Support Soars For Stricter Gun Control Laws
NEW YORK (AP) — Support for tougher gun control laws is soaring in the United States, according to a new poll that found a majority of gun owners and half of Republicans favor new laws to address gun violence in the weeks after a Florida school shooting left 17 dead and sparked nationwide protests.
The poll, conducted by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, found that nearly 7 in 10 adults now favor stricter gun control measures.
That’s the strongest level of support since The Associated Press first asked the question five years ago.
The new poll also found that nearly half of Americans do not expect elected officials to take action.
“It feels hopeless,” said 30-year-old Elizabeth Tageson-Bedwin, of Durham, North Carolina, a self-described Republican who teaches 7th grade English. “Considering recent events, gun control in this country needs to be stricter — and it can be without infringing on anyone’s rights.”
Overall, 69 percent of Americans think gun laws in the United States should be made stricter. That’s up from 61 percent who said the same in October of 2016 and 55 percent when the AP first asked the question in October of 2013. Overall, 90 percent of Democrats, 54 percent of gun owners and 50 percent of Republicans now favor stricter gun control laws.
https://apnews.com/6bff3d106aa245d3b774868503e81289
Tags
Who is online
115 visitors
The future is coming.
So tell us JR, what would stricter gun control laws amount to. Please explain in detail and in plain language how these new laws will result in less crime and fewer mass shootings, especially in schools. No snark or personal attacks, please.
Definitely a complete ban on bump stocks that essentially turn a semi-auto into a machine gun.
Requiring trigger locks would stop a lot of accidents and suicides.
Restricting magazine size. If you can't kill someone with 10 rounds you need to just run away.
Gun owners need to secure their weapons. Leaving them in their glove box to get stolen is unacceptable. If you're held responsible for your gun as long as you own it maybe we can keep at least some of them off the streets.
Close the gun show loop holes. Anybody can buy guns at gun shows without any waiting period or background check.
You'll notice that none of these suggestions ban any weapons.
What's your idea then XD? What are you bringing to the table? Nothing? How's nothing been working?
Be specific as I was.
That's the standard NRA line. They were saying that way back after Colombine and even before that. Why is it that our NRA lackey Congress hasn't been able to accomplish it? Perhaps because the NRA really doesn't want it to happen? In many states where an existing gun law is unpopular the Republicans have defunded the enforcement of these laws just as the CDC faces the threat of being defunded if they collect gun death data. There's also a lot of talk about mental illness from the right lately. I believe that this is primarily because the last few mass shooters have been white. Had they been Muslim or black they would be talking about terrorism or gang thugs respectively.
Maybe you could start by getting the JD (of all Administrations) to start prosecuting felons who try tp buy a gun.
Now THAT would be fucking "sensible" gun control.
But you don't care about that--you just want to say you DID SOMETHING, even if it is ineffective.
So... You suggest the same old nothing then because I'd bet that's exactly what's going to happen.
AS long as I've been alive, MURDER has ALWAYS been against the law. Hasn't stopped it from happening though.
So.....as to "Controlling" who can have a gun or not, or what age is a good thing for owning (even though 18 in the army is a legal guarantee to handle a gun as intended), or if any one can own a gun at all .....will that stop murder......for the FINAL time ?
Ahh... We've come full circle now.
Lets put these stricter gun control laws into action and see what happens. Oh wait, Chicago did and has a higher murder rate than some countries.
The big problem with the liberal left, is that in screaming for stricter gun control, they have yet to really state how much stricter control they actually want. The really hard core ones do in fact want guns taken away completely, but that will never happen. I am a gun owning conservative leaning Independent who supports the 2nd Amendment, and I also think the regulations should be tighter. A lot of conservatives agree with me. But the anti-gun liberals will never admit that conservatives might share some common ground. It is just too alien a concept for them to grasp.
Gun control isn't even the problem. As a gun owner, you know as well as I do that they won't just fire. They need somebody to manipulate it to work. They aren't going after the actual problem (again).
Most of them can't even agree that they have common ground with themselves. Admitting somebody from outside isn't going to happen.
The fraternity loves to use Chicago as a whipping boy. How about the 24 other cities that had higher murder rates in 2017? Just don't give you the same shiver up your leg do they?
I'm pretty sure that those 24 other cities don't have the same restrictive laws. But go on.
What are those 24 cities and what are the facts and figures?
Relevance?
Since it's obvious that you couldn't be bothered to google the facts for yourself [the link is @ the top of the google search], I doubt that you are actually interested in the other 24 cities.
BTFW, which "restrictive laws" are you talking about?
A 'perspective' that the fraternity ignore.
Yes, the vast majority are in states that have enabling gun laws. Only 4 are in states that get a C or better from Brady.
