Poll: Federal gun ownership laws not strict enough
PORTLAND, Ore. – More than half of Oregonians believe federal gun ownership laws don’t go far enough, according to a new poll.
In a new Survey USA poll, conducted exclusively for KATU News, 52 percent of those polled said federal gun laws are not strict enough. 33 percent said the laws were just right. Nine percent said they were too strict, and six percent said they weren’t sure.
The poll has a margin of error of +/- 4.5 percent.
When asked whether criminal background checks should be required for every person who wants to buy a new gun, 90 percent of people polled said they should be required. Seven percent said “no” and four percent were not sure.
That poll’s margin of error was +/- 2.7 percent.
Portland Mayor Charlie Hales on Monday said he joined a group of hundreds of mayors across the country calling on local and national lawmakers to take steps to end illegal gun violence. Hales said he wants to require criminal background checks for all new gun owners.
One gun control bill officially introduced Monday at the Oregon State Legislature would outlaw the sale of large-capacity magazines. Another bill expected to be formally introduced this session would call for a ban on assault weapons sales. Based on poll results, the latter will be the bigger fight.
51 percent of voters polled said they oppose a law requiring a nationwide ban on semi-automatic weapons, which automatically load the next bullet after a shot is fired. 39 percent said they support a ban. Ten percent were not sure. The margin of error was +/- 4.5 percent.
When asked if they would support a law that limits how much ammunition a gun can hold at once, opponents were outnumbered two to one. 62 percent of respondents said they would support the limit. 31 percent opposed the law, and seven percent were unsure. The margin of error was +/- 4.3 percent.
That support dropped 13 percent when asked if they would support a law limiting how much ammunition can be purchased at once. 49 percent of those polled said they would support such a law, while 44 percent said they would oppose it. Seven percent said they were not sure.
The poll’s margin of error was +/- 4.5 percent.
KATU's Patrick Preston contributed to this story.
Dear Senators Manchin & Toomey,                  â4/â10/â2013
I commend you for stepping forward and offering a resolution to Common Sense Gun laws. Unfortunately you have missed the major point in all of this. We the people get to decide our laws. Not the NRA! Your purposed bill suggests we make a deal with the DEVIL. We won't be falling for this trickery again. Your "A" rating with the NRA does not impress us.
 "Our bill explicitly bans the federal government from creating a registry and creates a new penalty for misusing records to create a registryâa felony punishable by 15 years in prison."
 This is the NRA wanting to gain more power, like they did when they freed the gun Manufactures from liable cases. This Bill is RIGGED! Not good enough! Loopholes within loopholes! It also allows the NRA to continue arming criminals. It would be a major revenue loss for them if criminals are prevented from buying guns. Plus it would prove all their theories WRONG if crime went down. I suggest you go back to the drawing board and produce a bill the supports the American People, not your wallet. This is not a positive political move on your part. Good Luck........
Sincerely,
Kathleen Kitchen
If I choose to purchase a gun, this is the process I would like to go through. I would like a mandatory training and safety program provided by a certified Instructor. I should be required to pass a written test regarding the training program and pay the necessary expenses for such a course. After completing this course, I would expect to obtain a license so I could legally own a registered gun. I would like all of this info entered in a national database and be considered a responsible gun owner because of these steps I have taken. If we all did this, we might be able to keep our guns out of the wrong hands. Right now, all I am seeing is the consequences of irresponsible gun owners. None of this has anything to do with the 2nd amendment, which has been hijacked by the NRA, for no other reason then the almighty dollar! Require Insurance, as well. This will compensate people for hospital bills and burials. Then tax the hell out of all of it!
I would love to see a ban on .223 and 5.56 ammunition. This is the ammo used in these military style weapons. It dismembers and decapitates its victims. Not needed for any use by the American public. Military Only! Every trauma surgeon in the World would agree! Without ammo the guns are of no use.
@Kathleen Connolly Kitchen And no more 30-06 ammo for hunters, as that was a military round, and FAR more powerful than a 223, oh and the 45-70 black powder round was military, as well as the 9mm Luger, 8mm Mauser, 45ACP, 308 Winchester(aka 7.62x51 NATO), and just about every other common round. Nearly every successful caliber has either originated in a military design or been adopted by the military. Nearly all of the advances in bullet technology have come from the civilian hunting and self defense markets. Nearly all of the advances in firearms technology come from the civilian market. In some cases, bans on guns actually spur further development - before the Clinton "assault weapon" ban in 94, most of the small guns were small caliber low capacity guns designed around the turn of the century, or copies of them - and the larger capacity guns like a Beretta 92 or Glock 17 were very large. A 10 round magazine limit created a new market, and a new arms race - to create the smallest gun in the largest possible caliber that would hold 10 rounds. A new era of concealable pistols was born.
@Kathleen Connolly Kitchen By the way, if .223 (5.56) dismembers & decapitates, then why is it so popular for small game hunting and rarely used for large game (deer, for example)?  I'll go ahead and answer: because it's just not that powerful of a round for medium to large game.  Simple.
This is horsepucky. Plain and simple. Biased poll. Enough said.
It would be really refreshing if the media went back to journalism and did some research into issues instead of just waiting to create the next copycat. Anyone who thinks that disarming law abiding citizens is an answer is greatly mistaken. There is no need create additional laws relative to the sale of firearms, magazines or ammunition. There are plenty of laws on the federal and state level which are able to be enforced if needed. There is also that pesky 2nd amendment which still means something to a lot of us.I respect that not everyone wants to exercise their 2nd amendment rights, it's your choice assuming you've still got the option and previous bad acts or bad decisions haven't made you a prohibited person. What I have no tolerance for are folks who don't know the facts and are quite willing to do harm to not only the public safety of Oregon but it's economic base. There are thousands of federal firearms licensees in the state and thousands more doing business in the region. There are firearms manufacturers, companies who manufacture firearms accessories and related gear. There are also many thousands of other good jobs in machining, metal finishing, laser engraving, trucking and transportation, metal suppliers etc. that are gainfully employed because of firearms in the state of Oregon. Folks might want to do some homework on what the negative impacts really are before embracing a feel good measure that once again requires that law abiding folks be penalized. Murder has been illegal for quite a while now, that doesn't seem to stop folks from killing each other and more gun laws won't stop it either. However more guns in the hands of law abiding folks would make a significant difference for the better.
Those are great numbers! Â And mirror those of other states. Â We need background checks for ALL gun sales (including private, which currently do not require them), banning high-capacity ammo magazines, and other commonsense measures. Â Lawmakers, pay attention!
90% of people polled said all new gun sales should require a background check huh? Well, since it's already a law and we already have to submit to fingerprinting and an FBI background check we are already covered. End of story.
Yeah, a poll of randomly-selected Oregonians in downtown Portland. Bluest of the blue.
hhmm non bias im sure... govt. and media is pushing this anti constitutional crap and all the sheeple are letting them... guns..are not just for sport..not just for hunting.. they are also used for protection, from criminals, animals, and when needed the govt. america has had to fight for its freedom more than once. and will probably have to do it again. by limiting mag size and such and all this other b.s. just makes the law abiding citizen ripe pickings for the bad guy... and our over controling government. gun laws are unconstitional and illegal as it is. however they do need some rules which are already out there to help keep them out of criminals hands.. although that isnt stopping them from having it.... people dont be dumb... criminals dont abide by laws so how is punishing the good people help the situation?
I'm too busy catching up on Shot Show news right now, so I don't have time to check the poll's methodology myself. But I wonder if they gave the people surveyed a quick rundown of current laws before asking them the questions.
Â
If that wasn't part of their methodology then this poll doesn't actually show support for stricter laws, it merely shows ignorance of the law.
 @ChrisJ82 ~  Good point, Chris..!   Personally, I give very, very little credence to these polls; there are just too many ways to influence them one way or the other...
How about the laws against illegal aliens? Aren't they strict enough, but not enforced!!!!!!!!!!!!
 @jpk Didn't one of our Oregon politicians refuse to act on Federal laws concerning illegals a few years back? A Liberal I think.Â
I wonder how many of the people who answered these questions failed to realize their 10/22 is considered an assault weapon because they were envisioning a machine gun, or how many don't realize their glock magazines are some of the purported "high capacity" ones because they are envisioning those jam-o-matic beta c-mags?
 @ChrisJ82 ~ Yep..  I also read (in one of the several hundred posts on this subject today)... someone wrote something about defining a semi-automatic pistol as being one that automatically places another round into firing position after the gun is fired.   So... that would also include REVOLVERS, would it not..?   I mean, when I fire my little S&W, it fires and the cylinder turns, and the next round is in place for the next shot...  Â
Semi-auto revolvers..? Â Â
 @margay1 Yup, ultimately making the only allowed handguns to be muzzle loaders or single action revolvers. Just like the new New York law incidentally also outlaws stripper and en bloc clips.
Â
As we're found of pointing out over and over again, these things are clearly not about crime but about making criminals out of innocent people.
That's a lie!  We the people all support GUN RIGHTS! The media doesnt want to defend our constitution right!  Katu isn't on my side!Â
 @america no common sense! My thinking exactly. I think KATU hired Survey USA to hand pick people for this poll , and probably not a one was from around the Portland/SW Washington area.
more than half of Oregonians or more than half the Oregonians hand selected for the poll?
I think gun holders should have to carry a card that says they have had a psyc evaluation and passed. And then gun safety classes.. There are some pretty whacky people out there with guns including some people on this discussion thread. Kind of scary.
@Luckylucy  Um yeah, it's called a CHP - concealed handgun permit. Issued after fingerprinting and an FBI background check. In multnomah county the safety class is required for issuing the CHP. Next arguement.....
 @Luckylucy That's your problem. We don't get to know what drugs your family members are on or what side effects they suffer, so, you don't get to know ours either. Go tell it to the ACLU.
Â
Of course the right wing could say the same thing about marijuana. Or just ban it. Because if they ban it, nobody will use it. And if it's legal, all cardholders should have a psych evaluation and drug safety classes. There are some pretty whacky people out there with weed...
 @Playanekes  @Luckylucy Wrong btw.....the reason you can't find out what drugs someone is taking is because of HIPPA, sponsored by Sen. Nancy Kassebaum, who happens to be a Republican.
Â
This was in response to privacy concerns related to electronic patient records.
 @last boyscout Something tells me we'll find out tomorrow and we will pick this up again I'm sure.
 @deejm2112 Laws are made to be ignored. Just watch Obama.
 @Playanekes How about the adadicktome folks, seems kind of whacky. Maybe a card should be carried....where do you want to stop?
 @Luckylucy I think Liberals should carry the same..;-)
 @last boyscout  @Luckylucy ~ I think all POLITICIANS should carry 'em (the cards; not guns!)...Â
 @last boyscout  @Luckylucy Took the words right out of my mouth.....
http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/01/15/3183246/two-robbery-suspects-shot-dead.html
Â
8-}
http://www.kens5.com/news/SAPD-Car-thief-killed-another-wounded-outside-Stone-Oak-home-186923501.html
Â
8-}
@RalphCramden That article doesn't help the situation at all. I don't have any personal sympathy for the thieves. However, death penalty for breaking into a car. Or for standing next to the get away car, just as guilty, but... yeah that's an article that will be used by the other side of the debate.
 @JTesla Â
Â
It will cut down on crime in the area. Events like this always do. Criminals will pick easier targets like gun free zones. There aren't a lot of those in Texas any more.
 @diddy_bop  @JTeslaÂ
Government does not create jobs. It is a net drain on tax recourses.
 @RalphCramden  @JTesla crime being out of control equals job security for police, judges, P.Os, C.Os, DEA, ATF, FBI, and is a huge money maker for private prisons. Â
Â
why are you against job creation, ralph?
 @deejm2112  @JTeslaÂ
It's all a matter of opinion.
Â
Plus shooting a minor criminal now and then keeps the crime rate under control. Word gets around and the criminals look for easier targets till the shooting of a criminal gets a little hazy in their minds.
Â
As for violent crime in gun free Chicago it is out of control with 1.4 murders per day.
 @RalphCramden  @JTesla Crime is at an all time low Ralph...you know that.
Â
People do not deserve to be killed (or executed) for petty crimes.
 @JTesla Â
Â
Crime is out of control because government is not doing anything effective about it. Time for the citizens to take charge.
@RalphCramden True, but at what point does society cringe and react as they have with Sandy Hook and call for change? If the thief had been 12 years old... does society call for restrictions on when guns can be used, when they can be carried? Just look at the Zimmerman case. Questions were raised, but it didn't have the catalyst that we have now.
Here ya go folks. Just buy/build/steal a 3D printer and print your own high capacity magazine:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/01/14/gunsmiths-3d-print-high-capacity-ammo-clips-to-thwart-proposed-gun-laws/
 @JohnQ.Public Since Vietnam there have been millions of magazines released, used, discarded, stored, lost or worn out in America. Refurbishing them is as simple as replacing a spring.  All you need is one to make a template and you can stamp out your own parts for one. Sure it's illegal but, HAHAHa!!!  Nobody uses water pipes for marijuana, either. 'Cause it's illegal.
As long as we ALL allow the argument to be focused on any particular weapon, the game is lost REGARDLESS of which side of the aisle you're on.
Â
The high moral ground here is being held by those who espouse banning "assault weapons" with the implied intent of saving lives, but they are NOT interested in SAVING LIVES they are interested in removing weapons from the hands of Americans.
Â
Don't let the argument STAY focused on the weapon, but rather on SAVING LIVES.
THAT is a discussion we can all get into, and it will bring true and meaningfully positive change to the lives of us all.
Â
We all know guns don't kill people, just as cars don't kill people, etc...
Â
We could BAN all firearms, but if it didn't save lives, why bother?
@Umhal For me, that argument fails with the discovery by the pro gun control side of only one life saved right. Thatâs all that is needed, killer X could have fired one more bullet killing person Y and poof the argument that restrictions could save a single life answers the âwhy botherâ question. It's not about saving ALL lives, no plan will save all lives wonât be saved. All lives wonât be saved if you have armed guards at schools. All lives wonât be saved if you collect and ban all firearms. Is the role of the government a role to dictate to the people what items they can and cannot have? Perhaps to a degree, and the difference among us is simply where we draw that line of what we allow to be dictated to us. I draw it in a location of very little restriction, don't limit my access to fat foods, tobacco, or firearms... others envision a different roll of government. However, I don't think your argument would win those people over.
 @JTesla Well certainly you are right to point out that I'll not change minds with this argument... those that vehemently oppose will continue despite air tight arguments.
(even if I could come up with an air tight argument :))
Further, I agree it's a matter of where people draw the line. Â
I don't believe that one child is more important than the next, specifically speaking: using those murdered children to remove from my hands the best tool I have to defend my own sons and daughters is beyond morally repugnant. Â I find it abjectly insulting!
Â
No one (on either side) has said "ALL" lives, so that's not an issue. Â Just as we've seen ormom here in the forums repeatedly ignore the proof of the intent of the 2nd Am. (an individual's right) there are those whose minds are made up and can't be bothered by the facts. Â
I won't bother to speak to the intractable, but (grin) If i can change the mind of one person, then it's worth it!
 @JTesla  @Umhal But by putting in terms of lives saved, we'd want to look at how defensive gun uses grossly outnumber homicides, from that we can see there are substantial lives saved due to the sort of arms in common use at this time.
 @ChrisJ82  @JTesla The anti's wouldn't allow that conversation to happen, sadly.
Â
@ChrisJ82 You'd want to, but the other side will look at it as they do now: if the guns in question aren't made or sold, they won't fall into the hands of criminals as much. So you are keeping the "good" defensive gun, but eliminating the "bad" offensive gun. Your math then becomes their math. It's not my personal argument, but... well I just like to be a stick in the mud I guess. Quotes because it's a tool and not something capable of moral decisions.
Breaking news. http://www.facebook.com/LinnSheriff
Â
You have got to see this. Â
Â
"We must not allow, nor shall we tolerate, the actions of criminals, no matter how heinous the crimes, to prompt politicians to enact laws that will infringe upon the liberties of responsible citizens who have broken no laws."
Â
WHAT A STALLION!
 @Playanekes Outstanding!
@JohnQ.Public @Playanekes Something else for the pro side to look at.
http://www.guncontrolmorecrime.com/