accuracy in the asking of a question. I think the first question, for example, could ask a reader to describe what semi-automatic means. Since that's all the '94 Crime Law effected, that's a perfectly valid question and gets right to the heart of the matter. The question can't really be twisted in any way to make a confusing answer (like I did to Emily's original question).
RE: Emily
"The fingerprint resistance is one of the reasons that gun controllers cited for singling out the TEC-9 for banning."
That may be true, but it wasn't why the firearm was tucked into the '94 crime law and that supposed 'fingerprint resistance' was never cited within the law itself. Off the top of my head, I can think of at least two other similar semi-automatic pistols with magazines that load in a place other than the pistol's grip that were effected by the '94 crime law, too. Neither of those shared that particular supposed 'feature'. Without specific mention in the law, don't you think it's a bit hard to say that the fingerprinting resistance is the reason the pistol was legislated against?
The Brady Campaign actually mentions "fingerprint resistance" under the 'Advertising' section of its 'Gun Industry Reform' issue (see below):
http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/?page=gunreform
* Advertising: Being Honest about the Risks
The decision to bring a gun into the home should be well-informed. The message conveyed by some advertisements for firearms is that the purchase of a handgun will make a person or home safer. In fact, the opposite is true: guns are rarely used for self-protection and having a gun in the home increases the risk of homicide, suicide and unintentional injury. Furthermore, some manufacturers advertise their products in such a way as to appeal to criminals (such as boasting a fingerprint-resistant finish).
Gun manufacturers and gun sellers must be truthful when advertising their products. Advertisements for firearms should: 1) not make claims which suggest that guns in the home enhance personal security; 2) avoid messages which are likely to make the industry's products more desirable to the criminals or others prone to violent behavior; 3) not be placed in publications with a substantial youth readership; and 4) include warnings about the risks of guns in the home.
The actual Intratec ad:
"TEC-KOTE"......provides excellent resistance to fingerprints, sweat rust, petroleum distillates of all types, gun solvents, gun cleaners, and all powder residues.
"but it wasn't why the firearm was tucked into the '94 crime law"
It was one of the reasons the firearm was specifically named in the 94 AWB. It was not one of the features specified as criteria for other firearms.
Don't forget, there were at least four distinct bans in the AWB. One was semi-auto rifles with specific features, another was semi-auto pistols with specific features, third was semi-auto shotguns with specific features, and then there were specifically named firearms.
" Without specific mention in the law, don't you think it's a bit hard to say that the fingerprinting resistance is the reason the pistol was legislated against?"
No. We have the writtings of the groups who lobbied for the ban as well as the comments by the legislators.
"It was one of the reasons the firearm was specifically named in the 94 AWB. It was not one of the features specified as criteria for other firearms."
Can you prove that? I can think of other reasons why it was specifically named, but the 'fingerprint resistance' thing just doesn't find its way onto that brief list.
Looking at the language and design of the '94 crime law, the firearms specifically mentioned have a direct relationship with the features also mentioned in the bill as being prohibited. They didn't just pick random firearms; they picked firearms that had exactly the features they were looking to get rid of. The TEC-DC9 would have been included had it not been explicitly mentioned: it was heavy, had a magazine well forward of the grip, and a barrel shroud. Your argument still doesn't hold.
If it's important enough for you to include in your questionnaire, I assume you have supportive evidence for your claim. The words of lobbyists are NOT proof of the reasons legislatures denounce or support bills. They are the words of lobbyists, and they speak solely for lobbyists.
BTW I was pretty darn accurate in my questions. The points being driven home were that John Q Public knows very little about firearms and would have answered most of those questions completely wrong, most likely (a) across the board, when in fact the firearms listed are nearly identical in capability and the only correct (a) answer would be #5. Quibbling about minutia does not change or diminish those points.
They're leading questions, not necessarily accurate questions. They are questions arranged so that John Q Public will see a pattern; they don't help John Q Public understand what they're seeing.
