Poll: Americans favour gun registration


mentalfloss
+1
#1



Americans favour gun registration


Nik Nanos digs beneath the numbers with CBC News Network's Power & Politics host Evan Solomon to get to the political, economic and social forces that shape our lives.

This week: Is there more appetite for gun control in U.S. than we realize?

U.S. President Barack Obama is promising to act urgently on new gun control measures, after the horrific shooting at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn. Twenty children and six adults were gunned down on Dec. 14.

Obama promised action in the hours after the tragedy and now he has set up a task force, lead by Vice-President Joe Biden. Obama wants concrete proposals by January.

Gun control in the United States is a polarizing issue, but Nik Nanos says when you look at public opinion on specific initiatives when it comes to gun control, the numbers are surprising.

A Pew Research Centre Poll of 1,101 Americans adults shows that 47 per cent of Americans say controlling gun ownership is more important, compared to 46 per cent who say protecting gun ownership rights is more important.

It's essentially a dead heat, but Nanos points out it also looks very similar to the election results in November.

"You see an absolute divide when you ask Americans at a very high level how they feel in terms of whether there should or should not be gun control," Nanos told host Evan Solomon on Power & Politics.

But the picture changes if you dig deeper into the specific gun control initiatives.

The Nanos Number: Americans favour gun registration - Politics - CBC News
 
Kreskin
#2
Go Smokin Joe. Kick some NRA butt.
 
lone wolf
Free Thinker
+2
#3
I don't like the idea of storing my information on a system a twelve-year-old can hack into.
 
Locutus
+1
#4
Something a little fresher to balance that August poll:


POLL: Are Americans more likely to support stricter gun laws after Newtown?


Polling Center: Are Americans more likely to support stricter gun laws after Newtown? - Elections & Politics from CNN.com


POLL: Should there be restrictions on gun ownership?

Polling Center: Should there be restrictions on gun ownership? - Elections & Politics from CNN.com
 
EagleSmack
+2
#5
Connecticut has the 5th strictest gun laws in the states. How did that work?

Washington DC had a complete ban on guns and they used to top the charts in gun deaths. How did that work out for them?
 
Spade
Free Thinker
+3
#6
In 1791, when the Second Ammedment to the American Constitution gave citizens the right to bear arms, guns were single-shot muzzle-loading flintlocks with rudimentary rifling. It seems logical to so restrict civilian firearms.
 
Cliffy
Free Thinker
+4
#7  Top Rated Post
Quote: Originally Posted by SpadeView Post

In 1791, when the Second Ammedment to the American Constitution gave citizens the right to bear arms, guns were single-shot muzzle-loading flintlocks with rudimentary rifling. It seems logical to so restrict civilian firearms.

Yup. Everybody should own a flint lock. I have fired a few and they kick like a canon. A hand gun, if not held properly, will cold cock you if it hits you in the head.

PS: Weird. I can say cock but I can't say d i c k.
 
Spade
Free Thinker
+1
#8
Because those sports' fans with d ickheads take offence.
 
EagleSmack
+3
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by SpadeView Post

In 1791, when the Second Ammedment to the American Constitution gave citizens the right to bear arms, guns were single-shot muzzle-loading flintlocks with rudimentary rifling. It seems logical to so restrict civilian firearms.

Hmmm... I didn't see that anywhere in the Second Amendment. You know, that as technology advances beyond muzzle loaders then the Second Amendment will be null and void.

Keep trying.
 
L Gilbert
No Party Affiliation
+3
#10
Definitely need more threads about guns.
I think the floss is frayed and worn out.
 
Nuggler
+3
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by SpadeView Post

In 1791, when the Second Ammedment to the American Constitution gave citizens the right to bear arms, guns were single-shot muzzle-loading flintlocks with rudimentary rifling. It seems logical to so restrict civilian firearms.

\\\


Yahbutt: They were talking cannons perhaps. clumsy to carry, but effective.

Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

Yup. Everybody should own a flint lock. I have fired a few and they kick like a canon. A hand gun, if not held properly, will cold cock you if it hits you in the head.

PS: Weird. I can say cock but I can't say d i c k.


There is speech therapy.

..............ohhhhhhhh
 
Spade
Free Thinker
+1
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmackView Post

Hmmm... I didn't see that anywhere in the Second Amendment. You know, that as technology advances beyond muzzle loaders then the Second Amendment will be null and void.

Keep trying.

I see Supreme Court cases involving the Second Amendment also upheld slavery.

