Support For New Gun Control Laws Plummets, Especially Among Women

[Cnon]

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepa...********=nl_pm

From the article:

Since the 2012 Newtown school shooting, major anti-gun groups like Everytown for Gun Safety and Moms Demand Action (both funded by former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg) have been pushing for more legal requirements during gun sales, better known as "universal background checks." But a new survey from Gallup shows those efforts haven't paid off and that the majority of the country does not support an increase in gun control laws. The survey also shows support for new legislation has plummeted since 2012.

For discussion, is the poll right?


I believe so.


Maybe some people are waking and smelling the coffee.



Cnon

[Tom Servo]

Actually, support has dropped across almost all demographics since 2012. This is to be expected.

When there's a high-profile shooting, it's natural for people to expect action from the government. They tend to support "stricter laws" without knowing the specifics. Once tempers have a chance to cool, they rethink their priorities.

After Sandy Hook, people were worried about mass shootings. Now, they're almost 4 times more concerned with having their phone hacked.

(Heaven help me if those pictures of me in my Lara Croft costume go public!)

You can see Gallup's historical trends here. The numbers don't really change all that much. What matters more is the makeup of the legislature and the knowledge of voters.

[Cnon]

Actually, support has dropped across almost all demographics since 2012.

This is to be expected.

When there's a high-profile shooting, it's natural for people to expect action from the government. They tend to support "stricter laws" without knowing the specifics. Once tempers have a chance to cool, they rethink their priorities.

After Sandy Hook, people were worried about mass shootings. Now, they're almost 4 times more concerned with having their phone hacked.

(Heaven help me if those pictures of me in my Lara Croft costume go public!)

You can see Gallup's historical trends here. The numbers don't really change all that much. What matters more is the makeup of the legislature and the knowledge of voters.

Nice find on the phone hacking and other tech worries, Tom.


Cnon

[silvermane_1]

well as you all know there was a "High Profile" School Shooting here in WA state recently, and with election day coming in just a couple days, plus I-594 on the ballot, it's not looking good for us "gun folks" in WA state.

[1stmar]

I don't have anything empiracal to reference but my observation is there are more women at my lgs buying guns then I ever recall seeing. All ages too

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by silvermane 1

well as you all know there was a "High Profile" School Shooting here in WA state recently, and with election day coming in just a couple days, plus I-594 on the ballot, it's not looking good for us "gun folks" in WA state.

And, just like the shooter at Sandy Hook, the shooter in WA state used a firearm stolen from his parent. All the background checks in the world wouldn't have made any difference in either case, because both guns were purchased legally. In the Sandy Hook case, the AR required a background check for the mother to buy, and she passed. In the WA case, I believe any handgun purchase requires a background check in all states, so again (unless the gun had been in the shooter's family since before 1968) the purchase must have been subject to a background check.

So what difference would "universal" background checks have made in either case? In fact, the same applies to the Virginia Tech shooter, the Gabby Giffords shooter, and the Aurora, CO, shooter. Major Hassan at Fort Hood? Nope - guns bought legally, with background check.

Get the word out. Write letters to the editor. Get all your friends to write letters to the editor. If you have any in-state, call-in talk radio programs ... call in and stress that NONE of the recent, high-profile shootings would have been affected by imposing more stringent or more expansive requirements than what we have today.

[pax]

This is no surprise. More women own guns than ever before. More have gotten their carry permits than ever before. More women shoot regularly than ever before. So why would it be a surprise that women support gun rights in larger numbers now than in the past?

pax

[Koda94]

its not surprising to me that more people are getting carry permits than ever before, but whats surprising to me is just how many gun owners don't understand the truth behind "universal background checks" and support it as well as the legislators that propose gun control. Here in Oregon we've already rejected UBC last election, yet this election all the legislators that supported it are leading the votes by a good margin... if Washington's I594 measure passes it will set a precedence for the rest of the U.S.

For discussion, is the poll right?

not at the moment in Washington... http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...in-washington/

[pax]

It's hard to express just *how* bad this proposed law is -- because it's so bad that any illustration of it just leaves your listeners scratching their heads and saying, "That can't be right..."

Here's a story, though.

Few weeks back, we went to visit some old friends of ours. Known 'em for 15 years. Everyone in this story has a carry permit.

Act 1, inside the house

Our host, ETom, asked if he'd told us about his new shotgun. We went down to the basement where ETom brought the gun out of the safe, checked & double checked it and then handed it to me. (1)

I handled it a bit with the muzzle pointed toward the basement wall (best backstop in the world).

Then I handed the gun back to ETom (2), and ETom handed it to our other friend, Shootin' Buddy. (3) My husband and I have rented a room to Buddy for more than 15 years, but we're not related to him by blood. Good friend. Buddy handled the gun for a moment and handed it back to ETom. (4)

Then ETom said, "You guys want to see how it shoots? Come on!"

Act 2, outside

ETom and his lovely bride RHD live on a wonderfully private rural property. They recently put in a solid dirt berm out behind the barn which makes a nice safe place to shoot. We all traipsed outside to do that.

ETom handed the shotgun to his wife. (5) She shot.

Wife handed it to me. (6) I shot.

I handed it back to wife, (7) who handed it to Buddy. (8) He shot.

Buddy handed it to my husband, (9) who decided not to shoot but admired the gun before handing it to me (10). I handed it back to ETom. (11)

End of story.

Adding up the criminal behavior in the above story

By my count, the gun passed from one person to another (a "transfer" under this bastard of a law) eleven times. We were neither out hunting nor on a "certified shooting range" (term not defined in law but certainly does not include informal backyard ranges like this one), so every transfer either was or could have been illegal.

1 - Illegal. ETom and I both committed a misdemeanor.

2 - Illegal. ETom and I both committed another misdemeanor.

3 - Illegal. Misdemeanor for Buddy, felony for ETom.

4 - Illegal. 2nd misdemeanor for Buddy, another felony for ETom.

5 - Legal. ETom and his wife are immediate family members.

6 - Illegal. My 3rd offense (felony), her first (misdemeanor).

7 - Illegal. Another felony for me. Her 2nd misdemeanor.

8 - Illegal. Felony for Buddy (3rd offense). Felony for ETom's wife (3rd offense).

9 - Illegal. Another felony for Buddy. Misdemeanor for my husband. Those two have shared a household for 15 years or more, but they aren't "domestic partners" because I'm married to one of them and the other is simply a good friend who happens to be our renter. So this isn't a legal transfer between family members, but another violation of the law.

10 - Legal transfer between husband and wife. Well, at least it would be a legal transfer if only I hadn't kept handing the gun around; as it is, under this law I'd already be a felon twice over and thus a prohibited person.

11 - 3rd or 4th felony for me, 3rd felony for ETom.

***

The law's going to pass, though. Because even though people are generically against "more gun control," they tend to be for background checks. And after a bajillion dollars has been pumped into the political process from out of state billionaires, and the NRA has been all but missing in action on this one... I'm not real hopeful.

Seriously thinking about moving.

pax

[Cnon]

Pax said: The law's going to pass, though. Because even though people are generically against "more gun control," they tend to be for background checks. And after a bajillion dollars has been pumped into the political process from out of state billionaires, and the NRA has been all but missing in action on this one... I'm not real hopeful.

Sad. a lot of misinformed people..................



Cnon

[silvermane_1]

but that's the problem pax, we could both move to a so called "free state", but a few years down road, we just be facing the same thing there too, as much as i hate to say it, but non compliance is the only real option left IMHO, because like i said in the I-594 thread, more laws/charges aren't going to stop criminals getting their hands on firearms, and always remember "gun control" is never about "guns", it's all about "control".

[silvermane_1]

Sad. a lot of misinformed people..................

^ that's not really the entire issue though, what is the entire issue is that (and i apologize in advance for the morbid/macabre mental picture/image i am about to post) the entire "we have to do something!" herd mentality that is so prevalent these days, the "warm fuzzy feelings" that these folks feel inside, will end up as mortal and/or fatal gun shot wounds one day, because criminals and individuals that are determine to cause chaos and harm upon others will never be a stopped by a law/charge that only really effects those whom are law abiding, and I-594 only effects the law abiding, and thus discourages law abiding individuals that are interested in using firearms for personal and home defense, again i apologize for the morbid/macabre mental picture/image i wrote, but i'm only stating the reality and gravity that "gun control" in general, entails.

[2ndsojourn]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...in-washington/

Note that the boxes in the picture in the above linked article call for UBC's on sales, you can bet the law as written will state transfers.

And when are these idiots going to recognize that the new law is largely unenforceable? Estimates range between 200 and 300 million guns are currently in circulation. (I'm too lazy to look up and post the source.) Prosecution would have to prove that the transfer occurred after the new law went into effect. How are they going to do that?

[44 AMP]

AS written, simply handing a trusted friend a gun IN YOUR OWN HOME, makes you a criminal, and you break the (proposed) law again when he hands it BACK to you, the owner!

AND, just so you know, a criminal giving another gang member a stolen gun is not prosecutable under this law (or nearly any other gun control law). (5th Amendment).

We beat this the last time they proposed it. I hope we do so again, but I am concerned.

And, it makes no difference if the law is "un-enforceable" in a general sense. The sponsors don't care. It's still the law, and any of us might become prohibited persons, simply for doing legal things we have been doing all our lives, indeed, since the founding of this once great nation.

because, thanks to this piece of garbage, those things are no longer legal.

[pax]

Oh, it's even more fun than that.

As written, you cannot allow your spouse to touch one of your guns inside your own home unless it's a life threatening emergency. (At the authorized shooting range, yes; or it can be an outright bona fide gift, yes; but a loan of your gun to your own spouse inside your own home? NO.)

