According to Pew Research polling:
"The balance of opinion on whether it is more important to control gun ownership or protect gun rights has been more closely divided in recent years than it was in the early 2000s or 1990s. From 1993-2008, majorities said it was more important to control gun ownership than to protect gun rights. (For more on long-term attitudes on gun control and gun rights, see “A Public Opinion Trend that Matters: Priorities for Gun Policy,” Jan. 9, 2015.)
There continues to be a substantial partisan gap in opinions about whether it is more important to control gun ownership or protect gun rights – much larger, in fact, than the gap over specific gun proposals. Nearly three-quarters of Democrats (73%) say it is more important to control gun ownership; 71% of Republicans say it is more important to protect gun rights." . . . As previous Pew Research Center surveys have found, there is broad support for expanded background checks even from those who say it is more important to protect gun rights than to control gun ownership.
About eight-in-ten (82%) of those who say it is more important to protect gun rights favor expanded background checks on private gun sales, as do 88% of those who prioritize controlling gun ownership."
In forty years, nobody has answered my question about the efficacy of any--repeat, any--gun control law in reducing the rate of violent crime involving firearms.
ReplyDeleteSome 200 million firearms have been sold since the advent of the 4473. Millions of those have been sold and quite likely then re-sold in face-to-face dealings. So how can "more background checks" accomplish anything worthwhile? Per testimony to Congress, our own federal law enforcement people have stated that no more than some 2% or 3% of firearms used in crimes came from the hackneyed "gun show loophole" or private face-to-face sales.
Art
I would never sell nor give a firearm to somebody who was known to be mentally unstable or had a violent criminal history. This safety measure is every gun owners' responsibility. Like not allowing a drunk behind the wheel. Policies that only go as far as to prevent or mitigate dangerous public threats are reasonable. For example, an instant background check for purchasing a firearm. I always use the medicinal analogy when describing gun control laws. Too few have zero therapeutic effect. Too many are toxic and damaging overall. Such laws should be limited to real public threats.
ReplyDeleteAgreed. We don't need unconstitutional laws that operate against gun ownership and carrying law-abiding citizens. I am not opposed to making all gun sales subject to background checks.
ReplyDelete