You and I approach asking questions in different ways. I'm okay with that, and I'm not trying to convince you that my way is better. For what you're doing, it's not. My way is inherently more complicated. Like I said before, my main point was that by oversimplifying you're not only not educating, but you're opening your questions, and answers, up to easy nit-picking.
Remember ladies and gentlemen, "Assault Weapons" are only good for murdering large numbers of people. This is why the police need them and you do not.
!.In order to exercise a Constitutionally protected right like the RKBA, need has no place in determining how I exercise that right as long as I do not abuse that right, and in terms of a legitimate need for civilians just to prove you wrong--the only reason that Koreatown did not burn during the 1992 Rodney KIng riots here in Los Angeles is that the people who lived and worked in Koreatown used the very ARs, AKs, SKSs, and Ruger Mini14s that the Brady Campaign demonizes by calling "assault weapons" to protect their community because the police were too chicken to do their job.
2. Legitimate self defense is not murder in any jurisdiction that I know of so your use of "murder" is inflamatory and therefore not valid in this discussion.
3. ARs are well established as both target and hunting rifles, and the Ruger MInis,SKSs and AKs are well established as both hunting and defensive carbines and the hunting writer Jim Zumbo had to eat major crow when he developed a major case of foot in mouth disease to say otherwise.
I think he/she was pointing out, via sarcasm, that the BC's claim of "only useful for mass murder" is ridiculous. I don't think he/she is stumping for a ban.
I realize you're being sarcastic, but I can't help thinking you have beef with law enforcement, too. Care to share with the class?
BTW, didn't the CDC, which is notoriously pro gun control, look at over 50 studies of of gun controls laws like those listed in the article and conclude that there is no evidence that any of these laws had any positive effect?
Questions
1) Which has the greatest rate of fire:
a. A TEC-9 or TEC-DC9
b. A Glock 26
c. A Beretta 92FS
d. A Smith and Wesson SW9VE
e. A Springfield XD9801HCSP06
f. They are all the same.
2) Which is more powerful?
a. A TEC-9 or TEC-DC9
b. A Glock 26
c. A Beretta 92FS
d. A Smith and Wesson SW9VE
e. A Springfield XD9801HCSP06
f. They are all the same.
3) Which will accept magazines which hold more than 10 cartridges?
a. A TEC-9 or TEC-DC9
b. A Glock 26
c. A Beretta 92FS
d. A Smith and Wesson SW9VE
e. A Springfield XD9801HCSP06
f. All of them.
4) Which of these have coatings which resist fingerprints?
a. A TEC-9 or TEC-DC9
b. A Glock 26
c. A Beretta 92FS
d. A Smith and Wesson SW9VE
e. A Springfield XD9801HCSP06
f. All of them.
5) Which of these are considered "assault weapons" under the '94 AWB definition?
a. A TEC-9 or TEC-DC9
b. A Glock 26
c. A Beretta 92FS
d. A Smith and Wesson SW9VE
e. A Springfield XD9801HCSP06
f. All of them.
1) B. Glock 26 has the lightest slide of those presented and is back in battery before the others.
2) A. TEC-9/TEC-DC9; longer barrel provides increased velocity.
3) E. All of them.
4) Trick question, since the answer is none of them. All retain fingerprints plenty well.
5) E. All of them.
(Yeah, I know, I'm a smartass.)
1 - f. The rate of fire will primarily determined by how fast a person can work their trigger finger therefore none has a particular advantage.
2 - f. The barrel length of the TEC-9 is only about 3 to 5 inches, roughly the same as the other pistols and not enough to give it any appreciable edge on velocity.
3 - f.
4 - f. All have coatings which resist fingerprints. None have a coating which make them resistant to forensic fingerprinting, which is a different subject.
5 - a. Only the TEC-9/TEC-DC9 would be considered an assault weapon under the definitions of the '94 assault weapon ban.
I trust you'll be studying harder to prepare for the next unannounced pop quiz ?
I go into this a little more downthread, but trigger reset time and human neuromuscular physiology, not slide cycle time, are what ultimately limit the rate of fire of a civilian semiauto. Case in point, Jerry Miculek shoots around 0.12 second splits when shooting at warp speed, whereas slide cycle time on a Glock is around 0.04 second. You run up against trigger reset time and the limits of human physiology long before you start outrunning the slide.