"1857: DRED SCOTT v. SANDFORD - Slavery kept legal based in part on the fear that freed slaves could 'carry arms wherever they went' under the Second Amendment."

"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a stone axe is a good guy with a stone axe" NRA
Last edited by Spade; Dec 21st, 2012 at 05:22 PM..
 
Ron in Regina
Free Thinker
+4
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by SpadeView Post

I see Supreme Court cases involving the Second Amendment also upheld slavery.

"1857: DRED SCOTT v. SANDFORD - Slavery kept legal based in part on the fear that freed slaves could 'carry arms wherever they went' under the Second Amendment."

"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a stone axe is a good guy with a stone axe" NRA

....But...but you're not allowed to carry stone axes here in Canada. You call someone,
and hope they show up with their state issued stone axe in a timely manner.
 
L Gilbert
No Party Affiliation
+2
#14
Yeah, only cops are good guys here. The rest of us are a murderous, maniacal bunch.
 
damngrumpy
No Party Affiliation
+2
#15
Again if you look at the response of the NRA it demonstrates why they should not have guns.
I think heavy duty weapons should be outright banned and that includes the ones already out
there. Give people time to turn them in then make jail time mandatory if they don't. No it will
not make a great difference but people will feel better.
Silly statement? Not at all the intent of this law is to make people feel better.
If you are going to change the situation, Americans have to change the way they view themselves
and the world. It is the culture that is sick, and sick people keep on the same track.
It is not the wild west anymore its a different world arming everyone is going back to the eighteen
hundreds and that is not going to work either.
 
mentalfloss
+1
#16
The sad fact is that with more tragedies, means more restrictions. Obama will be making some changes.
 
petros
+1
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by Ron in ReginaView Post

....But...but you're not allowed to carry stone axes here in Canada. You call someone,
and hope they show up with their state issued stone axe in a timely manner.

Want some flint? You can shave with it.
 
Serryah
Free Thinker
+1
#18
Some points I've read from various other forums/news reports about the gun debate.

Since when do the rights of confidentiality of the mentally ill get trumped by someone elses "right" to have a gun?

Violent video games are played all over the world; by rights other nations that have them should be just as violent as the US, but they aren't.

Just how "free" are you when you feel the need to have a gun to protect yourself from everyone else?

If a bad guy carries a gun, and a good guy carries a gun to fight off the bad guy, what happens when the good guy becomes a bad guy?

So if a bad guy has a gun, and the good guy has a gun, but the bad guy, knowing the good guy, has a better gun than the good guy, does the good guy get to ask the bad guy to wait while he gets a better, better gun? But what if while the good guy is getting his better, better gun, the bad guy not only kills people, but gets a better, better, better gun? Or what if the bad guy, ready for good guy and his gun, has a gun like good guy, but also something to help disable good guy, like smoke bombs or flash bombs or hell, anything distracting? And what if bad guy with gun, knowing good guy with gun is there, takes hostages? Does good guy play hero or does good guy wait for the police/SWAT? If bad guy is going to kill people, he'll kill them while waiting for the cops to show.

And honestly, do you really think one person in a school is going to cut it? A co-worker and I figured out for our small town - if we were in the US - to adequately protect the schools and the University here, there'd have to be at least 200 people hired. At least. And who is going to pay for that? I doubt the "volunteers" mentioned by the NRA would even happen so it'd have to be a paying job. Plus every school would have to be surrounded by fencing to prevent walk on's onto the property, likely a dog and handler or two, plus coverage for after school activities and likely bus rides to and from school as well.

So really, how is any of all this easier than just saying "no assault weapons" and limiting the rounds to be bought?
 
Ron in Regina
Free Thinker
+2
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Want some flint? You can shave with it.

But....but if I tie it to a stick with some sinew, it becomes a stone ax, and
if I paint it black, it might become an assault weapon. Personally, if I'm
going to shave with a stone, I'm going with Obsidian.

Last edited by Ron in Regina; Dec 22nd, 2012 at 02:09 AM..
 
B00Mer
Republican
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolfView Post

I don't like the idea of storing my information on a system a twelve-year-old can hack into.

This from a guy that didn't like the idea of me having an unregistered gun.... Yet you don't want anyone to know you have a gun or at least an information bank with that info... Cough.
 
petros
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by SerryahView Post

Since when do the rights of confidentiality of the mentally ill get trumped by someone elses "right" to have a gun?

It goes public?
 
