Some musings:
I can't help but notice how loaded these kind of questions are. I mean, I am sure we all can agree that there is a problem in this country with thugs and crazies having guns. Unless you are actively involved in the issue, though, that is what a reasonable person would assume "gun control" means. Those of us more politically astute know the real meaning of the term, however.
It stands to reason that many people who would be against most of the current legislative efforts - if they only knew the real story - would vote that the US needs more gun control. Heck, I almost did. The US DOES need more gun control. Just not the kind the Antis like. We need good solid databases of thugs and crazies and better financed education programs about gun security (states governments should help finance Eddie Eagle and such in the schools, IMO). This would improve the instant check system and reduce thefts and accidents. Heck, the money used for "buy back" programs could go a long was towards offering gun safes to lower income households for when they are not home.
Heck, if gun control is a tight shot group, I am all in favor of it.
Why don't they word the questions like this: Do you think restricting certain cosmetic features on firearms, such as bayonet lugs, threaded barrels, or pistol grips has any effect on criminal use of firearms? Or how about: Do you think trigger locks will stop drugged up nuts from holding up liquor stores? Or even: do you think banning .50 cal rifles will have any effect on crime. (maybe even show a stat of their use for such endeavors - probably something like .0000001 percent) the media loves sticking these polls after loaded stories related to the issue.
I mean, when I have engaged even non - gunners in conversations about the irony of how one day the threat is cheap handguns and the next day it is several thousand dollar, very heavy rifles even a neutral person usually realizes the true intent of the antis: pitting gun-owner against gun owner to divide and conquer.
White