Pew Research: 48 Percent of Gun Owners Support an 'Assault' Rifle Ban
Previous Post
Next Post

“Solid majorities of both gun owners and non-owners favor limiting access to guns for people with mental illnesses and individuals who are on federal no-fly or terrorist watch lists, and strong majorities favor background checks for private sales and at gun shows.

“There is also a partisan divide on views of gun policy, and these differences remain even after controlling for gun ownership. For example, Republican gun owners are much more resistant than Democratic owners to banning assault-style weapons and high-capacity magazines as well as creating a database to track gun sales. And Republicans are much more open than Democrats to proposals that would expand gun rights, such as allowing people to carry concealed guns in more places and allowing teachers and officials to carry guns in K-12 schools.” – Pew Research, Key Takeaways on Americans Views of Guns and Gun Ownership

Pew Research: 48 Percent of Gun Owners Support an 'Assault' Rifle Ban

Previous Post
Next Post


      • Also, the Pew poll is from March and April 2017.

        Dear TTAG writers,
        Those dates at the top of articles (“June 22, 2017” in this case) indicate the publication date of the article. If you’re tempted to publish an article about Congress considering gun control in response to the assassinations of MLK, Malcolm X, and the Kennedys, remember to check the byline date.

    • I noticed this: “strong majorities favor background checks for private sales and at gun shows” showing that the question itself leads to bias, since gun shows are already covered.

      • I noticed the same bias question…”Backround checks for private sales AND AT GUNSHOWS…” Perhaps they should reword the question to…”Backround checks for private sales AND BETWEEN IMMEDIATE FAMILY MEMBERS…” That is a far more truthful question, let’s see how their poll numbers shift.

        • You are looking at compiled and interpreted data, as usual they are not showing you the damn *question*, which is where the real lies come in. “Do you agree that people should not be able to buy guns in private sales without any background checks, and then murder hundreds of defenseless and innocent children?” Surprise! Even gun owners agree!

      • Ugh. “Gunshows” aren’t necessarily ‘covered’.

        Sales from licensed dealers of their commercial merch are. Sales by individuals are not. Nor are sales of dealers’ private collections.

        That’s the way we do it in free states.

        • “That’s the way we do it in free states.”

          For the time being.

          If Gillum gets elected gov, he has promised to change that here in Florida…

        • Sales not subject to background checks at gun shows have nothing whatsoever to do with the gun show itself. There is no loophole. Gun show merchants are required to follow all federal, state, and local laws regarding firearm transfers and background checks. A private sale between non-FFL individuals is a private sale, no matter where it is.

        • “If Gillum gets elected gov, he has promised to change that here in Florida…”

          A Socialist candidate for governor has to aim far to the anti-gun extreme if he wants to differentiate himself from Governor Scott’s recent history.

        • It would make the question a bit redundant then. It’s either a private sale at a gun show or it’s a sale via an FFL which is already covered. Adding “gun show” to the question only has propaganda value and nothing more.

    • I agree, such a bullshit article to begin with, uless you’re trying to incense your readers. I’ve seen several polls that say the exact opposite of what the left leaning Pew Research poll states. It’s like Snopes fact checking liberals, there’s an oxymoron if ever I saw one. What the hell is going on with TTAG, are they going full libtard on us.

      • “What the hell is going on with TTAG, are they going full libtard on us.”

        Are you only interested in information/articles/postings that simply and easily reinforce your own hardened viewpoints? If so, wouldn’t you be more satisfied simply reading through the TTAG archives and reminisce?

        I do not like anything liberals say or do, but studying their slithering snakes of deceit, keeping up with what they are plotting is helpful in staying aware of just how precarious traditional values are. If you don’t know the what the carny barker is saying, don’t analyze it, you can be hornswaggled.

        C’mon. Stretch your brain; know your enemy, and strike where they are weak.

    • 48% of “gun owners.”
      I don’t admit being a gun owner to anyone. I have a feeling I’m not alone. Therefore, polls are unreliable because we all lie to pollsters.

