BYU just conducted a poll which shows 85 percent desire greater gun
restrictions. Still feeling skeptical?
Kind of depends on the definition of "gun control measures"Certainly the NRA has labeled background checks as "gun control"According to a recent BYU poll"Some 82 percent of Utahns
support expanding background checks to cover all potential gun buyers"So, feel free to question BYU's polling data, but it is consistent
with other national polls, including a recent CNN poll"The 86%
figure from the CNN/ORC poll is in line with just about every other national
survey released over the past couple of months, which found support for
increased background checks hovering around the 90% level"I
suspect that Ms Sueltz is more concerned that the majority of Americans disagree
with her.A better question is "why are our legislators not
listening"?And before you go on a Constitutional rant, the
Supreme court has ruled that background checks are not Unconstitutional.
There aren't statistics enough in the world to change anybody's mind
on this issue either way.
I have very little confidence in polls in general. It is way too easy to word
the questions so that you can draw whatever conclusion you want.Example:Question: Do you favor measures that may prevent a
homicidal maniac from shooting up your local school? (Y/N)vs.Question: Do you support measures that will make it harder for you to
protect yourself from an intruder in your home? (Y/N)Would anyone be
surprised if the first poll showed 90% "in favor of gun control" while
the second poll would only show 10% in favor? While this may be an extreme
example, more subtle examples happen all the time that skew the results.
If 80% of the people do in fact approve of "Gun Control measures". I
believe it is because they have not thought it through. If private
individual sells a gun at a gun show, how would anyone know if they didn't
do a background check? Same, if you sell a gun through an online ad. So now they
need to keep track of every gun in order to see if the law is broken. Then you
could just say you threw it away. Now they would make another law to prevent
that, and on and on. Untill every gun owner is a criminal. Background checks
alone are a fine idea, the problem is where to stop the government intrusion.What it boils down to, is if you trust the government or not.
Ignorant sheep. The government is trying to supress free will. They are even
trying to prohibit reading of the bill before voting for it? Whats does this
tell you and how much are you going to take before you say "enough is
enough"? Do you want to live in slavery for the rest of your days? because I
can promise you, the people who want to murder your right to own a firearm if
you choose, are carrying firearms themselves and hide behind their armed
@joe capFollowing your logic would suggest, one we should not pass
any laws because they do not control for every possability and/or two we should
pass no laws because once we start allowing government to intervene In anyway
they will only stop after they have complete control of our lives, so then the
question becomes should we eliminate all laws?
The misattributed quote was indeed a sloppy error and a sign of poor
scholarship, but the gist of the original letter was correct. Multiple polls
show a high level of public support for certain gun control measures, especially
universal background checks for gun purchases. Legislators ignoring
overwhelming public opinion in favor of kowtowing to the NRA are risking a
Sorry my comments where suppose to be directed at Steve D not joe cap.
JoeCapitalist2 - The polls that are typically published in the major news
outlets are not just a couple of knuckleheads asking inane questions with the
purpose of getting a specific answer. Polling is a scientific enterprise with
proven results. Of course there are certain polls that have proven to be wrong
in history (Dewey/Truman for example) but those instances can be counted on a
couple of hands. In the last election, conservative pundits - even the
candidates - refused to believe what the polls were saying about the expected
results of the election, much to their detriment.Now, for those who
have certain values and standards, and who are not swayed by public opinion,
they certainly should not change those values and standards just because the
majority disagree with them. But denying the results of a scientifically
conducted poll simply because the results of the poll disagree with your
personal believes is shortsighted and unrealistic.
Like many of you, I don't want my guns taken away either but I also
don't know you. I have no problem with you owning guns if you can show me
that you are proficient, you have no criminal background, you have no propensity
for domestic violence or you have no history of mental problems. 2 million
purchases of weapons have been blocked the past 15 years with an inconsistent,
inadequate background check system. One can only imagine what would happen if we
closed loopholes. Will this stop all gun violence? Not in your wildest dreams
but if it saves the life of one student walking to school or a rampage at a mall
then it is worth it. Doing nothing about gun violence is like encouraging it. I
guess we should repeal all Drunk Driving laws because they impede our rights of
freedom of movement.
Every single time you board an airplane, your name is run through a national
database, essentially a background check, to see if you pose a danger to those
you are flying with. This process has hardly prevented people their rights to
travel as they please.When ever you purchase land or real estate,
the government mandates that part of that transaction, private or public, that a
background check is run on that property, looking of any debts or claims against
its owner exist. And yet, this has not prevented the free trade of real
property.It blows my mind that there are those who believe that
running back ground checks - to see if you have outstanding warrants or a
criminal background - is an intrusion of your ability to exercise freedom of
commerce. Perhaps the world is 80% sheep.... but at least they
don't live their lives in fear of what could be lurking in the shadows. I
could not imagine living my life distrusting and in fearing. The constitution
has held firm for 200 years, and it will do so for yet another 200.
