Search This Blog

Loading...

Thursday, March 8, 2012

New poll shows wide Hispanic support for more gun control

It was back in November of 2011 when Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG) announced a new poll commissioned through Lake Research Partners that shows Latino voters want more gun control.  From the survey: 86 Percent Support Requiring a Background Check on All Gun Sales; 76 Percent Support Obama Administration Program Requiring Firearms Dealers in Border States to Report Bulk Sales of Assault Rifles.

Hispanics also want stronger laws to govern the sale of guns and believe that states, not the feds, should control who carries a concealed weapon.  This is in direct opposition to the Nat’l Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act currently going through the U.S. Congress.  They want their state of residence to control who can carry there, not the potential loose laws from a state like Arizona where almost anyone can buy a gun and carry it just about anywhere.

More findings:

  • 69 percent of Latino voters believe laws governing the sale of guns should be stronger
  • 
    Universality of concealed carry
    
  • A large majority of Latinos, including more than 70 percent of Latino Republicans, Latino gun owners and Latinos over 50, believe that people from other states should  not be allowed to carry a loaded and concealed gun in their state unless they meet their state's legal requirements
  • 86 percent of Hispanics support requiring all gun buyers to pass a criminal background check, no matter where they buy the gun and no matter who they buy it from
  • 76 percent of Latinos favor a new Obama Administration program requiring gun dealers in border states to report when someone attempts to buy more than one semi-automatic assault rifle within a five-day period

The beauty of this philosophy is that it comes from the fastest growing minority group in the U.S.; with over 16.3 percent of the population, Hispanics number over 50 million people.  According to the Pew Hispanic Center, a record 9.7 million Latinos (50% of Latino eligible voters) cast a vote in the 2008 presidential election.  In the 2010 midterm, 6.6 million Latinos voted—31% of Latino eligible voters. 

Pew estimates that more than 21.7 million Hispanics are eligible to participate in November or 22.6 percent of total U.S. voters.  Does that mean we can expect more activism on gun control in the future?



The Lake research poll also backs up a recent nationwide survey that shows Americans “overwhelmingly” oppose the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity act, H.R. 822.  Here’s an interesting comment from one of my blog posts on the carrying of concealed weapons:

“Guns are bad for the same reasons why an arms race is bad. If a bunch of loons are allowed to come into our state with their guns and play Nimrod, then I, a non-gun owner, will now have to escalate and get a gun for myself.  If you agree that the arms race is a bad idea, then so is this escalation of gun ownership. It's bad for everyone except the gun sellers.”

I have said this before but it bears repeating.  I have never been in a position myself—nor have I ever known anyone who was in a position—to need a weapon to protect myself.  And even if I was, I still would not want some “Nimrod” to come to my rescue.  I think I would be more afraid of their likely untrained actions than my attacker.  

Perhaps we should herd all the gun worshippers onto their own exclusive reservation, which would mean more protection for the rest of us by law enforcement.  Now that’s a law I could support.

Here’s an article you might want to take a look at: “Guns easily get in the hands of people who go on deadly shooting sprees.”

8 comments:

  1. No one would view a poll that was commissioned by the National Rifle Association as having any credibility, and the same should be true for a poll commissioned by gun control groups. It is best to look at independent polls like Gallup or Rasmussen. Of course, the NRA does not conduct its own polls or commission others to do so. They rely on independent polls.
    The Gallup poll of October 26, 2011 found that 60% responded that they believe that current gun laws be enforced more strictly and NOT pass new gun laws while only 35% believed that current gun laws be enforced more strictly AND pass new gun control legislation.
    In the same poll, 55% responded that laws covering the sale of firearms be kept the same or LESS strict while only 43% responded that laws be made more strict. Also 53% oppose a new “Assault Weapons” Ban as opposed to 43% that favor it, and 73% oppose a ban on a ban on handguns except by police and other authorized persons while only 26% favor such a ban.
    Obviously, MAIG’s polling organization designed the poll to reflect the position of the organization, and it has no credibility.

    “If you agree that the arms race is a bad idea, then so is this escalation of gun ownership. It's bad for everyone except the gun sellers.”

    The opposite is the case. Firearms rights have been expanded over last several years, and more citizens are now free to carry firearms in more places. Yet, homicides, including homicides with firearms, as well as all other violent crime have been decreasing since 2006. Moreover, after a dramatic increase in firearms sales and ownership after the last Presidential election including an increase in first time firearms purchases and an increase in firearms carry permits, gun ban groups and zealot predicted that there would be a corresponding increase in murders. However, the U.S. homicide rate decreased from 5.0 per 100,000 in 2009 to 4.8 per 100,000 in 2010.

