Prøv den politiske quiz

0 Svar

 @8LBV9PGfra Maine besvarede…3 år3Y

 @ISIDEWITHspurgt…5mos5MO

Reflekter over et øjeblik, du eller en, du kender, blev påvirket af våbenvold – hvordan formede det dit syn på våbenkontrol?

 @ISIDEWITHspurgt…5mos5MO

Mener du, at den nuværende våbenuddannelse og -træning er tilstrækkelig, og hvordan kan de spille en rolle i våbenrelaterede hændelser?

 @ISIDEWITHspurgt…5mos5MO

Hvordan kan ændringer i våbenlovgivningen påvirke samfund forskelligt afhængigt af deres socioøkonomiske eller geografiske karakteristika?

 @ISIDEWITHspurgt…5mos5MO

Hvad er dine tanker om våbens kulturelle betydning i det amerikanske samfund og dets indvirkning på våbenlovgivningen?

 @ISIDEWITHspurgt…5mos5MO

Hvordan vil du foreslå at balancere rettighederne til det andet ændringsforslag med det mål at reducere antallet af våbendødsfald, især selvmord?

 @ISIDEWITHspurgt…5mos5MO

Hvad er dit syn på brugen af skydevåben til selvforsvar kontra de potentielle risici, de udgør for samfundet?

 @ISIDEWITHspurgt…5mos5MO

Hvordan mener du, at forholdet mellem mental sundhed og adgang til skydevåben bør behandles i våbenlovgivningen?

 @ISIDEWITHspurgt…5mos5MO

Kan du dele en historie eller en følelse, der fanger dit perspektiv på, om strengere våbenlovgivning ville få dig til at føle dig mere eller mindre sikker?

 @ISIDEWITHspurgt…5mos5MO

På hvilke måder tror du, at tilstedeværelsen af et skydevåben ændrer dynamikken i almindelige omgivelser som skoler, kirker eller barer?

 @ISIDEWITHspurgt…5mos5MO

Hvordan kan personlige erfaringer med sikkerhed, eller mangel på samme, påvirke nogens holdning til våbenejerskab?

 @2HWS9GZfra California besvarede…3 år3Y

 @2HWR376fra Ohio besvarede…3 år3Y

Gun control is simple: keep them out of the hands of convicted felons and the mentally ill. Banning guns from public use entirely puts them in the hands of the government, which is a dangerous and frightening situation. The mentally ill should not be allowed to possess a gun, no matter how much progress they have made through therapy and/or medication, due to the potential of relapse. Convicted felons should not allowed guns for obvious reasons, as they could potentially commit more crimes. "Stand Your Ground" laws, in principle, are good, but can be used for the wrong purpose.

 @2HWPC26fra South Carolina besvarede…3 år3Y

Felons with a violent history should not be able to own guns, however, guns should be allowed in stores, schools, etc. for safety purposes

 @2HWKZK3fra New York besvarede…3 år3Y

what gives someone the right to control what another holds? who has a right to say do not touch that plant, rock, metal, chemical, on their own land. but in public areas this is reasonable. transportation between places should be as free as possible so long as no crimes using the guns are committed.

 @2HW7TN9fra Florida besvarede…3 år3Y

No, only for mental health patients who are considered dangerous and not your typical mother who happens to take Paxil! Convicted felons fall under a laws that were created a century ago when $500.00 was considered a lot of money. They have constitutional rights just like anyone else and should not be tried again daily once they have paid their debt to society!

 @2HV54R3fra California besvarede…3 år3Y

More control but also harsher penalties for gun-related crimes as well as accidents that result because of negligence

 @clj8456polfra California besvarede…3 år3Y

2nd amendment should be repealed and states given the power to legislate gun ownership regulations according to their respective cultures.

 @2HTVWGGfra Michigan besvarede…3 år3Y

I'd like to shoot the person in the leg who included this question. I think the government should actually intervene on this one. Normally I don't want the government to assist but this time? Yes.

The government should GIVE every american a hand gun and a rifle upon their 21st birthday as long as the person is willing to take gun safety classes and demonstrates no past history of mental illness.

Free guns for all americans.

 @2HT9HPWfra Wisconsin besvarede…3 år3Y

Yes, because as the 2nd amendment states, guns are for a well regulated militia ready to take up arms against a threat to the country. Most people do not meet this qualifications, and we already have this in the form of police and the army.

 @2HT2VY5fra Indiana besvarede…3 år3Y

No. Assault weapons is a meaningless phrase used to describe scary looking guns. There are plenty of regulations against automatic weapons.

 @2HT2STPfra Texas besvarede…3 år3Y

No. Criminals ignore them. Kill the controls on the books and get back to Constitutional government.

 @2HSZL7Nfra Michigan besvarede…3 år3Y

 @2HSGC6Qfra District of Columbia besvarede…3 år3Y

Gun control might be a good idea but doing it by working around the 2nd amendment only weakens all liberties. If GC is good, first revoke 2nd amendment.

 @2HSFWGGfra New Jersey besvarede…3 år3Y

 @2HSC4B7fra North Carolina besvarede…3 år3Y

Abolish military grade weaponry outside of active U.S. combat personnel (including assault weapons). Don't ban guns period from public use (doing so I think is unconstitutional); local militias not on federal watch lists should be unhindered by federal and state law enforcement. Annual psychological testing and check-up training must be mandatory.

 @2HS4SSNfra California besvarede…3 år3Y

Absolutely, the 1st Amendment is not specific and was never intended to include today's weapons; machine guns et al. The amendment must be interpreted to today's issues, just as others have been.

