Try the political quiz
@B8ZT7T4 Agreements6mos ago

It's easy for almost anyone to just walk into a store and purchase a gun, making it all too simple for them to hurt others

+
Expand

Knowledge quiz

How much do you know about Domestic Policy?

See if you know more than the average American.

Test your knowledge!

14 Replies

 @B939BG9Independent from Arizona  disagreed…6mos6MO

No matter how much a government can try to restrict or ban firearms of any kind violence is not preventable. Take for example shinzo abe. In Japan almost no gun ownership, yet his assassin still made a gun And managed to kill him. What we need to think about is the person not the weapon. A gun it's self will not kill a person will. My solution a stronger build on community, more in depth background check and a requirement to lock firearms in safe.

 @B926XXK from Washington  disagreed…6mos6MO

This is patently false. Every single person in America must undergo a federal background check when buying a firearm from a licensed dealer (the licensing process is also highly regulated). In addition, many citizens must undergo parallel (and redundant) background checks as dictate by their states and mandatory waiting times.

 @B926XXK from Washington  disagreed…6mos6MO

This statement is patently false. If one tries to buy a firearm at a gun store, one must undergo a federal background check and, in many cases, abide with parallel and redundant state background checks and waiting periods.

 @B938V3TDemocrat from Pennsylvania  agreed…6mos6MO

It's easy for almost anyone to just walk into a store and purchase a gun, making it all too simple for them to hurt others.

 @B92XSLG from California  agreed…6mos6MO

Yes, this is mostly true. I think we need to get rid of the flow of illegal guns into the country first and foremost, then put a few more checks into place before someone purchases a gun here.

 @B92KL99 from Illinois  agreed…6mos6MO

I agree with this comment about Gun Control. There are very light laws about how gun control is supposed to be and how to purchase guns.

 @B927CC6 from Arizona  agreed…6mos6MO

I think it shouldn't be so easy to get a gun, since it harms others, that's true, but besides that, there's also a lot of corruption and crime.

 @B925WCWWomen’s Equality from Michigan  agreed…6mos6MO

I do agree, which is why I think ther there should be regulations and background checks on individuals buying guns.

 @B923VSQDemocrat from Pennsylvania  agreed…6mos6MO

I agree 100%. We should make every man trying to buy a gun need all the same amount of papers a women needs to get a abortion.

 @B9223MK from New York  agreed…6mos6MO

I agree, all you have to do is be 18 years of age, and you're eligible to receive a firearm. There are certainly not enough precautions in place regarding gun control. People should be checked if they're mentally fit to own a firearm and required to state the EXACT reason they need it.

 @B8ZY8TV from Iowa  agreed…6mos6MO

I agree, they need way more background checks before being able to purchase. A lot of these people who are doing school shootings have issues, and they shouldn't be allowed a gun. If they are kids then their parents need to properly lock them up or hide them.

 @B8ZXCD9Democrat from Utah  agreed…6mos6MO

So many crazy and not in control people go and buy guns and there is never a good outcome with that. I think there should be more security when buying a gun and they find out more about the person and the state that they are in.

 @B8ZWXR9 from Rhode Island  agreed…6mos6MO

I agree with this comment. It is way too easy for anyone to purchase a gun and it can harm many people.

 @B8ZXHZ4  from Pennsylvania  agreed…6mos6MO

No, I disagree with the comment on gun control.

Stricter regulations often fail to stop criminals while burdening law-abiding citizens, as evidenced by states with permissive carry laws experiencing stable or declining violent crime rates.

Demographics

Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion

Loading data...

About this author

Learn more about the author that submitted this agreement.

@B8ZT7T4

Last activeActivity3 discussionsInfluence1 engagementsEngagement bias42%Audience bias91%Active in
Counter Arguments  2 Disagreements  2 Agreements  1
PartyUndeclaredLocationUnknown

More conversations

Join in on more popular conversations.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…2yrs2Y

Israeli Bombings Kill 2,300 In Lebanon in 3 weeks

Lebanese authorities say Israeli bombing has killed more than 2,300 people and injured almost 11,000, mostly in the past three weeks, with Israeli attacks reaching areas far beyond Hizbollah’s traditional bastions of support in the south.The Israeli military has ordered people living in more than a quarter of Lebanon to flee, according to a UN calculation, as its fight with the Iran-backed Shia militant group Hizbollah threatens to engulf the Mediterranean country.Lebanese authorities say Israeli bombing has killed more than 2,300 people and injured almost 11,000, mostly in the past three weeks, with Israeli attacks reaching areas far beyond Hizbollah’s traditional bastions of support in the south.More than 1mn people have fled their homes in Lebanon in under a month, according to its government, a dramatic forced movement of the population in a country of only about 5mn inhabitants with a land mass smaller than the US state of Connecticut. Israeli forces began a ground offensive in south Lebanon two weeks ago, in their fourth invasion of the country in under five decades. They had already destroyed large parts of the densely populated southern Beirut suburb where Hizbollah had its headquarters, and killed many top militant commanders in air strikes, including former leader Hassan Nasrallah.Rema Jamous Imseis, Middle East director of UNHCR, told journalists in Geneva that “over 25 per cent of [Lebanon is] under a direct Israeli military evacuation order”. “People are heeding these calls to evacuate and they’re fleeing with almost nothing,” she added, saying that 80 per cent of the shelters opened by the Lebanese government — mostly in schools — were now full.

▲  1012 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…2yrs2Y

A Moment of Darkness': Washington Post's No-Endorsement Decision Ignites Media Firestorm

Even though the presidential race between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris is neck and neck, The Washington Post has decided not to make a presidential endorsement for the first time in 36 years, the publisher and CEO announced Friday."We are returning to our roots of not endorsing presidential candidates," Will Lewis wrote in an opinion piece published on the paper's website. He referenced the paper's policy in the decades prior to 1976, when, following the Watergate scandal that the Post broke, it endorsed Democratic nominee Jimmy Carter. The last time the Post did not endorse a presidential candidate in the general election was 1988, according to a search of its archives.Colleagues learned the news from the editorial page editor, David Shipley, at a tense meeting shortly before Lewis' announcement. The meeting was characterized by someone with direct knowledge of discussions on condition of anonymity to speak about internal matters.Shipley said that he told other editorial board leaders Thursday by management that there would be no endorsement, though he has known for weeks. He added that he "owns" this decision. The reason he cited was to create "independent space" where the newspaper does not tell people for whom to vote.Colleagues were said to be "shocked" and uniformly negative. Post corporate spokespeople have not responded to multiple messages left by NPR on the subject.Former Washington Post Executive Editor Martin Baron, who led the newsroom to acclaim during Trump's presidency, denounced the decision starkly."This is cowardice, a moment of darkness that will leave democracy as a casualty," Baron said in a statement to NPR. "Donald Trump will celebrate this as an invitation to further intimidate The Post’s owner, Jeff Bezos (and other media owners). History will mark a disturbing chapter of spinelessness at an institution famed for courage."A similar decision by Los Angeles Times owner Patrick Soon-Shiong led this week to the resignations of the paper's editorials editor and two editorial board members. Soon-Shiong said that he had asked the editorial board to draft a "factual analysis" of Trump and Harris' policies and plans. In her resignation letter, editorials editor Mariel Garza said the decision made the paper look “craven and hypocritical,” given its past reporting and editorials on Trump.

▲  1013 replies