At least 20+ dead students in Virginia Tech; shooter dead

nimh wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:

You're wrong. Most of the political Left won't touch it, because the majority of Americans don't want it.

This is straight-out wrong. A majority of Americans does want stricter gun laws.

<snipped>

See Polling Report.

Make sure to look at the long-running Gallup poll on the matter as well, which shows a consistent majority of 51-78% for "More strict [laws covering the sale of firearms]", compared to a minority of 17-38% that wants the laws to be "kept as now", and a tiny minority of 2-12% wanting "less strict" laws.

Again, the silent majority is for stricter gun laws. But when casting their vote, the issue is just one out of many to most of these people, whereas the anti-gun control minority, as evidenced here as well, is passionate if not outright fanatic about the issue, and will throw any election the other way if a candidate dares to speak up about it.

Basically, America is kept hostage by people like cjhsa, on this issue.

I'm [..] in favor of at least a 1 day waiting period before buying a new gun. The fact that my last 3 firearm purchases all took less than 60 minutes combined is a problem to me. I'm not a psycho, but I don't think I should be able to buy a gun quicker than I can get my tires changed. So I would be in your majority on that vague polling question, but if the law were something else, like restricting concealed carry, then I quickly swing over to the opposition, and fervently I might add.

maporsche wrote:

I'm [..] in favor of at least a 1 day waiting period before buying a new gun. The fact that my last 3 firearm purchases all took less than 60 minutes combined is a problem to me. I'm not a psycho, but I don't think I should be able to buy a gun quicker than I can get my tires changed. So I would be in your majority on that vague polling question, but if the law were something else, like restricting concealed carry, then I quickly swing over to the opposition, and fervently I might add.

F'sure. In that majority, some will approve of this gun control measure, some of that, and only a few of any and all. But the point is that there is a majority there - a clear majority - for some tightening of the laws - the one you suggest, for example.

NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll conducted by the polling organizations of Peter Hart (D) and Bill McInturff (R). Sept. 17-19, 2004. N=1,006 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"As you may know, the federal ban on assault weapons has expired, and certain types of guns that were banned in 1994 can now be legally sold again. Overall, are you satisfied that this law has expired, dissatisfied that it has expired, or does it not make a difference to you either way?"

12% Satisfied
61% Dissatisfied
25% No difference

nimh wrote:

maporsche wrote:

I'm [..] in favor of at least a 1 day waiting period before buying a new gun. The fact that my last 3 firearm purchases all took less than 60 minutes combined is a problem to me. I'm not a psycho, but I don't think I should be able to buy a gun quicker than I can get my tires changed. So I would be in your majority on that vague polling question, but if the law were something else, like restricting concealed carry, then I quickly swing over to the opposition, and fervently I might add.

F'sure. In that majority, some will approve of this gun control measure, some of that, and only a few of any and all. But the point is that there is a majority there - a clear majority - for some tightening of the laws - the one you suggest, for example.

And here's a concrete, specific restriction that a clear majority had wanted to keep in place (poll is from 2004, sorry, no more recent one available):

Quote:

NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll conducted by the polling organizations of Peter Hart (D) and Bill McInturff (R). Sept. 17-19, 2004. N=1,006 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"As you may know, the federal ban on assault weapons has expired, and certain types of guns that were banned in 1994 can now be legally sold again. Overall, are you satisfied that this law has expired, dissatisfied that it has expired, or does it not make a difference to you either way?"

12% Satisfied
61% Dissatisfied
25% No difference

None, however, whatsoever is feasible - because even the most marginal restrictions are combated ferociously by the NRA, on grounds of principle.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Speaking only for myself, I've never owned a gun in my life, and believe, like our Founding Fathers did, that it's a question of an individual's right to self-protection from those who might seek to deprive him of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, including his own government.

This specious crap. In the first place, the "Founding Fathers" did not write the Second Amendment--the members of the First Congress did so. That it was not written by the "Founders" ought to have been obvious given that it is an amendment to the constitution which was ratified.

Furthermore, there is no language in the Second Amendment which states that the purpose of the amendment is to afford the individual the opportunity to protect themselves from others who "might seek to deprive him of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." That turn of phrase comes from the Declaration of Independence, and is a reference to the unalienable rights with which all men are endowed. Finally, there is nothing in the text of the Second Amendment which even remotely suggests that the purpose is to allow the citizen to protect him- or herself from the government.

It is precisely because such wild-eyed and completely specious arguments are greeted with a serious respect by the gun lobby that no reasonable dialog on the subject is possible. You're just making sh!t up.

I read it as "we better have a good f--king army, and in case they fail or just can't be there, we don't want unarmed citizens killed like sheep".

It's a tradgedy on a huge scale, and too bad they died like sheep. At least give yourself a chance. I've been very wary of gun-free zones ever since they began appearing. I imagine that now, a lot of gun owning citizens will rethink the folly and take the chance to carry, instead of being perhaps unlawfully disarmed.

cjhsa wrote:

I read it as "we better have a good f--king army, and in case they fail or just can't be there, we don't want unarmed citizens killed like sheep".

A learned and insightful critique, well up to your usual standards, cj.

I tailor my delivery to the audience.

You see the same thing on the abortion side that the left supports (as do I), they view any discussion or small law change as 'chipping away' of the greater right to choose. The partial birth abortion decision that was just made is a good example. No one really want's PBA and the quantity that were completed were extremly rare, but pro-choice people were against because of this chipping away factor. Even though in reality this is a marginal restriction.

maporsche wrote:

You see the same thing on the abortion side that the left supports (as do I), they view any discussion or small law change as 'chipping away' of the greater right to choose. The partial birth abortion decision that was just made is a good example. No one really want's PBA and the quantity that were completed were extremly rare, but pro-choice people were against because of this chipping away factor. Even though in reality this is a marginal restriction.

Yes, I wish there was a little more pragmatism, and a little less inclination to perceive everything in those all or nothing terms, in both cases.

The university I went to has a police station right on campus. They're trained state police, but the school's policy was the police couldn't carry guns. That was 6-7 years ago I left...wonder if they still have that policy after all this crap has been happening. Probably the same, there's another state police station about 1 mile off campus anyway.