ABC 17 News

ABC 17 News

abc17news.com/polls/
Mid-Missouri's source for breaking news, weather & sports. ABC 17 News is a product of NPG of Missouri, LLC.
Do you support more gun regulations?

Do you support more gun regulations?

Yes

12

No

38

Yes

Do you support more gun regulations?
10 Comments
Bill Glover
1
Bill Glover

Gun worship is about human sacrifice on the altar of power and profit. Anyone who tells you anything different is selling something.

Reply
BB
1
BB

Supporters of ownership of any gun imaginable always leave out of their constitution arguments the part about "well-regulated". They also, forget the militia part. It seems clear that our forefathers had in mind that citizens would act as a militia before we had a National Guard.

Reply
Stuart Singer
1
Stuart Singer

In no other western industrialized country in the world is there such a disgraceful absence of firearms control that is responsible for so much killing as there is in the United States. Even the Heller decision by the SCOTUS approved of government controls.

Reply
Hi Snowpack
1
Hi Snowpack

There is nothing about 99.9 percent of the gun nuts in this country that could possibly be defined as a "a well regulated Militia". The gun situation in this country is the exact opposite.

Reply
Adam Schrader
1
Adam Schrader

Anyone should be allowed the right to own a firearm. 1 pistol type and 1 rifle type. Nothing semi automatic or fully automatic. Nobody needs those weapons. Not for hunting or protection.

Reply
Adam Schrader
Adam Schrader

Every other type of firearm other than pistol, rifle. And shot guns are logical fir protection and hunting. No other gun type is meant for this. They need to ban every type of assault weapon and ammunition for them. Enough innocent people are getting killed

JoeyMac
JoeyMac

What about the sniper types, and the shotgun types, and the crew-served type, and the drive-by type, and the explodey type, and the armor piercing type? Why do you discriminate against so many gun types? Why are you such a hoplophobe?

Kay Fay
1
Kay Fay

Guns are weapons. They're too easily gotten by people who shouldn't have guns. There's no reason for many of the semi automatic and automatic weapons being sold except for to kill multiple people. No need and high risk. Let's know who are buying guns in mass. The do do to pass them onto criminals.

Reply
Co Lin
0
Co Lin

Because people are not as mature and responsible as weapons require. They kjust aren't. We have to regulate the use of motor vehicles, too. Grow up, yahoos.

Reply
Rick Brunson
0
Rick Brunson

Assault weapon civilian related crimes have become a pandemic.

Reply
Gail Beebe
0
Gail Beebe

I don't think a reasonable person needs to own a military weapon. I can understand the person who wants a handgun or rifle. The NRA encourages people to collect guns. The NRA should be held accountable for the bullshit they spread.

Reply
John Nickerson
0
John Nickerson

Our society doesn't benefit from citizens with assault weapons and there are people that have demonstrated they shouldn't be in possession of any type of gun, certainly not weapons of war.

Reply

No

Do you support more gun regulations?
36 Comments
Anthony Rinaldi
6
Anthony Rinaldi

Gun control is misogynist, racist, and classist. I will never support such evil legislation.

Reply
Scuba Steve
5
Scuba Steve

2.5 MILLION defensive uses annually vs. <400 deaths from ALL types of rifles. That's fewer than those killed by hands & feet. Ask yourself who benefits from making citizens powerless in a nation with increasing authoritarian control, militarized police, and NSA surveillance. And who owns the media.

Reply
Michael Leninsky
5
Michael Leninsky

The gun regulations do not work. They attack the law abiding citizen. They need to concentrate on the criminals that use them in a violent nature and not the ones using to protect themselves. Or hunt for their food.

Reply
Steve TheBmann
5
Steve TheBmann

There are already plenty of laws in place. Criminals don't obey laws. Guns are not the problem.

Reply
JoeyMac
4
JoeyMac

Guns are already one of THE most regulated items in America. It's impossible to commit a crime with a gun without breaking several existing laws in the process... will 1 or 2 more laws stand in the way of gun crime when tens of thousands of gun laws did not? Just enforce the laws we already have.

Reply
Rick Lanicek
4
Rick Lanicek

We don't need more gun laws. We need stiffer penalties for committing a crime with a gun. Might as well ban spoons to combat obesity and the health care crisis.

Reply
phil hopkins
4
phil hopkins

Dem run cities are a health hazard see top 20 most violent USA cities are democrat led and until defund the police and no bail laws are gone they are getting worse.

Reply
Joe McGinnis
4
Joe McGinnis

The government is taking away our rights one by one. The 2nd amendment SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED UPON.

Reply
Janet Cierpiot Lampe
4
Janet Cierpiot Lampe

No Criminals will still have guns

Reply
Chris Bond
3
Chris Bond

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

Reply
Michael Pietrzak
3
Michael Pietrzak

Shall not be infringed

Reply
The #ForeverTrumper Mad Embalmer 💪🇺🇸
3
The #ForeverTrumper Mad Embalmer 💪🇺🇸

The constitutional right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed.

Reply
Sandra White
3
Sandra White

As a responsible gun owner, I think the real problem is not with regulating who can own them. If I can defend myself and my family, I stand less of a chance of becoming a statistic. Open carry is a great way to deter crime.

Reply
Edgar Alain Flotte
3
Edgar Alain Flotte

Murder is illegal, criminals do not follow the law. This will put law abiding citizens in disadvantage. Guns will be still be able to be made illegally to commit illegal crimes

Reply
James Frantz
3
James Frantz

Law abiding citizens aren't the issue and neither are the guns. The problem continues to be criminals committing heinous acts of violence with indiscriminate abandon.

Reply
Jack Atherton
3
Jack Atherton

Because I believe in the US Constitution.

Reply
Ben Burckhartt
3
Ben Burckhartt

The 2nd amendment wasn't given to keep the people regulated but to regulate the Gov't over the people. I'd vote yes to regulate our Govt's weapons and our military empire

Reply
James Blount
2
James Blount

Additional regulations do nothing to stop criminals, obviously a person planning on robbing and murdering someone is not going to be concerned if the weapon he uses is illegal. It only disarms law abiding citizens leaving them vulnerable to criminals who disregard these ineffective laws.

Reply
Buckeye
2
Buckeye

It would be just the beginning

Reply
Thomas S
2
Thomas S

The Feds don't enforce the laws we already have, why would we want more do nothing, feel good laws? None of his proposals would have prevented any of the recent mass shootings. By definition criminals don't care if it's against the law, think somebody about to commit murder cares about Joe's rules?

Reply
73_ Easting
2
73_ Easting

Most proposals punish the wrong people. Assault weapons can a tiny percentage (less than 1%) of gun deaths annually. We need crime fighting regulations that interrupt gang-related cycles of violence, properly hold people who use crimes accountable (e.g. automatic jail terms), social changes.

Reply
Ed Chaney
2
Ed Chaney

Already thousands of gun laws across the country. The cities with the strictest gun laws are also the ones with the highest violent crime rates. They blame easy access to firearms in neighboring cities, yet those cities don't have the crime rate they have. Figure it out.

Reply
Sum-Ting Wong
2
Sum-Ting Wong

not one of the suggested restrictions would have prevented these crimes. This is like confiscating minivans and hatchback cars because some crazy people intentionally run people over with convertables.

Reply
William Wolf
2
William Wolf

Criminals do not obey gun laws, murder is a crime, we need to get to the root cause of why people do this.

Reply
thedukelsu
2
thedukelsu

shall not be infringed

Reply
Vince Miles
2
Vince Miles

Biden has dementia.

Reply
James Miles
2
James Miles

I'm not willing to trade any of my rights for anything, let alone the perception of safety.

Reply
Robert Gardner
2
Robert Gardner

Because none of the gun control measures of the past have made any difference as seen in places with the highest violence typically have the most draconian gun regulations. There is zero correlation with how newer gun control regulations will, or could, prevent any of the tragedies of the past.

Reply
Bastardo927
2
Bastardo927

Criminals do not obey laws. Passing more will do NOTHING to actually stop gun violence.

Reply
Harry Edwards
2
Harry Edwards

we need to enforce the ones we have!

Reply
Fran Schmitt
2
Fran Schmitt

Criminals don't care how many "restrictions" law abiding citizens have. If they want the gun, they will get it. All these regulations do is keep guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens.

Reply
Ed Franz
1
Ed Franz

Cuz communists murder unarmed citizens

Reply
Max
1
Max

I believe in Freedom, not Socialism

Reply
Crash Test Dhimmi
1
Crash Test Dhimmi

We need to focus on actually ENFORCING the gun control laws we actually have. Only 4% of background check violations actually get prosecuted. It blows mind, how the left screams for more laws, but refuses to enforce the ones they already have.

