Just got the following as an email from NJ2AS:

 

 

Just a quick note to ask ALL of you to go to this NJ.com poll on whether or not to have more background checks based upon the heinous murders at the Navy Yard.  Clearly, NJ.com is pushing for more gun control and we need to SHUT THIS DOWN!  Just go to:

 

http://www.nj.com/hudson/voices/index.ssf/2013/09/poll_should_the_navy_yard_shoo.html

 

Vote NO! We don't need tougher background checks, we need to keep the Mentally Ill away from ALL weapons!  I've posted a comment below the poll, if you want to "LIKE" it or respond to it. Thanks in advance for taking action & special thanks to Dariusz Bystrowski for encouraging me to send this email! 

 

Vote NO! We don't need tougher background checks, we need to keep the Mentally Ill away from ALL weapons!  I've posted a comment below the poll, if you want to "LIKE" it or respond to it. Thanks in advance for taking action & special thanks to Dariusz Bystrowski for encouraging me to send this email! 

We don't need more background checks (ie universal background checks). But if you wish to "keep the mentally ill away from ALL weapons," wouldn't that imply that we need tougher background checks to prevent said mentally ill people from acquiring the weapon in question?

"Vote early. Vote often"  tsk tsk tsk.............

No  90.33%  (355 votes)  

 

 

Yes  9.67%  (38 votes)  

Did you read how the question was worded?

 

"Aaron Alexis, the shooter in Monday's Navy Yard shootings in Washington, D.C., had a troubled and background that included violent outbursts, yet he was able to purchase the guns used in the massacre, in which he shot and killed 12 people and was then gunned down by police.
He was able to buy the shotgun used in the killings in Virginia using out-of-state identification, but that should have precluded him from buying a handgun."

 

Note that he was able to "purchase the GUNS.....that should have precluded him from BUYING a handgun"...last time I checked, he took the handgun from a security guard after he shot him.

We don't need more background checks (ie universal background checks). But if you wish to "keep the mentally ill away from ALL weapons," wouldn't that imply that we need tougher background checks to prevent said mentally ill people from acquiring the weapon in question?

We don't even need tougher background checks.. The problem in this case (and recent other shootings) is that the data never made it into the system. Gotta fix that.

Why do we think this poll won't end up where all the other polls with pro-gun results go? I've never seen a poll that successfully leaned anti-gun yet they all get buried or disappear.

over 400 votes for no

Links don't work for me. Anyone have a full link?

This last incident indicates to me that background checks are not working. We need law enforcement and the judiciary to prosecute so people who do violent things raise red flags when they go to buy guns or work for the military. No crime is too small except for minor traffic violations. At the very least watch people who do violent things like shoot out other people's tires... or crazy people who say they hear voices (auditory hallucination).

 

I still can't believe this guy got a clearance, when someone who has bad credit will probably be denied.

Just voted at 8:55pm and current totals are No 92% 447 votes and Yes 7.8% 38 votes.

We don't need more background checks (ie universal background checks). But if you wish to "keep the mentally ill away from ALL weapons," wouldn't that imply that we need tougher background checks to prevent said mentally ill people from acquiring the weapon in question?

 

No background check will fix it. 

The problem is too many loonatics are running free, often trusted to keep themselves medicated.

That is what needs to be fixed: mental health system in the USA. 

No background check will fix it.

The problem is too many loonatics are running free, often trusted to keep themselves medicated.

That is what needs to be fixed: mental health system in the USA.

Absolutely +a million.

Just voted.

 

No- 95.1% (757)

 

Yes- 4.9% (39)

Voted yesterday, at the time it was 171 No / 35 Yes , looks like the anti's may have found another outlet

Had the displeasure of waking at 5:30 this morning, about an hour earlier than usual , turned on News 12 NJ just in time to hear the commentator mention that a Rutgers poll showed that 80% of New Jerseyans felt that we needed more gun control

News 12 NJ just in time to hear the commentator mention that a Rutgers poll showed that 80% of New Jerseyans felt that we needed more gun control

 

Could be something related to this: http://eagletonpollblog.wordpress.com/

 

Results are from a poll of 925 New Jersey adults conducted statewide among both landline and cell phone households from Sept 3-9. The poll has a margin of error of +/- 3.2 percentage points.

 

Anyone got a call?

80% may "say" they want more background checks or whatever, but 90% of the people in this state are too lazy to get off their butts and vote, so it's not an issue that they really care one way or the other about.

 

If you ask me what my favorite color is, I may say "blue" (along with many other people) but if the Governor were proposing a bill to pick an official state color, most of us wouldn't give a rat's ass what he did despite the results from the poll.

 

No background check will fix it. 

The problem is too many loonatics are running free, often trusted to keep themselves medicated.

That is what needs to be fixed: mental health system in the USA. 

 

 

Mass shootings can't be "fixed." The are the rarest form of death in the US, accounting for less than 100 people each year. You can't fix something that extremely rare that any person out of 250 million people could just go and do tomorrow. And they have become less and less frequent over the last 20 years.

 

Heck, you can't stop people from shooting heroin into their veins, and that kills tens of thousands of people with millions doing it. To cut heroine use in half would be a miracle. To stop one or two out of three or four people from performing mass murder is not possible. Nothing can be done to even reduce it slightly.

I would disagree. 

3 things can be done: 

1. Improve mental health system. 

2. Stop glorifying mass shootings in mass media. 

3. Remove gun free zones. 

 

Would it guarantee 100% positive outcome?

No, but once we have institutionalized those in need and mass media stops producing celebrities freak "heroes" - chances for mass shootings will go down. Freaks will go out more traditional attention grabbing ways (bridges and tall buildings). 

Gun free zones don't need explanation, it's obvious. 

Another poll result that will never see the light of day, while NJ.com was quick to post the results of a poll purportedly showing that a majority of NJ citizens disapproved of the governor's veto of the recent gun bills.