@ISIDEWITHQuestions国内政策13yrs ago1 here now

在现有的购买枪支程序上是否应该增加更多限制？

2012年的桑迪胡克小学枪击案造成数州和城市要经过严格的枪支管制措施。对此，在南部和西部枪友好州立法者通过法案，加强坚守阵地法律允许的武器在大多数公共场所。在2014年，21个州通过了扩大的枪支所有者让他们拥有在教堂，酒吧，学校和大学校园枪支权利的法律。联邦政府没有通过任何枪支管制措施，自1994年布雷迪法案和42个国家现在允许突击步枪藏。在美国，三分之二的枪死亡是自杀，并在2010年有19000枪支自杀11000枪支杀人。

+
扩大
+ 设置 x  Mark Meuser

Toggle voterbase

Statistics are shown for this demographic

Expert Pundits

These active users have achieved advanced knowledge of the terminology, history, and legal implications regarding the topic of 枪支管制

@9TYJFHK
#1 Expert Pundit

Informed Voters

These active users have achieved an understanding of common concepts and the history regarding the topic of 枪支管制

@7YS3KJP
#1 Informed Voter
@9T5VWSZ
#2 Informed Voter
@9VSD2QX
#3 Informed Voter

Engaged Voters

These active users have achieved a basic understanding of terms and definitions related to the topic of 枪支管制

@9TRZPBD
#1 Engaged Voter
@9WV4R2H
#2 Engaged Voter
@558YLXV
#3 Engaged Voter
@9TTQ47B
#4 Engaged Voter
@charlroycefle
#5 Engaged Voter
@9TYZ5BK
#6 Engaged Voter
Test Your Knowledge

Answer Overview

Response rates from 1.6k Mark Meuser voters.

51%
是的
49%
不
40%
是的
35%
不
10%
是的，需要严格的背景审查，心理测试和训练
7%
否，仅限于罪犯以及精神病患者
1%
是的，但只是通过关闭枪展的漏洞
4%
否，政府应该通过一项"家园保护"法案
1%
是的，并且禁止一切公共枪支使用
1%
不，但是需要提高有关枪支犯罪的惩罚力度
1%
不，只为攻击武器

Historical Support

Trend of support over time for each answer from 1.6k Mark Meuser voters.

正在载入数据......

Loading chart... 

Historical Importance

Trend of how important this issue is for 1.6k Mark Meuser voters.

正在载入数据......

Loading chart... 

Other Popular Answers

Unique answers from Mark Meuser voters whose views went beyond the provided options.

Latest News

Stay up-to-date on the most recent “Gun Control” news articles, updated frequently.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…7mos7MO

Trump Takes Center Stage at NRA Rally with Bold Promises and Controversial Remarks

At the recent National Rifle Association (NRA) rally in Dallas, former President Donald Trump captured the spotlight with a series of bold promises and controversial remarks that have ignited discussions across the political spectrum. Trump pledged to 'roll back' gun control measures introduced by President Joe Biden and vowed to fire the chief of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) if he returns to office. His speech, while light on new policy details, was heavy on criticism of the current administration's approach to gun laws, positioning himself as a staunch defender of the Second Amendment in the lead-up to the November election.However, Trump's appearance at the NRA event was not without its controversies. A momentary 'freeze' during his speech, lasting over 30 seconds, sparked a flurry of speculation on social media about the former president's health, with some suggesting it was a 'senile brain glitch.' This incident has added fuel to the ongoing debate about the fitness of political leaders for office, particularly among older candidates.Adding to the contentious atmosphere, Trump's verbal attack on President Biden, in which he labeled him as having a 'low IQ,' has been criticized as 'delusional' by some commentators. This personal attack, made during a speech that was supposed to focus on gun rights, has been seen as a diversion from substantive policy discussion, highlighting the increasingly polarized nature of American politics.The NRA rally has thus become a microcosm of the broader political landscape in the United States, with Trump's performance encapsulating the challenges of navigating a deeply divided electorate. His ability to command attention and stir controversy remains undiminished, suggesting that he will continue to be a pivotal figure in American politics as the election season heats up.As the country moves closer to the November elections, the events at the NRA rally underscore the high stakes involved in the debate over gun control, the health and capability of political leaders, and the tone of political discourse. With Trump's remarks and the reactions they have provoked, the stage is set for a contentious run-up to the election, with implications for both domestic policy and the international image of American democracy.