Speakeasy forum

Praise

Republican pollster Frank Luntz conducted a poll on Gun regs

by Ziks511 / January 20, 2013 6:47 PM PST

"a survey conducted in May 2012 by Republican pollster Frank Luntz found that most gun owners, including current and former members of the NRA, favor tighter gun regulations such as universal criminal background checks."
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/nra-board-newtown-bushmaster

"A survey of National Rifle Association members and non-affiliated gun owners conducted by a prominent Republican pollster shows that there is broad support for certain provisions that would restrict the sale of guns."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/24/gun-owners-frank-luntz_n_1699140.html

"New Poll Of NRA Members By Frank Luntz Shows Strong Support For Common-Sense Gun Laws, Exposing Significant Divide Between Rank-And-File Members And NRA Leadership"
PR Newswire (http://s.tt/1iTdU)
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/new-poll-of-nra-members-by-frank-luntz-shows-strong-support-for-common-sense-gun-laws-exposing-significant-divide-between-rank-and-file-members-and-nra-leadership-163592606.htm

"87 percent of NRA members agree that support for 2nd Amendment rights goes hand-in-hand with keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.
"There is very strong support for criminal background checks:

"74 percent support requiring criminal background checks of anyone purchasing a gun.
"79 percent support requiring gun retailers to perform background checks on all employees - a measure recently endorsed by the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the trade association for the firearms industry.

" NRA members strongly support allowing states to set basic eligibility requirements for people who want to carry concealed, loaded guns in public places. By contrast, the NRA leadership's top federal legislative priority - national reciprocity for concealed carry permits - would effectively eliminate these requirements by forcing every state to allow non-residents to carry concealed guns even if they would not qualify for a local permit.

"NRA members support many common state eligibility rules for concealed carrying:

"75 percent believe concealed carry permits should only be granted to applicants who have not committed any violent misdemeanors, including assault.
"74 percent believe permits should only be granted to applicants who have completed gun safety training.
"68 percent believe permits should only be granted to applicants who do not have prior arrests for domestic violence.
"63 percent believe permits should only be granted to applicants 21 years of age or older."

PR Newswire (http://s.tt/1iTdU)

Just a little minor Googling. Who was it wanted figures to back up the contention that Ameircan's want better regulations on gun owner ship? The above is a poll of NRA members.

Rob

Post a reply
Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: Republican pollster Frank Luntz conducted a poll on Gun regs
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: Republican pollster Frank Luntz conducted a poll on Gun regs
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
How many, I wonder,
by TONI H / January 21, 2013 12:56 AM PST

would support BO's executive order that doctors now will be required to report any of their patients who have 'violent' tendencies AND find out if they have guns in their house? Basically doctors will now be 'deputized' to report to the Feds.........so much for patient confidentiality when you consider that most of those patients will not be asked if they have knives or clubs or ball bats in their house or took karate classes or boxing training ........and most domestic killings are done with weapons (including their hands) other than guns.

I wonder how many patients will now hesitate or not consider seeing their doctor anymore?

From what I understand, the killer of those children tried a week or so before the mass shooting to purchase a gun and was turned down........didn't stop him from STEALING it from his own mother who PASSED that background check, did it?

I wonder if a doctor would be required to ask the mother now if she has any 'deranged' family members who might need to be reported after finding out if SHE has guns?

Collapse -
This will be a big problem for psychiatrists
by Steven Haninger / January 21, 2013 2:02 AM PST
In reply to: How many, I wonder,

and counselors who are sworn to maintain doctor-patient confidentiality. As I understand it, they will attempt to notify a person who might be in danger if a patient reveals something threatening but that's about it.

Collapse -
The way I understood it to be
by TONI H / January 21, 2013 2:58 AM PST

is that the doctor wouldn't be required to notify the person who is possibly in danger but instead has to notify the Feds and give the patient's name, address, if they have a gun and what type, and the person or persons being threatened. That puts all that information about the patient into a national database, including their complete medical history...........I'm not sure if the doctor is also required to find out what OTHER guns might be available to this patient such as family members or friends.

That kind of record keeping can be devastatingly long-lasting. I know from experience........when Derek was 8 yrs old and his father died, he was an angry little boy. I took him to a 'psychiatrist/psychologist' locally to help him get over that anger. That jerk put into Derek's file that he thought he was suicidal and/or homicidal and when I went to get life insurance through the school for Derek at an inexpensive rate, it was denied (as were future applications for insurance until he turned 16) for that reason. I sure as hell wouldn't trust the Federal Government to not misuse information like that and label a person forever.

