There are more than two options


Pew, Pew, Pew Poll:

After Newtown, Modest Change in Opinion about Gun Control

The public’s attitudes toward gun control have shown only modest change in the wake of last week’s deadly shooting at an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut. Currently, 49% say it is more important to control gun ownership, while 42% say it is more important to protect the right of Americans to own guns.

This marks the first time since Barack Obama took office that more Americans prioritize gun control than the right to own guns. Opinion was evenly divided in July, following a shooting at a Colorado movie theater. At that time, 47% said it was more important to control gun ownership, while 46% said it was more important to protect gun rights.

However, support for gun control remains lower than before Obama took office. In April 2008, 58% said it was more important to control gun ownership; just 37% prioritized protecting gun rights.

The problem here is that there are more than two options. By presenting this survey as either/or they basically cram the answers into either “gun control” or “no gun control”. The range of options is much broader than that.

At one extreme we have people who want to totally ban private gun ownership – no guns at all and trust the police to protect us. At the other extreme are the nutjobs who think they should be allowed to own machine guns, tanks and cruise missiles. Arms are arms, right?

Then there is the rest of us, scattered in between those two points.

The fact is we already have gun control. There are thousands of laws and regulations on the books regulating the manufacture, importation, sale, transfer, transportation, storage, use, and ownership of guns and ammunition. Everybody (except crazy people and criminals) wants to keep guns away from crazy people and criminals.

Most people don’t have a problem with reasonable restrictions on guns. The issue is what is “reasonable?” Are the laws and regulations we already have reasonable? Do we need to tighten the ones we have? Do we need to add new ones? Reasonable people can disagree.

If and when there are specific proposals on the table we can evaluate them. Until then these discussions are a lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

About Myiq2xu

I was born and raised in a different country - America. I don't know what this place is.
This entry was posted in Gun Control and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to There are more than two options

  1. myiq2xu (D) says:

    Flashback: Clinton Requests $60 Million to Put Cops in Schools

    Today, the same elite media who no doubt send their own kids to private schools that employ armed security, just can’t stop howling ridicule at the NRA’s idea to give every student in America those same protections. Because the NRA’s idea is so appealing, as I write this, the media’s going overboard, mocking it as bizarre, crazy, and out of touch.

    This is how the media works to silence and vilify the opposition and to ensure that only their ideas control The Narrative. The media doesn’t care about securing our schools, they only care about coming after our guns and handing Obama another political win.

    The media also doesn’t care how wildly hypocritical they look.

    There are already millions of guns out there. There are thousands of crazy people running loose as well. The single, most effective way to immediately increase safety in our schools is to place police officers and/or armed guards on every campus. We could literally accomplish this within days.

    Having cops/security on campus would also deter gangs, drugs and other criminal activity. Lots of schools already have them.

    Placing cops/security officers on the nation’s campuses would cost money, however.

    • yttik says:

      I don’t understand why we don’t have armed guards at schools? We have them at courthouses, banks, airports, heck even the silly art gallery in liberal utopia where I live has an armed guard. So does Safeway. Maybe if people where shoplifting our children, we’d consider having school security.

      • myiq2xu (D) says:

        RD, on December 21, 2012 at 5:50 pm said:

        I have to put my foot down about adding any additional security anywhere. It’s getting to be stupid and a real pain in the ass for Americans to get on with their lives with peace of mind just so some gun enthusiast’s right to own an at-hand arsenal is preserved.
        I guess you would have to have kids growing up in a post 9-11 world to understand how ubiquitous the security issue has become.
        Enough is enough. It’s time to disarm America. Having a single non-assault revolver or rifle in your house for protection or hunting is fine. Anything more than that violates other people’s right to liberty.

        • yttik says:

          I don’t own a gun, but after listening to people shrieking at the top of their lungs, hysterically calling the NRA murderers, I’m feeling even more inclined to protect myself.

          I didn’t realize there were so many crazy and emotional people running around lose.

  2. Constance says:

    I’d like to see a poll asking if people think it is a good idea to tax violent “entertainment” to fund mental health services and school security.

    • myiq2xu (D) says:

      I’m sure that people who don’t play video games would support the idea.

    • yttik says:

      I really think we need to change attitudes and educate people about violent video games and movies, not tax them. They should stop making them because nobody wants to play them, not because we’ve made an authoritarian decision or enabled the Gov to profit off of them.

      Besides, violent movies and games don’t tell the whole story. Long before video games we had staggering violence and brutality.

      • myiq2xu (D) says:

        Remember when people in movies got shot but didn’t bleed? And cowboys used to shoot guns out of the bad guys hands. (You could always tell who the bad guys were because they wore black.)

        The murder rate in the US peaked in 1933.

  3. Constance says:

    I would like to see a poll asking if people would prefer to pick and pay for only the cable channels they personally choose so that they have the option of not subsidizing violent content which is force fed into our homes over channels no one wants.

  4. myiq2xu (D) says:

  5. 49erDweet says:

    Waiting…………………for some non-conforming journalist to do a deeply analytical piece dealing with what went wrong with the perp’s late mother’s method of controlling her son’s weapon access. Or lack thereof. Any money on how long it will be?

    • myiq2xu (D) says:

      What went wrong is she tipped her son off that she planned to have him committed.

      • 49erDweet says:

        That was the “trigger”, of course. But did she not have the foresight to keep her weapons under some form of security? I can’t believe that. I’m wondering what went wrong with her safety planning, Unless she was in total denial, she must have done quite a bit of thinking along those lines.

        We have a sometimes potentially violent but dysfunctional adult foster son in our home, and have all sorts of things/schemes in place to mitigate his spontaneous but irregular explosive temper outbursts.

      • yttik says:

        I have no idea what the state laws are in Conn, but up here it is virtually impossible to commit anybody and the first thing you have to do is notify them that you’re trying.

        • 49erDweet says:

          Yep. Most states have bent over backwards to ensure the crazies can’t get locked up until seven planets have remained in a specific alignment for 36 hours.

      • foxyladi14 says:

        And ticked too. 😦

  6. foxyladi14 says:

    she tipped her son off that she planned to have him committed.
    And he got ticked off and went bonkers. 😯

Comments are closed.