Poll: Tragedy Hasn't Changed Views On Guns

Despite Va. Tech Shootings, Nation Remains Split On Gun Laws, No Rise In Demand For Tighter Controls

(AP)  The nation is profoundly split along gender, racial and other lines over gun violence and what the government should do to control it, despite near-universal sorrow over the Virginia Tech shootings, an AP-Ipsos poll has found.

Women and minorities are far likelier than men and whites to view gun violence as a major problem, to worry about being shot, and to want stricter firearms laws, said the survey, which was taken after the killings.

Fault lines also exist by political party and where people live, with Democrats and city dwellers taking a far dimmer view of guns than Republicans and suburban and rural residents. Though similar divisions have long existed, the findings spotlight how each group's views remain entrenched despite this week's shootings, the worst gun slaying in modern American history.

"It's just too easy for anybody to go in and buy a gun," said Daphne Renolds, 59, an office manager from McDonough, Ga., a respondent in the AP survey.

Though Monday's horrific killings of 32 students and teachers — plus the gunman — were fresh in people's minds, there was scant movement in their attitude toward gun laws. Forty-seven percent said firearm controls should be tightened, 38 percent said they should remain unchanged and 11 percent said they should be loosened — about the same as in a January survey.

Six in 10 women think gun laws should be toughened, nearly double the proportion for men. Fifty-five percent of minorities favor stricter legal requirements, compared with 44 percent of whites.

"Would you put a sign out on your front lawn saying, 'This is a gun-free house'? That's what you're doing" by restricting guns, said building contractor Charles Clements, a 60-year-old white man who lives in St. Louis.

Federal law generally requires firearms dealers to conduct background checks on gun buyers, and prohibits sales to convicted felons and some people who have been legally declared to have mental problems. State restrictions vary widely, with differing rules over the types of weapons that can be sold, waiting periods for purchases and regulation of gun dealers.

Nearly 60 percent of Democrats favor stricter gun laws, almost double the number of Republicans, with more women in both parties supporting tougher standards.

Though the 1999 killings at Columbine High School in Colorado swelled public interest in gun control, the issue has barely been a blip in recent years when people are asked about their major national concerns. Though Democrats now control both chambers of Congress, their leaders are eager to spread support for their party in rural, pro-gun parts of the U.S. and have given no indication they intend to make a major push for firearm controls.

Just more than half in the survey say they are likelier to support a presidential candidate who favors tougher gun control laws, with the bulk of that support coming from women, minorities, city residents and Northeasterners. Far more Democrats than Republicans voiced that preference, while independents were split about evenly.

"They're too easy to get. Anybody can get a gun," said Walter Bell of Richmond, Va., who is black. "People are getting killed every day somewhere," said Bell, 60, who owns a janitorial company.

Sympathy for the families of the Virginia Tech victims abounds, with 90 percent expressing deep sorrow for them. That is about the same as said gun violence is a serious problem.

I have been around or owned guns for as long as I can remember (73 years). The thought had never occurred to me to have taken a gun to school or kill someone cold blood, but maybe only as self defense. If only one person had a legal gun (or not legal) at VT, 32 people may be still alive. Gun free zones kill zones as the evil person knows he will not face return gun fire. Gun control is for the honest citizen, thugs will still have guns.

I have been around or owned guns for as long as I can remember. The thought had never occurred to me to have taken a gun to school or kill someone cold blood, but maybe only as self defense. If only one person had a legal gun (or not legal) at VT, 32 people may be still alive. Gun free zones ae kill zones as the evil person knows he will not face return gun fire.

[jwbowman7]

I am a 57 year old former Marine-a combat veteran. I have been a gun owner for three-fourths of those years-long before I obtained a CCW permit and have yet to harm anyone with a gun or even threaten them. Gun ownership does not make a person evil. When someone is harmed(except in self defense measures)it is because the offensive act is pre-meditated. If we have committed a pre-meditated act it becomes evident the evil is in the heart of the person not in the instrument chosen for harming someone. Guns are not evil-there are only evil humans! Therefore, what amount of legislation will change that! None! We must enforce the already existing laws which allow for the punishment of those who choose to do harm to others! Why does common sense not prevail! I AM NOT evil because of the presence of guns, ball bats, sticks, stones or any other object I can hold in my hand! In fact, I own and/or have access to all of these objects and in 57 years of life have chosen to harm no one with any of them-but I would use them to defend my family or myself! It's called survival!
One last comment I have selected from the Bible (Life Application Bible)found in the Book of Jeremiah ch 17 vs 9a. "The heart is the most deceitful thing there is, and desperately wicked. No one can really know how bad it is...."
This does not make me a religious fanatic, but this fact is evident when common sense prevails.

[cptn747]

Perhaps the time has come for %u201CLaw %u2013 Abiding%u201D citizens to become %u201Ccriminals%u201D: criminals like me. Yes, I proudly admit it: I AM A %u201Ccriminal%u201D. For the past 40 years I%u2019ve lived in a State which denies citizens their Constitutional right to carry a gun, by refusing to issue them CCW permits. Therefore I chose to become a %u201Ccriminal%u201D. I carry a gun without a permit. As a college student, I carried it to class. Prior to airport metal detectors, I carried it aboard airliners. With the advent of metal detectors, I purchased my own aircraft and still carry a gun whenever I fly. I carry a gun when ever I leave my home. Had I not become a %u201Ccriminal%u201D, I would have died many years ago: the victim of an attempted street hold-up. But I was an armed %u201Ccriminal%u201D, so I was not the one who died that night. Perhaps it%u2019s time for more of us who live in Lib controlled States to become %u201Ccriminals%u201D instead of remaining Sheep.

To bad there were not more of us "criminals" around at VA Tech recently.

[raybo41]

Where did Cho get his Walther P22? If he had been denied the sale of the glock through legal channels do you really think he would have cancelled his horrendous killing spree? Idon't think we are being told the truth about alot of of the facts in this case. This was a very intricate,well planned terrorist attack from start to finish that took months to plan and execute. It took an intimate knowledge of faculty and security schedules and habits,plus their threat response, wich was undoubtedly scrutinized during the bogus bomb threats. The diversionary murders in the dorm and the resulting wild goose chase for the "jilted" lover were ingenious. If Cho was truly the imbecile that he is portrayed to have been, then a different criminal mastermind gave birth to this diabolical attack. The guns,the chains,the manifesto, the diversion,the actual shootings,all acomplished with tactical precision. I believe that he did not act alone. I am also very interested in his family's Saudi Arabian connections inadverdently revealed by his grandfather. This is an informative sight on the Ismael connection: http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/jonsson042007.htm

[bigkountry2]

Well I propose we ban vehicles since they have killed more people then guns or maybe cigarettes, alcohol?, knives, medicine?, how about crooked politicians?, I can go on all day. Guns set this country free and guns keep it free. Even without the 2nd amendment, if you read the entire bill of rights we still have a right to keep and bear arms. What about the National Guard (militia). You mean the milita that was established well after the 2nd amendment and bill of rights was written? I am sure if we establish more gun control all the criminals who commit crimes with guns or other weapons will gladly hand over their guns along with the law abiding citizens who want to obey laws.

[libertarian7]

Okay, and one more thing. And then I promise I'm gone for today. If we are willing to take guns from average citizens, are you willing to take them from police officers? I asked a police officer, and he said that there were more officers commiting crimes than permit holders. So, if you feel safe with a cop near by, you should feel safer with a gun-carrying permit holder nearby! If you take guns away from normal people, but let govt workers (like police officers) keep theirs, your saying that those people have more power than the average citizen. It has always been an idealistic belief of mine that in America, The People ARE the government. Therefore, if we are governing ourselves, we should be protecting ourselves. Our government is not going to commit genocide tomorrow. They probably won't even do it next month, or next year. But the first step in genocide is always the removal of gun rights. If we do this willingly, we are saying that we put absolute trust in our government. We are saying that we do not feel that our fellow citizens should be as trusted as the fellow citizens elected to office. Abusive governments don't erupt in a day. They evolve over time. Don't let the first step in that evolution be the removal of our right to protect ourselves.

[libertarian7]

To middleman8:
What do you mean, that every day there would be a shooting? That is the most ludicrous thing I've ever heard! There is no statistical evidence to back that up! Most people with gun permits, by the way, commit less crime than an average person without a license. So, if only people with permits had guns, the ones with guns are less likely to be criminals than the ones without. Check the numbers. And what was that about 3rd graders? NOBODY IS SUGGESTING THAT SMALL CHILDREN CARRY WEAPONS! Of course, that doesn't make them not dangerous. An 11-year-old commited first degree murder on a fellow student using - guess what? A rock.

[libertarian7]

Oh, yeah, and another thing. Some people think there should be a "waiting period." What, exactly, would that accomplish? This Cho guy obviously didn't do this on spur of the moment. If he needed to, he would've waited the time. Most people who commit gun crimes don't even bother with the laws. "Crimes of passion" if you want to call it that, happen usually inside a pretty small time frame, starting time being the time the criminal decides to kill someone. Plus, the harder you make it for people, criminal or non, to get guns, the more show up on the black market. Remember when they tried to ban alcohol? Yeah, that worked well.

[libertarian7]

What would be the point in banning automatic weapons? The Cho guy used two handguns! Obviously, he didn't need automatics to kill many, many people. And as for what use are automatics to any other than criminals? Some people keep them as part of collections (yes, there actually ARE people who collect guns). Some people might keep them for educational purposes, or maybe even militia training or something. I don't know. But just because YOU can't think of a "good use" for something doesn't give you the right to ban it from other law-abiding citizens. Plus, have you ever heard the saying "Give the devil an inch, he takes a mile?" That applies to people, too. If automatics go, what's next? Semi-automatics? Then what?
I'm right there with many people, though, in that if we have a gun permit program, people as mentally ill as Cho should definitely not be allowed to purchase them. But that's a fault in records. Nobody bothered themselves to check his mental history, and so this terrible tragedy occurred. No one person (or weapon) is to blame for this tragedy, unless it is Cho himself. Because when it comes right down to it, that's the whole thing: Gun control comes from the person behind the trigger, not however many laws you shove in front of it.

[a_lautz]

rheola,

If you are going to post an article to make a point, please post the entire article, and maybe check the facts. here is the original article: http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,21602317-910,00.html

It is people that want to twist and misrepresent the facts, that are causing the problem. I checked ABC, and they obviously left out facts pertinate to the article. If you trust and qoute mainstream media in this day and age, you are a fool that only wants people to see their side of the story, and further their own agenda. Even if the facts are contrary to their own veiws and opinions.

[a_lautz]

And this from the Australian Bureau of Statistics

METHOD OF SUICIDE

In 2003 the most common method of suicide was hanging, which was used in almost half (45%) of all suicide deaths. The next most used methods were poisoning by 'other' (including motor vehicle exhaust) (19%), Other (15%), poisoning by drugs (13%), and methods using firearms (9%). This distribution was consistent with that of the previous few years. However, over the decade strong trends were apparent such as the increase in the use of hanging, and a decrease in methods using firearms. See Table 4 for data on broad groupings of method of suicide.

http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/0/a61b65ae88ebf976ca256def00724cde?OpenDocument

[a_lautz]

More revealing is the acceptance by gun prohibitionists that the trends in homicide, long cited as the reason for the buy-back of legally owned firearms in 1996, were not altered following the buy-back of 1996. The only thing gun prohibitionists are left with is the symbolism of the buy-back. This symbolism is becoming increasingly tarnished as the data increasingly shows the only thing the Australian tax-payer got out of the buyback was the expenditure of over 500 million dollars and the community schisms caused by the unchecked vitriol against licenced firearms owners

Dr Jeanine Baker of Adelaide

[a_lautz]

As one of the authors of a 2006 study on Australia's buyback scheme, I was intrigued to read the reports of further research undertaken by the political advisor and economist, Andrew Leigh. I certainly look forward to seeing the item in a peer reviewed journal rather than made as unsubstantiated claims by the authors in the media. Gun prohibitionists are quick to claim the significant decrease in firearm suicide highlighted in our 2006 study means the gun buy-back worked. It is a pity they are less erudite about non-gun suicides and are willing to ignore the implications of the trends in non-gun suicide in Australia. Following 1996, non-gun suicides increased markedly before declining rapidly. It is gun prohibitionists who "cannot have it both ways" given this inconvenient trend in non-gun suicides. The declines observed in non-gun suicide are certainly not due to the gun buy-back and these declines make it impossible to claim that declines in any category of suicide are due to anything other than societal changes and the huge influx of funding into suicide prevention programs following 1997.