    • No, but the desire by our “representatives” to “do something” seems to get bolstered by such, um, information. Sad. very sad.

    • Docduracoat,

      In theory: you are correct that rights do NOT depend on public opinion.

      In practice: rights do depend on public opinion which is an abomination of course.

      Remember, countless billions of people fail to support our unalienable rights. All this means is that we would be righteous defending our unalienable rights. All this also means that our lives would be extremely short lived since there are countless people who will enforce non-righteous infringements of our rights.

      This is one of those “win the battle, lose the war” things. Righteously exercise your unalienable right to openly carry an AR-15 slung over your shoulder in downtown New York City, refuse to submit to the police when they show up, and you will be dead in minutes. It is not right of course. At any rate, that is reality.

        • Pretty sure you’d have a couple hundred dead. What you need is a couple hundred thousand, and a map to the mayor’s office.

      • Democracy is two wolves and sheep votting on what they’ll all have for dinner.


        Congress: “We have to do SOMETHING!!”

    • Constitutional rights are meaningless. As we saw via FDR and Trump, court packing is a very real thing. You only need to have a super majority government for a short amount of time to make changes which will affect future generations.

  1. Savage is right. Liberalism, it’s a mental disorder. And just about every person I ever met with it, has other issues.

    • Huntmaster,

      Liberalism is not the mental disorder strictly speaking. Rather, Liberalism is the natural result of the underlying mental disorder.

      And that underlying mental disorder is a person who operates on emotion and Utopian ideals (fantasy), without any significant regard for timeless standards of right and wrong, fact and fiction, natural and unnatural (perversion). In other words the underlying mental disorder is simply adults who operate (mentally) like three year-olds.

      • Don’t forget the desire to shift some of one’s personal responsibilities onto a governmental entity.
        “Why I gotta protect myself?”
        “Why I gotta get my own health insurance?”
        “Why everything cost money?”

  2. The form of any pollster’s question can determine the response and invoke a response favorable to the pollster’s biases.
    I would like to see the “exact” wording of the questions asked by the pollsters. You can bet that the questions asked are in this form: “Do you agree that criminals, those with mental conditions and other unstable individuals should be prohibited from possessing firearms?” Almost everyone will say “YES”.
    Hence, the pollster CREATES a “justification” for “gun control”…

  3. Quite often, firearms owners are their own worst enemies. The duck hunters don’t like the AR-15 “black rifles” so they see no problem if attempts are made to ban them. The traditional rifle owners don’t like machine guns, so they have no problem with them being legislated out of existence. Some pistol owners see nothing wrong with certain long guns being outlawed just as some rifle owners would have no problem seeing pistols banned. You see, anti-gunners want them all. They will chip away a little at a time until their goal of civilian disarmament is complete. They have an excuse for banning every firearm. Scoped bolt-action rifles are defined by anti-gunners as “sniper rifles” because they are “too accurate”. Magazine-fed weapons are suspect because of high (actually normal) magazine capacity. Handguns are suspect because they are “easily concealable”. The gun grabbers want them all and have made (flimsy and suspect) excuses for banning every type of firearm. They don’t care how long it takes. and will use incrementalism to their advantage.
    Friends, ALL firearms advocates must “hang together” and realize that an assault on ANY means of firearms ownership and self-defense is an assault on ALL forms of firearms ownership and self-defense.
    There is absolutely NO ROOM for complacency among ANY Second Amendment supporters. An attack on one is an attack on ALL…
    ALL firearms laws are unconstitutional on their face. Imagine the hue and cry if “reasonable” restrictions were placed on First Amendment activities, especially with the “mainstream media”. The Second Amendment is clear–what part of “shall not be infringed” do politicians and the media not understand…of course, they understand full well…it’s part of their communist agenda…
    Even the NRA bears some responsibility for capitulation on matters concerning firearms. The NRA failed when it allowed the National Firearms Act of 1934 to stand without offering opposition, the 1968 Gun Control Act, the NICS “instant check” system, the “no new machine gun for civilians” ban in 1986, the so-called “assault weapons ban in 1991, and other infringements on the Second Amendment. Let’s face it. What better way to increase membership than to “allow” infringements to be enacted and then push for a new membership drive. Yes, the NRA has done good, but its spirit of “compromise” will only lead to one thing…confiscation.
    If the NRA is truly the premier “gun rights” organization, it must reject ALL compromise…

