JohnRich 4 #1 April 25, 2007 News:Most Don't Believe Stricter Gun Control Policies Will Prevent Mass Shootings Most Americans don't believe that stricter U.S. gun control policies would help prevent tragedies such as this week's shootings at Virginia Tech, a new MSN-Zogby poll shows. While 59% don't think stricter gun control policies would help, 36% believe they could make a difference by helping to prevent future shootings. More than two in three Americans (69%) believe the recent shootings at Virginia Tech were the actions of a deranged man determined to inflict mayhem and could not have been prevented. But 16% believe stricter controls of guns and ammunition would have prevented the tragedy...Source: Zogby Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,647 #2 April 25, 2007 New York Times April 23, 2007, 6:40 pm Poll on Gun Control By Marjorie Connelly Most Americans are in favor of stricter gun control, but few say it would have done a lot to prevent the shootings last week at Virginia Tech, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll. Two-thirds of the adults surveyed Friday through Sunday said the laws covering the sale of handguns should be stricter and 27 percent said the laws should be kept as they are now. Only 5 percent said the laws should be less strict. This question has been asked in the past with similar results. In August 1999, a CBS News poll taken almost four months after the shootings at Columbine High School in Colorado, 64 percent said laws covering the sale of handguns should be stricter. Men and women are equally in favor of making the sale of handguns more difficult. Three-quarters of Democrats support stricter handgun laws, compared with about half of Republicans and 60 percent of independents. The public does not support banning handguns altogether, the poll found. Thirty-two percent of the public approves of a ban on the sale of handguns, with the exception of thoseneeded for law enforcement, with 64 percent opposed. This is basically unchanged from the last time the question was asked by CBS News in 2000. Thirty-one percent of those surveyed said stricter gun control would have done a lot to prevent the violence at Virginia Tech. But, 23 percent said it would have had little effect and 41 percent said stricter gun laws would have had no effect at all on last week’s bloodshed. While 26 percent said allowing adults to carry concealed weapons would have reduced the violence at the school, 20 percent said it would have made things worse. The plurality, 46 percent, said it would have made no difference. The telephone poll was conducted with 644 adults nationwide and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #3 April 25, 2007 I'll highlight different parts of your news story, which you didn't seem to think warranted much attention...Most Americans are in favor of stricter gun control, but few say it would have done a lot to prevent the shootings last week at Virginia Tech, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll. The public does not support banning handguns altogether, the poll found. Thirty-one percent of those surveyed said stricter gun control would have done a lot to prevent the violence at Virginia Tech. But, 23 percent said it would have had little effect and 41 percent said stricter gun laws would have had no effect at all on last week’s bloodshed. So, your story reinforces mine, regarding the ineffectiveness of gun control laws to stop mass shootings. Thank you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #4 April 25, 2007 I sooo love this country sometimes... "Polls say we have to DO SOMETHING!!!!! Even if when what is proposed is viewed as ineffective.." typical emotional response... ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #5 April 25, 2007 Quote I sooo love this country sometimes... "Polls say we have to DO SOMETHING!!!!! Even if when what is proposed is viewed as ineffective.." typical emotional response... of course, this is a more applicable response to Kallend's post than the OP's. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #6 April 25, 2007 of course simply hitting reply adds the post above... astute readers can figure it out.... its common web behavior, those who cant probably need to read something less 'challenging'____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,427 #7 April 25, 2007 It's almost certain that better oversight of the background check process (a process we already have) would have prevented this incident - or at least made it more difficult for the killer to accomplish his objectives. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #8 April 25, 2007 QuoteIt's almost certain that better oversight of the background check process (a process we already have) would have prevented this incident - or at least made it more difficult for the killer to accomplish his objectives. I'm guessing that this incident is going to lead to mental health records being a lot less private, which will probably do little to prevent similar incidents from happening, but will do a lot to discourage people from seeking any kind of psychiatric treatment. I say ban all guns and give the death sentence to anyone caught with one. That will prevent mass shootings... Hmm, or maybe not. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lindsey 0 #9 April 25, 2007 What most people believe about the effect of stricter gun control on shootings has absolutely no bearing on the reality of the situation. People's beliefs on this topic are obviously grounded in their politics, not in any meaningful knowledge of the dynamics and how gun control will affect them. So...so what? Why does it matter if most don't believe stricter gun control policies will prevent mass shootings? Not a hill of beans.