E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSThe public heavily favors universal background checks for gun buyers, and a majority of Americans approve of a federal database to track gun sales as well as a ban on "assault style weapons," a new poll from the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press shows.
In the survey, 85 percent of respondents said they favor background checks for private and gun show sales, while only 12 percent say they oppose such checks.
Sixty-seven percent of adults surveyed approve of a federal database to track gun sales, the poll indicated. A majority -- 55 percent -- back a ban on assault weapons, with 40 percent saying they don't approve of the ban, a measure for which President Barack Obama again voiced support during a press conference today. (The partisan breakdown, however, is stark, with seven in ten Democrats backing the ban compared to just 44 percent of Republicans.)
A major gender gap also remains on the gun issue; women favor an assault weapons ban by almost 20 percentage points over men. Women are also far less likely to support the idea of encouraging more gun ownership among teachers and other school officials.
Overall, the NRA-backed idea of encouraging more armed guards and police officers at schools garners wide support, with just 32 percent opposing and 64 percent favoring the proposal.
But when it comes to arming more teachers, those numbers are nearly flipped, with 57 percent giving the idea a thumbs down.
The Pew survey was conducted January 9-13, with a sample size of 1,502 adults. The margin of error for the total sample is +/- 2.9 percentage points.
Leave a Comment:
Beyond the raw numbers being quoted, do we want our children to go to school in fear for their lives? Do we want them to learn in maximum security facilities?
Guns are already listed with Feds when you purchase through gun dealers & LEGAL CHANNELS... people apparently want more laws on top of the ones that already exist.
Naturally - the people that want more laws in their fervent belief that 'more laws will stop the killing' are idiots or - at minimum - lack any knowledge on that which they attempt to speak. Most commentators appear to lack any solid knowledge of gun laws, or the Second Amendment.
The average, legal 'Joe Gunowner' is NOT in favor of killing anyone - take a survey. See the results that support my statement.
NO ONE is in favor of killing innocent children, unless you are one of those Liberal types - lacking values & morals - that support abortion... Interesting to note that many anti-gun types support abortion, and THEN proceed to tell the world 'we need to outlaw guns to reduce the killing of innocent lives that will never get the chance to be kids & grow up...'
No one is talking about he average "joe gunowner" either. Mr. Average doesn't need an assault rifle to kill deer. Mr. Average doesn't mind a background check to keep our kids safe. Even it is "just" 20 of them.
"assault" rifles (AR-15/.223 models) are illegal in most, if not all states for deer hunting. bullet is too small, wounds animals instead of killing. however, they are great weapons for predator control on farms/ranches for taking out coyotes, bobcats, etc... or eliminating varmints like jackrabbits (cattle break legs in their burrows).
You need a background check to be in the classroom with kids but you don't need a background check to buy an assault rifle to kill kids.
there are no background checks for killing kids, it's illegal
but what about guns. Background checks is common sense.
Whenever the loony left wants to screw Americans they precede their verbal diarrhea with "Let me be perfectly clear" and conclude with "it's for the children." Blow that flagellance out the proper orifice.
Blah Blah Blah?
Did you read the poll? Unless you want to call the majority of Americans, the looney left, America just doesn't agree with you
Wow, since when is 1,502 adults a mojority of American. Also, in what demographic was this"poll" done. Is evryone who reads something like this and take it as truth that ignorant. Whom did they poll? Most likely the poll was conducted in a high population urban center like NYC where you have a zelot trying to control every aspect of peoples lives. Was it at nursing homes across central florida. I can make a poll show whatever I want be picking the right group of people to poll. It seems that most people take what they read as truth. NO your goverment would never manipulate or lie to you. Good luck with beliving everything you read. Please study the real history books, the one written before the 1990's, (before the book got changed) and you will see that what our polititions are attempting to do to us has been done before. Carrie Dann and the other reporters of similar charater need to be held accountable. Facts are fact our news media has been in a slow deline for decades. All reporters just spin what they think will be a good story and give them job security, regardless of facts and truth.
OKC, perhaps you should google Statistical Sampling Methods?
salsa - The PEW survey is biased. You need to look at the support material, but 61% of the responses indicated no firearms in the home. According to Gallup a while back there are firearms in 47% of households in the US. There is a serious unbalance in the PEW survey.
Brian, if you actually took the time to READ OKC's post you would understand that he is not questioning whether or not the poll is biased. He is questioning whether you can take a poll in the first place. Think before you post.
salsaforever -
Apparently you didn't really read OKC's post. It was entirely about the validity of the sample.
OVC's second sentence was:
My comment is valid, responsive, factual and brings into doubt the validity of the sample and therefore the findings.
Brian, perhaps you should REREAD the first sentence of OKC's post? The sentence implies that he doesn't believe that 1502 people can constitute a representative sample of a majority of Americans. That implies he doesn't believe in polling. Comprendez?
I won't try to interpret what OKC believes in. I merely point out that in this case he is correct in that the sample is not representative.
Brian, you do realize that a representative sample can be constructed with 1500 people?
Yes., as long as you use appropriate uncertainty to account for the reduced sample size. In this case I cannot find any evidence that the poll accounted for the discrepancy between sample households with firearms and other polls reporting nationally much higher percentage of households with firearms. This leads to a question as to whether or not the poll was intentionally biased.
Salsa, perhaps you should go to the PEW website and look at how the "Conduct their surveys" If pollers actually used TRUE statistical sampling methods then ok I can see your point. However, they blantantly state that they will pick a geographic region, demographic, and oversampling to conduct the surveys. Like I said, I make make a poll show whatever I want it to. Ask ANY statistics professor.
I find it absolutely hilarious that the same arguments used to discount polls supporting Obama during the Presidential Election are the same ones being used now to discount polls showing a change in attitudes toward gun control.
salsa,
i am not a statitician, but did have to take stats for my masters degree and thesis. there are mathematical equations for the minimum sample size required to make accurate statements regarding an entire population. the larger the sample size, the higher the degree of accuracy. a sample that represents less than .00000001% of the total population is far from being remotely accurate, and would be scoffed at if it were for any type of real research. also, there is the validity of the sample group itself, i.e. who was sampled introduces bias that skews results. was there an equal representation of city and country people, anti and pro gun folks, age, gender, race, so on and so forth...
BD- spot on. based on any the representitive statistical gathering methods I am aware of, 1500 people is not representitive of a population of over 300,000,000.
heck, my number was only calculated to 100 million, i assumed children weren't included. so replace the 1 at the end with 033
Yes conservatives, continue to discount polling data right into the next election as you did with the Presidential election. Priceless!!!!
salsa, this article or poll isn't about the presidential election, so your point is no point at all, just a childish counterargument. conservative, liberal, or any other label you choose dosen't change the rules of how statistics work.
Oh my!!!! I didn't realize there was a rule against commenting on conservatives discounting polling data when it does not fit their views.
my political views aren't the point, and you have no idea what they are. if i'm not mistaken, it was you, in post #55.1 who told someone to google how polling and statistics work. i just gave you an explanation. now you want to twist it into some anti-conservative nonsense just to continue a dumb argument...aren't you cute.
Oh my!!!! Now BD actually thinks I would waste my time referring to his specific views? LMFAO!!!!!!
Salsa is correct. Everyone against the results will always find something to whine about: sample size, make-up of those polled, bias of the organization, etc.
The truth is PEW is a very respected polling organization. The same size is not problematic as long as they took samples across the country. There's nothing that says everyone sampled needs to own a gun because all Americans don't own gun.
The funny thing is, if this poll had said the opposite, everyone would suddenly switch sides on its reliability. The science of the polling is sound. It's the opinions of those reading the polls that is causing the true controversy.
When George Washington and his troops assaulted the British their flintlocks were assault rifles. Fully automatic weapons have never been legal for US citizens - of course the criminals and crazies can get them whatever the laws say. I have to believe that this survey was conducted with about 95% liberals! Semi-automatic weapons and larger magazines do not make assault weapons - they make much better protection for citizens when they need them! You seldom have time to wait for the cops or government to act - you'd be dead!
Yes Patriot, how did not listening to polls work out for you during the 2012 Presidential election? LMFAO!!!!!
Semi-automatics don't make assault weapons? Tell that to 20 dead children and their families.
So we have guns to fight tyrants. Tell that to the 40,000 Americans who get killed because of guns each year. How many tyrants in that group?
I'm wondering how many enemy positions in Iraq, Vietnam and Afghanistan were assaulted with AR15s?
the fully auto/3-round burst military models, or the semi-auto civilian versions? pretty sure our military folks were given the military model that our civilians can't get. but what do i know, only ran an armory for a few years while serving...
When you're fighting a war, a military needs access to weapons. We are not fighting a war at school.
I conducted the same poll, myself, at a Town Hall meeting the other night and came up with exactly the opposite results. Of the 1746 people polled, 92% favored no "gun control" legislation at all be enacted, and 97% said that, should so-called "assault weapons" be banned and/or registration and fees be imposed, they would not comply because it is an act contrary to the Constitution of the United States.
@James-316346: Get your head out of your ass, boy. You're not "braver to live without them." You're simply a whining fool that's jumped on the "Guns Are Bad Things" bandwagon because it's the PC thing to do. To say that all gun owners who believe the Constitution is the law of the land (a position held by the Supreme Court, for your information) effectively makes us defend insane killers is evidence of just how firmly and far up your ass your head is planted. Tell me: Do you also believe the Bible is an outdated document, as well, and should be reinterpreted to mean whatever twisted theological point of view you wish to make for so long as it serves your purpose? Or that it's OK for you to enjoy your Constitutional rights, but not others if they offend your delicate sensibilities?
People, STOP with your emotional, "knee-jerk" reactions to a horrific tragedy, and think! To say that "Guns are responsible for murder!!!" is like saying a spoon is responsible for a person being fat! For those who want to argue that "it's the ease of access to firearms because there's so many and are easily obtained," that same principle applies to automobiles. Shall we call for a ban on the manufacturing of automobiles, next? What a preposterous, ridiculously absurd notion! Of course not!
FACT: Cars are responsible for more deaths per annum than firearms (FBI statistics)
FACT: Obesity kills more children per annum than firearms (Center for Disease Control statistics)
FACT: Firearms are used more often to prevent a crime than to commit one (FBI statistics)
FACT: As of May, 2011, the most-favored weapon for murder was --- a baseball bat (FBI statistics)
Yes, I am a firearms owner, and yes, I will defend my Constitutional rights --- because I am an American, and the rights put forth in that document come from God, the Almighty, and those same rights apply to every single human on the planet.
Would you care to elaborate on your statistical sampling methodology that made your sample a representative sample?
salsa, he explained his methodology the same way the article did. i think his point is his numbers are as valid, and no more valid, than the numbers used in this article...
Sure he explained the method, but it's invalid. First of all, which townhall meeting has 1700 people? If it's in Blah- Blah, Iowa, that only gives the views of people in Blah-Blah, Iowa. They are not randomly chosen--they came to a Town Hall Meeting for a reason. If it's to protest gun laws, of course the majority of people will hate more gun laws.
Unfortunately the internet, with it's click this box if you agree polls, has completely confused people about what a scientific sampled poll is.
As for the Facts: Cars and food continue to have tons of regulations because of their dangers. Once another danger is found, they'll be another regulation to reduce that--think about seat belts and air bags. The NRA wants nothing to change with regards to guns.
Show me a link to the FBI stats about preventing crime--unless it includes guns held by police, not civilians.
Murder weapon stats: Guns are BY FAR the highest. http://www.statisticbrain.com/murder-weapon-statistics/
You blather about utter nonsense.
Pew Research Center for the People and the Press is a left wing organization. I would not believe one of their polls.
My recent polling showed the majority of Americans Citizens do not want anymore laws that restrict law abiding Citizens.
Anti-gunners seem to believe that if we just pass enough laws, we can have utopia. Unfortunately, utopia is NOT one of our choices.
"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!" - Adolph Hitler
Oh give me a break. PEW is a well respected nonpartisan organization.
It's polls are scientifically done (not, "I just took a poll") and it shows responses on both sides of the political spectrum.
You might have to face that America doesn't agree with you.
Please stop the nonsense Hitler quotes. He flew on planes too--should we stop flying on planes?
I would like to know how their polling is conducted. Are these random people passing by on the street? Telemarketing? This article does nothing for me. I need more information here, people!!
There is no such thing as an assault weapon. This is a meaningless fairy tale political term. This poll is about as meaningful as polling retards about brain surgery techniques.
I truly believe that once a bullet penetrates the flesh its an assault, however, lets play the semantics game--lets call Bushmasters etal, combat style people/children shredders, or mass killing machines along with the over-stuffed bullet dispensers. Combat style weapons are designed for one purpose and one purpose only....bingo you win, killing as many living things as possible in the shortest amount of time. Used for hunting, pfft, shred Bambi into chopped meat with some metal fragments thrown in.
Too see how the poll was done, go to the PEW website. Everything is there for you to see,
skyparrot - Your picture is a polar bear sticking its tongue out. This is false advertising. I have seen some paper target bullseyes shredded by multiple magazines being emptied into them. I've not seen the effects on bambi, though I'm sure I could youtube it. EVERYTHING is on youtube. And the internet cannot lie.
Bart - I don't want to. Can you do it for me?
Are you and Nadia still in Norman?
An AR15 is the most popular rifle in the U.S. Guess what? It'll never be banned. Not enough votes in either the democrat controlled Senate or the Republican controlled House. The Supreme Court already ruled on Americans' inalienable right to keep and bear arms. Don't like it. Move to Great Britain.
Wow, how very inclusive of you to allow for a difference in opinions.
So, if I want to keep a drone in my basement, under your theory then I am allowed to do so? After all, a drone is an 'arm' and a weapon. Can this definition be expanded to chemical or biological weapons? If so, I'm on my way to order anthrax or the Ebola virus. The point is, where does this all stop? Is there even a limit?
Additionally, one point everyone seems to forget is that using weapons in self-defense is not 100% guaranteed to excuse you in a court of law. There have been many cases where people who shot intruders under the guise of self-defense were found guilty (for instance, for shooting someone in the back as he was running away or for shooting when threatened by lesser force).
Then, there are cases like George Zimmerman, people who appoint themselves as vigilantes and shoot someone for reasons still unresolved.
So I assume leftsux is fine with abortion too.
@ Feisty Red Head=C U Next Tuesday!
As normal, Dictator/Ruler Hussein, the left, main stream media, libs, and dems selectively forget to mention that back in 2000, President Clinton proposed putting officers in schools:
"After the Columbine shooting, Bill Clinton wanted to put police in schools – and it was good. Now that the NRA has proposed the same thing, the idea is evil."
The NRA wants to put police in schools at the EXCLUSION of other common sense measures.
Salsa, I hope you are smarter than this. You know your statement is incorrect. NRA has, along with many other organizations, groups, etc., recommended a host of measures, just as President Clinton did back in 2000. Are you saying in a round about way that President Clinton wanted to put police in schools at the EXCLUSION of other common sense measures. Fair is fair.
Exactly what other common sense measures is the NRA recommending NOW?
What happened in Conn or Col are very unpredictable events. Main reason mental sickness of the perpetrator, no law or prohibition could stop or prevent them. Once a sick mind wants to do evil, hardly can be stopped. So this discussion here is sterile with people already getting personal against others. Gun control, yes! Gun prohibition, never!!! This great nation was born with a rifle instead of a rattle in the hand. And all the rights and freedom we enjoy one way or another were earned and kept by guns. Check your history.
Antonin Scalia believes there are limits to the 2nd Amendment. True story. You do know who Scalia is?
What happened at Newtown and Colorado are very predictable and preventable, but it has more to do with facility security than it does with firearm ownership.
Brian, predictable how? Preventable how? Of course early intervention, but who is going to do it and intercede? Lanza was predictable in picking up a gun, wearing body armor killing his mother and shredding 20 children and 6 adults? Holmes was in the loony stage--missed opportunities for intervention, both isolated individuals, so how do we identify the maybe mass killer--what sort of profile fits these two? Because my neighbor acts in an odd, off the wall manner we should what...., lock 'em up on a maybe? What about the killer that shot up the Sikh Temple? All the weapons used were originally obtained by legal means but used in an illegal manner. How about the cuckoo that killed the firemen, hand-off straw buyer, again weapon obtained legally.
Specifically predictable - probably not. Generally predictable - Absolutely.
Brian, what is Generally Predictable, how does one Generally apply that principle and intervene?
skyparrot -
see #69.1
skyparrot -
We have known for years that schools are unsecure, vulnerable targets. Not an endorsement, but this is one firm that I have sat in design groups with.
http://www.schoolsecurity.org/
If you can predict, when and where is the next one?
This "schools are unprotected" view is ridiculous. What next, guards everywhere? On buses, airplanes, in each home, etc? That's what the NRA wants because that's what it's funders want--the gun companies want you to be afraid so you will buy.
Can I have somebody define me what an assault rifle is, I can't find a clear definition, anywhere,
all I read here is a lot of people mentioning them without a clear understanding of what they are talking about.
'
Does anyone think they would publish a study that showed anything different then the results they wanted?
So where is Fox's poll, or USA Today's--result basically the same.
um, who cares? the article is posted on MSN and people are on MSN commenting...
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/quickquestion/2007/november/popup5895.htm
Does the Second Amendment give individuals the right to bear arms?
Yes 97%
No 2%
As a foreigner, I find it telling that only in the U.S. can you find people arguing that gun ownership is a right, while health care is a privilege.
I recognize that it is impossible to ban weapons in this country and it is impossible to amend the U.S. Constitution and repeal the 2nd Amendment. However, there must be a way for all parties to agree to some measure of safeguards in place to prevent injuries and death by guns or rifles.
Most jobs require background checks - why not have thorough background checks for people who want to purchase a weapon? Why not standardize these checks so that they are the same no matter what state?
Why not have a national registry for guns and ammunition? We have registries for all sorts of things: cars, social security, births, marriages, professional licenses, etc.
Why not limit the amount of weapons and/or ammunition a single person can own? There is absolutely no reason why a person should own an armory.
Why not have strict liability insurance requirements for gun owners? Why not require insurance on gun cabinets in case of theft? Why not have safety testing refresher courses every few years? Why not require periodic re-licensing to make sure the gun owner is still mentally and legally able to own guns?
These are the same restrictions we have on driving a vehicle. Many professions require yearly licensing and continuing education classes, as well as mandatory insurance and registration.
Imagine if a physician were allowed to be unlicensed and not required to take yearly refresher and continuing education classes. Imagine if the physician were not required to purchase malpractice insurance or graduate from an accredited medical school or successfully pass exams.
When the second amendment was enacted a firearm was a musket. The second amendment gives you the right to own a musket.
with that "logic", free speech only applies to words leaving your mouth, not the nonsense you babble on the internet, didn't have computers back then...
So abortion is okay now too? YAY!
When the first amendment was enacted there were only rudimentary printing presses.
The first amendment gives you the right to use a printing press.
See how silly this 'logic' is??
"Were not trying to take away your guns, just the ones that are the most dangerous"
"Were not trying to take away your free speech, just the speech that is the most dangerous"
"Were not trying to limit what the press can write, just the words that are the most dangerous"
"Were not trying to ake away your right to practice religion, just the ones that are the most dangerous"
Sounds pretty stupid when you apply it to all the other freedoms we are guaranteed.
If you don't want citizens to have guns, get the numbers to repeal the 2A. Otherwise any gun controll laws will be challenged in court and hopefully loose to The Constitution.
Except that speech is limited. I can't slander or libel or yell fire in a crowded theater or threaten a person, etc.
Except that the press is also limited. They can't reveal certain information or write patently false information or defame anyone.
Except that freedom of religion is also limited. I can't practice human sacrifice even if it's my religious belief and I cannot marry a child even if it's my religious belief.
To paraphrase Uncle Ben in Spiderman, "with great power comes great responsibility." Owning guns requires, like all other freedoms, responsibility, common sense and maturity.
LaDolceVita1, good post and solid counterarguments. but matt makes the point that any laws restricting gun rights will be challenged in court, just like laws regarding speech and religion have been, and will always continue to be. that's the great part about having a constitution and bill of rights. one person's opinion of what makes "common sense" isn't another. the old saying goes "if common sense were common, everyone would have it". personally, i support maximum freedoms for all of our rights, not just pick and choose to oppose the ones i am scared of...
LaDolceVita-
Your speech, the press, and religion aren't killing 14000 Americans each year. When they do, they'll be regulated too.
Yet, NBC (among others) has admitted to doing exactly that.
Google 'NBC lies'.
Observe the 32,900,000 hits.
Brian if those events were predictable and preventable as you state. How come they happened?
They happened because our society is complacent, believes in the goodness of people and is not prepared to deal with the reality that many people are not good.
Colorado - The shooter entered the theater, propped open an emergency exit door, left the theater to arm and re-entered through the door he had propped open. Theaters are mostly built with security systems that prevent this kind of re-entry. We may never know for sure why this one didn't have one but it would have made re-entry a much more difficult problem.
Elementary schools mostly have similar systems that involve locked and alarmed exit doors to prevent unauthorized entry away from the administration area and require checking through admin to gain entry. In Newtown the shooter did just that, but more formidable entry control system would have delayed his entry significantly.
Brian, hind sight is a wonderful thing and we learn from it, however, how are we to predict another slaughter at an eatery, mall, flea market?
It was not hindsight. Predicting is easy. Assume it will happen then provide adequate entry control for anyplace people are likely to gather in numbers. People who work in the industry have been recommending similar measures for at least couple of decades.
So where's the next one.
In central america, where guns are plentiful and allowed, more people get killed in the crossfire than the original shooting.
I don't think many will disagree with more, in depth background checks. Another ban on certain weapons, or magazine capacity, is quite a different story. What so many don't understand is that gun owners own guns for self protection, against all sorts of threats, including foreign invasion, and the possibility of our own government turning despotic. Neither are out of the realm of possibility. Remember the Japanese admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, who said, during WWII "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass"
You really need to get a rocket launcher if you have any hope of blunting a foreign invasion. LMFAO!!!!!! The nut bags are out in full force.
Or the US army!
salsa, 300 million normal fireams in the hands of the general population serves as a pretty good disincentive, no rocket launchers required.
So you 2, salsa & no rocket are going to just raise your hands to surrender, and help no one defend this country if a foreign force came to occupy America? Yup, just as I figured
BD, your post has a whole lot of testosterone but very little substance. Just an observation.
salsa, my observation is that you are too dense to grasp any substance...
Yes BD and YOU are the one saying normal firearms will blunt a foreign invasion? LMFAO!!!!!
I am a law abiding citizen of the United States of America, and I enjoy guns and shooting, the NeoLibs don't. I don't feel the desperate need to make them live by my values, why do they feel so driven to enforce their values on me? Apparently there is no room in their world for true diversity, only diversity they agree with. They make rude comments and use descriptive words that would get you cited for a hate crime if you used them to describe a minority, or gender, or sexual orientation, but it is all good to them because gun owners aren’t really people like the GLBT crowd is. Gun owners can be deprived of long standing rights, and spoken to with any number of vindictive epithets, with no accountability to the NeoLibs supposed "higher moral ideals". Just read the preceding posts from them for all the proof you need of this fact.
Antonin Scalia believes there are limits to the 2nd Amendment. Do you know who Scalia is?
Jimbo, flaming Lib here, have several weapons in the home, along with a concealed carry permit, your whole premisis the NeoLibs are all wusses and pacifist is dead wrong--I will defend myself and mine to the death, however, I cannot defend ownership of machines that have the capacity to kill as many and as fast as possible--that's not defense that's mass murder.
What doe gays have to do with this discussion? My moral ideals is not to get shot up in a movie theater, eatery, or have children slaughtered because we are too weak and lack the courage to control people shredders.
How is registering your weapon and a background check depriving you of any rights?
Weren't you all the same people demanding that everyone be ID'd to vote?
Can't confiscate until the guns are registered:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100626143039AAIVbUH
SkyParrot,
Do you think anyone in April '92 felt that safe without a good gun and a significant amount of ammo when we had to flee our homes before the mobs of looters and thugs. They were two streets over when my family had to run. We came back to nothing, everything of value was stolen, and everything else was destroyed beyond repair. I will host a seige before starting over like that again. And I will feel no remorse for the lead dogs in the next mob down my street. Tell Reginald Denny how a small revolver is an perfectly adequite self defense gun.
Bart,
Do you think a vote is less powerful than a gun?
Salsa,
Really, Wow, you convinced me.
Steven B,
Here here.... Just like the Nazi's in 1938 only wanted to register the jews.
And yes you should share that information with little Emily or Dylan or one of the other children. Yes I will defend my damn Gun!!!! Because the government will take my rights away. You know what , you nuts have no power over the government, they can take you out with a grenade and their tanks. Explain to me what would you do if they came to your house in a tank a grenades. Nothing, So get over yourselves. Your guns have no power when it comes to the government. The government is laughing at you. The question is how do we explain the violence to our children without whining about the second amend. Because, I think the children would come back at you with, I have a right not to get shot by a damn GUN!
Our President wants open borders--and he got it--over 20,000,000 illegals in the country--many rapest and killers---to prove my point-- A illegal Mexican--Juan Galinde raped and killed a one month old baby girl--Alburquerque--New, Mexico--she was to you to protect herself--Also three Mexicans slashed the throat of a fourth Mexican--Sebring --Florida--Take our guns away---heck no
BS. He's deported more illegal immigrants than any other president before him. A fact that the Right tried to use against him during the last election.
Y a parte de eso, sabes, la paronoia te va a matar mucho antes que ninguna bala :-)
Alan, are you extrapolating from anecdotal evidence out of ignorance or deception?
Alan, how about the White guy that shot up a van at a convenience store because he didn't like the music, words ensued, one unarmed teenager dead, or another white guy here in Florida, Ft. Myers area, shot and killed a Young man selling frozen food, walked up this guys driveway with a lobster tail in his hand and gets shot dead because the homeowner feared for his life, claiming "stand your ground," the dead young man had 2 children and a wife, your arguments is full of beans.
So lets go after immigrants--hey need a mass killing machine against a migrant worker. There you go Einstein.
Don't let them take your rights away!
To "life, liberty, and the pursuit if happiness" that is. One Bushmaster in can take all three.
do you even know what a Bushmaster is?
Just banning assault rifles and background checks in the end will do little to address the real problem. Mental health and being able to track the history of a weapon. Let's start with mental health, the Virginia Tech massacre, Aurora Colorado, Newtown Elementary school all had one thing in common besides the weapon and outcome all three were committed by people who had a history of mental health problems, all three had established medical records with mental health issues. As a society maybe we have look at medical privacy and establish guidelines where privacy and overall good of society as well as the individual must be readdressed. Patient confidentiality needs to be respected however there should be the ability to have certain behavioral issues that should make a patient subject to better scrutiny or treatment. Secondly tracking a weapon, it is amazing that every car I ever owned has a history trail there is a title that will trace the vehicle from the day I bought it to the day it was junked not to mention what I went through to even get a license back in my youth and to prove I am still me when I update that license or registration. Guns need the same treatment, if I buy a gun legally after a through background check then I must be responsible for the that weapon until such time I can either legally sell it or destroy it. Recently a shooting in New York of fire fighters by a man with a criminal history with a gun that belonged to someone else made it evident that the gun owner who was arrested must be held accountable for the weapon and any crime committed with it. It is too easy to obtain weapons and just because something is banned doesn't mean it can't be obtained either. Shall we have a discussion on illegal drugs here to prove that. Yes oh it plays so well to hear our politicians stand there and make speeches about banning assault weapons as if that will solve anything but until they stop and look at mental health issues and the similarities of all the shooters to better stop someone who needs help before they hurt themselves and others and start making background checks and licensing as well as registering weapons madatory it is just political BS.
We all agree it take a nut to do this. But we don't need to make it easy for them. Although I do agree that banning doesn't always work. No one has taken away my Howitzer yet!
why is it that some idiot always has to make ridiculous statements regarding heavy military armaments like tanks, rocket launchers, howitzers, etc...? stupid statements that serve no purpose other than making yourself look like an azz. is it impossible for you to debate on the actual argument, i.e. semi-automatic civilian "assualt" rifles and higher capacity magizines, without having to be plain stupid?
Why is it that some idiot always has to make ridiculously stupid statements like normal firearms preventing a foreign invasion? Just asking the question.
Good point!! Like I posted earlier, once a sick mind set itself on doing evil, very hardly will it be stopped. You can plan and prevent but always everything has a weak point. Gun control, yes! Gun prohibiting, never!!