Guns are still America’s religion

[Herdfan]

Poll: Support for controlling gun violence hits its highest point in a decade

About 6 in 10 now say controlling gun violence is more important than protecting gun rights. But independents are split on some key measures, and President Biden's approval rating hits his worst mark.

www.npr.org

Americans, 59%-35%, say controlling gun violence is more important than protecting gun rights. Time for Congress to fulfill the will of the people instead of their NRA overlords.

Speaking of the NRA, only 27% of Americans said they’d vote for a candidate who took campaign money from the NRA. If people REALLY did what that poll says (let’s face it they probably won’t) - we’d have Democrats with a 3/4 majority In Congress.

Except support for an assault weapons hit its lowest point since the polling began in 2013. In the recent poll, Americans supported the ban 50-45. Nothing will happen with those numbers. So blame the NRA all you want, their 3M members don't have that much sway.

Nearly 3 Out Of 4 Support Raising Legal Age To Buy Any Gun, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; Support For Assault Weapons Ban Hits A Low | Quinnipiac University Poll

"As mass murders by teenage killers tear at the heart of the country, Americans say by a three to one margin, you should be 21 to buy a gun," said Quinnipiac University Polling Analyst Tim Malloy.

poll.qu.edu

 

[Yoused]

Speaking of the NRA, only 27% of Americans said they’d vote for a candidate who took campaign money from the NRA.

"I don't take any money from the NRA, and I have nothing to do with that MePAC that does."

 

[SuperMatt]

Except support for an assault weapons hit its lowest point since the polling began in 2013. In the recent poll, Americans supported the ban 50-45. Nothing will happen with those numbers. So blame the NRA all you want, their 3M members don't have that much sway.

Nearly 3 Out Of 4 Support Raising Legal Age To Buy Any Gun, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; Support For Assault Weapons Ban Hits A Low | Quinnipiac University Poll

"As mass murders by teenage killers tear at the heart of the country, Americans say by a three to one margin, you should be 21 to buy a gun," said Quinnipiac University Polling Analyst Tim Malloy.

poll.qu.edu

That is the definition of spin. Just key on one question in the poll and ignore the rest, including the headline of the poll you linked: 75% of people want the gun age raised.

So what if the “assault weapons” question doesn’t have a super majority? We know for a fact that term has been poisoned due to over a decade of incessant whining from ammosexuals “well you don’t know what an assault weapon really is…” blah blah blah STFU. So now people can’t even define the term, so how can they even really answer the question? Mission accomplished by the ”I love seeing kids brutally murdered because it means we will sell more guns” NRA. Despite that lengthy campaign of confusion, a majority of people still want them GONE.

Meanwhile:

As both linked polls show, most people want more gun control, and Congress isn’t doing anything about it… because the NRA controls the Republican Party. They don’t care about everybody else. They don’t care about little kids. They couldn’t care less about their parents who had to identify decapitated corpses and could only identify their 10-year-old kids with DNA. GOP politicians only care about staying in power. The NRA only cares about the industry they represent, and the gun lovers only care about protecting their personal stash. What a goddamn pathetic display of absolute selfishness.

So don’t give me that shit about NRA members not having a say. They are about 1% of the population; over 90% of Americans want universal background checks… and guess what we still don’t have, all because of the NRA!

The GOP already delayed the gun bill. Now they will see the Jan 6 hearings lambasting Trump and his corrupt lackeys. They will get their panties in a twist over it and say they can’t negotiate with the mean ol’ Democrats on anything, including gun regulations supported by 3/4 or more of Americans. And once again, Congress will do nothing about gun violence. All because they care more about their fucking NRA “Grade” of A+ than about the lives of children.

Between the guns issue and the abortion issue, the GOP is now backing policies opposed by 2/3rds or more of America. I hope this means Americans will vote them out. But I won’t hold my breath.

 

[Herdfan]

That is the definition of spin. Just key on one question in the poll and ignore the rest, including the headline of the poll you linked: 75% of people want the gun age raised.

So what if the “assault weapons” question doesn’t have a super majority?

Not spin. Just pointing out that people are truly split on banning semi-automatic weapons. And as such, it will be hard to move that needle politically.

