National POLL: Support For Gun Control Measures

[VanceInWA]

Many folks have been thoughtful, others pretty riled. Thought it might be fair to "bare my soul" by providing my own answers to each item since some even raised questions about my integrity. Here goes...

Ban the sale of semi-automatic rifles (not shotguns) to civilians: Oppose.

Extend gun purchase waiting periods: Oppose. Another dumb idea from the left.

Implement a national database to prohibit gun ownership for mental health reasons: Not sure I agree with advocates that a national database is the best tool, not thrilled with that kind of governmental tracking, but I do agree that something more should be done because I do not want to see people diagnosed as mentally unfit possessing firearms, just like I would not want to see mentally unfit people accepted into the military.

Implement red flag laws at the national level: Oppose. We don't need Karens taking away our Second Amendment rights.

Implement universal background checks (and close "gunshow loophole"): To date I've have no problem with the current background check system, but in my opinion it should not become more onerous.

Lifetime gun ownership ban for anyone convicted of a hate crime: Oppose. A felon can't own a firearm, and that seems good enough to me.

Limit rifle magazine capacity to ten rounds: Oppose. I understand the surface appeal of this measure, but it will do little to nothing with respect to mitigating murders with guns. This is just a feel-good measure used as propaganda by politicians and not an actual solution to murders.

Limit sale of firearms to age 21 or over: Unsure. I know from personal experience that 18 year olds are not fully mature. Some are, but I don't see that as the average. I'm ex-military. When 18 year olds are given guns in the military they are under strict authoritarian control, and when not the guns are locked in an armory. Maybe requiring NRA safety training between 18 and 21 is a way to middle ground here, not sure.

Prohibit online sale of firearms: Oppose. Another meaningless feel-good measure that does nothing.

Restrict firearm purchases to no more than one firearm per month: Oppose. This is probably the left's dumbest idea.

 

[Member 53328]

Completely agree. By extension... if we aren't providing the teaching and learning opportunities to our younger generations that cycle will continue to the point where there really are no bounds on how high that age limit may need to be set to reach an arguably "uniform" age of "maturity".. with regard to firearms.

I think that's why I could see having a certified training requirement between 18-21 (or even older). I could probably live with that without "too" much complaining, but raising the age across the board I just can't. I know our family type is not unique. Certainly fewer as the generations pass, but not unique and "our" perspectives should be considered as well.

21 for a long gun would just be CRAZY old considering, by then, almost half their time on earth they've been carrying and using high caliber long guns responsibly. Certainly more safely than what any "Joe" can pick up in a few hours of a gun safety course.

They can vote so why should their rights be infringed, becomes the question.

I compltely understan the other side of the coins view too. AR's are scarier than handguns so why can you buy an AR at 18 and only handguns are 21? Right?

Another way to see that... "Hey! We got away with 21 for handguns... let's go get long guns bumped too!! (Then we'll go back to hanguns in the media, rinse and repeat)"

Agreed. I had my first rifle before I was 10. And my first handgun before I was 18. But my father and grandfather mentored me and had a clear oversight when I was initially learning the platforms before I was allowed to go out on my own or with buddies out into the woods. I had to earn the trust. I think mentoring, training and respect for firearms are key elements that are no longer received or prioritized on the younger generation. Sadly. The lack of maturity/conflict resolution + a firearm is the recipe for a disaster. With that being said I am not willing to give up MY rights to "try" and avoid and potential risk in the future. A won't give up my rights for a false sense of security promised by the government. Period.

 

[Yarome]

Looking at the vote tally, I'm disgusted with the level of infringement some people are stating they are comfortable with. We are definitely not "on the same team."

Well, only about 11 people out of the 800 thread views have actually voted to support ANY of those listed.

The percentages of those very few votes "look" like a crap ton of us in percentages but it's really just because the poll is crackerjacked from the get go.

Rest assured you won't be the only one to, at it's surface, assume nearly every NWFA member are complete wack job anti-2A's trying to disguise ourselves as "pro" to infiltrate our communist agenda.

Pretty dang embarassing for NWFA, actually. I'm waiting to see how long it takes for the thread to be deleted.

 

[nwslopoke]

The fact you use the phrase " Gun show loophole" just makes me shake my head. There is no such thing outside of a poorly written law that had no impact. That is a legal transaction in states not requiring an FFL for private sales.

Your poll only has choices reducing one's civil rights and access to arms. No selection to enhance or ease access to arms.
How about Constitutional carry in exchange for a 5 day waiting period? I wouldn't vote for it but that is a compromise. How about eliminating the NFA for a national background check? Again, not something I would support but a compromise. Until criminals get the concept that they will suffer grave consequences there isn't much reason to block law abiding citizens access to firearms.

