90% of Americans...

[A.J. Holst]

(Polled) post Pulse Shooting agree we need stronger gun control.

From a Soundbite, last week, Hilary

If true, 90% is a huge number, you and i would be getting confiscation notices by now.

Another example of liars figure but figures don't lie.

If you were asked the question, "do we need to keep firearms out of the hands of terrorists?"

Yes or no. 

If yes, you are for more gun control.

And so the headline is born.

[btq96r]

Whenever I hear it, it's in reference to the polling numbers that support universal background checks.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/211321-poll-most-gun-owners-support-universal-background-checks

[RED333]

I hear that crap all the time from the left, so I am just guessing I am of the 10% that was not asked.

[Omega]

It's all bs, they ask questions such as "Do you think guns should be kept from criminals and terrorists?", then when the answer is of course Yes, they say we support gun control or whatever bs they want to push.  I only support dropping the hammer on criminals and terrorists,  and the way to do that is to first identify them and target them, and in the case of terrorists eliminate them. In the case of criminals, tack on an extra few years when they use firearms in a crime.

[btq96r]

These aren't loaded questions...

 

58. Do you support or oppose stricter gun control laws in the United States?

                                                               AGE IN YRS..............
                     Tot    Rep    Dem    Ind    Men    Wom    18-29  30-49  50-64  65+
 
Support              50%    24%    80%    44%    41%    58%    49%    54%    45%    52%
Oppose               47     71     17     52     57     38     50     43     52     41
DK/NA                 3      4      2      4      3      4      1      3      3      7

 

59. Do you support or oppose requiring background checks for all gun buyers?

                                                               AGE IN YRS..............
                     Tot    Rep    Dem    Ind    Men    Wom    18-29  30-49  50-64  65+
 
Support              92%    86%    98%    92%    90%    94%    93%    91%    92%    93%
Oppose                7     11      2      7      9      5      7      7      7      5
DK/NA                 1      3      1      1      1      2      -      1      1      2

 

 

[DaveTN]

I know we need to keep guns out of the hands of terrorists. (Kind of a dumb azz question) But I’m not for gun control; I’m for terrorist control.

[Grand Torino]

6 minutes ago, DaveTN said:

I know we need to keep guns out of the hands of terrorists. (Kind of a dumb azz question) But I’m not for gun control; I’m for terrorist control.

Why don't they ask if they want to keep guns out of the hands of terrorists at the expense of your First Amendment rights as well as your Second? Of course someone would probably need to explain to the what the First Amendment says so....

[DaveTN]

30 minutes ago, Grand Torino said:

Why don't they ask if they want to keep guns out of the hands of terrorists at the expense of your First Amendment rights as well as your Second? Of course someone would probably need to explain to the what the First Amendment says so....

How would it be a first amendment violation? Threats aren’t protected speech.

[E4 No More]

49 minutes ago, DaveTN said:

How would it be a first amendment violation? Threats aren’t protected speech.

Posting something on social media has gotten some folks on the no-fly/terrorist watch lists. Doesn't necessarily have to be a threat.

[Preacher357]

These aren't loaded questions...

 

58. Do you support or oppose stricter gun control laws in the United States?

                                                               AGE IN YRS..............                     Tot    Rep    Dem    Ind    Men    Wom    18-29  30-49  50-64  65+ Support              50%    24%    80%    44%    41%    58%    49%    54%    45%    52%Oppose               47     71     17     52     57     38     50     43     52     41DK/NA                 3      4      2      4      3      4      1      3      3      7

 

59. Do you support or oppose requiring background checks for all gun buyers?

                                                               AGE IN YRS..............                     Tot    Rep    Dem    Ind    Men    Wom    18-29  30-49  50-64  65+ Support              92%    86%    98%    92%    90%    94%    93%    91%    92%    93%Oppose                7     11      2      7      9      5      7      7      7      5DK/NA                 1      3      1      1      1      2      -      1      1      2

 

 

Polls can be manipulated by the way the sampling is done. As a result, I never trust any that I see from either side. Honestly, I have a hard time buying the 90% figure considering none of the guys I know who have guns support more regulation. You would expect with that level of supposed nationwide consensus that I would at least be able to name one, even within a small circle of people.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[Grand Torino]

2 hours ago, DaveTN said:

How would it be a first amendment violation? Threats aren’t protected speech.

