Social Issues

[HPL]

I read the poll referenced in the Huffington Post article. There are a number of things in it that give me pause. I would guess that most folks didn't really think about the ramifications of the actions that many of the questions alluded to.

Question 14 addresses keeping weapons out of the hands of the mentally ill and others. At first glance, I am for keeping guns away from crazies, but then the question is how crazy? Does visiting a mental health professional for depression for instance, put you on the list, what about an eating disorder, etc.? Who are the "others" they mention?

Question 16 requires that no one possess a firearm within 1000' of many federal officials!!! Seems like too much of an opportunity for law enforcement abuse to me and just clutters up the code books. What do you do when one comes to spend the day quail hunting at your hunting camp, drives down your street, or gives a speech a couple of blocks over from where you are with your legal firearm?

Question 17 concerns enforcement of ALL existing gun laws. Really hard to voice an opinion without knowing exactly what those laws are and which ones aren't being enforced. If they are going to ask that question, i think that there needs to be a lot more information before one can give a reasonable answer.

Question 18 suggests that anyone ARRESTED for (not charged with or convicted of) a drug offense should lose their right to own a gun. I'm all for keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous felons, but to suggest that being caught with a joint in your pocket (by the way, I have never used any drug not prescribed by my doctor and don't drink either) should be cause for the loss of your rights is just ludicrous and what would prevent the police from just arresting you without cause to harass you? (No offense to all the great officers in the country). The part about failing a "federally administered drug test" really makes my skin crawl. (under what conditions would you be tested?)

#19 Suggests that anyone that attempts to buy a firearm and fails the background test should be reported to law enforcement.

#23 sounds pretty good (deals with folks on the terrorist watch list), but there needs to be some appeal as there are apparently thousands and thousands of folks on that list that probably shouldn't be.

#24 Would prevent the person who was urinating in the park and got charged with flashing (a misdemeanor sex crime) from owning a fire arm. Why would anyone convicted of a NON-violent MISDEMEANOR offense lose their constitutional rights?

#28 suggests that we need a national registry (makes it easier when they really want to come get them and if FOIA requests would allow access to the registry, well, what a can of worms that would be)

#31 addresses background checks for ammunition purchases. Think of the paperwork and the number of people needed to handle it at all levels. What a nightmare.

All of these ideas were favored by more than 50% of the respondents.

The real problem with making big decisions based on opinion polls in general is that polls are easily manipulated, overly simplistic, and often require fairly quick answers without any real consideration of what the potential outcomes of the various answers might actually be.
These polls allow folks to say "this is what the people think" without giving the respondents the information (or finding out if the people actually have the information) needed to form a meaningful opinion.

[zeus3925]

That's not Gooser... That's Goose.

Opps! Fixed it.

[zeus3925]

I read the poll referenced in the Huffington Post article. There are a number of things in it that give me pause. I would guess that most folks didn't really think about the ramifications of the actions that many of the questions alluded to.

Question 14 addresses keeping weapons out of the hands of the mentally ill and others. At first glance, I am for keeping guns away from crazies, but then the question is how crazy? Does visiting a mental health professional for depression for instance, put you on the list, what about an eating disorder, etc.? Who are the "others" they mention?

Question 16 requires that no one possess a firearm within 1000' of many federal officials!!! Seems like too much of an opportunity for law enforcement abuse to me and just clutters up the code books. What do you do when one comes to spend the day quail hunting at your hunting camp, drives down your street, or gives a speech a couple of blocks over from where you are with your legal firearm?

Question 17 concerns enforcement of ALL existing gun laws. Really hard to voice an opinion without knowing exactly what those laws are and which ones aren't being enforced. If they are going to ask that question, i think that there needs to be a lot more information before one can give a reasonable answer.

Question 18 suggests that anyone ARRESTED for (not charged with or convicted of) a drug offense should lose their right to own a gun. I'm all for keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous felons, but to suggest that being caught with a joint in your pocket (by the way, I have never used any drug not prescribed by my doctor and don't drink either) should be cause for the loss of your rights is just ludicrous and what would prevent the police from just arresting you without cause to harass you? (No offense to all the great officers in the country). The part about failing a "federally administered drug test" really makes my skin crawl. (under what conditions would you be tested?)

#19 Suggests that anyone that attempts to buy a firearm and fails the background test should be reported to law enforcement.

#23 sounds pretty good (deals with folks on the terrorist watch list), but there needs to be some appeal as there are apparently thousands and thousands of folks on that list that probably shouldn't be.

#24 Would prevent the person who was urinating in the park and got charged with flashing (a misdemeanor sex crime) from owning a fire arm. Why would anyone convicted of a NON-violent MISDEMEANOR offense lose their constitutional rights?

#28 suggests that we need a national registry (makes it easier when they really want to come get them and if FOIA requests would allow access to the registry, well, what a can of worms that would be)

#31 addresses background checks for ammunition purchases. Think of the paperwork and the number of people needed to handle it at all levels. What a nightmare.

All of these ideas were favored by more than 50% of the respondents.

The real problem with making big decisions based on opinion polls in general is that polls are easily manipulated, overly simplistic, and often require fairly quick answers without any real consideration of what the potential outcomes of the various answers might actually be.
These polls allow folks to say "this is what the people think" without giving the respondents the information (or finding out if the people actually have the information) needed to form a meaningful opinion.

You make some very good points, HPL.

