Would you support more restrictions on guns in your state?
166 Comments

  • Parashooter - 5 years ago

    SO PBS.... WHEN are you going to publish the results of this poll???? Or are you going to ignore it since it doesn't fit your agenda?

    Come on... "Public" Broadcasting "Service".... tell the PUBLIC what WE said!

  • Robert Walters - 5 years ago

    There are plenty of effective gun laws on the books but a DOJ that prefers not to enforce them according to many recent studies. In addition there is significant misinformation regarding so-called loopholes that in reality do not exist. The gun show loophole for example, does not exist. The only time a gun sale does not require a background check is between private owners, NEVER by a dealer. The only time a dealer can sell to an individual without a completed background check is if the background check system fails to deliver a response within three days of the request to purchase which is by default per the written law. THAT is the fault of the system, not the dealer. The DOJ routinely opts out of prosecuting strawman sales. Why? They say it's too much work for too little reward!!! But THAT's the main conduit for criminals to obtain weapons. It works like this: Bad guy convinces his cousin, nephew, friend, etc. with no criminal history to go buy a particular weapon and then turn around and sell it to him for a profit. Hey, everyone wins...except the next victim of the bad guy. They do this over and over. And the anti-gun crowd denigrates responsible gun owners, NRA and manufacturers. What about the DOJ? Go protest them and get them to do their damn job!

  • mike - 6 years ago

    Gun laws create a lot of animosity and hostile feelings toward government. At some point it must be realized, gun ownership is a right which is not granted by the government but protected from government infringement by the Bill of Rights. Treat gun ownership as you would treat the right to vote. Any attempt to prevent a citizen from voting is illegal. So it should also be for gun ownership. The purpose of protecting gun ownership in the Bill of Rights is to ensure the power of government remains in the hands of the people. Any attempt to take or restrict ownership of guns from people is an attempt to take the power of the people over government away. Our founding fathers knew that every once in a while some blood would need to be spilled to restore the power of government to the hands of the people.

  • Jay - 6 years ago

    The definition of insanity. Doing the same thing over and over and over again expecting a different result.

  • Spoada - 6 years ago

    As the rest of the corrupt misguided media directed by the anti-gun government, you have reported some of the facts wrong. The shooter at the school in CT. did not use and AR-15 in his shooting spree. He used 3 hand guns with multiple clips. The AR-15 was in a case locked in the trunk of the car he drove to the school.
    This was also a copy cat shooting by and emotionally disturbed individual that needed psychiatric help that was either denied or never got as a lot of people can mask it.
    The issue does not get raised most of the time is that these people choose a gun free zone which is set up by people who don't usually think things completely through but knee jerk into action.

  • Jeff - 6 years ago

    I would also like to address this person
    Michael- yesterday
    And all citizens should be allowed to own a nuclear bomb, as the Second Amendment clearly says we should!
    The second amendment does not cover owning a nuclear Bomb and I'll explain, A nuclear Bomb is an offensive weapon and not a defensive weapon , when used it does not stop you from being a victim of a crime because the result would be you would kill yourself and everyone around you. It is not transportable and carried by an individual. and therefore does not fall under a personal arm.

  • Jeff - 6 years ago

    I found this page by mistake and as a Gun owner for most of my near 60 years of life, I have never thought about or had any desire to shoot anyone, in fact when I carry my Gun, I pray that I never have to use it.
    Now again today we are rehashing an issue that will never be solved until the present laws are enforced. When ever someone commits a crime that is a mass shooting we make more laws and over time are simply not enforced and ignored which confuses the general public.
    Here is my opinion on one thing we can do to help, if someone commits any crime while in possession of a firearm, even if they use it or not, that's an additional mandatory 10 years in Prison, no one under the age of 21, this is already the law, can possess or buy a firearm with out a parent or guardian present, If a firearm is stolen from private property an additional time to be served needs to be added. If you own a firearm legally and it is stolen, you should be required by law to call the police and give them all the information you can to include the serial number, physical appearance of the firearm etc. If you are prescribed by a doctor any mind altering drugs that affect behavior, you should pay to have you firearms stored for a time no shorter than 6 weeks were you can not gain access to them them and the same time for with drawing from these medications. If you have ever been arrested for drug related problems, you should not be allowed to buy or own a firearm for at minimum of 6 weeks if it not a felony drug charge and be required to pay for and have at least 6 week straight of drug free tests. Why am I so concerned about the effects of prescription medications and Guns ? , Many years ago, I suffered a nervous breakdown and was put on medication and during the first 6 weeks I was on this medication I could not thing rationally, I was easily angered and extremely agitated, and even though I had no thoughts of shooting anyone, I did have a strong desire to beat the hell out of anyone that slightly bothered me. So I took all my Guns to a military base since it was close by and asked them to store all my Guns for me and they did and I kept them there until my body adjusted to this medication and today I have my firearms and no anger. no agitation and no desire to harm even a bug, just the desire to live a life of freedom.

  • Jennifer Maudsley - 6 years ago

    I wouldn't change gun laws in my state, If I didn't like the gun laws in this state, I would move to another one. That is a very real right I have. A right that doesn't exist is the right to uninfringed gun ownership. The constitution does not protect the rights of the individual, but rather the rights of the state to make their own gun laws.

  • Michael - 6 years ago

    And all citizens should be allowed to own a nuclear bomb, as the Second Amendment clearly says we should!

  • Michael - 6 years ago

    No way! All Americans must be sacrificed to the gods as penance for their addiction to guns! All hail Mighty Thanos, God of the Gun!

  • Matt - 6 years ago

    Of course the retard anti-gun libtards will complain about the results saying people can vote multiple times. Are you liberals stupid or retarded?

  • bill wicks - 6 years ago

    Any citizen should have no restrictions on any weapons of any size placed upon them. To do so is a violation of the US Constitution.

  • Sandra Pelletier - 6 years ago

    The laws enacted in Connecticut are sensible and should be federal - it would make it harder for criminals to get guns and make the most egregious unnecessary guns and bullets less available.

