PDA

View Full Version : Voter Poll Data Show Broad Support For Stronger Gun Laws In Obama Administration


aileron
11-20-2008, 6:46 AM
I really, really wish this group would die off. I wonder who they polled, and also what their thoughts are on the spike in sales on all things gun.

Also are they smoking crack... I can't believe voters would be saying... please more gun laws.


http://www.bradycampaign.org/media/release.php?release=1085


News Release

Voter Poll Data Show Broad Support
For Stronger Gun Laws
In Obama Administration
For Immediate Release:
11-19-2008

Contact Communications:
(202) 898-0792 Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence

Washington, DC - Post-election polling of people who voted in this last election shows broad support across the country for strengthening background checks and passing other common sense gun laws.

In polling of 1,083 voters conducted between November 5 and 9 by Penn, Schoen & Berland Associates for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, the results showed that “2008 Presidential election voters of every type and description strongly support common sense gun laws and would like to see the Obama administration take action on these issues soon,” according to Rob Green, who headed the gun issue polling effort for the Washington D.C.-based firm. “Support for sensible changes in gun laws is strong not only among those who voted for [President-Elect] Obama; certain common sense restrictions are also supported by the vast majority of McCain voters.”

Penn, Schoen & Berland officials believe the numbers signify a cultural shift since the Supreme Court’s June decision upholding a right under the Second Amendment of the Constitution for Americans to have a handgun for self-defense.

“It is no longer plausible for opponents of gun legislation to assert that gun laws will somehow lead to a total gun ban. The right to own a gun is now recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court, but so is the principle that reasonable restrictions are permissible,” Green wrote of the findings. “Perhaps the most compelling purely political story in this data is that the National Rifle Association is losing their old power to turn elections. A 79 percent majority of voters say that America’s most famous interest group was not an important factor in deciding the election; fully 74 percent of gun owners agree and say the NRA wasn’t a factor… We suspect it is because it’s a post-Heller world.”

The polling results can be found at www.bradycampaign.org/xshare/pdf/memo-11-18-08.pdf. Among the findings:

* More than three-quarters said they would support reasonable gun restrictions. Fully 83 percent of all voters favor criminal background checks for all gun sales, including 83 percent of moderates and 84 percent of McCain voters.

* There is extensive support for a wide variety of gun restrictions, including criminal background checks, registration, assault weapon bans, and a five-day waiting period for handgun sales. Even though these are initiatives that the National Rifle Association opposes, a majority of gun owners still support almost all gun laws tested in the poll. The only exception is when it comes to limiting the number of guns that can be bought at one time, where only 42% of gun owners say they could support the measure. But support remains constant for all other groups, including people who voted for John McCain.

* Voters also say that they want to get things done quickly during the upcoming Obama Presidency. More than two-thirds said that the gun laws they support should be adopted during the first year of the next administration. This is true for McCain voters and gun owners too.

“We’re very pleased to see confirmation that the American people are rejecting divisive approaches to gun issues and are strongly supporting efforts to make it harder for dangerous people to get dangerous weapons,” said Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Campaign. “With the strong support of the American people, we are hopeful that our elected officials will pass laws to make our communities safer for us and our families.”

# # #

As the nation's largest, non-partisan, grassroots organization leading the fight to prevent gun violence, the Brady Campaign, with its dedicated network of Million Mom March Chapters, works to enact and enforce sensible gun laws, regulations and public policies. The Brady Campaign is devoted to creating an America free from gun violence, where all Americans are safe at home, at school, at work, and in our communities.

For continuing insight and comment on the gun issue, read Paul Helmke's blog at www.bradycampaign.org/blog/. Visit the Brady Campaign website at www.bradycampaign.org.

JDay
11-20-2008, 7:18 AM
Don't believe anything on the Brady Campaign site, a quick checking of facts proves that most of what they have on there are outright lies.

oddball
11-20-2008, 9:02 AM
So polling just 1083 participants represents "broad support across the country"?

What a bunch of buffoons.:conehead:

X-NewYawker
11-20-2008, 9:05 AM
“It is no longer plausible for opponents of gun legislation to assert that gun laws will somehow lead to a total gun ban. The right to own a gun is now recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court, but so is the principle that reasonable restrictions are permissible,”

yeah.
Heller is gonna make CA roll back the AWB.
Right.
Thanks, Obama voters, for electing our first motivational speaker as president!

JDay
11-20-2008, 9:14 AM
Thanks, Obama voters, for electing our first motivational speaker as president!

Sounds an awful lot like 1932...

ptoguy2002
11-20-2008, 9:22 AM
B.S.

Centurion_D
11-20-2008, 9:36 AM
More anti gun FUD from the brady bunch..what do you expect? :nopity:

Sgt Raven
11-20-2008, 9:52 AM
From How to Lie with Statistics (1954) by Darrell Huff


Introduction
A well-wrapped statistic is better than Hitler's "big lie"; it misleads, yet it cannot be pinned on you.