 

[3MTA3]

Not a farging one of the above. I'd settle for sending those who don't believe in fundamental human rights of existence to Venezuela or China where they can celebrate authoritarianism.

 

[Knobgoblin]

On this thread, and the peripheral thread currently seeing activity, an acknowledgement of age<maturity is showing itself. This is a weird space to explore with any true honesty. For anyone who considers moving the age threshold from 18 to 21 for ANY specific rights please substitute the right to vote in your mind. Every time it comes up in conversation, or even pops into your head. Just proceed with the assumption that every citizen in this country can no longer vote until they are 21 years of age. See if that bothers you or not ( and maybe it won't).

This "slippery slope " leaves a wide open door to a host of arbitrary age based legal restrictions.
And don't think I agree with the current widely accepted hypocrisy that is the norm in most of the country, drinking age of 21. These laws are universally ignored and we all know it. It's a very lucrative and convenient revenue stream for all branches of the American legal machine, both public and private.

 

[edzz]

Over 900 views and 17 votes...

 

[Lilhigbee]

I might be enticed to accept some of those restrictions if I had the mental acuity of Joe Biden. Otherwise, as long as my IQ is high enough that no one has to water me, NO!!

 

[Koda]

Over 900 views and 17 votes...

Id like to see a part2 of this same poll, but with options to deny all of the gun control options. Many expressed they didnt vote out of dissapointment and my guess is did not get the intent of the OP. My guess is if there was an option to reject the questions that would have a high percentage of votes.

 

[bionic knees]

NO!!!

 

[GrayGoose]

I vote on the hate crime option. Dealt with too much of that.

That only works if they levied "hate crime" equally without perpetuating their one-sided race war.

 

[Lilhigbee]

Has anyone ever considered reversing the NICS situation?? Instead of the FFL contacting the FBI for approval, the FBI has to provide a list of prohibited persons that is accessible by the FFL. The FFL looks you up, you aren't on the list, you take your gun home. No possible registry, no government delays. Truly an instant system. That I might support. The FBI's only responsibility is to make sure everyone that belongs on the list, i.e. convicted felon, adjudicated mentally ill, dishonorable discharge, etc. are on the list. That information is all government-generated anyway so the FBI should have easy access to the names that belong on the list. And substantial penalties for them putting anyone on the list by mistake!!

 

[Knobgoblin]

Has anyone ever considered reversing the NICS situation?? Instead of the FFL contacting the FBI for approval, the FBI has to provide a list of prohibited persons that is accessible by the FFL. The FFL looks you up, you aren't on the list, you take your gun home. No possible registry, no government delays. Truly an instant system. That I might support. The FBI's only responsibility is to make sure everyone that belongs on the list, i.e. convicted felon, adjudicated mentally ill, dishonorable discharge, etc. are on the list. That information is all government-generated anyway so the FBI should have easy access to the names that belong on the list. And substantial penalties for them putting anyone on the list by mistake!!

This is a great idea. With the current level of gov internet presence, it would be no problem. Hourly updates to the conviction database are easily feasible .

 

[RustyNail]

I have a masters degree in business and studied economics. Anyone who thinks these results are even close to reliable is a stupid idiot. (Multiple votes allowed, no option for no further gun control, etc.)

The OP probably knew this and did it on purpose. While he may think he is clever anyone with even basic mathematical skills and common sense can send this poll up in flames. OP, why even waste your time? …I would tell you why but it would get me kicked off of this website.

 

[Old Dog]

Limit sale of firearms to age 21 or over: Unsure. I know from personal experience that 18 year olds are not fully mature. Some are, but I don't see that as the average. I'm ex-military. When 18 year olds are given guns in the military they are under strict authoritarian control, and when not the guns are locked in an armory. Maybe requiring NRA safety training between 18 and 21 is a way to middle ground here, not sure.

So, in the beginning of my quarter-century of active duty, I might've supported the concept of having a 21 or over age limit for firearms purchases, but now, after double-digit deployments (including to combat zones) with a lot of dudes (and later, dudettes) aged 18-20, I evolved a bit and eventually concluded that if we can send them to Iraq or Afghanistan for a year, they should be able to legally buy their own firearms in the U.S. And I still consider it a major affront, and insult, that we can send them to war, risking their lives (oh, and vote, too) but they cannot even legally buy beer INCONUS? WTF?

We are in far more danger, in this country, of dying at the hands of some 16-year-old nitwit driving on a public roadway, than we are of getting shot by an 18-20 year-old who legally purchased his/her/their firearm.

