Brooklyn Subway Shooting frank r. james
Law enforcement officials lead subway shooting suspect Frank R. James, 62, right, away from a police station and into a vehicle, in New York, Wednesday, April 13, 2022. James, made his first appearance in federal court and was ordered held without bail. (AP Photo/John Minchillo)
Previous Post
Next Post

From the CCRKBA . . .

The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said today a new Rasmussen survey reinforces what they have been saying for years: More gun control laws are not the answer to preventing shootings like Tuesday’s New York subway attack.

According to Rasmussen, 51 percent of likely voters doubt the effectiveness of stricter gun control laws, adding that, “Majorities of every political category – 67% of Republicans, 52% of Democrats and 59% of unaffiliated voters – say it’s not possible to completely prevent mass shootings.”

“It is significant that Rasmussen pollsters also learned that 59 percent think it’s not possible to prevent the kinds of shooting incidents like what happened in Brooklyn,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “This is why we have always supported expanded concealed carry by law-abiding private citizens. If history has taught us anything, it’s that violent crime does not happen on a prearranged schedule, and criminals or madmen do not call ahead to warn their victims.”

Federal authorities have charged the suspect with one count of committing a terrorist or other violent attack against a mass transportation system. Prosecutors asked that he be permanently detained while awaiting trial. More charges are expected.

Rasmussen revealed that Democrats (65%) are far more likely than Republicans (23%) or Independents (38%) to believe the U.S. needs stricter gun laws. Likewise, Democrats (61%) think stricter gun laws would help prevent mass shootings, while only 18 percent of Republicans and 32 percent of Independents share that view.

“Clearly,” Gottlieb observed, “the majority of Americans don’t think adding restrictions on the rights of honest citizens is going to make a difference to people who are determined to commit mayhem. That has never been the case, and never will be, regardless what kind of extremist solutions are proposed by the gun prohibition crowd.

“What happened in that Brooklyn subway was unconscionable,” he added, “and if the suspect is found guilty, he should face the harshest punishment. But as the Rasmussen survey shows, most Americans don’t think it should result in stricter gun control laws that penalize honest gun owners for a crime they clearly did not commit.”

Previous Post
Next Post

41 COMMENTS

  1. By recent polls the only people left who even tolerate Bidens existence are lifelong Democrats over the age of 65. Every other demo would enjoy watching him walk into the sea.

    81 million votes.

  2. Clearly, Goofy Joe does NOT care what the majority of Americans think about his gun control agenda….hence, why he rules by edict rather than legislated Law.

    • Dammit, if I’m going to be Moderated, at least let it be a comment where I am rude, crude or vulgar rather than the innocuous, bland comment above.

  3. These mass shootings happening in NYC and CA kinda poke holes in the whole “save us with gun control’ narrative

    • I’ve concluded most everyone here including me takes a turn being moderated…Wear it as a badge of honor.

      On the other hand…It’s always been insane to turn to Gun Control when over and over History has confirmed Gun Control in any shape, matter or form is an agenda rooted in racism and genocide.

      • Makes me wonder how they treat our nameless, brainless, d***less troll, and dacian the stupid (MinorIQ at least makes an effort to cloak his obscene Leftist/fascist partisanship in a cloak of civility . . . sometimes).

        TTAG moderators?? WTF, man???? Can we at least make an EFFORT at rational moderation?? Post some rules?? Describe the parameters of the “algorithm” (I never really believed there was one; moderation patterns are too inconsistent and irrational.).

        • The moderation is mostly an auto-feature of WordPress.

          TTAG scans the post and if there’s nothing against their TOS they let it through.

  4. There will be another poll tomorrow where 162% of democrats, 86% of Republicans and 97% of independent voters feelz more infringement is the only hope.

    • You don’t understand. Ole Two-Shot has to remain in office until January 21, 2023, otherwise Kammie can only serve one term. If he lasts until one day past two years then Kammie can serve two terms. That was the goal from the start. Dems are keeping their fingers crossed that Joe just totally doesn’t go off the foggy end of the pier until January 21 next year. It is kind of a race to see which event comes first.
      That way Kammie can be impeached for some faux pas and Auntie Nan can become La Presidenta, her goal from the beginning. Uncle Chuckie can become VP to become El Presidente after Auntie Nan finishes her two terms in lieu of Kammie.