Most people who imagine they are outrunning their slide cycle time are actually short-stroking the trigger (failing to release it all the way to the reset point).
The point being that all of them are nearly identical in performance, yet only one was addressed by the silly '94 AWB
"-- 79% of all voters say the views of the NRA were not important to their vote for President; 78% of "New Blue" state respondents agreed; 74% of gun owning voters agreed."
Paul, do you really think that the American public doesn't see through your intellectual dishonest? How about showing a percentage the voters that said that the views of the Brady Campaign were/ were not important to their vote?
Perhaps because post election exit polls showed that only 3% of Obama supporters reported "Social Issues including the gun issue" as a motivating factor in their votes?
"Gun control" measures I support:
1) 10-20-Life: Tack on 10 years for brandishing a firearm while commiting a crime, 20 if the firearm is discharged and Life is someone is shot.
2) Three strikes: Commit three consecutive felonies and you get Life.
3) Project Exile: Prosecute violations of federal firearm laws in federal court instead of letting state/local prosecutors either plea bargin the charges away or ignore them.
4) Mandatory firearm safety in school: Teach firearm avoidance at lower ages, basic safety at middle grades, and firearm laws at upper grades. THIS IS NOT MARKSMANSHIP TRAINING!
Emily--for someone who started out not understanding gunowners--you come up with some good ideas (I like all 4 of your suggestions).
I had a darn good teacher who pushed me to get off my butt and actually learn about the subject.
I also agree with your proposals of targeting criminals for the crimes that they commit.
IMO, it is quite telling how the Brady Campaign and other anti-gun supporters actually go out of their way to avoid even considering measures that address the criminals directly, rather than the firearms they use.
It's as though they are afraid that such measures targeting the criminals themselves would actually turn out to be more effective than their anti-gun laws at preventing the types of violent crimes they say actually motivates the anti-gun laws they want passed.
Its also as if the "crime prevention" that they say motivates the anti-gun laws they push for, is more of an excuse to use to get these anti-gun laws than an actual goal that they hope to achieve. In other words, their true goal is their anti-gun laws and "crime prevention" is nothing more to them than a means of achievement.
These wouldn't be the same moderates you burned with the '94-'04 crime law and subsequent attempts to reinstate stronger versions, right?
This wouldn't be the bridge that has the same appearance as every other attempt at more gun control laws, right?
Just checking.
Would that be the same '94-04' crime law that a 96' Clinton appointed DOJ studied publicly deemed 'had absolutely no affect on crime, because such weapons were used in less than 1%-2% of all firearm related crimes, even before the ban'?
One has to wonder, if "crime prevention" (rather than simply banning ownership of a class of firearm) really is/was the intent behind an Assault Weapon Ban and such a ban was shown to be completely ineffective at accomplishing this goal, why would/should it be reauthorized?
You want an honest answer? Posturing.
"Gun control" was never a near-and-dear subject for Mr. Clinton; it was a peripheral subject and not much more. By supporting and signing off the '94 crime law, he could say he was "fighting gun crime", and ignore the subject afterward. Unintended consequences bit him in the ass and he even acknowledged that gun control was plutonium and he shouldn't have touched it in the first place. The vast majority of Democrats and those sympathetic to the Democratic Party don't care too much about gun control; it's one subject of many, and dwarfed by more important subjects. It fed the more rabid congresscritters, though, but notice the distinct lack of success at implementing another "ban". Not only has another one not passed, with there not being one year since the '94 law ended that a "ban" wasn't on the table, but it's lost support of the American people who either realized that the first one didn't do anything or who felt betrayed by subsequent attempts at a sequel.
The Department of Homeland Security was created because a specific problem existed in the lack of communication between several key executive-branch functions. Unfortunately, the DHS was a half-assed solution. I mention this because it illustrates a habit .gov has in latching onto a subject, starting it, and abandoning or ignoring it afterward. I strongly suspect gun control is another such subject.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