Note: As most of us know, the preponderance of "gun crime" in this country (shootings, assaults, homicides with firearms) is committed by 13 to 19 year old thugs who are in illegal possession of the firearms they use. The under-21s that commit crimes with firearms rarely do so with legally purchased guns (the Uvalde miscreant is an exception) that they themselves have bought. We have seen a few shootings (harkening back to Sandy Hook and Oxford, MI) where parents -- in spite of their knowledge that their sons were immature and had potential mental health issues -- bought guns for their children.

The poll (as noted by numerous respondents in the thread) absolutely requires a "none of the above" option.

 

[po18guy]

An email to Senator Murray from Washington:

Dear Senator Murray,

We did not ban aircraft after 9/11. And the tragic murders in Texas were done by a murderer. Why was this out of control and troubled loner not dealt with before this occurred? Why was the school not secured?

Why are there so many murderers in on the streets? Never mind the weapons! Weapons do nothing without a murderer. Can we please understand this?

DO NOT trample on the rights of 327 million Americans - including YOU - to defend themselves based on emotion. Let us allow calmer heads to prevail, as emotion makes for disastrous consequences.

Bolster mental health services! Have you seen Seattle? Unsafe due to streets flooded with violent and mentally ill persons.

Fix mental health and leave peaceful voters alone.

Please.

 

[DunRanull]

There are more than 20,000 gun-related laws and regulations in the United States. Empirical studies have consistently shown, however, that gun control measures have a very mild effect on the number of gun-related deaths; more important are socioeconomic variables like poverty level, unemployment, domestic violence, increased urbanization, gang activity, and substance abuse (especially alcohol). Regardless the scientific reality, proponents of gun control relentlessly march on. Demographic studies show that the least likely person to support gun control is a Republican or Independent Male, while the most likely person to support gun control is a Democrat Female. A 2015 study by Peterson found that 52% of Republicans favored some form of gun control, while 64% of Democrats did. Gun control advocates especially like to leverage the raw emotions of Americans when mass shootings occur (e.g., the recent shootings in Buffalo NY and Uvalde TX). And clearly, this country is experiencing repeated mass murders using firearms, despite that we are one of the world's richest and most developed nations. Gun owners, and the nonprofit associations they belong to, have long guarded the Second Amendment and their right to bear arms with the fewest limitations possible, but even some gun owners have been emotionally tweaked by the latest mass shootings, especially the 19 children killed in Uvalde. So this poll is presented as a way to ascertain general perspectives from NWFA members when it comes to some of the more popular gun control measures that have been proposed. Unfortunately, this website limits it to just a thumbs up or down poll for each measure as opposed to a weighted choice (such as a 1 low to 5 high scale for each measure). And I want to reiterate that this poll is in NO WAY intended to promote gun control, its only intent is to elicit NWFA member perspectives.

You failed to include "None of the above", so your "poll" is slanted toward more control and failed to account for those of us who resist more laws or desire LESS control...

 

[gunsmithkinks]

Uhhhh...yea right

 

[Member 52301]

I did not vote.

I did LOOK at the poll results.

Cate

 

[Mikej]

I'd be ok with bumping the age from 18 to 21 to buy firearms. But I am strongly against red flag laws, mag bans, firearm bans, ammunition limitations, waiting periods, licenses to purchase, psych tests, etc.

I'm glad you said this. And another few after you somewhat agree with raising the age to purchase a firearm. I was thinking I was the only one. I feel the majority of 18 YOds NOW are way different than 50-60 years ago. When I was 18, early '70s practically every one of us had a job. A JOB! If you didn't have "work release" from high school, you worked after school. If you didn't work during the school year you'd be scoping out places to have a job for the summer. It was kind of mandatory if you wanted to do anything out of the house. Not saying all, but MANY 16-21 YOds, live from the screen of their device. They literally get their souls and personalities from the internet.
Making the age 21 to buy a firearm, and 18 to own one that your parent(s) had bought for you is what I feel is proper at this point in America.

Has anyone ever considered reversing the NICS situation?? Instead of the FFL contacting the FBI for approval, the FBI has to provide a list of prohibited persons that is accessible by the FFL. The FFL looks you up, you aren't on the list, you take your gun home. No possible registry, no government delays. Truly an instant system. That I might support. The FBI's only responsibility is to make sure everyone that belongs on the list, i.e. convicted felon, adjudicated mentally ill, dishonorable discharge, etc. are on the list. That information is all government-generated anyway so the FBI should have easy access to the names that belong on the list. And substantial penalties for them putting anyone on the list by mistake!!

Now that's thinking out of the box!