Politics of Gun Prevention Shifting to the Middle
By Paul Helmke | President, the Brady Campaign
Earlier this week we released the results of a poll on the gun issue, taken by the prominent Penn, Schoen & Berland firm, of 1,083 confirmed Election Day voters.
Before discussing the responses that may come as a surprise to some, I wanted to highlight the analysis of Rob Green, a principal at PSB, who evaluated the new political status of gun violence prevention after this election:
"These findings suggest that sensible gun legislation provides a unique opportunity for the new Administration to build a bridge to moderate voters in both parties. It is no longer plausible for opponents of gun legislation to assert that gun laws will somehow lead to a total gun ban."
In fact, these results show that voters support a variety of basic safeguards for the public safety when it comes to keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous people.
This support is strong in every region of the country, among voters who own guns and those who do not, across partisan and ideological lines – and even in the "New Blue" states (states that George W. Bush won 2004 but that voted for Barack Obama in 2008). These "New Blue" states are a cross-section of America, including Colorado, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, and Virginia.
First consider the poll's general findings:
* 76% of all voters "support the passage of laws placing reasonable restrictions on guns"; 78% of "New Blue" state respondents support reasonable gun restrictions; 66% of gun owning voters also agree;
* 79% of all voters say the views of the NRA were not important to their vote for President; 78% of "New Blue" state respondents agreed; 74% of gun owning voters agreed. Now, compare these results with voter attitudes on a few specific gun control policies:
* 83% of all voters favor criminal background checks for all gun sales; 87% of "New Blue" state respondents favor them; 84% of gun owning voters favor them (virtually identical with voters overall);
* 68% of all voters favor the registration of gun sales and licensing of gun owners; 70% of "New Blue" state respondents favor registration and licensing; even 60% of gun owning voters favor registration and licensing;
* 65% of all voters favor a waiting period of five days for handgun sales; 73% of "New Blue" state respondents favor a waiting period; 64% of gun owning voters favor this waiting period;
* 65% of all voters favor banning military style assault weapons: 68% of "New Blue" state respondents favor banning them; 60% of gun owning voters favor an assault weapons ban.
* 54% of all voters favor limiting the number of guns that can be bought at one time: 57% of "New Blue" state respondents favor such limits; just 42% of gun owning voters favor these limits, however. What explains this strong, across-the-board, support for policies once considered controversial?
Perhaps the Supreme Court decision last June that Americans have an individual right to own a gun for self defense in the home, but that other reasonable restrictions are "presumptively lawful," helped lay the groundwork here. Law-abiding citizens' guns are safe.
This position is consistent with those taken by candidate Barack Obama, as well as the Brady Campaign post-Heller. Because of the Supreme Court decision, the gun violence prevention debate has shifted from the extremes to the middle.
We saw in this election that candidates who favor sensible gun laws won across the country, while those favored by the National Rifle Association lost races at all levels across the country to Brady-endorsed candidates.
These results indicate that we may be experiencing a sea-change in the politics of gun violence prevention. Rather than driving a wedge between voters, common sense gun laws may instead help elected officials find a sensible middle ground that protects American families and communities while gaining the support of most voting groups.
After so many years of division, that would be a welcome change, indeed.
To read the original article click here.
POST YOUR COMMENT BELOW
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
If a poll is worded right, you can get any answer you like. We need to seen the wording of the questions.
Still, the fact that "79% of persons" say that NRA opinions about a candidate were not important to their presidential vote means that to 21% of voters, they were.
The usual estimate is that anywhere outside the coastal and great lakes urban areas, being antigun automatically hands a pro-gun opponent an extra 3-7% of the vote. These figures suggest the number may be even higher.
Let us take it at face value that the gun-control model is everything advocates say it is. Based on their claims it will protect everyone to a much greater extent and it is not an effort to abolish the right to bear arms. Gun-control advocates may not feel it is the perfect model, but consider it an acceptable “infringement of rights” for the greater good.
If gun-control advocates truly believe in their stance, they will have no problem with the following proposed regulations and will embrace them to help end a national crime wave. A crime wave which actually increases the instances of guns used in crime. The proposals are based on the gun-control model. It is the perfect model to use because both are based on using the same reason and logic.
