Do you think it is more important to protect gun rights or control gun violence?

[Xelor]

Do you think it is more important to protect gun rights or control gun violence?

One does not have to choose between those two things. Initiatives can be imlemented that concurrently accomplish both

 

[Xelor]

The more citizens you have that are armed the less gun violence you'll have. They arent opposing forces.

Controlling violence is more important than just selectively controlling violence caused by guns.

Seems dishonest to frame it that way.

Naturally, because more of anything that is a vector of a malady leads to less of the malady....Yeah, right.

 

[CLAX1911]

Naturally, because more of anything that is a vector of a malady leads to less of the malady....Yeah, right.

Gun ownership is not a vector of malady that's just anti-constitutionalist alt left propaganda.

 

[tecoyah]

It is unfortunate and terribly clear just in this thread that there is a knee jerk reaction from the NRA fan base whenever the Gun topic is brought up that taints and pretty much eliminates serious discussion and action concerning the violence and death problem. In this our 2nd amendment and its corrupted meaning combined with the Gun lobby and a strange "Macho Cowboy" mentality make any progress all but impossible. Such is life and death in America.

 

[Serenity]

In the end when it comes down to it. Gun Rights are more important, without gun rights, you live in tyranny that as the potential of mass murder..... every single government that has committed mass murder on it's own citizens took away the guns of their subjects legally.

You don’t live in a tyranny though and your President isn’t a totalitarian dictator.

Do you honestly believe that is where your Country is heading?

 

[Spartacus FPV]

A 2007 Harvard study proved that Gun Control has never worked or helped, the CDC has stated that between 500k and 3 million times a year gun owners defend their lives with firearms, usually never having to pull the trigger. Consider that against the ~30k gun deaths (mostly suicides)

Attacking gun rights doesn't save lives, it creates more victims. Gun owners save lives.

 

[celticwar17]

You don’t live in a tyranny though and your President isn’t a totalitarian dictator.

Do you honestly believe that is where your Country is heading?

It is absolutely possible...but do I think it will in the near future? No. I don't have to worry about just my near future... but the future of every citizen that will ever live in this country, things change.

See..... People have no idea, no idea whatsoever because we have all lived in a bubble most of our lives.... we are extremely Naive to the fact how fragile civilization is. The world is in a period of peace absolutely unheard of in human history... do not underestimate mankind, it can happen as fast as a blink of an eye. If you don't know this you haven't read enough history and haven't taken it to heart, it's as simple as that

 

[Waddy]

Without gun rights there would be even more violent crime.

 

[jamesrage]

The poll is a false dilemma, we can do both.But if there was some sort of hypothetical situation where we can't do both then I pick protect our 2nd amendment rights IE gun rights. Because a lot more people will suffer if the government is allowed to severely restrict and or disarm the population and years later it becomes tyrannical.

 

[Irwin Corey]

I think if both goal were given equal weight there would be less paranoia about guns AND fewer gun deaths. If the government was allowed to fund gun death research as it has automobile death research proactive instead of reactive solutions would develop; to the benefit of both factions.

BTW, I didn't vote without taking sides there are clearly other options to solve this American tragedy.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

I think if both goal were given equal weight there would be less paranoia about guns AND fewer gun deaths. If the government was allowed to fund gun death research as it has automobile death research proactive instead of reactive solutions would develop; to the benefit of both factions.

BTW, I didn't vote without taking sides there are clearly other options to solve this American tragedy.

The government is allowed to fund gun research as a criminal justice issue. The only restriction is on the CDC (which shouldn’t be studying anything other then infectious diseases anyway) Doing gun control advocacy, there is no restriction on research, only advocacy

 

[Irwin Corey]

The government is allowed to fund gun research as a criminal justice issue. The only restriction is on the CDC (which shouldn’t be studying anything other then infectious diseases anyway) Doing gun control advocacy, there is no restriction on research, only advocacy

The NRA has made it part of it's policy to oppose gun research and so not much is being done.


[video]https://www.google.com/search?q=are+there+restrictions+on+federal+gun+res earch&ie=&oe=[/video]

That's a whole Google page of articles that belie you statement; just say'n.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

The NRA has made it part of it's policy to oppose gun research and so not much is being done.


[video]https://www.google.com/search?q=are+there+restrictions+on+federal+gun+res earch&ie=&oe=[/video]

That's a whole Google page of articles that belie you statement; just say'n.

By the CDC, but plenty of fun research is being done, the CDC simply isn’t allowed to give public money to anti gun extremists to undermine the rights of taxpayers, which is common sense. Google results linking liberal blogs are not an argument, the text of the relevant law clearly does not forbid research

 

[Irwin Corey]

By the CDC, but plenty of fun research is being done, the CDC simply isn’t allowed to give public money to anti gun extremists to undermine the rights of taxpayers, which is common sense. Google results linking liberal blogs are not an argument, the text of the relevant law clearly does not forbid research

Well then we disagree. "I" believe more research needs to be funded AND there is no need to pick sides, and in fact picking sides is contrary to the goals of either side.

 

[Casper]

NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist Poll Results April 2018

The fly in your soup is that most suggested new additional gun control would do little to nothing when it comes to dealing with gun violence. Enforce the current laws and focus on the actual causes of gun violence, criminals and the mentally ill.

 

[Phoenix]

NPR conducts a poll that leans towards less gun rights.....shocking...

 

[Lovebug]

NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist Poll Results April 2018

That can go hand in hand. Identify the insane while protecting the rights of legal gun owners shouldn't be that difficult...once we stop the anti gun narrative.

