See the Poll the NRA Doesn't Want You to Know About

[Omaha Steve]

Voters of Every Type Overwhelmingly Support
Common Sense Gun Laws

Wow was I happily surprised when I saw these poll results! It's more good news for sensible gun laws.

According to a National Post-Election Omnibus Survey, there is strong support for sensible gun laws in every region of the country, among voters who own guns and those who do not, across partisan and ideological lines.

We are on the right track, and that's why your financial support is so important. We don't want to waste a moment. Please give a gift to the Brady Campaign today.

The poll, conducted by Penn, Schoen & Berland, found that three-fourths of voters (76%) favor reasonable gun regulations in general, with more than four out of five (83%) — including 84% of McCain voters and gun owners — favoring Brady criminal background checks for all gun sales.

https://secure2.convio.net/mmm/site/Donation?ACTION=SHOW_DONATION_OPTIONS&CAMPAIGN_ID=6562&autologin=true&JServSessionIdr004=gyydxs4dz1.app23a

Rather than driving a wedge between voters, this poll shows that common sense gun laws can help elected officials find a sensible middle ground that protects American families and communities while gaining the support of most voting groups.

We will use your contributions to make sure that our elected officials see these important results and fully understand the sea-change that is taking place in the politics of gun violence prevention. We must convince them to take action like passing universal background checks, including closing the gun show loophole, to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people.
Please make as generous a contribution as you can today.

Sincerely,

Sarah Brady, Chair

P.S. If you would like to read the results of the national voter poll, click here. And please make your contribution today.

If this e-mail was forwarded to you, click here to sign up for your own Brady Campaign alerts.

Donate to Support the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

You can also mail a check to:
Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
1225 Eye Street NW, Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20005

[derby378]

1. I have some serious challenges to that poll

1. Penn, Shoen, and Berland's methodology for choosing survey participants is unclear; it only identifies said participants as "confirmed Election Day voters." No demographics are provided in terms of geography, family income, ethnicity, gender, etc.

2. A survey size of 1,083 participants is far too small for a poll that should be used to determine a major public policy change such as banning semi-automatic firearms.

3. The term "military-style assault weapons" skews the poll as it has no uniform technical definition - it is only a media buzzword promoted by the gun-control lobby to make the fear levels rise and to get people to willingly sign over their rights in exchange for some illuson of "safety." According to HR 1022, your grandfather's M1 rifle qualifies as a "military-style assault weapon."

4. Support for banning semi-automatic firearms has fallen over the past few years, even with the sunset of the 1994 ban. Paul Helmke is actively promoting a sinking ship.

5. A quick visit to OpenSecrets.org will show that the Brady Campaign has been steadily losing donors and money over the past few election cycles. The economy may share part of the blame for this, but I cannot help but wonder if the Brady Camapign is losing average Americans to more sensible voices on gun legislation who believe that safe communities are possible without harsh, draconian gun laws.

[Bill McBlueState]

22. what do you think would be an appropriate sample size?

It looks like they were going for a 3% MOE; what would you recommend?

[derby378]

26. For starters, I think the sample size should be at least 7,000

The demographics of the participants and the questionnaire wording should also be taken into account.

Also, the poll does not indicate how many states are represented in the survey. I think a survey like this should encompass voters from all 50 states, no matter how tired some people may be of Alaska. :)

[Bill McBlueState]

28. I wonder why you want 7000

That brings the margin of error down to 1.2% from 3.2%. Pollsters are unlikely to want to call seven times as many people just to narrow the margin of error by a couple percentage points.

[derby378]

30. Perhaps, but it would allow for a better sample from each state

I see your point, though.

[slackmaster]

31. Penn, Schoen & Berland is a "market research and consulting" firm, not a polling organization

They're in the business of determining effective marketing strategies, not taking unbiased measurements of public opinion.

