A very simple poll on gun control.

[Warren Stupidity]

58 votes, 2 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Support strict regulation of semi automatic weapons.
	46 (79%)
	Do not support strict regulation of semi automatic weapons.
	12 (21%)
	2 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[etherealtruth]

1. Of the choices offered

I voted "strict regulation" ... it does not accurately reflect my feelings ... I want a lot more

[Warren Stupidity]

2. Getting bogged down in the details confuses the issue.

I really just wanted a vote on this very simple defining concept.

[IDoMath]

3. As always, with laws the devil is in the details

[HereSince1628]

4. Yes getting rid of black and white thinking

does have a tendency to confuse the issue with all manner of complicating factors.

DUers have always argued that intolerance to ambiguity was a hallmark of conservatives.

What's the possibility that it's just human nature?

[Warren Stupidity]

5. The details of strict regulation can be worked out.

Understanding support for regulation is a starting point.

[HereSince1628]

8. Negotiations, do have to start somewhere,

One of the tactics is to start where everyone agrees.

Another tactic is to start by understanding the concerns of all the stake-holders.

So, you see, selecting between an ambiguous, overly simplified statement and a red-herring isn't the only place to start.

I apologize for disrupting your polling.

[Zorra]

25. +1. Good poll. nt

[CTyankee]

69. Me, too, but I enjoyed going on record in the strongest possible way with this poll...

I'm just mad as hell at this point...

[99Forever]

6. I would actually prefer all guns be strictly regulated,

but this would be a start.

[Honeycombe8]

7. Sort of limited choices, don't you think?

There are so many other choices to include:

a. Ban all assault weapons

b. Ban assault weapons and semi-automatics

c. Ban all assault weapons and confiscate assault weapons previously purchased

d. Ban all assault weapons and semi-automatics and require annual registration of all future gun purchases

e. Ban all assault weapons and semi-automatics and require annual registration of all future gun purchases and ban violent video games

f. Ban all assault weapons and require annual registration of all future gun purchases and ban violent video games

g. Arm and fit all teachers with weapons

h. Station armed guards at all elementary schools

i. Station armed guards at all elementary schools and ban assault weapons and ban violent video games

j. Run full background checks on all gun purchases, incl. at gun shows

k. Waiting period of three weeks between application to buy any gun and pickup

l.. Do nothing

m. All of the above

n. Other


These aren't even all the combinations that could be chosen. I can't imagine anyone in this forum choosing some of the choices, but they are in the list of choices being discussed.

[Warren Stupidity]

10. feel free to conduct your own poll.

Given the polling mechanism here, binary choices get clear results.

[Major Nikon]

9. I'm not sure it makes much sense to look at it from a mechanism standpoint

Some semi-auto shotguns have internal magazines that only hold 4 shells and take a fair amount of time to reload. Some revolvers can be reloaded with speed loaders that are just about as fast as detachable magazines and have similar rates of fire.

I think rather than limiting guns by mechanism type, they should be regulated by sustained rate of fire over a relatively short period of time. I also think handguns should be much more highly regulated than any other type.

If handguns were just as hard to obtain as fully automatic weapons and long guns were limited to 4 rounds with a typical reload speed of around 30 seconds or more, you've just solved the vast majority of our gun problems while having very little effect on the recreational use of firearms.

[Warren Stupidity]

11. All of that can be worked out in the details.

I don't disagree. One way to strictly regulate semi auto weapons, for example, would be to put limits on capacity. The point here is not to resolve what these regulations should be, but to get a sense of the DU community's support for regulation.

[onehandle]

12. Here come the gungeoneers with their definition canards. nt

[etherealtruth]

13. Yeah, because that makes a difference

I sit back in amazement when they (the gun nuts) arrive with their corrections of nomenclature ... thinking that this changes the issue or argument ... ?

[hack89]

14. "Definitions" are the reason the first AWB was a colossal failure.

those writing the law were grossly ignorant of the technical aspects of guns and ended up writing a ban that was useless.

If you fail to educate yourself on guns how will you know if any law will actually save lives?

[99Forever]

15. Bull shit.

It's nothing more than pure filibustering the actual conversation and derailing it with endless minutia.

[hack89]

17. Do you deny the first AWB was a failure?

at some point someone has to write a law. Don't you want them to be as knowledgeable as the NRA rep on the other side of the table? Don't you want to know enough to figure out if you have been sandbagged again?

[99Forever]

19. I'm uninterested in your filibuster bull shit.

Take it back to the gungeon and sell it to the crowd there.

[hack89]

20. Ignorance is not a progressive value. nt

[99Forever]

21. Filibustering is not a Progressive tactic.

It is however, a Republican Tea Party mainstay.

[hack89]

24. How can you talk about gun control without talking about guns?

people like you are the reason the first AWB failed - while you were doing your happy dance the NRA gutted gun control. They will do it again if you don't start paying attention.

[99Forever]

28. "People like you" are...

.. the reason 20 6 & 7 years olds were slaughtered at Sandy Hook to precisely the same degree as "people like me" are "the reason the first AWB failed."

In there any offensive pile of NRA feces you won't parrot?

[hack89]

31. So every gun owner is responsible for Sandy Hook?

Really?

[99Forever]

32. Now the flat out making shit up....

... starts.

You freakin' gunheads are so predictable.

[hack89]

33. So I am responsible for the deaths at Sandy Hook?

how is that? Besides having the nerve to disagree with you that is?

[99Forever]

34. Pot..

... meet kettle.

[etherealtruth]

16. I would like to see a ban on all fire arms

I don't need a definition for that.

I realize that a total ban would be a difficult long fight that probably will not occur during my lifetime ... but, I am not opposed to incremental laws limiting ownership and use of firearms. Looking toward a brighter future.

[hack89]

18. And you want those incremental laws to make you safer.

Correct? How will you know that without an understanding of guns? Knowledge of guns is not dirty.

[etherealtruth]

22. Knowledge is always good ....

my objection is when "nomenclature" is trotted out in an attempt to derail or confuse a conversation. The knowledge itself is never the problem ...

[hack89]

23. When solutions are advanced that conflict with reality

what are we suppose to do? Agree because, while it is technically or legally impossible, it reflects the proper amount of outrage? That is what happens here time and time again.

Laws require thought and their effectiveness often hinges on what appears to be at first glance to be technical minutia.

[Hoyt]

37. Yes, they should have banned all semi-autos. We'd be better off and you

would have found a "hobby" by now not detrimental to society. If only. . . . . .

[spin]

61. Well considering that the majority of firearms in the United States are semi-auto ...

you missed the boat.

[Hoyt]

64. That attitude and Wayne La-P's have changed the game. Hug your guns.

[spin]

71. Most of my firearms are revolvers. ...

although I do own a couple of .22 caliber target pistols which hold ten rounds in their magazines and a couple of Colt .45 autos which which have a magazine capacity of less than 10 rounds. I also own a bolt action Swedish Mauser and a 12 guage coach gun. My personal carry revolver holds 5 rounds.

I seriously doubt that any laws that pass will have any effect on my gun collection.

I do not believe that my .22 caliber pistols which are designed for competitive target shooting or my Colt .45 autos, one of which is designed for target shooting, will be endangered by any future law that might be passed in the next two years.

But I am looking for legislation that might actually reduce gun violence or mass murder. You can continue to dream and overreach if you choose but the reality is that the laws you suggest will never pass in the House of Representatives as currently exists.

Still I will admit that there is a chance that a ban on the manufacture of new magazines that have a capacity of more than 10 rounds might pass. Unfortunately this will merely be a "feel good" law. An inexperienced person can swap a magazine in two or three seconds and one who practices can swap one in under a second.

I seriously doubt that any law requiring the confiscation of existing magazines that hold more than 10 rounds would ever pass and if it did many gun owners would refuse to turn them in even if there was severe penalties if caught owning one. Since they are unregistered it would be impossible to know who owned them.

The truly tragic part is that if the Democratic Party pushes for such measures they definitely will cause many pro-gun Democrats to leave the party and vote for Republicans in the future at local and national elections. We might even find ourselves with another Bush the Junior becoming the President in the next Presidential election.

I feel it is unwise to alienate the 80 million gun owners in our nation and many members of their families who are of voting age. Much of the progress that our Democratic Party has been able to achieve and our plans for the future might be lost.

But you have a right for your own opinion and I might be wrong. Still you have to be aware that currently only 4.5 million of the 80 million gun owners belong to the NRA but reports are that the membership of this organization is groaning at 8000 a day! If you feel the NRA is powerful today imagine how strong it would be if it doubled or tripled its membership.

Buy proposing the ideas you suggest you are poking a stick into a hornets' nest.

[spin]

36. It's hard to have a productive discussion with people who know little or nothing about ...

the subject or without first agreeing on the definition of the terms that will be used.

Let's imagine two people having a discussion about banning sports cars. One person is using the general public perception of a sports car and the other is using the Houghton Mifflin dictionary definition of the term.

sports car

NOUN:
An automobile equipped for racing, especially an aerodynamically shaped one-passenger or two-passenger vehicle having a low center of gravity and steering and suspension designed for precise control at high speeds.
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/sports%20car

Can you understand how problems might arise in the discussion?

First to have a good debate the two parties have to agree on the meaning of the terms they use.

[Hoyt]

38. Just ban all semi-autos. Keep it simple for you guys who throw up roadblocks.

[spin]

62. Simple answers to complex problems usually don't work.

Banning all semi-auto firearms might possibly be a good idea but is impossible to achieve at this time and probably in the near future.

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.
H. L. Mencken

[Hoyt]

63. It used to be impossible, not anymore.

You guys try to make this more complex than it needs to be.

[spin]

66. I see nothing at all wrong with your dreaming ...

except for the fact that reality is a bitch.

[Hoyt]

70. I definitely dream about a day when you guys don't walk around in public with a gun.

Either because of legal restrictions, or you decide to act like a citizen in modern society. Too bad you guys didn't act responsibly when you could have.

[spin]

73. I fail to understand why you FEAR those who legally carry. ...

as statistics from states like Florida and Texas prove that those who have carry permits are far more honest and responsible than those who don't.

Of course you will point out the Trayvon Martin shooting and claim that everybody who legally carries is a cop wanna-be or a vigilante. The main stream media will support your view as they hate concealed carry probably because they are centered in gun unfriendly states.

The fact is that Zimmerman was an aberration and not at all representative of people with a carry permit. In Florida only 168 concealed carry permits have been revoked for a crime committed after the permit was issued since "shall issue" concealed carry passed in 1987. In that time frame 2,307,881 permits have been issued. Of course this fact is rarely mentioned by the main stream media as it doesn't agree with its agenda. You will probably dismiss this fact as another NRA talking point but the reality is that it is factual.
(source: http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.pdf)

You often accuse those who legally carry as being afraid of leaving their home without strapping on their carry weapon but I will suggest to you that you suffer from a unrealistic fear of those who legally carry.

I suggest you focus your dislike on those who illegally carry a firearm as they do so with evil intentions.

I should note that I enjoy replying to your posts as they offer me the opportunity to support legal concealed carry. Let those who read our back and forth make their own opinions.

[Warren Stupidity]

39. Wayne LaPierre had similar observations on Friday, mocking the technical

Inaccuracies of media reports about the Sandy Hook Massacre.

[spin]

60. I'm not supporting LaPierre but the point is ...

terminology is important for any productive discussion.

It's difficult to have a good debate on the economy with a person who doesn't know the difference between the debt and the deficit and mixes up the two terms. It's frustrating to discuss computers with a person who doesn't know the difference between a lap top and a desk top.

Now I realize that the gun control side of the debate will gain a lot of supporters by stating that the average citizen can walk into a Wal-Mart and buy a fully automatic weapon. It's helps their cause to say that semi-auto "black rifles"are never used by hunters.

If the gun control side has a strong case it should be willing to use the proper terminology and not distort facts. I believe that if I wished I could argue for draconian gun control more effectively than most who support it and use the correct terminology and stick to facts and statistics without distorting them.

Of course to be fair the pro-RKBA side often uses dishonest tactics as well. To claim that all politicians who wish to reinstate another assault weapons ban are gun grabbers is false. Some are but most are looking for a solution to the problem of gun violence and mass murder in our nation.

It is also discouraging to see how easily the gun control side of the debate dismisses valid arguments as "NRA talking points."

[onehandle]

49. Ignore.

The 'discussion' is out of your hands.

[hack89]

52. Considering not a single piece of legislation has been passed

you sound pretty confident.

[krispos42]

56. There doesn't have to be.

Simply forbid the sale of new semi-automatic long guns.

If you were to push for that, then all this stuff about bayonet lugs and "assault weapons" and folding stocks and stuff simply goes away. If it's a firearm that automatically reloads and resets itself after each shot, then it's a semiautomatic and cannot be sold anymore. Period.


It's when you try to say that SOME semiautos are okay to own and SOME aren't, then things go to hell. And trust me, all those pro-control politicians that are getting laurels shoved up their butts for "taking on the NRA" and "taking on the gun lobby"? Yeah, they're not addressing the issue, either. They're recycling the same cosmetic bullshit that Clinton and other Third Way politicians did back in '93.

But they're sure happy for the positive press coverage and the support of progressives and independents.

[xoom]

26. Would this include hand guns?

[Warren Stupidity]

27. Semi automatic weapons. Nt.

[xoom]

29. Haha

[Warren Stupidity]

30. Kick.

[Yo_Mama]

40. Can you define "strict regulation"?

It matters.