CDNBear
+2
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by SpadeView Post

In 1791, when the Second Ammedment to the American Constitution gave citizens the right to bear arms, guns were single-shot muzzle-loading flintlocks with rudimentary rifling. It seems logical to so restrict civilian firearms.

The author's of the 2nd Amendment were referring to the hight of modern technology when they framed it.

Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

The sad fact is that with more tragedies, means more restrictions.

You're right, it is a sad fact.

Instead of addressing the issue of mental illness, they'll just go after the law abiding.

Quote: Originally Posted by B00MerView Post

This from a guy that didn't like the idea of me having an unregistered gun....

No, he, like most people have a problem with people smuggling restricted weapons into Canada, with no checks or balances, as to whether or not you're bright enough to posses it.

Quote:

Yet you don't want anyone to know you have a gun or at least an information bank with that info... Cough.

He was pretty clear, like he has always been on this issue, he doesn't like idea of a central registry that can be breached, thus leaving him and anyone else on it open to privacy violations.
Last edited by CDNBear; Dec 22nd, 2012 at 07:29 AM..
 
EagleSmack
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

The sad fact is that with more tragedies, means more restrictions. Obama will be making some changes.

What changes can he alone make to gun laws? None.
 
taxslave
No Party Affiliation
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolfView Post

I don't like the idea of storing my information on a system a twelve-year-old can hack into.

It is rather upsetting that your grandchildren can do things on the computer that you didn't even know it could do.
 
B00Mer
Republican
+1
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

No, he, like most people have a problem with people smuggling restricted weapons into Canada, with no checks or balances, as to whether or not you're bright enough to posses it.

As I explained, it was packed into my belonging by a friend.. smuggle into Canada unwittingly.

It's a hand gun and is locked up and away until it can be safely sent back..

Nevertheless, I would prefer more open gun ownership for hand guns and hunting rifles.. semi-auto should not be legal.

A hand gun is for self defense of your home, nothing else.. and only if the other person has a gun.. equal force.

Hunting rifles, well hunting and providing food.. I don't see a need for higher power firearms being in the hands of anyone but the law.

Also, anyone owning a firearm restricted or unrestricted should be schooled how to use it properly, like a automobile license. In Alberta, the Alberta Hunter Education Instructors Association does just that.

Once you pass a course, then a shooting range class, criminal background check.. you're clear to buy and own a firearm.
 
L Gilbert
No Party Affiliation
+1
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by B00MerView Post

A hand gun is for self defense of your home, nothing else..

Baloney. We target-shoot with ours. On a rare occasion one of us may pop a skunk or coon that's being a nuisance, so I suppose that could be called defense.

Quote:

Hunting rifles, well hunting and providing food.. I don't see a need for higher power firearms being in the hands of anyone but the law.

Life's a beetch. I hunt almost entirely with my .303 L-E and have brought down critters from coyotes to moose with it. I target-shoot with the .338 Lapua. The .338 Lap was specially designed for military sniping as was a couple other calibers and is vastly more powerful than the .303. Why should I lose my .338 Savage because some pinhead goes nuts with an assault rifle?

Quote:

Also, anyone owning a firearm restricted or unrestricted should be schooled how to use it properly, like a automobile license. In Alberta, the Alberta Hunter Education Instructors Association does just that.

I'd trust way more shooters than drivers at either activity.
 
darkbeaver
Republican
#27
The second amendment was to protect the rights of the people from the government. If and when the government rounds up the guns they will of course have done so to facilitate rounding up the people. There will always be murdering nuts and our world is filled to the brim with weapons. I can kill you with my breath.
 
Serryah
Free Thinker
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

It goes public?

Public has nothing to do with it. The only people allowed to look at the chart of any patient is the doctor or nurse in charge of said patient. Not even the patient is allowed to see their charts; charts do not belong to a patient and in order to get any sort of medical record at all the patient must agree to have it signed out beforehand and in some cases pay to get their records.

If you have a registry for mentally ill that is accessible to anyone outside of a hospital environment that is a breach of their confidentiality, just like it's a breach to state if someone has AIDS, Hep B or anything else right up to a hangnail.
 
talloola
No Party Affiliation
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmackView Post

What changes can he alone make to gun laws? None.

He will make a few changes that are on the fringe of the problems, but he will be handcuffed and
walk into brickwalls each time he tries to do something constructive, because the NRA and their
government buddies and all gun enthusiasts will block everything, and if he tries to do anything
in the area of arming any learning institutions, he will be blocked by gun haters, the middle
ground is business as usual, do nothing.
 
no new posts