AND

Chapter 1: The Sample With the Built-in Bias
Even if you can't find a source of demonstrable bias, allow yourself some degree of skepticism about the results as long as there is a possibility of bias somewhere. There always is.


Chapter 1: The Sample With the Built-in Bias
This is the little figure that is not there—on the assumption that you, the lay reader, wouldn't understand it. Or that, where there is an axe to grind, you would.

Rivers
11-20-2008, 11:04 AM
Why doesn't the NRA hire its own statistical hack to do an equally unbiased poll that would balance out this one?

I especially like the first question, and its flip-side. How many voters were influenced by the Brady Campaign's support? How many voters even know what the Brady Campaign is???

rayra
11-20-2008, 11:09 AM
More anti gun FUD from the brady bunch..what do you expect? :nopity:
I expect them to die, Mr Bond.

Hopi
11-20-2008, 11:11 AM
Funny,

I just called and got transferred to some idiot (Paul, apparently a "VP" of "grass roots organizing"). I asked him what the Brady Campaign definition of an Assault weapon was and he said after multiple "ums",
"Well, you can look at the gun industry marketing from the 80's and get a good idea"

I asked him what determines the difference between an "assault weapon" and a regular semi-auto rifle, and he said, I kid you not,

"what is the difference? I don't have time for you." And then he hung up on me!


Fun. Call that number and ask that question......see if you get any different responses.

(202) 898-0792

Glock22Fan
11-20-2008, 11:17 AM
Actually, although I would never say so to a poller, I support common sense gun laws too, and I guess that most members on this board do so too.

Common sense gun laws would keep guns away from children, (violent only?) felons and the mentally ill.

Common sense gun laws would include additional penalties for criminals using guns in crime.

Common sense gun laws would allow law abiding citizens to carry whatever firearms they wish with full sized magazines and would allow the carry to be concealed. (I have no problem with a permit, as long as that is freely available).

Common sense gun laws permit carry in almost all places, including schools, parks and places where alcohol is sold, provided that the gun carrier either is not drinking or is not above some limit (as in Utah).

It is because many of the sheep haven't really thought about what "common sense guns laws" might mean to the polling organization that results like this may be skewed.

CCWFacts
11-20-2008, 11:23 AM
Yup, those are the basic common-sense laws I would support. Probably not much else.

oddball
11-20-2008, 11:33 AM
Common sense gun laws would keep guns away from children, (violent only?) felons and the mentally ill.

I wouldn't put children in this category.

My son, who is still in elementary school, is already an excellent marksman. Safety-wise, his rifle handling skills are like an adult. The Golden Rules are second nature to him (unlike some of the adults I see on the range). There are children across the country who shoot in junior programs.

Hopi
11-20-2008, 11:34 AM
I wouldn't put children in this category.

My son, who is still in elementary school, is already an excellent marksman. Safety-wise, his rifle handling skills are like an adult. The Golden Rules are second nature to him (unlike some of the adults I see on the range). There are children across the country who shoot in junior programs.

I'm sure he meant purchasing and unsecured access by toddlers etc....

Glock22Fan
11-20-2008, 12:04 PM
I'm sure he meant purchasing and unsecured access by toddlers etc....

I know that there are a lot of middling to older children who are safe with guns. I also read of the case where a gun-safe pre-teen was unable to save his sister's life because the family guns were locked in a safe.

However I doubt that many of us want five year olds running around with loaded Glocks packed with their school lunch.

yellowfin
11-20-2008, 12:16 PM
Deregulating suppressors to make the range more friendly to new shooters, notably women, would also be a change I could believe in.

HowardW56
11-20-2008, 3:38 PM
I really, really wish this group would die off. I wonder who they polled, and also what their thoughts are on the spike in sales on all things gun.

Also are they smoking crack... I can't believe voters would be saying... please more gun laws.


http://www.bradycampaign.org/media/release.php?release=1085


I'm sure they polled all of the voters in their office!

JDay
11-20-2008, 4:25 PM
Actually, although I would never say so to a poller, I support common sense gun laws too, and I guess that most members on this board do so too.

Common sense gun laws would keep guns away from children, (violent only?) felons and the mentally ill.

Common sense gun laws would include additional penalties for criminals using guns in crime.

Gun laws will not keep idiots from leaving loaded firearms laying around where their kids can get to them. Felons and the mentally ill are already barred from owning firearms. And there are already stiffer penalties for using or even having a firearm during the commission of a crime, are you trying to say we need to make these laws stiffer? Do you really think that will do anything?

JDay
11-20-2008, 4:28 PM
Deregulating suppressors to make the range more friendly to new shooters, notably women, would also be a change I could believe in.

The outdoor ranges just need some holes in the ceiling, that would get rid of about 50% or so of the concussion.

DrjonesUSA
11-20-2008, 4:30 PM
I really, really wish this group would die off. I wonder who they polled, and also what their thoughts are on the spike in sales on all things gun.

Also are they smoking crack... I can't believe voters would be saying... please more gun laws.




Did you know that 76.4% of all statistics are totally made up?

javalos
11-20-2008, 5:37 PM
Liberals love poll data, especially when they bias it in their favor. The number they polled doesn't represent the country at all because its minute and depending on where you go to poll, you can get the results in ones favor..example, polling in New York will get you different results than if you polled in Texas.

Glock22Fan
11-20-2008, 5:52 PM
Gun laws will not keep idiots from leaving loaded firearms laying around where their kids can get to them. Felons and the mentally ill are already barred from owning firearms. And there are already stiffer penalties for using or even having a firearm during the commission of a crime, are you trying to say we need to make these laws stiffer? Do you really think that will do anything?


What makes you think that I want to make anything stiffer? As you say, these are mostly already part of the statute book. I'd be happy for them to stay on the statute book, and there maybe one or two more that I haven't thought about yet, but I don't want the other 27,000 laws in any shape or form whatsoever. What the heck did I say that makes you think that I did?

Actually, come to think of it, maybe we should make the penalties for use of firearms in violent crime stiffer or, better still, start applying the penalties that are already there and mostly overlooked in sentencing. But nothing else springs to mind for stiffening.

trashman
11-20-2008, 8:09 PM
I think probably the next natural infringement will be the elimination - in free states - of non-FFL person-to-person transfers (so-called gunshow loophole).

Although statistics show that a very,very small number of criminals obtain guns at gunshows, it is difficult to resist it because prima facie it would seem to be a reasonable restriction that doesn't inhibit gun ownership. It does inconvenience us. My hope would be that the NRA is successful in interweaving into the conversation the parallel discussion about waiting periods -- i.e., what's the point of a waiting period for a person who already owns guns...other than harassment.

I regret it, but I think it's inevitable. And my prediction is that Obama will push this elimination of non-FFL-mediated sales through Congress in the next two years as his token gun policy action to the progressives.

The good news is that it wouldn't really impact us in CA. And hopefully it will be enough red meat for the progressives that they'll drop the issue and move on.

--Neill

Telperion
11-21-2008, 8:15 AM
Support for gun control is a mile wide and an inch deep. The antis have no stake in the game, that's why Brady has no membership base and survives on Joyce Foundation grants.

I'm more worried of gun owners who think "it can't happen this time" or "we can't stop them". Get ready to write and call, a lot.

sorensen440
11-21-2008, 8:47 AM
Lies !!
well that is unless its a poll of brady members that voted

bulgron
11-21-2008, 10:01 AM
Lies !!
well that is unless its a poll of brady members that voted

1083 people is probably about how many members the Brady Bunch actually have. So what this is, is a poll of 100% of the Brady Bunch membership which shows that the Brady Bunch overwhelmingly supports the Brady Bunch's agenda.

What I can't figure out is why they didn't just say that in their press release. :D

trinydex
11-21-2008, 3:19 PM
someone should make a bradeycampaign.org that sets all the facts straight.

Hopi
11-21-2008, 3:21 PM
someone should make a bradeycampaign.org that sets all the facts straight.

Can't Anonymous take care of them for us? :chris:

trinydex
11-21-2008, 3:29 PM
then we should totally like make the hits on that site so strong that most people end up at that site and read all the correct info without any lies.

bulgron
11-21-2008, 3:53 PM
oops, never mind.

trinydex
11-21-2008, 4:45 PM
oops, never mind.

hahaha i think that's exactly why it'd work :D

AJAX22
11-21-2008, 4:56 PM
Probably not 100% legal.....

but... with a infinite loop and a redial list of 1 number.....

http://www.call-center-tech.com/robo-call.htm


you know I don't think we have an innocent whistling smiley face.....

shame....



Funny,

I just called and got transferred to some idiot (Paul, apparently a "VP" of "grass roots organizing"). I asked him what the Brady Campaign definition of an Assault weapon was and he said after multiple "ums",
"Well, you can look at the gun industry marketing from the 80's and get a good idea"

I asked him what determines the difference between an "assault weapon" and a regular semi-auto rifle, and he said, I kid you not,

"what is the difference? I don't have time for you." And then he hung up on me!


Fun. Call that number and ask that question......see if you get any different responses.

(202) 898-0792

nic
11-21-2008, 5:33 PM
you know I don't think we have an innocent whistling smiley face.....

shame....

:innocent:

:whistling:

We sure do. And I think your idea rocks.