New Poll - US Public Opinion on Gun Control

Post Reply New Topic

YouGov just did a poll in the aftermath of the Elliot Rodger shooting asking about gun control in the US specifically with respect to mental illness and background checks/confiscation.




As demonstrated above, a substantial majority of the US population supports mental and criminal background checks for gun purchases, and a slight majority even supports confiscation from mental ill persons. Even Republicans are strongly in favour (72 percent) of criminal and mental background checks. There is also a small plurality among Republicans in favour of confiscation (40 percent vs. 38 percent opposed).

In comparison, about half of all Americans are in favour of general restrictions on guns, although this masks a sharp partisan divide among Democrats and Republicans.

Sources:
https://today.yougov.com/news/2014/05/3 ... l-illness/
http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/d ... 140528.pdf

The high support for background checks for gun purchases echoes previous findings. In 2013, a Gallup found a 65 percent majority in favour in 2013, while a Quinnipiac poll found a 91 percent majority in favour.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/162083/ameri ... enate.aspx
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-even ... aseID=1877

It should be noted, however, that the specifics of such potential laws remain unknown. Both background checks and confiscations based on prior criminality or mental illness would likely have to specify what crimes/illnesses would bar gun purchases or result in confiscation.

Please discuss.

Last edited by GGPViper on 31 May 2014, 2:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

How do they plan on confiscating the ones the so called mentally ill have?
I went thru the background check and I regularly see a mental health professorial.My therapist
knows I have one,if he is not concerned,than nobody else should be.

For a concealed gun permit ....

My State law for concealed gun permits ...
- applicant has never been subject to an order of involuntary commitment in an inpatient or outpatient setting due to a mental illness
- applicant has not been found guilty but mentally ill of any crime and has not offered a plea of not guilty of, or been acquitted of, any crime by reason of insanity
- applicant does not have a diagnosed mental illness at the time the application is made, regardless of whether he or she is receiving treatment
- applicant does not have a court order of legal incapacity in this state or elsewhere

Federal Law: MCL 28.426, for a Concealed Pistol License requires ...
-applicant has not been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution
-applicant has been not been unlawful user of, or addicted to, any controlled substance, as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)

How would they know you have a diagnosis of mental illness unless you tell them?I don't think they can pry around in medical records.

Therapists are obliged to report those that they consider to be a danger to themselves or others. So, I suppose we could require venders to search and check for that. But that's about all that could be done.

Actually, that's probably not a bad idea.

Polls on this are useless since they're done after a terrible event and most people are ignorant of our current laws, it's basically a push poll. The NICS checks to see if you've been involuntarily committed. Confiscation will never happen, government tracking of private sales will never happen. None of these spree killers would of been stopped by these propose guns laws, they're just the gun grabbers and totalitarian bootlickers backdoor way of disarming the American public.

I'm always leery of poll data on gun control for a number of reasons, namely that many people don't understand that we already have fairly extensive laws in place, that the polls are conducted using only land line phones, which reaches a specific demographic while excluding others, and that people who are willing to answer questions about guns to strangers on the phone are usually not the people that need convincing that gun control is a good idea. Of course in this specific case, California already had all the gun laws these people typically try to push, and this killer complied with all of them, which makes using this attack to try and justify more laws nationally particularly ridiculous.

I didnt even bother to read poll. To be frank, they are becoming rather annoying.

As for the average non-gun owning citizen, so many of them are clueless as to actual gun laws.
They have no frame of reference from which to form an opinion on whether or not we need more/less gun laws.

polls can be set up and run to be bias, you can pick cities you know are more anti gun and phrase the questions to mislead.

most gun shows require background checks on all sales. private sell is person to person but made out to seem like some kinda of drug deal rather then me selling to my friend i've known for most my life.

a news paper in my state posted an article about a poll that was preformed by a antigun agency known to have rigged polls and voter related stuff in other states. The poll said 92% want UBC, the news paper then preformed a open but timed poll of their own, anyone could preform th poll once and it wasn't able to pick their targets, the poll cam out at 72% against, 20% for. I've seen other polls that do this too. so how is it that two polls on the same matter in the same stay can have opposite results? I don't trust polls.
like if I wanted to do a poll to prove my side i'd go and poll republican cities in Texas, Oregon, several south cities,. alot of anti gun polls probably target LA, New york, Chicago, San diago, Seattle, Portland, etc. also the numbers are so low, we polled 1000 people and can safely say that they represent 320million people.