    This can't be the only focus though. We need a better system of help and mental health care and people (neighbors, schoolmates, school counselors, fellow members of gun or hunt clubs, etc.) who care about helping others (this should be all of us) reaching out to those who seem to be ill and in need of help. There are red flags out there for anyone who commits crimes like these and we can make a difference not just by toting a gun around everywhere to shoot bad guys but by being a hand and a support to get them help. It should be easier to get someone help than for them to get a gun. Thats the responsibility that comes with the liberty.

  • Geoff Haley - 6 years ago

    I support the entire 2nd amendment: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." I clearly see the words "well regulated" and "militia" in here.

    This is what it means to me:
    The right of the people to bear arms as participants in a well regulated militia with the purpose of providing security to a free State shall not be infringed by the Federal Government.

    What we have now are millions of un-regulated "militias" of one.

  • Emily Horton - 6 years ago

    Meaningless, if people can vote more than once. Hope PBS takes a hint and either does this over the right way or trashes it altogether.

  • BAM - 6 years ago

    I just voted 4 times. How scientific.

  • H. Kathryn Lamat - 6 years ago

    Clearly the word is out and the trolls are voting in force. Look at the questions ... written FOR the gun-nuts! This is not a "liberal" poll; it's a phishing exercise intended to glean such a skewed result.

  • H. Kathryn Lamat - 6 years ago

    Clearly the word is out and the trolls are voting in force. Look at the questions ... written FOR the gun-nuts! This is not a "liberal" poll; it's a phishing exercise intended to glean such a skewed result.

  • Patrick Sperry - 6 years ago

    Only a stupid liberal would ask a question like this, of course not! Free Fire Zones result in needless deaths.

  • Ethan Allen - 6 years ago

    Go ahead and whine, say it's not scientific; but a poll of nearly 120K people on a page that leans liberal to begin with that has a result of 95% vs 4% is Vividly Clear. Guns are no the issue. Lack of parenting and poor changes in the mental health system are the issue. Todays children are not allowed to cope with stressors and learn to deal with adversity as they are growing, nor are they disciplined to learn the consequences of their actions and respect for others. That is an explosive combination when they grow up and experience the big bad world suddenly after 18+ years of coddling. You will notice that those who are responsible for these mass shootings: Not ONE of them grew up in the "gun culture", spending time at the range with a parent, going hunting, etc. All were products of liberal, mostly one parent, households who failed to teach their children respect nor how to deal with adversity.

  • Dolph - 6 years ago

    Taking guns out of the hands of legal owners makes less than no sense. I'm sure the armed carjacker that attacked me was worried about all the laws he was breaking with his gun to my head. I no longer think it is worth worrying about carrying a gun to protect myself if its against the law. The criminal justice system is there to protect the criminals- so everybody might just as well carry, legal or not.

  • Angela C - 6 years ago

    Massachusetts passed highly restrictive gun laws about 20 years ago. Legal gun ownership dropped by 85% Since then violent crime has risen steadily at the same time it has been steadily declining nationally. There have been over 6000 additional rapes thanks to these stricter gun laws which have left young women by myself completely helpless. I live in Boston. The Boston police refuse to issue me a gun license because, I'm told, they think that "clvilians" should not carry guns.

    Thanks to these restrictive gun laws, the state is a lot safer for rapists and other violent predators. My neighborhood, Boston's North End has been plagued with serial rapists. We never had serial rapists until we lost 85% of our gun owners. Rapists no longer have to fear meeting a victim who has effective means of self defense. In response to the serial rapists, the Boston Police Department has been handing out free plastic whistles. I guess we are supposed to use these whistles to entertain ourselves while being raped.

  • jason - 6 years ago

    I'm absolutely certain that people who are willing to break the law against murder would, nonetheless, respect gun control laws and switch to axes and automobiles. I'll feel so much better seeing school kids run over rather than shot. When that happens, all we will then need to do is create automobile free zones around schools to prevent all those evil assault sedans from being used to kill children. If it saves the life of one child, it will be worth it.

  • Russ Hartung - 6 years ago

    I just voted in this poll for the second time. I am sure I'm not the only one. From a scientific and statistical point of view, this poll is useless.

  • David Mack - 6 years ago

    I am a registered democrat in a state that is normally controlled by democrats. I also live in a rural part of that state. Many democrats like me live in rural areas and rely on firearms every day. Myself and my neighbors raise all our own vegetables and fill our freezers with wild game and farm raised meat. We don't run to the supper market for food. The nearest city of any size is three hours away. I realize this is a foreign idea to many people living in cities but we prefer this lifestyle and prefer food that we know is healthy and not contaminated with additives and chemicals. We rely on firearms every day as tools to provide food for our families and protect us and our livestock. Even the dreaded AR-15 is owned by most people in my area. We don't use them because we want to be commando's or shoot up places. We use them because AR 15's make excellent varmint rifles and we keep coyotes and foxes from attacking our animals with them. I and many rural democrats feel the party has tossed us under the bus. I also feel the party has been extremely dishonest about their anti gun agenda. The party seems to be marching to the beat of the extreme antigun members. It's clear to me and others that no amount of gun control is going to satisfy the anti gun crowd. Many anti gun groups have made public statements that they fully intend to ban all firearms, one gun at a time. The ink is still fresh on the "common sense" background checks in Washington state and already they are pushing for more restrictive gun control. Senator Feinstein has stated on more than one occasion that she wants to get them all. Truthfully I don't mind background checks but with the attitudes of the anti gun groups and the stated goal of many being to ban all firearms, I can not support even one gun control measure. The truth is no matter what they get for legislation it will never be enough for them. I voted for President Obama. During his first term he did nothing in the way of gun control. I thought finally the democratic party has given me a pro gun presidential candidate, or at least not an anti gun candidate. Then when he was elected to the second term he immediately began pushing hard for gun control. This was a dishonest and has been done many times in the past by the democratic party. I can not count how many times I have heard a democratic politician say they fully supported gun ownership only to have them turn around and vote or draft legislation of the exact opposite. I will never trust the party when it comes to gun control again. I certainly won't be voting for Mrs. Clinton in 2016. This past election I was forced to vote entirely republican or independent. Every single democratic runner, even on my local level were anti gun. I must have not been the only one because in an area that is democratic controlled we ended up with a republican Governor, a republican Senator, two republican state representatives, a republican town council and even the register of deeds went to a republican. Not one single democrat that was running won their seat. While I support many of the ideas the democratic party stands for. My way of life is the most important thing to me. The anti gun agenda within my party has forced me to become a one issue voter in order for me to preserve my way of life. I will not support any antigun candidates from either party nor will I ever trust my party on the issue again.

