60% favor stricter gun laws. 4% favor less strict gun laws.

The real issue is how many support what changes. Even the new AWB is DOA. Background checks will happen. The rest is in doubt.

Most all of the pro gun people support changes too. However we want meaningful changes, not the feel good crap that the original AWB turned out to be.

Things I support:

NICS checks or equivalent on all transactions, even private party transaction, inheritance, and gifts. My approach would be a Federal FOID that you would automatically get at 18yo so they are not a "firearms ownership licenses", a common objection to that approach. The check is then if the FOID is still valid for the sale to proceed. This is easy from the IT perspective. Note the NRA rejects the FOID approach.

Limitation of pistol magazines to what fits inside the grip of the gun. Require that new designs not support magazines that extend beneath the handle (BATF already has authority to force design changes). This is readily demonstrated by the Ruger line of .22LR handguns and the Astra 400/600. Grandfather or buy back at retail price non-conforming magazines. This approach also slows down magazine changes. Note that the NRA has rejected magazine limitations

All firearms must be secured when not in use, being cleaned, transported, etc. While California got stupid on parts of this, its the right thing to do. Some will miss their old time glass front display cases or wall rack, but proper security is a must. Would consider an exemption for non-functional devices. I believe the NRA has fought mandatory safes. It adds costs to gun ownership, but this has to be done.

Mandatory reporting of theft or loss. This is a no brainer. A number of pro gun people say they will report theirs missing to avoid registration etc. That should be felony country.

Enforce the existing Federal laws about false paperwork by purchasers. Bloomie and I even agree on this one

Somethings I have mixed feelings about/no definitive solution:

Mandatory owner training. It is not required to exercise any other enumerated right, but I have seen some very scary stuff over the years. Not sure what the standards should be, but I come down on the side of some training being required. The NRA has fought this.

Mandatory safety training for children. Enough for them to overcome their natural curiosity and get an adult should they find an unsecured firearm. While some would find that more offensive than the fundies find sex ed, until things change, its basic safety and needs to be done. Not sure the best way, but it is clearly called for. NRA has not taken a stand on this but does offer such classes. I don't see it as a talking point.

Waiting periods. For someone who already has firearms, not sure what purpose they serve. For first time owners I support them. Overall I think they are a good idea. Not sure what the right time length should be. 1 weeks seems good. There are reports that Lanza tried to buy a rifle but was stopped by the mandated waiting period (if the media reports are to be believed). NRA opposes waiting periods

Better mental health reporting and supervision. Seen a number of posts on that here. Clearly something is called for, but how to do it is not clear. Loughner never should have been allowed to have a gun. Also we cannot and should not demonize the mentally ill and the people who serve them as some have done. The NRA has fought additional reporting of some types of problems yet is trying to blame the "crazies". Go figure

Most Americans support tightening things, but there is a wide range of what we want done. The full up AWB is DOA since most of us do not support all of it.

The way Rachel used the numbers inferred that 60% support the Feinstein AWB. That is clearly not the case.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/160085/americans-back-obama-proposals-address-gun-violence.aspx

If the AWB does not pass, it won't be because "most of us do not support all of it", unless by "us" you mean "Republicans".

It also shows a wide variation in support for the different measures. It is also about a month old.

because that determines how politicians will vote. They answer to their constituents, not national polls.

For example, I doubt that those Senate Dems up for reelection in 2014 that come from conservative pro-gun states are getting a lot of pressure from their constituents to support gun control.

It will have an effect.

in many places, even if it grows, it will still be a minority opinion.

Judging by how things are progressing it is doubtful it will have a significant impact.

Isn't it great that our political system allows one party to subvert the will of the people and push an right-wing agenda that only a minority of the population supports!

there is a reason an AWB was DOA in the Senate. Harry Reid is not impacted by GOP gerrymandering of House seats.


The House GOP doesn't have to actively oppose the most stringent gun control measures - Senate Dems are doing that heavy lifting for them.

They might get a few conservative Dems from red states, but the people pushing the right-wing gun agenda are Republicans.

Still, as the poll show, the majority is clearly with the progressives in this case. What you are celebrating is the fact that the right is skilled at subverting the will of the people. I can only imagine your excitement when W stole the 2000 election.

Harry Reid has said there will be no AWB.

Face it - Dems are just as good for gun owners as repukes. Why do you think there are so many gun owning Dems?

suspicion that you live in a fantasy world. I was already pretty sure after the poll trutherism, but thanks for removing any doubt!

I support his EOs, universal background checks and limits on magazine size. The only place we part ways is the AWB but even that does not have universal Dem support.

The difference between me and you is not as great as you would think. But you work hard at being outraged so I doubt it will make a difference.

It's actually just over 60%. Rachel is not, as an above poster claims, loose with numbers.