Majority OPPOSE "assault" weapons ban

Majority OPPOSE "assault" weapons ban (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

ifmaz -> Majority OPPOSE "assault" weapons ban (1/12/2016 7:53:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/now-oppose-assault-weapons-ban-doubts-stopping-lone/story?id=35778846 A majority of Americans oppose banning assault weapons for the first time in more than 20 years of ABC News/Washington Post polls, with the public expressing vast doubt that the authorities can prevent “lone wolf” terrorist attacks and a substantial sense that armed citizens can help. Just 45 percent in this national survey favor an assault weapons ban, down 11 percentage points from an ABC/Post poll in 2013 and down from a peak of 80 percent in 1994. Fifty-three percent oppose such a ban, the most on record. Indeed, while the division is a close one, Americans by 47-42 percent think that encouraging more people to carry guns legally is a better response to terrorism than enacting stricter gun control laws. Divisions across groups are vast, underscoring the nation’s gulf on gun issues. There’s lopsided agreement on another concern: Just 22 percent express confidence in the government’s ability to prevent lone-wolf terrorist attacks, with 77 percent skeptical about it. Confidence in the government’s ability to stop a large-scale organized terrorist attack is much higher, albeit still well short of a majority -– 43 percent. Personal fears about being victimized by a terrorist attack is not up –- it’s 42 percent now, vs. 49 percent in a Gallup poll last summer. But views on the government’s limitations, and on arming citizens, relate strongly to attitudes on banning assault weapons. Consider: Among the roughly three-quarters of Americans who doubt the government’s ability to prevent a lone-wolf attack, 57 percent oppose banning assault weapons, vs. 41 percent in support. Those numbers are reversed among those who are more confident in government counterterrorism –- 56 percent favor banning such weapons, while 42 percent are opposed. The split is even more striking between those who see stricter gun control as the better way to fight terrorism, vs. “encouraging more people to carry guns legally.” The former group divides 71-26 percent in favor of banning assault weapons. The latter group splits 22-77 percent, support-oppose. The results of this survey, produced for ABC by Langer Research Associates, point to a shift away from the position favored by Barack Obama and others who responded to the recent attack in San Bernadino, California, by calling for stricter gun control measures. Notably, in a statistical analysis, Obama’s overall job approval rating is the single strongest factor in views on an assault weapons ban. The president’s approval rating, as it happens, is not in great shape: 45 percent, down 6 points from October to match its low for the year, with 51 percent disapproving. He continues to get an even split on the economy, but 53 percent disapprove of his handling of the threat of terrorism, near his career high last month, and 59 percent disapprove of his handling specifically of the Islamic State terrorist group. ...

DominantWrestler -> RE: Majority OPPOSE "assault" weapons ban (1/12/2016 9:47:16 PM)
So you're saying that before we had the Middle East muddied with republican lies, everyone knew assault weapons were unnecessary and now that fear has kicked in, it's a single digit difference? And he still has a higher approval rating than bush

BamaD -> RE: Majority OPPOSE "assault" weapons ban (1/12/2016 10:10:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler So you're saying that before we had the Middle East muddied with republican lies, everyone knew assault weapons were unnecessary and now that fear has kicked in, it's a single digit difference? And he still has a higher approval rating than bush No it means that people are starting to see through the Democratic lies about guns that look like assault rifles.

joether -> RE: Majority OPPOSE "assault" weapons ban (1/12/2016 10:54:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler So you're saying that before we had the Middle East muddied with republican lies, everyone knew assault weapons were unnecessary and now that fear has kicked in, it's a single digit difference? And he still has a higher approval rating than bush No it means that people are starting to see through the Democratic lies about guns that look like assault rifles. Actually, its noting assault rifles, NOT, 'look alike' assault rifles. But after the next deadly mass shooting, people will shift once more towards what the Democrats are proposing. By limiting how firearms fall into the wrong hands can also reduce potential attacks. By allowing an easier access to firearms allows more potential 'lone wolves' to attack. Either way its ugly, but society will decide what it can and can not live with....