It's not. The point is they are in such a hurry to throw away Second Amendment rights I'd like to see how willing they are to throw away their First Amendment rights while they are at it. It might be nice to shut them the hell up for a change.

[btq96r]

3 minutes ago, Preacher357 said:

Polls can be manipulated by the way the sampling is done. As a result, I never trust any that I see from either side. Honestly, I have a hard time buying the 90% figure considering none of the guys I know who have guns support more regulation. You would expect with that level of supposed nationwide consensus that I would at least be able to name one, even within a small circle of people.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

This isn't a one side or the other poll, the questions were inside the national Quinnipiac poll that addressed a whole bunch of issues.  They're a neutral arbiter in these things.

Sampling is always the best you can get, and I think they made a good effort to get a wide cross section of opinion when they took this poll (it was from 2014).

From June 24 - 30, Quinnipiac University surveyed 1,446 registered voters nationwide with a margin of error of +/- 2.6 percentage points. Live interviewers call land lines and cell phones.

The Quinnipiac University Poll, directed by Douglas Schwartz, Ph.D., conducts public opinion surveys in Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Iowa, Colorado and the nation as a public service and for research.

And if you look at the questions, the 90% figure is for background checks for all purchases, which a lot of people don't see as "gun control regulation," myself included to give you someone you know (well, internet know anyway) who supports it.  The "stricter gun control" question was split 50/47/3 which is a tie with the margin of error included. 

This poll wasn't manipulated, it's the reporting on it that is questionable...ie: the media doesn't go in depth about the split on "stricter gun control."

[Omega]

I don't know about anyone else, but I see background checks just like the GCA; gun control.  So in my case it's not that I support background checks,  it's that I tolerate them.  But I am hard pressed to see any other way to keep guns away from criminals. The thing is, background checks, tax stamps, and CCW permits have become a way to  put money into the system, otherwise why not make it free?  Why a bg check for each purchase vs per person?  Why a bg check when you have a CCW, Military, LEO, have a Security Clearance?  Why can't you have prohibited weapons without a $200 tax?  Does $200 make you less likely to commit heinous acts?  No, it's all about control, nothing else.

[Caster]

90% of americans are idiot sheeple.  

[Trekbike]

2 hours ago, btq96r said:

And if you look at the questions, the 90% figure is for background checks for all purchases, which a lot of people don't see as "gun control regulation," myself included to give you someone you know (well, internet know anyway) who supports it.  The "stricter gun control" question was split 50/47/3 which is a tie with the margin of error included. 

This poll wasn't manipulated, it's the reporting on it that is questionable...ie: the media doesn't go in depth about the split on "stricter gun control."

Question here, do you think people would have responded differently if the following language had been added?

59. Do you support or oppose requiring background checks for all gun buyers, if the only way to do so, would be to have a National Gun Registry Database?   

People have debated this before and I'm not aware of someone coming up with a way to truly enforce private sales through background checks without having all guns registered.   It's unfair to ask someone a question like that unless they know how the law will be enforced.     

 

 

[seez52]

18 minutes ago, Trekbike said:

Question here, do you think people would have responded differently if the following language had been added?

59. Do you support or oppose requiring background checks for all gun buyers, if the only way to do so, would be to have a National Gun Registry Database?   

People have debated this before and I'm not aware of someone coming up with a way to truly enforce private sales through background checks without having all guns registered.   It's unfair to ask someone a question like that unless they know how the law will be enforced.     

 

 

that's the only way it would work. they will pass universal checks, then "discover" that you first need to know where all the guns are so the checks are effective. And universal background checks sound so benign.

[btq96r]

50 minutes ago, Trekbike said:

Question here, do you think people would have responded differently if the following language had been added?

59. Do you support or oppose requiring background checks for all gun buyers, if the only way to do so, would be to have a National Gun Registry Database?   

People have debated this before and I'm not aware of someone coming up with a way to truly enforce private sales through background checks without having all guns registered.   It's unfair to ask someone a question like that unless they know how the law will be enforced.     

