CNN / ORC Poll: Existing Gun laws

[jackandjill 683]

From CNN recent polls. In summary, (I am going to generalize here), population that is least interested in firearms, typically do not go through the process themselves,  says the current laws are too easy.  

 

This should also provide some insight into where organizations should focus on .

 

 

 

Love how CNN tries hard to spin the percentages in anti direction. 

 

 

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/14/politics/cnn-poll-guns-immigration-abortion-2016/index.html

 

 

 

 

 

These mixed overall views mask sharp divides by sex, partisanship, age and urbanity. Among women, 52% say the current laws make it too easy to buy a gun, while just 30% of men agree. Two-thirds of Republicans, 65%, think current laws are about right, just 28% of Democrats agree. And a majority of seniors, 51%, say it's too easy to get a gun, while only 37% of those under age 50 think the same. Urban residents are more apt than suburbanites or rural residents to say it's too easy to get a gun, 46% who live in urban areas say that compared with 40% in the suburbs and 37% in rural areas.

At the same time, many express doubts that expanded gun laws would be able to prevent those with mental health problems from buying guns (44% see that as likely, 56% unlikely), or that such laws would keep guns out of the hands of convicted criminals (42% say that's likely, 58% unlikely). But most also say it wouldn't necessarily make it harder for a law-abiding citizen without mental health problems to buy one, 57% say it's unlikely to do that.

Even among those who say it is now too easy to buy a gun, just small majorities believe that implementing more comprehensive background checks for all gun purchases would be likely to stop gun purchases by the mentally ill (53%) or convicted criminals (55%).

[mipafox 438]

Go through the process? This is a national poll. There is no process in most of the country. Just for perspective.

[1LtCAP 4,264]

From CNN recent polls. In summary, (I am going to generalize here), population that is least interested in firearms, typically do not go through the process themselves,  says the current laws are too easy.  

 

This should also provide some insight into where organizations should focus on .

 

 

 

Love how CNN tries hard to spin the percentages in anti direction. 

 

 

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/14/politics/cnn-poll-guns-immigration-abortion-2016/index.html

 

 

 

 

 

These mixed overall views mask sharp divides by sex, partisanship, age and urbanity. Among women, 52% say the current laws make it too easy to buy a gun, while just 30% of men agree. Two-thirds of Republicans, 65%, think current laws are about right, just 28% of Democrats agree. And a majority of seniors, 51%, say it's too easy to get a gun, while only 37% of those under age 50 think the same. Urban residents are more apt than suburbanites or rural residents to say it's too easy to get a gun, 46% who live in urban areas say that compared with 40% in the suburbs and 37% in rural areas.

At the same time, many express doubts that expanded gun laws would be able to prevent those with mental health problems from buying guns (44% see that as likely, 56% unlikely), or that such laws would keep guns out of the hands of convicted criminals (42% say that's likely, 58% unlikely). But most also say it wouldn't necessarily make it harder for a law-abiding citizen without mental health problems to buy one, 57% say it's unlikely to do that.

Even among those who say it is now too easy to buy a gun, just small majorities believe that implementing more comprehensive background checks for all gun purchases would be likely to stop gun purchases by the mentally ill (53%) or convicted criminals (55%).

perhaps if as much effort were put into educating these groups of people on the laws as is being put into the recall effort.....there would be no need for a recall, as those people would then vote the schmucks out.

[mikelets456 78]

CNN topic:

"A congressional fight looms over funding for Planned Parenthood following the release this summer of several secretly recorded, heavily edited videos of Planned Parenthood employees discussing the sale of fetal tissue for scientific research, but the new CNN/ORC Poll shows the public would much rather continue funding Planned Parenthood than face a government shutdown."

 

So let me get this straight---this is either a FLAT out lie or our country has completely gone dark. First off, how is the video heavily edited? It's 44 minutes (9 separate videos) of RAW video and they're selling parts of children. This should be an open and shut, good vs evil, life vs murder case---but it's not---why? Heck, I don't even care about the "making money" part, it's the dismembered parts of little children and media, politicians and some Americans are accepting this??? Seeing body parts of innocent children scattered across a table should wake anyone up to the demise of our society and country.

Secondly, this is why I don't plan to watch the debate---my guess is the BIASED questions will be something like this: "we know guns kill innocent children and puppies, so why do you support the NRA and gun rights"? 

"You hate women, gays and minorities because you steal money and exploit them---why"?

 

These sites are so biased it makes me sick---the politicians bother me, but I feel media and their deception and refusal to do their job has done even more damage to this great nation.Sorry, rant over---not watching this biased circus.

[The brew guy 22]

 

 First off, how is the video heavily edited? It's 44 minutes (9 separate videos) of RAW video,

Actually, the editing was pretty poorly done and the group that made the video was called on it right away. They later released the unedited version that is 2 hours, 42 minutes and 22 seconds long. By editing out 3 out of 4 sentences, you can make it look like someone said just about anything.

 

 Heck, I don't even care about the "making money" part,

That's good, because if you want them to make a profit, they're doing it all wrong.

In fact, I found a snippet on the subject. "... presidential candidate, retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson, called the practice discussed in the video a “clear violation of federal law.” The “sale” of organs, both adult and fetal, for transplantation is indeed illegal, but donation of tissue — both from aborted fetuses and from adults — is not. And payment for “reasonable” costs is also allowed under the law."

From what I've found, the going "reasonable cost" for human tissue in general seems to be substantially higher than the $30-100 mentioned in the video. Reasonable cost refers to the the expenses related to storage, transportation and record keeping. A couple sources quoted costs of up to $500. If planned parenthood was charging "market rate," they'd probably need a lot less funding.