Phydeaux -> RE: Majority OPPOSE "assault" weapons ban (1/13/2016 12:35:46 AM)
yeah its funny .. 95% of all gun deaths are caused by handguns - but democrats want to ban assault rifles...

KenDckey -> RE: Majority OPPOSE "assault" weapons ban (1/13/2016 3:30:19 AM)
quote: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assault%20rifle assault rifle : any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles with large capacity magazines designed for military use I personally don't have much issue with the current system of regulating fully automatic (with or without selector switch) weapons as they currently exist. They are tracked, permitted, and regulated by the Fed. Some want to ban weapons based upon their description. Like the Brown Bess, a flintlock rifle issued to the British Army and manufactured between 1722 and 1860 (all variants) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_Bess, because it has a bayonet lug https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon. Weapons that are easily reloaded are often called assault weapons. I have heard individuals refer to the quick reload feature in some revolvers used by individuals and police referred to as assault weapons because they can be reloaded (with practice) in seconds. One such weapon is the .357 Magnum. I have also heard individuals refer to any magazine holding more than one round (bullet) as high capacity. I cite the M1903 Springfield bolt action rifle as an example. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1903_Springfield It has a 5 round internal magazine and can be loaded with a stripper clip https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stripper_clip In short, there are so many definitions (based upon the individual's personal views) of what makes up an assault weapon, that there will probably never be good solid definitions of what an assault weapon and high capacity magazine are. When I had an MK90 rifle, I had a 50 round drum magazine for it. It was fun to take out in the desert and shoot up engineer stakes with but it was awkward with that magazine to handle and would hate to use it in any form of combat situation. It also added a lot of weight which I felt was unnecessary and I got rid of both the weapon and magazines (all capacity from 5 to 50 rounds). I do enjoy shooting a 5 round internal magazine lever action rifle. Damned engineer stakes (my target of choice) don't stand a chance. I have only hunted with a bow. I never stood a chance of getting anything, but enjoyed the walk. All the deer got away without any problems. LOL

DominantWrestler -> RE: Majority OPPOSE "assault" weapons ban (1/13/2016 9:30:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux yeah its funny .. 95% of all gun deaths are caused by handguns - but democrats want to ban assault rifles... And not give hand guns to career criminals and the mentally disturbed. Imagine if basic instruction was needed to prevent all these parents from letting their kids get their hands. Spends 10 grand on new guns, won't spend 400 for a safe

BamaD -> RE: Majority OPPOSE "assault" weapons ban (1/13/2016 1:03:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler So you're saying that before we had the Middle East muddied with republican lies, everyone knew assault weapons were unnecessary and now that fear has kicked in, it's a single digit difference? And he still has a higher approval rating than bush No it means that people are starting to see through the Democratic lies about guns that look like assault rifles. Actually, its noting assault rifles, NOT, 'look alike' assault rifles. But after the next deadly mass shooting, people will shift once more towards what the Democrats are proposing. By limiting how firearms fall into the wrong hands can also reduce potential attacks. By allowing an easier access to firearms allows more potential 'lone wolves' to attack. Either way its ugly, but society will decide what it can and can not live with.... Name an assault rifle availiable without a massive background check. Full auto is needed for it to be an assualt rifle none of these "laws" are aimed and full auto weapons, just semi auto. Which is your contention based on, a lie or ignorance?

BamaD -> RE: Majority OPPOSE "assault" weapons ban (1/13/2016 1:06:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux yeah its funny .. 95% of all gun deaths are caused by handguns - but democrats want to ban assault rifles... And not give hand guns to career criminals and the mentally disturbed. Imagine if basic instruction was needed to prevent all these parents from letting their kids get their hands. Spends 10 grand on new guns, won't spend 400 for a safe Then why are firearm accidents the only household hazard which is getting safer?