  • John Sukey - 6 years ago

    There is NO SUCH THING AS AN "ASSAULT RIFLE" That was a term invented by surplus firearms dealers to sell their product. I collect Enfield bolt action rifles and they ALL have 10 round magazines. These date from 1897 to 1950. Nobody has come out wanting to ban them. They are quickly reloaded using stripper clips.
    The ONLY living thing I have ever shot was a grasshopper.
    However the left wants to demonize me since I own these guns instead of going after the criminals and nut cases. I have passed a background check on every one of them.
    Now as for criminals who can't pass that check, they will have a girlfriend or family member make the purchase or simply STEAL them.
    We have people on death row in many states who will likely die of OLD AGE.

  • danybhoy - 6 years ago

    If the left wants to ban firearms ownership, & many on the left do, have the guts to do it right. They should propose a constitutional amendment & get 2/3 of the House (290 votes) 2/3 of the Senate (67 votes) & 3/4 of the States (38 states). You would then have the 28th Amendment, overturning the 2nd Amendment, just like the amendments involving the prohibition of alcohol. The 18th Amendment banned alcohol, the 21st overturned the 18th. The issue is that gun control is a loser in the political arena, & those in favor of restrictive gun laws don't have the guts or the ability to start the amendment process.

  • Darrell - 6 years ago

    The liberal/progressive/democrats can scream all they want. It does not change the historical FACT that "gun control" was the way for fascists to dis-arm the population. ALL the current "thinking" about gun control is wrong, flat wrong. Background checks catch the stupid ones, and waiting times just delay the fruit-loops. What we NEED is "Suitability Investigations"! Who SHOULD have a gun? Who is responsible and stable enough to properly possess a weapon. Who knows that they are nut case waiting to explode? Who is considered by their peers as a good candidate for this incredible responsibility.
    The second part of effective gun control, just like the UK and Australia, is extra harsh punishments for gun violators. Make it hurt to illegally possess or use a gun. You take guns out of the hands of criminals when they know it really increases the consequences for them.

  • DavidPun - 6 years ago

    I listened to a talk by comedian Jim Jefferies on guns. He's Australian and what he said was this

    " In Australia in 1996 (Port Arthur) we had the biggest massacre ever Its never been beaten , and the Govt said "Right! Thats it! No more guns! " ,and the Australian people said " Ok .....guess that makes sense" In America you had twenty tiny children killed at Sandy Hook and your Govt said "Maybe............we could ...get rid of ...the big ones????" And 50% of the American population went "F*** YOU! Don't touch my guns!" "You used to have this other thing in America called .......SLAVERY. Then Lincoln came along and said "Right! Thats it! No more slaves!" And 50% of you went "F*** YOU! Don't take my slaves."
    And then the same bullshit arguments came out that you have with guns. "Why should I have MY slaves taken off me. I'M a responsible slave owner. I am trained in how to use my slaves safely. Just because that guy mistreated his slaves doesn't mean that my rights should be taken away from me. I use MY slaves to protect my family. I keep MY slaves locked in a safe. "

    I think he was pointing out that this is more of moral/values problem in the US than an issue of what effectively makes us safer. I would never dispute that in a free country like the US, people should have the "right" to own weapons. But some of this stuff that we are free to own may be extremely dangerous. A gun is a weapon designed to efficiently kill people after all. Surely it is a measure of the responsibility of people to recognize when there is danger associated with something like guns and take appropriate steps to control it. However, in the US, gun proliferation is completely out of control, and I'm afraid once that barn door is open, you really can't close it.

  • Karl Quick - 6 years ago

    I too heard about this poll from Facebook. I am not and never had been an NRA member. I am, however, a libertarian leaning Catholic, a conservative who fears the oppressive nature of "big" anything: government, political parties, business, unions, ideologues, and yes, PBS which I use to support before the Juan Williams affair. I have come to totally distrust "experts". ...having been a "expert" in my technological specialty, I well know how artificial and temporal the title of "expert" is. Anyone who says "government knows best" is clearly making money off government!

    I voted a firm NO. ....in spite of my father having been murdered when I was 9 years old, by an itinerant, drunk, white, rodeo wrangler, with a gun. It was not the gun that did it. And note: my dad's brother and mother were murdered when HE was just 12, by an unbalanced black man with an axe. It was not the axe that did it.

    I am very disappointed that not one PBS viewer or other poster here attempted to answer my prior post in which my rationale for opposing greater gun control was laid out for review. Was it that good an argument? Or do defenders of government regulation simply not want to face criticism, preferring to only "preach to the choir" of like-minded liberals?

  • dana - 6 years ago

    @ casey, et. al.,
    I found out about this on Facebook, and not from the NRA.

    I also voted 'No'.

    Whether I care to choose to carry a firearm to defend myself, or keep one in my home for that or any other purpose, is my right, and my business, not to mention my responsibility (both to have it to use in proper defense of my life, my families lives, and my home, and to keep it out of irresponsible hands).

    What you care to do is your choice.

    Dana

  • Todd - 6 years ago

    Which program and time and date do we get to hear these results discussed? I'd like to tune in.

    Also,
    Tell you what. Want to 'renegotiate' gun law/regulations? Let's throw out what We have and start again. If the progressive socialists continuously want more and more...it's time they have something to lose in the negotiations too. Put that skin in the game and we can start renegotiating. Until then...MOLON LABE!

  • John Schneiter - 6 years ago

    It is a typical liberal trick. So they allow the law.. No guns for those deemed to have a mental illness. Then, Some hyper liberal panel of "Experts" declare that gun ownership is a form of mental illness. and There you have it.. Gun Confiscations that are legal... Just remember, Everything Hitler did was Legal. Something becoming a law does not mean it is Just or right.