 @2HRN7GQfra Texas besvarede…3 år3Y

Require manufacturer to track weapons from cradle to grave. Increase penalties for gun related crimes. Increase personal accountability for gun possession.

 @2HRLNY9fra Wisconsin besvarede…3 år3Y

I think that there should be a constitutional amendment that gives Congress more flexibility when it comes to gun control legislation. The weapons during the time of the Founders and the weapons of today are very different. I suspect they would have chosen their wording differently had they envisioned the weaponry we have today.

Also, I think gun control laws should primarily be handled at the state or local level. Owning a powerful rifle may make sense on a ranch in a Western state, but probably not a good idea to be tagging one along in the middle of a heavily populated urban area.

 @2HRJ9GPfra New York besvarede…3 år3Y

Yes, but in the form of higher taxes and regulations for corporations in the gun and ammunition industry.

 @2HP84QKfra Washington besvarede…3 år3Y

 @2HN36VBfra Pennsylvania besvarede…3 år3Y

enforce laws on the books already, add them to all sale of guns, ban assault weapons and ban parading around looking like Rambo

 @2HN34RLfra Virginia besvarede…3 år3Y

No, but make the existing laws, count. Health issues should be enough to prevent any one from getting a permit to carry arms.

 @2HMX9TSRepublikanskefra Connecticut besvarede…3 år3Y

Yes, but banning individuals with "mental health issues" specifically from owning guns increases the stigma around these illnesses; we need to limit the sale and use of firearms for everyone and stop conflating mental issues with gun violence.

 @2HKDHTPfra Oregon besvarede…3 år3Y

No, there is zero evidence that increasing regulations on sales and ownership of firearms reduces the crime rates. Get tougher on violations of existing law.

 @2HHWDXYfra Arkansas besvarede…3 år3Y

Yes, but the problem needs to be attacked from multiple angles, including reducing poverty and increasing social programs to reduce and prevent gang violence

 @2HH8HKYfra Illinois besvarede…3 år3Y

I feel gun control is largely a measure by which to protect mostly white upper-middle class citizens from what they feel to be lower-class, minority-driven disorder. I do not underestimate the danger of gun violence at schools and other public places (such as theaters). But I feel these incidents reflect less a problem with guns and more a problem with mental health and the poor quality of mental healthcare in this country. Gun violence is incidental to that. Spending on healthcare should be the priority, not necessarily greater gun restrictions. I do support strict surveillance and controls…  Læs mere

 @2H9G9S9fra Kentucky besvarede…3 år3Y

Most people with guns will let their 3 year olds shoot them in Kentucky and that is not safe at all.
Plus people don't really need to hunt these days to survive. Animals are going endangered because of a sport. If someone needs to hunt in order to live they need to get someone to check their location and if they are isolated from any markets etc then they can hunt and use a gun. Other wise no.

 @2GW2TJGSocialistiskefra Missouri besvarede…3 år3Y

We have a tremendous gun control problem in this country but more than that we have a huge mental health problem in this country. The availability of guns to children and the mentally unstable is ludicrous. Though I would prefer an existence in which guns do not exist, PERIOD. I feel certain that if they were banned entirely only criminals would have guns. Take into consideration The attack on Charlie in Paris in January 2015, Mohammad Mehra in Toulousse and the attack on the Jewish school and Anders Breviak and the death of 79 people, mostly children, in Norway.

 @2GTLMQ8Liberalfra Mississippi besvarede…3 år3Y

No, and eliminate all laws, federal, state and municipal restricting the ownership and carrying of weapons. Any convictions resulting from non-violent and non-negligent gun association should be vacated, and any public official advocating for gun control should be censured, and eligible for impeachment for infringing on the constitutional rights of their constituents.
There is absolutely no legitimate or honest interest in government regulation or restriction of the right for citizens to defend themselves, their families, and their property by any means that they wish.

 @2GT9ZL8Liberalfra Texas besvarede…3 år3Y

I don't support increased gun control, but developing a more intensive screening process to hopefully limit those who really shouldn't have their hands on a weapon could be helpful. Yes, it'd make things more tedious, but law abiding citizens who want to keep their rights will go through with the thorough screening and training. Even if guns become outlawed, there will still be those who do not follow the law and what are their would be victims supposed to do? The police and designated individuals who have permits can't be everywhere at once and innocent blood will be shed either way.

 @2GQV8TVfra New York besvarede…3 år3Y

It is our God-given right to own a firearm. The federal government cannot and will not take my right to own a gun.

 @2GMSCWYfra Pennsylvania besvarede…3 år3Y

How many more Sandy Hooks do we need before we ban all guns. No one needs to hunt--grocery stores have enough for everyone. People should be forced to cities form the rural areas where the animals should be allowed to live unmolested. Federal game officers can manage dangerous animals that wander into the city.

 @2GMS4LFfra Alabama besvarede…3 år3Y

No, and repeal the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Federal Firearms Act of 1938, the Gun Control Act of 1968 and any other acts; the country did just fine following the Constitution prior to those Acts and they have caused more problems than they have solved.

 @2GKLQJBfra Pennsylvania besvarede…3 år3Y

End poverty and american paranoia, racism and homophobia, guns would not be such a big deal.

 @N9X7T3 fra Texas besvarede…3 år3Y

Cars kill more people AND can kill more people maliciously than guns. We make you get a license to get a car. Put some educational requirements and educate EVERY american on guns to take the "video game" nature out of the deadly tool. Be a parent, don't make the government do your job, lazy ***

Engagement

Den historiske aktivitet for brugere, der beskæftiger sig med dette question .

Indlæser data...

Indlæser diagram... 

Demographics

Indlæser de politiske temaer for brugere, der engagerede sig i denne diskussion

Indlæser data...