These polls assume that the public knows what our gun laws actually are. They have been fed lies about non-existent "loopholes" in gun laws, among other fantasies. I suspect most people would be satsified with the gun laws we actually have.

>In fact, gun owners (like the general population) are heavily in favor of increasing gun control, especially things like closing loopholes in background check laws[1].

The reason that gun owners are in practice against this, of course, is that implementation of these has consequences like "you have to waive HIPAA rights to pass your background check" (WA).

I'm unconvinced that being in favor of an idea, but against the bad-faith compromises that always seem to come with it, qualifies as "extreme".

Appreciate the adding of the link. I feel that saying they're heavily in favor of increasing gun control," - is a bit misleading - although I don't feel that is intentional.

While technically true, according to this poll of 5,000 people, I think many may read 'gun control' in different ways, and do not think it's fair to the average person who would believe what they read at face value.

For example, this poll suggests a majority of the dems and repubs are in favor of "preventing those with mental illnesses from purchasing guns " and what the article says is "subjecting private gun sales and gun show sales to background checks"

But if you look at the question they asked: "Making private gun sales and sales at gun shows subject to background checks"

This is not exactly the same terminology.

I wish the question was broken up into three parts.. and I feel that a lot of repubs would go along with this answer in the poll for a few reasons, including that it's already understood that you go through background check when you buy at gun shows.. and the 'law and order' groups are likely to not give a fudge if people who could not pass a check do not get one.

Where it would be even more different is if they said 'all private transfers' (I think Wash State did something like this a while back or similar?) - I doubt most people are on board driving an hour to do a background check on uncle Bill to let him use a family shotgun for the weekend..

But anyhow - I find it a tough sell when I hear folks like Shumer say 'a majority are in favor of more gun control' - and to have many believe the words coming his mouth to mean something.. when more accurately he could say 'a majority of Americans are in favor of "Preventing people with mental illnesses from purchasing guns" -

which sounds a bit different, and then it begs more questions about like - someone who has a mental breakdown this week.. or someone who's gotten X or Y drug for the last 10 years or what does that really mean, and what about starting a national DB of all people who have met with a counselor.. and what that path looks like.

I really think we all need to change the term gun control and get more accurate descriptors to use... preventing subsections of people from buying them? preventing certain types? confiscation?

I wish we would all be more specific, as this is leading a lot of people into believing that 'hope and change' is a thing when really, unless you confiscate, none of that other stuff is going to reduce the millions on the streets.. so you might not want to be restricted in what you can get in the future. For some folks maybe not - there are absolutists who think 1 less on the street makes everyone safer. I myself think it depends on the 1 and depends on the street.

[actual poll questions] https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/wp-content/uploads/site... - Glad they are this transparent.

Oh, how could I forget about the fall of Hong Kong?

"An unarmed people are slaves, or are subject to slavery at any given moment." —Huey P Newton

The holocaust is a good example.

It is difficult for governments to commit large scale atrocities without the consent of the governed unless those so governed are first disarmed.

A more modern example was the prohibition of the free movement of the Australian population during covid. Australians were held prisoner by the state and were not permitted to leave.