Skip to main content

Who else supports expanding background checks? Gun dealers...

Results from a 2011 gun dealer-gun control survey conducted by the University of California-Davis Violence Prevention Research Team were reported this week and will soon be published in the Journal of Urban Health.

The survey found some interesting results with regard to gun dealers' views on expanding background checks. While approximately 90% of the public supports such legislation, it was largely unknown until now what gun dealers thought on the matter. According to this survey, it appears as if gun dealers are nearly as supportive of such legislation as the general public.

According to this survey, gun dealers support the following reasons for denying gun sales based on background checks:

- Armed robber: 99.3%

- Aggravated assault, involving a lethal weapon or serious injury: 99.1%

- Serious mental illness, with a history of violence: 98.9%

- Serious mental illness, with a history of alcohol or drug abuse: 97.4%

- Serious mental illness, but no violence or alcohol or drug abuse: 91.2%

- Alcohol abuse, with repeated cases of alcohol-related violence: 90.1%

- Publicly displaying a firearm in a threatening manner: 84.8%

- Possession of equipment for illegal drug use: 80.7%

- Assault and battery on an intimate partner/domestic violence: 79.6%

- Alcohol abuse, with repeated cases driving under the influence or similar offenses: 70.7%

- Assault/battery, not involving a lethal weapon or serious injury: 67.4%

- Resisting arrest: 53.1%

So, there we have it. Polls have shown that approximately 90% of the general public supports expanding background checks, around 75% of NRA members do as well, and even a large majority of gun dealers back such legislation. Your move, Congress...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/26/gun-dealers-support-background-checks_n_3986380.html

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun...

Mentioned on Crooks and Liars and Hinterland Gazette!

Due to some tweets of mine, I got mentioned on the following two sites (all my tweets can be viewed here -  https://twitter.com/CraigRozniecki ): https://crooksandliars.com/2019/04/trump-gives-stupid-advice-george https://hinterlandgazette.com/2019/03/istandwithschiff-is-trending-after-donald-trump-led-gop-attack-on-adam-schiff-backfires-spectacularly.html

Face guarding is legal in college football and the NFL

I just wanted to remind fans and announcers especially, that face guarding is legal in both college football and the NFL. It all comes down to contact. So long as a defender doesn't make contact with an intended receiver, he doesn't have to turn around to play the ball. I can't tell you how many times every week I hear announcers talk about face guarding being a penalty. It's not. I even heard one announcer yesterday state, "If the defender doesn't turn around and play the ball, the ref will call pass interference every time." That's simply not true. Courtesy of referee Bill LeMonnier, he says this with regard to the rule at the college level (answered on 8/12/13): "NCAA rules on pass interference require the face guarding to have contact to be a foul. No contact, no foul by NCAA rules." In the NFL rule book, this is written:  "Actions that constitute defensive pass interference include but are not limited to: (a) Contact by a ...