Poll: Are New Gun Laws Needed in Wake of Spree Killings?
Should Americans rethink their antipathy to tighter gun laws in the wake of massacres in Colorado and Wisconsin?
The recent spree killings by gunmen in Colorado and Wisconsin have resurrected a debate over gun control. However, at the moment, there appears scant interest on the part of lawmakers to strengthen gun laws — especially in an election year.
While some advocate for stricter controls, polls indicate a majority of Americans themselves seem unwilling to accept new gun restrictions. Many have even argued that making it easier for law-abiding citizens to arm themselves would actually decrease killings and help deter the type of massacres that occurred in Colorado and Wisconsin.
In Colorado, the number of background checks to buy guns jumped 43 percent in the days following the movie-theater shootings that killed 12 and injured dozens, compared to the previous weekend, according to the Colorado Bureau of Investigation, which runs the checks. The 2,887 background checks done over the weekend of the killings were also 39 percent higher than the first weekend in July, according to the agency.
According to a USA Today report: "Two bills circulating in Congress would ban high-capacity ammunition magazines, such as the 100-round drum used in Friday's attack. But passage of those bills — or stiffer bans on assault weapons — are not likely in the near future, says Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., sponsor of the House bill. Powerful lobbying from the National Rifle Association, the largest pro-gun group, and other organizations has ground Congress to a halt on gun issues, she says."
President Obama recently said that the shootings call for a national "soul searching" on gun violence, but neither his administration or fellow Democrats are in any hurry to suggest new gun controls. And new controls are typically anathema to Republican lawmakers in general.
Despite the fact that little if anything in the way of new laws may come from the killings — despite desperate pleas from a group of the nation's Mayors and survivors of recent killing sprees to act now — we want to gauge your opinion on the matter.
Take our poll below and leave us your comments.
Laura
1:34 pm on Thursday, August 9, 2012
Yes, we need to creat new laws for gun control. First of all, hunters do not use assault weapons and bullets that go through bullet proof vest. I think it should be illegal for anyone other than law enforcement officers to be found having any of the listed items. All guns must be registered through the state.
The law abiding citizens will still be able to be armed, but in a proper way. There should be a 7 day waiting perior before the person can purchase a gun, after applying for the application. That way if the person is buying it out of anger there is a cool down period. Assault weapons and weapons that have clips are not for the normal person to have. If they fire for competition, then they would have a special license to carry the weapons only to and from the range or where the competition is held.
You have got to remember that the criminals who have these guns either bought them legally or from law abiding citizens who purchased them for them. Or they were stolen from the law abiding citizens. I beleive we have the right to bear arms. But we are not to go over board and go out and buy machine guns. There is no reason for it.
Jason
7:41 am on Friday, August 10, 2012
Laura, don't take this the wrong way, but your comment,
"You have got to remember that the criminals who have these guns either bought them legally or from law abiding citizens who purchased them for them"
is absolutely wrong. Stolen from law-abiding citizens is possible, and the black market is often the avenue that criminals use, but more laws won't help the problem.
Statistics show that where there are stricter gun laws, violent crimes are MORE prevalent, not less (see Chicago and New York, if you want examples).
Waiting periods do nothing. Criminals are criminals.
Car accidents kill more people by a huge margin than gun violence - should we ban cars that go over a certain speed limit?
US citizens, by and large, cannot buy "machine guns". You need to educate yourself before spouting off - fully-automatics weapons are exceedingly hard and expensive to own. Those are machine guns.
If you don't want to own a weapon, fine. Don't. But don't ask a gun owner to defend your property or life. Remember - you've made your choice.
I'm going to have them and teach my family about them.
Ignorance is not bliss.
Sami
9:17 am on Friday, August 10, 2012
@Laura ~ Well put! (I might up the waiting period to 14-days.)
Liberal in SC
11:20 am on Friday, August 10, 2012
I totally agree with you.
stanley seigler
1:27 pm on Friday, August 10, 2012
DITTO what laura say.
AND
@Jason: '...Criminals are criminals...'
why keep repeating the same irrevalent argument...see: stanley seigler 8:43 am on Friday, August 10, 2012 @Jason: ...CRIMINALS DON'T FOLLOW LAWS!!!!!...
re: Statistics show that where there are stricter gun laws, violent crimes are MORE prevalent, not less...
“As students of elementary logic know,” Justice Breyer wrote, “after it does not mean because of it.”...then;
as you know, the old saw say: there are lies, damn lies, and statics...ie;
there seems little correlation (increase/decrease) between gun laws and murder rates...OTOH there is japan:
Japan's law is simple: "No-one shall possess a fire-arm or fire-arms or a sword or swords."
