Gun Control Poll

[questionmark]

The poll so far seems to show, interestingly, that a majority (especially for a forum with a good international mix) favor no new laws, or actually removing some laws, with 22 votes.

Whereas those favoring more legislation or a ban are in the minority with 9 votes.

Seems to me, that the people favoring a ban are simply a extremely vocal minority.

Also seems to show that no one favors an outright ban of all guns. Which was the question that spawned this poll.

Around here those who said that Mitt Romney would win also were a majority...and it resulted that they were nor representative either... except for UM, but UM hardly matters in the real world.

[Myles]

The poll so far seems to show, interestingly, that a majority (especially for a forum with a good international mix) favor no new laws, or actually removing some laws, with 22 votes.

Whereas those favoring more legislation or a ban are in the minority with 9 votes.

Seems to me, that the people favoring a ban are simply a extremely vocal minority.

Also seems to show that no one favors an outright ban of all guns. Which was the question that spawned this poll.

I think the results are fairly correct in representing the American public. This issue isn't split down party lines. Nearly all republicans are against more gun restrictions while a good number of democrats are against more gun restrictions. The independents and the rest (like me) also have a large portion who are afraid of more gun regulations.

[psyche101]

I don't see the point in arguing Gun Control in the US any longer. It is more than clear that US people want guns and the extraordinarily wealthy Gun Manufacturers are going to stand behind them. I would not be surprised to find that industry is worth more than Oil. There are some responsible people with legitimate reasons for wanting a gun, and there are childish halfwits toting guns in the US that should never even have a slingshot. Too much money is involved. The responsible people have to carry the deadweight of society and Americans will continue to die from gun deaths that they should not like accidents and public shootings. As long as people like Smith and Wesson are raking in millions a day, there is not going to be any thought from above other than suppressing gun control. I think the second amendment ought to be considered as valuable as Apartheid in todays society. Nobody needs guns in a city and rural situations being sparse should be easily monitored, if not seek alternate solutions such as the brilliant young lad in Africa who kept Lions from stealing livestock with flashing lights, thing is people want them. That difference will never be admitted to by the people who should not have guns. Responsible people ask for tighter laws, irresponsible people think it is a birthright. None at all would be the best solution all round. But it wont happen in the US ever. No point in even entertaining the idea. Money has created a culture where people think they need guns.

[+DieChecker]

The poll has two reasons.

1. Prove that no one will even Anonymously from an Anonymous pseudonym vote for a total ban.

2. Show that not everyone thinks going to a England/Australia system would be fantastic.

[psyche101]

The poll has two reasons.

1. Prove that no one will even Anonymously from an Anonymous pseudonym vote for a total ban.

2. Show that not everyone thinks going to a England/Australia system would be fantastic.

1 - Total ban - not realistic and never going to happen. No need to vote for the impossible. If you destroyed every gun in existence, someone would make one tomorrow. Some people unfortunately are just like that. Discoveries have to be made, nothing as small as man will stop discovery, but man can use those discoveries badly. And we do.

2 - It would indeed be fantastic, and far better than that which is in place, just not realistic as you say for geographical reasons, and for as I say, Gun Manufacturers would loose far to much money and will never let that happen. I do believe the insistent forcing of the second amendment in the US is driven by Gun Manufacturers.

Not meaning to have a go at you or the poll, it just seems no matter what happens, the US is more then determined to hold onto Guns, and the money changing hands must be so astronomical that it would take a war or worse to change the way of thinking there. Heck, if ending gun massacres is not enough alone, I fail to see what would change the thought process. There might be slight alterations, but seeing the comments in the pro gun thread it is obvious that the mindset is "we need guns" but honestly, that's not the case. Nobody really does. Very handy for farmers and police, but I honestly feel with some thought, even they are not totally necessary situations. Handy sure, but there is more than one way to skin a cat.

[danielost]

I don't see the point in arguing Gun Control in the US any longer. It is more than clear that US people want guns and the extraordinarily wealthy Gun Manufacturers are going to stand behind them. I would not be surprised to find that industry is worth more than Oil. There are some responsible people with legitimate reasons for wanting a gun, and there are childish halfwits toting guns in the US that should never even have a slingshot. Too much money is involved. The responsible people have to carry the deadweight of society and Americans will continue to die from gun deaths that they should not like accidents and public shootings. As long as people like Smith and Wesson are raking in millions a day, there is not going to be any thought from above other than suppressing gun control. I think the second amendment ought to be considered as valuable as Apartheid in todays society. Nobody needs guns in a city and rural situations being sparse should be easily monitored, if not seek alternate solutions such as the brilliant young lad in Africa who kept Lions from stealing livestock with flashing lights, thing is people want them. That difference will never be admitted to by the people who should not have guns. Responsible people ask for tighter laws, irresponsible people think it is a birthright. None at all would be the best solution all round. But it wont happen in the US ever. No point in even entertaining the idea. Money has created a culture where people think they need guns.

I will never own a gun. But, I support admindment two. We have this right so we can protect ourselves from the government or any other self defense reason. When I was in the military the drill Sargent told those of us who would be issued a pistol, the best thing to do is throw the pistol at the enemy and pick up a m16. This is why people buy ar15s instead of pistols they are more effective.

[+DieChecker]

1 - Total ban - not realistic and never going to happen. No need to vote for the impossible. If you destroyed every gun in existence, someone would make one tomorrow. Some people unfortunately are just like that. Discoveries have to be made, nothing as small as man will stop discovery, but man can use those discoveries badly. And we do.

It is just that in these gun threads, people inevitably start accusing others of supporting a total ban. The poll shows that even with double anonymousness people will not admit to that opinion.

2 - It would indeed be fantastic, and far better than that which is in place, just not realistic as you say for geographical reasons, and for as I say, Gun Manufacturers would loose far to much money and will never let that happen. I do believe the insistent forcing of the second amendment in the US is driven by Gun Manufacturers.

There is some truth in the accusation of Corporate interests, but I don't think the overall psyche of the American People has been bought and corrupted by special interests. We really just like guns and the idea of self protection.

Edited July 15, 2014 by DieChecker

[psyche101]

I will never own a gun. But, I support admindment two.

So you support something you will never ever use because you think other people might need this support? This is what I mean, Fats Cats. Gun Manufacturers seem to have brainwashed to US public into believe there is no way to exist without a guns in your life.

We have this right so we can protect ourselves from the government or any other self defense reason.

You are not the first to say that, and maybe it is just the US, but from this side of the world that seems an incredibly stupid and paranoid thing to say. For one - do US Citizens really believe their own elected Government will go to war against them? The people who seem to believe this is a real possibility also seem to have severe paranoid issues as well. And Two - if the seemingly unlikely event was to happen, what do your lot think you are going to do with your pop guns? You do have an inkling as to the type of military hardware available these days? An entire town can be reduced to a crater is a matter of seconds. If the US wanted to obliterate it's citizens for whatever bizarre reason other can conjure up, I doubt there would be a darn thing you could do about it other than die horribly.

When I was in the military the drill Sargent told those of us who would be issued a pistol, the best thing to do is throw the pistol at the enemy and pick up a m16. This is why people buy ar15s instead of pistols they are more effective.

As long as the ground is littered with fully loaded M16's that might be a better idea. Aren't pistols undesirable because they are less accurate?

Thing is there is no "enemy" here, just an imaginary one that keeps Gun Manufacturers raking the big bucks in.

[psyche101]

It is just that in these gun threads, people inevitably start accusing others of supporting a total ban. The poll shows that even with double anonymousness people will not admit to that opinion.

I think perhaps they realise their error, a total ban just wont work. I would suggest if anyone ever states that total ban is a good option, to ask how would they implement and police it?

There is some truth in the accusation of Corporate interests, but I don't think the overall psyche of the American People has been bought and corrupted by special interests. We really just like guns and the idea of self protection.

It would be hard to get to 100% of the population, and this thread shows that is not the case, but opposition is in the minority is it not? By a long shot I understand? Steven Jobs said “people don't know what they want until you show it to them.” I do not see it as natural to want to have a dangerous weapon handy. I can see how that could come to be, and I can see how it would be popularised with sporting and self defence (the government is gonna get me stuff honestly blows my mind, hard to believe people even think like that, let alone use it as an excuse), but I do not see it as a natural pursuit in modern day society. Look at the American Psyche with 911, a divided nation, far too many people calling the people who flew planes into buildings innocent, and turning on their own Government. And all that took was Alex Jones, it is not hard to believe that a Corporate Giant reliant on more dollars than the oil wars were fought over would fight to retain the astounding profits that Gun Manufacturers have to be raking in on a daily basis. And that my friend, I find far more plausible than "people here just love guns". Money talks.

Edited July 15, 2014 by psyche101

[aztek]

So you support something you will never ever use because you think other people might need this support? This is what I mean, Fats Cats. Gun Manufacturers seem to have brainwashed to US public into believe there is no way to exist without a guns in your life.

no, he is just fine, it is you whose brain your gvmnt brain washed, and looks like they used high pressure washer

he is absolutely correct protecting rights from infringement that he may not ever exercise, because he knows it is only matter of time until a right he exercises will be in danger, and he wont be alone fighting for it.

you otoh, wont do anything until it concerns you, but guess what when it does, you alone will be too weak to do anything, and others wont do a thing cuz it does not affect them.

and it has nothing to do with gun manufacturers or gvmnt, it is something very valuable he has in him, and you do not.

[Myles]

So you support something you will never ever use because you think other people might need this support? This is what I mean, Fats Cats. Gun Manufacturers seem to have brainwashed to US public into believe there is no way to exist without a guns in your life.

I disagree. I find it noble that someone believes in protecting someone's rights even though it isn't something they take part in. I hate to think that the world will be a place where only things are done that affect the majority.

[Rafterman]

I don't see the point in arguing Gun Control in the US any longer. It is more than clear that US people want guns and the extraordinarily wealthy Gun Manufacturers are going to stand behind them. I would not be surprised to find that industry is worth more than Oil. There are some responsible people with legitimate reasons for wanting a gun, and there are childish halfwits toting guns in the US that should never even have a slingshot. Too much money is involved. The responsible people have to carry the deadweight of society and Americans will continue to die from gun deaths that they should not like accidents and public shootings. As long as people like Smith and Wesson are raking in millions a day, there is not going to be any thought from above other than suppressing gun control. I think the second amendment ought to be considered as valuable as Apartheid in todays society. Nobody needs guns in a city and rural situations being sparse should be easily monitored, if not seek alternate solutions such as the brilliant young lad in Africa who kept Lions from stealing livestock with flashing lights, thing is people want them. That difference will never be admitted to by the people who should not have guns. Responsible people ask for tighter laws, irresponsible people think it is a birthright. None at all would be the best solution all round. But it wont happen in the US ever. No point in even entertaining the idea. Money has created a culture where people think they need guns.

The firearms business is a fairly p*** poor industry in which to make money. Profit margins are typically in the 3-5% range. Most gun shops make about $20 on every firearm sold.

Compare that to oil & gas at about 24%.

The only reason people and companies are making money right now is simply through volume.

Edited July 15, 2014 by Rafterman

[DefenceMinisterMishkin]

Never understood why Americans are so obsessed with guns.

Whatever happened to a goold old fashioned fist fight..

Put em up duke!

[Rafterman]

such system already exists. NICB. it turned down 700.000 people. i have nothing against other data there to be included, you do not need to change anything, mandate states metal clinics to submit more, it has nothing to do with gun owners. and afaik most if not all gunowners, including nra, has nothing against it.

btw , can't really take that article serious, (even thou it makes some good points for current system), entire article is noting but "what if" argument.

i keep asking gun control fans, how are you going to control guns in someones hands, no one gave me an answer, thus it turns out, they have no clue what gun control even is. yet they keep screaming they want it.

I'm simply saying that NICB can be better and it can be standardized across the country. While you cannot legislate intelligence or make crime disappear, we can work to ensure that legal firearms stay out of the hands of the wrong people.

And actually the NRA has reversed course on background checks for many of the reasons I mention above.

Edited July 15, 2014 by Rafterman

[aztek]

Whatever happened to a goold old fashioned fist fight..

it does not exist now, that is why we need guns, not to mention fighting in usa will get you arrested no matter who started it.

[aztek]

we can work to ensure that legal firearms stay out of the hands of the wrong people.

but realisticly you can not, gangs will always get their guns, and they wont get them legaly, so all legal stuff you "working to ensure" wont affect them 1 bit.

if your goal is "to work" that you will fail everytime, your goal needs to be "to accomplish" than you may get somewhere, but with absolutely undoable approach we get what we have now, gans\felons have their guns, and law abiding citizen has harder and harder time to get one. congrads, your "work to ensure" is counterproductive.

Edited July 15, 2014 by aztek

[praetorian-legio XIII]

Never understood why Americans are so obsessed with guns.

Whatever happened to a goold old fashioned fist fight..

Put em up duke!

Consider, with all political points and crime stats and legal arguments put aside, that guns are simply fun to shoot. They definitely are to me. Shoot the spade out of an Ace at 50 yards with a 1911 45 cal...oh yea. Take down 2 clay pigeons with a 12 gauge..bingo. Explode some empty bottles at 100 yards with a 308... bam. That's a fun afternoon in my book.

[Thorvir]

Never understood why Americans are so obsessed with guns.

Whatever happened to a goold old fashioned fist fight..

Put em up duke!

It's not an obsession with guns at all. It's an obsession with protecting our right to bear arms, which in itself protects the rest of our rights in this country. Some of the non-Americans here just don't get that, and never will. That's why, albeit not every time, the US has had to step in to provide those nation's own self-defense.

And when it comes to self-defense, I'm not interested in fighting the bad guy in a fair (fist) fight. That's the least of my worries.

[aztek]

And actually the NRA has reversed course on background checks for many of the reasons I mention above.

good for them, they know a lot more about politics, they know not to give in an inch so they wont lose a mile, and we know none of the things offered would work anyway, in one way or the other it was tried and failed.

you just can not keep something from someone if they want it, wheather it is drugs, guns, or anything else. entire world is proof. so you can't keep guns from wrong people, but you trying very hard to get them away from right people.

Edited July 15, 2014 by aztek

[danielost]

I'm simply saying that NICB can be better and it can be standardized across the country. While you cannot legislate intelligence or make crime disappear, we can work to ensure that legal firearms stay out of the hands of the wrong people.

And actually the NRA has reversed course on background checks for many of the reasons I mention above.

Those who break the law won't stop breaking the law, just because you make a new law. The own at new town didn't own a gun his mom did. He stole it and killed his mom in the process.

[green_dude777]

So you support something you will never ever use because you think other people might need this support? This is what I mean, Fats Cats. Gun Manufacturers seem to have brainwashed to US public into believe there is no way to exist without a guns in your life.

You are not the first to say that, and maybe it is just the US, but from this side of the world that seems an incredibly stupid and paranoid thing to say. For one - do US Citizens really believe their own elected Government will go to war against them? The people who seem to believe this is a real possibility also seem to have severe paranoid issues as well. And Two - if the seemingly unlikely event was to happen, what do your lot think you are going to do with your pop guns? You do have an inkling as to the type of military hardware available these days? An entire town can be reduced to a crater is a matter of seconds. If the US wanted to obliterate it's citizens for whatever bizarre reason other can conjure up, I doubt there would be a darn thing you could do about it other than die horribly.

As long as the ground is littered with fully loaded M16's that might be a better idea. Aren't pistols undesirable because they are less accurate?

Thing is there is no "enemy" here, just an imaginary one that keeps Gun Manufacturers raking the big bucks in.

Someone supporting a position that doesn't directly affect them bolsters their credibility. You are the first person I've ever witnessed trying to argue the opposite.

The rest of your post(s) are speculation at best. Have you seen typical American advertisements? Unless you're buying a medium that is affiliated with firearms already, this 'brain washing' you reference is non existent.

[ninjadude]

But, I support admindment two. We have this right so we can protect ourselves from the government

show me exactly where it says this in your copy of the constitution? I've asked before.

And then show me where that your gun is effective against the government

[Thorvir]

show me exactly where it says this in your copy of the constitution? I've asked before.

And then show me where that your gun is effective against the government

And while he's doing that, show me where we don't have the right to defend ourselves, and don't have to right to oppose a repressive government.

[psyche101]

no, he is just fine, it is you whose brain your gvmnt brain washed, and looks like they used high pressure washer

At least my brain is clean then and all the crap has been removed.

Who brainwashed me to say what though? Australia has not particular policy concerning US arms, these are simply my honest thoughts.

he is absolutely correct protecting rights from infringement that he may not ever exercise, because he knows it is only matter of time until a right he exercises will be in danger, and he wont be alone fighting for it.

I would call that "paranoia"

To have a deadly weapon in house because you might use it someday seems ridiculous to me, Why not go out and buy a 747 in case you want to leave the country one day? He said he would not own a gun, but supports the rights of people to have them in case the Government attacks the people? Dead set, that honestly sounds certifiably crazy to me. I mean how often do you have to hole up and shoot it out with the Government?

you otoh, wont do anything until it concerns you, but guess what when it does, you alone will be too weak to do anything, and others wont do a thing cuz it does not affect them.

I do plenty, and I do not want to see more deaths from accidents and public massacres just to curb someones paranoia, and make Gun Manufacturers a crapload of money.

Weak? LOL. See how much you rely on guns!! You think you need a gun to be tough?? That is both immature and incorrect.

and it has nothing to do with gun manufacturers or gvmnt, it is something very valuable he has in him, and you do not.

What paranoia? You are both welcome to that thanks very much.

Apologies to the unanswered posts, I will get back to them tomorrow, I have to leave now for Gym - Boxing tonight.

Weak without a gun LOL. Man up.

[+DieChecker]

Still no one voting for a Total Ban. Come on, there has to be at least one true Pacifist Communist out there. (Teasing!)

The vote is a clear 1/3rd for more legislation and 2/3 for the same or less. 15 to 31. That is a pretty good turnout. I hope for more votes in the coming days.