[rheola-2009]

A_lautz

To not look at overall suicide rates, and say you saved lives doesnt make much sence. And then to ademantly deny that the overal rates are significant, is redicuous. Obviously there was no significant change in overall rates, or they would be saying that "overall sucides have dropped by 280 since the gun buy back". That would be very powerful data. But its not true, over all suicide rates did not drop significantly, only the method in which they were committed.
Posted by A_Lautz at 11:05 PM : Apr 22, 2007

But there is no mention of the non gun suicide rate increasing, so in fact there were overall a significant fall in suicides, of between 120 and 280 per year.

Note extract of original post below.

"We said, 'well hang on, if the non-gun suicide rate had gone up then you would've said that people were substituting to non-gun suicide methods'," he said.

"We think the original authors can't have it both ways - really you've just got to look at gun suicides and we think they've gone down a lot."

[a_lautz]

Suicide data suggest gun buyback successful: ANU team
A group of researchers say Australia's gun buyback scheme that followed the Port Arthur massacre in Tasmania 11 years ago could have saved up to 280 lives per year.

et. al.

Posted by rheola at 02:10 AM : Apr 22, 2007

To not look at overall suicide rates, and say you saved lives doesnt make much sence. And then to ademantly deny that the overal rates are significant, is redicuous. Obviously there was no significant change in overall rates, or they would be saying that "overall sucides have dropped by 280 since the gun buy back". That would be very powerful data. But its not true, over all suicide rates did not drop significantly, only the method in which they were committed.

[fizzal-2009]

anyone can blame the gun or the mental attitude in these killings but nobody seems too blame the lack of security in metal detectors interlocked too the doors or electronic card key,s too alow only certified access, Why not just leave the doors off the building?

[gunownerdan]

"The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one
designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances
where all other rights have failed -- where the
government refuses to stand for reelection and
silences those who protest; where courts have lost the
courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their
decrees. However improbable these contingencies may
seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free
people get to make only once."
- Justice Alex Kozinski, US 9th Circuit Court, 2003

"Today we need a nation of minute men; citizens who are
not only prepared to take up arms, but citizens who regard
the preservation of freedom as a basic purpose of their daily
life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice
for that freedom. The cause of liberty, the cause of American,
cannot succeed with any lesser effort."
- President John F. Kennedy, January 29, 1961

"Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom
under any government, no matter how popular and respected,
is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms ...
The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee
against arbitrary government, one more safeguard, against
the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which
historically has proven to be always possible."
- Hubert H. Humphrey, Senator, Vice President, 22 October 1959

a-human-right.com

[rheola-2009]

Suicide data suggest gun buyback successful: ANU team
A group of researchers say Australia's gun buyback scheme that followed the Port Arthur massacre in Tasmania 11 years ago could have saved up to 280 lives per year.

A 2006 study that concluded the gun buyback had no impact on gun homicide or suicide rates has been revisited by economists in Canberra and Canada.

They say the original study was flawed because of the data used.

Dr Andrew Leigh from the Australian National University (ANU) in Canberra says the gun buyback was successful because the number of gun suicides have dropped significantly.

Dr Leigh says his study shows it has saved between 120 and 280 lives per year.

"We said, 'well hang on, if the non-gun suicide rate had gone up then you would've said that people were substituting to non-gun suicide methods'," he said.

"We think the original authors can't have it both ways - really you've just got to look at gun suicides and we think they've gone down a lot.

"Even if you take the bottom level of that and take the standard estimate that economists put on the value of a statistical life - $2.5 million - then that suggests to us that the buyback paid for itself in the first two years.

"It was $500 million one-off and it continues to save lives."

Mutiply these figures by approx 14 to equate with the U.S. and seriously save some lives.

Source
www.abc.net.au

[gunownerdan]

"Let me make a point here, in case this isn't becoming
extremely clear. My state has gun control laws.
It did not keep Hennard from coming in and killing everybody!
What it did do, was keep me from protecting my family!"
--Dr. Suzanne Gratia Hupp, Killeen Texas Luby's massacre survivor

www.a-human-right.com