And of course, no one can get shot without some mention of gun control...

[irishScott]

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/...r-gun-control-has-dropped-in-recent-years/?hp

In the wake of Saturday’s shooting in Arizona, there are likely to be new polls out this week measuring the public’s support for stricter gun control laws. Until the surface, it is worth noting that support for stricter gun control has significantly dropped over the last couple of decades, and there is little evidence to suggest that major gun crimes change opinions on the issue.

In a Gallup poll conducted in October, just 44 percent of Americans said the laws covering the sale of firearms should be made more strict, matching Gallup’s record-low on the question, set in 2009.

The number supporting stricter laws has been gradually declining over the last 20 years. When Gallup first asked the question in 1990, 78 percent favored stricter laws. That was down to 60 percent in 1999, 54 percent in 2004 and 44 percent in 2009 and 2010.

The 1999 Columbine shootings and 2007 Virginia Tech shootings appear to have had little, if any, effect on these views. Perhaps one reason for that is skepticism about the effectiveness of stricter laws. In a New York Times/CBS News poll conducted shortly after the Virginia Tech shootings, just 30 percent said they thought that stricter gun control laws would have done a lot to prevent the violence there. Instead, 66 percent said such laws would have had little effect (21 percent) or no effect at all (45 percent).

A broad majority, moreover, opposes a law that would ban the possession of handguns except by the police and other authorized people. In the October Gallup poll, 69 percent opposed such a law, while just 29 percent supported it.

There is, however, substantially more support for a ban on assault weapons and semiautomatic firearms, like the one used in Saturday’s shootings. In a 2009 Times/CBS News poll, 54 percent of Americans, including about half of respondents who have a gun in their home, said they favored a nationwide assault weapons ban.

Was wondering when the left was going to drag this out.

Cliffs:
1. Polls show record low numbers of American support stricter gun laws.
2. Polls show a large majority opposed to a handgun ban.
3. Polls show a large majority believes that stricter gun regulations wouldn't have stopped the shooting, but hell we're the New York Times so we'll talk about it again anyway. Hell we'll even put it on our home page right beneath the main headline article!
4. We'll end on the fact that a poll we conducted showed a very slim majority in support of an "assault weapons ban".
5. Guns r bad. Thank you reader!

 

[Jaskalas]

I would want to examine the hole in the law where a young man issuing death threats is unfit for college campus, yet is allowed to own a gun.

 

[Throckmorton]

Trying to push gun control to take advantage of the shooting is a huge mistake. People aren't that gullible.

 

[JSt0rm]

a gun with a 30 round magazine.

 

[Amused]

I would want to examine the hole in the law where a young man issuing death threats is unfit for college campus, yet is allowed to own a gun.

Because the college did not have him arrested. Had he been arrested and charged with a felony OR been deemed mentally ill, he would have been denied the right to purchase a gun.

But since none of that happened, he was allowed.

 

[Amused]

a gun with a 30 round magazine.

He bought the 30 round magazine separately.

 

[JulesMaximus]

And this surprises you why exactly?

It is kind of hard to defend legal gun ownership when this guy bought a gun legally and then goes on a shooting spree killing 6 people and wounding 14 more.

And before you get your panties in a knot, I am a gun owner and am pro gun. I'm anti-gun nut though. I'm also anti-rightwinger, anti-Glenn Beck, and anti-Rush Limbaugh.

 

[JSt0rm]

He bought the 30 round magazine separately.

Thats fine. there should probably be a ban on 30 round handgun magazines and 300 round drum magazines for assault rifles.

 

[irishScott]

I would want to examine the hole in the law where a young man issuing death threats is unfit for college campus, yet is allowed to own a gun.

The issue is that no official record of these threats and illness were made. Had it been the gun control already in place would have done its job during the initial background check. There is absolutely no way to tie the fault of this shooting to gun control laws, but the Left will be damned if they don't at least try. God knows they're politicizing everything else about it and, ironically, using the exact Conservative tactics they claim to hate.

 

[spidey07]

"Never let a serious crisis go to waste. What I mean by that is it's an opportunity to do things you couldn't do before."

Watch it in action.

 

[Amused]

Thats fine. there should probably be a ban on 30 round handgun magazines and 300 round drum magazines for assault rifles.

They've had a ban on them. It didn't lower crime rates one bit.

Bans don't stop people from doing illegal things. You cannot create laws to stop people from breaking already existing laws.

You'd think people would learn from the failure of the war on drugs and prohibition. Not to mention cities with the strictest gun laws and outright bans have the highest gun violence. Bans don't stop criminals from getting what they want. Be it drugs, alcohol or guns.