The fastest growing killer in the nation is illegally obtained and used prescription drugs. The Coalition Against Insurance Fraud claims it costs insurance providers 72.5 billion dollars annually.
Proposed regulations to restrict the illegal use of prescription narcotics.
1. Anyone attempting to purchase prescription narcotics is required to undergo a full criminal background check. You must fill out a Federal questionnaire, produce valid photo I.D. and pay $X to $XX for a call-in to a Federal data bank for a criminal background check for each prescription narcotic transaction. If you do not have a State issued prescription drug permit (PDP), there is a three (3) day waiting period before you can pick-up the prescription. Saturday and Sunday do not count as part of the waiting period. If you possess a PDP, you may take the prescription with you after the successful completion of the transaction. The PDP also allows you to carry the prescription narcotics on your person as long as they are concealed in a pocket or purse, etc. and you have a letter of physical need from your physician. Carrying prescription narcotics without a PDP and a letter of need is a felony violation.
2. The State Prescription Drug Permit is acquired by submitting an application to the State along with a fingerprint card, a passport photo no more than 6 months old and the application fee of $XXX.00. Once issued, the PDP is good for three (3) years from issue date and must be renewed in order to remain in effect. A renewal notice will be mailed to the permit holder and must be returned with the renewal fee of $XX.00 before the expiration date or the process must begin again as if a PDP had never been issued.
3. It is unlawful to carry prescription narcotics into a courthouse, school, library or an establishment that sells alcohol unless the establishment’s revenue from alcohol is no more than 10% of their total sales.
4. Prescription narcotics may only be purchased by the actual named person on the prescription. Straw purchases are illegal.
5. In the home, prescription narcotics should be locked safely away from children and teenagers. Pharmaceutical companies are required to supply a lockable container that is teenager proof for each sale of a prescription narcotic.
6. Parents of children who are accidentally harmed by the parent's legal prescription narcotics will be held legally responsible.
7. By XX/XX/XXXX date, a serial number will be inscribed on every pill or tablet or capsule so they are traceable back to the source. If illegally used prescription narcotics are traced back to a patient, then the patient is held legally responsible.
8. On XX/XX/XXXX date, all sales of prescription liquid narcotics will end. All prescription liquid narcotics must then be administered directly to the patient by a licensed physician.
9. All unused prescription narcotics must be returned to a licensed pharmacist or law enforcement agency for serial number verification and then destroyed.
10. By YY/YY/YYYY date, all unused prescription narcotics (retail, wholesale, or patient owned) currently in use without serial number identification must be submitted for destruction to a licensed pharmacist or law enforcement agency.
As you can see, there are no unreasonable proposals. I am sure we can count on all gun-control advocates to stand behind this campaign 100% and do their share to end this national problem.
God Bless America, Land of the Free
So a doctor then, can't really make the decision as to if his or her patient needs the prescription. And people who have been prescribed medication should have to have federal oversight for something that's already overseen. AND pay more money for something they've been prescribed. By a licensed physician.
This makes no sense
But advocates of this ignore the fact that a person is PRESCRIBED the medication from a qualified professional, who is regulated and overseen by the state.
Who decides who is repsonsible enough for gun ownership? No one.
Does and i.d. check prove a person responsible? No
Do any gun control measures address the need for gun responsibility in youth? No
Do any gun control measures address the underlying culture of gun glorification? No
Sensible gun legislation addresses more than just who gets guns and who doesn't and how many hoops you should have to jump through to get a gun.
Put down a real opinion instead of more crap about narcotics.
If the anti-gun model is not on topic then the anti-gun model is a propaganda. Post my first reply and debate the issue. I will counter every move using gun control logic. Don't post it. I don't care. I have plenty of places to post. Delete my profile and continue to promote your side of it. Typical anti-american attitude of an anti-gunner.
No one said anything about deleting your profile, so chillax. I never asked you to email me so fuck yourself a little more on that one, too, Jack. It's clearly stated (as if that makes a difference to someone like you) that if YOU WANT. It's simply available...