I want to see a poll that talked to at least 100million people then i will be willing to consider they represent the us population.

most people for UBC never read the proposed law, it was a horrible law, not only putting background checks on private sellers, but restricting where you shot, going to a range to let a friend shoot your gun BAD, letting your spouse/gf borrow a gun for portection BAD, having someone have access to a gun in your house for more then 14 days BAD, They tried to cram so much anti gun in the UBC bill that they could and had plans to add more right before it went for the final pass.

in my state, they added unwarranted searches of your house once a yeah, anyone's house not just gun owners. They need to know if you have certain guns and where etc.

so UBC sounds great in name, but in reality its horrible and isn't just a law that says do background check when selling guns. I've talked to some people who think by the way the ubc is talked about that we have no current background check system. that you just walk in plop money down and walk out. Course there's a lot of mislead people who think all guns are registered and you need a permanent, but those people come from California or NY generally and think laws there are nation wide.

same as gun ownership polls and the who saying that all the guns in America are owned by the 7million nra people. most people if called to ask if they own guns well be fearful/like their privacy and say no. I'd tell them no.

Here in Indiana you only have to submit to a background check if you buy a handgun from a dealer. In fact, it is easy to buy one. Retailers such as Dick's, Gander Mountain, Walmart, and Big R all sell firearms. If you purchase a handgun privately or at a gun show, no background checks are required. A conceal and carry license is easy to obtain.
Confiscating firearms would be fruitless. There are too many. People would simply hide them. In fact, after the Sandy Hook shootings sales of AR-15s and other assault rifles increased. Dealers couldn't keep them in stock.
I believe in responsible gun ownership. Owners should be required to attend a firearm safety course and learn how to properly use their weapon. Hunters in Indiana must attend a hunting safety course before they can obtain a hunting license. Firearms and ammunition should be stored in a secure gun safe, unloaded with the safety switch on.
Firearms are not toys. They are dangerous and must be treated with respect.
I have one more point. If you wish to purchase any firearm, buy from a dealer who has a shooting range on site and who offers safety classes. Don's Guns in Indianapolis is such a place.
You members in Europe must be appalled at America's love affair with firearms.

Yeppers, and it was about the same after Obama took office in '09. Millions more AR-15's and AK's (especially the AR's) are in private hands now, driven by people's mistrust of their government.

Me too.

But not this. It opens a pandora's box for more legislation and bureaucracy where it hasn't proven to be needed and would be a further infringement.

I think most states are like that, at least the ones I've lived in. I have no issue with this, but hunting is licensed privilege (like driving) and not a constitutional right.


Not always practical.


Agreed, and this is something I get to deal with firsthand.


Good prices?

Except the ones that leave Europe and move to the US. I once heard a British customer in a gun shop half jokingly say "If you want to know how many limeys there are in your area, just go to a gun shop or shooting range". He did have a good point and they do tend to show up a lot at those places. I do know some people in Europe that hate the gun laws over there.

Polls are often biased to try to get a desired action from the public, for all I know it appears they only polled LA where many of the Demand a Plan People were acting in violent film's.

Being in the immediate aftermath of a well-publicized tragedy certainly skews things as well. A republic cannot function if it is subject to the immediate whims of popular opinion and fickle emotion.

A growing number of people are starting to believe that we need stricter control of medication rather than guns seeing as how ever single mass shooting over the past 10 years has been done by some one on medication rather than the other way around.

Where is the national database of

- applicant has never been subject to an order of involuntary commitment in an inpatient or outpatient setting due to a mental illness
- applicant has not been found guilty but mentally ill of any crime and has not offered a plea of not guilty of, or been acquitted of, any crime by reason of insanity
- applicant does not have a diagnosed mental illness at the time the application is made, regardless of whether he or she is receiving treatment
- applicant does not have a court order of legal incapacity in this state or elsewhere

Federal Law: MCL 28.426, for a Concealed Pistol License requires ...
-applicant has not been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution
-applicant has been not been unlawful user of, or addicted to, any controlled substance, as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)[/quote]


????

Unlawful user of, or addicted to controlled substances does not mean convicted of, or even detained for use of..

I have been in the cracker house 3 times for suicidal bleh, but I am not aware of any database of people who have been in the cracker house.

^I don't think they have one for people that have been hospitalized,they ask if you have been involuntarily committed on the form.I wonder of there is a statute of limitations on that,what if someone was committed years before they apply?