In the aftermath of a tragedy like the shootings in Aurora, Colo., the conversation inevitably turns to the question of what could have been done to prevent such senseless slaughter. Faced with irrational aggression, it’s harder than ever for people — no matter their political perspectives — to understand the views of those with whom they disagree.
But to oversimplify the views of those across the political aisle or to misrepresent their views only deepens divides and decreases the likelihood of finding common ground and achieving real solutions.
Guns, and the laws surrounding them, will always be contentious issues — made more so by absolutists on both sides. But what politicians, journalists and average Americans don’t realize is that on many specific policies involving guns, most Americans agree far more than the oversimplified caricature of the typical gun owner suggests.
I am a perfect illustration. I come from a National Rifle Association family. My father, a mild-mannered Jewish dentist from the liberal Northeast, was nevertheless a proud, card-carrying, gun-owning member of the NRA for decades and he passed down to me a respect for the Second Amendment. In fact, I even polled for the NRA years ago. But that doesn’t mean I agree with every position it takes. Neither do gun owners or even NRA members.
In 2009, Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG) asked my firm to conduct a poll to see whether gun owners and NRA members (past or present) held similar views. The results unmistakably pointed to the conclusion that, contrary to the pervasive perception, gun owners — including members of the NRA — overwhelmingly supported a fair number of common-sense gun measures.
In May, MAIG turned to us again to dig deeper into the mindset of gun owners and measure their opinions on several specific policy measures that have been proposed nationally or in some states. We polled 945 gun owners nationwide (margin of error plus or minus 3 percent) dividing the sample evenly between non-NRA-member gun owners and gun owners who were current or lapsed members of the NRA.
Once again, we found that gun owners passionately believe in their Second Amendment rights but also think those rights can and must be balanced with public safety and national security. For example:
85 percent of gun owners agree with the statement, “Support for Second Amendment rights goes hand in hand with keeping illegal guns out of the hands of criminals.” Among members of the NRA, even more agreed — a full 87 percent.
It speaks to the irrational nature of human beings that we believe a background check on gun buyers will help. The shooter in Colorado passed the background check. Easily. He had no criminal record. In the majority of mass shooting, the shooter had not criminal record. Yet somehow we continue to think we can stop crazy or evil people by running their names through a database we have elevated to Godlike status.
Training is a great idea, so is enforcing current laws. Best idea is to understand there are evil and violent and crazy people in society that will hurt people no matter how hard we try to stop them. Laws don’t stop these acts–the only prescribes what happens after the act occurs. That is what we need to understand–the belief that laws prevent crimes is completely false.
It is time someone did a real study on worldwide risk of being murdered, and by what method. I for one am tired of hearing that the US is more dangerous because of our 2nd Amendment. If there is such an existing study, please give me the link.
Yahoo! or Google will show you plenty. Just search.
Yes there is info on Google, but there is no study. That show how the US stacks up in a risk analysis vs. other countries. For example the quote “the US has double the murder rate of XXXXX” is meaningless if it represents one or two people more murdered per 100’000. The risk is still minimal. These types of facts are what need to be published in a peer reviewed study.
In reading this article I noticed that he states that 76 percent agree with keeping individuals on the terror watch list from purchasing firearms. As a gun owner this is something I would strongly oppose as it would deny individuals a right without any prior conviction and would mov us as a country in the wrong direction.
“members of the NRA — overwhelmingly supported a fair number of common-sense gun measures.”
NRA members know there is no such thing as “common-sense gun measures.” Luntz is a *&^%$.
“Common sense” is a mendacious misnomer. All ‘sense’ is relative to the individual’s values and judgement. One man’s ‘sense’ is another man’s ‘folly’.
What counts is protecting innocent people from violent felons.
A legal gun in the hands of a trained and law-abiding citizen who is at the scene of an impending violent act is far more effective at saving and protecting lives than the same tool in the hands of a policeman who arrives 6 minutes later.
Common sense when it concerns gun owners that are responsible citizens, means the absolute right of those citizens to carry their weapon every where the go. Crimes happen everywhere, in church, at work, on the highway, walking down the street, everywhere. How do we defend ourselves (the actual right to bear arms) when the so-called common sense laws are only made to prevent responsible gun owning citizens from being able to protect themselves?
Luntz is like Muller. Luntz tries to give himself creds by claiming that he was an NRA member. A “former skeptic,” so to speak.
I’m all for gun control. Both hands firmly on the gun. Let’s put controls on crazy people so they don’t get guns.
Trigger control, my friend. Trigger control.
I believe that in the 12th century the pope banned the use of crossbows by common men because it gave the common man a weapon that was effective against armor. The establishment doesn’t like an armed citizenry.
it’s a bit too late for the “establishment” to keep that horse in the barn…
besides, unlike back then, plenty of us peons know exactly where the weaknesses are, having served.
gun control is simple:
1. proper grip, to include trigger and muzzle awareness
2. good sight picture, to include awareness of what is near and behind the target.
3. breath control
4. gentle, steady pressure on the trigger until the weapon fires.
Repeat PRN.
The group Luntz is polling for would pretty much gut the second amendment. I’m pretty sure Luntz is drawing conclusions very different from the respondents to his surveys. Some where I heard “liars, damned liars and statisticians.” Luntz is approaching category 3. MAIG’s website http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/home/home.shtml is touting this survey. They use recent tragedies to support more gun control and take positions contrary to the majority of gun owners I know.
Lurking beneath the arguments over gun ownership is the notion that we can somehow prevent gun crimes before they occur. Imagine being pulled over by a cop with them claiming you were going to rob a bank during the next three days. It’s ridiculous. Cops can’t predict such things any better than armed citizens can. The best anyone can do is intervene in a gun crime when it occurs, which can be at any time, anywhere. Since cops can’t be everywhere, the sole remaining option is lots of citizens carrying.
I’d have alot more respect for Luntz if he got rid of that ridiculous rug. The UN and Hillary are trying to disarm the world so they can make slaves of us all. As one of the survivors of a Luby’s massacre testified before Congress, I’m paraphrasing, ” the reason we have guns is to protect us from YOU”. Obviously Lieberman and his crowd had no response.
No legislation will keep guns out of the hands of criminals and lunatics. Any restriction to the 2nd amendment shoves the camel’s nose further in the tent. Random acts of violence using firearms is the price we pay for our right to bear arms. The only way to cut down on this problem is to require qualified citizens to carry a firearm, and to learn gun safety. I’m not holding my breath.
People like to prattle on about ‘assault guns’. Well, OK, for the heck of it, agree with their intent to prohibit them. But at the same time, make make possession of ‘defense guns’ mandatory. Hey, that’s undeniably, totally fair, right?
Of course, a true ‘defense gun’ would constitute a credible response to someone with a 100-round drum of .223 and a shotgun with a full tube. Let’s say, a Mossberg 8+1. And two Glock 40′s with full mags.
Suddenly that ‘fair trade’ looks like no trade at all. Time to get real. An ‘assault gun’ is used for assault, a ‘defense gun’ is used for defense, and a Nobel laureate in physics/ballistics won’t be able to find any difference between them.
Oh, and what about ‘sniper rifles’? Simple. A sniper rifle is a rifle held by a sniper. Case closed, QED, and everything else.
Senate Leaves Washington
without Magazine Ban Debate
(GunAuction.com) — The U.S. Senate began its summer recess without any debate on the magazine ban amendment proposed by Sens. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and others, NRA-ILA reports.
The amendment could have been attached to a cybersecurity bill, S. 3414, but debate on the bill stalled over unrelated issues.
According to NRA-ILA, this amendment is similar to the ban imposed by the Clinton Administration that expired when the failed semi-auto ban ended in 2004, but more restrictive. The amendment would ban import, possession, and transfer of magazines that accept (or could be readily converted to accept) more than 10 rounds and that are manufactured after the enactment of the amendment.
The ban only excludes tubular magazines designed to accept .22-caliber ammunition. The amendment provides for fines and up to 10 years in prison for violations–double the possible prison term under the 1994-2004 ban.
Pre-ban magazines could be possessed by the current owner, but not transferred or imported–and even possession would carry severe risks. Because virtually no existing magazines bear any markings that show when they were made, the amendment would require that magazines made after the ban be marked to distinguish them from pre-ban magazines.
However, NRA-ILA warns the amendment’s “grandfather clause” for possession of pre-ban magazines would only create an affirmative defense–forcing defendants to produce evidence that they possessed the magazines before the ban. This nearly impossible requirement is a major difference from the 1994 ban, which put the burden of proof on the government and established a legal presumption that unmarked magazines predated the ban.
http://www.gunauction.com/news/article/20120809-Senate-Leaves-Washington-without-Magazine-Ban-Debate.cfm
“The ban only excludes tubular magazines designed to accept .22-caliber ammunition. ”
I do have to comment on the intelligence of some of our law makers that push a ban on larger caliber weapon magazines but are completely ignorant to the fact that a .22 round will penetrate a Kevlar “bullet proof” vest that larger rounds won’t.
New Jersey already bans semiautomatic weapons with tubular magazines holding more than 15 rounds. This makes my Glenfield (Marlin) Model 60 purchased in 1976 a banned weapon in at least one state because it holds 17-18 .22 long rifle rounds in the tube. My Walther P22 is banned in California because the barrel is held on by a threaded nut. Nice to know that I’ve got both coasts covered in highly dangerous assault type weapons that are much more dangerous than a .44 magnum revolver.