Japan's crime rate is very low, and its gun crime rate virtually nil...a Japanese newspaper writes: "It strikes me as clear that there is a distinct correlation between gun control laws and the rate of violent crime. The fewer theguns, the less the violence."
re: Car accidents kill...
there is no one advocating banning cars...there are gun control advocates who want requirements for gun ownership...similar to those required to drive a car...eg, testing and licening
re: US citizens, by and large, cannot buy "machine guns".
to my knowledge, 'by and large' US citizens can buy ak47 type guns and 100 round clips over the counter (at gun shops and shows) w/o a license.
Robert Kelly
6:01 pm on Thursday, August 9, 2012
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
In my mind that implies regulation, mandatory training, and government oversight. Under those conditions, people may keep and bear arms.
stanley seigler
6:32 pm on Thursday, August 9, 2012
@Robert Kelly: '...In my mind that implies regulation, etc...'
too bad the supreme court didn't consider this...the SC court also threw 'A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state under the bus...'
there is no need in the 21st century to maintain a well regulated militia to defend citizens against a 18th century king geo empire...the national guard (and reserve) is this century well regulated militia to supplement the active duty forces in defense of USA...
amazing how the NRA has misused the 2nd to increase the profits of gun/ammo manufactures...more amazing is how reasonable intelligent folks bought NRA gun sales bs...hook, line and sinker.
Dr. John
7:14 pm on Thursday, August 9, 2012
In my mind, there are two primary purposes of citizens bearing arms. 1) to protect your personal property and yourself against criminals and 2) to protect against the tyranny of government. A secondary benefit from owning firearms is recreation and leisure shooting activities.
stanley seigler
8:26 pm on Thursday, August 9, 2012
@Dr. John: '...1) to protect your personal property and yourself against criminals and 2) to protect against the tyranny of government...'
agree w/ yo #1...yo #2 is NRA bs...also agree guns can provide recreational and leisure activities...tho believe sheet/trap shooting more recreational and requires more skill the destroying a target with an ak47...(btw had friend in hi-school that could consistently break 98 out of 100 clay pigeons)
butbutt why do sane shooters oppose regulations to prevent insane shooters from obtaining military type guns...for gawd knows what purpose.
Shawn Drury
11:22 pm on Thursday, August 9, 2012
Dr. John, I'm curious...what would have to happen for you to revisit your opinion on the right of someone to assemble something just short of a munitions factory--as was the case with both recent shooters--and is routinely the case whenever these sorts of things occur?
Jason
7:51 am on Friday, August 10, 2012
Shawn and Stanley - we're getting really tired of saying it, but for those of you who STILL are missing the point: CRIMINALS DON'T FOLLOW THE LAW!!!!
Why is that so hard to understand. If I want to assemble what amounts to "something just short of a munitions factory", that's my current right. Since I don't go 'round putting holes in people with my guns, there's no problem, right???
If you don't agree, then let's make everything that can hurt people (cars, knives, cigarettes) illegal. More legislation....yeah, that's the ticket.
stanley seigler
5:05 pm on Friday, August 10, 2012
@Jason: '...that's my current right.'
not if you're a schizophrenic, an alcohoic, a homophobe (kidding), nazi skin head, black panther, KKK member er, right wing nut (again kidding), regilous nut (not kidding), drug addic, on terrorist watch list, etcetc...
D. Dantzler
7:49 pm on Thursday, August 9, 2012
I'm proud to be an American! I'm so glad that we have the right to "bear arms". To protect yourself, your family, your property, and to protect yourself/country against those who would invade or destroy our democracy, is wonderful. I feel sorry for people of other countries that aren't allowed to do that. So to add or change gun laws just because two individuals became disturbed and mentally unstable....no! New gun laws will not change a crazy person's decision to shoot innocent people. Period.
Dr. John
8:16 pm on Thursday, August 9, 2012
D.Dantzler,
I am glad you agree. Just to warn you, the attacks will now come that our view point is outdated, irrattional, essentially unconstitutional and that there is no need for a armed militia in these days and times. If you look at history there are numerous examples of violent government take-overs and coups, all with the state army/militia doing the dirty work for the government . Look no further than Rwanda, Hitlers Germany, modern day Syria and Egypt, look at how inept over time government becomes in situations like Greece and Italy and you will soon appreciate the value ofthe right to bear arms against tyranny.
stanley seigler
8:45 pm on Thursday, August 9, 2012
@Dr. John and D.Dan
surely you are aware this is the 21th century and are nor NRA sheep...even if your 18th century beliefs were pertinent...what do you two have against regulations to help prevent insane shooters from getting assault weapons...
