National Rifle Association President David Keene, left, announces the NRA's endorsement of Sen. Dean Heller, R-Nev., right, at The Gun Store in Las Vegas Friday, Oct. 12, 2012. (John Locher/Las Vegas Review-Journal)
The Las Vegas Review-Journal
A new Nevada poll suggests that expanding gun background checks is as popular as pizza.
It’s not that simple, of course, since gun control is a lot more complicated than a cheesy pie.
The survey of 688 Nevada voters was conducted Jan. 20-21 by Public Policy Polling for the liberal groups, ProgressNow Nevada and the Center for American Progress Action Fund. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.7 percentage points.
According to the poll, 78 percent of Nevadans support requiring a criminal background check of every person who wants to buy a firearm. Some 14 percent were opposed and 8 percent weren’t sure.
Asked “do you like pizza or not,” 80 percent said they did, 7 percent said they didn’t and 13 percent said they weren’t sure. (Not sure? That might have been the most puzzling answer in the poll.)
With school, college campus and hospital shootings making headlines recently, policymakers have been looking for ways to allow Americans to enjoy their Second Amendment right to bear arms while also trying to keep guns out of the hands of those who might turn to violence.
But universal gun background check legislation has failed at both the federal and state levels.
U.S. Sen. Dean Heller, R-Nev., voted against a bill that would have expanded criminal background checks to all gun sales at gun shows and online, one poll question noted.
Asked if Heller’s vote would make you more or less likely to vote for him, 20 percent said more likely, 43 percent said less likely, 35 percent said it wouldn’t matter and 2 percent weren’t sure. Heller isn’t up for re-election until 2018.
Nevadans were split on Heller’s popularity: 39 percent had a favorable opinion of him, 40 percent had an unfavorable opinion and 21 percent weren’t sure.
In another question, the pollster noted that last year both houses of the Nevada Legislature voted in favor of a bill to require a background check on all gun sales, but Gov. Brian Sandoval vetoed the measure.
Note that in the poll, some fifty-five percent either are more likely to vote for the senator or don't care about his vote on background checks. We're also not shown what questions specifically were asked about checks, so we can't tell if it was a generic "Do you support checks?" or "Do you support the exact system as proposed last year by Manchin-Toomey?" or the like.
ReplyDeleteIn spite of your quibbling, the obvious truth is that most reasonable people agree. Background checks on private sales would make the world a better place. Only extremist fanatics like yourself deny this.
DeleteWhen people agree on something that's wrong, those who disagree are in the right. You have no evidence that the background check system that you want would do any good, but it's an article of faith for you, and you can't let it go.
DeleteDemanding evidence on a future hypothetical. That's typical of you. Greg.
DeleteHow do you feel about Colburn’s amendment being squashed, Mike? Do you blame Democrat leadership? Are you angry? I know I and others have hounded you on the acceptable way to handle private sale background checks, vs. the unacceptable way, and ultimately you said you didn’t care which way it happened, so long as it happened. So you must be upset with Reid, Obama, and the gun control groups for squashing this, right?
DeleteMikeb, you're the one asserting that background checks will do good. That's making claims on a hypothetical. If you make claims, it's fair for me to require evidence.
DeleteWhere is your evidence that background checks don't work?
DeleteThere are 300,000,000 or more guns in this country, and most of those are in states that don't require checks on private sales or registrations. Lots of those guns would find their way onto the black market, should universal checks become law.
DeleteBut I don't have to prove that checks don't work. Mikeb is claiming the positive: that they do work. He wants to add a new law. The burden is on him to show the efficacy of checks.
In Addition to Greg's observations, the federal government reall doesn't seem to want to enforce the law. I hear here repeatedly about how gun owners need to be constrained by law with serious punishments to keep us from doing bad things, yet even the current law has a very low rate of prosecution.
DeleteFor many crimes, perhaps even most, there are penalties for attempts to commit a crime. For example, if you try to rob a bank, but you don't get any money, it still counts. Unless you try to buy a firearm as a prohibited person it seems.
"Prosecution and conviction of violators of the Brady Act, however, is extremely rare. During the first 17 months of the Act, only seven individuals were convicted. In the first year of the Act, 250 cases were referred for prosecution and 217 of them were rejected."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_Handgun_Violence_Prevention_Act
The evidence or proof that background checks would work is in the simple thought experiment that any reasonable person would agree with. Criminals get their guns through only a handful of sources. Private sales with no background check is one of them. If this were eliminated or diminished it follows that fewer guns would slip into the criminal world and from that it would follow that fewer incidents of misuse of those guns would take place.
Delete"Thought experiment" does not equal "proof".