 

[SuperMatt]

Not spin. Just pointing out that people are truly split on banning semi-automatic weapons. And as such, it will be hard to move that needle politically.

The question doesn’t say “semi automatic” though. See what I said about the decade-long effort to confuse the meaning of the term “‘assault weapon.”

 

[Herdfan]

The question doesn’t say “semi automatic” though. See what I said about the decade-long effort to confuse the meaning of the term “‘assault weapon.”

No but since there is no real definition of assault weapon, I try not to use it. To many people think AR stands for Assault Rifle.

 

[SuperMatt]

No but since there is no real definition of assault weapon, I try not to use it. To many people think AR stands for Assault Rifle.

And this right here is the reason the “assault weapon” question on a poll is meaningless... as I said repeatedly above.

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

Not spin. Just pointing out that people are truly split on banning semi-automatic weapons. And as such, it will be hard to move that needle politically.

I read an article earlier that said as a compromise they could change the classification of the AR-15 (including "style"?) to a class that is already on the books that includes a lot more oversite including training and annual registration. Would you have a problem with that, and if so, why?

It was written by a former police officer and gun salesmen who said there is no real practical reason for anybody to own those and he has multiple guns for multiple purposes. The AR-15 doesn't serve any purpose for him. The only reason law enforcement needs them is because the idiots in the industry decided it was a good idea to sell them to the general public which outgunned the police. So on that one I suppose somebody could make the argument "I need one to protect me from the bad guys who have one". Doesn't mean it hasn't happened, but I don't think I've ever heard of a situation where a random good guy with an AR-15 took out a bad guy with an AR-15. I'm sure you could probably share a link to where that did in fact happen, but does it even come close to the amount of times innocent people were killed by one?

 

[Yoused]

No but since there is no real definition of assault weapon, I try not to use it.

Then I will offer one:

• performs a clear/chamber cycle when a round is fired with no additional action on the part of the shooter
• has a magazine capacity greater than 5 rounds
• can handle a fast magazine swap (in under 2 seconds) while the shooter's hand remains in ready to shoot position

That is a pretty tight description that covers a lot of weapons. Those are weapons that the owners should have to license yearly, as one would a vehicle: they would not be "banned" but would be highly regulated. That is what I would do, that would, I think, not "infringe" 2A rights.

 

[Herdfan]

I read an article earlier that said as a compromise they could change the classification of the AR-15 (including "style"?) to a class that is already on the books that includes a lot more oversite including training and annual registration. Would you have a problem with that, and if so, why?

Proposed that very thing in this thread not long ago.

It is called Class 3 and it is the license you need to own full autos, grenades, mortars, howitzers, etc (yes people can own them if they are willing to jump though the hoops).

To get a Class 3 license you need to get approval from your local jurisdiction's chief law enforcement officer. In my case, it was the Sheriff. (I was ready to buy an M-16 many years ago, but the Sheriff at the time refused to sign off, so I had to wait until he was term limited out. By that time the price had gone from $8K to over $20K). Then you get a real background check with fingerprints and it takes several months to complete. Only then can you buy the weapon. And you have to update your BGC every year. And you have to notify the ATF if you are taking your weapon to another state. So every year when I take my Ruger Mini 14 to my friend's farm in KY, I have to fill out an ATF Form 5320.20. And wait until they send you back permission.

So yeah, that would solve a lot of the issues of someone buying one just because they think it's cool or buying one on an impulse.

 

[Herdfan]

Then I will offer one:

• performs a clear/chamber cycle when a round is fired with no additional action on the part of the shooter
• has a magazine capacity greater than 5 rounds
• can handle a fast magazine swap (in under 2 seconds) while the shooter's hand remains in ready to shoot position

That is a pretty tight description that covers a lot of weapons. Those are weapons that the owners should have to license yearly, as one would a vehicle: they would not be "banned" but would be highly regulated. That is what I would do, that would, I think, not "infringe" 2A rights.

That right there folks is a good description. My only concern is that as you have written it, it would apply to most semi-auto pistols.

Notice there is no nonsense about "scary looking features" that a good gunsmith can get around in less than a day and do nothing in terms of safety.

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

So yeah, that would solve a lot of the issues of someone buying one just because they think it's cool or buying one on an impulse.