Jason
7:46 am on Friday, August 10, 2012
Dr. John put it perfectly Stanley. Criminals ("sane" or otherwise) don't follow the laws as it is. Why do you think more restrictive legislation will make them change their minds?
Seriously - if you don't want to have a gun, don't buy one. But don't expect me to give mine up. I own several, legally-obtained weapons and also have gone through the training to obtain my concealed-carry permit. I've followed the laws. What's your problem with that?
Dr. John
10:00 pm on Thursday, August 9, 2012
Stanley,
Insane shooters and criminals will be the ones getting the dreaded "AK-47's" when tighter regulations are passed. Gun control laws will only impact those citizens who obey the laws.
Tom
10:49 pm on Thursday, August 9, 2012
Problem is...you can have all the regulation on guns you want, but criminals are not going to follow the laws period. Now you can argue that the Aurora Shooting, the shooter bought his guns legally, but in the case of the Sikh Temple shooting, it is well known that extremist groups(even white supremacists) often deal in acquiring assault weapons illegally(especially AK-47s), and therefore, gun legislation would not do anything more to restrict them from carrying out any types of shootings in the future.
stanley seigler
1:17 am on Friday, August 10, 2012
@Tom: '...criminals are not going to follow the laws period...'
so we should just make crack, etc, legal...make it as easy as possible for criminals and insane shooters to terrorize citizens...perhaps we should eliminate stop lights too.
NRA logic escapes me...
stanley seigler
11:20 pm on Thursday, August 9, 2012
@Dr. John: '...Insane shooters and criminals will be the ones getting the dreaded "AK-47's"...'
you quote NRA propaganda (aks bs)...how will regulations impact citizens who obey the laws...
granted criminals will be able to obtain guns just as addicts, regardless of laws, can get crack, mj, whatever...but regs make it more difficult for them and insane shooters to obtain military weapons w/o question.
and
citizens who obey the laws w/ no criminal record and reasonable justification (recreational, home protection) will be able to purchase a gun...
surely you dont believe regulations will prevent law abiding citizens (good people) from purchasing guns...if so, how so...and
you cant believe regulations will not be a detriment to criminals/insane shooters...
Jason
7:48 am on Friday, August 10, 2012
Stanley - you're missing the point. Perhaps you should work on your comprehension.
This is the point: CRIMINALS DON'T FOLLOW LAWS!!!!!
Get it through your brain, man!
Enforce the laws we have - don't make more.
You must be a politician looking for job security....that's all I can figure.
stanley seigler
8:43 am on Friday, August 10, 2012
@Jason: '...CRIMINALS DON'T FOLLOW LAWS!!!!!...'
what point do you believe yo too cute by 1/2 adhoms make...you state the obvious...ie, if they followed the law they wouldnt be criminals...would they...
am surprised you didn't post another painfully obvious NRA propaganda (aka bs) sound bite; 'guns dont kill people do'...guess the NRA has to keep their bs simple for their audience...
painfully obvious statements, eg, criminals dont and guns dont...'; are not reasons there shouldn't be gun regulations...gun laws, laws in general, are detrimental to criminal behavior and insane shooters...eg, countries where there are gun laws have lower homicide rate...
if your point is there shouldn't be gun laws because criminals break the law...you may want to rethink your NRA illogical position...ie;
would you apply this most questionable logic to all laws...or to which other laws is it applicable...
vice adhoms and NRA bs, can you provide logical reasons gun regs are not needed...you might convince me and a host of others gun laws are not needed.
Dr. John
7:59 am on Friday, August 10, 2012
What strikes me about your arguement is that you essentially admit that we cannot stop criminals from obtaining guns, or following gun laws. Aurora, Colorado has a law that prohibits the carry of guns and discharge of guns within the city limits, that law made innocent, law abiding citizens, unable to protect themselves. The good citizens, following the law, were defenseless in a situation where one person introduces a gun and violent intentions. Did that law protect the average citizen? How does that logic work? Would it be safe to say then that we cannot stop Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, but we can limit our own and should? The other interesting observation you make (attempting to mimic "absurd" logic is legalizing crack to make it easier for criminals to commit the crimes. Criminals already have access to crack if they want it, that is why they are called criminals. As to Tom's observation, you are correct, but realize there are also "Black Supremacists Groups" also. Let's not starting to divide this arguement over the racial divide as gun crime being attributed primarily to "White" people. The gun violence problem is tilted more to black americans.
