It’s very vague. What’s a “background check”? If someone asked me if I “support background checks” I’d probably say yes, thinking they meant the existing system of background checks currently required by all gun dealers.
That’s a lot different from the proposals to force background checks to all private transfers between individuals. This could include fees every time there is a transfer. It could also include transfers among family members that would criminalize a lot of people. It’s also impossible to enforce without a national gun registry.
It’s not very hard to google this sort of thing. PollingReport.com is a nice one-stop shop.
ABC News/Washington Post Poll. March 7-10, 2013. N=1,001 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.5.
Would you support or oppose a law requiring background checks on people buying guns at gun shows?" Support: 91%/Oppose 8%
Quinnipiac University. Feb. 27-March 4, 2013. N=1,944 registered voters nationwide. Margin of error ± 2.2.
"Do you support or oppose requiring background checks for all gun buyers?"88/10
Pew Research Center/USA Today. Feb. 13-18, 2013. N=1,504 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 2.9.
"Making private gun sales and sales at gun shows subject to background checks"83/15
CBS News Poll. Feb. 6-10, 2013. N=1,148 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.
"Do you favor or oppose a federal law requiring background checks on all potential gun buyers?"91/7
Quinnipiac University. Jan. 30-Feb. 4, 2013. N=1,772 registered voters nationwide. Margin of error ± 2.3.
"Do you support or oppose requiring background checks for all gun buyers?"92/7
Gallup Poll. Jan. 19-20, 2013. N=1,013 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 4.
“Require criminal background checks for all gun sales” 91/8
Civil rights should never be subject to popular vote.
(Not that I agree with this sentiment, but it seems to be gospel hereabouts.)
(And lest I seem to be contradicting an argument you were making, I know you were only responding to the request for a cite, which you did provide admirably. I just didn’t want to pass up the opportunity to deliver that line.)
Who has denied the existence of the types of claims that you were referring to in the OP? Various such claims were certainly made by various people in various contexts. However, if you’re going to start a thread to seriously debate such claims (as opposed to just taunting or gloating or what have you), it is incumbent to give some examples of PRECISELY the claims you’re talking about, made by whom. Otherwise, what can we really debate?
I have gone on hunting trips where bringingmy gun was useful
If they tried what they did without Newton I would have been pissed. It would be like campaigning on fiscal issues and then spending all your time banning abortion.
It’s possible to discuss the mood, the impression, the general drift, associated with the various types of claims without a word-by-word analysis of each claim.
So what principle are you trying to defend here? Once again you make no sense. Should Democrats ignore the will of the people? Are Republicans fools for not doing so? Or is this just another attempt at liberal-baiting that falls flat on it’s face by lacking facts and reasonable conclusions?
Secondly, it’s tough to tell exactly because there are undoubtedly changes over time of the polls, but it’s seems clear that there is a huge ignorance factor here. People being asked the question “Would you support or oppose a law requiring background checks on people buying guns at gun shows” might not know that there already is a law requiring this from gun dealers at gun shows. I’m not surprised that one is high.
The slightly better worded question “Making private gun sales and sales at gun shows subject to background checks” gets a lower level of support because it’s more clear they are talking about private sales. But even still I’d guess that less than half of people even know the difference.
If they asked a well worded question (which none of those you cite are) the response would be much lower. Something like “Do you support background checks for all gun sales sales, including sales that aren’t from gun dealers such as occasional transfers between family members and friends?” This would be more honest about what’s actually being discussed and would get a much lower response.
So, your point is that you wanted to get in some unrelated dig in at some other bugaboo of yours?
You’re actually not the first conservative to say the same thing in response to a cite on polling results regarding firearms, even when the rationale for providing the information is crystal clear. Desperate times, I guess.
shrug the politicians are smart enough to figure out that 92% of the poplulation isn’t going to let their vote on the UBC be a significant factor in the next election. The 8% that oppose it though … they’ll probably remember. In other words, support for UBC might be broad, but it’s shallow. Opposition may be narrow, but it’s deep and profound.
No, you don’t need “a word-by-word analysis of each claim.”
But without any actual examples at all, all you have is hand-waving.
Here’s a summary of your OP:
“Here’s what I think they more or less said, and I sorta think they said it at these times, but I can’t say that with any accuracy, and they were saying something else even before they went against what they had been saying, but they obviously never meant it in the first place, because they changed. I think we ought to have a serious debate about this.”
I’ve bought many guns and always have had a background check done. Tens of thousands of background checks fail and prevent guns from being sold to people.
Could it be enforced better? Sure, especially regarding straw buyers. The justice department and the BAFT have proven to be incredibly incompetent regarding firearms issues.
I’m all for fixing that. But that’s an executive matter. It doesn’t require new legislation. It just requires leadership.
Now that this thread has moved onto Background Checks - when will the police start arresting all of those trying to illegally purchase a firearm?
Can we assume that those 94,000 were arrested? Each one gave an address, a thumbprint, etc.
I have to compliment California - they at least put some resources behind picking up guns in the possession of those no longer legally allowed to own them:
You’d think the government would go after low hanging fruit like this before passing new laws to add to the ranks of the tens of thousands of people who are violating gun laws yet aren’t arrested for lack of resources.