Gaming Your Competition

Every communications challenge, like every business challenge, is a competitive challenge. But while most people in the business world would admit this, very little corporate research is conducted using truly competitive methodologies. At PSB, we use a political model and political methodologies to ensure that everything we test is battle tested, and that before we recommend a strategy or execution we know that it will win.

Beyond just enabling us to give better advice, our competition-based research methodologies mean that we can better predict how specific communications approaches will work in the market. We care far less about how something scores against an historical database of largely irrelevant benchmarks, and much more about whether what we recommend will beat what the contrary and competitive voices are saying and doing, today, in the real world. It’s this approach that makes our research not some academic exercise, but a true laboratory in which the results are projectable and the recommendations actionable. And it’s this competitive approach that often transforms what companies realize they can get from research, and why once even the most successful companies and executives use us they continue to use us over and over.

(Underlining added for emphasis.)

http://www.psbresearch.com/pillar1.htm

As I noted in my initial response, this is a "push poll", designed to develop a message to sell a pre-defined objective (i.e. donations for the Brady Campaign), not to uncover a truth about public opinion or verifiable facts in pursuit of public safety.

[Captain Hilts]

32. Yes, they do polling and that's how a lot of marketing is done.

The general public is FAR more in favor of gun control that our government.

[slackmaster]

33. The general public believes in angels and opposes same-sex marriage

Uninformed opinions don't impress me, and are not a sound basis for public policy.

[rhett o rick]

47. You are correct there is no "uniform technical" definition of a military

style assault weapon. To be uniform you'd have to get the NRA to agree which they will never. But we all can easily tell the difference between a deer rifle and a military style assault weapon. You don't need either fully automatic or semi-automatic weapons for killing deer. you don't need magazines holding 30 bullets either.

[quiller4]

53. Most hunting rifles are semi-auto

The only difference between a military style assault weapon and a hunting rifle is appearance. The hunting rifle is just as lethal. In fact you could make an argument that a Remington 700 or a BAR are more lethal because they are more accurate than the M 16 clones.

[Edweird]

54. 1) it's not about 'need' it's a RIGHT, 2) US Gov. v. Miller

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller

The Court also looked to historical sources to explain the meaning of "militia" as set down by the authors of the Constitution:

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

[slackmaster]

2. Gee, you think people might want to agree with things that are called "reasonable"?

I think I am a reasonable person, so I would have to answer "Yes" on that one too. Classic push poll methodology.

...more than four out of five (83%) — including 84% of McCain voters and gun owners — favoring Brady criminal background checks for all gun sales....

From the way this is worded, a person might get the impression that federal law doesn't already require background checks on all gun sales over which it has any authority.

:eyes:

Here's some light background reading for people who aren't in the know about current federal gun laws:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000922----000-.html

Your state probably has additional ones. I know mine does.

Remember, 52% of people in CALIFORNIA voted to ban same-sex marriage. Majority opinions are not always well-informed.

I wanted to see more information about the poll itself, e.g. what specific questions were asked, but it looks like the OP is just trying to drum up donations.

BTW - In Before Move To Gungeon.

:hide:

[onehandle]

3. I'm not surprised. All sensible actions. nt

[madrchsod]

4. my father in law gave up his lifetime membership

when the nra started the assault weapon crap. he could`t understand why anyone would hunt with one of these guns. it`s really no surprise that the vast majority of americans think this way. the nra realize they are in the minority when it comes to this issue. it`s to bad they don`t worry about the environment they hunt in.

[derby378]

5. It's because the Second Amendment isn't about hunting

There is no "hunting and sporting purpose" test in the Constitution.

[jmg257]

34. With due respect to your father...he is naive about semi-autos and the 2nd amendment.

Good for him if he likes hunting, but I care little of HIS opinion premised on an admitted lack of understanding, other then it seems to be typical of those who really do not know much about this topic, and so may shape the issue the wrong way.

Then, I wonder too about what EXACTLY the so-called "vast majority" thinks..

..according to the Gallup Poll. In January 2007, the number of people who supported stricter gun laws was at 49 percent, less than a majority for the first time since at least 1990.

LOS ANGELES, Aug. 21, 2007 /PRNewswire/ — A recent Zogby International poll question conducted for Associated Television News found that 66% of the American voting public in a recent poll of 1,020 Americans from August 8-11, 2007 (margin of error of +/- 3.1%) found that the American public rejects the notion that new gun control laws are needed.
The poll asked: “Which of the following two statements regarding gun control comes closer to your own opinion?
Statement A: There needs to be new and tougher gun control legislation to help in the fight against gun crime.
Statement B: There are enough laws on the books. What is needed is better enforcement of current laws regarding gun control.
Conversely, only 31% of the American public think new and tougher gun control legislation are needed.

[BurningMan]

6. Re:

While I personally agree that so-called "common sense" gun laws do not violate the spirit of our right to bear arms, it seems likely that the only real affect of such laws will be to drive more profits into the hands of people selling guns illegally.

[slackmaster]

7. Appeals to "common sense" and "reasonableness" are just ways to demean anyone who disagrees with you

It's called Poisoning the Well.

Welcome to DU!

[BurningMan]

16. Thanks for the welcome...

There is a reason that I prefaced the phrase with "so-called." ;)

[Trajan]

8. Expect to be bombarded by the Gungeonites ...

Oh .... There they are ....

[slackmaster]

10. Gun control is passe, with Democrats in charge of the whole .gov the Bradyites will be hurting

For money. That's what the link in the OP is really about, not the poll.

[derby378]

12. Oh, come on - the poll's own numbers work against it

Penn, Shoen, and Berland's survey size is only 1,083, and the methodology for choosing survey participants is unclear; it only identifies said participants as "confirmed Election Day voters." No demographics are provided in terms of geography, family income, ethnicity, gender, etc.

To put that in perspective, I'm a precinct chair in northern Dallas. My precinct has around 2,700 registered voters, so even if all 1,083 poll respondents lived in my precinct, they would still be a minority. If someone were to tell me that Dallas' gun laws should be shaped by the minority view of my precinct, I would tell that person he was nucking futs!

[GoneOffShore]

9. Interesting - Did you put on your asbestos bullet proof vest before you posted this?

:popcorn:

[bread_and_roses]

11. Thanks for posting this OmahaS

I see we already have someone above quibbling about gun terminology - as if most of us cared exactly what definition these weapons meet. It's beyond my comprehension that anyone can look at the gun deaths in this country and not realize that we have a serious problem with the easy availability of guns - but none so blind, as they say.

[slackmaster]

13. My problem is the inherent dishonesty of the OP

The subject line says it's about a poll, but if you go to the link you can see it's really just spamming for contributions.

[derby378]

15. Laws have to be based on facts, not fashion or emotion

Remember how Stephen Colbert always talks about thinking with his gut instead of his head? Sure, it's satire, but I'm tired of legislators who do the same thing. And that applies to gun laws as well.

[Omaha Steve]

14. Second Amendment rights (I have a few arms too)

I believe in protecting home, life, and hunting. I have a couple of low key arms. I have no problem with responsible owners. Locked cabinets, trigger guards, etc.. Those that sold the arms to the Columbine kids, don't fall in the responsible category. I don't believe citizens need fully automatic assault weapons. Collectors of classic (historic) arms are ok with me as long as they are registered and responsible!


http://www.expressandstar.com/2008/11/13/collector-jailed-after-rifle-found/

Collector jailed after rifle found

A memorabilia collector has been jailed for five years for possessing a Second World War rifle listed as a prohibited firearm. The rifle was not in a condition to fire live ammunition.


But Stafford Crown Court heard replacing the deteriorated pin would have made that possible. Phillip Peter Kent, aged 29, of Owen Walk, Highfields, Stafford, was arrested in the street by police acting on information at 7.30am on June 20 this year.


Officers asked what they would find if they searched his home and he immediately told them about the Lee-Enfield rifle.