-- A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #10 April 25, 2007 billvon: > It's almost certain that better oversight of the background > check process (a process we already have) would have > prevented this incident - or at least made it more difficult > for the killer to accomplish his objectives. He spent months planning his mission and acquiring the needed equipment. A rejection at the gun store would have just caused him to acquire guns on the black market, and would have changed nothing about the outcome. shotgun: > I'm guessing that this incident is going to lead to mental > health records being a lot less private, which will probably do > little to prevent similar incidents from happening, but will do > a lot to discourage people from seeking any kind of psychiatric > treatment. Correct. Americans will no longer have any expectation of privacy and doctor-patient confidentiality if they go to a psychiatrist. That will result in many people not getting the treatment they need, which will in turn result in even more crazy people running around loose on the streets. It's the law of unintended consequences. And of course, they'll want to make this psychiatric gun ban retroactive, so anyone who has ever visited a psychiatrist at any time in the past, no matter how long ago, may soon expect a knock on their door by a SWAT team to confiscate their guns. After all, they've already done this with the "domestic violence" excuse. Lindsey: > What most people believe about the effect of stricter gun > control on shootings has absolutely no bearing on the > reality of the situation... So...so what? Why does it matter > if most don't believe stricter gun control policies will prevent > mass shootings? Not a hill of beans. What people believe, rightly or wrongly, is what determines what laws will get passed, good or bad. So that's a very important hill of beans. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,427 #11 April 25, 2007 >A rejection at the gun store . . . . . . would have made it more difficult (not impossible) to accomplish his objectives. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #12 April 25, 2007 QuoteI sooo love this country sometimes... "Polls say we have to DO SOMETHING!!!!! Even if when what is proposed is viewed as ineffective.." No kidding. "Make regulations to gun access stricter" sounds rather like "support our children." Everyone is for it, but with no real suggestions on how. In CA, you have to be 21, have many financial records detailing that you live at the address on your driver's license, must have a handgun safety certification card that expires in 5 years (and replaced the BFSC that I had), must wait 10 days, must not have any felonies or certain misdomeanors, not have a restraining order in effect, and pay $40 in nuisance fees for the check and a trigger lock you'll throw in the box. So what would be made stricter? Expand the medical reporting and you lose privacy and encourage people not to seek help when depressed. That might be a step back in safety. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #13 April 26, 2007 QuoteTwo-thirds of the adults surveyed Friday through Sunday said the laws covering the sale of handguns should be stricter... ...23 percent said it would have had little effect and 41 percent said stricter gun laws would have had no effect at all on last week’s bloodshed. So in response to the incident, at least one third of the people surveyed are in favor of stricter laws that they don't believe would be effective... that's good to know. Gun control laws are a bit like pad locks when it comes to preventing crime. They assume everyone out there is a murderer/thief on a scale of 1 to 10. A "1" being someone for whom a very contrived set of circumstances would have to come up before they'd kill/steal. A "10" being the most determined criminal. You can go down to the hardware store and buy bigger and badder padlocks that are more irritating to have to use, but can stop criminals anywhere from 1 to 9. Unfortunately, no hardware store carries a "10" padlock. So the questions that remain are simply: Are we already at 9? If not, where are we? Do we want to be at 9? What would that take? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #14 April 26, 2007 Quote> A rejection at the gun store . . . . . . would have made it more difficult (not impossible) to accomplish his objectives. Um, yeah, I got that the first time. So, are you willing to sacrifice doctor-patient privacy for the sake of a new gun control law that won't work? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,647 #15 April 26, 2007 Quote I'll highlight different parts of your news story, which you didn't seem to think warranted much attention... Most Americans are in favor of stricter gun control, but few say it would have done a lot to prevent the shootings last week at Virginia Tech, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll. The public does not support banning handguns altogether, the poll found. Thirty-one percent of those surveyed said stricter gun control would have done a lot to prevent the violence at Virginia Tech. But, 23 percent said it would have had little effect and 41 percent said stricter gun laws would have had no effect at all on last week’s bloodshed. So, your story reinforces mine, regarding the ineffectiveness of gun control laws to stop mass shootings. Thank you. You infer too much. Making the leap from "last weeks' bloodshed" to "mass shootings" (plural) is both misleading and unwarranted by any evidence that you presented. So your thanks was premature.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michele 1 #16 April 26, 2007 QuoteMost Don't Believe Stricter Gun Control Policies Will Prevent Mass Shootings Well, it hasn't yet, has it? Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