stanley seigler
10:23 am on Friday, August 10, 2012
@Dr. John: '...The gun violence problem is tilted more to black americans.'
perhaps there should be a law against blacks owning a gun...
re: that we cannot stop criminals from obtaining guns [drj]
you cant prevent criminals from obtaining guns or breaking any law...but it can be made more difficult...and when caught they can be punished for breaking the law...if one exist
re: The other interesting observation you make (attempting to mimic "absurd" logic is legalizing crack to make it easier for criminals to commit the crimes. [drj]
you misinterpreted then argue against yo misinterpretation...the point was/is: the argument that because criminasl can get guns there shouldn't be gun laws is as absurd as saying drugs should be legal because addicts can get drugs...
re: How does that logic [of gun laws] work? [drj]
a ban on military assault weapons, 100 round clips, would deter insane shooters from killing good citizens...or do believable it's logical for 'innocent, law abiding, citizens' to be armed with ak47s to protect themselves...
attempting parallels of iranian nuclear threat to gun control is the height of absurdity...
asked not answered: surely you dont believe regulations will prevent law abiding citizens (good people) from purchasing guns...if so, how so...
Sami
9:22 am on Friday, August 10, 2012
Did you all know there was a vicious KNIFE attack in China that KILLED 9-people???
D. Dantzler
1:43 pm on Friday, August 10, 2012
How about the guy with the Samurai sword? I guess we should do something about that too. Apparently S. Seigler, you would prefer that no one has guns. Period! You need to take another look at some of the gun regulations out there and the costs associated with owning a gun. Some states make it extremely difficult for a person to buy a gun, register it, go through training, etc... Just to have it for protection!!! Again, more regulation will not change "crazy" people from getting their hands on a weapon!
stanley seigler
3:17 pm on Friday, August 10, 2012
@D. Dantzler: '...How about the guy with the Samurai sword? I guess we should do something about that too.
funny knives/swords mentioned as there are knife laws...guess gun advocates consider knives more likely to be used in mass murders than guns...oh/and perhaps NRA doesnt have a vested interest in knife manufactures...you thunk?
knife law example:
US code
Section 1242. Introduction, manufacture for introduction, transportation or distribution in interstate commerce; penalty
Whoever knowingly introduces, or manufactures for introduction, into interstate commerce, or transports or distributes in interstate commerce, any switchblade knife, shall be fined not more than $2,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. http://knife-expert.com/fedswitch.txt
stanley seigler
3:37 pm on Friday, August 10, 2012
@D. Dantzler: '...Some states make it extremely difficult for a person to buy a gun, register it, go through training, etc... Just to have it for protection!!!
which states and why not all states...knife law quoted is a fed law...
why would anyone who feels need to carry a gun object to training and registration...
re: more regulation will not change "crazy" people from getting their hands on a weapon...
maybe...but no regs make it easier for crazies to murder innocent citizens, children and those they hate...eg sikhs who they think are muslins...oh/and;
bet 'no reg' gun advocates favor death penalty even tho it doesn't stop crazies from killing...kinda ironic...yo thunk?
stanley seigler
4:32 pm on Friday, August 10, 2012
@D. Dantzler: '...would prefer that no one has guns. Period! You need to take another look at some of the gun regulations out there and the costs associated with owning a gun.
you assume too much...only prefer regulations to prevent over the counter purchase of, eg, assault weapons, excessive amounts of ammo, and 100 round clips...w/o background checks and reasonable explanation as to why needed.
probably do need to take another look at regs...as you seem to be familiar with current laws...could/would you provide me with links...
Tom Musolf
1:08 am on Saturday, August 11, 2012
Slow down folks....it will take a lot more than "internet chat" to resolve the issue. If you think there may be a problem pending, get in touch with those law makers in public office that are pro/con. You could fill pages with your opinion and that is all it will be...opinion. An internet entry will not sway me either way. You can take that to the bank.
stanley seigler
10:07 am on Saturday, August 11, 2012
@Tom Musolf: '...will not sway...'
have no illusions opines, even fact backed, sway anyone on PATCH...posts just beat, by a smidgen, talking to one's self and cussin the talking heads...course this just an "opinion"
oh/and, it also beats listening to 'pro/com law makers' debate on house floor...many opines expressed here worth more than the opinions expressed in US house debates...pro/con law maker's mines made up...debate/opines dont sway them either...
course this just another "opinion"...