  5. If we’re honest, the reality is that no one cares that much and no one ever did.

    Best case for antis is that people tell pollsters something that makes it seem like the people care for about two weeks and then they don’t even care enough to virtue signal to strangers anymore.

    Life’s cheap, apparently.

  6. According to a 2015 study by the Harvard Injury Control Center, when adding the 34 percent of gun owners who bought their guns but didn’t go through a background check and the two thirds of those who obtained their guns from a transfer, such as a gift, inheritance, or swap from friends, about 40 percent of those who obtain firearms don’t have to go through a background

    Given these statistics, a universal background check seems like a solution to the issue of gun violence in the United States. In fact, according to a Public Policy Polling survey, 83 percent of gun owners support expanded background checks on sales of all firearms, including 72 percent of all NRA members. As a result, it would seem strange that the NRA has not come out in full support of universal background checks. One explanation is that the NRA only represents about 5 million of the 105 million Americans who own guns, which means they may have a skewed representation of gun owners. Even this explanation, however, doesn’t suffice, since the same survey found that 72 percent of NRA members also supported universal background checks

    https://iop.harvard.edu/get-involved/harvard-political-review/vast-majority-americans-support-universal-background-checks

    • what makes you think the 74 percent is part of the problem and that forcing them to background check will do anything good? What about the criminals who will continue to disregard any laws and get guns anyway? aren’t they the problem now and will still be no matter how much you harass and burden good people with more red tape gun laws and hoop jumping. none of that will make people safer. mexico has some of the toughest gun control laws in the world and it’s a living hell of violence. gun control laws are a really stupid public policy plan for stopping violent crime.

      • Once a gun is stolen, all hopes of tracing it are in the crapper. It is a vain hope that “universal” (read law abiding) gun registration will help in crime control.

    • @dacian

      Again with a Harvard study relating to firearms, all of the Harvard studies relating to firearms have been debunked and some of them by the very people who authored them. One of the now 27,900 firmly debunked studies. Was debunked in 2015, and now more recently debunked by Rand.

      This Harvard study suffers the same bias, purposely slanted incomplete data, suppressed results, lack of controls, too many parameters or hypotheses for the data, undisclosed data, erroneous data, misspecified models, and other problems as all the others suffer.

      Your own conclusions are biased, ignore data to the contrary, and are misleading lies.

      stop posting lies dacian.

      Here is something that will outline the problems with your anti-gun studies > https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/junk-science-rand-finds-only-123-of-27900-gun-control-studies-meet-rigorous-scientific-standards/#comment-5755578

    • Because criminals won’t buy guns if they “have” to go through a background check, amirite, dacian the stupid???? So, if we require “background checks” to buy drugs, the trade in illegal drugs will disappear overnight, correct???

      You are too stupid to insult, dacian the stupid. Go micturate up a cable, and stop stalking this forum with your halfwit, deluded, UNEDUCATED Leftist/fascist lies, fake statistics, and Marxist nostrums. Simply go the f*** away, and leave us in peace. You are a pathetic clown, and people despise you. Your own mother makes you live in the basement. Oh, and you are a liar.

      Other than that, dacian the stupid, you’re almost a decent person. Almost. Other than your absolute lack of intellect, education, wit, class, honesty, ethics, morality, common sense, or ANY knowledge of or ability with firearms. As, f*** it . . . you’re a worthless, disgusting, s***bag of a not-human POS. Kindly go expire in a hole.

    • Ralph – I’m sure you know there is already a system in place for doing just that – it is known as prison. OTOH even that is no absolute as there have been numerous incidents where cons somehow someway ‘managed’ to actually build guns in the prison machine shop. But at least they are not a threat to the general public while on the inside.

  7. The hardware used is irrelevant. Unless and until there is both a commitment by local and state officials, and a cultural shift back to old fashioned values, crime will continue to rise.
    Until society chooses which direction we want to go, nothing will improve. Deal with the person who commits the crime, instead of worrying about what tool they chose to use.
    Gun control does not affect those who choose to ignore the law and commit the crimes. Nor will it prevent someone from doing harm/committing suicide. Lock up those who choose violence and make help available to those who need it.

