Reader Poll: PA Split on Guns

GunsThe Keystone State is just about evenly split when it comes to guns.

In the wake of the tragedy in Oregon, we decided to ask our readers whether they would be open to any type of gun control legislation.

Given the divided nature of the commonwealth, it shouldn’t be surprising that the question would prove so divisive.

624 readers said they would never support any such measures.

495 respondents definitely support gun control legislation while 146 readers said it was possible they would.

The full results are included below:

Would You Support Any Type of Gun Control Legislation?


  • Never (49%)
  • Definitely (39%)
  • Possibly (12%)

Total Voters: 1,265

Loading ... Loading ...
 

6 Responses

  1. I agree with Gulag. Step back and think how bizarre the ideas are that have become commonplace for some, such as “Never” supporting any gun control law. There’s no reason, it’s just extremist ideology.

    It may seem more fair if I criticized both sides, but that’s not reality; it would be a false equivalency. Today, clearly one side’s extreme ideologues have far more power and influence.

    (I interpret “Definitely” to mean that they would support some gun control measures.)

  2. Everything after “Shall no be infringed” is unconstitutional if you really hold it up to that measure. However, America has accepted many “common sense” gun laws, such as not being able to order a fully automatic Thompson sub-machine gun through the mail as you could in the 1920’s. Unfortunately, with some 22,000+ gun laws on the books, it is the definition of “common sense” that is under fire. Who defines what is common or sensible? Is it common or sensible for there to be 22,000+ laws and a sickening maze of state by state regulations which can turn a law abiding gun owner into a criminal by crossing a boundary on a map? Perhaps, “Shall not be infringed” was clear, common (to all states), and sensible. For those who will respond about the militia clause, return to grammar class, commas are important, as is the language in common use at the time of its writing. Parsed into modern English, the 2A says: “Because security requires the government to have a standing army, the government may not disarm the people.”

  3. Jared, not every self defense scenario only involves one attacker. Believe it or not sometimes you can miss too, and I know this is hard to believe, but sometimes it takes more than one hit to stop an attacker.

    Why do you *need* a high speed internet connection, a Dial up connection is all you need to use your freedom of speech and browse news sites.

  4. I’ve got something very specific. What can you do with a dozen bullets that cannot be done with one?

  5. Both extremes are wrong. There is nothing that absolute about a gun control measure; it all depends on the specifics. Only the 12% are really thinking.

Comments are closed.

Email:
  • Best Cheesesteak in Philly


    • They Ain't Listed Here (33%)
    • Dalessandro’s Steaks and Hoagies (29%)
    • Pat's King of Steaks (9%)
    • John's Roast Pork (9%)
    • Steve's Prince of Steaks (9%)
    • Tony Luke's (6%)
    • Geno's Steaks (4%)

    Total Voters: 232

    Loading ... Loading ...
Continue to Browser

PoliticsPA

To install tap and choose
Add to Home Screen