The author of the article I read also said during his gun selling days he tried to get an idea of what they were looking to use the gun for so he could steer them towards the best option. A lot of the AR-15 people just wanted one because they wanted one and there was really no logical or practical reason for it.

I wouldn't say that's a red flag for a possible mass shooter, but it seems like some kind of flag for a possible irresponsible gun owner at minimum, especially considering the relatively easy purchasing access.

 

[Citysnaps]

Then I will offer one:

How about also adding shoots .223 or other high velocity (>3,0000 feet/sec, or some other number, >2,500 feet/sec or whatever) ammunition.

 

[Citysnaps]

Then you get a real background check with fingerprints and it takes several months to complete.

I'm all for real background checks, similar to what one submits to when getting a government security clearance for trustworthiness, character, maturity, addictions, mental health, etc.

You list schools attended, places you've worked, and five personal references. Investigators talk to past teachers, past work supervisors and co-workers, neighbors from different places you've lived, your personal references, and friends of personal references that might know you, and, look in criminal databases.

It's very thorough. I think that would weed out people with mental health issues, people of questionable maturity/character etc.

Should that be deemed a little excessive, perhaps 50% - 75% of the above.

 

[Yoused]

My only concern is that as you have written it, it would apply to most semi-auto pistols.

You mean like the one that was used in Tucson?

How about also adding shoots .223 or other high velocity (>3,0000 feet/sec, or some other number, >2,500 feet/sec or whatever) ammunition.

I really see no need to exclude wall-of-lead weapons because they are low calibre or light load. The fewer loopholes the better.

 

[SuperMatt]

Protect kids from guns? More than 20 years after Columbine, the answer is still NO.

Protect Supreme Court Justices from guns? IMMEDIATELY!!!

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1534921526511796232/

 

[Citysnaps]

I really see no need to exclude wall-of-lead weapons because they are low calibre or light load. The fewer loopholes the better.

I probably don't understand your response.

It's the 0.223 ammo that AR-style weapons shoot, with 3x the velocity of a typical 9mm handgun, with a projectile that's smaller but tumbles in flight, that cause such devastating and usually fatal injuries. To the point of making identification of victims difficult, often requiring DNA samples.

Shoot a block of ballistic gelatin (designed to replicate human tissue) with a 9mm handgun and the bullet pretty much travels a straight path through the gelatin. Do the same with an AR-15 style weapon with .223 ammo at 3x the muzzle velocity and the gelatin appears to explode as the bullet traverses through the ballistic gelatin. Human organs don't stand a chance.

 

[SuperMatt]

The Supreme Court has taken a case about gun restrictions in NY State. Chances are they will make many gun regulations “unconstitutional” in their opinion.

An example of something Amy Coney Barrett supported in the past is to allow convicted felons to have firearms (Kanter v Barr). But this court hasn’t protected VOTING rights for felons!

Shouldn’t judges, especially Supreme Court Justices, be wise enough to consider what kind of society we create when it’s harder to vote than it is to get guns?

They want 1st and 2nd amendment protections for extremists to attack abortion clinics and gun down their neighbors (respectively). But they put a huge fence around their courthouse to avoid protests and press Congress to protect justices from guns. These overly-expansive rights don’t apply if you are anywhere near the ideologues who supported them. A den of hypocrisy.

 

[Herdfan]

You mean like the one that was used in Tucson?

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

 

[Yoused]

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Fair enough. But I still fail to see why pistols should be excluded from the definition. the fewer gaps the better. Bear in mind, again, I am not saying "ban" but "regulate to the max".

It's the 0.223 ammo that AR-style weapons shoot, with 3x the velocity of a typical 9mm handgun, with a projectile that's smaller but tumbles in flight, that cause such devastating and usually fatal injuries. To the point of making identification of victims difficult, often requiring DNA samples.

Well, technically, I do not believe that it tumbles in flight – the spin keeps it flying straight – the tumbling starts after it goes in. But the effect, as you say, is evil. My point is that the more it gets qualified, the more likely loopholes will be found. Not a ban and only a small imposition: if the licensing is too much of a nuisance, head down to the range and get your rocks off with a rental.