Mr Stephen Bailey, defending, told the court yesterday Kent had not bought ammunition nor sought to make any alterations to allow live bullets to be fired.


He also said Kent, a former member of the Territorial Army, was told by the seller the weapon had been de-commissioned.

Mr Bailey said: “He is a collector of memorabilia . To his knowledge the rifle was not capable of firing. He paid £100 for it from a man in Hanley about a year ago. He never knew about firearms legislation.

“He was told by the person who sold it to him it was de-commissioned. He was a bona fide, not secretive, collector and was immediately and absolutely co-operative.


“The gun was in the state in which he received it and, although that does not make it a non-prohibited weapon, there was no ammunition, no evidence of his seeking any or of intentional or actual use.”


Kent pleaded guilty to possessing the rifle. Pleading with Judge John Maxwell to spare him the minimum five-year jail term for this category of offence on the grounds of exceptional circumstances, Mr Bailey said: “Custody would be devastating. It would deeply affect his family and he would lose his accommodation.”

But Judge Maxwell said Parliamentary guidance meant strong sentences should be given for illegal firearms possession. “I feel bound to impose the minimum sentence of five years,” he added.


http://www.expressandstar.com/2008/11/13/collector-jailed-after-rifle-found/

[derby378]

18. "I don't believe citizens need fully automatic assault weapons"

We're not talking about full-auto - we're talking semi-auto. If I want full-auto, I'll seek out an NFA license, submit to an extensive background check and a 60-day minimum waiting period, and save up my pennies for an expensive gun.

I hear you, but you'll have nothing to fear from me owning semi-auto.

[rhett o rick]

48. Can't you easily convert the semi auto "assualt" type weapons into fully auto

fairly easily. Don't they sell the parts in the gun magazines. And silencers too

[ManiacJoe]

49. No, you cannot easily convert a semi-auto to

a select-fire automatic.

Silencers are legal to own in many places. You just need to fill out the federal and state paperwork, pay the fees, survive the background checks.

[rhett o rick]

50. Maybe not for you. The parts are available in ShotGun News. And silencers can be purchased in

pieces in Gun Magazines legal or not, background checks or not. And you can buy most anything you want at a gun show.

[slackmaster]

21. I haven't seen anyone on DU calling for a repeal of the National Firearms Act

At least not recently.

:hi:

Collectors of classic (historic) arms are ok with me as long as they are registered and responsible!

I collect curio and relic firearms. My state has handgun registration, so all of my handguns that have been acquired since 1968 are registered. However, there is no place for me to register rifles and shotguns, other than in my own bound book.

[derby378]

23. As gung-ho as I am, even I don't want NFA repealed

If someone can make a convincing argument for repeal, I'll listen. But I have my own reasons for keeping it in place that have nothing to do with crime. During the Great Depression, some corporations hired strikebreakers to patrol the assembly lines with Thompson subguns in hand to discourage any union activity. When Franklin D. Roosevelt signed NFA into law, I don't think a single company agreed to eat the $200 tax just so they could keep intimidating workers.

Keep NFA, but don't expand it. I see no reason to add .50-caliber rifles to the Class 3 list.

[slackmaster]

25. I would like to see my state lighten up on sound suppressors

California has completely banned them except for LE and military.

NFA regs do a very good job of keeping them out of the wrong hands, and they do save hearing. With increasing urban encroachments around rural gun ranges, allowing (or requiring) suppressors could help keep the peace.

[derby378]

27. You know, Finland takes the opposite approach to suppressors...

IIRC, if you get a hunting license and a gun license in Finland, the government absolutely insists that you mount a silencer or suppressor on the muzzle. The reason? Public health issues. The government doesn't want you to suffer hearing loss as a result of bringing food home to your family from a legal hunt.

That sort of approach would probably go nowhere in America, but I see the logic behind it.

[-..__...]

40. I wish that they would at least repeal the 86 ban...

and reopen the NFA registry so that full auto firearms would be more affordable to us commoners.