Reply
Milton Contella
1
Milton Contella

Because of the binary choice offered, I could not express my nuanced thoughts on the subject so I opted for the extreme.

Reply
Scipio Augustus
0
Scipio Augustus

You can't legislate moralit or respect for your fellow man. You CAN protect yourself from the criminals, crazies, leftists and democrats.

Reply
Do you support phasing out Missouri's income tax?

Do you support phasing out Missouri's income tax?

Yes

12

No

5

Yes

9 Comments
Andrea Loy
1
Andrea Loy

Income tax is unconstitutional when all other taxes are placed on top of it.

Reply
Shawn Maupin
1
Shawn Maupin

Because I believe taxation is theft!

Reply
Dennis Ganahl
1
Dennis Ganahl

It's time to position Missouri for growth. We need to attract business and population growth not more stagnation. Taxes need to be affordable based on what people can pay, not what government wants to spend. Government needs to budget just like families.

Reply
Slate Rogers
1
Slate Rogers

I am in favor of a state income tax cap of 3 percent and eliminating the personal property tax completely.

Reply
C Sims
1
C Sims

I support doing away with all taxes

Reply
Max
Max

The harder that people work, the more taxes they pay. That's wrong. The people that won't work should pay the most taxes.

Nancy Hooyman
0
Nancy Hooyman

I'm 70 and it takes too much money away from me.

Reply
Pam Ames
0
Pam Ames

The citizens of Missouri are taxed enough, we deserve to enjoy some of the fruits of our labor.Next stop should be phasing out personal property taxes, sales tax, etc, etc…

Reply
Bill Douglas
0
Bill Douglas

Ban state employees from attending professional and college sports events. Also ban state employees from displaying college/university personalized license plates on their vehicles.

Reply
Max
0
Max

If phasing out taxes, phases out Socialism, then it's a great idea.

Reply

No

5 Comments
Michael Bailey
1
Michael Bailey

We eliminated capital gains tax last year and now our target is income tax? I feel we should get more productive spending and figure out the position of our tax burden before we think about eliminating income tax. It feels like Gov. Kehoe is using this as political points.

Reply
Steve Baumann
1
Steve Baumann

We all need to be paying our fair share. There are other questionable taxes to be looked into and removed. Along with tax cuts, cuts to the bureaucracy as well.

Reply
nathaniel bock
1
nathaniel bock

The tax we need to eliminate or change is personal property tax on vehicles, tractors, trailers, etc. There should be no taxes paid on anything an individual has owned longer than ten years.

Reply
Will Mason
1
Will Mason

Sales taxes are paid by the poor. Income taxes favor the poor. Unless a refund of sales taxes is an option, income taxes are cheaper for low income people. And a sales tax refund is probably just as complex as filing income taxes. Either way the government is getting our money.

Reply
Hayden Hamlin
0
Hayden Hamlin

Missouri barely pays for WIC, SNAP, Healthcare, and education as is. The Trump Admin passed a bill that will cancel more funding to states for these. Who's going to replace the main source of revenue? The billionaire class? Absolutely not. Our state only offers cheap living; this will raise prices.

Reply
Max
Max

Socialism is not the solution.

Max
Max

Maybe some people should put more effort into working for a living?

Do you agree with banning sugary foods and drinks from Missouri's SNAP program?

Do you agree with banning sugary foods and drinks from Missouri's SNAP program?

Yes

35

No

18

Yes

19 Comments
Doug Fisher
4
Doug Fisher

SNAP money should (i) serve basic nutritional needs, not empty food and (ii) should help farmers, not companies making empty caloric food.

Reply
kelly shuler
4
kelly shuler

if taxpayers are paying then should require healthier eating for better health in long term

Reply
Baconface McGee
4
Baconface McGee

Our taxes shouldn’t be paying for other people’s junk food.

Reply
Lee Signup
3
Lee Signup

The United States has one of the highest rates of Type 1 diabetes incidences and high prevalence , around 1 in 6. Diet and being active, which most of us can do does wonders, whether on SNAP or not, most of us would benefit from consuming less sugar and taking the stairs.

Reply
Jimmy Ci
3
Jimmy Ci

The purpose of SNAP is to provide food-purchasing assistance to low- and no-income individuals and families, helping them maintain adequate nutrition and health. It should not be used for anything else.