likearock 1 #17 April 26, 2007 QuoteQuoteMost Don't Believe Stricter Gun Control Policies Will Prevent Mass Shootings Well, it hasn't yet, has it? I don't know. There hasn't been a mass shooting in England since they passed theirs, has there? Say what you want about increased violence, etc., if you're looking for an effect on mass shootings, you've got one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lindsey 0 #18 April 26, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteMost Don't Believe Stricter Gun Control Policies Will Prevent Mass Shootings Well, it hasn't yet, has it? I don't know. There hasn't been a mass shooting in England since they passed theirs, has there? Say what you want about increased violence, etc., if you're looking for an effect on mass shootings, you've got one. How frequent were the mass shootings before the English lost their guns?-- A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackC 0 #19 April 26, 2007 QuoteHow frequent were the mass shootings before the English lost their guns? Just to put that in context. More than 99.7% of British people didn't have any guns to loose. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #20 April 26, 2007 QuoteQuote> A rejection at the gun store . . . . . . would have made it more difficult (not impossible) to accomplish his objectives. Um, yeah, I got that the first time. So, are you willing to sacrifice doctor-patient privacy for the sake of a new gun control law that won't work? So, John, lemme get this straight . . . You would not be in favor of a law that would prohibit the sale of guns to people with mental deficiencies? Does that about sum it up? In fact, you're actually saying that you're in favor of selling guns to persons known to be at risk to themselves and the public at large; correct? I just want to be clear on this, this is what you're saying, if a person is KNOWN to be a violent, mentally unstable person, they still have the right to buy a gun?quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #21 April 26, 2007 Quote I'm guessing that this incident is going to lead to mental health records being a lot less private, which will probably do little to prevent similar incidents from happening, but will do a lot to discourage people from seeking any kind of psychiatric treatment. Only if the said person decided they want to buy a gun. If the records of all patients were more available across the board, that would have to be for another purpose other than gun control. I think the police department would already have pretty good access to peoples mental health records? They still can get one on the black market however and at a bargain price because supply must surely beat demand? The only real solution is to try to get rid of as many guns as possible/make the bullets illegal? slowly each bullet will cost more $$. $$ is the only way to force change. If the guns are too expensive the gangs make more money and.....Oh yeah prohibition doesn't work?!?! It is too late to solve the problem, only education can reduce its impact now. Sadly this is the case for many issues created by human beings over the last couple of centuries. Apparently (according to various beliefs) we are more intelligent than the creatures that have inhibited this planet for millions of years longer than us. fuck humans are stupid. "When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
likearock 1 #22 April 26, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteMost Don't Believe Stricter Gun Control Policies Will Prevent Mass Shootings Well, it hasn't yet, has it? I don't know. There hasn't been a mass shooting in England since they passed theirs, has there? Say what you want about increased violence, etc., if you're looking for an effect on mass shootings, you've got one. How frequent were the mass shootings before the English lost their guns? Isn't one too many? It took no more than a minute to find two: one in 1987, another in 1996. They passed the firearms bill in 1997. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lindsey 0 #23 April 26, 2007 Isn't one too many? It took me a minute just to find two: one in 1987, another in 1996. They passed the firearms bill in 1997. Makes it kinda tough to say that gun control has had an effect. Yes. One is too many, imho. But addressing the problem with ineffective changes isn't a good solution. linz-- A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #24 April 26, 2007 QuoteWhat people believe, rightly or wrongly, is what determines what laws will get passed, good or bad. So that's a very important hill of beans. Close, but no. It's what people want that determines what laws will get passed, good or bad. On the face of the report posted by Kallend, while people don't believe new laws would have prevented the recent massacre, a plurality of those surveyed did want more stringent laws. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,647 #25 April 26, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteMost Don't Believe Stricter Gun Control Policies Will Prevent Mass Shootings Well, it hasn't yet, has it? I don't know. There hasn't been a mass shooting in England since they passed theirs, has there? Say what you want about increased violence, etc., if you're looking for an effect on mass shootings, you've got one. How frequent were the mass shootings before the English lost their guns? Isn't one too many? It took no more than a minute to find two: one in 1987, another in 1996. They passed the firearms bill in 1997. How many in the USA since 1987?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