DeleteBut why didn't you answer my question about Colburn's amendment? If you believe background checks are so vital in saving lives, you must be upset with the way the bill was dropped and swept under the rug.
Mikeb, your thought experiment--which is not evidence--fails because it doesn't include the real possibility of people ignoring the background check requirement. It's already illegal to sell a gun to a felon, but criminals don't obey that law. What makes you think that they'll obey yet another law? Remember that there are a lot of guns already available in this country, and those won't go away because of background checks.
DeleteTS, I don't know anything about the Coburn amendment. Why don't you send me a link which explains it or just tell us the bare bones of it. I'll trust your description.
DeleteHi Mike, we talked about here a while back. You even commented favorably on it.
Deletehttp://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2013/04/sen-tom-coburn-suggests-diy-background.html
My memory is not what it used to be. But, I need some help on the gotcha that TS is so tenacious about. I looked at twenty links about Coburn and his proposal and not a one of them talked about the conspiracy or the hypocrisy that TS seems to be pushing.
DeleteConspiracy is not the right word. What I said is that those pushing gun control (specifically back ground checks) DO NOT want this bill. Did you find anything in those 20 links contrary to what I said?
DeleteReid said he would put it up for a vote, then didn't. Ladd Everitt came out against it! I don't think Obama ever acknowledged its existence. Did you find anything from him? This bill went nowhere. Whose fault was that, and why?
Oh, I also wanted to ask you if you found anything on it since April when it was introduced? I'd be very curious to see any more recent talk.
DeleteWhat's clear to me is that the gun control camp would rather have nothing than DIY checks.
"This bill went nowhere. Whose fault was that, and why?"
DeleteIt's called the Not Invented Here Syndrome.
TS, I told you I only saw stories about Coburn as he related to Manchin-Toomey. What's your point anyway. Why don't you just say it without all the beating around the bush and innuendo.
DeleteMy point is that gun control people have been using the idea of background checks to push for more felony crimes for the gun culture and government control over transactions, and that those ends are more important to them than background checks themselves. If they agree to DIY checks, then they lose leverage to get the other things which are more important.
DeleteI wasn't clear on that before?
Yes, not clear.
DeleteIt's a little hard to get through your lies.
If the lie clouds ever clear from your mind maybe we will figure out what the hell you are talking about. But I doubt it.
Of course the only thing Manchin-Toomey "expanded" was the federal criminal code. Colburn's amendment was an actual expansion of the background check system, and we know how far that got among Democrats.
ReplyDeleteI remember Manchin-Toomey, but as I said above, I don't remember Coburn. When I have the time I'll look it up, unless you want to furnish the details. It must be something else for you to keep bringing it up.
DeleteSarge’s link above has all the details.
DeleteI find it very apropos to my point that you don’t know anything about the Colburn amendment. I don’t mean that as a slight on you, but you are a man with your finger on the pulse of the gun control movement, and as I said they want to ignore the fact that this bill was ever introduced. It’s no surprise that you don’t hear any chatter about it. They don’t want a pure background check expansion bill. They’d rather have nothing than this. It seems their problem is not with private sales that happen without a background check- their problem is with private sales period.
You're doing that double talking thing again. Private sales means private sales without background checks. That's exactly what makes them private. So, yes, eliminating them is the goal.
DeletePrivate sales mean sales between two individuals, neither of whom are licensed dealers. Dealers have to keep records. That's the point. Now your side could have had a requirement for a background check to be performed nevertheless, but Laddie and the gang didn't like that.
DeleteIt's an individual right, so individuals have to follow any limitations, restrictions, or regulations put on the right.
DeleteAnonymous, you're missing the concept of a right. A right is something that belongs to an individual without having to be given it. A right is something that a person gets to exercise in whatever manner, so long as no innocent person is being harmed.
Delete"In another question, the pollster noted that last year both houses of the Nevada Legislature voted in favor of a bill to require a background check on all gun sales, but Gov. Brian Sandoval vetoed the measure."
ReplyDeleteA perfect example of how what the people (majority) want is being denied by one leader.
Just as with Jim Crow, there are times when the other branches of government must protect our rights against the legislature.
Delete"A perfect example of how what the people (majority) want is being denied by one leader."
DeleteSo would these two examples also be considered denial of what the majority want?
"Brown vetoed the strictest bill, which would have classified any rifle with a removable magazine as an assault weapon, calling it an "infringement on gun owners' rights."
"He also vetoed a measure that would have banned people from owning a gun for 10 years if they had been convicted of substance abuse violations or ordered to undergo outpatient mental health treatment."
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/11/us-usa-california-guns-idUSBRE99A0TX20131011
So you were for Jim Crow? That's what was being protected.