PeonForHer -> RE: Majority OPPOSE "assault" weapons ban (1/13/2016 1:22:21 PM)
quote: Then why are firearm accidents the only household hazard which is getting safer? Gawd, Bama. Only in the USA would that be something about which people would congratulate themselves.

BamaD -> RE: Majority OPPOSE "assault" weapons ban (1/13/2016 1:30:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: Then why are firearm accidents the only household hazard which is getting safer? Gawd, Bama. Only in the USA would that be something about which people would congratulate themselves. Gawd Peon I was correcting a lie that he believed. Note I said he believed a lie not that he had lied. The fact remains that of all the hazards in the home the one that is the least threat is firearms, particularly to children. It is not that I am proud that the main threat improvement is in firearms, we should be making progress on all threats.

PeonForHer -> RE: Majority OPPOSE "assault" weapons ban (1/13/2016 1:56:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD The fact remains that of all the hazards in the home the one that is the least threat is firearms, particularly to children. Good show. But guess how many gun accidents there have been in the home in Britain in the last half a century. Or anywhere else in Europe, or the English-speaking world, or even the advanced industrialised world, or even those countries the world over in which there isn't a war, or a civil war, going on.

DominantWrestler -> RE: Majority OPPOSE "assault" weapons ban (1/13/2016 2:03:45 PM)
Aren't most successful teenage suicides performed with guns

PeonForHer -> RE: Majority OPPOSE "assault" weapons ban (1/13/2016 2:40:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler Aren't most successful teenage suicides performed with guns Not in the UK or any other country that has a sane attitude towards guns, DW.

BamaD -> RE: Majority OPPOSE "assault" weapons ban (1/13/2016 2:48:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler Aren't most successful teenage suicides performed with guns Not in the UK or any other country that has a sane attitude towards guns, DW. So you're happier if they jump out of windows? Lack of guns does not = lack of suicide, see Japan.

ifmaz -> RE: Majority OPPOSE "assault" weapons ban (1/13/2016 5:54:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux yeah its funny .. 95% of all gun deaths are caused by handguns - but democrats want to ban assault rifles... And not give hand guns to career criminals and the mentally disturbed. Imagine if basic instruction was needed to prevent all these parents from letting their kids get their hands. Spends 10 grand on new guns, won't spend 400 for a safe If the anti-rights advocates actually wanted to prevent firearm deaths, why not have a gun safe (which can run anywhere from $50 to several thousand) as a tax write-off? This would help prevent accidental deaths, including cases where children find a loaded firearm with tragic results. If gun owners are able to write off gun safes on their tax returns there's more incentive to purchase them. After all, doesn't everyone care about safety?

BamaD -> RE: Majority OPPOSE "assault" weapons ban (1/13/2016 8:47:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux yeah its funny .. 95% of all gun deaths are caused by handguns - but democrats want to ban assault rifles... And not give hand guns to career criminals and the mentally disturbed. Imagine if basic instruction was needed to prevent all these parents from letting their kids get their hands. Spends 10 grand on new guns, won't spend 400 for a safe While the media propoganda in Prom (Peoples Republic of MA) may say otherwise nobody, repeat nobody, wants to give career criminals and the mentally disturbed guns. Although Fast and Furious did see to it that career criminals got a over 1000 semi automatic rifles, still not assault weapons outside of gun grabber circles.

lovmuffin -> RE: Majority OPPOSE "assault" weapons ban (1/13/2016 9:46:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ifmaz quote: ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux yeah its funny .. 95% of all gun deaths are caused by handguns - but democrats want to ban assault rifles... And not give hand guns to career criminals and the mentally disturbed. Imagine if basic instruction was needed to prevent all these parents from letting their kids get their hands. Spends 10 grand on new guns, won't spend 400 for a safe If the anti-rights advocates actually wanted to prevent firearm deaths, why not have a gun safe (which can run anywhere from $50 to several thousand) as a tax write-off? This would help prevent accidental deaths, including cases where children find a loaded firearm with tragic results. If gun owners are able to write off gun safes on their tax returns there's more incentive to purchase them. After all, doesn't everyone care about safety? Teaching gun safety in schools would go a long way toward preventing accidents too. The NRA, has a kids program that teaches young children not to touch guns they might find lying around and to go find an adult. But to answer your question. noooooooooooo, libs don't care about gun safety. They just want gun control.

