77% of Americans Feel Firearm Rights Should Come with Some Restrictions; 14% Favor No Limitations

[SecularMotion]

NEW YORK, April 1, 2014 /PRNewswire/ -- "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Seldom has a sentence in the English language proved more divisive and controversial than the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. While both the pro- and anti-gun movements frequently take to the airwaves with equally strident and dogmatic representatives, it may surprise some to find that, in fact majorities of Americans – across party lines, no less –agree on the middle ground that gun ownership should be legal – but not without some restrictions.

Percentage favoring stricter gun control on the rise

From 1998 to 2010, the percentage of Americans favoring stricter gun control fell steadily from 69% in 1998 to 45% in 2010. In the four years since that low point, this trajectory appears to have begun a reversal, rising for the first time, to 51%.

The vast majority of Democrats favor stricter gun control (76%, vs. 3% who say less strict and 14% who say neither), as does a plurality of Independents (47%, vs. 20% and 25%, respectively). Republicans, meanwhile, are split evenly between feeling gun control should be stricter, less strict and neither (30% each).

Looking specifically at laws related to control of hand guns, 52% of Americans feel such laws should be stricter while 17% say they should be less strict and 22% say neither. Though the percentage favoring stricter laws represents only a slight rise from 50% in 2010, this is again the first time since 1998 that this percentage has not declined.

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/77-of-americans-feel-firearm-rights-should-come-with-some-restrictions-14-favor-no-limitations-253328021.html

[pipoman]

1. Well then

The 77% should be happy since there are some 20,000 firearms restrictions on the books...

[ileus]

2. are 77% really dumb enough to believe there aren't restrictions now?

[blueridge3210]

3. Does the OP care to actually "discuss" the issue,

or only engage in drive by postings?

[oneshooter]

10. No he/she/it does not.

SecularMotion (4,580 posts)
6. I have no interest in your "discussions"

and you'll notice that I didn't disrupt your threads.

[blueridge3210]

11. Hmmm....odd behavior for a "discussion" board. (NT)

[Nuclear Unicorn]

4. What constitutes stricter? Do we know whether or not the preumed stricter laws already exist?

Would better enforcement of existing laws produce the desired effects?

[SevenSixtyTwo]

5. I think we should start with

it being illegal for felons to be in possession of a firearm. It would be a good idea to include people with mental illness as well.

Criminals don't care about laws and restrictions. They're going to be armed no matter what laws are passed. Making it more difficult for sane, law abiding people to arm themselves for self defense is exactly what criminals want. Makes their life easier, not ours.

[rrneck]

8. That's already a felony...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felon_in_possession_of_a_firearm
Being a felon in possession of a firearm is a felony in most U.S. states and in the federal system, per 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). Jay Dobyns has described it as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives' "bread and butter" charge.[1] Per 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2), it is a class C felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison. The U.S. Sentencing Guidelines describes felons as being "prohibited persons" who, if caught in possession of a firearm, have a base offense level of 14, although the offense level jumps to 20 if "the defendant committed any part of the instant offense subsequent to sustaining one felony conviction of either a crime of violence or a controlled substance offense."[2]

[SevenSixtyTwo]

12. Yet we read almost daily

Of some felon being arrested again for crimes committed while in possession of a firearm. How will putting more restrictions on me solve that problem?

[rrneck]

13. It probably won't. nt

[Duckhunter935]

6. well its a good thing

there are already many rules and restrictions on owning a firearm. And how do you feel about this my friend? I would love to hear your thoughts on this.

[SevenSixtyTwo]

14. The laws and restrictions already in place

Haven't hurt me at all. Closing the gun show loophole wouldn't change how I buy and trade firearms. Mag limits? Not a problem. Non scary looking furniture for long guns? I don't really care. But that's just me. I'm not the end all be all of 2A law. Serious collectors and competition shooters also matter.
Speeders and drunks as well as cell phone addicts cause a lots of accidents. One yesterday ran another car into a daycare center and killed a child. We don't push to outlaw cars or put restrictions on law abiding drivers. I can still go buy a 5.0 Mustang GT or Corvette. Bad behavior is already illegal. Punishing the good guys won't stop the bad guys. We need stricter enforcement for laws we already have.

[Inkfreak]

7. Sounds about right.

I don't hear many people saying no restrictions on guns. So that's cool. And it seems 77% still believe in the 2A. So that's cool.

[NYC_SKP]

9. Well of course they do, and should. Knives also come with restrictions.

As well they should, but fewer than guns, which are often more deadly weapons.

Public opinion is cyclical, no surprise that there's a slight rise shown by some data in the percentage calling for stricter regulation.

What's next?

Please find articles that tell us that bicycles have TWO wheels and tricycles have THREE wheels.

Or that water is wet, unless you've got studies that argue against that claim.

[SevenSixtyTwo]

15. Box cutters were used

To commandeer airliners that were flown into the WTC killing almost 3k people. The law abiding passengers with firearms had them in locked containers in checked baggage. Bad guys are pretty creative. If they want to kill you, the easiest way is to make sure you can't defend yourself. That's not to say I disagree with containing and checking my firearms when we fly. Just that disarming law abiding citizens won't stop criminals from carrying out their crimes. It just makes it easier for them.

[NYC_SKP]

16. Some of us are allowed to carry onto aircraft, I wouldn't ever want just anyone to carry, however.

Also, nobody is really forced to travel by air, so I can't support expanding self-defense rights to all the various forms of travel or to all venues.

If privately owned theaters want to ban OD or CC, I'm fine with that. I don't need to see movies to function in life.

[gejohnston]

17. what degree of restrictions are we talking about?

Current restrictions? Pre Gun Control Act restrictions? Pre Heller restrictions? Do they know what restriction exist today?
No limitations means a ten year old with the money, or parents' credit card, can buy an M-60 from Amazon. Anything beyond that is some restriction.