I think they were testing semantics because that's what this legislation is going to come down to: foolish semantics.
Without a doubt that's what it will come down to.
There's also a
~3% margin of error in the Pew Poll, so I wouldn't try to parse the difference between 58% and 55% too closely. The best/clearest takeaway is that about 55% support an "assault/semi-auto" ban and 40% oppose it.
I think the key chart is this one, which examines areas where gun owners and non-owners agree (or don't):
I see I'm aligned with the gun owners (though I am not one) on the question of not letting crazy people get guns (90% of owners favor). What's with the gapthough? (on the next-to-last line, above) Why don't non-owners think this is a good idea?
Interesting poll. I'm a gun owner, but not your typical gun owner. I grew up in a house with guns (shot guns and hunting rifles) and inherited a number of my father's guns. I've never purchased my own. I have zero interest in really anything gun related. I'll never hunt or go to a shooting range on my own and I don't for one second feel that I'm "safer" with a gun nearby. I certainly don't believe that I need to have a gun in case of a necessary coup. That said, I grew up hunting and target shooting and understand the appeal.
Here's how I stand:
Ban on Assault Rifles: Torn. I don't see the need or desire to own one, but the desire is certainly there among many law abiding citizens. I guess a compromise would be to only allow purchase and use of assault rifles (inc. those with burst and automatic capability) at/by licensed ranges. That way people can still have fun using them and they can be locked up tight in a secure location. They're designed to kill and have no business in a home.
Federal Database: Absolutely.
Ban on High Capacity Ammunition Clips: What's "high capacity?" I can't see a need to have more than 7 rounds in a clip. I think anything over 10 is obscene. High capacity clips should be allowed at ranges with assault rifles, but locked and kept there.
Ban on Semi-Automatic Weapons: No way. There are too many types of semi-automatic weapons. My 1100 holds 5 rounds (incl. the one in the chamber) and gets jammed up after about 10+ rounds of shooting. Pump action shotguns aren't technically semi-auto, but they can be equally if not more dangerous (less jamming than many of the semi's). Semi-auto with small capacity clips can be useful in hunting, target shooting and even self defense (although I don't believe in guns for that). I think a ban on semi-automatic weapons would be a major blow to lawful gun owners everywhere and do little stem gun violence.
Ban on Online Sales of Ammunition: Eh, I don't know. Maybe monitor it better? Minimize the number of rounds that can be purchased online within a certain period of time? Limit bulk-buying of rounds to in-store purchases. There has to be a way to make online sales safer without a complete ban.
Background Checks at Gun Shows and Private Gun Sales: Absolutely. Self explanatory. It's a major loophole.
Armed Security Guards or Police at Schools: No. But increased random "drop-ins" by police wouldn't be a bad idea. If you must have an armed person in the school at all times, disguise the armed officer as the "full-time" DARE cop, an Air Marshal type person (maybe these rotate through school districts on a weekly/monthly basis) who blends in as someone with a guest pass or a visiting parent? Even at the high school level, have your armed guard or officer teach 2 periods of criminal justice or something. I hate the idea of elementary, middle and high school kids walking past an armed guard every morning. It would really put a damper on the carefree tone of school and detract from education. Even as an adult, I have a hard time "getting used" to the armed officers walking through the airport when I'm there. Kids won't get used to an armed guard, especially if he's carrying the type of firepower required to stop a lunatic with assault rifles, shot guns and hand guns.
I don't know that a single armed guard will prevent some mentally ill person from going postal in a school. If the school is 100,000 square feet, one guard may have a hard time doing really any good if the gunman with an assault rifle enters the opposite end of the school. Besides, the challenge of taking on an armed guard may be incentive for some nut jobs. The problem with these school shootings is that they're random and few and far between. There's no way to predict them, and there's (unfortunately) no way to defend them without compromising the entire educational process.
Laws to Prevent Mentally Ill From Owning:
Yeah. Definitely.
More Armed Teachers:
No. I think that having armed teachers creates an even more dangerous situation. One in which many non-professionals (which they are even if they get additional training) are now wielding guns. As they're non-professional, we can't know how they will react in a Newtown like situation. Bystanders could easily be shot (do you have any idea how inaccurate hand guns are? Especially in the hands of a recreational user?). Furthermore, you'll see more "accidents" like a teacher misplacing his gun, a student walking off with it, and potentially a crazy person previously without access to a gun getting one from a teacher and turning it on the class. Arming more teachers has the potential to be a disaster.
I'd see racing ahead on anything that has the support of 60%+ of gun owners (and hope that budgetary constraints nix armed school guards)
Israeli airport security has taught us that the best strategy is to look for killers (who are easy to spot if you're looking) and not weapons (which are everywhere).
I agree on both counts.
Re: why more non-gun owners don't support banning sales to mentally ill people. I'd imagine that it has something to do with a lot of non-gun owners being extreme bleeding hearts and can't bring themselves to "discriminating" against the mentally handicapped. I could be wrong though.