Since you made the original statement about 24 other cities, it is encumbent upon you to provide the data to back yourself up not try to dump it on somebody else. The fact that you did so says you have no clue. At least XD came up with figures, how about you? So typical of the progressive left, when they cannot back themselves up from the corner they put themselves in, insult, deny and deflect. When that does not work, insult, deny, and deflect again! Pathetic!
Conversely it could say that I know enough about the motivation of the 'challenger' to know that the facts DON'T MATTER to him.
I think that XD's data made my point just fine, why don't you? Is it the difference of 17 cities rather than 24 what you find so poignant?
After any amount of time here you couldn't possibly have missed that a plethora of members from the 'conservative right' fail to 'back up' their posts. I have yet to see you demand empirical evidence from them. Why is that?
Yes, your 'Magic 8 ball' fortune telling about me are pathetic.
Oh and BTFW, in the off chance that the facts DO MATTER to you, here is the link:
The link includes their methodology. You're welcome.
You mentioned the 24 other cities. You need to answer your question.
Jeremy, he has no answer. That is why he is hemming and hawing just as I stated above. Notice he expects me to provide "empirical evidence" to answer his statement instead of him providing anything to back himself up?
That's usually how he goes. Blanket, unfounded statements, then hides when called to provide the proof. I noticed that many of his statements don't really make sense or relate to what ever he quotes.
My question is what relevance do gun laws have to do with your fixation of citing Chicago over the other cities with WORSE murder AND violence rates?
Yet I DID answer you 7 HOURS ago.
You seem to have difficulty with reading comprehension. This is what I said in the context of 'empirical evidence':
Note that I didn't expect you to provide me with ANYTHING. Why the need to push BS?
I see that you are still flapping your gums and making FALSE claims AFTER I provided you with a link to the stats that BACK UP my statement. I can't say I'm surprised. It how y'all roll.
Bullshit.
Thank you for proving my point(s)!
Show me where I said I DID specify gun violence?
You had a point?
Yes, but you were obviously incapable of seeing it.
Conversely, it's more likely that you are incapable of cogently articulating it.
It is obvious that you and I are never going to agree, so how about we just agree to disagree and go on from there.
24 hours and you've provided no proof of you 'blanket, unfounded statement'.
Pot meet kettle.
I will never agree with someone who needs to misrepresent the content of my posts in an attempt to further their agenda. Devolving to personal attacks infers an inability to debate on the merits. Doing so through a third party is bad form.
This forum isn't about agreeing with each other. At it's best, it is about sharing information and perspectives that cause each of us to reevaluate our positions, perhaps a little introspection and above all to foster empathy.
Y'all seem intent on illustrating what it is at it's worst. There is nothing in that endeavor worthy of 'going on from there'.
You're thanking me for proving that your posit is false. Let's look @ YOUR posit:
Now you want to pretend that you actually meant that the 'entire city is a crime ridden shit hole'.
Your comments illustrate a profound form of ccognitive dissonance.
He is asking for an impasse.
The CoC hasn't 'officially' changed yet. I was JUST directed to the Meta about the vote but still have no concrete guidance on what it actually means. Per the Meta, 'the two parties can still engage but not on that topic'. A review of the thread will show that my most recent post is not 'on that topic'.
It took you almost a full 24 hours to dig that up for Chicago? What happened to the other 24 cities you mentioned?
Because Chicago has the most restrictive gun laws in the country. YOU mentioned the cities that are "worse". Provide the data. I'll check in next week since it too you a day to get just info on one city.
You are correct, but some people simply refuse to compromise and have to have things completely their way or not at all. I was simply attempting to reach some sort of accommodation that would satisfy honor on both sides. Pretty sad really.
Can some of you people do me a favor and just stop babbling?
" despite the soundbites, Chicago remains in the middle of the pack when homicide is measured on a per-capita basis. In 2016, the city had a rate of 27.9 killings per 100,000 residents — half that of St. Louis, whose 188 murders amounted to 59.3 homicides per 100,000 people and preserved that city’s status as America’s murder capital. Baltimore placed second, with a homicide rate of 51.2, followed by Detroit, New Orleans, and Cleveland. “Because Chicago has so many people, it can get a murder every day, and that gets people’s attention,” John Pfaff, a professor of law at Fordham Law School, told The Trace recently . “When you focus on numbers, not rates, Chicago ends up looking worse because you forget just how big a city it is.”"
Basically, Chicago has never had the highest murder rate in the country. It might have happened a couple times in the past 60 years. So all of you STFU.
When the most recent 5 year period is used, Chicago isnt even in the top 10.
Where are the other 16 cities that are worse than Chicago?
And in 2.2.34 you are still short cities.
What makes you think I am in a dialogue on your terms?
You are part of the group here that singles out Chicago, which is ridiculous. Chicago had one of its highest murder rates in the past 30 years in 2016, and it STILL wasn't in the top 7 in the country among big cities.
What are you going to do when the Chicago murder rate goes down (which it will). ?
Just give all this nonsense a rest.
Over the five year period 2011-2016, Philadelphia had the EXACT same murder rate as Chicago. How many times have you ever seen right wing nags complain about the murder rate in Philadelphia? None?
Why would that be other than that Philadelphia wasnt home to the nations first black president?
Actually, I posted that info about Chicago right after XX made his uninformed comment.
I posted that link YESTERDAY.
DO try to keep up.
Oh and why weren't XX's 17 cites good enough for you?
Prove that AND explain why it is RELEVANT to the original question.
Been there, done that. If you're incapable of following the thread that's on you. BTFW, XX provided LESS current info that shows that Chicago is #18. That should have proven to you that you're posit is uninformed.
Chicago does NOT have the most restrictive gun laws in the country.
Oh I know but Jeremy insists they do. Maybe he'll still try to prove us wrong, though I'll bet he disappears...
That wasn't your only error.
You're welcome.
The dialog didn't involve you. But since you stepped in with the information, you should provide ALL the information.
Is that supposed to mean something to me? Skin color may mean something to you but, I don't care about it. It has absolutely no bearing on how I treat people and I sure as hell don't treat anybody special because of it. But since you mentioned Obama, it is kind of fitting. Shitty President from a shitty city.
Quite easily since 'isolation to certain areas' wasn't the only content of your comment.
The problem with polls like this is they ask general questions then lump all the respondents together, we have no idea what they believe. The 69% of those polled who said gun laws should be more strict run the gambit from outlaw all guns to screen for mental heath issues. Many people believe that those with mental problems should be banned from owning guns but still support the 2nd amendment. As far as banning guns for mental problems I believe it's a none starter, first the mentally ill have the right to privacy and this includes their medical records so how a we going to identify them without violating their rights, secondly there are laws in place that forbid discriminating against people with disabilities and any law that restricted people with a disability from owning a gun because of that disability would surely be illegal.
As with immigration, I would prefer to see the existing laws enforced prior to enacting new legislation. That is not to say that the creation of new laws may be needed, but not for the sake of creating new laws.
But having said that, I myself see no need for the public at large to have access to military platform based weapons ( yes I know there're not full auto) nor anything beyond a ten round clip. But that's me.
I will admit , I am in the majority that says something does have to be done , using the 7 out of 10 figure used in the post lets see WHY nothing has really been passed for some time .
The point has been made that the poll questions usually are pretty generic, some even sound sensible if taken simply on their face , but as with anything , the devil is in the details once one starts to get into them , support is lost based on strictly on personal beliefs.
using that 7 out of 10 figure sounds good , but as details emerge , lines of belief get crossed , and support drops off, and eventually that 7 out of 10 drops to a 6 to 4 , then a 5 to 5 and sometimes support against out number the support for.
the devil is truly in the details
The mentally ill are legally prohibited currently for the simple reason they retain their due process rights, their day in court so to speak, some of these red flag laws will most likely be tested in the courts , but personally I don't see them being over turned.
What is a military based weapon ? the military has not only developed , but has adopted platforms since there has been the creation of little green apples, and on its face , it can apply to any weapon that has ever been used by the military even if they no longer use them, again , the devil is in the details.
The Military has used every configuration of firearms black powder, 30/30 type, 1911 45, scoped hunting rifles. They think that if it looks like a military weapon it is but that's not true military rifles are automatic and they are illegal without special licensing. I have never heard of anyone with the special license for full auto's doing a mass shooting, if it ever happened I'm sure the Media would be all over it. The only reason Mass Shooting Whackjobs use so called Assault weapons is because they look "Bad Ass" because they are no more effective at killing large numbers of people than many other conventional looking rifles. There's no rational reason to believe that Whackado Mass Shooters won't just buy one of the more conventional looking rifles to do their killing if so called Assault Weapons were made illegal. In the end even a total ban on firearms wouldn't work any better than the war on drugs stopped the flow of drugs and drug sniffing dogs cant tell the difference between a case of auto parts or a case of guns, we'd just end up with a lot more black market full auto AK47's because that's what is most available world wide.
Ironic. Looking at the actual poll, only 39% of those asked are gun owners. Kinda skews the data a bit.
Only a little. While a slightly lower percentage of Americans actually own a gun, it is within the margin of error.
Doesn't support usually go up after a mass shooting?
And then, after debates and marches and who knows what else, it all dies down when people hear some of the actual ideas being floated by those wishing for more control.
This is undeniable fact.
And yes, I KNOW "this time is really, really, really different".
Before you blame the NRA for the deaths of 17 students in Parkland, Florida, please consider these facts.
We now know that before Nikolas Cruz went on his murderous rampage:
• A state psychiatrist recommended Cruz be forcibly committed to a mental institution - law enforcement did nothing.
• Cruz was reported to the FBI for calling himself a "school shooter" in public - the FBI did nothing.
• The Broward County Sheriff was called to investigate Cruz for violent, dangerous behavior 44 (!) times - law enforcement did nothing.
• Cruz was reported for self-mutilation - law enforcement did nothing.
• Cruz was reported for writing the word 'KILL' in his textbooks - law enforcement did nothing.
• Cruz was reported for telling classmates he wanted to bring a gun to school - law enforcement did nothing.
• Counselors went to visit Cruz multiple times & wrote that he was “moody, impulsive, angry, attention seeking, annoys others on purpose and threatens to hurt others” - yet law enforcement did nothing.
• Cruz was reported for a fascination with firearms and disturbing posts about guns on social media - law enforcement did nothing.
• Cruz was banned from carrying backpacks to school for fear of what he may carry inside them - law enforcement did nothing.
• Cruz was blocked from joining JROTC because of his dangerous history - law enforcement did nothing.
• Cruz was reported for “punching holes in the wall and verbally aggressive” to his mother - law enforcement did nothing.
• The Broward County Sheriff was asked to search Cruz's home for a gun - that search never happened.
Many of the bullet points above would have prevented Cruz from ever buying a gun, had they been properly processed.
So before you blame the NRA or 'gun culture' in America, ask yourself: Who is truly to blame for the deaths of these kids — The guns or the human being who did nothing?’
I blame those who remained silent as the NRA grew more and more powerful. I blame those who didn't place a check on the power that the NRA was developing. I blame those who gave the NRA the power they now hold. I blame those who continue to hand over the power to the NRA.
So, you're extremely happy to BLAME your Congressional members for laughingly taking the NRA's money as bribes and claiming that it's for support of that Congress person????
In other words, you blame the Republican party...as you should.
I agree, our political leaders are partly to blame. So are the members of the NRA who didn't demand that the NRA use the power they were given in good faith and for not seeing how the gun industry has completely taken over the NRA to be used as a front. I liken it to the mob setting up a business that looks legit up front but in the back they are wheeling and dealing.
I blame anyone who is receiving money from the gun industry aka NRA. Mostly I blame the members who have allowed the NRA to be corrupted for the purpose of corrupting. It's sad to watch how they rush to defend an organization that has let them down and still they cannot see it.
I know a guy who just turned 29 who could easily fit almost all of the criteria that you listed. I have known him since he was 15. I have seen videos of him pushing a nail through his skin, numb from alcohol, laughing his ass off. He has scars from 'I dare you to put a cigarette our on your arm'. Crazy stuff, bunch of guys drunk and out of control.
Law enforcement has done nothing.
He and his buddies are 'known' to LEOs and have been for years. Punk stuff, peer group inspired stupidity, minor [some major] acts of destruction. There was an event last summer connected to the 'group' where a guy was assaulted and hospitalized.
His facebook feed looks like an NRA ad. He owns multiple weapons.
Law enforcement has done nothing.
I think his only actual infraction was a DUI.
He works hard every day. If I called him right now and told him I needed him, or that my mom needed him, he'd be on his way. He makes me laugh so hard I cry. I worry about him all the time because he lives on an edge that is dangerous. I like to think that his recent spat with sobriety [beer only] was motivated by me chastising him for acting like a juvenile and failing to check in with his mom and helping her when she needed it. I have done what I can to counsel/mentor a man-child and for now, he seems to be listening.
My POINT is that there are a plethora of guys that fit the 'profile' and who have had contact with social services and LEOs and some of them are on the 'good kid' side of the line and some of them are on the 'bad kid' side and sometimes the same 'kid' can be on both sides in the same freaking day.
Could some kind of legal intervention have helped Cruz and kept him from becoming a murderer? Who the fuck knows. But IMHO, relying on LEOs to deal with these kids is a cop out [no pun intended]. WE know these guys. WE work with them, they're our friends or their kid brother, they live in our hood. WE could make a difference if we tried, if we took the time, if we gave shit.
Absolutely beautiful response Dulay and so true is so many ways. I've been there and was "watched" by the LEO's from age 8 through 21 for, pretty much, the same things. Hell, even had to work in the Air Police office for the summer for stealing a box of nails that had been thrown in the trash but got "fired" 'cause I "borrowed" some stuff from the AP office. Tell ya - Dad was far from happy with my childhood - for some reason, he really didn't appreciate being called into the Commanding General's office over his son's "activities". It's seriously a wonder he kept on getting promoted because of my behaviours.
Yes, we all know them and, yes, we DO try to help in every little manner that we can. Sometimes, all it takes are broad shoulders and good listening ears. Unfortunately, many times it also takes a lot more such as investing your personal time/concern to help or to reach out. But, seriously, how many people actually take that time? Not that many.
You do good work - thanks for sharing this with us/me.