Typical gun-toting unreasonable response... throw yourself overboard and then claim you were pushed. Typical idiotic response to call someone who doesn't agree with you (on a NARCOTICS ISSUE) anti-American and anti-gunner. By the way, just which "America" do you mean? South? North? Central? What is this "America" you speak of, because fuck me but North America appears to be a rather large area, as does South, and Central. Or maybe you're just a typical arrogant fuck who think that because you spell the word and you're a citizen of these United States of America then CLEARLY "America" refers to you and your country.
Since you seem to keen on making comparisons, and since you're so anti-legislation of things THAT KILL PEOPLE I'm sure you'll be the first on board to get rid of licensing drivers.
And since you're all for that, let's just let anyone who wants to set up shop with a suitcase and a bottle full of whatever that will cure whatever you want it to. Why license doctors? Why should we legislate anything?
Now, instead of actually BEING an ignorant fuck, why don't you read a little more and put your head in your ass a little less.
You ARE off topic when you post your retarded shite about narcotics on a GUN DISCUSSION.
Thanks for your detailed reply. I see you are very receptive to my offer for debate of the issue of gun-regulations. The whole issue is about control which you seem to enjoy. I would expect a response as yours from a gun regulation view. The only problem you have with my proposed regulation of narcotics as a comparison to anti-gun regulation is that my control now affects you also, which, afterall is my point.
The fact that you know I can counter any argument you offer with your own flawed logic does not help your case either. The truth is the truth no matter how much you rant. Ranting just weakens your position on the issue. If it makes you feel better, have at it. I don't mind. However, if all you feel inclined to do is rant, I doubt we will accomplish anything of value for the readers.
Quote "These findings suggest that sensible gun legislation" end quote, suggests that we are talking about sensible legislation that affects all gun owning citizens. My comparison is sensible legislation that affects all citizens. The difference is minor. If legislation is good and sensible for one it is good and sensible for all, if it is applicable, and mine is. I understand that you may not like the legislation but that does not mean that it is not applicable.
I look forward to an interesting discussion with you.
I see.
Well if you really want discuss this and not narcotics - which I'll just a run down now on why it's foolish to put further regulations on it now:
a) doctors are subject to heavy regulations as it is.
b) the cost of prescription narcotics is already expensive - though very overpriced by pharma companies so why should it be the responsibility of the person who was Medically Prescribed a medication to pay for something that they have every right to? the doctor is registered, and patients are registered through their doctors And insurance. So there are already several records that exist. If it's about control, all it takes is access to qualified personnel to go through those records.
So, on to the gun control:
Mind you, you're making heavy assumptions about what I actually think about gun control because I told you you're off-topic... which you Are... I haven't said what I think about it in this discussion forum. I haven't said a word about whether I think gun control is a good idea or not. Which is kind of why you pissed me off.
The problem with guns isn't guns.... it's the attitudes that have been fostered towards them. Guns are glorified. They are made into toys... both actual and "virtual" in which there are no consequences to running amok shooting and killing people. They are put on pedestals in movies and turned into objects of desire with no real understanding of them. They are not respected for what they are - weapons of destruction that kill. Whether people or animals.
That is the problem I have with guns. That they are not respected. Gun legislation that makes sense to me would be to ban toy guns. A child doesn't fully comprehend death, let alone that a gun is a force that brings it. Gun legislation that is appropriate would be require a physical test that shows if you WANT to buy a gun, or own one, that you know how to use it... the parts... how to take care of it, etc. This is the reason that the second amendment says the right to bear arms belongs to the state's militia. A militia provides training and discipline. It requires that the person owning the gun(s) know about it and how to use it... and When to use it. Most gun accidents occur because of lack of knowledge.... sheer stupidity in other words. Ideal gun legislation would disallow back-door selling. This is the kind of gun "control" legislation I would support.
I'm actually of the opinion that gun safety classes should be required for high school graduation. Guns are not scary... a gun in the hand of an inexperienced or angry person is scary. ....or a drunk person.
