And he's gone.

Lolz.....polls how do they work? indeed

Dbj, I doubt that when you talk to people about guns, you are getting their true feelings. Most people that are in favor of moderate gun control really aren't that passionate about it and will most likely just nod and agree when discussing it with someone with as strong of an opinion as yours.

Skew doesn't mean what you think it means.

Looking at polling internals and making your own personal adjustments is exactly what led to Dick Morris.

I mean, I'm more than willing to concede (and have before) that you know way more about guns, and gun laws than me. Are you OK doing the same when it comes to reading a poll/analyzing polling data?

At certain points, sure.

However, the expertise on the questions would actually again revert back to me though (on this issue).

An example; asking people "Do you favor a ban on assault weapons" will poll yes highly.

This is due to the ignorance of the average person.

Asking more correctly "Do you believe gun legislation should be written focusing solely on cosmetic alterations to firearms" you would get a resounding no.

When you realize I just asked the exact same question twice, you have an informed respondent.

lol you bounce around from one illogical argument to the next. there is absolutely zero consistency to any of your thought process. regardless of whether or not there should be more or less gun control, your argument is that it is a natural? right even though they are a machine that has been around for only a few hundred years. then because some of the people promoting gun control laws in the past were racist makes gun control racist, which by the way is the same argument that was made about planned parenthood- that it was racist because margaret sanger was racist. then you just handwave away polls because you have talked to a few black people and i guess are trying to actually assert you have a more nuanced view of their feelings towards gun control than polls do.

how would you define assault weapon?

Here is the Pew question in the poll I was thinking of. Total skewage tho

ETA: Oops, edited over my other post. He's saying that laws are written with bans on clip sizes, barrel lengths, caliber, etc etc. You know, totally cosmetic stuff.

An "Assault Weapon" is a Clinton term that's best defined as "Scawwwy looking rifle".

An "Assault Rifle" requires several specific functionalities to meet the distinction, the most important of which is select fire capabilities.

These have been heavily regulated and controlled for over 70 years.

rjoe, what is the functional reason for a short barreled rifle?

Also, gun rights advocates have no specific complaints against clip size regulation.

At what caliber does a gun become dangerous BTW?

.12 gauge imo

The NRA routinely rallies against clip size limitations and has said that high capacity clips are a standard need for self defense.

As for at what caliber a gun becomes dangerous: .09

I've never seen the NRA bitch about clip size limitations.

I think we'd be better off if there were no guns. That's obviously not happening. But why can't we have graduated regulation by level of danger (capacity to kill? Capacity to inflict collateral damage?) Why can't we force people who own guns to be as responsible/knowledgeable as DBJ?

Why are gun people so afraid of the slippery slope?

Then you aren't paying attention.

That's basically the statement they put out after each mass shooting where people bring up banning high capacity clips.

That references magazines, not clips.

It references both.

Which gun has a higher capacity to kill? Inflict Collateral damage? etc. Which of these two do you feel should be banned as an assault rifle?

Exhibit A:




or


Exhibit B:

Dude, don't. Just...don't.

Whoever posted the gun photos,

I have no idea what the answer is. Why is that relevant?

We've already established I don't know very much about specific guns or gun properties.

At what point does a magazine become "high capacity" then?

Just hate discussing these issues with people who use improper vernacular like "clip" and refer to the mythical "Assault Weapons" (rifles with cool GI Joe parts) as "Assault Rifles" (A technical term).

Well they are the exact same gun, but under the Assault Weapons Ban(s) that have been written one is an assault rifle and one isn't. It's relevant in defining an assault rifle. They are both "ranch rifles" anti gun lawmakers say we should be able to keep guns used for hunting purposes(another issue that is a mess). Why do cheap pieces of plastic make a gun "an assault rifle that isn't used for hunting"?

If you're making the case that gun control laws need to make more sense be revisited or whatever you'll get no argument from me.

I'm saying there are no such things as assault rifles available for the Average Joe. We don't need feel good laws that don't accomplish anything but make plastic illegal.

States I'm fine with. Cities, not so much.

Gun laws are already a big enough PITA for those of us who choose to carry without letting every little Podunk city and town get in on the licensing rackets and start putting their own spin on carry laws.

Imagine if every city was allowed to legislate whatever driving laws they desired, possibly even make you take their test to drive through their town (and ring you up for it because you're forced to commute through that city on your way to work.)