DeleteI'm not into your typical ploy of changing the subject. If you can't speak to the post, then maybe you should not comment at all.
No, Anonymous, my point was that Jim Crow was overturned by the courts and by executive action from the president. The legislatures sometimes enact things that are bad for this country, and the other branches have to veto or repeal them.
DeleteGreat diversion, Greg. This has nothing to do with Jim Crow. We're talking about gun rights and gun laws. What the hell's wrong with you that you can't keep on topic?
DeleteMikeb, I am on topic. I gave an example of an unjust law that had to be overturned, despite legislative action and popular support.
DeleteNonsense. Our topic is gun rights and gun control. Jim Crow has nothing to do with it. Nor do automobiles or swimming pools or rape or any of the other things you guys keep bringing into it.
DeleteIt's relevant when you apply one set of rules to one situation, but another set of rules to a similar situation.
DeleteGuns and slavery, or Jim Crow are not similar situations.
DeleteIn all three cases, popular support appeared to be on the side of violating rights, and in all three, executive or judicial action was needed to stop those violations.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteIf the second amendment is for the right of individuals, then any constitutional regulations (I see background checks as constitutional) must include all people. Private sales are not exempt from that regulation.
ReplyDeleteWrong. There should be few regulations, and when private transactions are involved, even fewer to none must be the rule.
DeleteSo the Constitution, it's amendments, and the restrictions put on those amendments don't apply to individuals? You are the one who is wrong.
Delete"So the Constitution, it's amendments, and the restrictions put on those amendments don't apply to individuals?"
DeleteI'm afraid you are incorrect Anon. The first ten amendments are basically a list of limitations of the government.
The original intent of these first ten Amendments was to restrict Congress from abusing its power.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution#The_Amendments
Wrong about what?
Delete"If the second amendment is for the right of individuals, then any constitutional regulations (I see background checks as constitutional) must include all people. Private sales are not exempt from that regulation."
You guys claim the 2nd amend. is an individual right. OK.
If so, than any regulations or restrictions on the 2nd amend. also apply to individuals.
So background checks must apply to individuals not just retailers or wholesalers of guns. If you sell a gun to your buddy, you are responsible to make sure he is a qualified buyer.
Actually it is a crime to knowingly sell to a prohibited person. And if Senator Coburn's bill had been passed, that would be a great aid in allowing private sellers access to NICS to insure the buyer isn't prohibited.
DeleteCongress just has to make the tools available to citizens, and if the poll numbers so often cited are true, people would run the checks on their own and the percentage of guns sold without background checks would drop into the single digits.
The solution from gun control activists is to make it a crime to sell your gun to your buddy. When Colburn introduced a bill to give people the tools to make sure they are a qualified buyer, the Democrat leadership squashed it and pretended it never happened. They are fighting an effort for responsible private sales.
DeleteAnonymous, that's not how things work. The Bill of Rights doesn't require one restriction to be applied to everyone. In fact, its job is to limit the number of possible restrictions.
DeleteFor example, we have laws against libel, which are a restriction on free speech. But those laws don't apply to comments made about public figures--the president, for example. According to your argument, the president could sue people for libel, but that's not actually the case.
IF, IF, there are restrictions, they must apply to individuals, especially if you claim it is an individual right. Equality under the law.
DeleteSCOTUS has said that restrictions on firearms are allowed. They have just to be passed by congress.
DeleteThen let's have many fewer restrictions.
DeleteIt's clear you liars are not going to answer the question and just change the subject. Typical tactic for those who need to lie to make a false point.
DeleteYep, waiting on the Republican do nothing Congress.
DeleteSo I guess the 20 times Republicans voted against background checks over the last 30 years doesn't count, and your biased opinion is this failure is all Democrats fault. Right.
ReplyDeleteAnon, in my opinion, it was a golden opportunity for gun control advocates to take the moral high ground by taking a bill introduced by a republican senator and would have furthered their objectives by increasing the percentage of gun buyers being screened by NICS.
DeleteIf they had signed on to it, they could have looked across the aisle and said, "fish or cut bait" and then it would have been on the republicans to explain since Coburn's bill addressed all of the concerns voiced by gun advocates.
Perhaps they voted against criminalizing private sales- since that’s what the bill did. A bill that is just about background checks was not something Democrat leadership was interested in. Which are you interested in? Do you want background checks, or do you want private sales banned? Even if you prefer the additional crimes, the bill to ban private sales failed. So now you’re left with the either the status quo, or a Colburn style DIY background check bill. Which do you prefer?
DeleteJust repeating it's Democrats fault, got that the first time. Not acceptable since this effort has been going on for 30 years and it's Republicans over that time that have voted against background checks 80/20 compared to Democrats.
