An "unbiased" poll from HCI

Oatka

New member
From another board. A poster's wife got a plea for money from Handgun Control along with this "poll":

1) Are you concerned that guns may be destroying the sense of security among American school children and their families because today’s children have too easy access to guns? (concerned/unconcerned).

2) Are you aware that in most states an adult can leave a loaded handgun on the dining room table, within easy reach of a child, and there are no legal consequences for doing so, and no consequences for the adult if the child uses the gun in a harmful way? (aware/unaware).

3) Are you in favor of Child Access Prevention legislation, which provides penalties for adults if a child gains access to a firearm stored in a negligent manner? (in favor/not in favor).

4) Do you believe that it’s time for sane and rational Americans to influence gun control laws at every level of government, instead of the highly-organized, lavishly-funded National Rifle Association? (yes/no).

5) Do you think that it makes sense to require people who want to own guns to pass a test and be licensed, the same way that we require drivers to get a drivers’ license? (yes/no).

6) Do you believe that the National Rifle Association is correct in its assertion that guns and gun ownership are protected by the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, without qualification, and that gun manufacturers are also protected by the Second Amendment? (agree/disagree).

7) Are you aware that the most deadly product manufactured --- guns --- is not required to meet even the minimum safety standards required by law for manufacturers of teddy bears or baby carriages? (aware/unaware).

8) Do you believe that guns should be regulated as consumer products? (yes/no).

9) Do you believe that all firearms sold in America should be "child-proofed" so that they can only be fired by authorized users? (yes/no).

10) Do you believe that all firearms sold in America should be equipped with indicators that tell if they are loaded, and require magazine safety locks to prevent accidental or unintended firing? (yes/no).

11) Do you agree with the position of many police officers that requiring guns to be registered would help to solve gun-related crimes and track the source of crime guns? (yes/no).

12) Are you aware that legislation requiring a waiting period for handgun purchases provides a safeguard to impulse suicides and "crimes of passion", because of the required "cooling off" period? (yes/no).

While I am not overly impressed with the sagacity of the sheeple, these questions are so obviously ham-handed and slanted, I have to wonder if ANY fence-sitter would bother answering or be swayed by them.

Geez, a gazillion counter-questions come to mind. Sometimes, these people are their own worst eneimies.

------------------
The New World Order has a Third Reich odor.
 
This one always gets me:

"...the highly-organized, lavishly-funded National Rifle Association"

They BLAME the NRA for being highly funded and organized. Who funds the "highly funded" NRA??? Answer: Millions of Americans!
It is no "fault" of the NRA that they are rich and powerful, they are only rich and powerful because they represent a very large portion of America! And that large portion believes so much in what the NRA stands for, that they send money regularly and volunteer themselves for events.

The problem with HCI, is that not very many people support their stance, let alone enough to send money. Money speaks, and in America, getting people to donate money to a cause is very tough. When you get people to donate money, that means they care...a lot. So, the NRA is "blamed" for supporting millions of determined Americans...as if that were a bad thing.
 
Their use of loaded language is cause for concern.

------------------
I offer neither pay nor quarters nor provisions; I offer hunger, thirst, forced marches, battles and death. Let him who loves his country in his heart, and not his lips only, follow me.
-Giuseppe Garabaldi
 
Well, let's see here...

1) Unconcerned. I am concerned about you sticking your %$^#ing snout into my home.

2) Living with the fact that your child is dead because you were stupid is a far more terrible consequence than anything the State could do to you.

3) Not in favor. Are you aware that you can't legislate common-sense into people?

4) Yes. Are you aware that most sane and rational Americans would like you to leave their guns alone, %^$#-off and tend to your own knitting?

5) Yes. Only if the State funds it under USC Title 10, Chapter 13, and teaches it in every school. Like Drivers Ed.

6) Strongly agree. ^$%#ing duh.

7) Are you aware that teddy bears and baby carriages do not meet SAAMI standards?

8) No. Because the Fed's can't resist getting slime all over anything they think they control. Like consumer products.

9) No. That's like trying to 'idiot-proof' something. An idea that HCI needs to investigate.

10) No. My guns are only ever fired deliberately.

11) No. Do you agree with many police officers that registering guns violates several US Codes, the Constituition of the United States and the Second Amendment to that Constituition?

12) Hah. Are you aware that the 'cooling off period' has been proven not to work? You have? Then why the #%$^# are you promoting it?

Do I get a cookie now?

LawDog

Just read my post. I shouldn't post when I'm tired.

LawDog

[This message has been edited by LawDog (edited December 09, 1999).]
 
Arrgh. First of all, number 2 is patently untrue. The civil law of negligence and the criminal law of negligent homocide and injury provide extremely serious penalties for such cases.

Second, assume for a moment that 2 is true; then in that case, I'll admit I have to agree with their number 3 - it just makes good sense (not necessary because it's already the law, but it makes sense and does not violate our RKBA)- BUT, the problem is this: THIS IS NOT THE KIND OF LAW THE ANTIS ALWAYS PUSH FOR - They push for laws that will do NOTHING to lower crime or accidents, or push for laws that do more harm than good, like trigger locks and gun bans, and hi cap mag bans and ammo bans and crap like that. If their agenda was truly to toughen the laws regarding penalties for negligently allowing a gun to fall into a child's hands, I'm all for it - BUT AT THE STATE LEVEL - this is one area where the feds have no business butting into our lives. Each state is perfectly capable of deciding whether their negligent accident rate is high enough to warrant such a law. I would oppose federal regs on this on 10th Amendment grounds. But as I've said, there are already civial and criminal penalties in place, and there are two factors that the public must consider here, as these well-publicized school shootings (seem to) increase. Number one is that prosecutors can and should use their discretion to charge such negligence more often if the public so clamors and the law allows - that's why DA's are elected - so HCI, if you want to do something, campaign for good DAs. Second, the civil jurors ARE us, and if we as a society are really "fed up" with "rampant gun negligence" then we'll put the smack down on defendants' asses in civil trials when these dopes let their kids get a hold of their guns (doesn't matter what the instrumentality is - negligence is negligence - yes, we have a RKB the arm, but no protection from liability for negligence, regardless of RKBA). If the Antis really wanted to do something helpful, they would issue a challenge to big shot hollywood stars to refuse to do movies that teach or glorify violence - that's the real issue here. These movie makers don't show the ugly truth - that violence is horrible and generally gets you nowhere - they glamorize the holy living crap out of it, then try to blame guns and gun owners when kids act out their movie fantasies. Double Arrgh.

[This message has been edited by Futo Inu (edited December 09, 1999).]
 
Back
Top