Try the political quiz
@ISIDEWITHQuestionsDomestic PolicyStarted 13yrs agoActive 24hrs ago

Should there be more restrictions on the current process of purchasing a gun?

The 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings caused several states and cities to pass strict gun control measures. In response, state lawmakers in gun friendly states in the South and West passed bills that would strengthen Stand Your Ground laws and allow weapons in most public places. In 2014, 21 states passed laws that expanded the rights of gun owners allowing them to possess firearms in churches, bars, schools and college campuses. The federal government has not passed any gun control measures since the 1994 Brady Bill and 42 states now allow the possession of assault rifles. In the U.S. two-thirds of all gun deaths are suicides and in 2010 there were 19,000 firearm suicides and 11,000 firearm homicides.

+
Expand
+ Settings

Filter by type

Narrow down which types of responses you would like to see.

Show more types:

Filter by author

Narrow down the conversation to these participants:

Ideology:

Political party:

Political theme:

Province/Territory:

Electoral District (2011):

Electoral District (2013):

Engaged Voters

These active users have achieved a basic understanding of terms and definitions related to the topic of Gun Control

@9VWM59X
#1 Engaged Voter
@9ZPX698
#2 Engaged Voter
Test Your Knowledge

288 Replies

 @8R2TMLSfrom Ontario  answered…4yrs4Y

People should have the right to own a gun

 @8TWY7NVCommunistfrom Prince Edward Island  answered…4yrs4Y

Restore the long-arms registry.

 @8TVCWD6from British Columbia  answered…4yrs4Y

No, but the entire system should be overhauled and streamlined without the involvement of the RCMP

 @8PKVXYYNew Democraticfrom British Columbia  answered…4yrs4Y

yes, but also no

 @9CWP966from Ontario  answered…2yrs2Y

Legal guns aren’t the issue, it’s the illegal ones

 @8T8S8MJfrom New Brunswick  answered…4yrs4Y

No, the government should ban the sale of some guns to the public and to police.

 @8RZPV9Jfrom Ontario  answered…4yrs4Y

Yes because they're dangerous, but no becuase the government shouldn't have more power than the people.

 @7PTCG38 from Wisconsin  answered…3yrs3Y

Yes, require universal background checks, close the gun show loophole, and ban all further sales of assault weapons

 @7PTCG38 from Wisconsin  answered…5yrs5Y

Yes, conduct thorough background checks, close the gun show loophole, and end the sale of assault weapons

 @7PTCG38 from Wisconsin  answered…3yrs3Y

Yes, by requiring strict background checks and closing the gun show loophole

 @7PTCG38 from Wisconsin  answered…3yrs3Y

Yes, by upholding and strengthening the National Instant Background Check system (NICS) and closing the gun show loophole

 @7PTCG38 from Wisconsin  answered…3yrs3Y

Yes, by closing the gun show loophole and requiring strict background checks

 @7PTCG38 from Wisconsin  answered…3yrs3Y

Yes, require universal background checks, close the gun show loophole, and ban all further sales of assault weapons.

  @8P6PWZP from Louisiana  answered…4yrs4Y

No, guns are necessary to protect ourselves from far-right hate groups who are also armed.

 @7PTCG38 from Wisconsin  answered…3yrs3Y

Yes, by uniformly requiring strict background checks and closing the gun show loophole

Demographics

Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion

Loading data...

More conversations

Join in on more popular conversations.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…5mos5MO

Kamala Harris is considering running for president again in 2028

Kamala Harris has been lying low since her defeat in the presidential race, unwinding with family and senior aides in Hawaii before heading back to the nation’s capital.But privately, the vice president has been instructing advisers and allies to keep her options open — whether for a possible 2028 presidential run, or even to run for governor in her home state of California in two years. As Harris has repeated in phone calls, “I am staying in the fight.”She is expected to explore those and other possible paths forward with family members over the winter holiday season, according to five people in the Harris inner circle, who were granted anonymity to discuss internal dynamics. Her deliberations follow an extraordinary four months in which Harris went from President Joe Biden’s running mate to the top of the ticket, reenergizing Democrats before ultimately crashing on election night.“She doesn’t have to decide if she wants to run for something again in the next six months,” said one former Harris campaign aide. “The natural thing to do would be to set up some type of entity that would give her the opportunity to travel and give speeches and preserve her political relationships.”“She doesn’t have to decide if she wants to run for something again in the next six months,” said one former Harris campaign aide. “The natural thing to do would be to set up some type of entity that would give her the opportunity to travel and give speeches and preserve her political relationships.”Harris concedes: 'We must accept the results of this election'SharePlay VideoMost immediately, Harris and her advisers are working to define how and when she will speak out against Donald Trump and reassert her own role in the Democratic Party. Closing out her term as vice president, she’s set to preside over certifying the November election she lost to Trump, and then appear at the once-and-future president’s inauguration on Jan. 20.“There will be a desire to hear her voice, and there won’t be a vacuum for long,” a person close to Harris said.At the same time, Harris and her husband, Doug Emhoff, will have a long checklist to plow through before they leave the Naval Observatory for good.They have to decide whether they’ll take up permanent residence at their home in Los Angeles, or establish a base elsewhere. No matter where Harris and her family live, some around her have expressed concerns about safety, as her Secret Service protection expires six months after stepping away.

▲  1023 replies