Reply
michael
3
michael

Curbing sugary foods & drinks significantly decreases chronic illness, which saves tax $$ on health care. The healthier our food choices, the healthier we are. Healthier = happier.

Reply
Dan Mar
3
Dan Mar

Sugary foods are not a necessity. The US has an obesity crisis that is costing taxpayers hundreds of millions every year. I like the sugar tax that Europe is using to help pay for the government health care costs related to junk food consumption.

Reply
Tatyana Karak
3
Tatyana Karak

Sugary food is not essential. SNAP is for people who need to eat food they need not to go hungry. More healthy choices are beneficial for all.

Reply
Patrick
3
Patrick

So taxpayers are 100% funding SNAP and those benefits should be used properly. If SNAP recipients use benefits to buy soda, candy, cake, and other sugary products, we, the taxpayers will also be funding their healthcare for diabetes and other chronic ailments. Enough is enough.

Reply
Randi W
2
Randi W

People on SNAP may have a proclivity for unhealthy eating. Just as SNAP can't be used for cigarettes and alcohol, it shouldn't be wasted on surgery sodas and unhealthy snack foods.

Reply
Fat Guy Outdoors
2
Fat Guy Outdoors

I'm in favor of eliminating the entire snap program.

Reply
Valarie Wright
1
Valarie Wright

Restricting sugary items ensures taxpayer-funded SNAP benefits support public health goals by encouraging the purchase of more nutrient-dense foods, thereby combating diet-related diseases.

Reply
Victoria D
1
Victoria D

No reason for SNAP to add to the bad eating habits. Stick to necessary nutrition.

Reply
tom tibble
1
tom tibble

These types of food are not necessary and should focus on essential foods only.

Reply
Victoria Zandonella
1
Victoria Zandonella

No place in a nutritious diet!

Reply
John S
0
John S

Let's have some common sense health reform and get back to the basics of making healthy and affordable food available to all.

Reply
Braylon Maverick
0
Braylon Maverick

Sugary foods and drink are not necessary in an healthy diet, which was the original intendent purpose of the program. You want snacks food and junk food, go work. SNAP need to resort back to the old food stamp rules. Again, don't like it, then go to work.

Reply
Ellen Hall
0
Ellen Hall

Sugary foods do not sustain a healthy body. You wind up gaining fat - yes that is a weight - , decaying teeth, addiction to sugar. Add all the salt that goes along with that and there is very little nutrition to fuel your brain and the rest of your body.

Reply
dragon fly
0
dragon fly

diabetes is epidemic in the U$ - thanks to sugar being in everything...

Reply
dragon fly
dragon fly

if you read the NO comments, many of the people who voted NO thought they were voting NO SUGAR...

No

18 Comments
Brian Croner
3
Brian Croner

I'm type 1 diabetic and I need to buy candy to keep myself from dying from hypoglycemia episodes.

Reply
Braylon Maverick
Braylon Maverick

So there is no other way for you to stuff your face with candy than through SNAP benefits? You have no other money available to you? You're that much of a freeloader? If you need sugar for your Diabetes, why don't you make a cup of tea and add 12 teaspoons of sugar in it? Stop being a freeloader.

Max
Max

How many pounds of candy do you need per day?

Kimberly Jean
3
Kimberly Jean

Just because a person is less fortunate, doesn't mean they must live in misery at all times. The poor can enjoy life too. If they choose to buy themselves or their family a little treat, they are as entitled to do that as anyone else.

Reply
Braylon Maverick
Braylon Maverick

You want to enjoy luxuries, then work for them. Candy and Coca-Cola isn't that expensive. They don't need to fall under the category of SNAP. Keondre and her 8 kids (from 7 different men) don't need to feast on 7-UP and Skittles.

Angel Lopez Jr
3
Angel Lopez Jr

If you look at the cost of less processed goods, you’ll see that you get much less bang for your buck. You spend more and get less whe. You eliminated the processed goods. Rather than hurt the consumer, the focus should be on making these processed foods healthier. This makes sense to parents.

Reply
Anonymous Individual
3
Anonymous Individual

I don't have the right to decide what poor people get to eat. Just because we give poor people money for food doesn't give us the right to take away their freedom of choice. They decide what to put into their bodies, not us. It's their bodies, their choice!!!