 

[Scotteq]

Thats fine. there should probably be a ban on 30 round handgun magazines and 300 round drum magazines for assault rifles.

There was - '94 to 2004. 10 rounds.

Some states still have laws to this effect. (NJ and California, for example)

 

[Amused]

The issue is that no official record of these threats and illness were made. Had it been the gun control already in place would have done its job during the initial background check. There is absolutely no way to tie the fault of this shooting to gun control laws, but the Left will be damned if they don't at least try. God knows they're politicizing everything else about it and, ironically, using the exact Conservative tactics they claim to hate.

Bingo! They decry demonizing others by... wait for it...

Demonizing others!!!

 

[JSt0rm]

There was - '94 to 2004. 10 rounds.

Another bush fuck up?

 

[JSt0rm]

They've had a ban on them. It didn't lower crime rates one bit.

Bans don't stop people from doing illegal things. You cannot create laws to stop people from breaking already existing laws.

You'd think people would learn from the failure of the war on drugs and prohibition. Not to mention cities with the strictest gun laws and outright bans have the highest gun violence. Bans don't stop criminals from getting what they want. Be it drugs, alcohol or guns.

I didnt say anything about getting rid of guns. I just said get rid of the 30 round magazine.

 

[spidey07]

It looks like his 33 rd magazine actually caused a jam allowing a CCW guy and another to bum rush him saving more lives.

Ironic isn't it, that the fact it was a 33 rd mag may have saved lives as they can actually be problematic if you don't handle the weapon correctly.

 

[Scotteq]

Another bush fuck up?

If I recall correctly, an extension never got out of the House/Senate.

Also - It was a ban on sales, not on posession. Again: State Laws may dictate diferently.

 

[Amused]

Another bush fuck up?

No, just further proof that the answer to crime is not punishing the entire population as if they are a classrooom of unruly schoolchildren.

Teacher's solution: Some chew gum loudly and destroy property with it, thus you ban gum entirely.

Adult solution: You target only those individuals who abuse their freedom, and leave everyone else the hell alone.

 

[irishScott]

I didnt say anything about getting rid of guns. I just said get rid of the 30 round magazine.

And they did. Which was his point. It had no effect.

 

[Amused]

I didnt say anything about getting rid of guns. I just said get rid of the 30 round magazine.

I see no need for that. Why take away my highcap mags when I didn't do anything wrong?

 

[Cogman]

And this surprises you why exactly?

It is kind of hard to defend legal gun ownership when this guy bought a gun
legally and then goes on a shooting spree killing 6 people and wounding 14 more.

I think you meant the current laws surrounding gun ownership.

I'm not so sure this guy wouldn't have been able to get a gun anyways. The university didn't report him in which messes things up. Strictly speaking he would have had a clean record. I don't think a stricter gun law would have stopped him from getting a gun.

A law, that I would be happy about, would be to force gun owners to get licensed before they can buy a gun. Don't make gun ownership illegal, but make it like getting a car license or truck license. Have the person do 6 weeks of supervised gun usage with the supervisor monitoring the fitness of the person to keep a gun.

There is no reason to have stricter laws over driving than we have with gun purchases.

 

[JSt0rm]

I see no need for that. Why take away my highcap mags when I didn't do anything wrong?

Why is a 30 round magazine even needed?

 

[irishScott]

And this surprises you why exactly?

It is kind of hard to defend legal gun ownership when this guy bought a gun legally and then goes on a shooting spree killing 6 people and wounding 14 more.

And before you get your panties in a knot, I am a gun owner and am pro gun. I'm anti-gun nut though. I'm also anti-rightwinger, anti-Glenn Beck, and anti-Rush Limbaugh.

It's extremely easy actually. As I said, the issue was not making an official record of his conditions or threats. Had such a record been made, he would not have been allowed to purchase a gun under current law.

 

[xj0hnx]

Thats fine. there should probably be a ban on 30 round handgun magazines and 300 round drum magazines for assault rifles.

Why? Because some moron, loser, psycho, once in a blue moon uses one in a crime? Not good enough. Banning hi capacity magazines wouldn't stop people from getting any of the millions already available anyway. A 30 round mag isn't much more effective than two loaded 15 rd mags, only takes the gun off target for a couple seconds. The only thing gun bans, "AWB" bans are good for is driving up the prices in the market. During the entire life of the AWB not a single real assault rifle sale was effected ...not one, but idiots that don't have a clue pat themselves on the back, and nothing really changes.

 

[lord_emperor]

Why is a 30 round magazine even needed?

To fight the British of course, they're coming to take back this rebellious colony you know.