  • Karl Quick - 6 years ago

    Insanity is the prime cause of most lone wolf murders, be they terrorist in intent or merely paranoia like most of the school killings. We have long recognized our inability to operationally detect insanity.... especially given the temporary nature of insanity induced by drugs, withdrawal from drugs, emotional stress, infections/foods etc.

    Years ago the liberal lobby in this country correctly pointed out the abuses taking place in many of our mental health hospitals, where people were being housed who could well handle themselves except for the abuses they were suffering at the hands of the state and/or sadistic doctors, nurses, guards, etc.

    Now, we are going to reverse this? We are going back to having the state label people as insane? ...untrustworthy? ...guilty of POTENTIAL criminal behavior?

    Trusting government to regulate in matters like this is itself insanity. Creating dependency is destroying minds and inducing insanity.... yet we do it whenever we think "government knows best".

    Our founding fathers had the right idea: weak government == freedom == strong people == independence.

    If we want to "trust voters", demand "power to the people", etc. then trust the founding fathers who gave us the 2nd Amendment and trusted us citizens to protect ourselves and our property better than government ever could.

  • Iscuimhinliom - 6 years ago

    To improve the poll, require participants to watch a fund drive before voting.

  • John - 6 years ago

    Carl Johnson - Thank goodness nobody has to worry about your 'Feelings' before we exercise our Rights.

  • Sara - 6 years ago

    Carl. Your post is riddled with inaccuracies. At first, I thought it was satirical in nature. You may want to research some of those claims you made.

  • Noishkel - 6 years ago

    The most infuriating thing about dealing with proponents of gun control is that they honestly have no idea what they're talking about. The make statements and wild claims about guns and gun laws that even a cursory examination of prove their extreme bias and ignorance. The very fact every single discussion about gun control centers around the Sandy Hook massacre will almost universally ignore the FACT that this incident was not a just a failure of gun control but a complete institutional failure of mental health and human services. Yet the only thing we hear from anti rights political pundit and the media that this is the reason we need more laws and less rights. Usually centering around these so called 'universal background checks'. And THAT one is especially ridiculous as the murderer in the Sandy Hook shooting KILLED another person to STEAL the guns he used in the attack! How EXACTLY would a universal background check prevent that?

    The answer is simple. It wouldn't have. And the anti-2A crowd know it. They just keel that their cause is righteous enough to lie and miss-lead. The FACT that gun control only affects those people that are already lawful persons just doesn't matter to the anti gun person.

  • Carl Johnson - 6 years ago

    The only way I'll be able to protect my family is by making sure guns don't get into the hands of the wrong people. If I had to wait 48 hours and go through a background check before buying a gun from a store, show, or from a guy online, I'd feel better knowing there is SOME check in the way. Right now anyone can buy a gun online or from the back of a truck in a parking lot without breaking a law. I can sell one of my guns to some random stranger without making sure they're not crazy. That's not ok. Also, I think if I was required to take a safety training before getting my gun license, I would have felt better knowing people carrying guns legally know how to use them properly. There are two many accidents out there involving those of us just trying to protect our families. We gotta keep it locked up so the kids don't get to it. I'm not a criminal and I'm just trying to protect my family, some basic laws won't keep a gun out of my hand, but it'll help keep it out of some criminals by making sure we do what we can to protect our families when we sell our guns to other people. Responsible gun owners shouldn't be the problem and we won't be if we hold eachother responsible for making sure we're not selling guns to bad people.

  • Rich - 6 years ago

    Linda, you have shown how ignorant you really are.
    1. You don't hunt ducks with any rifle, you use a shotgun.
    2. There's no such thing as an, "Assault Weapon." That is a term invented by gun grabbers to confuse the ignorant, such as yourself.

  • John - 6 years ago

    More Guns = Less Crime. Fact.

  • Damion45 - 6 years ago

    I am surprised to see such results on a PBS poll. Have liberals finally opened their eyes and began to think objectively? Have conservatives started listening to PBS? Or is all bogus from the get go?

  • Curtis - 6 years ago

    What SDZ said. 100%

    All this time spent on trying to force gun control down our throats could have done wonders for the people with mental health issues this country.

    If you truly want the shooting sprees to stop as I do, open your eyes and look at the real issue.

    Furthermore, it will be a cold day in hell before I lay down my arms and put my faith in the hands of a liberal.

  • Iamsorry - 6 years ago

    Not sure what all the hysterics are about because the "super rich" already won the " war," and you lost. Your guns did not prevent this country from becoming an oligarchy. Don't know what an oligarchy is? Put your gun down and go look it up.

  • YBaha - 6 years ago

    Linda, you can say you won't change, and it is your choice to be willfully ignorant. However, if you do some day choose to actually THINK instead of follow the liberal affliction of only "feeling", consider that the Second Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with hunting. If you can educate yourself enough to understand that fact, you may surprise yourself and the rest of us, and open your eyes.

  • Terry Graham - 6 years ago

    Where is the "Hell No" button?

  • That comrade from the Durruti column. - 6 years ago

    In response to Linda. the purpose of owning an assault rifle isn't for hunting. At least not for me. It is to protect yourself,your family and fellow workers from harm.

  • Mike - 6 years ago

    Think about it this way. If a cheetah went to attack a wildebeest or an impala, would you say that the wildebeest or impala would not be allowed to defend themselves? By your irrational thinking, you're basically saying the impala or wildebeest would have to lay down their horns and submit to being killed. Is this fair to them? They should just die? No of course not. You would expect them to defend themselves and try and survive. If you took away the horns of all of those impala and all those wildebeest, would that not bring more predatory animals? Off course it would. So why does this not pertain to the ultimate species in your eyes? Why should anyone have to give up and die to a predatory animal? We shouldn't. I would hope to God that if you were attacked by a dog, bear, human, or anything else trying to take your life, that you would have the will inside yourself to live and not just give up and die.
    I know I will never be a victim. I have to much to live for. My family needs me and I need them. I will defend myself, my family, my friends, and anyone around me from anything, up to and including the liberal minded jackass next to me when the SHTF.

  • Linda - 6 years ago

    Yes. And I don't quite understand way a regular Joe who goes duck hunting needs a assault rifle. Go ahead & belittle me. I am not gonna change.

  • Steve Walker - 6 years ago

    Criminals do not obey laws, thus the law abiding citizen is the only one effected by them. 20 thousand gun laws and drive by shootings still happen, this is not complicated, just set yourself apart from your fears and feelings and look at crime logically. Criminals are the problem, not guns. There are probably 200 million guns in the United States and probably 80 million gun owners. If guns were the problem then we would have killed off the whole population a long time ago.

  • That comrade from the Durruti column. - 6 years ago

    HAHA! look at that poll! All those mad capitalist liberal dogs crying about "muh children, muh common sense"

    News flash ya bourgeois tools. the Super rich want the lower classes disarmed!

  • BamaBeachBum - 6 years ago

    You can bet the liberals at PBS will bury this poll as DEEP as possible and do their best to hide the results.

  • LuangTom - 6 years ago

    Even the DOJ admits that with more firearms within the population that major crime is down. Sandy Hook was not prevented by laws because Adam Lanza broke the laws to attain the firearms that he used. Most all criminals use firearms obtained illegally, be it by theft or from the street where those stolen firearms wind up. Penalizing law-abiding citizens does nothing to cut crime. This is not about gun-control. It is about people-control.

  • Me,Myself,&I - 6 years ago

    Tomsang, most modern fire arms have trigger gaurds so i can only assume you are refuring to trigger locks, in which case you have rendered the wepon useless in an emergency, As far as background checks go they are only helpful to a point after they they are useless most criminals get the guns they use in crimes by stealing them not going though a background check or they pay some libral retard with a clean background to commit a crime and make a straw purchase which is already illegal so instead of imposing more laws the police cant inforce lets start by proscuting the libtards commiting crimes

  • SDZ - 6 years ago

    Logic mandates that one needs to consider the evidence of a crime in order to drill down to the root cause of the crime.
    If Sandy Hook is the event driving gun control laws by legislation, then consider this...
    Lanza illegally obtained the firearms!
    Therefore, changing laws of legally purchased firearms will have No Effect on preventing similar events in the future.
    Lanza had mental health issues!
    Therefore, the legislature should be focused on mental health care access-ability and afford-ability.
    Lanza fired upon the unarmed!
    Therefore, legislature should support qualified safety training for firearms use & ownership...
    These findings hold solid ground. Regardless of whether or not you believe that Sandy Hook was real, the conclusions are the same...
    Stricter gun laws make no sense.

  • williàm wallace - 6 years ago

    The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. These laws only disarm good people allowing evil to flourish. Even if, in your unicorn and rainbowland, you could somehow get rid of all guns, there are plenty of other weapons criminals will use! In England right now they are trying to take away peoples knives because crime didn't stop when they banned guns, they just started using knives! Think about it, if you had to defend yourself from a criminal, would you rather engage in a knife fight in hand to hand combat, or pull the trigger and end the situation? Say you are proficient enough with a knife to choose that option, what about your wife, or sister, or mother or grandmother? They would not last long. Trying to ban guns to stop crime is like taking away a mechanics wrench and being suprized when he picks up a wrench and keeps working! You cannot legislate away evil! What we should be doing is better equipping our citizens to be able to defend themselveswith training! If you want to pass laws to stop crime, pass laws that severely increase the penalties for actually harming or stealing from others!

  • Mike Caldwell - 6 years ago

    What if I were to tell you that people were killed BEFORE FIREARMS??? All these people want to remove firearms. LET ME PUT THIS PLAIN AND SIMPLE: Even for a politician! we are dealing with a symptom and not dealing with a cure, we have never ...and will never have a "GUN" problem. we have an EVIL, problem. here let me say that again, in all caps. WE HAVE AN EVIL PROBLEM!!! and until we rid the evil problem, we will have no need to use "guns" as a self defense. guns will only be needed for FOOD as originally intended.

  • Jim Copenhaver - 6 years ago

    Because of Obama's amnesty, the next few years are going to be extremely violent. Law abiding people will need their weapons.

  • steve k - 6 years ago

    the question in this poll is no different than asking if i support the removal of some peoples right to free speech or telling people that they have to be christians. i dont support the removal of anyones rights. it isnt a democracy where the majority of people can remove the rights of the fewer. say what you want, if you restrict someone from choosing whatever weapon they want that they feel would best protect their family then you have violated their rights. if it wasnt for england trying to tax us to death, house their military in our houses, and the attempted ban of firearms we would never have founded this country in the first place.

  • sop - 6 years ago

    Hold the guilty accountable and stop looking at law abiding Americans as trouble seeking, evil people. Ted Kennedys car has killed more people than my guns. Alcohol continues to contribute to more death and violence in America than guns. We won't even start with drugs and the drug trade.

  • Steve B - 6 years ago

    How about some News Control laws to make the news fair and balanced? First amendment be damned.

  • James Chapman - 6 years ago

    If we can't even run our country at the highest form of intelligence where people wouldn't make the mistakes that have been made in the past, gun laws wouldn't need to be in place. I believe privacy will be out the window if these gun laws pass. what if that information fell into the wrong hands?

  • Joe E - 6 years ago

    Gun control means using both hands!

    "Shall not be ingrinfed!" Seems extremely simple.

  • Thomas Elliott - 6 years ago

    The reason they shoot up schools is they are "Gun Free Zones"...in other words they are Target Rich Environments, because they are unlikely to be opposed with deadly force

  • Douglas - 6 years ago

    Instead of trying to restrict and ban firearms the government should focus their efforts on informing and educating the public on the proper and safe usage and ownership of all firearms. In my experience many people that are "against guns" have absolutely no idea what they are talking about, especially when a sportsman rifle is confused with an assault rifle. I exercise my second amendment right however I do believe that a person should not own a gun if they don't know how to safely operate and store it. Bottom line, guns are not going anywhere and our government has a responsibility to inform its citizens on common sense ownership and usage practices. This is already accomplished to a small extent but is only directed to owners of firearms. Like it or not, Firearms are a part of our society and all citizens need to be informed, not just those that choose to own a firearm.