    • ALL firearms laws are unconstitutional on their face. Imagine the hue and cry if “reasonable” restrictions were placed on First Amendment activities, especially with the “mainstream media”.

      OK, permits for gathering, flag desecration, and all kinds of “decency” laws.

      • The First Amendment is under attack as well. It has long been subject to restrictions based on time, place and manner, restrictions that are being enlarged. For example, at some events (e.g. circuses, political conventions) the police designate “free speech zones” that prevent protesters from getting too close to the venue. And then there are all the laws banning “hate speech,” laws that I anticipate will expand as well. For example, in England now it is officially “hate speech”, and therefore a crime, to criticize Islam.

      • How about you have to apply, months in advance, in order to get a permit (at your own expense) to refuse to incriminate yourself? Answer the question or we’ll break your arm!

    • Since we demand the proper use of terminology from our opponents it behooves us to be precise in our use of language as well
      There are no banned categories of weapons at the federal level, only licensed and unlicensed weapons. It is legal to own machine guns, destructive devices including artillery, armored fighting vehicles and combat aircraft. Anybody who can afford the last two can afford to have the live weapons systems installed The principal reason that you cannot by some weapons types is that there are classified systems on board. Presumably you can probably buy an M-1A2 Abrams if thise systems are removed.

      • The tricky part about a modern main battle tank is that often the critical components are themselves classified. For example, the armor. You could maybe legally buy an M1A2 Abrams but it’d be reduced to a chassis with a turbine engine by the time it got to you.

      • So…what states regulate free speech like some states regulate arms?
        Federal law used to trump state law. When did that change?
        Shall not be infringed… pretty sure taxstamps and waiting period would have been considered infringement by the founders.

        • You miss the forest for the trees. This is an argument for precise language, not a debate on a the Constitutional issue. If we jump on people for saying clip instead of magazine we ought to be precise in our use of language. If you can buy six machine guns with the appropriate paperwork to put on your F-86 Sabre, then you can’t say machine guns are banned. They are licensed.

      • Regardless of weapon system you wanted, the government would probably seize it or the fuel/oil supply you’d need to run/operate it with…

    • The method you detail is called “incrementalism”, whereby they chip away at out rights a tiny slice at a time until no one notices they are gone.
      And no, you can’t compromise at all with leftists. A compressed version goes like this:
      “Let me kill your parents.”
      “Okay, how about just your mom?”

  4. “Common usage” is precedent with regards to what is and what is Constitutional. Our newest SC Justice didn’t say much during the confirmation process. But he did say specifically that these modern semi auto rifles ARE protected by the Second Amendment. It doesn’t matter what polls or politicians say. Until or unless political winds change and they actually repeal or replace the 2A through the amendment process, they can continue to produce their propaganda. I can hardly wait until our 5 Judicial Patriots get their first chance to grant cert on cases covering “assault weapons”, and mag capacity (along with other accessories). Then to FINALLY rule, after Heller/McDonald confirmed the individual right to “keep” arms, and address the “bear” (carry outside the home) issue.

  5. Since many people form their “opinions” based on the Leftist controlled News Media’s reporting and editorializing, it’s no surprise Pew can create an “Opinion Poll” yielding these “results”. Firearms sales remain high across the Country. If three-quarters of the general public favor “Assault Rifle” bans why are so many people buying AR-15’s as fast as they can?

    • Haven’t you heard? Only 3% of gun owners own the vast majority of guns in the US; therefore it is those 3%ers buying all those ARs!

