U S: 92% Vote For Stricter Gun Control

[webfact]

US: 92% vote for stricter gun control

WASHINGTON: -- More than 90% of US voters support background checks for all gun buyers, while much smaller majorities were for stricter gun control laws such as bans on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, said a telephone poll released on Thursday.

But the National Rifle Association (NRA) edged out President Barack Obama in the poll, with 46% saying the pro-gun lobby better reflects their views on guns, versus 43% for Obama.

newsjs

By a margin of 92% to 7%, voters supported background checks showed. In households with a gun, 91% were in favor, while 8% were opposed.

In response to the December 14 shooting that killed 20 school children and six adults in Newtown, Connecticut, President Obama last month announced a series of gun-control measures opposed by the NRA, including proposals for enhanced background checks and a ban on military-style assault weapons.

Source: http://english.ruvr....er-gun-control/

-- THE VOICE OF RUSSIA 2013-02-08

[Morden]

A step in the right direction, at least.

[submaniac]

Title rather misleading. Yeah of course background checks...even diehard gun owners do not want criminals or the mentally ill to purchase handguns...

And really, do we really need "news of Russia" to accurately report US news?

Edited February 8, 2013 by submaniac

[FireMedic]

Totally misleading. I'm a huge supporter of our Bill of Rights. I also do not want guns in the hands of criminals and mentally ill. However, expanded background checks are not a form of "gun control" like banning weapons or magazines. There is no way in a million years 92% of Americans would ever be in favor of anything...

[spiritrace]

Yes, VERY misleading. They don't mention many states who have legislated against Federal gun laws. Also that these "new" laws have prompted record gun sales as well as ammunition sales that have cleaned the shelves at retail gun supplies stores.

They also do not mention that most of the mass shootings were done by people with mental illness and a history of legal drugs such as paxil. The laws only apply to legal gun owners. Obama did not address the gang problem or the mental issues. His own home town of Chicago has the strictest gun laws yet the highest amount of gun crime......Gun laws don't work against law breakers.

[Suradit69]

Title rather misleading. Yeah of course background checks...even diehard gun owners do not want criminals or the mentally ill to purchase handguns...

And really, do we really need "news of Russia" to accurately report US news?

'...do we really need "news of Russia" ' ... actually it's "THE VOICE OF RUSSIA."

Probably a more reliable source than Fox News.

Edited February 8, 2013 by Suradit69

[zaphodbeeblebrox]

Yes, the headline is misleading, because the U.S. has no mechanism for a popular vote on gun control. This is a news story from an unreliable source about an alleged survey. Yet, none of the survey's rationale is explained: how many people were surveyed, how was the sample selected, what questions were they specifically asked, etc. In light of this, it wasn't worth reporting in TV. I don't trust the numbers, as I have seen other surveys performed by reliable organizations that put the likely number of people in the US in support of gun control by a slight majority, somewhere in the 52%-60% range.

[Asiantravel]

Yes, the headline is misleading, because the U.S. has no mechanism for a popular vote on gun control. This is a news story from an unreliable source about an alleged survey. Yet, none of the survey's rationale is explained: how many people were surveyed, how was the sample selected, what questions were they specifically asked, etc. In light of this, it wasn't worth reporting in TV. I don't trust the numbers, as I have seen other surveys performed by reliable organizations that put the likely number of people in the US in support of gun control by a slight majority, somewhere in the 52%-60% range.

The vast majority of the people in this room seem to like what this guy says.

[Chicog]

Yes, VERY misleading. They don't mention many states who have legislated against Federal gun laws. Also that these "new" laws have prompted record gun sales as well as ammunition sales that have cleaned the shelves at retail gun supplies stores.

They also do not mention that most of the mass shootings were done by people with mental illness and a history of legal drugs such as paxil. The laws only apply to legal gun owners. Obama did not address the gang problem or the mental issues. His own home town of Chicago has the strictest gun laws yet the highest amount of gun crime......Gun laws don't work against law breakers.

Does it matter if they do? Nancy Lanza wasn't mentally ill or on drugs (as far as I know).

We're off again, and this one had a facebook manifesto as well. Q: Would you accept spying on Facebook for such things, and pre-emptive action?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/08/us/former-los-angeles-police-officer-sought-in-shootings.html?_r=0

Mr. Dorner posted a rambling and threatening note on his Facebook page, which police referred to as “his manifesto,” complaining of severe depression and pledging to kill officers to avenge his dismissal for filing a false report accusing a colleague of abuse.

And this one had an unexpected consequence:

In Torrance, two women delivering newspapers were shot and wounded by police officers who mistook the Honda pickup they were driving for the one identified as belonging to the gunman, a gray Nissan.