  • No jack - 6 years ago

    For those of the gun control persuasion did you notice what occurred in the land down under? Some of the strictest gun control laws in the world. Only the unarmed are the victims. This lunatic criminally insane individual didn't take his frustrations out on the police station he took it out on the unarmed.

  • Publius - 6 years ago

    I say we ban guns. One just needs to look at the overwhelming success of the drug laws in stopping drug usage.

    It's a no brainer really. Since the introduction of drug laws, there hasn't been a single new case of illegal drug usage, and we are living in the healthiest country with the smallest drug usage rate in the history of mankind.

    The precedent has been set, we must act now!

  • RamRoddoc - 6 years ago

    “The NRA won the debate”. Actually the people won the debate and in most states the people either retained citizen rights or restored taken rights with a few notable exceptions but at a cost.

    New York’s idiotic anti-gun bill that the State Police refuse to fully enforce, Connecticut’s anti-gun laws enacted with the resultant mass civil disobedience and refusal to obey registration and Colorado’s anti-gun laws resulting in the nearly every Sheriff suing the state, the firing of two senators, the near firing and forced stepping down of a third senator (Hudak) as to retain a Democrat majority-one seat and the loss of MAGPUL manufacturing.

    “President Obama and allies in Congress were unable to pass anything related to background checks”. Actually it is referring to Bloomberg’s vision of “Universal Background Checks” or the criminalization of private transfers. So do background checks prevent crime? Where do the majority of criminals obtain their guns? The FBI states from primary sources; illegal straw sales or stolen not from legal transfers.
    So why would we demand UBC’s if they will not significantly impact illegal gun transfers?

    What milestone would UBC’s achieve? In just one generation the government would know where all the “LEGAL” guns are. Why would this be of any concern? Understand and comprehend that “registration” has never prevented crimes with guns but has without exception in history been used by the state to confiscate firearms in order secure control of the people.

    The public shift for more to less control is directly related to the liberal outcry to slowly strip the people of their 2A rights. You can thank biased liberal media for this. People who didn’t think much about gun rights were being pushed to make a decision. Many educated themselves, rather than parrot the media’s biased liberal propaganda agenda.

    The “gun violence” lie was exposed as much of the numbers were padded with suicides. Not a particularly violent crime. So then the scramble to make the false claim that people who own guns are much more at risk of suicide. This is patently false and well known as such in the mental health field. Depression and mental illness are truly significant risk factors for suicide, not owning a gun. Those who desire to commit suicide will substitute whatever is available to commit the “crime” of suicide. But biased educated idiots will ignore substitution and claim otherwise despite non-biased honest reflective and accurate data with no agenda to support.

    Gun prohibitionist continuously promote fear and bias while ignoring trends and reality, they must do this.

    They were long discredited in the criminology field with the false “research” and statistical puffery that is common within their ranks. The 43 times lie and Dr. Kellerman’s biased anti-gun studies paid with the public’s money, that is until “CONGRESS” revoked the CDC’s “gun violence” budget, not the NRA.

    However, that did not stop Obama surrounded by small children decree by executive order or “actions” as claimed to provide for further research into “gun violence”. It was initiated and the study was completed in 2013. What? You didn’t hear about it? I wonder why?

    The study by executive order reflected what decades of non-biased research in the criminology field already knew. The study specifically omitted cases where the victim was armed but the aggressor was not. Why? What purpose would this serve? It dispelled the prohibition myths. You are much less likely to be raped, injured or murdered if you are armed even when the criminal is armed. But the liberal media really can’t accept this or allow it to be reported accurately.

    If one takes the honest effort to scrutinize the effect of “legal” firearms of the people and then consider the unethical, deceitful doctrine of the gun prohibitionist/politicians with low or no integrity, one can better make a formed decision on a supposedly “right to not be infringed”.

    People are

  • Scott Kraft - 6 years ago

    Lets ban the pants he wore, and the car he drove,NO. bad parenting. It wasn't the firearm, it was the PERSON'S frame of mind. That rifle didnt tell him to do it, my pistol hasn't influenced me to kill. I had to pull my pistol out one time, and the person seen that I had it pointed at him, he took of without shooting me or the seven people behind me. Greenville county has it on disk and said I did the right thing.and if I would have had my AR-15 I would have grabbed it to protect me and other fellow Americans.

    Sorry for your lose, I don't know what i would if something happened to my son, but I sure as hell wouldn't blame the gun!

  • Fed up with all the bull - 6 years ago

    I have read almost every one of these posts, as good as they are for the most part, i am sick and tired of reading the same old bullship, hearing the same old bullship,and talking about the same old bullship. It's all to redundant. All those that want gun control have never been put into a situation where they get robbed and beat to a pulp. or have to fight their way back and forth to go most anywhere. I want to see some of these stupid ass women that talk all the ship about gun control go down to the hood with their little pocketbooks and drive their shiney little volvos and ship. Take your little girls down their with you since you seem to believe things are not that bad. If and when you make it out alive you will have been so violated, lets just see who wants to own a gun then. So now stop and think about all the other scenarios that happen to good law abiding women, men, and whole familys everyday, in every city, in every state. If you still feel that you know whats best for me and everyone else that you don't agree with, please hop in your car and drive down to the local ghetto and yell out how much you love everybody.

  • Tomsang - 6 years ago

    It is funny all the people that say that guns don't kill people, that people do. I think that is the point of the proposed laws. Create laws that makes it more difficult for those with criminal backgrounds, mental problems, under age to possess guns. Make laws that require firearm safety training, that requires trigger guards and other means to keep kids from playing with loaded guns.

  • wicked clown - 6 years ago

    well for one sandy hook was a total hoax if you don't believe me watch the documentary made by team wake em up on you tube .and two the numbers have proven that gun owner ship means less crime . and best of all we have a 2nd amendment right for the protection of our guns

  • Don - 6 years ago

    Consider that annually there are roughly twice as many gun suicides as there are gun homicides.... now factor in several recent studies worldwide showing, surprisingly to the people that ran the studies, the more you spend nationally on mental health care and especially anti-depressant medication, the higher the suicide rate! Not marginally but by a huge percentage. Now, do we really want medical doctors, who strangely enough in the US have a suicide rate about double the norm and admit to negligently killing at least 100,000 patients a year, to decide who is stable enough to buy or keep their self defense firearms?