DeleteRidiculous you won't admit this is Washington politics, like Republicans refusing to vote for now, bills they sponsored and supported before Obama was elected.
I opposed the criminalization of private sale, which was what was proposed by the Democrats. What Colburn proposed was a different approach. Instead of criminalizing private sales, it provided tools for background checks. Do you oppose that?
DeleteWhat I oppose is the way you refer to the one initiative as "criminalizing private sales" and not the other. You could just as easily use that misleading way of describing it for both. But of course, that doesn't support your twisted narrative.
DeleteNo, it would be wrong to use that language for Colburn's bill because it does not have any crimes attached to it. M-T on the other hand, all it did was define new crimes. It didn't change anything about the background check system.
DeleteNow I'm really confused. Coburn's bill had no crimes attached to it? How could that be? Was it just suggestions?
DeleteIf someone says the DIY background check system should be put into effect can they not say anything about those who don't use it? Aren't sanctions always included in new legislation?
If the NICS system were available to all, wouldn't some people still refuse to use it because, as you said before, they don't want records generated about what they do? If that were the case, we would still need to "criminalize" transactions that did not use the system. Right?
You can’t imagine a gun law that doesn’t have crimes attached to it?
DeleteLook, the deal is there is no way for private people to verify NICS status. You guys keep saying checks aren’t required, but in reality they are not allowed. This system provided tools for people to use- something with you guys say 90% of people would want to use. Why are you always on about crimes, sanctions, and penalties? It certainly provides an insight into your mindset.
MikeB: “…wouldn't some people still refuse to use it because, as you said before, they don't want records generated about what they do?”
It doesn’t generate records, other than what your keep on your own. No problem there.
MikeB: “If that were the case, we would still need to "criminalize" transactions that did not use the system. Right?”
If this system was in place and viable for some time, I supposed I would be ok with some penalties and crimes. Never for what you said of only not using the system where two perfectly clean parties who exchange guns would get in trouble- that’s a deal breaker. The crime would be only if a prohibited person receives a gun in a transaction. Fair?
Still, however you feel about your desire to punish gun owners, even without crimes, this system is better than nothing. If there are six million non-checked transactions a year, and now five million of those become checked- that a good thing, right?
You are correct Anon, but the republicans have been voting the wishes of the citizens in their district. That is their job.
ReplyDeleteI find that hard to believe given the polls still show a 90% approval for stiffer background checks. Given Congresses single digit approval rating, it's more than gun law that politicians are ignoring their constituents on.
DeleteCongress critters don't get reelect end on polls, they go by direct citizen feedback to their offices. For example, if you feel that background checks are important, is there any amount of money spent on ads going to get you to change your mind? Likely not.
ReplyDeleteThat feed back is skewered by groups like the NRA and other advocacy groups. Is it not?
DeleteWhat % of citizen feedback do elected officials get, compared to the total number of voters in their districts? So low as to not be representative of the total?
Elected officials pay attention to individual letters from constituents in their district. Those have more credibility than junk mailings from the NRA. There keeps being bandied about this 80 to 90 some odd percent of voters are in favor of background checks. If that were the case and the elected representative voted against 80 to 90% of the voters' wishes, how long would he stay in office?
ReplyDeleteFor elected officials, rule #1 is get elected. Rule #2 is get reelected.
What % of citizen feedback do elected officials get, compared to the total number of voters in their districts? So low as to not be representative of the total?
DeleteDodging the question, as usual.
Sarge isn't dodging the question. Comments sent to politicians represent the intensity of support or opposition for a given issue. If people really supported gun control as much as the polls claim, the message to politicians would be clear. But the opposite is the case. Gun rights supporters indicated their opposition to gun control. Now it may be that gun control supporters don't really care enough to vote someone out of office who doesn't agree with them, but if so, the politicians won't listen to them.
Delete"Dodging the question, as usual. "
DeleteNot dodging the question Anon. I honestly have no idea what percentage of the voting population sends feedback to their elected representatives. But then you have but to look and see if the representative has been reelected.
If the representative reads the voters wrong, he's out of a job.
The answer to the questions prove politicians are not acting on the what the majority of their constituents want as you falsely claim, without evidence as we now know.
DeleteIf that is the case, then the ultimate poll, called an election, will prove that.
DeleteThe proof is that Republicans vote down what they used to sponsor and support. They are not doing what constituents want, they are doing whatever hurts Obama, thus America. They don't care if they hurt America as long as it hurts Obama. Thus the do nothing Republican Congress with single digit approval ratings.
DeleteBackground record checks may also be utilized by people who would like to look into an individual they have begun to date online.
ReplyDelete