However I agree that the OP really doesn't stand up to much scrutiny, although I still don't see anyone coming up with a reasonable excuse not to ban Armalites and large magazines.

[Chicog]

Yes, the headline is misleading, because the U.S. has no mechanism for a popular vote on gun control. This is a news story from an unreliable source about an alleged survey. Yet, none of the survey's rationale is explained: how many people were surveyed, how was the sample selected, what questions were they specifically asked, etc. In light of this, it wasn't worth reporting in TV. I don't trust the numbers, as I have seen other surveys performed by reliable organizations that put the likely number of people in the US in support of gun control by a slight majority, somewhere in the 52%-60% range.

The vast majority of the people in this room seem to like what this guy says.

And there isn't much information about the demographics of the group in the room, nor those nearest the cameras or microphones, which makes this about as representative as the OP.

This is the most balanced comment I can find on the effect of the original Assault Weapons Ban (which didn't ban a lot of imports or remove existing weapons):

Koper, Jan. 14: So, using that as a very tentative guide, that’s high enough to suggest that eliminating or greatly reducing crimes with these magazines could produce a small reduction in shootings, likely something less than 5 percent. Now we should note that effects of this magnitude could be hard to ever measure in any very definitive way, but they nonetheless could have nontrivial, notable benefits for society. Consider, for example, at our current level of our gun violence, achieving a 1 percent reduction in fatal and non-fatal criminal shootings would prevent approximately 650 shootings annually … And, of course having these sorts of guns, and particularly magazines, less accessible to offenders could make it more difficult for them to commit the sorts of mass shootings that we’ve seen in recent years.”

I'd say it's worth it for only 650 lives saved, and I cannot for the life of me see any good reason why America shouldn't do it, save the preppers who laughably think their AR15s would protect them against a modern military assault (as if that's going to happen anyway).

[JeffreyWitty]

COMPLETELY misleading title for the article.

Goes to show that reading the title along is NOT enough when glancing thru the news.

[JeffreyWitty]

Nancy Lanza wasn't mentally ill or on drugs (as far as I know).

Correct! And she did not commit any crimes - HER SON DID! He took the guns FROM HER. HE did not own those guns. HE stole those from his mother.

Do you think he politely asked his mother, "Mom, can I have your guns so I can shoot you in the face and go to an elementary school to shoot some kids?"

You are perpetuating a falsehood - putting the tragedy into a "gun owner's" hands. HE did NOT own those guns.

Lastly, I would COMPLETELY agree that there *ARE* legitimate/registered gun owners who commit gun crime. HOWEVER, the Adam Lanza murders are not a good example of this, again, the guns were his mothers (a responsible gun owner presumably), not his.

Edited February 8, 2013 by JeffreyWitty

[BeforeTigers]

... There is no way in a million years 92% of Americans would ever be in favor of anything...

Ha.

Classic.

[Chicog]

Nancy Lanza wasn't mentally ill or on drugs (as far as I know).

Correct! And she did not commit any crimes - HER SON DID! He took the guns FROM HER. HE did not own those guns. HE stole those from his mother.

Do you think he politely asked his mother, "Mom, can I have your guns so I can shoot you in the face and go to an elementary school to shoot some kids?"

You are perpetuating a falsehood - putting the tragedy into a "gun owner's" hands. HE did NOT own those guns.

Lastly, I would COMPLETELY agree that there *ARE* legitimate/registered gun owners who commit gun crime. HOWEVER, the Adam Lanza murders are not a good example of this, again, the guns were his mothers (a responsible gun owner presumably), not his.

Sorry, I didn't think I'd need to explain that the fact that she could legally own the guns is what put them into the hands of her deranged son and that, if she didn't have them, the chances are neither would he.

Sheesh.

Edited February 8, 2013 by Chicog

[perijon58]

I just finished watching "The Century of Self" doco on YouTube. Truly Amazing.

This series is about how those in power have used Freud's theories to try and control the dangerous crowd in an age of mass democracy.

Now I know how the system works to promote agenda's

[chuckd]

Nancy Lanza wasn't mentally ill or on drugs (as far as I know).

Correct! And she did not commit any crimes - HER SON DID! He took the guns FROM HER. HE did not own those guns. HE stole those from his mother.

Do you think he politely asked his mother, "Mom, can I have your guns so I can shoot you in the face and go to an elementary school to shoot some kids?"

You are perpetuating a falsehood - putting the tragedy into a "gun owner's" hands. HE did NOT own those guns.

Lastly, I would COMPLETELY agree that there *ARE* legitimate/registered gun owners who commit gun crime. HOWEVER, the Adam Lanza murders are not a good example of this, again, the guns were his mothers (a responsible gun owner presumably), not his.