  6. “Politically Timed Push-poll Yields Intended Talking Point From Pre-Screened Sample”

    There. FIFY.

    What’s their pitch? “Vote for me: I’ve already demonstrated I’ll con you if I can!”

    Actually, their pitch is to their true believers:
    “Vote for me. I’ve already demonstrated I’ll con those deplorables if I can!”
    “BTW, here’s some lying cover for what you already want. Vote for me n you’ll get more!”

    Can we say “fake polls?” Is that allowed?

    People looking to understand something from a poll insist on seeing the wording and the sample. “Eleventy percent of somebody wants something”, but *who* exactly wants *what exactly*? BTW, how’d you ask?

    “Some % of slactivists in our Rolodex who happen to say they own guns, said “yes” to this vague thing here … that we kinda hinted they should agree with in our patter.”

    Convincing only that you can find like-minded folks.

    It’s called an “undulating lie.” Sounds on the surface like one thing: “Everybody agrees!” Actually says another when you dig: “There’s no consensus here, even on narrow claims.” When you call them out, they go : “Hey, I really said the true thing.”

    Well, you said two things. Not “oops”, the head fake is crafted n entirely intentional.

    It’s crappy. Like claiming no D G Us because no big studies show them … after burying the CDC reports showing massive DGUs.
    “Hey, we didn’t lie. We said – whispered in a footnote, actually – no *well-known*, *credible* *national* *studies*. That headline declaring absolute truth: just ignore that.”

    BTW, simplicity and emotion convince, so the *wrong* headline carrys the message that gets through. Purely on purpose. They also have time on their hands … paid to create deceptions you have to unwind in yr spare time.

    The only solution is just don’t believe them about anything once they’ve demonstrated they are not honest brokers.

    Of course, you can’t let people who will do that during election time anywhere near the levers of government. Sad.

    • They like to conduct them after a major event like Pittsburgh or parkland in areas where the voter rolls are mixed to slightly left.
      Emotions are taken advantage of

    • It is also of interest to me to see how the sample was generated. Maybe “random calls to people on the registered list of Democrats”, or whatever.

  7. No one ever asks ME. Any regular TTAG readers get asked about banning ASSault rifles?!? Hopefully picking up my “victory rifle” this month…pew pew😄

    • Nope, I don’t do email polls, I don’t pick up weird phone numbers I don’t know, if someone called “hi, I am calling from pew research with a survey, do you identify as a gun owner” I suspect , 98.6% of ttag readers would hang up.

      Unlike fudds, I like all types of guns and weapons, even those I don’t own or haven’t tried. Black powder? Haven’t used it, don’t own any, but you are welcome to use them. Haven’t really hunted yet but for all you sporting types, go for it with my blessing. Shotguns, yeah on the back burner to acquire, but they are swell. Machine guns, grenade launchers, aow.

      I’m against prohibitions on possession and acquisition and manufacturing of guns for lawful purposes. If you want a fully non-us part gun, you should be able to import it. As a rifle. With no sporting purpose nonsense. Want to build a double barreled weapon with a short shotgun barrel and short rifle barrel, experiment away.

      I think the laws should enforce actual crimes committed, murder, rape, assault and battery, theft…. Whether it was committed with a gun, knife, or golf club is just a fun fact but doesn’t mean anything. Is shooting someone to death more violent than beating them to death with hands?

      So let people possess and use guns, whatever guns, and go after criminals actually committing crimes, not bump stock owners or people putting vertical grips on pistols.