    I prefer to let my local sheriff decide that for me, and if I need to appeal, a local judge.

  • Aussie James - 6 years ago

    Guns don't kill people.
    People kill people.
    When the deluded left comes to this realisation, things might change.
    But hell will freeze over first though..... ;) :)

  • Steven - 6 years ago

    Not just no, but hell no! Guns don't kill people; people kill people! When will the gun-grabbing loonies of the left figure it out?! My guns can sit on my kitchen table (if I were so irresponsible as to leave them there) from now until eternity, and they will not kill a single soul until someone picks one up, loads it, points it at another human being and pulls the trigger. Guns are tools. So are knives, baseball bats, sticks, axes, and countless other tools that PEOPLE use to kill other people. Ban, and completely eliminate, guns (totally impossible, but for the sake of argument...) and people will still find a way to kill other people.

  • Don - 6 years ago

    Since criminals and people of homicidal bent and total lack of self restraint pay no attention to anti-gun laws, the net effect of all these onerous statutes is to do no more than inconvenience at best those who would harm others with nefarious intent. Think please, if you are capable of being open minded enough to accept the realities, that while more gun laws may, posssibly, prevent a crime here or there, it is MUCH more likely that they will become a death sentence for some lawful citizens denied their right to self defense. Small comfort this is done with good intentions when some criminal comes to rob, or kidnap, or rape, or kill, let us hope it is not you or one of your friends or family that is left defenseless because some people feel the need to "feel safe" There is a huge chasm between feeling safe and being safe.

  • Ron - 6 years ago

    No, we should have less gun control, civilians should be allowed to possess same as allowed in law enforcement and military.

  • To--> American - 6 years ago

    Couldn't have said it better myself !

  • American - 6 years ago

    Set aside the original intent of our nation’s founders with respect to the 2nd amendment and their true concern for a tyrannical Federal government. Look at society today. It is collapsing all around us. You can blame it on whoever or whatever you wish. The facts are violence is increasing and civility is all but gone. Does anyone honestly believe that our government (federal, state or local) can effectively protect us from the ills of society ? Even my uber liberal family members are finally waking up to the failed social policies that have contributed to our desperate situation. We don't need hope and change. This nation is in desperate need of a renascence!
    I only hope we ( All Americans) still have the will we once did.

  • John S - 6 years ago

    Pervert Virginia Democrat Joseph Morrissey has harmed more people with his sexual misconduct with a minor than I have with my guns.

    Libs just don't get it, criminals will still get guns, look no further than the Islamofacist in Australia.

  • Mike - 6 years ago

    Historically, government is the far more prolific murderer of people. And armed populace prevents government from killing people. Governments like to divide people, create suspicion and then disarm them. Then, the governments kill people. That's history. Learn from it.

  • Gary Blanton - 6 years ago

    Way to be unbiased PBS !! Why did you also mention all the times AR15s have been legally by citizens to save lives? I think you bias just showed great job... Looks like a bunch of liberal spinners.

  • 2nd amendment - 6 years ago

    Bill of rights ever hear of them......

  • Dan - 6 years ago

    I voted NO and its funny reading all the comments complaining about how the NRA must have sent out an email because the poll doesn't show what you like. I found this poll while reading another article on PBS. I do happen to be an NRA member and a Member of OFF but believe it or not gun "nuts" do follow the news... Time to face the music, Americans are tired of this being pushed over and over and over again. How many times do we have to say NO before you listen? Stop punishing the law abiding, the criminals will only continue to break the new laws.

  • Justin Winters - 6 years ago

    Pretty sure it's not an issue of the tool used, but the fool in which used the tool. Society these days is the issue, not the gun. Someone could walk in there with a chainsaw and do just as much damage. Does the Boston Marathon ring a bell? Guns are not the issue.

    Maybe if we properly diagnosed mental health issues and got made the process of getting someone that help less convoluted there would be a lot less crazy folks. Maybe if we taught self responsibility and not made a generation of whiny little babies who have been coddled to death people would not resort to such despicable actions to vent their anger. Maybe if the media spent a lot less coverage of these events making the next whiny little woe-is-me brat want his/her 15 minutes we wouldn't have this issue.

    Now I'm 31 and I can say that the way these kids are raised anymore is pathetic. Spank a butt and discipline your children. Teach them that there is losers and winners, not everyone can win or get a trophy and if you want to be the winner it takes hard work, you aren't just entitled to other.

    Semper Fi and goodnight

  • Justin Winters - 6 years ago

    Pretty sure it's not an issue of the tool used, but the fool in which used the tool. Society these days is the issue, not the gun. Someone could walk in there with a chainsaw and do just as much damage. Does the Boston Marathon ring a bell? Guns are not the issue.

    Maybe if we properly diagnosed mental health issues and got made the process of getting someone that help less convoluted there would be a lot less crazy folks. Maybe if we taught self responsibility and not made a generation of whiny little babies who have been coddled to death people would not resort to such despicable actions to vent their anger. Maybe if the media spent a lot less coverage of these events making the next whiny little woe-is-me brat want his/her 15 minutes we wouldn't have this issue.

    Now I'm 31 and I can say that the way these kids are raised anymore is pathetic. Spank a butt and discipline your children. Teach them that there is losers and winners, not everyone can win or get a trophy and if you want to be the winner it takes hard work, you aren't just entitled to other.

    Semper Fi and goodnight

  • Saul - 6 years ago

    What most people don't know are the laws that are already in place. The media has hyped up that you don't go through a back down check at gun shows and that is not true. If you are buying from a vendor at the show they have to have a FFL license and submit a NICS check (Background check) it's the law! What I propose is to have a 20 min to 30 min education program aired on all major net works to go over the basic federal laws that are on the books and then educate them on how the laws in place are not getting enforced by the federal government. If they would prosecute the people breaking the law by lying on their application I think it would slow people down on trying to get one illegally. If they would punish the offenders of the gun laws in place with the maximum instead of plee bargaining down to a lesser charge that would help also. But that's my opinion and I'm sure people will disagree.

