Congratulations, you are beginning to learn. Think of all the millions of lives and suffering that are avoided.
Sorry, but you couldn't be more wrong. Here is the actual data: http://www.pewresearch.org/files/old-assets/pdf/gun-control-2011.pdf
Your first mistake is believing that limited polls are data. Data are facts, polls are opinion. That's why they have +/- for accuracy. This survey doesn't include the methodology, and when looking at surveys that is always important. I would venture to say that attitudes have changed considerably since 2010, remember that Obama has created much more of a divide on this issue since he was elected. Firearm sales have gone through the roof and CCWs have exploded too. But even taking this survey at face value, it shows 75 percent of conservatives believe in protecting gun rights vs 25 percent of liberals. I can say with confidence that this divide has become even greater since 2010.
Sorry but your statement was that everyone who supports gun control is a liberal. That has been clearly proven false. You can quibble and squirm but your statement was false.
You're right. Let me correct myself. The overwhelming majority of those that are for gun control are liberals.
It's not even that really. The left will conduct a poll and ask questions like "Do you think laws preventing violent felons from obtaining firearms should be instituted?" Then they take that "yes" and run around in circles screaming "SEE CONSERVATIVES SUPPORT GUN CONTROL TOOOOOO". We damn sure don't support the kinds of things they're talking about. - - - Updated - - - We support violent people control, not gun control, because gun control has never and will never stop violence.
I think CCW has been a deciding factor in support of gun rights as even Liberal Progs want the right to defend themselves from attack and realize guns are they way to do that.
The answer presented is in no way relevant to the question that was actually presented to you. The fact you are being so evasive in explaining how it is favorable for someone to be murdered through bludgeoning rather than being shot, does nothing except suggest that you cannot actually give an answer. You cannot explain why the use of one implement in ending a life is better than the use of another implement when the outcome is the exact same in each case; death. As such, your entire position is with a factual basis, and you have no relevant argument to make in this discussion. - - - Updated - - - And how many favor the common, everyday people of the united states having them as well, and would make no attempt to restrict their access to individuals through implementing more and more requirements that must be complied with?
I am beginning to learn....guns aren't being used for what you claim....by your own admission. You admit you are wrong then?
How do you come to or make such an obvious erroneous and incompetent statement ? NRA is not doing anything of the kind.
First Pew Research does know how to conduct a poll. Questions that prejudice the results are scrupulously avoided by reputable pollsters. And perhaps you will explain your plan for " violent people " control.
Are we to assume that " common, everyday people" cannot be liberals. I don't know if We liberals should be flattered or horrifed at your lumping us all into one category that obviously assumes we are by the very nature of being liberal superior to the rest of the American people.
The term you're looking for is self aggrandizement. I know it's long, but consider it the liberal word of the day. Look in the mirror and say it over and over. You'll feel better.
Firstly, background checks are not solely about detection. They also have a preventative effect, deterring criminals from even attempting to buy guns, whether from FFLS and/or private sellers because most are not so stupid as to submit themselves to a check that will flag them as ineligible/criminal. In this preventative sense, the effect is unquantifiable - you can't measure something that didn't happen. But that doesn't in itself is the point - preventing something from happening. Secondly, many criminals etc. are stupid enough to subject themselves to background checks - as indicated by denial stats for both private and FFL sale background checks. And again, the objective is achieved - they were not able to buy a gun from a private seller. With this in mind, it's not at all clear why you say that there's no proof that UBCs prevent criminals from buying guns - denial stats show otherwise As for a lack of arrests for non-compliance, what's your point? That if no one's been arrested for ignoring the law, then all sellers should be allowed to ignore it? Or, that person-or-person background check laws must be unenforceable because no one's been caught breaking them? Either way, the bottom line is the same: you're judging the efficacy and value of private background check laws against spurious criteria rather than the key objective - to prevent easy access to guns by undesirables through private sellers - and, in doing so, are essentially suggesting that they are pointless. In which case, you are also suggesting that the criminals, mentally ill, violent offenders and so forth who have to date and in actual fact been denied access to guns as a result of private sale regulation should instead have been allowed to purchase them. There's no doubt (per common sense) that some unregulated private transfers go undetected but a lack of arrests can equally be construed as indicative of - for the most part - compliance by law-abiding gun owners. Let's not forget that non-compliance exposes private sellers to the risk of criminal charges and liability for subsequent damages.
What I posted was a valid question. The point is we agree that violent people shouldn't have guns, but it doesn't mean we agree with "gun control". Operation Exile, I've mentioned it many times. When it comes to violent people, you either: Remove them from society long enough for them not to bag that 6th lifetime murder, or allow them to run amok and let people fend for themselves. Due to the governments insistence on the first part, we are forced to always be prepared for the second part.