  8. These so called polls mean absolutely nothing. They are an inaccurate representation of the population as a whole. Why you may ask? Simple because the sample size is statistically to small. As with most polls the number of individuals questioned is generally around 1000 subjects. This is done to allow for a quick return of data to meet the customers timetable. All polls are done this way. I know this because I have worked in this field in the past. The first thing anyone must do when accessing polling information is to look at the sampling size. Questions are always worded so to get the desired response and asked to encourage sympathy for the desired cause. Also keep in mind that these organization are looking for a particular conclusion to their polling efforts and the company doing the polling will meet the desires of their customers. If they can’t or won’t then rest assured that client is gone. The only polls that really matter occur on election day. So get out and vote to protect your rights. Otherwise more extreme measures may have to be used. Which I’m sure none of us really want to employ. Keep Your Powder Dry…

    • “The first thing anyone must do when accessing polling information is to look at the sampling size”

      Please, take a math class before making comments like that. Also the size is not such an issue as getting a statistically random sample.

      • Binder;
        Sorry son but you need a little education in the subject before making any comments about statistical mathematics. A random sample cannot be attained if the sample size is to small when the overall group factored in the 100’s of millions. The larger the sample size the more potential you have for a random sample group. With roughly 150 million+ potential voters. A sample group of 1000 is so small as to be laughable. I spent 7 years teaching statistical analysis and am sure I know far move about sampling than you’ll ever know.

        • “A random sample cannot be attained if the sample size is to small when the overall group factored in the 100’s of millions.”

          Aren’t there math formulae to establish a legitimate review sample, depending on the desired probability of the sample determining an accurate result?

        • Sam, pretty sure that is precisely what Darkman is saying. But my statistics is 50 years old and in the basement.

        • ” Sam, pretty sure that is precisely what Darkman is saying. But my statistics is 50 years old and in the basement.”

          Agree. I was pointing out that one does not need a degree/career in statistics to properly generate a valid statistical sample of a population. The demographic of the sample is the key. If homogeneous, the utility of the sample is fairly forthright. Otherwise, the skewing of the population can render the result completely useless (except for political advantage).

  9. Pew Research: 48 Percent of Gun Owners Support an ‘Assault’ Rifle Ban

    They probably polled only people in the city, and only people who accepted their call and didn’t hang up. (I would have hung up).

    It’s not accurate at all. You want a better poll? Look at the elected officials, look at the parties in power.

  10. The poll summary graphic actually says “assault-style weapons”. Given that this is an essentially meaningless phrase, defined only in the mind of the respondent, the resulting data is, likewise, meaningless.

    Would anyone care about poll results on the question, “Should there be limits on the availability of penguin-style washboards?”

  11. Golly let’s just decide what rights we have and power government can hold by releasing polls of selected people.

    How about we just follow the laws and constitution we have already?

  12. First I question the research and the numbers,those would be the 48% of gun owners who support the Second Amendment BUT,they don’t aka Leftist gun owners.

  13. It takes nothing to get on a no fly list or terrorist watch list. Define “mental illness” and you can stick just about anybody else in the mental illness group.

    • *This* 100%.
      Sell something to a KST on craigslist and they get picked up with your email on their phone… Guess what? You’re now on a watch list.

      Mental Illness… Guess what? Many leftists think we’re mentally ill for wanting to own firearms – let alone more than one gun.

    • Not just that, but as the Republican majority appeared to understand, banning people on the list raises serious due process questions since the law would deprive a person of a Constitutional right without hearing or trial, and often without notice.

  14. All this based on conjecture, both arbitrary and capricious…And Who cares what my nosy neighbor thinks about what I do… I don’t need to consult with some busybody about what rights I should have! When I take a shit! Or if I have to many to so says the other Busy Body across the street! Who f****** cares! My rights AREN’T up for the debate, NOR is anyone else’s! The Moral Majority doesn’t get to steamroll people!

  15. More than 48% of gun owners likely own one or more “assault weapons” themselves! They want to ban their own guns? I call BS. Unless it’s just me, my handful of buddies, and some folks here on TTAG that own all those millions of extant AR-15s.

    Here in Washington, the initiative we’re hoping to vote down in the upcoming election classes ANY semi-auto – including the 10-22 that was passed from Grampa to Grandson — as an “assault weapon.”

  16. Remember in November, any vote for a democrat is a vote to end the 2nd Amendment……
    Since the other side of the argument has never been heard, it would be no surprise. Do these people realize that the only reason the anti gun extremists are targeting the AR-15 is exactly because it is the same weapon as all other semi-automatic weapons, including rifles, pistols and shotguns, and technically revolvers. They all fire one bullet for each pull of the trigger. If the anti gunners are allowed to ban the AR-15, they can then come back and say, hey, you agreed that the semi auto AR-15 is too deadly for civilians, so now you have no argument against us banning all other semi automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns…and revolvers. This is the new strategy and you saw it in play at the CNN Town Hall where the anti gunners screamed they wanted to ban all semi automatic weapons. Also, by banning semi automatic weapons, they pretty much end concealed carry in this country. Since revolvers also fire one bullet for each pull of the trigger they could ban those, and they would be the only option other than 2 shot derringers for concealed carry…….Vote for every Republican you can vote for on Nov. 6….any vote for a democrat is a vote to end the 2nd Amendment…..

    • Correct. The point we all have to keep in mind is that government, whether city, county, state, or federal, or the United Nations for that matter, has no *authority* to ban ANYTHING covered by the 2A as an “arm”. There can be no poll which justifies any of them to ban anything, because they do not have the AUTHORITY to do so. If you want to ban something personally, feel free, but pardon me if I do not pay attention.

  17. That 48% are truly simple minded FUDDS. Well hell, I got’s my double barrel shotgun and my 30-30 lever deer rifle. The rest ain’t needed. Now where is my plaid wool shit? gots to go the walmart and gets me some bacon.

  18. Oh wow, a Pew poll that stinks! Like we wouldn’t have expected that. The only poles that actually matter are the ones that we’re going to on Tuesday, and that is the most significant sampling of all. People who care enough to go to the effort of getting registered and voting, those are the people who count.

  19. I seem to remember the polling right before President Trump was elected.

    …and that’s why I don’t pay any attention to them.


  21. Kind of an old data set. I’m not sure it’s still of much value other than in terms of historical trends.

    That said, the only thing that really jumps out at me from this survey is the response to “Barring purchases by people on no-fly or watch lists”.

    The level of support for that, at least as indicated by this (admittedly old and out of date) poll, reveals an astonishing lack of understanding on the part of the public, gun-owning or not.

    This is exactly the kind of power that the government shouldn’t have and which any red-blooded American should stand firmly against.

  22. This is a rather peculiar data set. My initial reaction was to toss aside the data as silly, biased, and a pile of garbage. However, this is from Pew Research. As far as I know, they are a reputable research group. They are the ones that prove that Muslims are inherently violent and stuck in the 7th century. I rely on their research to show that Islam is extremely invasive, intolerant, and evil. If they interviewed fudds only, or fixed the numbers, it would cast serious doubt on all their other research.

  23. I don’t think I know any gun owners that will even admit to owning a gun to a random survey person, lol

    So, out of what 10% Of gun owners 48% said they support an “assault weapons” ban?

    40 million people own semi automatic firearms with a detachable magazine holding over 10rds and millions more want them as evidenced by the brisk sales of entry level hubcap semiauto rifles and pistols.

    Sound like more fake news to me..

  24. The poll is not different from the “Do you think the country is headed in the right direction”?

    American English is a sloppy language, so it is easy to manipulate words to completely distort the matter at hand. This is a reason POTG should be hypercritical about terms and nomenclatures; hypercritical of ourselves.

  25. I’ve always wanted a AR15 but those things are just to dog gone scary. Therefore I bought a ruger mini 14. Assault looking style guns have no place in the average gun owners possession.

    • Seems you forgot to include the universal symbol for snark /s
      Every American has a patriotic OBLIGATION to literally own dozens. I do.

    • ” I’ve always wanted a AR15 but those things are just to dog gone scary. Therefore I bought a ruger mini 14. Assault looking style guns have no place in the average gun owners possession.”