There you go. Now you can make an assumption about my opinions, since you're now aware of what they actually are.
quote
So, on to the gun control:
Mind you, you're making heavy assumptions about what I actually think about gun control because I told you you're off-topic... which you Are... I haven't said what I think about it in this discussion forum. I haven't said a word about whether I think gun control is a good idea or not. Which is kind of why you pissed me off.
end quote
I understand. You didn’t ask me how my post pertained to gun control, you just claimed it didn’t.
quote
The problem with guns isn't guns.... it's the attitudes that have been fostered towards them. Guns are glorified. They are made into toys... both actual and "virtual" in which there are no consequences to running amok shooting and killing people. They are put on pedestals in movies and turned into objects of desire with no real understanding of them. They are not respected for what they are - weapons of destruction that kill. Whether people or animals.
end quote
Children are not responsible for having irresponsible parents or relatives or governments. Children aren’t responsible for not being taught morals and responsibility. Should parents be regulated? That’s already being done and it doesn’t work. Should there be heavier regulation of parents? That will “not work” just as well. As for being put on pedestal and glorified, ditto for prescription narcotics. There is something for everyone, even children.
quote
That is the problem I have with guns. That they are not respected. Gun legislation that makes sense to me would be to ban toy guns. A child doesn't fully comprehend death, let alone that a gun is a force that brings it.
end quote
So, let’s ban all things that a child does not comprehend will bring death. That won’t matter either. They will continue to die.
quote
Gun legislation that is appropriate would be require a physical test that shows if you WANT to buy a gun, or own one, that you know how to use it... the parts... how to take care of it, etc. This is the reason that the second amendment says the right to bear arms belongs to the state's militia. A militia provides training and discipline. It requires that the person owning the gun(s) know about it and how to use it... and When to use it. Most gun accidents occur because of lack of knowledge.... sheer stupidity in other words. Ideal gun legislation would disallow back-door selling. This is the kind of gun "control" legislation I would support.
end quote
More legislation that won’t work. A chimpanzee could be taught to disassemble and reassemble a firearm, load it and shoot it. You can’t regulate away stupidity either. It is a constant that we will have to Live and Die with. I agree everyone should know how to safely and responsibly use and maintain a firearm. I believe that parents should teach their children morality, responsibility and firearm respect and safety By Example. I do not believe this should be legislated. It is our right. A Constitutional shortfall of the people is that there is no well regulated militia. We are the militia. It is our responsibility.
quote
I'm actually of the opinion that gun safety classes should be required for high school graduation. Guns are not scary... a gun in the hand of an inexperienced or angry person is scary. ....or a drunk person.
There you go. Now you can make an assumption about my opinions, since you're now aware of what they actually are.
end quote
Yes, guns wielded by inexperienced angry drunk people are scary. Many things in life are scary. We could die at any moment from countless horrible things. People do stupid things. Innocent children die. Evil people exist. That’s reality. All the regulations in the world will not change that. People fear, not only guns, they just fear. Fear drives irrational behavior.
Somehow, the idea that it is government’s responsibility to protect us has been distorted to the point that people expect the government to protect us from ourselves. Legislating away Rights is an incremental removal of guaranteed freedoms. As a free society, it is our responsibility to resist infringements of our guaranteed rights. We are only entitled to them if we are willing to fight for them. That’s what it took to get them and that’s what it takes to keep them. If you give up your rights, you are no longer free. Calling it a Free Country does not make it one. If we are not willing to fight for Rights, they will be taken away. Period.
Regulation is the illusion of a solution.
Now you know my position on good and sensible gun regulation. “Currently” you are Free to agree or disagree. That may change one day.
...but only if people like you don't destroy us, first.
The government's responsibility IS to protect us from idiocy. That's why we have government.
Lastly, you do not have the protection from having your firearms regulated. If you want that right... join your state's militia.
I don't know how anyone like me could destroy us. If you mean pro-rights advocates (that sounds simililar to an abortion slogan) will destroy us, yes, they are murdering us one at a time already (except multi-embryo pregnancies, of course. Would sextuplets be mass murder?). I'm sure you are happy Obama's Mama didn't exercise her so-called right. You are entitled by the rights I think we should be fighting for to voice your opinions as I am. When they are lobbying to remove those Rights the destruction will almost be complete. Either way, no matter who destroys who, death is inevitable for us both. I prefer death than to be controlled by the likes of you, so with any luck I'll be dead by then. Live long and prosper.