92% of Americans support background checks (Page 2): background checks are a wonderful theory but its just that only a theory it does not work because the information in these databSes...

kb3chb

background checks are a wonderful theory but its just that only a theory it does not work because the information in these databSes is quite often incomplete, if not just wrong. Furthermore, prosecutions of those who fail a background check are by no means the norm.

rickerb Loc: utah

Chaostrain wrote:

Actually the AR15 is used by several people to hunt mid sized animals like wolves that are threatening ranchers animals and/or residential areas.

As a weapons owner, I would leave my AR-15 home and hunt midsize animals with a rifle with better suited ballistics and longer range to hunt any animal. my AR-15 is used for fun and serious self protection.

xxredbeardxx Loc: San Clemente CA.

sb wrote:

And the comments about anti-depressant drugs are wrong - probably most of the crazy shooters SHOULD be on antidepressant drugs, though.

Why do you say thats wrong? I have read several articles
about this. Some even named all the shooters and it was a crazy long list.
If you have read stats that say otherwise how do you know the articles I have read are
wrong and the ones you have read are right? Just sayin. You don't trust the ones I have read, but you do trust the ones you have.

Bottom line is both side lie like crazy to make their points.

warrior Loc: Paso Robles CA

Frank T wrote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/07/03/this-is-how-overwhelmingly-americans-support-background-checks/

Newest Quinapiac Poll shows that 92% of Americans support background checks to purchase firearms.
If you don't, you are in a tiny minority unless of course you're a Congressman that's afraid of the big bad NRA or just a criminal or nut that wants a gun.

I have no problem with a polygraph and drug test also.
USA Ret

Billbobboy42 Loc: Center of Delmarva

warwoman wrote:

You're exactly right. There are already background checks in place, but some tend to ignore that fact. It's sort of a moot talking point by those who have no other bullets for their argumentative gun, so to speak!
What would be nice is a background check before a person votes....a drivers license would do nicely!

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Chaostrain Loc: Hillsboro, Oregon

rickerb wrote:

As a weapons owner, I would leave my AR-15 home and hunt midsize animals with a rifle with better suited ballistics and longer range to hunt any animal. my AR-15 is used for fun and serious self protection.

As is your choice the same as the choice of others to use theirs for hunting. I was actually surprised when I researched this how people do actually use the AR-15 for hunting. How weapons owners use their weapons is a personal choice. As a weapons owner myself I have no desire to own an AR-15 but have no animosity towards those that due. Again, it's personal choice.

One Rude Dawg Loc: Athol, ID

phcaan wrote:

The biggest question is, why is it your business, and why do you care what anyone else does legally? Oh I forgot, the only thing that is legal or correct is what you believe. Yeah, right.

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Big Bill Loc: Phoenix, AZ

Frank T wrote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/07/03/this-is-how-overwhelmingly-americans-support-background-checks/

Newest Quinapiac Poll shows that 92% of Americans support background checks to purchase firearms.
If you don't, you are in a tiny minority unless of course you're a Congressman that's afraid of the big bad NRA or just a criminal or nut that wants a gun.

Background checks don't work. If they did, they would do what we were told they would do: cut gun crime.
They haven't, so they don't work.
Doubling down on them won't work either, for a very simple reason: criminals don't obey the law. By definition.
Several interviews have been done with criminals in jail. They overwhelmingly show the same things: criminals don't need to go to gun stores to buy guns. They can get them on the streets, or steal them.
Ignoring these facts is one of the things libs do very well. They also lie, telling us that these stricter rules will somehow control criminal behaviors.
That worked real well with prohibition, and is working so well in the War on Drugs.
It's a real shame that the Common Core proposals don't have any classes on Common Sense.

sirlensalot Loc: Arizona

It would be interesting to see who paid for the poll. There's always money behind them.
If I read it correctly, the poll asked if people would support the "expansion" of current background checks. I think they are implying that we should have expanding background checks, and are blaming the NRA as the reason more stringent criteria is not forthcoming. Put that together with the source of the poll which has a slightly left leaning student population, more so with the staff and administration, and it was easier for me to predict the outcome.

gmcase Loc: Galt's Gulch

I think Hitler had about a 90% approval rating also. A silly appeal to argumentum ad populum as if the majority is always right or above tyranny.

sirlensalot Loc: Arizona

gmcase wrote:

I think Hitler had about a 90% approval rating also. A silly appeal to argumentum ad populum as if the majority is always right or above tyranny.

Great point.

Frank T Loc: New York, NY

gmcase wrote:

I think Hitler had about a 90% approval rating also. A silly appeal to argumentum ad populum as if the majority is always right or above tyranny.

Congratulations. You are first to play the Hitler Card.
Your prize? Total lack of credibility.

gmcase Loc: Galt's Gulch

Frank T wrote:

Congratulations. You are first to play the Hitler Card.
Your prize? Total lack of credibility.

But your silly appeal to argumentum ad populum gives you any credibility except to the shallow minded?

Bootlegger Loc: Idaho

Well , at least 92% of the people who took the poll . Doesn't mean 92% of the general public .

Big Bill Loc: Phoenix, AZ

Bootlegger wrote:

Well , at least 92% of the people who took the poll . Doesn't mean 92% of the general public .

Obviously, we don't (at lease I don't) have any idea of what, exactly, the question was, or in what context (the rest of the questions) the question was asked.
If the other questions were obviously to be answered in the affirmative, slipping in that question, worded to seem like it wanted the same affirmative, then that's what you'll get.

Lies, damned lies, and statistics can apply here.