One year after Newtown, support for stricter gun control has disappeared

[ShooterInPA1]

President Obama has pushed hard for gun control this year and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has spent millions of dollars on ads, but the administration’s promise to coordinate “a November lobbying effort and plan events to commemorate the first anniversary of the Newtown, Connecticut” has gotten little traction.

Last year the Newtown shooting, with it horrific slaughter, lead to an immediate national movement for gun control. But that was short-lived, and opposition to gun control is currently very strong. Indeed, it appears to be the strongest in decades.

A recent CNN poll finds the highest level of opposition to any new gun control measures since CNN started asking about it in 1989. Rising from only 28 percent opposed to new gun control measures then to 50 percent today. And it’s not the only poll with such findings. Gallup finds that opposition to stricter laws has risen from 19 to 50 percent.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/...s-disappeared/

[PocketProtector]

Drop our guard and we will pay dearly. Time for OFFENSE

[vapochilled]

Drop our guard and we will pay dearly. Time for OFFENSE

Not today it's not, it's a day for reflection. tomorrow we fight!

[ShooterInPA1]

Drop our guard and we will pay dearly. Time for OFFENSE

All offense against these clowns.

[Extinquisher357]

Drop our guard and we will pay dearly. Time for OFFENSE

Keep emailing, calling, faxing and sending letters to all the Reps.

I use GOA, and NRA-ILA

[DaveM55]

I'll proudly be wearing my NRA ballcap today as I go grocery shopping.

[GeneCC]

Drop our guard and we will pay dearly. Time for OFFENSE

Yes.

We need to "demand a plan" from those who "demand a plan"...



This is the clean version... profanity is a blemish on a person.

Since these people are a bit "discouraged" we need to set up the Balls on the table to stop them when the next tragedy strikes, and it will strike, sooner or later.

Eventually we need to crush them morally and spiritually.

Slavery, denial of Women's Suffrage and Prohibition.... All required Constitutional Amendments to change and all were the "law of the land". We can win this struggle.

[Pilot321]

I was in a local gun shop yesterday, and there was a woman with her two little girls filling out the paperwork for her own pistol. I had never seen that before. Yes, I have seen women in there with their boyfriends, and husbands, but never alone with the kids. I also so many women at the indoor range they have. More than I had ever seen before. It was great to see.

It is critical that more women continue to join our ranks. I believe this is one of the reasons more gun control isn't gaining traction.

[GeneCC]

My biggest complaint with the NRA is that they're too defensive. It seems to me that some of the [mass shootings] that have occurred are a result of gun laws that are already on the books. Rather than talking about what new law should be put in place, we should ask to what extent have well-intentioned laws in the past caused us to get to point where we are right now.

It's only been since the end of 1995 that we've banned guns within 1,000 feet of schools by federal law. Right after the Columbine attack, a friend of mine dropped off his kids at a public school in Seattle, and he e-mailed me afterward, because there was a big sign in front of the school that said, "This is a gun-free zone." The question I had was, if I put a sign like that in front of my home, would I think that people who are intent on attacking my home would be less likely, or more likely, to harm my children and my wife? You may be trying to create a safe area for your family, but what you've ended up accidentally doing is creating a safe zone for [criminals], because they have less to worry about.

http://reason.com/archives/2000/01/0...terview-with/3

[GeneCC]

The thing that I'd like to see the NRA try to do is to say, when attacks occur, since we can't have the police every place all the time, why not let these people defend themselves? The people who get permits for concealed handguns tend to be extremely law-abiding. They've never done one of these attacks in the 70 years that we've had these types of permits. When these people lose their permits, and it's only a tiny fraction of 1 percent who do, it's usually for reasons that have nothing to do with posing a threat to other people. Laws [like the Gun-Free School Zones Act] are obeyed by honest, law-abiding citizens, not by people who are intent on carrying out attacks. And to the extent that you disarm the law-abiding citizens in certain areas, you increase the probability of these attacks, which perversely leads to calls for more regulations.

Another example is gun locks. If I were with the NRA, I would emphasize the cost of constantly talking about this issue. You're actually endangering people's lives, for two reasons. One, you're exaggerating in their minds the risks of having guns in the home. And two, I would say it's not in everybody's interest to have a lock on their gun. If you live in a safe area and maybe have young kids, that might be fine. But if you live in a city, even if you have kids, I don't think it's really the wisest thing to have the gun locked up, because you're not going to be able to quickly access it to defend your family. And when you compare probabilities, accidental gun deaths in the home are trivial compared to the rate at which other types of deaths occur from crimes where innocent victims are attacked and a gun would benefit them.

http://reason.com/archives/2000/01/0...terview-with/3