Have your views on gun control changed either way since Orlando?

[Joe Republic]

Just curious if this past week of exhaustive debate has changed anybody's opinions.

[LLR]

I didn't know it was possible, but I'm even more in favor of gun control.

[Classic Conservative]

More supportive of gun rights

[Higgs]

No change.

[TDAS04]

Somewhat more in favor in gun control.

I've been ambivalent on gun control, but I'm now in favor of banning certain types of guns more than ever (though I was certainly in favor before).  I also get turned off by the gun culture that won't even consider regulations on certain guns and the gun culture that claims guns are for "protection against government tyranny".

[ElectionsGuy]

No change.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

No. I've been in favor of universal background checks and an assault weapons ban for years, and in favor of "no fly no gun" for months.

[DC Al Fine]

I'm ambivalent as always.

[SATW]

No. I'm still pro-2nd amendment rights. I might have slightly, on balance, moved to the right on issues like the loophole, but that's about it.

[TJ in Oregon]

Not at all. In a sane world, I'd support a national gun registry and mandatory background checks but in the world of modern America we can't have such things without the government randomly seizing them all whenever the Democrats gain control. Also, the "assault weapons" ban idea doesn't seem to make any sense.

Also, the Orlando shooting is one that would be very hard to have prevented by any of the reforms being proposed right now.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Nah.

[SillyAmerican]

Not at all. In a sane world, I'd support a national gun registry and mandatory background checks but in the world of modern America we can't have such things without the government randomly seizing them all whenever the Democrats gain control. Also, the "assault weapons" ban idea doesn't seem to make any sense.

Also, the Orlando shooting is one that would be very hard to have prevented by any of the reforms being proposed right now.

Agreed.

Frankly, I'd be interested to hear from those pushing for tighter gun controls on why that didn't work for the people in Paris. France has very tight gun controls, France does not make guns readily available to its citizenry, and yet 130 people are killed and 368 others are injured in a coordinated attack. So for the sake of argument, please explain how removing all guns from the hands of law-abiding American citizens would make any difference whatsoever on these terrorist incidents? Because from where I sit, Paris cannot be pointed to as an example of where we hope to be with regard to gun control or addressing terrorist threats.

[Mike Thick]

Slightly more in favor, I'd say.

[Blair]

More supportive of gun rights

Because we should clearly be carrying guns in gay clubs.

Agreed.

Frankly, I'd be interested to hear from those pushing for tighter gun controls on why that didn't work for the people in Paris. France has very tight gun controls, France does not make guns readily available to its citizenry, and yet 130 people are killed and 368 others are injured in a coordinated attack. So for the sake of argument, please explain how removing all guns from the hands of law-abiding American citizens would make any difference whatsoever on these terrorist incidents? Because from where I sit, Paris cannot be pointed to as an example of where we hope to be with regard to gun control or addressing terrorist threats.

The argument has never been that gun control will stop mass shootings- in fact thanks to the Balkans it's easier to get assault weapons from the Former Yugoslavia (but still very hard) The argument is that the French police were armed, and frankly the best people to stop these gun attacks are the police.

I really don't get why Americans have this idea that if everyone was armed it would prevent these massacres.

Even as a relatively healthy, fit 19 year even if I was armed I'd struggle to stop a mass shooting, especially if I was at a concert/gay club; in fact I'd be more likely to cock it up and shoot someone by accident/shoot myself etc.

It's like the claim that women are safer because of guns- sure it's stopped assaults/rapes and that's good. But a women is 22 times more likely to be used in domestic violence against women.

Like most of public policy it comes down to numbers/stats rather than your gut; we love the heroic image of a brave gun owner stopping the next Sandy Hook but frankly it's a load of bollocks

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Frankly, I'd be interested to hear from those pushing for tighter gun controls on why that didn't work for the people in Paris. France has very tight gun controls, France does not make guns readily available to its citizenry, and yet 130 people are killed and 368 others are injured in a coordinated attack. So for the sake of argument, please explain how removing all guns from the hands of law-abiding American citizens would make any difference whatsoever on these terrorist incidents? Because from where I sit, Paris cannot be pointed to as an example of where we hope to be with regard to gun control or addressing terrorist threats.

This is an extraordinarily dishonest argument. The Paris attacks were carried out by a dedicated cell of professional terrorists with links to organised crime (this part being critical: this is how they got hold of their weapons) and was the culmination of months of work and planning. No one has ever suggested that gun controls can prevent that. The Orlando shooting was carried out by one man who walked into a shop and who legally purchased everything he needed. No organisation needed, no serious forward planning needed, no tricky links with the criminal underworld to cultivate. It seems very likely that tighter gun controls could at least have meant that he was not armed with weapons that make it so very easy to kill a lot of people very quickly, even if they could perhaps not have prevented the attack.

[SillyAmerican]

Frankly, I'd be interested to hear from those pushing for tighter gun controls on why that didn't work for the people in Paris. France has very tight gun controls, France does not make guns readily available to its citizenry, and yet 130 people are killed and 368 others are injured in a coordinated attack. So for the sake of argument, please explain how removing all guns from the hands of law-abiding American citizens would make any difference whatsoever on these terrorist incidents? Because from where I sit, Paris cannot be pointed to as an example of where we hope to be with regard to gun control or addressing terrorist threats.

This is an extraordinarily dishonest argument. The Paris attacks were carried out by a dedicated cell of professional terrorists with links to organised crime (this part being critical: this is how they got hold of their weapons) and was the culmination of months of work and planning. No one has ever suggested that gun controls can prevent that. The Orlando shooting was carried out by one man who walked into a shop and who legally purchased everything he needed. No organisation needed, no serious forward planning needed, no tricky links with the criminal underworld to cultivate. It seems very likely that tighter gun controls could at least have meant that he was not armed with weapons that make it so very easy to kill a lot of people very quickly, even if they could perhaps not have prevented the attack.

Yes. And I agree that gun control laws should be tightened up, especially when it comes to certain classes of weapons. But placing the primary focus on the weapons rather than the shooters is incorrect thinking, at least from my perspective.

[Illiniwek]

I used to kind of be on the fence on the no fly-no gun rule, but now I don't care.

[Kingpoleon]

Not at all. In a sane world, I'd support a national gun registry and mandatory background checks but in the world of modern America we can't have such things without the government randomly seizing them all whenever the Democrats gain control. Also, the "assault weapons" ban idea doesn't seem to make any sense.

Also, the Orlando shooting is one that would be very hard to have prevented by any of the reforms being proposed right now.

Agreed.

Frankly, I'd be interested to hear from those pushing for tighter gun controls on why that didn't work for the people in Paris. France has very tight gun controls, France does not make guns readily available to its citizenry, and yet 130 people are killed and 368 others are injured in a coordinated attack. So for the sake of argument, please explain how removing all guns from the hands of law-abiding American citizens would make any difference whatsoever on these terrorist incidents? Because from where I sit, Paris cannot be pointed to as an example of where we hope to be with regard to gun control or addressing terrorist threats.

So, do you or don't you support national background checks and psychological tests?

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

No change.

[politicallefty]

Yes, I believe it is more important than ever to enact a new Assault Weapons Ban. I really do not understand why people feel the need to possess military-style assault weapons. They are not weapons that need to be available to the general public. As far as I'm concerned, I think the NRA should be designated a terrorist organization.

I did prepare a longer post, but I deleted it. I don't know why I bother. To so many in this country, guns are clearly more important than human life. I can't even comprehend what family and friends of victims, let alone survivors, of a massacre like this have to deal with. I didn't know anyone in this tragedy, but I know very well that this could have happened anywhere in this country. I have a hard time not thinking of Christine Leinonen, the mother that was crying on the street not knowing if her son was dead or alive. She could have been anyone's mother here, not the least of which my own mom (the overprotective type that gets nervous when her son doesn't immediately respond). Needless to say, it ended tragically and she found out that her son was dead in the nightclub.

To those that argue against me, would it make any difference if it was one of your family or friends that was killed in a mass shooting from a military-style assault weapon? I just want to try to understand a perspective that believes in guns more than human life. What would it take?

[MK]

Yes, its changed my views a lot.   

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I was already an extremely strong supporter of gun control, so there wasn't much change. 

[DavidB.]

More in favor of background checks.

[RINO Tom]

No real change.  I've supported universal background checks and not allowing those on no-fly lists to purchase a gun for as long as I can remember.  Pretty static on the issue.

[SillyAmerican]

Not at all. In a sane world, I'd support a national gun registry and mandatory background checks but in the world of modern America we can't have such things without the government randomly seizing them all whenever the Democrats gain control. Also, the "assault weapons" ban idea doesn't seem to make any sense.

Also, the Orlando shooting is one that would be very hard to have prevented by any of the reforms being proposed right now.

Agreed.

Frankly, I'd be interested to hear from those pushing for tighter gun controls on why that didn't work for the people in Paris. France has very tight gun controls, France does not make guns readily available to its citizenry, and yet 130 people are killed and 368 others are injured in a coordinated attack. So for the sake of argument, please explain how removing all guns from the hands of law-abiding American citizens would make any difference whatsoever on these terrorist incidents? Because from where I sit, Paris cannot be pointed to as an example of where we hope to be with regard to gun control or addressing terrorist threats.

So, do you or don't you support national background checks and psychological tests?

Do I support national background checks and psychological tests? Absolutely. But what I've been saying, and what I continue to question, is whether focusing exclusively on the guns is really the proper way to go. If people are unwilling to say that Islam has a problem, if people ignore the fact that the United States and other western nations are coming under increasingly targetted attack, and if people continue to want to deny that the concerns being voiced by our intelligence officials are legitimate, we will continue to fool ourselves into thinking we're making headway. The folks bringing these attacks on us have no problem whatsoever using the term "jihad" when referring to their murder of Americans, but we Americans are told that we need to be "sensitive to our Muslim brothers". It's simply absurd.