Hell... I'd gladly pay the $200.00 tax (even though I think it's unconstitutional).

Of course, being able to afford to feed the beasts would be another problem ;(

[derby378]

41. You and me both

There is no sensible reason for the 1986 ban to remain on the books. Charlie Rangel pushed it through the House by what we might consider less-than-ethical means, and we've been stuck with it ever since.

[jmg257]

37. Why should my historic pieces be registered? My M1, my M1 Carbine?

My 1922? My SKS?

Why would they need to be registered?

[Omaha Steve]

42. I meant like a thompson auto

I too have an M-1 carbine.

[slackmaster]

43. Fully automatic firearms already have to be registered

National Firearms Act of 1934.

[jmg257]

52. You are aware then that your carbine is on the list of "assault weapons", right? nt

[-..__...]

39. This happened in Great Britain.

How is it relevant in this country?

[aikoaiko]

17. Reasonable gun control -- use two hands.

SPAM some other forum with your donation posts.

[old mark]

19. The Brady bunch - more of their lying shit.

They are as bad as the NRA about using scare tactics to generate money for their organizations, and not caring if what they are saying is true or not.

Sarah, you are full of shit.

mark

[aikoaiko]

20. Since DU is now a forum for soliciting donations for organizations involved with gun rights/control

The NRA supports Democrats who are better than their republican counterparts on the 2nd Amendment. Feel free to donate here.

https://membership.nrahq.org/forms/donate.asp

[Omaha Steve]

24. Same can of worms I opened 3 weeks ago when a sport gun group backed Obama

I got blistered for that too. I'm headed to bed. Have a union meeting tonight. Then work a late shift. I'll peek at all the follow up when I have time.

[derby378]

29. Would that be AHSA, by any chance?

I've talked with Ray Schoenke on the phone in the past. I think he and I can get along.

[jmg257]

35. Wow - pretty wild turn around in only a year...last years' polls said just the opposite...

..according to the Gallup Poll. In January 2007, the number of people who supported stricter gun laws was at 49 percent, less than a majority for the first time since at least 1990.

*****

LOS ANGELES, Aug. 21, 2007 /PRNewswire/ — A recent Zogby International poll question conducted for Associated Television News found that 66% of the American voting public in a recent poll of 1,020 Americans from August 8-11, 2007 (margin of error of +/- 3.1%) found that the American public rejects the notion that new gun control laws are needed.
The poll asked: “Which of the following two statements regarding gun control comes closer to your own opinion?
Statement A: There needs to be new and tougher gun control legislation to help in the fight against gun crime.
Statement B: There are enough laws on the books. What is needed is better enforcement of current laws regarding gun control.
Conversely, only 31% of the American public think new and tougher gun control legislation are needed.



Wonder...is it just the wording, but lack of real explanation, as to what is "reasonable" and "sensible"(?).

Recently the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment supports an individual right to own gun, with reasonable restrictions. With this in mind, do you support or oppose the passage of laws placing reasonable restrictions on guns?
Support reasonable restrictions on guns
Oppose reasonable restrictions on guns


Shit - even I "could support" some reasonable restrictions on guns. As long as I get to define what "reasonable" is. Which wouldn't include a few of this poll's choices.

Either way, these guys are probably thrilled that Prop 8 passed, after all, a majority thought it was a good idea too!

NEVER let your basic rights be subject to a popularity contest!

[aikoaiko]

38. thank you. I was looking for that poll.

[-..__...]

36. Constitutional rights should not be subject to negotiation, compromise...

or whatever the public wants.

Legislation based on foolish flights of fancy and irrational fear have no place in this country.

That is all.

[depakid]

45. Even the most direct language in the Bill of Rights- the 1st Amendment is subject to

reasonable time, place and manner restrictions.

[Junkdrawer]

44. K&R

[rasputin5]

46. Fuck the Republican Brady gang.

...

[Redneck Socialist]

51. LOLZ!

The brady bunch?! Seriously!? :rofl: