More Gun Grist
A new poll, a report from Chicago and a New York Times editorial all make for more gun grist, but not for any good answers.
More Gun Grist
John Baer, Daily News Political Columnist
Another day, another load of grist for the gun debate.
A new Quinnipiac University poll released Wednesday shows Pennsylvanians support a variety of gun control measures from background checks to a ban on some weapons and ammo magazines.
Here are the highlights:
- 95 – 5 percent for requiring background checks for all gun purchases;
- 60 – 37 percent for a nationwide ban on the sale of assault weapons;
- 59 – 39 percent for a nationwide ban on the sale of magazines with more than 10 rounds.
But The New York Times on Wednesday reports that Chicago, which bans gun shops, assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, has a gun-violence epidemic that led to more than 500 homicides last year and 40 so far this year.
Gun rights supporters point to Chicago as an example of how strict gun laws don't work. Gun control backers say Chicago is an example of why stricter national -- not just local -- gun laws are needed.
And as the gun debate locks in place in Congress, The Times (a long-time advocate for tougher gun laws) offers an editorial outlining various proposals, explaining how difficult they will be to pass and suggesting the outcome relies on "how demanding the public is for credible action."
All of this sets up a test for democracy, and for the attention span of the public and the political process.
What people say they want from their government is very often very different from what people get from their government.
In Pennsylvania, no matter which political party holds the governor's office or the Legislature, any substantive change in gun laws is an automatic, high-capacity NO.
And in Washington, where the only real interest in Congress is guaranteeing reelection to Congress, any "credible action" will be determined by individual members' reelection prospects, not by broad-based polls and certainly not by editorials.
Just can't "let it go", can you Johnnie boy. The "knee-jerk" negative reaction is now just "old news"....you'll have to work overtime.— dogman5- John, seriously, just stop with this stuff. You're not going to take our 2nd amenemdent. We'll die before we allow it. What part of 'shall not be infringed' do you not understand?— mystikast
- For the last time, gun control is not an infringement of the 2nd amendment. This is not an All or Nothing issue. Stop using extremes and polarization as it only makes your argument worse.
— daxtremesolja - So what do you propose? An assault weapons ban? That will have no effect on the semi-automatic rifles already in private hands, and anyway, by far the lion's share of gun violence involves handguns, rather than long arms of any kind. Don't even mention that the single worst episode of school violence in American history involved no guns at all. Ban large-capacity magazines? Great idea. With ten-round magazines, it would have taken Adam Lanza eleven minutes to do what he did instead of ten. And the handguns he was carrying were just as lethal as the rifle.
So are you advocating federal gun laws? What is the defensible logic to have the same rules for Wyoming and Montana that you have for Philadelphia, Washington D.C. and Chicago? That's why we have federalism.
In sum, gun-control advocates want stuff that will only take guns away from the law-abiding. It will have no effect at all on criminals and violence. And our esteemed leadership loves the idea of appearing to be taking action, regardless of the ineffectiveness of those actions. So call me a gun nut. But I would prefer no change at all to some law that's just for show, and only affects people who never did anything wrong.— Section 730 - "We'll die before we allow it"
Big tough guy hiding behind his keyboard.— wokmaster - "95 – 5 percent for requiring background checks for all gun purchases".
What is 95 - 5 percent?— Sportyrider71 - Polls are like cocktails. You pick the one you want, and your friendly statistician will pour it for you.— DonQ
- What the heck does "60 – 37 percent for" mean? Did the writer mean to write "60% for, 37% against"? Then how about writing that, instead of making us figure out what the heck you're trying to say?— Sir John Falstaff
- The problem with citing statistics from cities like Chicago, Philadelphia, New York, Washington, etc is all the guns there are purchased in States like FL and TX that have zero gun control laws and then brought to those cities.— hockeyray
- This comment has been deleted.— tr88
- " The Newtown shooter by the way didnt use an Assault rifle, he left it in the car."
This is a lie and it's been well documented that this is a lie. He left one in the car but not the Bushmaster. He used the Bushmaster in the school.— wokmaster - This comment has been deleted. — tr88
- That's a video from the following morning.
At about 9:35 a.m., using his mother's Bushmaster XM15-E2S rifle, Lanza shot his way through a locked glass door at the front of the school.
http://www.redstate.com/2012/12/27/setting-the-record-straight-adam-lanza-did-use-the-bushmaster-ar-15/
Outside the school, an Izhmash Saiga-12 combat shotgun was found in the car Lanza had driven.— wokmaster - Wow! Your silence is deafening, tr88. — wokmaster
- They must have called all Democrats, moms or people in urban areas for this poll. You go out to Pennsyl-tuckey and see what numbers you get from those sections.— truthfirst
John is the author of the book "On The Front Lines of Pennsylvania Politics: Twenty-Five Years of Keystone Reporting" (The History Press, 2012). Reach John at baerj@phillynews.com.