Sorry, I didn't think I'd need to explain that the fact that she could legally own the guns is what put them into the hands of her deranged son and that, if she didn't have them, the chances are neither would he.

Sheesh.

Are the "chances" he would not have obtained any weapons as high as 92%?

A determined mad man would have gotten them somewhere, somehow.

[JeffreyWitty]

Sorry, I didn't think I'd need to explain that the fact that she could legally own the guns is what put them into the hands of her deranged son and that, if she didn't have them, the chances are neither would he.

No problem. I just don't think it's fair when anti-gun people (and media) use this instance as an example for stricter gun control.

Are we going to start persecuting the parents of teens who steal the family vehicle, get into an accident, and kill somebody? Then make stricter laws against car owners?

No, that makes no sense.

The problem is the criminals, not the tools they wield.

Having said that, I also think that EVERYONE should get checked prior to being allowed to purchase a weapon - and there should be a national database to track those weapons and their sales. I'm also in favor of banning assault rifles. They are weapons of WAR, not home defense, nor hunting. I know this because I am a veteran, and I sworn an oath to protect our freedoms - even the right to bare arms.

For purposes of "defending one's life, liberty, and happiness", "forming a militia" and "rising up against a tyrannical government" - the basis of our right to bare arms in the USA - shotguns, revolvers, and rifles are just fine.

Generally speaking, legitimate gun owners are NOT the problem here.

[brianP]

That's closing the barn door after the cows have gone! How about all the unregistered guns and illegal weapons.

If USA can't or won't find and process the 25 MILLION illegal aliens, i don't see how the hell they think they can CONTROL guns.

I don't know what the liberal dreamers are smoking , but give me some you bitches!

[Chicog]

For purposes of "defending one's life, liberty, and happiness", "forming a militia" and "rising up against a tyrannical government" - the basis of our right to bare arms in the USA - shotguns, revolvers, and rifles are just fine.

Generally speaking, legitimate gun owners are NOT the problem here.

Yep, you need militias nowadays, and they'd be very effective against a predator drone.

[kjun12]

Are we going to start persecuting the parents of teens who steal the family vehicle, get into an accident, and kill somebody? Then make stricter laws against car owners

There is not a scintilla of logic in this comment.

[vijer]

I do believe, when you are born, you should be given a Glock and a M16. Fully loaded of course; with high capacity magazines and armor piercing bullets. For safe measure the triggers should be modified to be single pull and to reduce the amount of force required to pull the trigger. After all you can't expect a newborn to have the strength to pull a 5 pound trigger, I think 1 pound would be a good weight. You never know when a citizen will need to defend themselves from the tyranny of the US government.

[F430murci]

I do believe, when you are born, you should be given a Glock and a M16. Fully loaded of course; with high capacity magazines and armor piercing bullets. For safe measure the triggers should be modified to be single pull and to reduce the amount of force required to pull the trigger. After all you can't expect a newborn to have the strength to pull a 5 pound trigger, I think 1 pound would be a good weight. You never know when a citizen will need to defend themselves from the tyranny of the US government.

Yep, every man woman and child should be armed to the teeth as they are coming one day to take our freedoms away. If we barricade ourselves in and buy lots of groceries and never go outside, they cannot take our freedom away.

Nah . . . I have a buddy that has an aresanal including class IIIs. He tells me he could hold them off for six months when the shit hits the fan so maybe I will just go over there. I am just not so sure who "them" is though.

[Morden]

I guess that some of the later posts were written with tongue in cheek.

Just in case they were not, if 'they' come to take away your civil liberties, whatever that may mean, and you resist, they will probably blow you to kingdom come. Why would they pussy around with someone who resists.

[Mosha]

Approx 850 young people aged between 1 & 19 killed every year by a gun kept in the home they live in. Is it too hard to keep the guns in a safe?

[Morden]

Approx 850 young people aged between 1 & 19 killed every year by a gun kept in the home they live in. Is it too hard to keep the guns in a safe?

There are some basic riles about gun ownership. Keeping weapons f a safe is one. Keeping ammunition separate from guns unless you intend to use the gun is another. yet anothr is that you don't carry a gun if you intend to drink alcohol.

It's clear that many in tehe US do not adhere to these rules and the authorities don't intend to enforce them. The carry licence is a clear invitation to break the unloaded and alcohol rules.

[submaniac]

You never know when a citizen will need to defend themselves from the tyranny of the US government.

Yep, every man woman and child should be armed to the teeth as they are coming one day to take our freedoms away.....I have a buddy that has an aresanal including class IIIs. He tells me he could hold them off for six months when the shit hits the fan so maybe I will just go over there. I am just not so sure who "them" is though.

