Gunman opens fire at Oregon college in mass killing

[djAdvocate]

Oct 10, 2015 19:55:58 GMT -5 @hickle said:

Oct 10, 2015 19:44:19 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Owning a gun SHOULD require more of an effort and a commitment than merely saying, "I'll take that one."

I don't recall the numbers, but statistically it is much more likely that a gun will be used to kill a family member than an intruder.  It is twice as likely to be used in a suicide as a homicide.  I think I recall that it is more likely in certain situations to be used against the owner than BY the owner.  It is a deadly weapon.  Some may argue that it is used for other things such as target shooting, but that is its essence.  To fire a projectile with enough force to kill.  As such, it places a tremendous responsibility on the owner.  

An owner needs to be responsible, both in the use and the storage of the gun.  And he/she should be held accountable for the failure to do so.  Registration of guns (particularly handguns) and background checks are not onerous nor are they prohibited by the Second Amendment.  And negligence in gun use or storage should result in the loss of ownership privileges.  For whatever reason, gun ownership is celebrated in this country, and I really do not care either way whether someone owns guns.  I begin to care when those guns are used.  I become angry when they are misused.

If you want responsible citizens to be allowed to own guns, fine.  But there is a continuing burden to prove they are in fact responsible gun owners.  And that burden continues every single day that they own a gun. 

If you put a guy on a list as owning a gun he is on a list for when the government wants to come and take them.  They are on that list for when the government wants to change rules and not grandfather in those rules.  I read about Pol Pot's soldiers bashing in the heads of babies during that war.  I think most people are the same at the core, we all can do good, we all can do bad.  There is nothing about the people here that inherently protects them from bad government.  Guns keep governments honest.

i would agree that having the government take them is a serious concern, since they have more guns than we do.

the second amendment was supposed to fix that.

[tallguy]

Oct 11, 2015 7:12:26 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Oct 10, 2015 19:44:19 GMT -5 tallguy said:

If you want responsible citizens to be allowed to own guns, fine.  But there is a continuing burden to prove they are in fact responsible gun owners.  And that burden continues every single day that they own a gun. 

That's a very reasonable argument from principle. Even so, i) it's an argument from principle, ii) it has nothing to do with the reality of whether gun control laws will meaningfully reduce homicides, and iii) as I just finished arguing, the most gun-happy states are plainly aware of the risks associated with greater liberty (as it pertains to firearms) and they're just as plainly willing to accept them.

The states that want gun control have gun control. They enacted it through their own legislatures. No self-respecting liberal, which you purport to be, should back a push by the federal government to infringe on the liberties of states that clearly don't want those liberties infringed. This is the difference between classical liberalism and neoliberalism. Neoliberalism ignores the principles of classical liberalism when so moved.

Toke up in Colorado? "Let the state decide."

Assisted suicide in California? "Let the state decide."

No waiting period for firearms in Texas? "Oop. No. Can't allow that. Because mass shootings."

Well screw that.

You are falling victim to the idea that just because something hasn't been done, that it isn't desired.  Polls continually show that even a vast majority of gun owners favor universal background checks.  A supermajority support a federal database of gun sales.  Half would support a ban on assault rifles.  And those numbers are of GUN OWNERS.  Numbers for the general public are substantially higher. 

The reason nothing is being done is not because the public doesn't want it.  It is because of gutless politicians afraid of a powerful special-interest group and an incredibly vocal minority.  They desire either to keep campaign cash flowing, or to avoid being targeted.  Neither of those has ANYTHING to do with doing what is good for the people of the state or country. 

Although public opinion polls show that gun owners strongly favor protecting gun rights over curtailing them, when they are asked about specific ideas for restrictions, most are in favor.

Surveys by Johns Hopkins and the Pew Research Center show that about 85 percent of gun owners favor universal background checks, an idea fiercely opposed by the gun lobby. Gun owners also strongly support a federal database of gun sales, prohibiting ownership for those convicted of domestic violence and barring people with mental illness from buying guns.

Though there is less support for banning high-powered assault rifles — about 49 percent of gun owners would, vs. 64 percent of non-gun owners, according to Pew — gun control advocates are emboldened that a near majority is out of lockstep with the gun lobby.

“I can’t think of a single issue that has generated more noise and more hype in the gun community than the issue of assault rifles over the last several years,” Michael Weisser, a Vermont gun dealer and NRA opponent, wrote on his blog in June. “That nearly 50% of gun owners don’t buy this nonsense should give pause to those who still regard the NRA as a behemoth when it comes to influencing public opinion about guns. To me, it’s more like a case of the emperor without clothes.”

link

From the same article:

“There’s this perception that people are neatly divided into folks who want an M1A1 Abrams battle tank to drive to work and those who want to melt every last gun and bullet into doorstops,” said Patrick Tomlinson, a science-fiction writer and gun owner in Milwaukee who favors universal background checks and longer waiting periods for gun purchases. “There seems to be no middle there, but I know there is. I’m in it.”

And:

A.J. Somerset, a gun owner who criticized the country’s don’t-take-my-guns culture in a new book, has been accused by the NRA of hating the Second Amendment.

And last year, when a Maryland gun dealer announced plans to sell the nation’s first smart gun — it connects wirelessly to a watch that must be worn to fire it — protesters threatened to burn the store down, forcing him to back down. A caller told the owner, “You’re going to get what’s coming to you, [expletive].”

“We’re considered weirdos,” said George Legeros, a longtime Virginia gun owner who also supports universal background checks and limits on how many guns people may buy. “Anybody who tries to take guns away is a bad man. That’s why the NRA doesn’t represent me. For lack of a better word, they are too whacked-out. It’s one thing to be pro-gun. It’s another thing to have no common sense.”

 

[djAdvocate]

Oct 11, 2015 13:26:55 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Oct 11, 2015 7:12:26 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

That's a very reasonable argument from principle. Even so, i) it's an argument from principle, ii) it has nothing to do with the reality of whether gun control laws will meaningfully reduce homicides, and iii) as I just finished arguing, the most gun-happy states are plainly aware of the risks associated with greater liberty (as it pertains to firearms) and they're just as plainly willing to accept them.

The states that want gun control have gun control. They enacted it through their own legislatures. No self-respecting liberal, which you purport to be, should back a push by the federal government to infringe on the liberties of states that clearly don't want those liberties infringed. This is the difference between classical liberalism and neoliberalism. Neoliberalism ignores the principles of classical liberalism when so moved.

Toke up in Colorado? "Let the state decide."

Assisted suicide in California? "Let the state decide."

No waiting period for firearms in Texas? "Oop. No. Can't allow that. Because mass shootings."

Well screw that.

You are falling victim to the idea that just because something hasn't been done, that it isn't desired.  Polls continually show that even a vast majority of gun owners favor universal background checks.  A supermajority support a federal database of gun sales.  Half would support a ban on assault rifles.  And those numbers are of GUN OWNERS.  Numbers for the general public are substantially higher. 

The reason nothing is being done is not because the public doesn't want it.  It is because of gutless politicians afraid of a powerful special-interest group and an incredibly vocal minority.  They desire either to keep campaign cash flowing, or to avoid being targeted.  Neither of those has ANYTHING to do with doing what is good for the people of the state or country. 

 

that's how i see it.  i was actually astonished that the inertia could not be overcome following Sandy Hook.  but i won't be surprised, next time.

[Virgil Showlion]

Oct 11, 2015 13:26:55 GMT -5 tallguy said:

You are falling victim to the idea that just because something hasn't been done, that it isn't desired.  Polls continually show that even a vast majority of gun owners favor universal background checks.  A supermajority support a federal database of gun sales.  Half would support a ban on assault rifles.  And those numbers are of GUN OWNERS.  Numbers for the general public are substantially higher. 

Firstly, are these polls national or regional (i.e. state)? If they don't commute to the state level, my argument stands.

Secondly, just because more than half of people support banning something doesn't justify banning it. Dig up your "tyranny of the majority" arguments from the SSM thread to figure out why.

Thirdly, if support for gun control is as popular as you say it is, give it time to work at the state level. DJ is fond of pointing out that NRA membership is dropping and the organization's influence is waning. If these mass shootings ever become enough of a concern, I guarantee you no lobby will prevent states from putting in gun control measures.

Fourthly, just because a majority supports gun control doesn't mean that gun control will be the least bit successful in accomplishing its intended task. I'm guessing that most gun control proponents don't want it just for craps and cackles. They think it will reduce the number of mass shootings, or reduce their severity. This very well might not be true. In fact, I'm all but certain it's not true.

[thyme4change]

Oct 10, 2015 11:41:47 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Oct 10, 2015 7:58:23 GMT -5 @hickle said:

People accept auto deaths and vending machine deaths and hospitial infection deaths and just about any other kind of death you can name.  The amount of violent gun deaths is going down, but people cannot accept gun deaths.  I do not believe the issue is death.  I think the issue is irrational hate and fear of guns.

the difference between your list of things that cause death and guns is that MOST gun deaths are entirely unnecessary.

we don't accept deaths that are NOT necessary.  that is kind of a fundamental principle, imo.  it is not irrational in any sense.

As opposed to all those super productive and mandatory car accidents.  

[Virgil Showlion]

Oct 11, 2015 14:31:01 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

Oct 10, 2015 11:41:47 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

the difference between your list of things that cause death and guns is that MOST gun deaths are entirely unnecessary.

we don't accept deaths that are NOT necessary.  that is kind of a fundamental principle, imo.  it is not irrational in any sense.

As opposed to all those super productive and mandatory car accidents.  

I think he's saying that cars are such an integral part of day-to-day life in our society that auto accidents are something we simply have to tolerate.

In his view, guns aren't useful enough to justify the collateral damaged caused by irresponsible owners.

That's my take, at any rate.

[Deleted]

In the 1920s, 24.1 people died per 100 million miles driven. In 2013 that number was 1.1 .   Best I can find, in the same period gun deaths (while they bounce around some) have pretty much stayed around the same levels... so...  In fact, some say that guns deaths are set to pass autos any year now...

[tallguy]

Oct 11, 2015 14:27:53 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Oct 11, 2015 13:26:55 GMT -5 tallguy said:

You are falling victim to the idea that just because something hasn't been done, that it isn't desired.  Polls continually show that even a vast majority of gun owners favor universal background checks.  A supermajority support a federal database of gun sales.  Half would support a ban on assault rifles.  And those numbers are of GUN OWNERS.  Numbers for the general public are substantially higher. 

Firstly, are these polls national or regional (i.e. state)? If they don't commute to the state level, my argument stands.

Secondly, just because more than half of people support banning something doesn't justify banning it. Dig up your "tyranny of the majority" arguments from the SSM thread to figure out why.

Thirdly, if support for gun control is as popular as you say it is, give it time to work at the state level. DJ is fond of pointing out that NRA membership is dropping and the organization's influence is waning. If these mass shootings ever become enough of a concern, I guarantee you no lobby will prevent states from putting in gun control measures.

Fourthly, just because a majority supports gun control doesn't mean that gun control will be the least bit successful in accomplishing its intended task. I'm guessing that most gun control proponents don't want it just for craps and cackles. They think it will reduce the number of mass shootings, or reduce their severity. This very well might not be true. In fact, I'm all but certain it's not true.

A quick search of the terms, "Gun controls polls Texas" showed as the first two entries:

1.  A 2013 poll showing 44% of Texans wanted gun laws to be more strict, while only 16% wanted them to be less so.  Digging a little deeper, 78% favored criminal and mental-health background checks on every gun purchase.

2.  A 2015 poll showing that 68% oppose open-carry laws in the state.

And this is in Texas, at least anecdotally the most gun-crazy state in the country.

Secondly, this is not talking about banning.  This is talking about reasonable accommodations that law-abiding citizens should be in favor of.  A law-abiding citizen has no reason to fear a background check, and every reason to want criminals and the mentally-ill subjected to one.  

[Deleted]

I'm guessing that most gun control proponents don't want it just for craps and cackles. They think it will reduce the number of mass shootings, or reduce their severity. This very well might not be true. In fact, I'm all but certain it's not true.

People do not want gun control to reduce the number of deaths.  If they wanted to reduce the number of deaths they would  concentrate their effort elsewhere.  They want to control people.  Gun deaths are going down each year.

[Deleted]

Please show me that data. Thanks.

Yes, its down from the 1993 peak... but overall. Say from the 1920s...

[Deleted]

Oct 11, 2015 15:08:28 GMT -5 oped said:

Please show me that data. Thanks.

Yes, its down from the 1993 peak... but overall. Say from the 1920s...

Is the 1920s relevant?  Gun violence is going down.

[Deleted]

Oh, if you could also overlay death peaks and valleys with gun laws at the time, that would be nice.

[Deleted]

Oct 11, 2015 15:13:03 GMT -5 oped said:

Oh, if you could also overlay death peaks and valleys with gun laws at the time, that would be nice.

I don't even know what that means. 

[Deleted]

Its about the same at the 1980s 33x5bs39d3jhnwvvr3uyk6zm.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/pix/2013/09/US-homicides-by-weapon-type-1980-2008.png

[Deleted]

Many people want to ban "assault" rifles, even though rifles are responsible for few deaths and much of what people want to ban about "assault" rifles is irrelevant to using as a deadly weapon. A rifle with or without a pistol grip is the same as far as what it can do, but ban the ones with pistol grips.  The ban has nothing to do with gun violence, nothing!!! (I put 3 exclamation points to emphasize nothing).

[Deleted]

Mass shooting the same cdn2.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/680662/Mass_20Shootings_201980-2010-thumb-533x320-79419.0.jpg

Since 1960s... showing why using the 1993 bump is not a good measure upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e5/Washington_DC_vs_US_total_homicide_rates_1960-2012.svg/2000px-Washington_DC_vs_US_total_homicide_rates_1960-2012.svg.png

[Deleted]

A rifle and an assault weapon are NOT the same. Rifles are used to hunt animals for food. Assault weapons are NOT.

It most certainly has EVERYTHING to do with gun violence.

[Deleted]

Oct 11, 2015 15:22:41 GMT -5 oped said:

A rifle and an assault weapon are NOT the same. Rifles are used to hunt animals for food. Assault weapons are NOT.

It most certainly has EVERYTHING to do with gun violence.

First off "assault" weapons are selective fire and are very regulated.  The pistol grip is useful when hunting wild hogs and wanting to shoot quickly, or so my understanding. I believe you are wrong if you are saying cosmetic differences make a gun more prone to be used violently and illegally.  Flash suppressors were another thing banned with the "assault" rifle ban. 

[Deleted]

Husband has hunted wild hogs... sans assault weapon.

My father and his current wife are in Newfoundland this week. So far they have a bear, two moose and a caribou. We are not an anti-gun family. But reasonable gun regulation, similar to what we require for drivers of automobiles, is NOT an effort to 'take our guns away'...

[Deleted]

Oct 11, 2015 15:38:42 GMT -5 oped said:

Husband has hunted wild hogs... sans assault weapon.

My father and his current wife are in Newfoundland this week. So far they have a bear, two moose and a caribou. We are not an anti-gun family. But reasonable gun regulation, similar to what we require for drivers of automobiles, is NOT an effort to 'take our guns away'...

what is going to be regulated if not what guns we are allowed?  Don't do what they say and you can't have that gun.  Maybe you can't have that gun because it has a ----, and everyone knows a gun with a ---- are too dangerous.  There is no reason for government to know what guns I have. 

I worked with a guy who hunted wild hogs with dogs and killed the hog with a knife.  I really like reading your husband's post and think he is an interesting poster, but he is not the go to guy for everyone on how to hunt hogs.

[Virgil Showlion]

Oct 11, 2015 15:00:20 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Oct 11, 2015 14:27:53 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Firstly, are these polls national or regional (i.e. state)? If they don't commute to the state level, my argument stands.

Secondly, just because more than half of people support banning something doesn't justify banning it. Dig up your "tyranny of the majority" arguments from the SSM thread to figure out why.

Thirdly, if support for gun control is as popular as you say it is, give it time to work at the state level. DJ is fond of pointing out that NRA membership is dropping and the organization's influence is waning. If these mass shootings ever become enough of a concern, I guarantee you no lobby will prevent states from putting in gun control measures.

Fourthly, just because a majority supports gun control doesn't mean that gun control will be the least bit successful in accomplishing its intended task. I'm guessing that most gun control proponents don't want it just for craps and cackles. They think it will reduce the number of mass shootings, or reduce their severity. This very well might not be true. In fact, I'm all but certain it's not true.

A quick search of the terms, "Gun controls polls Texas" showed as the first two entries:

1.  A 2013 poll showing 44% of Texans wanted gun laws to be more strict, while only 16% wanted them to be less so.  Digging a little deeper, 78% favored criminal and mental-health background checks on every gun purchase.

2.  A 2015 poll showing that 68% oppose open-carry laws in the state.

And this is in Texas, at least anecdotally the most gun-crazy state in the country.

Secondly, this is not talking about banning.  This is talking about reasonable accommodations that law-abiding citizens should be in favor of.  A law-abiding citizen has no reason to fear a background check, and every reason to want criminals and the mentally-ill subjected to one.  

You'll have to do better than 44%. Give it time. Point 3.

I'm guessing the 78% in favour of mental health background checks don't realize how many people would be excluded from owning firearms. In truth, I don't even know how "mental illness checks" would work. Would anybody who's ever been to a psychiatrist, or anybody prescribed an antidepressant/antianxiety pill be blacklisted from owning a gun? If so, there goes 60% of the population right away.

What else is there in a mental illness background check? Anything said to a psychiatrist is protected and confidential, for good reason. If patients express violent thoughts or tendencies, I see no way for psychiatrists to disclose facts like this to authorities without violating that privilege. That kind of disclosure would undermine trust, and if there's no trust, there's no reason to speak forthrightly to a psychiatrist.

The only exploitable mental illness check I can think of would be to check for police reports of attempted suicides. The irony there is that attempted suicides by gun are typically successful, hence any applicant that turned up positive for a suicide tempt almost certainly has another preferred method of committing suicide than death by gunshot.

In short, this falls into the same category as point 4.

For the criminal background checks, it's at least clear what the policy entails. I still don't think it would have any meaningful impact on gun homicides, and there's no mass shooting in recent years it would have prevented.

[weltschmerz]

Oct 11, 2015 15:38:42 GMT -5 oped said:

Husband has hunted wild hogs... sans assault weapon.

My father and his current wife are in Newfoundland this week. So far they have a bear, two moose and a caribou. We are not an anti-gun family. But reasonable gun regulation, similar to what we require for drivers of automobiles, is NOT an effort to 'take our guns away'...

Bear? Are they going to eat it, or did they kill it just for fun?

[Deleted]

Oct 11, 2015 18:25:43 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

Oct 11, 2015 15:38:42 GMT -5 oped said:

Husband has hunted wild hogs... sans assault weapon.

My father and his current wife are in Newfoundland this week. So far they have a bear, two moose and a caribou. We are not an anti-gun family. But reasonable gun regulation, similar to what we require for drivers of automobiles, is NOT an effort to 'take our guns away'...

Bear? Are they going to eat it, or did they kill it just for fun?

My husband wants some bear meat for jerky. The rest of the bear will be eaten by friends of the family who enjoy it. I am not a fan. I'm in line for moose.

[Virgil Showlion]

Oct 11, 2015 18:27:27 GMT -5 oped said:

My husband wants some bear meat for jerky.

I guess he won't be swiping any more pic-a-nic baskets.

[tallguy]

You'll have to do better than 44%. Give it time.

The relevant takeaway is that 44% of Texas gun owners wanted gun laws to be more strict, while only 16% wanted them to be less so.  That means that of those who professed a desire for change in gun laws, 73% wanted them to be made more stringent.  If Texas is indeed the most gun-crazy state, does that not indicate to you that current laws are overbroad in what they allow?  And again, that is of gun owners.  The number as pertains to the general public is substantially higher.

Pro-gun groups tried to spin it as 52% being against gun control.  The opposing view is that 80% are against looser gun laws.  Should I guess which view you would hold? 

[Artemis Windsong]

Oct 2, 2015 9:50:07 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Oct 2, 2015 5:01:39 GMT -5 Shooby said:

What journey is that? Confiscating guns from law abiding citizens who have the right to protect their own lives and homes?

quick question: do you think the right to bear arms extends to the criminally insane?

yes or no?

No.  But they lie on their application, someone else buys for them, steal one, or a life event turns them.  Many examples of heavy regulation areas have more gun violence.

The blind, yes.

Perhaps we need to get a government grant to study this. 

[tallguy]

The blind, yes.

Reminds me of a comedy observation, I think by Gallagher:

"Michigan is now allowing blind people to hunt.  Michigan is now allowing BLIND PEOPLE to hunt.  Now if you're out there, how do you make a sound that is NOT like a deer?"  

[djAdvocate]

Oct 11, 2015 19:11:54 GMT -5 Artemis Windsong said:

Oct 2, 2015 9:50:07 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

quick question: do you think the right to bear arms extends to the criminally insane?

yes or no?

No.  But they lie on their application, someone else buys for them, steal one, or a life event turns them.  Many examples of heavy regulation areas have more gun violence.

The blind, yes.

Perhaps we need to get a government grant to study this. 

LOL!  i would be surprised if they didn't study it already.

[Virgil Showlion]

Oct 11, 2015 18:54:49 GMT -5 tallguy said:

You'll have to do better than 44%. Give it time.

The relevant takeaway is that 44% of Texas gun owners wanted gun laws to be more strict, while only 16% wanted them to be less so.  That means that of those who professed a desire for change in gun laws, 73% wanted them to be made more stringent.  If Texas is indeed the most gun-crazy state, does that not indicate to you that current laws are overbroad in what they allow?  And again, that is of gun owners.  The number as pertains to the general public is substantially higher.

Pro-gun groups tried to spin it as 52% being against gun control.  The opposing view is that 80% are against looser gun laws.  Should I guess which view you would hold? 

I have no stake in the matter. I think the gun control measures we're talking about are useless, but I don't mind them being put in.

Let the state put them in. The state is a more responsive political entity. The politicians are closer to home. Laws are easier to repeal if public sentiment shifts or the laws turn out to be a boondoggle. Unpopular decisions have greater ramifications for elected representatives. There's no reason for the federal government to get involved besides your desire to force the "right decision" on Texans, and that's not good enough.

As I said before, if public sentiment in Texas shifts enough in favour of stricter regulations, 24/7 lobbying at the state legislature won't prevent them from coming in. As I see it, 16% wanting less control plus 40% wanting them to stay as is is 56% in favour of not putting in stricter regulations. If/when that number drops to 30% and the 70% in favour of stricter regulations feels as passionately about their side of the argument as the 30% feels about theirs, you'll get electable candidates running on "reasonable gun control" platforms, I 100% guarantee you.

Let them take care of their own affairs through due process at the state level, and as the old proverb goes, "Piss off."

[tallguy]

Oct 11, 2015 20:00:26 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Oct 11, 2015 18:54:49 GMT -5 tallguy said:

The relevant takeaway is that 44% of Texas gun owners wanted gun laws to be more strict, while only 16% wanted them to be less so.  That means that of those who professed a desire for change in gun laws, 73% wanted them to be made more stringent.  If Texas is indeed the most gun-crazy state, does that not indicate to you that current laws are overbroad in what they allow?  And again, that is of gun owners.  The number as pertains to the general public is substantially higher.

Pro-gun groups tried to spin it as 52% being against gun control.  The opposing view is that 80% are against looser gun laws.  Should I guess which view you would hold? 

I have no stake in the matter. I think the gun control measures we're talking about are useless, but I don't mind them being put in.

Let the state put them in. The state is a more responsive political entity. The politicians are closer to home. Laws are easier to repeal if public sentiment shifts or the laws turn out to be a boondoggle. Unpopular decisions have greater ramifications for elected representatives. There's no reason for the federal government to get involved besides your desire to force the "right decision" on Texans, and that's not good enough.

As I said before, if public sentiment in Texas shifts enough in favour of stricter regulations, 24/7 lobbying at the state legislature won't prevent them from coming in. As I see it, 16% wanting less control plus 40% wanting them to stay as is is 56% in favour of not putting in stricter regulations. If/when that number drops to 30% and the 70% in favour of stricter regulations feels as passionately about their side of the argument as the 30% feels about theirs, you'll get electable candidates running on "reasonable gun control" platforms, I 100% guarantee you.

Let them take care of their own affairs through due process at the state level, and as the old proverb goes, "Piss off."

The actual number was 36% wanting them left as is with 4% declining to answer or expressing no opinion.  That is where the 52% came from.  And I would agree that the state should put in tougher laws, or at least allow them put to a vote.  But they won't even do that.  It is not an extreme bet that non-owners would put them into a majority for any reasonable regulations for registration, permits, or background checks.  Again, it is scared or bought politicians who are likely most responsible for inaction in most states.  Not a public demand for laxity.