Three Polls Confirm That Oregonians Want Universal Gun Background Checks

At this moment, Oregon senators are considering a very important bill in the state of Oregon:  Senate Bill 1551.    Read the language of the draft bill HERE.  This bill, if passed, would extend background checks to every gun sale and transfer in the state of Oregon, except to immediate family.  

The bill is desperately needed.  Despite the lies of opponents, it does not create a gun registry or permanent record of gun purchases, and with an average of only 5 minutes for each background check, and four times the number of gun dealers in our state who can run the check than there are post offices, it is hardly a hardship for a law-abiding citizen to make a purchase.

As U.S. Attorney Amanda Marshall pointed out in her guest post here at New Trajectory this week, "In Oregon, 2,378 gun sales were stopped in 2012 after buyers failed a background check" when purchasing from licensed dealers and at Oregon gun shows.  The vast majority, 80%, of those were denied to convicted felons.  But every one of those rejected gun buyers could very easily turn around and answer a private ad, go online, or meet someone in a parking lot, and buy a gun in a private sale with no background check at all.  As Ms. Marshall continued, "Nationwide, about 40 percent of guns are bought from private parties without a background check. Those seeking to avoid scrutiny can easily do so."

With the failure of our federal legislators to pass a universal background check requirement, despite the support of an astonishing 90% of Americans, including 75% of NRA members, we must instead act here, in Oregon, to pass a commonsense bill to protect our communities.

 

But don't just take my word for it.  Take the word of Oregonians.  In three separate polls, they showed support for such a bill in overwhelming numbers, mirroring national polls.

POLL #1:  The most recent poll came out this week, by Public Policy Polling.  As reported in the Statesman Journal:

The poll asked 710 voters in the Beaver State whether they supported or opposed requiring a criminal background check before a person could buy a firearm – 78 percent were in favor, 17 percent opposed and 4 percent of respondents weren’t sure.

Pollsters also asked whether respondents would be more or less likely to support a candidate who opposed expanding background checks for gun sales. They found that 50 percent of people said they would be less likely to support the candidate while 29 percent said more likely.

That's 78% for and 17% against.  A HUGE margin.  And if you don't vote for it, the constituents would be less likely to vote for you.

You can see the full language of the questions and all the answers HERE.  There were approximately equal percentages of gun owners and non-gun owners, Republicans, Democrats, and independents, and both genders.  

Pro-gun hardliners tried to dismiss the poll, saying it was worded in some leading manner (which they couldn't name), or that it was run by a liberal firm and therefore to be dismissed.  Or snidely dismissed polls altogether.  One pro-gun senator stated, "I can get poll results to say anything I want."  I urge him to try.  Not one single poll, anywhere in the country, has cast doubt on the widespread support for universal background checks for gun sales.  And they know it.  Pro-gun hardliners will do anything they can to keep it from reaching a vote, or even discussing the issue.

POLL #2:  In February of 2013, the Oregonian sponsored a statewide survey of gun issues.  As stated in their article on the poll:

The Jan. 29-31 survey of 504 Oregon adults was conducted by Elway Research Inc., of Seattle, an independent pollster. It carries a margin of error of 4.5 percentage points, plus or minus. ....

The poll found that 81 percent of Oregonians supported the more expansive background checks while only 16 percent were opposed.

That's 81% for and 16% against.  Another HUGE margin.

The full results and language of the questions can be found HERE.  Once again, the poll was fairly evenly divided between Democrats, Republicans, and Independents, gun owners and non-gun owners, and both genders.

POLL #3:  One month earlier, in January of 2013, KATU News of Portland sponsored another independent survey by SurveyUSA, of 500 adult Oregonians.  From an article by them:

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.

That's 90% for and 7% against.  Yet another HUGE margin -- the biggest of all three polls. 

Full results and the language of the questions can be found HERE.  There were actually more gun owners (51%) than non-gun owners (41%).  Once again, the respondents were fairly evenly split between Republicans, Democrats, and independents, and both genders. 

With all three polls showing VAST support for universal gun background checks for all gun sales, one has to wonder who, exactly, the opponents are representing.  If a legislator votes against SB 1551, they would not be representing Oregon.

Statistics show states requiring a background check have lower rates of gun violence, including a 38 percent lower rate of domestic violence homicide with a firearm (2010 data from the FBI and the State of Florida), and a 49 percent lower rate of suicide with a firearm (2010 data from the Centers for Disease Control). In addition, after Missouri repealed universal background checks in 2007, the gun murder rate in the state rose 25 percent (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives).  With statistics like this, the course is clear.

With gun crimes rampant in Oregon in the hands of criminals, it's time to do the right thing for the safety of our communities.  It's time to represent the people of Oregon and not just a small number of vocal hardliners.  We call on Oregon legislators to support SB 1551 and create a new trajectory for our state away from gun violence.

ADDENDUM (2/2/14):  An op-ed on the need for background checks in Oregon, written by Penny Okamoto, Executive Director of Ceasefire Oregon. in the Statesman Journal.  From the article:

Data from numerous states attest that conducting a background check for every gun sale is an effective way to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and other dangerous individuals and to reduce gun violence. Closing the background check loophole will not eliminate gun violence in Oregon, but no one has claimed it would. It is a proposal that is overwhelmingly supported by people, including gun owners, and it is time for the Legislature to adopt it.

.

It Turns Out That Raffling Off An Assault Rifle Is A Great Way To Demonstrate How Out Of Touch You Are

(UPDATED -- see below)

If you wish to appeal to the most hardline conservative gun lovers, one surefire way is to use assault rifles.  Nothing gets their blood boiling more than remembering the Federal Assault Weapons Ban which banned sale of new assault weapons in the 90's, and it continues to be a goal of gun violence prevention advocates, such as myself, to reinstate the ban.  To these gun lovers, nothing says "freedom" more than firing up to 600 rounds per minute with an AR-15 (yes, that's with a semi-auto form with only minor modification, or simply by using "bump fire" shooting).  Owning one of these babies isn't about hunting or defense, it's about the tactical coolness factor of owning one, and as a political statement ... or committing mass shootings (over half of all mass shootings used semi-auto assault rifles or high-capacity ammo magazines, in fact, which would have been banned by the Federal Assault Weapons Ban).

Last week, the GOP party of Multnomah County, Oregon, took full advantage of this and announced a special fundraiser.  At $10 a ticket, they offered a chance to win your very own AR-15.  This is the third time they've done this in less than a year!  This one is to have the winner announced on February 15 at a Lincoln Day dinner, with the guest speaker being the father of Senator Ted Cruz of Texas (another ultra-conservative GOP hardliner).

From the party webpage:

Multnomah County GOP Chairman Jeff Reynolds said, “We are here to reaffirm our strong defense of the Second Amendment and the right to personal protection. The Bill of Rights is inviolable, despite what the gun-grabbers in Salem might try.”

Reynolds went on to say, “We’ve recently caught wind that the Democrats in Salem, led once again by Ginny Burdick, will attempt to take away our personal right to bear arms. The Multnomah County Republican Party remains steadfast in its dedication to defeating such efforts.”  ....

"... One right you just don't try to take away is the right of an Oregonian to own guns."

And how are "the Democrats in Salem" trying to "take away our personal right to bear arms" exactly?  By submitting a bill for background checks for all gun sales and transfers.  To these gun hardliners, requiring a buyer to take a 5-minute background check to make sure the gun isn't being sold to a felon is simply too much to ask, and in their minds equates to taking away all of their guns entirely!  Paranoia like that isn't going to do their party any good, I'm afraid. 

After all, according to a poll conducted for the Oregonian newspaper of Portland last year, 81% of Oregonians supported universal background checks, while only 16% opposed it.  Another poll, conducted for KATU news of Portland around the same time, found an even larger divide, with 90% support for universal background checks, and only 7% opposing.  Wow!  With results like that, one has to wonder who the Multnomah GOP is representing.  Is it really only 7-16% of Oregonians?

Around 2000 prohibited people, mostly felons, each year try to buy guns from gun dealers in Oregon and fail a background check.  Currently they can turn around and buy one in a private sale, no background check needed.  The Multnomah County GOP is just fine with that.

But, hey, why stop there?  Why not kick it up a notch with their raffle announcement ...

Here's the real kicker.  The GOP announcement says  that they are holding the rally to "celebrate the legacy of two great Republicans," Martin Luther King, Jr., and Abraham Lincoln!

When I read that, I literally burst out laughing.  I simply couldn't control myself.  Not only was King NOT a Republican, but he was a man who literally gave his life for peace and non-violence.  And, as with Lincoln, he was shot to death!  I can't imagine someone who is LESS a poster boy for gun-loving Republican ultra-conservatives!  Who will they pick for their next honoree?  Ghandi?  And as for Lincoln, a noted Lincoln historian says that the President wouldn't even recognize his party today.

[The odd note here is that King did apply for a conceal carry permit (and was turned down because he was black), and he did briefly own a gun in his home, for protection.  But he realized fairly quickly that not only was having a gun in the home a danger for his children, but it went against his principles of peace and non-violence.  He then discarded his gun and forbid his bodyguards from carrying them too.  Read the truth about this in this article by Salon.]

This obscene assertion by the Multnomah County GOP immediately drew calls of dishonor from the nation.  Reverend Chuck Currie stated it best, in his article at Huffington Post:

Multnomah County includes the city of Portland. Republicans don't win in the City of Roses. Democrats control every statewide elected office, including the two U.S. Senate seats, in Oregon. Gut wrenching stunts like this might be part of the reason. ....

You do not honor men killed by gun violence by putting more guns on the street. Instead you work to reduce gun violence and work to bring reconciliation to a fractured nation.

Reconciliation of the American community was a foundational goal sought by both Lincoln and King.

Nor do you lie about who they were or what they stood for. ...

Well, this lie, and the outrage it created, backfired on the GOP.  Not only are they now a laughing stock, but they have been denied the venue they had booked for the raffle dinner, where the winner was to be announced.  The Holy Trinity Greek Orthodox Cathedral in northeast Portland withdrew its support and said it would no longer host the GOP for the event.  

From an article that also quoted Reverend Currie:

Chuck Currie, a United Church of Christ minister and longtime political activist, said he was among those urging Holy Trinity not to allow its facilities to be used for the Republican event.

"You don't honor a minister who preached non-violence by auctioning off the same kind of weapon used in the mass killings of children" at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., said Currie, who wrote a column on the subject for the Huffington Post.

In the wake of all this negative publicity, Multnomah Republican Chairman Jeff Reynolds backtracked and issued an "apology."  Okay, it wasn't really an apology.  In fact, even though it used the words "we apologize," it was anything but.  The only thing they apologized for was that "those who disagree with us politically" were "hurt by the message being marred by insufficient wording and/or cynical misinterpretations."  It went on to give some token acknowledgements to the legacy of Dr. King, then launched into a diatribe about how the "freedom to defend our lives under the Second Amendment" (among other perceived injustices) are "under attack."

Then, just as bad and their initial blunder, they then stated, "The great political issue today is whether or not the American people of all creeds and races will live free or live as slaves - slaves to their own overreaching government."  As if the "slavery" of any of today's political issues were in any way comparable to hundreds of years of real slavery and oppression that King and Lincoln fought to end!

It's just another example of how the GOP has failed to change.  Sticking to the same old hard-line agenda, and shifting even more to the right, no less, only illustrates how tone-deaf the Multnomah GOP has become, particularly on the issue of gun rights.

Last year, in their attempts to derail the conversation on the gun issue and intimidate those who they view as opponents, some pro-gun absolutists stalked a state legislator, Ginny Burdick, and even videotaped her as she worked around her house, posting it on the web.  Lo and behold, it was the same GOP party chairman, Jeff Reynolds, who openly defended the stalkers, saying that the person who took the video was "a friend" of his.

Starting to see a trend?  Is this really the sort of leadership that Oregon Republicans want? 

It's time Oregonians turn their back on pro-gun absolutists like the Mulnomah County GOP and back common sense legislation, such as universal background checks, and put our communities on a new trajectory away from gun violence.


UPDATE (1/26/14):  By the way, raffling off AR-15 assault rifles is becoming a trend by hardline GOP conservatives.  Consider, for instance, this announcement by an extreme pro-gun South Carolina GOP candidate:

Bright, who is competing along with three other Republicans to unseat Sen. Lindsey Graham in the primary, announced the raffle in an email on Thursday, touting it as a show of his support for the Second Amendment.

“I know the anti-gun media may hate it,” Bright says in the email. “I know the political talking heads may sneer as they continue blaming guns and law-abiding gun owners for the acts of thugs and madmen. But I am THE pro-gun, pro-Constitution candidate in this race for the U.S. Senate — and I can’t think of a better way to get that word out than by giving away a brand new AR-15.”

Here's one GOP candidate from Georgia who is doing the same:

Broun, perhaps seeking to distinguish himself in a crowded Republican primary field, sent an email to supporters Friday offering up a free gun to push back against "the Democrats and liberal media" who "would love to take away our guns and mandate every aspect of our lives," according to the paper.

"As one of the most conservative members of Congress, and a staunch supporter of the 2nd Amendment, I am constantly under attack for my values and beliefs," the email read. "Today I'm fighting back. How would you like to start off 2014 with a brand new AR-15 for free?"

Here's one from December, by the Republican Party of Arizona:

A Republican group in Arizona raised money this week by raffling off an AR-15 rifle, the same type of gun that was used in last year's Newtown, Conn. school massacre, just days ahead of the shooting's anniversary.

Raymond Jones, chairman of the Legislative District 26 Republicans, told Phoenix television station KTVK he was unaware the first anniversary of the shooting is Saturday and said he "might have considered another weapon" if he had known.

Sure he was...  They even joked about the poor timing of it, but others weren't amused. Another sign of the tone-deaf nature of these gun hardliners.  From another article:

"We don't do raffles hardly at all,  mainly for Christmas and for shock value," joked Craig Ray. ....

But the timing of the raffle has some scratching their heads, because it was held days before the anniversary of the Sandy Hook massacre.

"To raffle off an AR15, a military-style assault rifle, the same rifle used to murder those children almost a year ago, is completely inappropriate," said District 26 Democratic committee chairman Randy Keating in response. His group is collecting money for a group called Arizonans for gun safety.

"No one's denying it's their right to do this," said Keating. "We all have rights to do things that are incredibly poor taste."

And here's a raffle from last October, by the Republican Party of Rhode Island:

The state party is in lock step with the National Rifle Association, which will run its own online “banned guns” raffle later this month, offering a dozen assault rifles that the association triumphantly notes Congress failed to ban after the Newtown schoolhouse massacre. 

Here's one by a Texas Republican congressman from last May:

The debate in Congress over gun laws continues to wage, but Rep. Steve Stockman, R-Tex., isn't letting it hinder his pro-gun advocacy: Wednesday night he announced he's raffling off an assault rifle on his campaign website.

"Want to win a FREE AR-15? Congressman Steve Stockman is giving one away!" reads a message on his campaign's Twitter feed. "Grab this gun before Obama does!"

The list goes on.  A quick Google search shows others.  Sad that they would consider raffling off a highly-lethal weapon as a means of getting quick money.  Says a lot about their priorities, doesn't it?
.

Universal Background Checks Prevent Criminals From Getting Guns

Oregon Senate Bill 700 requires a background check before a gun is sold or transferred between private parties, except transfers to immediate family members and domestic partners.  Enacting SB 700 will make it more difficult for criminals and other dangerous people to obtain firearms.

Unlike most states, under current Oregon law, licensed dealers and sellers at gun shows must run a background check on the prospective buyer before selling a fierarm.  Background checks, conducted by the Oregon State Police, reveal whether the potential buyer is a felon or a fugitive, has been adjudicated mentally ill, has been convicted of domestic violence, or can't lawfully own a gun for other reasons.  But private sellers (everyone other than licensed dealers) who are not at gun shows may sell or give guns to anyone without first running a background check.  Does that make any sense?  No.

Oregon Senate Bill 700 will change Oregon law by requiring that most gun sales between private parties be preceded by a background check, and it will therefore establish universal background checks in Oregon.  Ceasefire Oregon supports SB 700 because:

• Universal background checks are the easiest, most efficient way to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, people who are dangerously mentally ill, and others who should not have guns.
• Universal background checks will not prevent law-abiding citizens from buying or owning firearms.
• Universal background checks have overwhelming public support.  A January 2013 poll found that 81% of Oregonians support universal background checks on all gun sales.

Background checks work.  From 1994 through 2008, background checks prevented 1.8 million prohibited people in the United States, including felons and the mentally ill, from buying guns (according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics).

If you live in Oregon, tell your legislators to support SB 700.

Oregonians Support Common Sense Gun Safety Laws

Despite 90% of Americans supporting universal background checks, including 91% of gun-owning households, and even 74% of NRA members (see the data here), the U.S. Senate voted down a watered-down background check bill sponsored by two NRA-rated senators, with a vote of 45 against and 55 for, despite a majority"yes" vote (it needed 60 votes to prevent a filibuster).  

Shame on those who voted against it! 

Not surprisingly, the 93% of those who voted against it were paid by the NRA, to the tune of $800,000.  Don't like how they voted "no"?  Let them know.  Here are their Twitter handles.

For one senator who voted "no", her polls showed an immediate drop in approval rating.  Republican New Hampshire senator Kelly Ayotte's approval rating suddenly dropped 15 points:

Forty-five percent of independents in the state disapproved of Ayotte, up 13 points since October. Half of voters said her vote on background checks made them less inclined to vote for her, with only a quarter saying it made them more likely to support her. 

Among the critical third of voters who described themselves as moderates, disapproval of Ayotte increased by 21 points, with two-thirds saying her vote against background checks made them less likely to vote for her. Only 13 percent said it made them more likely to back her, an overwhelming 5-1 margin.

In face, according to a recent article, Ayotte is one of five senators who saw significant drops in their approval ratings after voting "no":

Senator Flake, for example, has a 19-percentage point spread between those who approve of his performance (32 percent) versus those who don’t (51 percent), making him the most unpopular senator in PPP’s polling data. 

Senators Ayotte, Portman, and Murkowski saw their approval ratings decline by more than 15 percentage points, compared with previous PPP polls taken in recent months. Senator Begich saw an eight-point decline, and Senator Dean Heller (R) of Nevada held roughly steady with a three-point drop in approval.

But what about the polls for those who voted "yes"?  One example might be one of the co-sponsors of the compromise, Pennsylvania senator Pat Toomey.  Even though he's also a Republican, his approval rating got a positive bump following the vote:

Voters approved 34-29 percent of the way Toomey handled the gun control vote and hey gave him an overall 48 - 30 percent approval rating, his highest ever. By a 54 - 12 percent margin, voters think more favorably of Toomey because of his co-sponsorship of legislation to require expanded background checks, Quinny pollsters found. 

State voters were dissatisfied with the way the Senate vote went down, with 34 percent of voters "angry," while 36 percent are "dissatisfied." Only 5 percent are "enthusiastic," with 22 percent "satisfied," with the vote.

Let this be a strong message to legislators:  If you don't follow the wishes of your people, but instead put ahead of them the wishes of a dangerous lobby, you'll lose your job.

But strong support for universal background checks and other sensible gun control measures isn't just nationwide, it's here in Oregon, too.

Consider a poll of 500 Oregonian adults performed for KATU TV back in January.  As with the national numbers, Oregonians approve of universal background checks to the tune of 90%:

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.

There are currently four gun bills in the Oregon Legislature which are likely to pass, but they need our support: 

• Senate Bill 700: Universal Background Checks – Closes the private sales loophole so criminals and other dangerous people can’t buy guns. 
• Senate Bill 347: Gun-Free Schools – Gives school districts the authority to prohibit guns on campus.
• Senate Bill 699: Guns in Public Buildings – Ensures that citizens cannot openly carry guns in buildings where public bodies are deliberating.
• Senate Bill 796: Training for Concealed Handgun License – Requires citizens to attend an in-person class before obtaining a concealed handgun license.

As you can see, the first of those, SB 700, clearly seeks to do what 90% of Oregonians want:  universal background checks.

But don't just look at the numbers.  Here are the voices of Oregonians who have, unfortunately, been touched by gun violence, as I have:




So the big question is this:  Will our Oregon legislators follow the will of the people and vote in commonsense gun reforms to help keep guns out of prohibited hands, keep our kids and citizens safe in schools and other public buildings, and make sure that the people who can carry guns in public places can at least hit a target?  Or will our Oregon legislators continue to bow to the gun lobbies and the very-vocal, but tiny minority of extremist gun owners? 

Call them now.  Let them know that they represent all of Oregon, not just a few extremists.

What Wasn't Asked In The First Presidential Debate of 2012?

I'm disappointed in Jim Lehrer.  Not because of Lehrer's poor performance in moderating the debate, nor because of the questions he asked the candidates, but because of the questions he didn't ask.  Held in Denver, Colorado, Wednesday's first presidential debate was a golden opportunity to ask the candidates their opinion on what they would do to reduce gun violence in America.  After all, the debate was held only a few miles away from the sites of both the Aurora theater massacre and the Columbine High School massacre.

It's not as if it's easy to forget the issue.  There were plenty of calls for such a question:

--> One of the Aurora shooting victims, 22-year old Stephen Barton, even spoke in a TV ad directed at Lehrer and the candidates (see the ad HERE).  Shot with 25 shotgun pellets, including serious wounds in the face and neck, Barton reminds the candidates that 48,000 people will be murdered with guns in the next presidential term.  Lehrer ignored him.  He expressed frustration that the issue of gun violence was not addressed.

 Barton, who was riddled with 25 shotgun pellets, is still recovering from some nerve damage. 

He said the lack of discussion suggests both candidates have put the Aurora shooting behind them. 

"They've moved on from what happened this summer and I really don't think the American people have moved on," Barton said. 

He says both Obama and Romney have "mixed records" on gun control and neither has fully explained his position on the subject. He doesn't plan to let up until they do.

--> Thirteen family members of slain Aurora shooting victims wrote an open letter to Lehrer, asking for questions to be asked.  Lehrer ignored them.  From that letter:

It’s time that next U.S. President discuss and provide possible solutions to the growing problem of gun violence in America; one that has affected so many communities already this year, including Oak Creek, WI, Minneapolis, MN, Old Bridge, NJ, and Tuscaloosa, Alabama, to name but a few. 

Mass shootings will happen again. It’s not a matter of if, but when. Thirty-two Americans will be murdered today. We just don’t yet know their names or the families or communities they come from. Their lives matter. We, as a nation, are better than this.

How can we continue to ignore the issue of gun violence when so many precious lives have been taken from us? 

-->  There was a concerted campaign on Twitter by various gun violence prevention organizations, activists, and survivors to send tweets to Jim Lehrer, asking him to ask relevant questions. I sent some tweets, too.  Lehrer ignored us.

--> The Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence even spelled out some specific questions to ask.  Lehrer ignored them.

-->  State and national gun violence prevention organizations openly called for Lehrer to ask a question about gun violence.  The Brady Campaign even sponsored a petition at the WeAreBetterThanThis.org website.  Lehrer ignored them.

I've called for the candidates to answer the question, too.

But the real problem here is that the candidates have been silent about their plan to reduce gun violence.  While Lehrer should have asked, it is really up to the candidates to address this pressing national health crisis, without waiting until a debate moderator asks them to do so.

Daniel Gross, President of the Brady Campaign, sums it up best in a recent post by him:

Working with the Aurora families and every concerned American, we will continue taking every opportunity to show our officials and candidates that this is an issue of vital importance to the American people until -- that as a nation we know we are better than this -- until our elected leaders and candidates show us that they know it too.We represent the 87 percent of Americans who want better and stronger policies to prevent gun violence by their support for background checks on all gun sales. (Greenberg, Appendix A). 

We represent the 74 percent of NRA members who want a criminal background check on anyone purchasing a gun. (Luntz Global, Gun Owners Poll, July 2012). 

We represent the 96 percent of Americans who want background checks on all gun sales to screen out felons (CNN/2012). 

We represent the 76 percent of Americans who support registration of guns with local government (CNN/2012). 

The overwhelming majority of Americans believe we are better than a nation where mass shooting tragedies like the one in Aurora happen with such alarming frequency. We are better than a nation with 32 more gun murders every day. The American people know we are better than this.

Barack Obama has been silent on the issue of gun regulation while serving as president, with one, mild exception regarding assault rifles. 

Romney once supported strict gun regulation.  Now he's flip-flopped so much on the issue that, today, he received NRA backing.  The NRA has now started a campaign to rewrite Romney's history on the issue.  They wouldn't want their supporters to doubt their new, unlikely ally (until he flip flops back, of course).

The statistics quoted by Daniel Gross, above, remind us that the vast majority of Americans support stronger gun regulation, on a very wide range of regulative measures.  Pro-gun extremists often poo-poo such statistics, claiming that they are skewed somehow by the polling organization or sponsors of the polls.  Never mind that every credible poll that has been taken, by every major polling organization or news outlet, has supported stricter gun regulation.  HERE IS A LINK to the results from at least 66 different polls, dating from the present back to 1999, showing strong (70-90%) support for stricter regulation.  Those who want no regulation, or less regulation, typically represent 10% or less.

So who are our leaders representing, then?

It's time for our candidates to take a stand and answer the tough questions.  Mr. Obama, Mr. Romney, what do YOU intend to do in the next four years to reduce gun-related homicides, suicides, and accidents?  How do you intend to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, dangerously mentally ill people, and children?


UPDATE (10/13/12):  Mitt Romney today released a statement regarding his views on a number of topics, including gun regulation.  From an article:

He said he does not believe that the United States needs additional laws that restrict the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms and believes in the safe and responsible ownership and use of firearms and the right to lawfully manufacture and sell firearms and ammunition. 

"[Mitt] recognizes the extraordinary number of jobs and other economic benefits that are produced by hunting, recreational shooting, and the firearms and ammunition industry, not the least of which is to fundwildlife and habitat conservation," his campaign said. "Mitt will enforce the laws already on the books and punish, to the fullest extent of the law, criminals who misuse firearms to commit crimes. But he does not support adding more laws and regulations that do nothing more than burden law-abiding citizens while being ignored by criminals. Mitt will also provide law enforcement with the proper and effective resources they need to deter, apprehend, and punish criminals."

Clearly, reducing gun violence by improving laws is not a priority for Romney.