JoeCap,Hard to argue with that.But, what if there was a
simple question"Do you favor background checks for ALL gun
purchases."Certainly some polls (the BYU poll perhaps) are
actually trying to get honest answers to straitforward questions.Yes, it would be interesting to see the questions. I am guessing that they
will not be nearly as biased as you assume.
"The last time I checked, the Constitution said, 'of the people, by the
people and for the people.' That's what the Declaration of
Independence says." (Bill Clinton, 1996)
Wait, wait...Don't tell me....FoxNews, Karl Rove and
Limbaugh, Hannity and Beck are STILL telling you that Mitt Romney is winnig by a
landslide!Correct?85% + of the United States - including
uber-Red Utah, want gus retrictions on children, criminals, and the
mentally insane.It's fulls under the little known "common
sense" or "no da" clause in the Cosntitution.
The headline should read "that 80 percent of the people desire a decrease of
civil liberties". We of the military, and veterans (at least the
majority)have a perfect understanding of what's going on with gun control.
It's to make an easier job for service members to fullfill the National
Defense Authorization Act, which was sign by President Obama on 31 Dec 2011
while the nation partied. This fullfillment will happen. May not be on
Obama's watch, but perhaps the next President or after? Newtown provided
the perfect setting to advance a political agenda, use the memory of children to
sway the public.
Conservative have no problems "resticting" the Constitutional sale of
alcohol 24/7/365.One must be 21 years of age, Have proper
I.D., Buy it only from a State controled liquor store or licensed
stores,Kept out of the hands of minors, criminals, and the mentally
ill.Ironic - Conservative cheer the ATF [Alcohol, Tobacco and
Firearms] for their enforcement of Alcohol and Tobacco, and boo their control
of FireArms.The hypocracy is killing me.
"We of the military, and veterans (at least the majority)have a perfect
understanding of what's going on with gun control."And the
military bases do not allow the general military personnel to carry weapons.
And these, of all people, are highly trained.That should tell you
@JoeBlow "Yes, it would be interesting to see the questions."I'm looking at a January poll by Kay Research and the BYU Center for the
Study of Elections and Democracy. Assuming this is the poll you're talking
about, here are the questions and the results:Should federal law
require background checks on all potential gun buyers?Strongly favor
68%Somewhat favor 14%Somewhat oppose 7%Strongly oppose 10%Don't know 2%Should the sale of high-capacity magazines that
hold many rounds of ammunition be restricted?Strongly favor 32%Somewhat favor 11%Somewhat oppose 12%Strongly oppose 42%Dont' know 4%(500 registered Utah voters were polled. The
margin of error is +/- 4.4 percentage points.)
Thanks FactCheckI looked briefly but didn't find it. Thanks
for posting.The questions are pretty strait forward. Pretty hard to read those questions and conclude that they were written in an
attempt to skew results.
There is a reason combat soldiers tape two inverted magazines together during a
firefight. They realize that under duress, they cannot change their magazines
as quickly as they need. In fact, they don't have time to go hunting for
an extra magazine because the stress of combat is enough that they might not
change it in time while the possibility of dropping the magazine is
significantly increased. Time matters.When Wayne LaPierre states
that he can change a magazine in a few seconds, he is talking about controlled
conditions having the requisite magazines easily accessible in a non-stressful
situation. If you change the dynamic and introduce both having the magazines
not so accessible (in a pocket or a bag) and create a very stressful (someone is
actually trying to shoot him) life-or-death situation, it is guaranteed that his
time would go from seconds to minutes. The longer it takes it, the more time
his opponent has to shoot him. Simple!The whole argument about
restricting magazine size takes on a whole new perspective when reality is
considered. And on this particular point, Wayne LaPierre is dead wrong.
While we are talking universal background checks for guns, maybe we should look
at instituting universal background checks before you can use free speech. After
all, who cares what the constitution says, and it would make the whole country a
safer nicer place to live, if we could just eliminate free speech in the WRONG
FactCheck.... great numbers. And it illustrates what I have always believed...
that people are smart enough to get the nuances of the debate, and that we
don't need either side making this debate an all or nothing proposition.
There are those who would tell us that you must be all this, or all
that. This proves that there are those that understand the difference between
a back ground check, and and actual restriction - such as magazine size. I am
glad to see that most people are smarter than what the lobbyist give them credit
What does the term "gun control" mean. Many things to many people.
Please do not use it.Try using the term "car control", it sounds
NO ONE is trying to take your guns away, or limit your right to defend yourself.
Read the proposals, educate yourself. Im so tired of these doomsday people
comparing Obama to hitler. We are not going to be slaves for the rest of our
lives,like some suggest. In the old west, Tombstone AZ. Wyat Earp, required
guns, ALL guns to be left out of the city limits. Gun control. Was wyat Earp a
marxist? was he like Hitler? Trying to disarm us and make us slaves? Look up
DELUSION. Paronoia. Common sense. Turn off Fux news and hate radio That turns
your mind to mush. OOPPS To Late for most!