Gallup Poll: Americans Want More Police in Schools, Better Mental Health Care, Not Weapons Ban
| Incident at a Glance (Click Links For Similar Stories) | |||
| Gun(s) Used: | Unknown | Location: | Unknown |
| # of Suspects: | Unknown | Shots Fired: | Unknown |
| Suspect Killed: | Unknown | State: | |
| Source: | Archived Source: | None | |
According to a Gallup poll conducted on Dec 18th (4 days after the Sandy Hook Shooting) show that Americans do have opinions on what actions should be taken to prevent another tragedy.
However, some may be surprised to learn that an Assault Weapons Ban isn’t in the top 3 of that list and most Americans don’t think a ban would be highly effective.
The poll respondents would rather see better mental health care, less violence on television and primarily an increased police presence in schools (we also think armed, highly trained and armed staff at a school could fill this role too).
42% of respondents thought an assault weapons ban would be highly effective at stopping school shooting and 36% thought it would have little to no effect.
Further breaking the stats down, Republicans and Independents thought a ban would be far less effective than self identified Democrats.
The results here are clear. Except for the most liberal Democrats, a majority of the American people feel that there are several other solutions that would be more effective in stopping school shootings than any kind of weapons ban. Even the identified Democrats feel that more spending and a better mental health system would be more effective at curbing violence than a weapons ban.
EVERY LAW ABIDING; GUN OWNING,AMERICAN CITIZEN SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO CARRY HIS/HER PERSONAL PROTECTION FIREARM ANYWHERE A CRIMINAL MIGHT TAKE THEIRS.OF COURSE, PRIVATE BUSINESSES HAVE THE RIGHT/OPTION TO EXCLUDE WEAPONS ON THEIR PREMISES.CRIME CAN OCCUR ANY WHERE; ANYTIME ,BY ANYONE,FOR ANY REASON, OR NO REASON.YOU LET YOUR GUARD DOWN ONCE,IT MAY VERY WELL COST YOU YOURLIFE.
I’d be curious as to the respondents’ interpretation of “banning the sale of assault and semi-automatic guns”. Did they know that they were talking about Uncle Jim’s Remington 1100 shotgun, and Grandpa’s old 1911 pistol?
Probably not, but that’s half the problem with public policy these days.
You have to remember with Pelosi calling for an assault magazine ban, no one really knows that assault weapons, by definition, have already been banned by the automatic weapons act some 40-50 years ago! You can not switch any rifle I have seen in a shop to full auto, just semi. That is a big part of the problem they confuse the hell out of people. If they told me they would ban assault weapons, who cares? If they said AR-15′s or AK-47′s I would have a huge problem. I don’t have a problem with background checked when buying a firearm, I have one done every time I get one already anyway. The best thing they could do is forget about weapons and get these people the psychological coverage they used to have before Obamacare!
Really Marty, You made sense up to the part where psychological coverage was available before Obamacare!.. Mental Health care started getting cut in teh 1960′s. Insurance company support and goverment support are at an all time low, not because of healthcare reform but because there is no money in it!. The only industry investing in it are the Pharacuticals and they do it so they can push their untested drugs on people that really need our help. We don’t know what Alan Lanza was on (yet) but we do know that 90% of the other events over the past 10 years were when the killer was on anti depressants. It seems the media would rather blame guns then the pharacies. Guess we know who pays their paychecks.
42% is still a dangerous number of people to be swayed by politicking. If half of them knew what the terms actually meant beyond “gun=scary”, the focus would be on taking meaningful action rather than vilifying the large portion of the populace who own firearms.
I believe every red-blooded American could and should get behind this idea. How about OUR government cancel sending 1 billion dollars to the Muslim Brotherhood and the Middle East to repair Mosques and they instead give that money to every local police department with schools in their district to pay the salary of an armed police officer in each and every school. