The gun reform debate is not impenetrable and just ask gun owners

[-hanko]

One of the things never talked about in the results, if the results even include something along these lines (which this one does), is the difference between gun owners 'agreeing' with the general sentiment, but predominantly not trusting Government with the power. For instance, if you follow Librarian's link to the actual survey, while it shows a clear majority supporting things such as background checks and red flag laws, it also shows a clear plurality/majority who feel that such would be...

A slippery slope toward the government taking away guns. and A law that can be abused by people trying to take others’ guns away without real cause.

It's a divide we see on Calguns. Ask if members support a background check to prevent criminals or the mentally ill from obtaining firearms and you typically get a majority saying "Yes." But, the comments section is filled with the caveat that we don't trust Government to properly dispose of such checks and not keep them for future, nefarious use. Not to mention that the Government is already doing so, to whatever degree, despite there being laws to preclude it.

The same thing with 'red flag' laws. While we generally agree that violent partners should not have guns, we see such laws as just waiting to be abused because they are already abused by both the complaining partners and the Government.

So, they aren't exactly "lying" when they say a majority of gun owners 'support' the idea. They just don't say "in theory" and/or talk about (or even ask) if gun owners trust the Government with such powers; which we don't and for good reason.

Criminals can get guns without going to gun stores and having their backgrounds checked. The same holds true for wife/husband/children beaters.

As I've posted before, at least two ballots here supported the idea for national background checks to allow nationwide concealed carry reciprocity.

I'd say that sounds like those voting for the idea don't care about peeing on the 2nd Amendment. Nor do they understand that states with concealed or open carry without background checks by the local sheriff have lower instances of violence with guns. Not sure why I'd need/want an interview with the sheriff prior to getting my CC card. My lack of a criminal record does speak for itself.

Idiots.

[BAJ475]

Look at the actual poll - https://static1.squarespace.com/stat...rs+-+FINAL.pdf

On-line

Self-identified gun owners.

Allow me to be very skeptical of their survey sample.

I think you are being kind using the word skeptical. Outright liars is my view. Reduce gun deaths? It depends on who is dying, the good guys or the bad guys. No reason to reduce gun deaths if it is the bad guys that are dying.

As a gun owner and carrier, I am not interested in having a conversation with anyone who does not fully support the 2A.

Research that challenges conventional thinking. OK, define conventional thinking.

Leveraging technology? Does that mean that Uncle Joe should give us free red dots for a carry guns? I could go for that as long as it was a high quality unit and the antis/Dems/Marxist/libtards are taxed to cover the costs.

Bacon provides research to political candidates, nonprofits, ballot initiatives, corporations, and foundations. Now I know they are on the opposite side of where I am. Worked for Elizabeth Warren. Absolutely no doubt now!

Self-identified gun owners? Is that like a person with male parts claiming to be a female so that he can get into the girls locker rooms?

I could go on but what's the point? They aren't fooling anyone!

[Dan_Eastvale]

Who knows what the actual opinion is. Assume all Dems and a large number of centrist RINOS.
Quite a few here on these forums would compromise to “common sense” gun control.
To me, common sense gun control is zero gun control, including elimination of NFA.

[Capybara]

...To me, common sense gun control is zero gun control, including elimination of NFA.

This is a platform that most, if not all of us heartily support.