Reply
Fred
3
Fred

The poor/lower middle class aren't the problem, it's the billionaires. Prior to Reagan and trickle-down (Voodoo Economics) the bottom 90% of the population held about a third of the wealth and the 0.7% about 7% .... fast forward to today and the top 0.7% have MORE wealth than the bottom 90%!

Reply
Max
Max

Then you must be a billionaire. LOL

Diane Willoughby
2
Diane Willoughby

Why do we need to control people in our society? Sometimes the only way a child can get a little treat is if their parents can use a little bit of the benefits to buy something a little special.

Reply
Braylon Maverick
Braylon Maverick

You are right. Government should not control people. It should not afford luxuries for people as well. SNAP's purpose is to make sure people (including children) have food, and that food be nutritious. SNAP isn't for Wanda and her 8 kids to be able to buy Doritos, Skittles, and 7-UP.

michael
michael

Mindful what we call 'treats'! Illness producing, ultra processed 'treats' are literally a sickening way to 'treat' our kids. A handful of delicious blueberries, is a treat. Banana slices spread with peanut butter is a treat. A handful of Skittles & a diet soda is not.

Patricia Abruzzise
2
Patricia Abruzzise

No one should be banning sweets from SNAP or any other program. This is just a way of controlling people and what is available for them to eat. What is next? MILK?

Reply
Braylon Maverick
Braylon Maverick

Candy and Milk...good comparison. LOL

dragon fly
dragon fly

Trump-zombie logic...

Max
Max

You are comparing milk to Twinkies. Give everyone a break.

Baby Yoda's Dad
2
Baby Yoda's Dad

That is the only time some kids get a little snack.

Reply
Lee Signup
Lee Signup

FYI after we don't need milk after childhood. Calcium Sources: Leafy greens (kale, broccoli), tofu, beans, fortified orange juice, nuts, and seeds

michael
michael

Grapes dipped in peanut butter are a snack. So are spoonfuls of yogurt mixed with chopped fruit, plopped onto parchment paper with a popsicle stick stuck into ea & frozen. Dip in melted chocolate optional! As is chia seed pudding. All cheaper than prepackaged, ultra processed snacks & far healthier.

Max
Max

42 million people get an avg. of $178 per month of food that is paid for by the other 295 million Americans that work for a living.

Madison Haleigh
2
Madison Haleigh

Because it directly affects disabled and vulnerable populations, people with arfid, People who are trying to buy birthday cakes for their children, people who have disabilities who cannot easily make foods, people who have autism who have safe foods, people with diabetes. It's not right to police us

Reply
Max
Max

End the SNAP program except for people that will community service.

Denzel McVeigh
2
Denzel McVeigh

No because there are a lot of people that need those sodas those candies whatever for reasons like oh I don't know to raise their blood sugar up when it gets super low. It's such a misconception and some more false narrative bullshit by these dumbass Republicans like Mike kehoe and Donald Trump.

Reply
Max
Max

The same ones that need liquor, MaryJane and smokes?

Bridget Graham
1
Bridget Graham

Why police people when corporations get away with murder?

Reply
Herman Harris
0
Herman Harris

Targeting a specific group of pe ople.

Reply
Erin Mulhern
0
Erin Mulhern

1. SNAP does not provide enough funds to allow them to buy healthier foods. 2. Food deserts do not have enough options for people to chose healthy foods. 3. It's no one's business what others eat. Mind your own household.

Reply
Michael Bailey
0
Michael Bailey

I feel the same way towards this as vegetarianism. By all means we should worry about what people eat after we feed more people. The point of the program is to eliminate its necessity not limit its accessibility

Reply
Laura Glassman
0
Laura Glassman

The government has no business telling people what they can and can't eat. Simple

Reply
Alan Silverman
0
Alan Silverman

do the 61% yes voters refrain from sugary products?? if so remove all the products they say that shouldn't be available to snap completely from the market. or only the rich deserve....?

Reply
Jeremy Geyer
0
Jeremy Geyer

I think these kind of things put an undue burden on grocers. They cost more than they are worth

Reply
levi record
0
levi record

What is this nazi germany? Whats next? Hot dogs? Cheerios? Salt? Poor kids deserve birthday cake too. People should be treated fairly snap or no snap. If sugar is so bad then have it removed from all food. Gezzzz fdt

Reply

We use cookies to ensure you get the best possible experience on our website. Learn more OK, GOT IT