I wonder how many gun owning women voted for the law and don't realize that they just made it literally AGAINST THE LAW to ask their husbands to clean their guns for them?


... ...

pax

[Tom Servo]

I'm a bit dismayed by the fatalism and the assumption that I-594 is a foregone conclusion. Midterms have a different pattern than Presidential elections. There are three important factors at work:

1. Unsure voters tend to vote "no" on referendums, especially if the language is confusing. We'll probably see a great number of votes against both I-594 and I-591.
   
2. Initiatives like this get all sorts of support in surveys, but that rarely carries over into actual voting results. Joe and Sally Sixpack probably told the guy on the phone that background checks seem like a good idea. Does that mean they'll interrupt their lives to go vote just for that on Tuesday? Historically not. People don't really go to the polls to vote for gun control, and there's not much else on the ballot that concerns them.
   
3. Turnout at midterms is typically low, and the majority of voters tend to lean conservative.

Gun owners can kill this with simple numbers at the polls.

[pax]

Tom Servo,

Washington state is entirely vote by mail. (Not a fan of vote by mail for some really important reasons, as you'll see here.)

But that law means the ballots all arrived in mailboxes just as the news was coming out about the shootings at one of the largest high schools in the state. Given the huge amount of news coverage those shootings received locally, and the tragically slow-motion nature of the deaths, and that the school happens to be located in the middle of the most anti-gun area of the state with a very politically conscious and motivated voter base to begin with... and that the polls have consistently shown this measure having solid support even before the recent shootings... I'm just not inclined to the Pollyanna view on this one. Would love to be pleasantly surprised, but don't expect to be.

In this state, for the most part, people have already voted.

Gun owners who haven't voted yet need to get off their butts and get their ballots in on this one. Because how much would it suck to get badly burned by a law like this, and have to explain to your kid (or to yourself in the mirror) that you just couldn't be bothered to even drop an envelope in the mail to stop it?

pax

[Tom Servo]

Washington state is entirely vote by mail.

Whoa. I did not know that. It explains a few things I've heard from Washington transplants.

It also pretty much scotches the factors that I mentioned. When there's no real effort involved in voting, I can see the possibility for all sorts of misleading drivel through referendum (not to mention fraud).

[Koda94]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

It also pretty much scotches the factors that I mentioned. When there's no real effort involved in voting, I can see the possibility for all sorts of misleading drivel through referendum (not to mention fraud).

and top that with 9.5 million invested in a misleading campaign under the guise of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals by a simple "common sense" background check too many gun owners are falling for I cant help but wonder where was the NRA on this one?
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/...initiative-54/

[manta49]

Women obviously have more intrest in shooting in America compared to the UK. I have been shooting for around 30 years and very rarely see women shooting. At the ranges it would be usually 100 % men shooting. In a club I am in with around 300 members there is one woman.

[44 AMP]

I'm given to understand that a considerable amount of "foreign" (meaning out of state) money has been funneled into the campaign to get 594 passed in WA. $3 million I have heard, and the reported source is the Bloomberg type folks.

"can't say its true, and I won't say it's not, but there's been talk..."

[Koda94]

44AMP its true, from Bloomburg. See the link I posted above....

[ThesNazud]

I think that's total horsecrap... Out of state/district/city/etc. funding for politics should be illegal. It's a blatent run around of the people represented there. For someone or some company etc to give $ to get a person elected in an area that has no political impact on the donor is just plain wrong on sooooo many levels... An if you ask me goes against the very grain of democracy to let the people choose who they want...

[TDL]

Isn't the shooter's dad a Tribal cop and reserve county cop? Thanks to Cuomo he would be exempt from much of NY gun laws.

As far as women, if you look at Pew Research on the whopping numbers of Americans who think gun murder is either up or constant, when in fact it has plummeted, the demographics are even more interesting. Most American women believe gun murder is up.
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/...ublic-unaware/
That has been the reason why Bloomberg used womens' groups AstroTurf.

Yes support for gun control has fallen, less than 1/3 of Americans support additional laws. But the gender imbalance is profound.

Given the striking gender imbalance in misperceptions on the central and core trend, I do think the gender imbalance in that perception is causal to the gender imbalance in gun control support.

[44 AMP]

Out of state/district/city/etc. funding for politics should be illegal.

It is, and it isn't. Generally, "foreign" money cannot legally go directly to a candidate. It can, however, legally go to the local party, and they can give it to the candidate (specifics vary), and the money can go to anyone supporting any issue, that does not involve a specific candidate. (as far as I know, no law against it).

I agree its not ethical, it does try to get around the will of the local electorate. But there's no law stopping it, that I know of.

The TV commercials for 594 are hitting HARD on closing the "loophole" that allows "convicted domestic abusers" to buy guns. Hitting hard on how 594 will protect women. One commercial even names a specific murder, and how her ex, a convicted domestic abuser used the Internet to get a gun, "no questions asked".

It sickens me...