[Franco]

For the record, the Libertarian Party is the ONLY political party that opposes more gun laws! Unlike many Repubs and Dems pushing for more gun laws, the LP is th only one standing up for your rights.

http://ontheissues.org/Celeb/Liberta...un_Control.htm

http://www.lp.org/news/press-release...elf-defense-in

[zeus3925]

Going back to Goose's point, some people there is no reasoning with. What good is making Feinstein an issue? You and I are not going to change her stance. Move on and look for support for more agreeable sources. Going after Feinstein only creates a high visibility martyr for people of like minds to coalesce around. The one thing about getting down in the mud and wrestling with someone as intractable as Feinstein is you end up where nobody can see through the mud to discern the difference. I don't think you want to end up looking like Feinstein unless you are going to a masquerade ball on Halloween.

As for the rant on liberals, I have heard the same tirade from the other side against conservatives. It gets us no where and it really precludes any meaningful discussion on the issues before the country. Liberal, conservative, progressive, libertarian, moderate are all legitimate points of view. Those lines of thought have been the strength of this democracy. To slam a door on any particular viewpoint does a disservice to us all.

[Julie R.]

A Poll in Virginia has shown that people overwhelmingly favor background checks (92%).It seems that most NRA members feel the same way. Other polls show similiar results. Stubbornly the NRA refuses to change their own position on this. If the Republicans decide to follow the NRA, the backlash will be against them I am afraid.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...dfa_story.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_810069.html

As a Virginia resident (and graduate of a fairly well-known university, the University of Virginia) I confess I've never heard of Quinnipiac University. That's the first red flag for this poll's validity. Second is that my state is inevitably included as home to gun-toting bible thumping religious right extremists so of course it would make an ideal location for a poll promoting anti gun laws. In truth, I'd be willing to bet money the majority of those polled were come-heres, not from heres. We have a lot of those, mostly Obama sheep.

[cotts135]

I read the poll referenced in the Huffington Post article. There are a number of things in it that give me pause. I would guess that most folks didn't really think about the ramifications of the actions that many of the questions alluded to.

Question 14 addresses keeping weapons out of the hands of the mentally ill and others. At first glance, I am for keeping guns away from crazies, but then the question is how crazy? Does visiting a mental health professional for depression for instance, put you on the list, what about an eating disorder, etc.? Who are the "others" they mention?

Question 16 requires that no one possess a firearm within 1000' of many federal officials!!! Seems like too much of an opportunity for law enforcement abuse to me and just clutters up the code books. What do you do when one comes to spend the day quail hunting at your hunting camp, drives down your street, or gives a speech a couple of blocks over from where you are with your legal firearm?

Question 17 concerns enforcement of ALL existing gun laws. Really hard to voice an opinion without knowing exactly what those laws are and which ones aren't being enforced. If they are going to ask that question, i think that there needs to be a lot more information before one can give a reasonable answer.

Question 18 suggests that anyone ARRESTED for (not charged with or convicted of) a drug offense should lose their right to own a gun. I'm all for keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous felons, but to suggest that being caught with a joint in your pocket (by the way, I have never used any drug not prescribed by my doctor and don't drink either) should be cause for the loss of your rights is just ludicrous and what would prevent the police from just arresting you without cause to harass you? (No offense to all the great officers in the country). The part about failing a "federally administered drug test" really makes my skin crawl. (under what conditions would you be tested?)

#19 Suggests that anyone that attempts to buy a firearm and fails the background test should be reported to law enforcement.

#23 sounds pretty good (deals with folks on the terrorist watch list), but there needs to be some appeal as there are apparently thousands and thousands of folks on that list that probably shouldn't be.

#24 Would prevent the person who was urinating in the park and got charged with flashing (a misdemeanor sex crime) from owning a fire arm. Why would anyone convicted of a NON-violent MISDEMEANOR offense lose their constitutional rights?

#28 suggests that we need a national registry (makes it easier when they really want to come get them and if FOIA requests would allow access to the registry, well, what a can of worms that would be)

#31 addresses background checks for ammunition purchases. Think of the paperwork and the number of people needed to handle it at all levels. What a nightmare.

All of these ideas were favored by more than 50% of the respondents.

The real problem with making big decisions based on opinion polls in general is that polls are easily manipulated, overly simplistic, and often require fairly quick answers without any real consideration of what the potential outcomes of the various answers might actually be.
These polls allow folks to say "this is what the people think" without giving the respondents the information (or finding out if the people actually have the information) needed to form a meaningful opinion.

Great points you make, shows me even more the importance of having a educated and reasonable discussion amongst everyone involved so we can come to some sort of solution.

[caryalsobrook]

Great points you make, shows me even more the importance of having a educated and reasonable discussion amongst everyone involved so we can come to some sort of solution.

First, I would suggest that you get rid of "solutions" THAT HAVE NOT WORKED! then try to find a solution that MIGHT WORK.

[paul young]

As a Virginia resident (and graduate of a fairly well-known university, the University of Virginia) I confess I've never heard of Quinnipiac University. That's the first red flag for this poll's validity. Second is that my state is inevitably included as home to gun-toting bible thumping religious right extremists so of course it would make an ideal location for a poll promoting anti gun laws. In truth, I'd be willing to bet money the majority of those polled were come-heres, not from heres. We have a lot of those, mostly Obama sheep.

Quinnipiac University is in Hamden, Ct. It's not very far from Sandy Hook, Ct.-Paul

[HPL]

Great points you make, shows me even more the importance of having a educated and reasonable discussion amongst everyone involved so we can come to some sort of solution.

Thanks.

I will say again that I think that most people are looking for a solution for a problem that doesn't really exist (statistically speaking). Mass shootings are horrific, but unbelievably rare. A huge proportion of the rest of "gun violence" is perpetuated by a very identifiable subset of our society, but selectively enforcing restrictions against that subset would be instantly seen as discriminatory, thus, it is suggested that we should all be punished. Really a problem.