      Oh, rats, we forgot to tell you – all semi-auto rifles are “assault rifles”. Heck, anything semi-automatic is an assault rifle.

    • They understand. They just don’t care.

      Why should a dusty 200-plus-year-old document written by a bunch of dead white guys matter right now?

  26. Pew, pew, pew(*) research on guns shot themselves in the foot with that one … again.

    (*) Not hardly enough “pew, pew, pew” puns in these comments. I am dissapoint.

  27. I wonder how many gun owners are like me. I hang up on pollsters. I would never admit to anyone that I don’t know how many or what kind of guns I own.

      • My phone has a feature requiring entering a code when a message prompts. A select group have the code. Wish I had the nerve to do the Tom Mabe routine with pollsters and telemarketers. Once told a pollster I was robbing the residence and needed the phone clear so I could coordinate by getaway ride. Got to thinking the caller might be able to determine the phone and location, call the cop, and they would not be amused. Didn’t try that ploy again.

  28. 1. Did they define “assault rifle”?
    2. Did they state that new “assault rifles” are ALREADY “banned” for general ownership?

    With the proper degree of obfuscation, you could get uninformed Jews to endorse the Nuremberg Laws. After all, making Jews wear the Star of David is just “encouraging pride in their heritage”, isn’t it?

    The only group more cravenly dishonest than gun control advocates is Holocaust deniers, but not by much.

    • “After all, making Jews wear the Star of David is just “encouraging pride in their heritage”, isn’t it?”

      I think you just handed all leftists, liberals and Dimwitocrats a new banner to justify more dependency on government. Wow. If it comes to pass, we know where to go for the instigator.

      Please don’t make it easy for enemies of the people to increase the imperative for imperial government; make ’em work for it.

      • Don’t worry, there are committed Marxists feeding the short bus Democrats their talking points, even if they have no more comprehension of the message than a mynah bird imitating a chainsaw.

  29. Polls. A statistical entity devised solely for the purpose of getting people to believe whatever it is you want them to believe.

    • “Polls. A statistical entity devised solely for the purpose of getting people to believe whatever it is you want them to believe.”

      Polls from the leftists (and MSM) are designed to influence, not reflect.

  30. LarryinTX says:
    November 3, 2018 at 09:47
    You are looking at compiled and interpreted data, as usual they are not showing you the damn *question*, which is where the real lies come in. “Do you agree that people should not be able to buy guns in private sales without any background checks, and then murder hundreds of defenseless and innocent children?” Surprise! Even gun owners agree!****** Surprise! which gunowners agree?
    ………and tell the class which mass shooting happened when the shooter bought the firearm from a private sell? The majority have been legally purchased by the shooter, a few taken from someone irresponsibly allowing access to them. I don’t recall even one that was purchased from another individual, or even a straw buyer. Please, do enlighten us, Larry.

  31. The “preventing mentally ill from purchasing guns.”
    Have you been past a homeless encampment lately? Do we agree the occurrence of drug dependence and mental illness is common? Now, how do you “prevent” any of them from “purchasing guns?”
    Consider the recent mass shooters. Before they started killing, what “mental illness” diagnosis did they have that would have prevented them from buying a gun?
    This was the gun control push is about physical weapons.

  32. No one asked me for an opinion, so they must have only asked Snowflakes or millennials who have been indoctrinated in socialist propaganda. No law on paper will stop a criminal or a resolute individual who is willing to swap his life to take another. Guns laws are about control of the people and they cannot obtain that control while law abiding citizens are armed and ready to defend themselves and family.

  33. I never trust polls. I once challenged Schumer’s remarks he made in the Senate once where he used polling as a basis for his remarks. A Senate staffer told me polling results are easy to tweek just by using demographics. If you want a poll to go in favor of Liberal subjects you go to large N.E. metropolitan areas. If you polled people from New York on gun control you would get an entirely different result than if you polled people in Texas. So polls are really not a good gauge on public sentiments on political or legal subjects and should never be trusted.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here