Poll of the Day > American Opinions on Gun Control has NOT CHANGED since the Las Vegas Massacre!!!

(+) Yeah! (+)

Opinions on gun laws in the United States has NOT CHANGED since the massacre in Las Vegas that left 58 people dead!!

The nation is still divided on whether restricting firearms would reduce such mass shootings and though a majority favour tighter laws as they have for several years, the divide on whether to restrict them remains the same!

The survey was conducted 2 weeks after 64 y/o Whacko, Stephen Paddock fired into a crowd leaving 58 dead and more than 540 wounded which is the deadliest mass shooting in modern US History

61% said the country's law should be tougher while 27% want it to be the same while 11% say it should be LENIENT

90% of Democrats and only a third of Republicans want to see stricter gun laws.

31 y/o Kenny Garcia, a former gun owner says he's torn on the issue who said "How do you control something like that when you have no idea where it's coming from, whether you control guns or not?. They give these people access to these things, then they question after something horrible happens, but yet the answer is right there". Still, he's frustrated by how easy it is to get a gun such as "bump stocks" used by the mass shooters.

Half of Americans think making it more difficult to buy a gun would reduce mass shootings and homicides. While 4/10 said it would reduce suicides and a third said it would reduce gang violence

21 y/o Alea Leonard said she's torn as well and said "Here, i feel like everyone should be able to carry a .22 caliber handgun on them"

There's also a generational divide as those younger than 30 believe in stricter gun laws while over 30 said it should be lenient.

The Majority of Americans also disapprove of how Trump is handling gun control as he's the first president since Reagan to address the NRA.

Do you support stricter gun laws?

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/10/20/21/457857E300000578-5001870-image-a-1_1508531140053.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/10/20/21/4578583700000578-5001870-image-a-2_1508531146982.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/1/2017/10/20/18/wire-1569291-1508521182-219_634x407.jpg
---

guns laws are too strict already

Why would it? The *only* thing that might change is legislation restricting bump stocks, which is something that really should have been done in the first place since the device was meant to raise the rate of fire to simulate a fully-automatic weapon --- and was even advertised as such --- and therefore should have been held to similar restrictions all along.
---

Who cares? If people want to kill other people, they are going to find other ways to kill them. He could've drove a truck into them, but no one is going to bother with tighter truck control.

blurxacc posted...

Who cares? If people want to kill other people, they are going to find other ways to kill them. He could've drove a truck into them, but no one is going to bother with tighter truck control.

idk, I think we might need sensible, comprehensive truck regulation reform... because adding "sensible" makes it sound reasonable, "comprehensive" makes it sound well-thought-out, and people like "reform." #Buzzwords
---

You are a moron if you think this answer is so simple as a yes or no question.

It also proves you can't think for yourself.
---

blurxacc posted...

Who cares? If people want to kill other people, they are going to find other ways to kill them. He could've drove a truck into them, but no one is going to bother with tighter truck control.

Because guns are easy mode for mass murderers. Getting rid of easy mode will lead to fewer mass murders, and fewer deaths for the mass murders that do occur.

And there is truck control! You need a special license to drive a truck!
---

Golden Road posted...

blurxacc posted...

Who cares? If people want to kill other people, they are going to find other ways to kill them. He could've drove a truck into them, but no one is going to bother with tighter truck control.

Because guns are easy mode for mass murderers. Getting rid of easy mode will lead to fewer mass murders, and fewer deaths for the mass murders that do occur.

And there is truck control! You need a special license to drive a truck!

but not to buy one, and then illegally operate it.

Not stricter gun control but at least even control, like some states I hear dont even require waiting periods and background checks.

Nevadas laws are pretty good.

Golden Road posted...

blurxacc posted...

Who cares? If people want to kill other people, they are going to find other ways to kill them. He could've drove a truck into them, but no one is going to bother with tighter truck control.

Because guns are easy mode for mass murderers. Getting rid of easy mode will lead to fewer mass murders, and fewer deaths for the mass murders that do occur.

And there is truck control! You need a special license to drive a truck!

And yet the very first American soil school shooting- mass murder took place before we were America. 19/21 people died.

So do you really think that lowering the amount of bullets down to the level of a flintlock pistol will stop people from carrying - more flintlock pistols????

All political postitions aside the problem w gun control laws is that they don't target the ACTUAL problem. They are made by a knee jerk reaction. To make people feel safer but only regulate those that follow them. That doesn't mean that any shouldn't exist but just that the gun control you pretend to work is a fraud. Gun control laws need to actually address problems while still respecting the constitution. It's what we live by.
---

Golden Road posted...

Because guns are easy mode for mass murderers. Getting rid of easy mode will lead to fewer mass murders, and fewer deaths for the mass murders that do occur.

They're actually not, which is why so many attempted mass murders fail. You'd be guaranteed more fatalities by driving into a crowd with a large vehicle. Plus suicide bombers average far more fatalities than mass shooters. Hell, there was a suicide bombing in a mosque just today which killed over 63 people. That tops the Las Vegas shooter by at least 5 kills and it required far less equipment. And, before you say that it requires the attacker's death, keep in mind that most mass shooters either kill themselves or suicide-by-cop.

Golden Road posted...

And there is truck control! You need a special license to drive a truck!

Depends on the truck. A lot of trucks don't require special licenses, that's more for big rigs, tractor trailers, whatever.

Conner4REAL posted...

All political postitions aside the problem w gun control laws is that they don't target the ACTUAL problem. They are made by a knee jerk reaction. To make people feel safer but only regulate those that follow them. That doesn't mean that any shouldn't exist but just that the gun control you pretend to work is a fraud. Gun control laws need to actually address problems while still respecting the constitution. It's what we live by.

Pretty much true of any post-tragedy legislation. I think Penn Jilette said it best when he remarked something along the lines of the worst laws are named after victims. Granted, there are some exceptions since AMBER Alerts *seem* effective.

Complete segue, but speaking of exceptions to rules, I was listening to Penn's Every Day is an Atheist Holiday yesterday and he explains the general concept of the "exception that proves the rule." I had partly misunderstood what it meant and often heard it used illogically, but apparently it refers to a legal principle involving limitations to rules; ie, something along the lines of "No parking between 2 and 5" means you can park outside of that time frame.
---

I voted for penn for president.

I think it was in 2008. Maybe 2012, forget. Wrote him on the ballot.

Just imagine if everyone else in the us forgot to vote, we would have had the penn & teller duo in the Oval Office.
---

dioxxys posted...

Not stricter gun control but at least even control, like some states I hear dont even require waiting periods and background checks.

Nevadas laws are pretty good.

Waiting periods are pointless, especially for people who already own guns like me. I'm ok with background checks from dealers, but not for private sales.
---

Conner4REAL posted...

I voted for penn for president.

I think it was in 2008. Maybe 2012, forget. Wrote him on the ballot.

Just imagine if everyone else in the us forgot to vote, we would have had the penn & teller duo in the Oval Office.

That's actually not how write-in candidates work. You have to run as a Write-in Candidate in order for your name to count. The option is there for people to run for an office without having to pay the fees to get their name on the ballot. In local elections, a successful write-in campaign can give such a candidate a win, but in a Presidential election it's as irrelevant as it can get.

But yeah, you have to file paperwork with the appropriate offices and everything, just like if you were running as a candidate. The rules, as dictated by the Federal Gov't so I don't think this is State-dependent, is that the Write-in Candidacy Period begins a short time after the regular Candidacy Period has closed. You can only file as a Write-in Candidate during the Write-in Candidacy Period.

The 2008 election was an interesting one for Write-ins though, both valid and invalid. 242,000 votes were cast for Write-ins, more than both the Green Party and Constitution Party got for their candidates that were on the ballots of 2/3s of the states.

But! Only half, about 121,000 of those votes went to a Write-in Candidate. Alan Keyes got the most, at 48,000 but was only a Write-in for 4 of the 7 states he ran in. Nobody ran on purely as a Write-in Candidate. All of the Write-in Candidates were regular Candidates in at least one State.

Penn was not a Write-in Candidate in 2008 or 2012, but Bernie Sanders was a Write-in Candidate in 2016. Why? Because some States don't require that the candidate him- or herself be present to file for Presidential Write-in. Despite ol' Berns trying to get his supporters to swing in ol' Hills favor, some of them got him a Write-in Candidacy slot in 14 States. The votes cast for him are the most ever received by a Write-in Candidate for the office of President, at 112,000. Which was less than a single percent of the votes cast, so still super irrelevant. They weren't even in contested states where those 112,000 votes would have made the difference.

If anyone's fact-checking my numbers, just want to say I am rounding to the nearest thousand.

It's ok. Everything is normal.
---