Gun Rights Outweigh Gun Control - Pew Survey

[Alcoholic Actuary]

http://www.people-press.org/2014/12/10/growing-public-support-for-gun-rights/

For the first time in more than two decades of Pew Research Center surveys, there is more support for gun rights than gun control. Currently, 52% say it is more important to protect the right of Americans to own guns, while 46% say it is more important to control gun ownership.

Some interesting trends in the report - including the reversal of the majority opinion after Newtown in 2012.

This has to be the single worst alignment of public sentiment and actual statistical risk assessment in the history of humanity. I cannot fathom the logic. "It's safer for me to have a hand held, semi-controlled explosion as long as I point the "shooty' end away from myself."

Lately, it appears that even giving guns to the police is a net negative to general safety of the public, and they are arguably the most highly trained users.

aa

 

[fromderinside]

http://www.people-press.org/2014/12/10/growing-public-support-for-gun-rights/

For the first time in more than two decades of Pew Research Center surveys, there is more support for gun rights than gun control. Currently, 52% say it is more important to protect the right of Americans to own guns, while 46% say it is more important to control gun ownership.

Some interesting trends in the report - including the reversal of the majority opinion after Newtown in 2012.

This has to be the single worst alignment of public sentiment and actual statistical risk assessment in the history of humanity. I cannot fathom the logic. "It's safer for me to have a hand held, semi-controlled explosion as long as I point the "shooty' end away from myself."

Lately, it appears that even giving guns to the police is a net negative to general safety of the public, and they are arguably the most highly trained users.

aa

Think of it as people are as scared as a johnson challenged Wilson who used his registered johnson to do in the brown Brown.

They all prefer facing the brown Browns with their own johnson.

Another way to think of it is to think all the white males have just taken a shower.

Still another way to think of it is to think of the fear in white males who have to play football or basketball or run track with African american guys. The need another johnson.

 

[funinspace]

http://www.people-press.org/2014/12/10/growing-public-support-for-gun-rights/

For the first time in more than two decades of Pew Research Center surveys, there is more support for gun rights than gun control. Currently, 52% say it is more important to protect the right of Americans to own guns, while 46% say it is more important to control gun ownership.

Some interesting trends in the report - including the reversal of the majority opinion after Newtown in 2012.

This has to be the single worst alignment of public sentiment and actual statistical risk assessment in the history of humanity. I cannot fathom the logic. "It's safer for me to have a hand held, semi-controlled explosion as long as I point the "shooty' end away from myself."

Lately, it appears that even giving guns to the police is a net negative to general safety of the public, and they are arguably the most highly trained users.

aa

Though after scanning thru the poll report, I'm not so sure how significant the results are. They posed a binary choice of "right to own guns" verses some vague thing called "gun control". I think the term "gun control" sounds too much like taking away guns from people. It would be interesting to see trends on say 100% national background check requirements; mandatory change of ownership filing; and say normative liability for owning something as dangerous as guns (sort of like what people owning those nefarious swimming pools deal with when it ensnares cute little children).

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

http://www.people-press.org/2014/12/10/growing-public-support-for-gun-rights/



Some interesting trends in the report - including the reversal of the majority opinion after Newtown in 2012.

This has to be the single worst alignment of public sentiment and actual statistical risk assessment in the history of humanity. I cannot fathom the logic. "It's safer for me to have a hand held, semi-controlled explosion as long as I point the "shooty' end away from myself."

Lately, it appears that even giving guns to the police is a net negative to general safety of the public, and they are arguably the most highly trained users.

aa

Though after scanning thru the poll report, I'm not so sure how significant the results are. They posed a binary choice of "right to own guns" verses some vague thing called "gun control". I think the term "gun control" sounds too much like taking away guns from people. It would be interesting to see trends on say 100% national background check requirements; mandatory change of ownership filing; and say normative liability for owning something as dangerous as guns (sort of like what people owning those nefarious swimming pools deal with when it ensnares cute little children).

Actually the surprising statistic to me were responses to the question: Gun ownership in this country does more to: A) Protect people from being victims of a crime; B) Put people's safety at risk.

The majority answered A). This is statistically false. People who own guns are something like 12 times more likely to kill or injure themselves or own family members than they are to successfully protect themselves against a crime. Source

aa

 

[funinspace]

Though after scanning thru the poll report, I'm not so sure how significant the results are. They posed a binary choice of "right to own guns" verses some vague thing called "gun control". I think the term "gun control" sounds too much like taking away guns from people. It would be interesting to see trends on say 100% national background check requirements; mandatory change of ownership filing; and say normative liability for owning something as dangerous as guns (sort of like what people owning those nefarious swimming pools deal with when it ensnares cute little children).

Actually the surprising statistic to me were responses to the question: Gun ownership in this country does more to: A) Protect people from being victims of a crime; B) Put people's safety at risk.

The majority answered A). This is statistically false. People who own guns are something like 12 times more likely to kill or injure themselves or own family members than they are to successfully protect themselves against a crime. Source

aa

LOL...yeah, but I'd like to have that question prefaced, by asking which direction (N-W-S-E) is Mexico from the US (or some other dumb question).

Yeah, the most dangerous time in my life is probably when I have to visit my in-laws with their handguns, rifles, and assault riffles. Dad, the leading moron of 4, has literally shot himself in the foot.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

So what do you advocate as your so-called "sensible" gun control? And don't say "we don't want to take away your guns" because that is you saying what you don't want, not what you do want.


Police as the most highly trained? Geesh!

 

[fromderinside]

So what do you advocate as your so-called "sensible" gun control? And don't say "we don't want to take away your guns" because that is you saying what you don't want, not what you do want.


Police as the most highly trained? Geesh!

I suspect most people would respond with something like "Sensible gun control is controlling guns in places and situations where they are primarily only useful for taking human life". Control should be different in rural places where guns are used primarily for sport and food gathering than they are in urban areas where guns are primarily use for control and defense. I sure don't want to be at a Whole Foods market in Glendale when some political radical wears his gun to scare people and demonstrate he really has a johnson.

In normal civilian american society the police definitely are the best trained persons for use of guns for defense and crime control.

I advocate training those who fear to control that fear. I advocate they be trained to be able to act responsibly in the face of danger when they carry the cover of authority. I thought I made that clear in my racial johnson commentary. We need to have a lighter touch so we can address such as fear, hatred, social position, and rights in our multiracial, multi-ethnic, society of which we are all so proud.

 

[ksen]

shoulda called it the pew-pew survey

opportunity missed

 

[NobleSavage]

As all my gun friends keep telling me: Gun crime is going down and gun sales are going up.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

So what do you advocate as your so-called "sensible" gun control? And don't say "we don't want to take away your guns" because that is you saying what you don't want, not what you do want.


Police as the most highly trained? Geesh!

Actually I'd be ok with someone taking away your guns...but also agree it's not sensible gun control.

I think sensible gun control would include background checks, licensing and registration. You know, the same things that are required to drive a car (or vote these days).

aa

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

So what do you advocate as your so-called "sensible" gun control? And don't say "we don't want to take away your guns" because that is you saying what you don't want, not what you do want.


Police as the most highly trained? Geesh!

I suspect most people would respond with something like "Sensible gun control is controlling guns in places and situations where they are primarily only useful for taking human life".

That's the principle behind the proposal, not the proposal itself.

I sure don't want to be at a Whole Foods market in Glendale when some political radical wears his gun to scare people and demonstrate he really has a johnson.

So what you're trying to control is your own fear and panic.

In normal civilian american society the police definitely are the best trained persons for use of guns for defense and crime control.

Using US police as an example ... HA! Those thugs are far more barbaric than the average gun owner.

I advocate training those who fear to control that fear.

All those who are afraid of guns should have training to control that fear?

I thought I made that clear in my racial johnson commentary.

Your racial johnson commentary was quite garbled, quite a word salad. If it means what I think it means then it is also nonsense.

Back to my original point - what are your specific proposals?

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

http://www.people-press.org/2014/12/10/growing-public-support-for-gun-rights/



Some interesting trends in the report - including the reversal of the majority opinion after Newtown in 2012.

This has to be the single worst alignment of public sentiment and actual statistical risk assessment in the history of humanity. I cannot fathom the logic. "It's safer for me to have a hand held, semi-controlled explosion as long as I point the "shooty' end away from myself."

Lately, it appears that even giving guns to the police is a net negative to general safety of the public, and they are arguably the most highly trained users.

aa

Think of it as people are as scared as a johnson challenged Wilson who used his registered johnson to do in the brown Brown.

They all prefer facing the brown Browns with their own johnson.

Another way to think of it is to think all the white males have just taken a shower.

Still another way to think of it is to think of the fear in white males who have to play football or basketball or run track with African american guys. The need another johnson.

Using my fromderinside translator, it seems we might be in agreement, but the negative reputation you gave my OP leads me to question the translation...

aa

 

[fromderinside]

Sorry. It was meant for elsewhere.

This has to be the single worst alignment of public sentiment and actual statistical risk assessment in the history of humanity. I cannot fathom the logic. "It's safer for me to have a hand held, semi-controlled explosion as long as I point the "shooty' end away from myself."

Lately, it appears that even giving guns to the police is a net negative to general safety of the public, and they are arguably the most highly trained users.

aa

Yes we agree

 

[funinspace]

So what do you advocate as your so-called "sensible" gun control? And don't say "we don't want to take away your guns" because that is you saying what you don't want, not what you do want.

Though I don’t think you were asking me….
I would like to see 100% federal background check requirements; no buying 5 38-specials at a swap meet in 15 minutes, ready to go off on some adventure.
I would like to see change of ownership requirements, like we have for cars, when one sells a car.
I would like to see civil liability for negligently managing a dangerous weapon. Like when some idiot leaves his AR15 on the kitchen table overnight, while his buddy sleeps over. And then his buddy bugs out early in the morning with his friend’s AR15, and goes on a shooting rampage in a nearby mall. That is a real story; and nothing happened to the fuckwit who owned the AR15. If a guy left his backyard gate wide open with a swimming pool, and some 4 year old drowned, we all know the pool owner would be fucked for real.

Police as the most highly trained? Geesh!

They are certainly better trained than my moronic nephew, who has no business owning an AR15, yet he does. Having a conversation with an average 7 year old is better than with him.

 

[fromderinside]

I suspect most people would respond with something like "Sensible gun control is controlling guns in places and situations where they are primarily only useful for taking human life". <snip>

That's the principle behind the proposal, not the proposal itself.

It is a proposal that I actually fleshed out a bit more in the next sentence which you omitted. To wit:

Control should be different in rural places where guns are used primarily for sport and food gathering than they are in urban areas where guns are primarily use for control and defense.

I sure don't want to be at a Whole Foods market in Glendale when some political radical wears his gun to scare people and demonstrate he really has a johnson.

So what you're trying to control is your own fear and panic.

Nope. What I'm trying to control is forcing me to change my objectives and interests from shopping for quality by having some idiot wanting to show everybody he's got a big glock. I'm not there shopping for sex partners or hunting buddies.

In normal civilian american society the police definitely are the best trained persons for use of guns for defense and crime control.

Using US police as an example ... HA! Those thugs are far more barbaric than the average gun owner.

OK. How about some requirements for police and safety officers in Oregon. http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/pages/rules/oars_200/oar_259/259_008.html
use keywords basic course from your browser find feature.

I advocate training those who fear to control that fear.

All those who are afraid of guns should have training to control that fear?

If they have to remain in a culture of guns and b e effective, yes indeed.

Back to my original point - what are your specific proposals?

I made specific proposals even though I wasn't asked to do so. Now its your turn to come up with proposals for citizens who live in cities where guns are threats rather than solutions, most suicides and murders happen cities, so we can drop the rates of these forms of killing down to Great Britain levels.

No word salad, no humor, no problem, right........

 

[AthenaAwakened]

$5,000 bullets.

 

[bilby]

As all my gun friends keep telling me: Gun crime is going down and gun sales are going up.

That's because guns don't kill people; people kill people.

The obvious solution is not to prevent people from having guns, but rather to prevent guns from being owned by people.

 

[DBT]

Reasonably gun control is the way to reduce misuse, mishandling, etc, by legal gun owners. Background check, a safety course and secure storage requirements. The black market for firearms that supply the needs of the underworld will never be eliminated, they don't care about the law.

 

[dx713]

It's the "control" fallacy that's built into the human mind.
Even if statistically more at risk that way, people prefer to each have their own gun than relying on a state-owned monopoly of violence. Because on the second case, if you end facing a murderer with his own gun, there's nothing you can do. In the first case, you're probably equally dead, plus the much higher odds of the murderer having a gun, but the fact that you can try to draw your own makes you think you're somehow in control.
Same for feeling more secure in a car you drive than in a plane piloted by someone else, despite all statistical evidence to the reverse.

But yes, you USians need to wake up and vote according to real risks and not gut feelings. Gun registration would be a minimum, and strict handgun control (including revokation of all hidden carry laws - if you have a handgun with you to go to the range, it must be locked and the ammunition in a different box) would be nice.
I'm not sure I'll see that before I die.

One month ago, I was of this opinion just because I was afraid of our countries "following the leader" and being more like you.
But one thing I recently realized, thanks to a report on the Franco-German TV channel "Arte" on guns in the US, is that it's worse: we Europeans are the ones funding your gun lobby: plenty of European gun manufacturers rely on US civilian sales to reach their turnover goals, that law enforcement and military sales alone wouldn't, and so spend a lot of money on US pro-gun lobbies and NRA support to maintain that market thriving.

 

[DBT]

Maybe a better word would be 'regulation' rather than 'control.' Basic safety regulations to minimize the chance of both misuse and guns getting into the hands of incompetent individuals.