  • A R - 6 years ago

    Try ad take my firearms or make more laws and I will help remove you from office.

  • Openseasononliberals - 6 years ago

    Only criminals commit crimes with firearms...Criminals don't obey any laws so how could more gun laws possibly help to eliminate gun crime? there are over 400 million legal firearms in this county and 99.9999999% of them will never be used in a crime...The REAL reason why people, especially liberal politicians want gun control is because they want CONTROL...they fear that their tyrannical agenda will never be implemented if law abiding patriots own firearms...and guess what...they are right....THAT is EXACTLY why the 2nd amendment was written...

  • justin jipson - 6 years ago

    Just ask the Aussies how the new gun laws are working...

  • Nathan Gifford - 6 years ago

    It would be a more interesting poll if they had included a response like, "Would you like to see trained staff with CC (concealed carry) on campus to protect students from an active shooter(s)?"

  • Nathan Gifford - 6 years ago

    We know what does not work and that are the Gun Free Zones which are nothing more than 'magnets for maniacs.' The tragic thing is that people cannot accept that the NRA is right, or are willing to accept the help in working out a better security plan for their facilities.

    If just a few people had been armed at Sandy Hook odds are that no one would have died at Sandy Hook. As statistics have indicated, shooters (I never use their names) tend to avoid places where there is armed opposition. Further the defenders do not need to chase the shooters down. All they need do is delay them until the police arrive. Every moment delayed are lives saved.

    All one has to do is look around the world and they will notice that banning guns is ineffective. Along our southern border firearms are rampant, with only about 11% being US firearms in Mexico; the other 89% are from other sources.

    Further, even if firearms were completely unavailable, these people would only switch to other methods such as homemade explosives, gasoline, etc. What if we had a terrorist attack on one of our schools like the one Beslan? Don't you think it would be a good idea that someone would be able to provide some kind of armed defense?

  • Shane Huston - 6 years ago

    So you want to do something and feel good about it? How about doing something about improving the mental health system in your state....

  • Al V - 6 years ago

    The Libtards are never going to be safe from their own fears! Most don't even think about .338 Lapua bolt action with a 12x scope! Blow up watermelons a mile away! Now THAT is Scary!!

  • Matthew - 6 years ago

    The focus should be on eliminating gun control laws that have been PROVEN to be ineffective.

  • Tom - 6 years ago

    There are already laws that prohibit the possession of firearms by felons. There are already laws which restrict ANY citizens possession or ownership of any automatic firearm. There are already laws that significantly increase the penalties for crimes based on the use of a firearm in the commission of those crimes.

    The problem isn't that aren't enough restrictions on firearm ownership and use... The problem is that the laws we do have are largely unenforced or are based almost entirely on emotional reactions to fear and loathing. I equate almost all the current "gun control" laws the same way I look at luggage locks. They do nothing more than keep honest people honest. If a thief wants what's in my baggage, they'll breeze right past that lock as though it weren't even there.

    Same with magazine capacity or calibers or pistol-grips - or any other fanciful, purely fear based law. If a criminal in California wants a 30 round magazine they'd just drive across the state line and buy one. Almost no background checks get denied. Why? Well because people who cant pass a background check don't submit to a background check.

    Pick any gun control law. I guarantee you are no safer with it that without. In fact, i would submit (my opinion) the more (and more restrictive) gun control laws we have, the less safe we as a society become.

  • Shawn - 6 years ago

    No. Considering how high the crime rate has soared in both the UK and Australia after guns were banned for citizens should be a warning lesson to those here in the States. I'm talking about major crime such as rape, robberies, and murder. Look at what just happened in Sydney. The bad guys had guns, had no issues with getting them, and the citizens were helpless. Meanwhile in Oklahoma a pro Islamist individual cuts off the head of a coworker and was stopped by a person who had a concealed carry license. Now these anti guns groups and their liberal counterparts want to pass laws targeting homes that have occupants with mental health issues. On the surface it sounds like a good idea. Beneath the surface we all know that judges and DA's would be slapping everybody with mental health tags to get their guns. Its already starting to happen. The enemy in this fight is not the pro 2nd Amendment supporters or even the NRA. The anti guns groups need to understand that these two groups are not the enemy its simply that they are picking on the wrong people. They are not doing one thing to target the criminals, only signaling out legal gun owners who 99.9% of them will never use their guns in an illegal manner.

  • Terry Kremin - 6 years ago

    We have a VIOLENCE and mental health problem in this country. Blaming an object is simple and makes people feel like they are doing something, but by doing so we have lost time working on the REAL problems underlying the issue.

  • john - 6 years ago

    Stricter laws wouldn't have stopped the newton massacre. Did strict laws on explosives stop the Boston bombing. No they didn't. You can outlaw all guns and still illegally obtain a gun.

  • Mac - 6 years ago

    Alex......You're a former reservist? Which means you know what about what? What is that even supposed to mean.

    It's kind of humorous that you want licensing for anything 'except 'hunting rifles and handguns'........I'm assuming you include 'hunting shotguns' under the heading of 'hunting rifles'........Interesting division.......I'm assuming you were trying to make some kind of distinction for 'assault rifles'......But since many of those are used for hunting, that's a fail, number 1.........Perhaps you mean ONLY bolt action or pump action rifles and shotguns........Then we have the odd inclusion of handguns under unlicensed.

    That's really interesting.......Prior to the recent obsession with 'assault rifles', it was handguns the anti-gun left really wanted band........You aren't aware the biggest anti-gun group was HCI (Handgun Control Incorporated)........Which kind of makes sense.......If you were going to ban 'crime guns' then handguns would be it.......ALL rifles are used in less than 150 murders a year (that includes ALL assault rifles AND hunting rifles and......all rifles).........Shotguns probably account for another 200 or so.........Handguns are used in several thousand murders a year.........Concealed firearms are the primary weapon of choice for criminals precisely because they are concealable.

    So i'd love to 'ask a reservist' (i've got questions) why he decided that 'handguns' were on the exemption list for not licensing, while he created a nebulous group of weapons that 'most people don't need' based on what data or logic.

Leave a Comment

0/4000 chars


Submit Comment