[Warren Stupidity]

41. Nope.

[Logical]

77. LOL, not a shock from you. The least rational person in this whole debate. n-t

[Warren Stupidity]

78. The funny thing is that you all sincerely believe that your obsession with guns is rational.

[Logical]

79. Post a link to one of my "obsession with gun" posts.

[Skittles]

82. and mainstream too

[hack89]

42. He is just trying to determine if you are sufficiently compassionate enough

to call yourself a progressive. The entire conversation here at DU has devolved into attempts to put labels on people, not to actually discuss solutions.

He doesn't really care about the nuts and bolts of legislation - too many shades of grey.

[Warren Stupidity]

44. All that from as simple a poll, with no slant at all, as I could construct.

I am in awe of my own cleverness.

[hack89]

45. No - it is your continued refusal to discuss any details

what other purpose would such a cartoonish, black and white choice serve? Certainly not to seek practical solutions to a complex problem.

You are looking for an ideological club to beat people with. And no - you are obvious, not clever.

[rrneck]

46. Don't forget to vote.

It's very important you make sure you're on the zampolit undesirable list.

[Warren Stupidity]

47. Calling all socks?

[rrneck]

50. How's that experiment going?

And how long has it been going?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1240193153



How many rabid NRA pro gun right wing talking death spewing troll disruptors have you birthed and killed already?

[Warren Stupidity]

51. Darned if I know.

[rrneck]

54. Suuuuuurrrrreee..

[Warren Stupidity]

57. If you do not toe the line you will be brought to heel.

[rrneck]

59. Suuuuuurrrrreee.. nt

[Warren Stupidity]

48. Yes comrade, the block committee report on you is "very interesting".

[rrneck]

55. Ooh! Ooh! A godwin opportunity!

[rrneck]

43. Make it so.

And have the autohoozis make me a cup of Earl Grey - hot. And a steak - medium rare. Don't bother me with details, just make it so Number 1.

[sarisataka]

53. As much as everyone would wish it

the answer to the problem is not a simple one line proposal.

[Warren Stupidity]

58. The poll is not about specifics, it is about intent.

[sarisataka]

65. The devil is in the details

would the restrictions apply to police, would there be grandfathering, non-compliance penalties...

Would you support complete change of the tax code on a yes/no basis? Or should government make major spending cuts to avoid the fiscal cliff-- yes/no?

About everybody would like to see a proposal before signing off.

The poll begs the question what is strict legislation? It can be anything from background checks to full ban...

[DanTex]

67. Not really.

Strict legislation, is something along the lines of licensing and registration, probably short of NFA but definitely more than just a background check.

People post things like "I support single-payer healthcare" or "I support limiting carbon emissions" without having to describe the details of how to implement the new policy. But somehow when it comes to guns, there is this idea that unless you have a complete proposal with all the details pinned down then your opinion is invalid.

[Warren Stupidity]

75. You and I both know why this argument keeps being made.

They have specific strategies that they have practiced for debating gun control, and one of them is to divert the discussion into the rat-hole of technical details.

[sarisataka]

83. Now you are defining strict

if that is 'strict' I would support that. Hi-cap semi autos could even be moved to Title II, much more restricted but less than full auto.

If the premise is do you support gun control I would say yes. When an effort is made to qualify that support, then details are needed.

[Warren Stupidity]

74. Hey great, so start a thread about your serious proposal for regulating semi auto weapons.

[sarisataka]

84. I am just replying to the poll...

you didn't ask for counter proposals.

I am working with a few other security experts to create a draft proposal on gun control. If we can agree among our varied positions, we will submit it to several Senators for review.
If the others agree I will post an outline on DU for critique.

[thucythucy]

68. Warren, I just wanted to say

how much I appreciate your articulate and forthright posts on gun violence over this past week. You really know how to cut through the pro-gunner BS and get right to the nub of the issue.

Best wishes.

[sendero]

72. As in another thread..

...
"regulate all semi-automatic weapons"? Really? Save the unicorns and make the minimum wage $100 while you are at it.

Nobody is even TALKING about doing that, it is not going to happen PERIOD and it leaves me wondering if you really even understand what your own proposal is.

[Warren Stupidity]

76. It happened in Canada and Australia.

[sendero]

81. So did single payer..

... health care, what is your point?

[Recursion]

80. Possibly? Depends on what the "strict regulation" is

Just by itself "strict regulation" is way too vague for me to support it or oppose it. I support our current strict regulation on automatic weapons. I oppose our current strict regulation on heroin. Neither of those are things I want people to have, there are just good and bad ways of doing something about that.