gun rights protest
Shutterstock

From the CCRKBA . . .

A new Rasmussen survey conducted in the aftermath of the Maine mass shooting substantiates what the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms has said for years: Americans think enforcement of existing gun laws would do more to prevent gun-related violence than passing new laws.

According to Rasmussen, 57 percent of voters say stricter enforcement of existing gun control laws would be more effective, while 30 percent believe passing new laws would do more. The veteran polling firm also found that 71 percent of Republicans and 58 percent of Independents favor stricter enforcement of current laws, while only 43 percent of Democrats concur, showing a marked philosophical difference between political affiliations.

“Rasmussen did this survey after the Maine tragedy,” noted CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb, “so it was definitely on everyone’s mind when they responded to the survey. We’ve maintained for decades that if existing gun laws were enforced, we wouldn’t need a constant stream of new laws, with additional restrictions on law-abiding citizens, which have really not prevented such events, as gun control proponents invariably promise when they push their latest schemes.

“As further evidence of a fundamental partisan disconnect in this country,” he continued, “Rasmussen also found that 44 percent of Democrats think it is possible to completely prevent mass shootings, but that opinion is shared by only 21 percent of Republicans and 19 percent of Independent voters. On the other hand, 66 percent of GOP voters and 63 percent of Independents say it’s not possible, while 41 percent of Democrats acknowledge it likely is not possible.”

CCRKBA is the recognized “common sense gun lobby” organization, and Gottlieb said this new Rassmussen survey shows the majority of American voters “concur with our long-standing position on these matters.”

“Passing a new, feel-good law only creates the illusion something has been done,” Gottlieb said. “In reality, such knee-jerk legislation accomplishes nothing and sets the public up for more horror when another incident occurs, after which anti-gun politicians repeat the process, fooling their constituents all over again while steadily eroding the Second Amendment and perpetuating a problem they know their policies can’t solve.”

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

32 COMMENTS

  1. “As further evidence of a fundamental partisan disconnect in this country,” he continued, “Rasmussen also found that 44 percent of Democrats think it is possible to completely prevent mass shootings, but that opinion is shared by only 21 percent of Republicans and 19 percent of Independent voters.

    Translation – 44% of Dems, 21% of Republicans, and 19% of Independents are delusional. Laws do not prevent; they punish.

    • I would argue that laws can be preventative, to some degree. Lots of people have an idea, and ask themselves or others, “Can I do this?” The answer is sometimes, “It’s against the law.” So, actual law-abiding citizens just drop the idea, as often as not. If it weren’t against the law, a lot of young people would just go on and do whatever harebrained thing they thought of.

      Let me stress that phrase, “to some degree”. You know, and I know, criminals don’t give a flying fork about legality.

      • “I would argue that laws can be preventative, to some degree.”
        You’re spot.on! For instance – If we hanged these people on the courthouse lawn the day after they committed their little murderous flings I’m betting that would “be preventative, to some degree”!

      • There is a big difference betwixt prevention and deterrance. What you are descibing is voluntary deterrance and not prevention.

      • Paul,

        So, it is your view that ANY law has a “preventative” effect (which is obviously unquantifiable), because some people will consider doing something and decide not to ‘because it is illegal’???

        What ‘preventative’ effect can a law that is KNOWN to not be enforced, have? And isn’t it equally likely that truly rational, and thoughtful, and moral, and educated people will choose to do “the right thing”, whether there are laws, or not?

        While the existence of laws that are never enforced MIGHT dissuade some small, unmeasurable amount of such conduct (I am skeptical), how would you evaluate EXISTING laws that are simply not enforced (or are inherently unenforceable)?

        Sorry, Paul, NOT a convincing argument.

  2. The incident in Lewiston Maine is an example ot a failure by the police to take action when they had more than sufficient evidence to confiscate Card’s guns based on the “Yellow Law” in Maine.

    • The entire idea of confiscating someones guns because they are deemed dangerous (with or without due process) is about as dumb as it gets. What guns. Where are they? How many? And even if you were to magically get them all, what stops them from getting another? If we, as a society, and through full due process, deem someone isn’t safe to have a gun, why are they amongst us in the first place?

      • Sorry, Gman, but I reject that argument out of hand. Robert Card was the poster child for crazies who shouldn’t have guns, and the Army seems to have taken appropriate action. Civil authorities could have, and should have, followed up when they were warned. Maybe you have a point – maybe Card had weapons stashed somewhere the cops wouldn’t have searched. Maybe Card would have used those alternate weapons. Maybe, maybe, maybe. That doesn’t excuse Maine’s police for having failed to even try.

        • Robert Card was the poster child for crazies who shouldn’t have guns
          Ahh, so to you, Robert Card can be a free member of society, can vote, practice religion, etc, even as a crazy person, but they cannot secure the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

          That means, to you, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a second class right. Something the Supreme Court has rejected repeatedly.

          Yes, a member of society that is, by all accounts [and adjudicated as such], crazy, is a danger to society. And there are due-process methods for addressing that. But “just taking their guns away” should not be one of them, as they are still a clear and present danger to society.

        • Sorry, Paul but I reject that argument out of hand. It is not the tools that are the threat, it is the person. The person needs to be removed from society and not the tools from the person.

        • I’m with GMAN on this one. If he is THAT dangerous (and if what I heard was true, he really did have problems) then you take HIM out of the environment and get him help till he is not a danger. The guns will sit there and do nothing in the meantime.

          If you take his guns (assuming you get them all) but leave him, you have broken into his home, taken his property leaving him bewildered and pissed and maybe even pushing him toward the very action you are allegedly trying to prevent (not to mention violating his constitutional rights). You have fixed nothing as the threat is still out there. You are telling him “we think you have problems that you should probably get fixed, but we don’t care enough about that to get you the help you need. Good luck getting your property back.”

    • not to mention too loudly his twoweek involuntary psuch detention last summer.. a certain fact to render him a Prohibited Person under US law. Thus when LE agents were informed he had a firearm, and they SHOULD have known thisby his recent purchase record, they SHOULD have come nipping round to collect it, as Prohibited persons are, well, uhm, PROHIBITED from possessing all firearms Local LE are fully to blame for this,particulalry AFTER military got hold of them and advised them of this guy’s instability.

      Can’t help but believe, absent clear information to the conrary which we do NOT have at present, this whole thing is one more gummit setup. Sandy Hook, Parkland School, Uvalde, Aurora Theatre, Sutherland Springs, all fit very precisely into a pattern. A VERY scary pattern.

  3. Another public mass shooting in not just one but two gun free zones. What percentage of these polled folks think we should eliminate GFZs? Other than the named ususal suspects in VA code of mandatory GFZs, private property signs have no force of law; so we ignore them. Yet the loony leftists in NY, NJ, CA, IL, etc basically made their entire states GFZs post Bruen. Let the carnage begin.

  5. Maine law enforcement is probably reluctant to step on the gun control “third rail” in a predominantly rural, gun-owning, big game hunting state. Many of the L.E. officers themselves are hunters and gun owners to boot… I’m sure that messing with firearm owners isnt on the “to do” lists of many Maine L.E….

  6. Dennis Lehane said while talking about Shutter Island something like it’s harder and harder to deceive people as they’ve become more sophisticated to the methods or at least much more cynical of what they’re being presented with.

    The post-shooting gun grab has always been a terrible slight of hand. Don’t look at all the systemic failures that permitted this to happen. Just accept that you shouldn’t have these rights.

  8. It takes some kind of grand fool to believe that more laws will be effective, when it is obvious existing laws aren’t being enforced.

    Let’s take an automotive analogy, shall we? Your six cylinder car is running poorly. You have the bright idea that another cylinder or two will make it run better. So, you go to the junk yard, buy an engine “guaranteed to run”, and get busy with a grinder. You cut away a cylinder, or two cylinders, or even three or four. You modify the firewall and fender wells so that those additional cylinders fit into your engine compartment. You should have a great running car, right? Yeah, keep dreaming. You can bolt crap onto your poorly running engine until the suspension collapses, but until you repair the real problem your engine is going to run like crap.

  9. Well of course they are.
    Since the George Floyd riots of 2020, people see the threats that are all around them, namely in Democrat controlled cities with soft on crime policies, soft on crime DAs, the defund the police movement and now even prone to vote Democrat Jews are out buying guns.
    People do not feel safe.
    Enforce the laws already on the books, close those failures of Yellow or Red flag laws and enhance the NICS to keep firearms out of the hands of those mentally ill.

  10. SEPTEMBER 13, 2023
    Key facts about Americans and guns

    About six-in-ten U.S. adults (58%) favor stricter gun laws. Another 26% say that U.S. gun laws are about right, and 15% favor less strict gun laws. The percentage who say these laws should be stricter has fluctuated a bit in recent years. In 2021, 53% favored stricter gun laws, and in 2019, 60% said laws should be stricter.

    A majority of Americans (61%) say it is too easy to legally obtain a gun in this country.

    https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/09/13/key-facts-about-americans-and-guns/

    • I would like those 61% to define “too easy”. When I was 14, I purchased my first military surplus rifle from the Sears catalog. Delivered to my doorstep. Bought ammo at the local hardware store. As it had been since our founding. Me thinks your 61% simply don’t understand what true freedom means. So sad; at one time we used to fight FOR our rights and not voluntarily give them away. IMHO all laws which prevent the free and unrestricted exercise of a right are unconsitutional. Gun Control was settled in 1791, comma, period.

      • Today we live in a far different world than you and I lived in back in the 50’s and 60’s. We have jumped from 180 million people to over 330 million people and the nut cases are as numerous as leaves on the trees. Severe gun control is long overdue here in Capitalvania where for too long life has been considered cheap and expendable.

        • We sure did liv ein a “different world” than back in the 50’s and 60’s. Mostly due to your Leftist ideology and agenda.

          I have to agree with you about the mulitplication of nut cases, just look at you, MINOR49er and Albert the Brit?

  11. WHAAAAAT? That’s just crazy talk, what we REALLY need is more GFZs, more businesses that show their concern for their patrons by keeping evil guns off of their premises… You surely do not expect law enforcement (FBI in particular) and Prosecutors to do their jobs do you? Just hang up more “No Guns Allowed” signs, then all you have to do is teach those feckless, moronic criminals to read (no wait, that would be expecting teachers to do THEIR job, can’t win on this one) and respect the rights of other people and their property…

  12. Increase of law enforcement doesn’t mean ‘a hill of beans’ with big city council, A.G.s, and no cash bail of the left. These cities defunded law enforcement now their stores, hotels, banks, etc. are closing up shop (see San Fran…). Where’s the city revenue to pay for more police?

  14. The second amendment is not alienable, the government did not give us this right and have no right to take it away. You are your second amendment permit! The government being a corporation also has no authority and cannot act against you LAWFULLY without your consent.

  15. Excellent article, Dan. Any dummy can pass a new anti-gun law. But what good is a law that nobody follows. Remember the Prohibition? Law violation punishment is the key. Back in the wild west days, if some bad guys were convicted of heinous crimes, the entire town would get to be available to see the punishment. They would build a gallows in the town square. They would hang the perpetrators for everyone to see. That would be a deterrent to the laws that are already on the books! Not a hush-hush slap on the wrists for the murderer in question!

Comments are closed.