    • Yup. Remember the newly landed visitor from somewhere “over there” who landed somewhere here, went to Texas, and within three days had a handgun and the fodder to feed it? Prohibited on the basis of his visitor status, no BGC, no 4473, no waiting period. He then used that handgun to take hostages at a local mosque. Thanksfully he was a rank amateur, and no one was hurt but himself. And he will never hurt gain nor put the hurt on anyone else. LE did everyone a favour and ended his violentce career. He had no real contaxts in the US, no references, but hit the strets and had a gun in hours.

      Meanwhile duh gummit, charged wiht the responsibility to guard our borders agasint foreign invasion, looks blindly the other way as millions pour accross our open southern border bringing drugs, guns, sick and destitue people, and the current Joke in Chief aids and abets the invasion rather than ending it.
      Be interesting to learn the history and travels of thathandgun this subway creep used. He did NOT drop y his local gun store in NYC (there ain’t one last I knew) and walked out wiht his handgun and feed. Background check and all, no waiting period either.

    • 10 year minimum sentences. You can reduce the time by participating in rehabilitation programs, learning trades, getting your GED, etc.

      • I propose, for crimes of violence, those convicted get a max sentence of 5 years with no parole and during that time they get a team of lawyers pro-bono and special investigators to investigate their case and try to prove they did not actually commit the crime nor were part of the crime. If they are successful in proving their innocence they are released from prison. If they are not successful they get executed.

        • Placing a definite expiration date, that does not change and is not negotiable, can’t be pleaded away to another lesser charge or any lesser time or time served, is not negotiable, and can not be escaped by legal system manipulation and wrangling and exploit, on a violent criminals life would have a profound effect on reducing violent crime.

      • shiggs – ya mean like the dirt bag in Sacramento who got early release after serving well less than half his 10 year term. How did that work out? He was ‘out’ for what, 5 weeks and even though he was a prohibited person he managed to get a gun and ammo and apparently modified it.
        NOTE – I am not picking on you, just observing that if any part of the system fails it puts the public at risk.

  8. Restoring the death penalty for those who wantonly take innnocent life, by whatever means, else there will be no reason NOT to “off” someone for any reason or none at all. Such consequences being brought to bear on a reliable basis WILL act as a deterrent to at least some, and certianly remove such evil in the killer’s hearts from society. The recidivism rate will go to zero.
    For deliberate cries of violance resulting in death (murder, armed robbery gone deadly, ramming a Home Depot truck into a bunch of folks on a pathway, etc, the firing squad needs to return. No hood, hands tied behind back, face the line. Give them a chance to anticipate and feel the coming violence they perpetrated upon an innnocent.

    Those who kill negiigently, as in reckless or drunk driving, stupid things, Sparky still works pretty well, as does the Needle.

    • Tio – the ‘discussion’ (argument) about capital punishment being a ‘deterrent’ is likely the closest we will ever see of perpetual motion 😉 – well maybe except for government bureaucracy 🙁

      There is one incontrovertible fact – there is NO recidivism rate for those who receive it.

  9. Clearly, Little Joey does NOT care what the majority of Americans think about his gun control agenda….hence, why he rules by edict and deceit rather than duly enacted (through the Houses of Congress) Laws.

    EDIT: no Moderation flag…I guess that’s progress.

  10. Biden focusing so much attention on 80% lowers will not solve any of the real issues. He doesn’t solve problems. He creates them.

    • Well, there is the old saying of “Never attribute to malice and evil what can be adequately explained by incompetence and stupidity.” OTOH, out of every dozen or so Dimocrats, one is actually smart enough to KNOW they are selling bulls*** . . . which makes them evil and malicious. Before she started becoming senile, Malig-Nancy was actually a pretty good politician (accept, for this purpose, that “politician” is NOT a compliment!). I think she’s an evil, ambitious, she-hag (but perhaps I shouldn’t assume her gender, eh?). Senile Joe was too stupid to blow bubbles BEFORE he became senile. The Dumbest Man in the Senate for decades before he was “elected” President.

      So, yes, MOST are just stupid and uneducated (like dacian the stupid), but an unfortunate minority are just ambitious, grasping, greedy, power-hungry s***weasels. Rope. Tree. Politician. Some assembly required.

  11. I’m not convinced that this is anything but “Big Sort”. Wake me when NYC D’s willfully and proactively repeal citizen-disarmist measures they are not forced to repeal by the courts.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here