 

[Kal'Stang]

NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist Poll Results April 2018

....

The question is a false dilemma on one front and on another front is a question designed to ignore reality in favor of a set agenda.

Others have already said why its a false dilemma. My post is going to focus on why the question ignores reality in favor of a set agenda.

Put simply, there is no such thing as "gun violence". There are people that commit violence with guns, but there are no guns that commit violence. The question is designed to make people think that if we could control guns, then we could end violence. Reality shows that controlling violence requires completely different tactics than controlling guns. This is shown in the fact that no gun control law has ever been proven to actually lower violence in any shape, form, or matter. If you want to control violence then you need to focus on the reasons for said violence. And since guns DO NOT cause violence focusing almost any law on them is a useless effort.

Laws that would be effective that involve guns would be laws that focus on things like safety. For example, smart gun research should be prioritized and once perfected a law could be put in place to require guns to have such technology. This would be on par with seat belt laws which has been proven to have an effect.

But laws like registration, background checks, any type of gun ban is completely worthless to reduce violence as they do not focus on the cause of violence. In order to reduce violence, be it committed by someone with a gun or someone with a knife, bat, etc etc you have to focus on things like education, mental health (both treatment of and identifying of), economic disparities, justice system reform and other like minded things. It is those things (or lack thereof rather) that can lead to violence. Inanimate objects do not.

So the next time you see the words "gun control violence" make a mental note of just how dishonest such a statement is and be sure to use a large handful of salt when reading anything with those words in it.

 

[Zyphlin]

First, let me say the question itself is a false dilemma

Second, let me say that as the public sentiment to such a question see's "gun rights" go down, the more important of the two that actually is precisely because there's less will for it and thus places it in greater danger of not being focused on.

Third, ultimately, it should be SCOTUS more concerned with assuring that gun rights are not violated with congress passing attempts to curbing gun violence that doesn't infringe upon actual gun rights. I.E. I'd rather congress be focused on gun violence than gun rights, with the understanding that said focus should be in a way that doesn't infringe upon gun rights.

 

[notquiteright]

The question is irrelevant because gun control does not control violence. London has strict gun control and yet their murder rate is higher than New York City. So, gun control only hurts the rights of law abiding citizens and does little to effect gun violence, including murders.

More 'gun' rubber crap.... :doh

2017 had London with 116 murders, NYC had 290.... :shock:

Your 'fact' is based on two months where the murder rate was as you say, there are PLENTY of months where NYC is number 1- GO TEAM USA!!!!!! :2wave:

Lets try and not play silly games with this subject... eace

 

[Irwin Corey]

The question is a false dilemma on one front and on another front is a question designed to ignore reality in favor of a set agenda.

Violence committed with firearms should not be a dilemma to be argued about by Americans is should be an issue to be addressed and solved. The pro-gun/gun-control factions each have an agenda; Americans need an agenda that insures 2nd amendment rights and substantively and effectively stops violence committed with firearms.

Put simply, there is no such thing as "gun violence".

Put simply that's semantics. Violent gun use is by nature a greater hazard to society than other forms of violence. <-period

The question is designed to make people think that if we could control guns, then we could end violence.

No, it is designed to see which faction is predominant. <-period I'm not saying that knowledge is useful or just divisive but it's just a poll without an agenda.

Reality shows that controlling violence requires completely different tactics than controlling guns.

No, it shows that we lack understanding of the issue of gun violence.

This is shown in the fact that no gun control law has ever been proven to actually lower violence in any shape, form, or matter.

That is just not true; the Federal Firearms Act of 1934 has been very effective in controlling violence committed with machine guns.

If you want to control violence then you need to focus on the reasons for said violence. And since guns DO NOT cause violence focusing almost any law on them is a useless effort.

That can't be said for certain because of the lack of research into the problem.

So the next time you see the words "gun control violence" make a mental note of just how dishonest such a statement is and be sure to use a large handful of salt when reading anything with those words in it.

No, I'll make a mental note of YOUR agenda.

What Americans need to solve our problems is to start thinking as Americans; not as part of some faction.

 

[Casper]

More 'gun' rubber crap.... :doh

2017 had London with 116 murders, NYC had 290.... :shock:

Your 'fact' is based on two months where the murder rate was as you say, there are PLENTY of months where NYC is number 1- GO TEAM USA!!!!!! :2wave:

Lets try and not play silly games with this subject... eace

Interesting idea, pssst did you know that NY has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the Nation, I don't believe you thought that out beforehand.

 

[jimbo]

I don't think it has to be an either/or proposition. I am, however, concerned about the expanding definition of gun rights.

How can you expand "shall not be infringed"?

 

[Parrish]

Where is the outrage directed at the NRA for not allowing weapons at their convention when VPOTUS speaks this week?

 

[jimbo]

First, let me say the question itself is a false dilemma

Second, let me say that as the public sentiment to such a question see's "gun rights" go down, the more important of the two that actually is precisely because there's less will for it and thus places it in greater danger of not being focused on.

Third, ultimately, it should be SCOTUS more concerned with assuring that gun rights are not violated with congress passing attempts to curbing gun violence that doesn't infringe upon actual gun rights. I.E. I'd rather congress be focused on gun violence than gun rights, with the understanding that said focus should be in a way that doesn't infringe upon gun rights.

Again, though, there is no gun violence. The term is used to place the blame for human misdeeds on an inanimate object.