Quote:More than half of Americans want stricter gun control laws in the wake of multiple mass shootings, according to a new poll from Gallup that found support for tighter firearm rules jumping by 6 percent since 2014.

The latest Gallup survey released on Monday said that 55 percent want more restrictive gun control guidelines, a total up from 49 percent the year before.

Support for keeping the current gun laws in place is also down 4 points, falling from 37 percent in 2014 to 33 percent now.

The number of people who want less-restrictive gun laws also dropped from 13 percent in 2014 to 11 percent this year.

Gallup finds jump in support for gun control

too bad polls don't run the constitution.

Get it to 75% of the states and 2/3 of Congress and you can do (pretty much) whatever you please.


Of course it was 58% in 2013, 60% in 2004 and 62% in 2000


I think the obvious question is what you mean by 'stricter gun control'. I think lots of gun rights activists support keeping guns away from crazy people.... and with a 4% margin of error, it's entirely possible that the actual number is about 51% and that it hasn't changed a bit.

(10-21-2015 03:48 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  too bad polls don't run the constitution.

Get it to 75% of the states and 2/3 of Congress and you can do (pretty much) whatever you please.


Of course it was 58% in 2013, 60% in 2004 and 62% in 2000


I think the obvious question is what you mean by 'stricter gun control'. I think lots of gun rights activists support keeping guns away from crazy people.... and with a 4% margin of error, it's entirely possible that the actual number is about 51% and that it hasn't changed a bit.

here comes gattaca hopping down the bunny trail......hippidity hoppidity.....

it's too damn easy how this plays out...

I imagine that stricter gun control means trying to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill. Most of us probably agree. The problem is how.

(10-22-2015 05:43 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  I imagine that stricter gun control means trying to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill. Most of us probably agree. The problem is how.

By enforcing the current laws.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

(10-22-2015 05:48 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(10-22-2015 05:43 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  I imagine that stricter gun control means trying to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill. Most of us probably agree. The problem is how.

By enforcing the current laws.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

I imagine that applies to many of our issues. Allowing people to carry out their 2nd amendment rights would also help. We are not going to stop nutters from doing this stuff. We can though allow qualified and trained people to protect themselves in class rooms.

My point was that all of these mass shooters made threats and telegraphed their intentions. I am not for a subjective determination, but if they enforced the law and went after people that made threats, be it in the real world or the cyber world, a lot of these could have been stopped. Monitor the internet. This Oregon guy as well as Lanza would have been stopped. The Aurora guy literally told his shrink his intentions and she didn't report it. Columbine was carefully planned, practically in the open.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

(10-21-2015 03:48 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  too bad polls don't run the constitution.

Get it to 75% of the states and 2/3 of Congress and you can do (pretty much) whatever you please.


Of course it was 58% in 2013, 60% in 2004 and 62% in 2000


I think the obvious question is what you mean by 'stricter gun control'. I think lots of gun rights activists support keeping guns away from crazy people.... and with a 4% margin of error, it's entirely possible that the actual number is about 51% and that it hasn't changed a bit.

Why does gun control always translate to gun bans? They aren't the same thing.

More Americans also favor concealed weapon permits for law abiding citizens!

Crazy people are going to continue doing crazy things. Unfortunately, the future looks bleak as population continue to rise in America. As American population continue to rise, the end result is more crazy people.

Decrease population = Decrease crazy people! THIS is the only solution

This is about stricter GUN CONTROL SALES, not overall gun control.

"55% say laws on gun sales should be more strict than they are now"

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-r...un-control

(10-22-2015 09:25 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-21-2015 03:48 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  too bad polls don't run the constitution.

Get it to 75% of the states and 2/3 of Congress and you can do (pretty much) whatever you please.


Of course it was 58% in 2013, 60% in 2004 and 62% in 2000


I think the obvious question is what you mean by 'stricter gun control'. I think lots of gun rights activists support keeping guns away from crazy people.... and with a 4% margin of error, it's entirely possible that the actual number is about 51% and that it hasn't changed a bit.

Why does gun control always translate to gun bans? They aren't the same thing.

Sorry, can't tell if you are agreeing with me or not. I agree with your assessment, but most of those on the left seem to want to use it for that purpose.

I didn't say or imply ban. You can deny all sort of people their constitutional rights without banning it for everyone. See the arguments about voting. Having to have a 'free' ID that 90+% of people already have and everyone else easily COULD get is supposedly unconstitutional.

It's not as if gun rights supporters are out there worried about unreasonably strict gun laws because nobody is trying to pass them. Heller itself was one of many.

Too bad!

(10-22-2015 11:00 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-22-2015 09:25 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-21-2015 03:48 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  too bad polls don't run the constitution.

Get it to 75% of the states and 2/3 of Congress and you can do (pretty much) whatever you please.


Of course it was 58% in 2013, 60% in 2004 and 62% in 2000


I think the obvious question is what you mean by 'stricter gun control'. I think lots of gun rights activists support keeping guns away from crazy people.... and with a 4% margin of error, it's entirely possible that the actual number is about 51% and that it hasn't changed a bit.

Why does gun control always translate to gun bans? They aren't the same thing.

Sorry, can't tell if you are agreeing with me or not. I agree with your assessment, but most of those on the left seem to want to use it for that purpose.

I didn't say or imply ban. You can deny all sort of people their constitutional rights without banning it for everyone. See the arguments about voting. Having to have a 'free' ID that 90+% of people already have and everyone else easily COULD get is supposedly unconstitutional.

It's not as if gun rights supporters are out there worried about unreasonably strict gun laws because nobody is trying to pass them. Heller itself was one of many.

Disenfranchising millions to solve a problem that is almost nonexistent is a far cry from restricting access to guns to curb gun violence that kills an average of 36 people every single day.

(10-22-2015 12:30 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-22-2015 11:00 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-22-2015 09:25 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-21-2015 03:48 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  too bad polls don't run the constitution.

Get it to 75% of the states and 2/3 of Congress and you can do (pretty much) whatever you please.


Of course it was 58% in 2013, 60% in 2004 and 62% in 2000


I think the obvious question is what you mean by 'stricter gun control'. I think lots of gun rights activists support keeping guns away from crazy people.... and with a 4% margin of error, it's entirely possible that the actual number is about 51% and that it hasn't changed a bit.

Why does gun control always translate to gun bans? They aren't the same thing.

Sorry, can't tell if you are agreeing with me or not. I agree with your assessment, but most of those on the left seem to want to use it for that purpose.

I didn't say or imply ban. You can deny all sort of people their constitutional rights without banning it for everyone. See the arguments about voting. Having to have a 'free' ID that 90+% of people already have and everyone else easily COULD get is supposedly unconstitutional.

It's not as if gun rights supporters are out there worried about unreasonably strict gun laws because nobody is trying to pass them. Heller itself was one of many.

Disenfranchising millions to solve a problem that is almost nonexistent is a far cry from restricting access to guns to curb gun violence that kills an average of 36 people every single day.

and the issue of voter ID is also a far cry from 'disenfranchising millions'.... so too is the idea that restricting access to guns would make a dent in the 36 people.... since most of them are already either passing background checks or getting them illegally. Further, restricting the rights of 300mm people for a 'right' that they still have to pay to enjoy is also different from providing for free something to the small percentage of people who don't already have them.

Rights are rights. They are not 'relative'. Only the burden being placed to exercise those rights is 'relative'. We can argue about whether one list of things is or is not burdensome, but that is an entirely unrelated debate.

What we are currently doing w/r/t gun control has been deemed 'reasonable' by the courts. What Heller required was not. Most of what many people seem to want isn't. Similarly SOME Voter ID has been held to be reasonable and some not.

(10-22-2015 02:35 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-22-2015 12:30 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-22-2015 11:00 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-22-2015 09:25 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-21-2015 03:48 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  too bad polls don't run the constitution.

Get it to 75% of the states and 2/3 of Congress and you can do (pretty much) whatever you please.


Of course it was 58% in 2013, 60% in 2004 and 62% in 2000


I think the obvious question is what you mean by 'stricter gun control'. I think lots of gun rights activists support keeping guns away from crazy people.... and with a 4% margin of error, it's entirely possible that the actual number is about 51% and that it hasn't changed a bit.

Why does gun control always translate to gun bans? They aren't the same thing.

Sorry, can't tell if you are agreeing with me or not. I agree with your assessment, but most of those on the left seem to want to use it for that purpose.

I didn't say or imply ban. You can deny all sort of people their constitutional rights without banning it for everyone. See the arguments about voting. Having to have a 'free' ID that 90+% of people already have and everyone else easily COULD get is supposedly unconstitutional.

It's not as if gun rights supporters are out there worried about unreasonably strict gun laws because nobody is trying to pass them. Heller itself was one of many.

Disenfranchising millions to solve a problem that is almost nonexistent is a far cry from restricting access to guns to curb gun violence that kills an average of 36 people every single day.

and the issue of voter ID is also a far cry from 'disenfranchising millions'.... so too is the idea that restricting access to guns would make a dent in the 36 people.... since most of them are already either passing background checks or getting them illegally. Further, restricting the rights of 300mm people for a 'right' that they still have to pay to enjoy is also different from providing for free something to the small percentage of people who don't already have them.

Rights are rights. They are not 'relative'. Only the burden being placed to exercise those rights is 'relative'. We can argue about whether one list of things is or is not burdensome, but that is an entirely unrelated debate.

What we are currently doing w/r/t gun control has been deemed 'reasonable' by the courts. What Heller required was not. Most of what many people seem to want isn't. Similarly SOME Voter ID has been held to be reasonable and some not.

Let's make a deal. I'll accept the "dent" voter I.D.s will make in voter fraud if you can accept the "dent" gun control will make on gun violence.

(10-22-2015 02:52 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-22-2015 02:35 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-22-2015 12:30 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-22-2015 11:00 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-22-2015 09:25 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Why does gun control always translate to gun bans? They aren't the same thing.

Sorry, can't tell if you are agreeing with me or not. I agree with your assessment, but most of those on the left seem to want to use it for that purpose.

I didn't say or imply ban. You can deny all sort of people their constitutional rights without banning it for everyone. See the arguments about voting. Having to have a 'free' ID that 90+% of people already have and everyone else easily COULD get is supposedly unconstitutional.

It's not as if gun rights supporters are out there worried about unreasonably strict gun laws because nobody is trying to pass them. Heller itself was one of many.

Disenfranchising millions to solve a problem that is almost nonexistent is a far cry from restricting access to guns to curb gun violence that kills an average of 36 people every single day.

and the issue of voter ID is also a far cry from 'disenfranchising millions'.... so too is the idea that restricting access to guns would make a dent in the 36 people.... since most of them are already either passing background checks or getting them illegally. Further, restricting the rights of 300mm people for a 'right' that they still have to pay to enjoy is also different from providing for free something to the small percentage of people who don't already have them.

Rights are rights. They are not 'relative'. Only the burden being placed to exercise those rights is 'relative'. We can argue about whether one list of things is or is not burdensome, but that is an entirely unrelated debate.

What we are currently doing w/r/t gun control has been deemed 'reasonable' by the courts. What Heller required was not. Most of what many people seem to want isn't. Similarly SOME Voter ID has been held to be reasonable and some not.

Let's make a deal. I'll accept the "dent" voter I.D.s will make in voter fraud if you can accept the "dent" gun control will make on gun violence.

How about the dent ID CAN make, and the dent gun control CAN make? All control isn't constructive.... and that was the point of my last paragraph.

I understand the argument for 'free' IDs. I also understand the argument for giving people time and assistance in getting their information together. I think the right to vote is important enough that the state should do everything we can to see that those who wish to vote can.... even to the point of letting people vote provisionally and then fixing their issues later.... while still making sure that they vote in the right places, under the right names and that they vote once. It seems to me that nobody should be under threat of disenfranchisement more than once... because if they are, we should be assigning them to someone (even a court) to solve their problem before the next election. I'd be okay with one more 'unclean' vote if the problem never happened again.

I think the right to bear arms is important enough that the state should similarly make sure that people who want them can get them without a myriad of hoops, but I also understand that they are dangerous. The point of gun control should be to keep them out of the hands of BAD people, but not by punishing GOOD ones.

To your point, I don't see that making someone with a state ID or passport ALSO get a voter ID is helpful in solving the issue, nor do I see that punishing people for having their guns stolen or losing their jobs or having bad credit is helpful.

(10-22-2015 12:30 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Disenfranchising millions to solve a problem that is almost nonexistent is a far cry from restricting access to guns to curb gun violence that kills an average of 36 people every single day.

Except it is not "disenfranchising millions" to solve a problem that is "almost nonexistent."

(10-22-2015 06:22 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-22-2015 12:30 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Disenfranchising millions to solve a problem that is almost nonexistent is a far cry from restricting access to guns to curb gun violence that kills an average of 36 people every single day.

Except it is not "disenfranchising millions" to solve a problem that is "almost nonexistent."

Yes, it is. DYK: In Kansas, they looked for voter fraud ... and discovered that in fact, the voter fraud was coming from machines purchased by the GOP state election commission? That's what I'd be worried about.