The camel has his nose in the tent.........You take a few isolated incidents, blow them out of proportion for an agenda and you have Nazi Germany all over again. No thanks........

Collapse -
If a person isn't
by James Denison / January 21, 2013 10:41 AM PST

suicidal before seeing a shrink, they likely will be afterwards. As for being labeled, google David Sartis.

Collapse -
It was Wayne LaPierre.....
by Josh K / January 22, 2013 9:44 PM PST

......who broached the notion of a "lunatic database" as an alternative to background checks. How does he think that database will be populated, if not with previously confidential information? It's also important to note that most people who see a psychiatrist or psychologist are not mentally ill; they're just people who need help getting through a crisis or other personal situation.

Collapse -
He could check
by James Denison / January 23, 2013 12:24 AM PST

Democratic voting roles. Wink

Collapse -
They're rolls, James, as in long lists "rolled" up after use
by Ziks511 / January 23, 2013 6:06 AM PST
In reply to: He could check

Sheesh.

Rob

Collapse -
re: " How does he think that database will be populated...
by MarkatNite / January 23, 2013 11:25 PM PST

...if not with previously confidential information?"

Court proceedings are public record.

Mark

Collapse -
Background checks....
by Josh K / January 23, 2013 11:36 PM PST

.....would also tap into the public record, so why the NRA opposition to them?

Collapse -
Don't ask me. I don't speak for the NRA.
by MarkatNite / January 23, 2013 11:47 PM PST
In reply to: Background checks....

But as for myself, I think we should have background checks on everyone and require them to register with the government before they exercise their 1st Amendment Right to Free Speech. Everyone should also be limited to no more than 10 pages at time, and any technological advances made since the time the Amendment was written should be banned.

I'm being facetious, obviously - Mark

Collapse -
News Reporters Especially
by James Denison / January 24, 2013 12:23 AM PST

They should be licensed by the federal govt before they can work in any news organization. They can not qualify if they have been arrested and convicted of anything previously. If any of them have suffered depression, they must be disqualified from reporting news. I can see it coming, since someone will wonder, "why start with the 2nd Amendment?!"

Collapse -
So, now doctors and school officials
by Diana Forum moderator / January 22, 2013 9:43 AM PST
In reply to: How many, I wonder,

are required to report what appears to be child abuse. What is a worse child abuse than someone killing them?

Diana

Collapse -
The difference is that the abused
by Steven Haninger / January 22, 2013 5:53 PM PST

is the first one looked at for evidence and not the accused. A doctor who examines a child and finds marks indicative of burns or beatings has evidence that malice has already occurred. A psychiatrist whose instincts are that his/her patient might become violent really has nothing to act upon. We need to ask whether or not we put these professionals in jeopardy for missing something. Should we expect them to first go by COA thinking?

Collapse -
Oh, oh, I know this one!
by James Denison / January 22, 2013 9:58 AM PST

What's funnier than a barrel full of monkeys?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
..
.
.
..

Dropping a lit string of firecrackers into a room full of Liberals. Laugh

Collapse -
Response
by JP Bill / January 22, 2013 11:55 AM PST
Collapse -
This is much funnier
by James Denison / January 23, 2013 12:39 AM PST
In reply to: Response
Collapse -
THAT was hilarious!!!!
by JP Bill / January 23, 2013 2:34 AM PST
In reply to: This is much funnier

The ONLY way it could have been funnier is if the gun was loaded and she turned around and shot him.

Collapse -
Not only does the NRA oppose background checks....
by Josh K / January 22, 2013 9:46 PM PST

......but they also managed to weaken existing laws to the point that gun shops are not even required to keep track of their own inventories. Why hasn't the BATF had a director for six years? Thank the NRA for that too.

The NRA's "don't give an inch" attitude is extreme and clearly out of step with the beliefs of its own membership.

Popular Forums
icon
Computer Help 49,613 discussions
icon
Computer Newbies 10,349 discussions
icon
Laptops 19,436 discussions
icon
Security 30,426 discussions
icon
TVs & Home Theaters 20,308 discussions
icon
Windows 10 360 discussions
icon
Phones 15,802 discussions
icon
Windows 7 7,351 discussions
icon
Networking & Wireless 14,641 discussions

Tech Tip

Stuck without Internet and want to watch movies?

CNET shows you how to download movies and TV shows onto your device using Amazon Prime so you'll always be entertained.