    Preliminary data from 2011 shows Murder is down by 5.7%, Rape down 5.1%, Robbery down 7.7%, and Aggravated Assault down 5.9%

    http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xls

    http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl01.xls

    http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl01a.xls

    http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2011/december/crime-stats_121911/crime-stats_121911

    “I have never been in a position myself—nor have I ever known anyone who was in a position”

    When my sister lived in Tennessee she advocated gun control, and she stated that she supported a total ban on handguns. When she moved to Atlanta with its high rate of violent crime her views changed, and she got her firearms carry permit, took up shooting as a sport, and became an excellent marksman. In two separate incidents attackers tried to force their way into her car while she was stopped at traffic lights, both times, she brandished her Glock pistol, and both times the attackers fled. Jack, if you had your way my sister and the 2.5 million citizens who use firearms for self-defense annually would be victims.

    http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/KleckAndGertz1.htm

    “Perhaps we should herd all the gun worshippers onto their own exclusive reservation, which would mean more protection for the rest of us by law enforcement.”

    The criminals would love that idea. They would know where to find unarmed victims, and criminals love unarmed victims.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree on the polls. Let's just forget them and get down to the meat of the matter, daily shootings/killings on the street across the U.S. You say crime is down. You wouldn't know it by my regular posts, "Gun insanity state by state," that I always have ample material for. Since we don't always know where these people get their guns, one must assume it could be due to loose gun laws that allow more dangerous weapons on the street. And AK-47s, one of which was used in a recent killing, who the hell needs these other than the military and law enforcement?

      I am truly sorry that your sister had to go through this but you will never know how it would have turned out had she not had the Glock. Regardless of how well she was trained, and most are not, I do not want some vigilante force protecting me. Only law enforcement has the training to handle this job. If you look at most states, a very few have stringent education/training requirements to own a gun. Arizona has none...zip...nada. It is for this reason that I am against concealed carry.

      Re. herding all gun worshippers together on a reservation, you missed the point completely. With those people out of the way, law enforcement would have less to protect and not be spread so thin, thus, could deal with the criminals adequately. And I am not against people arming themselves for protection in their homes; to me that is a valid issue and could help solve that side of the problem. Just keep your gun there, secured, as many gun owners have also failed to do.

      Jack E. Dunning
      Nasty Jack Blog

      Delete
    2. Jack, thank you for your reply. The point you missed is that firearms rights have been expanded, more citizens are now carrying firearms in more places and crime has been declining since 2006. This is the exact opposite that citizen disarmament would have us believe. The murder rate in 2006 was 5.7 per 100,000, and in 2010 it was 4.8 per 100,000. Murders fell 5.7% in the first half of 2011.
      “And AK-47s, one of which was used in a recent killing, who the hell needs these other than the military and law enforcement?”
      When I purchased my AR-15 over thirty years ago no one called it an “Assault Weapon.” It was just considered the semi-automatic version of the fully automatic M-16. Citizen disarmament zealots started calling such rifles “Assault Style Weapon, and later an “Assault Weapon” in the hopes that the public would be deceived into believing those weapons are the fully automatic military weapons. They were successful some extent. My father-in-law, a World War II veteran was watching a news report on a proposed “Assault Weapons Ban.” He said “Wait a minute, those aren’t assault weapons, those are only semi-autos.” It should also be noted that in 2010, Aks, ARs, Uzis and all other semi-auto “Assault Weapons” as well as all other rifles accounted for 358 murders nationwide. That is less than three percent of all homicides and comes to less than two per day. Not only does that mean that no one in you state will be murdered by an “Assault Weapon” or any other rifle this month but likely not next month, or even the month after that.
      By contrast, over four times the number of murders, 1,704, were with knives or cutting instruments, over twice the numbers of murders, 745, were with hands, fists, feet, etc, and more murders, 540, were committed using blunt objects like clubs, hammers, baseball bats, etc.
      http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xls

      Delete
    3. Continued
      “Only law enforcement has the training to handle this job.”

      Jack, as a former law enforcement officer I can tell you that way too many LEOs weapons only leave their holsters for their annual qualification, and many agencies have extremely low standards. Most carry permit holders I know are like my sister, and they shoot for sport on a weekly basis. Furthermore, if untrained armed citizens are a problem than cite all the instances where accidently shot a bystander. Citizens with carry have proven that they are not a danger to the public, and even legislators and law enforcement that opposed firearms carry laws have acknowledged this.
      Jack, you say “If you look at most states, a very few have stringent education/training requirements to own a gun.”
      Look at Vermont. The Brady Campaign views Vermont as the worst case scenario, and they give Vermont a score of 6 out of 100 for its firearms laws. Even though citizens in Vermont are free to carry firearms both openly or concealed without a permit, and despite the fact that they are free to carry their firearms in restaurants that serve alcohol and even while consuming alcohol, the homicide rate in Vermont was 1.3 per 100,000 in 2009 and 1.1 per 100,000 in 2010. Of the eight homicides that were committed in Vermont in 2009 none of them were committed using firearms, and of the seven homicides committed in 2010, only two were committed with firearms.
      http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_04.html
      http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_20.html
      http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl04.xls
      http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl20.xls
      http://www.bradycampaign.org/stategunlaws/scorecard/VT

      With those people out of the way, law enforcement would have less to protect and not be spread so thin, thus, could deal with the criminals adequately.”
      Jack, there is such a place you speak of. It is called Switzerland. Switzerland ranks third (45.7) in per capita civilian firearms ownership 100.000, and it unlikely that military weapons kept in Swiss homes are included since they are property of the Swiss Government. Yet, their murder rate was an extremely low 0.71 per 100,000 in 2009.
      http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/fileadmin/docs/A-Yearbook/2007/en/Small-Arms-Survey-2007-Chapter-02-annexe-4-EN.pdf
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_rate
      Once again, as a former law enforcement officer I can tell you that law enforcement is not spread thin trying to protect people like you from lawful firearms owners like me, my sister, or the millions of other citizens who choose to exercise their right to keep and bear. The problem is with repeat violent criminals all of whom are prohibited from even touching a firearm.
      “Just keep your gun there, secured, as many gun owners have also failed to do.”
      If my sister kept her gun in her home she would have been a victim. The bottom line is that the facts show that citizens that choose to keep and BEAR arms, even in those places that do not require a permit like Vermont are not a danger to the public. Criminals are the problem, and public policy must focus on the criminal rather than the lawful firearms owner.

      Delete
    4. William…crime was decreasing long before the peak of the gun proliferation. You can get as technical as you want but, as I said, assault rifles are meant for the military and law enforcement only. What possible need could you have for such a weapon than to kill someone? And thought we had agreed to forget discussing stats? You know I can refute anything you say and visa versa. I simply don’t have the time for long drawn out discussions.

      Jack E. Dunning
      Nasty Jack Blog

      Delete
    5. I don’t know where you served in law enforcement, but if you are saying the officers there would not make the effort to remove their weapon from their holster to help a citizen in trouble, I hope I don’t live close to the area. I can tell you that is not the case with Phoenix police. They have their hands full protecting the public from daily shootings that are the result of loose Arizona gun laws. As far as concealed carriers are concerned, my point is that, regardless of what has happened so far, I don’t want these untrained cowboys protecting me and don’t think a majority of the population does. Please, enough with all the statistics!!! And from what I am hearing there is growing support for an interpretation of the 2nd Amendment to mean the right to bear arms is confined to one’s residence.

      Jack E. Dunning
      Nasty Jack Blog

      Delete
  2. It is difficult to see any credibility coming out of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, the oddly named Violence Policy Center, or the Brady Campaign simply because their statistics consistently run counter to the U.S. Department of Justice's own National Institute of Justice /Bureau of Justice Statistics, and the FBI Uniform Crime Report, both of which -- for the last two decades -- show that there are fewer and declining gun crimes and fewer and declining gun accidents where law abiding Americans bear guns. The old failed gun control laws from the post World War II period were proven not to work. The creation and implementation of "concealed carry reforms" in 1987 that started with the Florida experiment and now include 49 out of 50 states correspond closely with the reduction of violent crime and reduction of gun accidents in those states. Chicago is a good example of failed gun control. Wisdom and proven history would dictate leaving these successful reforms in place and even promoting further reforms to include national reciprocity and civic responsibility with advanced use-of-force and safety training at a young age similar to the successful small arms training of young people in Switzerland and Israel. Concealed carry reforms are here to stay. To deny them or try to create a wedge issue out of them when there are so many real problems to deal with is unproductive. Most Americans support concealed carry (DOJ’s NIJ/BJS) because it works and gun control does not.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Where are all the instances that illustrate how a concealed carrying citizen has saved the day by keeping other citizens from being injured or killed? All we hear about are cases like the Loughner Tucson massacre where two concealed weapon-carrying cowboys almost shot each other.

      Jack E. Dunning
      Nasty Jack Blog

      Delete

Nasty Jack will accept NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS