arma virumque cano (et alia)
>Ban on semi-automatic weapons: 58%>Ban of assault style weapons: 55%What the hell is this? Did no one note the contradiction?I'm under the impression that phrasing is likely skewing the results of most polls being done on the issue, as is public ignorance on the subject. That somehow three percent of respondents can be okay with "assault style weapons" yet not okay with semiautomatics is perplexing.
Three possibilities:That three percent is a group that understands that an assault weapon ban is pointless window dressing.OrThat three percent realize that assault weapons are not full auto, but they think that "semi-automatic" means the same thing as "automatic."orThe pollsters didn't know what the difference and asked people if they favored banning automatic weapons.
The middle one.
I'd put my money on a combination of 2 and 3 personally.
The Constitutional Framers established a Republican system of government, rather than entrusting public policy to the idiocy of the masses. Instead of wasting valuable time debating the merits of a wholly useless "Assault Weapon Ban", effort should be spent to draft legislation (for the sole purpose of introduction to a future Congress) requiring the Licencing of the owners of all functional weapons (based on the FOID system of Illinois) which would be issued to anyone who would qualify and would be inclusive of carry. In addition, high risk groups (such as certain misdemeanants, persons on government watchlists and anyone under the age of 21 or possibly 25) should be completely barred from the possession of arms. Penalties for the illicit possession of arms ought to be more stringent (up to Life without the possibility of parole) and the possession of a firearm by a prohibited person (not simply unlicensed) should be prosecuted with strict liability.
Ian, I like some of your ideas. Thanks.
Opinion will settle back down to a general favoring of gun rights. This is why we have a political process--to make sure the rights of everyone are taken into account.
And in the 1950s there was "strong public opinion" to keep blacks in their place in the back of the bus. Strong public opinion did NOT make it right to infringe the rights of blacks. And strong public opinion does NOT make it right to infringe the rights of people that own or want to own firearms.There are criminals among us who will not hesitate to harm or kill a citizen for selfish gain. If someone wants to roll the dice and take their chances with a criminal, that is their choice. I choose to have the means to stop criminals from gang raping my daughter. Anyone who tells me I cannot have effective tools to stop criminals from gang raping my daughter is an accomplice to those criminals.
You're absolutely right, strong public opinion does not make it right. But this particular strong public opinion makes the gun-rights advocates liars who keep saying their side is winning.
Mikeb, you don't like being called a liar, but you're free with using that term against your enemies. We're not lying to say that we're winning. A minor shift in opinion isn't even a setback. Opinion polls waver about all the time.
Leave it to the gun guys to deny the obvious. Surely those poll results must be skewed in some manner! Yeah, that's it!There's really nothing new with these poll results. There have been dozens and dozens of polls over the last decade with essentially the same results (or even better), including from gun owners and even NRA members. The only thing that has changed is that people are now more aware, and the politicians are finally taking action to act on that awareness.Don't believe me, check here: http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htmOr maybe they think that all of those, from all those nationally-recognized nonpartisan polling organizations and media outlets are skewed, too?
What do you imagine poll results were showing about Muslims after 9/11? The only polls that matter are the ones that happen on the first Tuesdays of various Novembers, and those consistently reject gun control in most of the country.