 

 

Universal background checks, and a National Gun Register Database are two separate issues.  You don't have to have one to have the other.  Also, I don't think most of us would be comfortable with how many Americans would say yes to that question either as you wrote it.  Even I'm not 100% opposed to a registry, Though politically, I wouldn't agree to it without concessions elsewhere such as reducing the burden of the NFA process.

[Trekbike]

1 minute ago, btq96r said:

Universal background checks, and a National Gun Register Database are two separate issues.  You don't have to have one to have the other.  

Please explain how you can have all gun sales/transfers go through a background check, IF you want true enforcement of the law, without knowing "who has what".    I'm not trying to pick a fight, I'm just not seeing it.   

 

[Omega]

13 minutes ago, btq96r said:

Universal background checks, and a National Gun Register Database are two separate issues.  You don't have to have one to have the other.  Also, I don't think most of us would be comfortable with how many Americans would say yes to that question either as you wrote it.  Even I'm not 100% opposed to a registry, Though politically, I wouldn't agree to it without concessions elsewhere such as reducing the burden of the NFA process.

I beg to differ, how can you enforce such a law without having a way to confirm if a certain serial number went through the bg process?  

[btq96r]

16 minutes ago, Trekbike said:

Please explain how you can have all gun sales/transfers go through a background check, IF you want true enforcement of the law, without knowing "who has what".    I'm not trying to pick a fight, I'm just not seeing it.   

 

 

12 minutes ago, Omega said:

I beg to differ, how can you enforce such a law without having a way to confirm if a certain serial number went through the bg process?  

 

You guys are assuming there has to be registry to enforce this, but there doesn't.  Using the 4473, where the background check has to be recorded, along with the serial number all the info is there, but doesn't need to be handed over to the government for a registry.  That covers each purchase/transfer for 20 years, and still keeps it out of the governments hands unless an investigation is in progress.  The gun owner should get a copy of the completed 4473 to have as well for their records to prove the gun was purchased/transferred after a background check. 

Edited June 20, 2016 by btq96r

[Sidecarist]

Sadly the next step in the universal background check will be to verify if the SELLER  is in legal possession and the gun is legal to sell...

 

[Chucktshoes]

3 hours ago, Grand Torino said:

It's not. The point is they are in such a hurry to throw away Second Amendment rights I'd like to see how willing they are to throw away their First Amendment rights while they are at it. It might be nice to shut them the hell up for a change.

The answer to your query is "quite willing". The left is not the friend to free speech  that they have portrayed themselves to be. As they have gained control of the public sphere (starting with academia) they have increasingly sought to prohibit or outright criminalize contrary or unpopular speech by classifying it as "hate speech". It has been easy to miss if one hasn't paid attention to what has been happening on college campuses and their love affair with "trigger warnings" and "safe spaces" but it is about the control of what is considered allowable speech. The battle on campus has been all but won and the full court press is on to spread it outward into the rest of the public sphere. 

 

Freedom of of expression for all is vital when you are in the minority. It's dangerous when you've claimed the majority. 

[Grand Torino]

11 minutes ago, Chucktshoes said:

The answer to your query is "quite willing". The left is not the friend to free speech  that they have portrayed themselves to be. As they have gained control of the public sphere (starting with academia) they have increasingly sought to prohibit or outright criminalize contrary or unpopular speech by classifying it as "hate speech". It has been easy to miss if one hasn't paid attention to what has been happening on college campuses and their love affair with "trigger warnings" and "safe spaces" but it is about the control of what is considered allowable speech. The battle on campus has been all but won and the full court press is on to spread it outward into the rest of the public sphere. 

 

Freedom of of expression for all is vital when you are in the minority. It's dangerous when you've claimed the majority. 

I agree....the left portrays themselves as reasonable...that is until you don't agree with them. Then they will shout you down until they drown out your freedom. Oh and that word academia...it makes me sick. 

And just so you know...I was being facetious about the post in the first place. Internet humor and sarcasm isn't what it used to be.

[JayC]

Barely 90% of the population believes NASA landed a man on the moon...  

[Grand Torino]

3 hours ago, Caster said:

90% of americans are idiot sheeple.  

It's harder each passing day to argue with that.