Just in case they were not, if 'they' come to take away your civil liberties, whatever that may mean, and you resist, they will probably blow you to kingdom come. Why would they pussy around with someone who resists.

"Incident at Ruby Ridge":

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Ruby_Ridge

Long story short: Randy Weaver was a Vietnam veteran. The Federal government entrapped him into selling a sawed off shot gun to a Federal agent so that they could force him to testify against Randy Weaver's friend. Weaver refused. The Federal government then attempted to arrest him. During the arrest the U.S. government shot and killed Weaver's 14 year old son, and shot and killed his unarmed wife while she was holding Weaver's 1 year old daughter in her arms.

One man with a rifle held off 400 armed Federal agents in a siege for 10 days.

Weaver was subsequently acquitted by the jury who found that he was acting in self defense. The Federal government ultimately settled the lawsuits filed by him and his family for multi-millions of dollars.

Yes, sometimes people do need firearms to defend themselves from the tyranny of the US government.

Edited February 9, 2013 by submaniac

[Mosha]

BBC breaking news has another incident in LA. Ex cop and army reservist. He's killed at least 3 so far.

[vijer]

Approx 850 young people aged between 1 & 19 killed every year by a gun kept in the home they live in. Is it too hard to keep the guns in a safe?

Jeez if I keep my guns locked up instead of under my pillow, how am I going to shoot the government agents that storm into my house in the middle of the night to take my guns away! You crazy fool it's okay if people, including children, are killed JUST SO LONG AS YOU DON'T ABORT THEM FIRST. It's okay to kill a person after they are living just not before.

[submaniac]

BBC breaking news has another incident in LA. Ex cop and army reservist. He's killed at least 3 so far.

I was reading his manifesto from the LA times. Quite entertaining.

http://documents.latimes.com/christopher-dorner-manifesto/?track=lanowpicks

If it makes anyone feel better, turns out that despite shooting 3 people, HE'S VERY MUCH FOR GUN CONTROL. See page 11:

"Mia Farrow said it best. "Gun control is no longer debatable, it's not a conversation, its a moral mandate."

Sen. Feinstein, you are doing the right thing in leading the re-institution of a national AWB."

Page 15:

"Wayne LaPierre, President of the NRA, you're a vile and inhumane piece of XXXX."

..."On the same day, give Piers Morgan an indefinite resident alien and Visa card. Mr. Morgan, the problem that many American gun owners have with you and your continuous discussion of gun control is that you are not an American citizen and have an accent that is distinct and clarifies that you are a foreigner. I want you to know that I agree with you 100% on enacting stricter firearm laws but you must understand that your critics will always have in the back of their mind that you are native to a country that we won our sovereignty from while using firearms as a last resort in defense and you come from a country that has no legal private ownership of firearms."

And on the plus side, he likes Dave Brubeck (page 16):

"Dave Brubeck's "Take Five" is the greatest piece of music ever, period."

And he likes Charlie Sheen (page 17):

"Charlie Sheen, you're effin awesome."

[Morden]

You never know when a citizen will need to defend themselves from the tyranny of the US government.

Yep, every man woman and child should be armed to the teeth as they are coming one day to take our freedoms away.....I have a buddy that has an aresanal including class IIIs. He tells me he could hold them off for six months when the shit hits the fan so maybe I will just go over there. I am just not so sure who "them" is though.

Just in case they were not, if 'they' come to take away your civil liberties, whatever that may mean, and you resist, they will probably blow you to kingdom come. Why would they pussy around with someone who resists.

"Incident at Ruby Ridge":

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Ruby_Ridge

Long story short: Randy Weaver was a Vietnam veteran. The Federal government entrapped him into selling a sawed off shot gun to a Federal agent so that they could force him to testify against Randy Weaver's friend. Weaver refused. The Federal government then attempted to arrest him. During the arrest the U.S. government shot and killed Weaver's 14 year old son, and shot and killed his unarmed wife while she was holding Weaver's 1 year old daughter in her arms.

One man with a rifle held off 400 armed Federal agents in a siege for 10 days.

Weaver was subsequently acquitted by the jury who found that he was acting in self defense. The Federal government ultimately settled the lawsuits filed by him and his family for multi-millions of dollars.

Yes, sometimes people do need firearms to defend themselves from the tyranny of the US government.

Apologies for the several typos in my previous post.

Ruby Ridge and Waco are examples of what I wrote. They won't play with you, they'll just wipe you out, man, woman and child.

The US government law enforcement agencies as as besotted with the off the wall gun culture as some of the ordinary citizens. It's no wonder that they too commit massacres. However, I don't see any possibility that the government will, wholesale, take away citizens' rights at gunpoint. They are doing it by legislation and the more horrors citizens perpetrate, the more the freedom to kill your neighbour will be taken away by legislation.