New poll on firearm ownership

[Atypical Liberal]

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2011/1/13/935587/-Poll-respondents:-Tucson-shooting-isolated-incidentconcealed-firearms-should-be-allowed

"A slight majority (51 percent) of respondents to a survey conducted Jan. 10-11 by Vision Critical & Angus Reid believe the Tucson shooting last Saturday was an isolated incident resulting from an individual's action. About a third (31 percent) said the shooting was the consequence of a negative tone in U.S. politics. And 37 percent said they expect there will soon be more such incidents. In addition, 73 percent of respondents said that citizens should be allowed to carry a concealed firearm, although only 9 percent said they should be able to do so without obtaining a permit. In Arizona, as well as Alaska and Vermont, no such permit is required."

Sadly, as expected, Democrats tend to be more anti-firearm than Republicans.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lorien]

2. +1,000 nt

[Atypical Liberal]

4. Yes, sadly.

Sadly, Democrats as a rule are against the right to keep and bear arms, and most anti-firearm legislation seems to originate in my party. It's sad, because it is wrong, but also because it costs votes. This is one of the thins I work to change as a voting Democrat.

In the last election I was fortunate that here in Alabama all of my Democratic candidates had high marks from the NRA except for one, who I voted against. Three of my candidates were actually endorsed by the NRA. You can see my ballot in my sig.

[tridim]

7. I know very few Democrats who are "against the right to keep/bear arms"

That is a lie.

[Atypical Liberal]

8. Did you read the article?

That is a lie.

Um, did you read the article?

The surveyors asked several questions about attitudes toward firearms, including:

"If it were up to you, would you prefer to have stricter firearm laws, looser firearm laws, or would you
keep existing regulations the way they are?"

• Stricter:
All - 50 percent;
Democrats - 65 percent
Republicans - 30 percent
Independents - 51 percent

• Looser:
All - 13 percent;
Democrats - 6 percent
Republicans - 19 percent
Independents - 15 percent

• Keep existing:
All - 27 percent;
Democrats - 18 percent
Republicans - 44 percent
Independents - 31 percent

• Not sure:
All - 10 percent;
Democrats - 10 percent
Republicans - 7 percent
Independents - 4 percent

Of course, it helps to know one's history, too. Renewing the Assault Weapons Ban is currently part of the Democratic Party Platform. President Obama ran on it, also, and it is still up on www.change.gov under Urban Policy, though it was removed from www.whitehouse.gov a few months into his presidency.

It rather seems to me that finding pro-firearm Democrats like myself is hard to do. I frequently feel like a "lone wolf".

[tridim]

9. None of those respondents are against your right to keep/bear arms.

Just resonable restrictions on your right to keep/bear arms. All of your rights carry reasonable restrictions, the second ammendment doesn't get a free pass, it's not special.

Do you not see the difference?

[Atypical Liberal]

10. Ah, I see. "reasonable restrictions"

Just resonable restrictions on your right to keep/bear arms. All of your rights carry reasonable restrictions, the second ammendment doesn't get a free pass, it's not special.

Do you not see the difference?

OK, let me put it this way, then: Democrats in general seem to be the ones always pushing for more "reasonable restrictions" on my right to keep and bear arms.

I'm fortunate that most of the Democratic candidates in my neck of the woods receive high marks and even endorsements from the NRA.

[tridim]

11. So you're against reason?

That's the only way I can interpret that.

You know, "reason" is not a bad word. Neither is Liberal and Democrat.

[Atypical Liberal]

13. Of course not.

I'm all for reasonable restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms.

But before we can agree on what constitutes "reasonable", we have to agree on what the intent was behind the right to keep and bear arms.

The right to keep and bear arms was enumerated to insure that the people would be armed to serve as a counterbalance to federal military power. To that end they were to be equipped with small arms appropriate to infantry service.

I'm open to any reasonable restrictions that honor that intent. Assault Weapon Bans, such as those advocated in the Democratic Party Platform, do not, and thus I do not consider to be reasonable.

You know, "reason" is not a bad word. Neither is Liberal and Democrat.

I never said any of those words were bad words, and I resent your insinuation. I'm sure I'm not a "True Scotsman" in your eyes but if you doubt my sincerity you can check my 2010 ballot in my sig.

[tridim]

15. All of the respondents and myself agree that reasonable restrictions are necessary.

The original assertion was that in general, Democrats are against keeping and bearing arms.

That is not true, at all.

You might want to edit your previous post. It says you are against the reasonable restrictions that Democrats are for.

[Atypical Liberal]

16. Which reasonable restrictions?

You might want to edit your previous post. It says you are against the reasonable restrictions that Democrats are for.

Which reasonable restrictions are we talking about?

[Upton]

17. "reasonable restrictions"

That's code for restricting my Second Amendment rights. First, they'll be this reasonable restriction, then they'll be that reasonable restriction. Pretty soon, the gun grabbers will have had their way and there will be nothing left of the Second Amendment at all.

[Atypical Liberal]

19. That is my fear also.

"Assault weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully-automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons –anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun– can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons." - Josh Sugarmann

"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal." - Janet Reno

"In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security. Nonetheless, it is a good idea . . . . Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation." - Charles Krauthammer

[NewMoonTherian]

21. For my part,

I'm for reasonable restrictions. In my opinion, all reasonable restrictions are already in place, and many more unreasonable ones are in place as well.

[Atypical Liberal]

24. So which reasonable restrictions are we talking about?

You might want to edit your previous post. It says you are against the reasonable restrictions that Democrats are for.

So what are the reasonable restrictions that Democrats are for?

[shadowrider]

14. Yes, reasonable restrictions

You know, those things that once passed, more reasonable restrictions are required, etc. until the total ban is in place.

Death by a thousand cuts.

You know, reasonable restrictions.

[lawodevolution]

22. Yes, "reasonable restrictions" just like the "reasonable gun laws" that were set up in Chicago and

DC.

[shadowrider]

12. You ain't kept up with the threads over the past week or so, have you n/t

[laconicsax]

3. Looks like Independents tend to be more "anti-firearm" than Republicans too. n/t

[maxsolomon]

5. the 63 percent who DON'T think there will be similar incidents soon

are fucking delusional. maybe not a politician, but a "crazy" person will kill their family, strangers, or police within a month.

Amoklauf killings happen every week in this country, and we only pay attention when it is someone famous, a cop, or a huge body count like Columbine or VA Tech.

[Atypical Liberal]

6. But they continue to decline.

Amoklauf killings happen every week in this country, and we only pay attention when it is someone famous, a cop, or a huge body count like Columbine or VA Tech.

According to FBI UCR data, firearm violence is at historic lows and continuing to decline. Accidental firearm deaths are also at 100 year lows. According to the CDC's WISQARs, only about 30,000 people die from violence-related firearm deaths each year. This is fewer than people who die from car accidents. Given that there are 40-80 million firearm owners in this country, this means that only .075% of them are involved in violence-related firearm deaths each year. That's less than a tenth of a percent.

[maxsolomon]

23. i don't mean general firearm violence or accidental deaths

i mean Amoklauf killings specifically. killings by the mentally ill, whether they are by gun or, in a recent seattle case, ax. they seem to occur every week, or at least a couple times a month. qualitatively, they are becoming more gruesome, and the body counts higher.

i don't debate your statistics. but i believe that there are fewer crime-related killings nowadays, whereas "going postal" seems to be holding steady.

[damntexdem]

18. It is a disgrace that so many Dems, including on here, are anti-gun-control.

Such idiocy should not exist; but it does.

[Straw Man]

20. Thank you...

It is a disgrace that so many Dems, including on here, are anti-gun-control.

Such idiocy should not exist; but it does.

...for your reasoned and nuanced judgments. Is this the new civility in public discourse that I've been hearing so much about?

[Maine_Nurse]

25. So you are against free will?

Why is it a disgrace to have an opinion about something?