jlf1961 -> RE: Majority OPPOSE "assault" weapons ban (1/13/2016 10:09:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler So you're saying that before we had the Middle East muddied with republican lies, everyone knew assault weapons were unnecessary and now that fear has kicked in, it's a single digit difference? And he still has a higher approval rating than bush No it means that people are starting to see through the Democratic lies about guns that look like assault rifles. Actually, its noting assault rifles, NOT, 'look alike' assault rifles. But after the next deadly mass shooting, people will shift once more towards what the Democrats are proposing. By limiting how firearms fall into the wrong hands can also reduce potential attacks. By allowing an easier access to firearms allows more potential 'lone wolves' to attack. Either way its ugly, but society will decide what it can and can not live with.... quote: as·sault ri·fle noun noun: assault rifle; plural noun: assault rifles a rapid-fire, magazine-fed automatic rifle designed for infantry use. No, what the ban concerns is semi-automatic magazine fed weapons built on an assault rifle frame. Now of course, there are some talented shooters, who, after years of practice can squeeze off enough rounds in a semi automatic while changing magazines to come very close to the 600 or more rounds a minute that an actual assault rifle is capable of. This is the bullshit that congress came up with: Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following: Folding or telescoping stock Pistol grip Bayonet mount Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one Grenade launcher mount <<<<< This one got me, since a grenade launcher is an NFA weapon needing a special permit, Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following: Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor Barrel shroud safety feature that prevents burns to the operator Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm. Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following: Folding or telescoping stock Pistol grip Detachable magazine. Bottom line, the law was bullshit, and the current idea for such a ban is even more bullshit. All anyone has to do to keep selling the guns that jackasses want banned is to make a few cosmetic changes. Drop the pistol grip, put an enlarged stock with a place to put your thumb, does the same job and it is legal. Remove the flash suppressor, big deal. Take off the bayonet lug, no problem. There are firearms based on the AR15 out already with those changes. Personally, I prefer my M1A to the my bushmaster (AR style rifle) larger caliber, longer range, and IMO a hell of a lot more accurate. After that, either of my model 70 bolt actions. No, the jackasses are trying to figure out how to get one group of weapons so it is easier to ban another group. Its a bullshit money wasting idea to try and stop gun related crimes. But then, I am presently trying to run down a ww2, bolt action, magazine fed 20mm anti tank rifle that was made in Finland. Never know, might come in handy.

DominantWrestler -> RE: Majority OPPOSE "assault" weapons ban (1/14/2016 6:17:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux yeah its funny .. 95% of all gun deaths are caused by handguns - but democrats want to ban assault rifles... And not give hand guns to career criminals and the mentally disturbed. Imagine if basic instruction was needed to prevent all these parents from letting their kids get their hands. Spends 10 grand on new guns, won't spend 400 for a safe While the media propoganda in Prom (Peoples Republic of MA) may say otherwise nobody, repeat nobody, wants to give career criminals and the mentally disturbed guns. Although Fast and Furious did see to it that career criminals got a over 1000 semi automatic rifles, still not assault weapons outside of gun grabber circles. That's what the gunshow loophole litigation that has been brought up several times in congress is about. As long as you don't believe a gun will be used for crime, a private seller can sell a firearm without a background check. Hence how criminals can be sold guns without being able to charge the gun seller. And gun control is about safety for many liberals, myself included. Most teenagers can only summon the courage to kill themselves with a gun. Hence the rate of cutting and such that doesn't end in death. I am not anti gun, just anti stupid. How many illiterate or borderline illiterate adults are there in Alabama that own a gun?

Page: [1] 2 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875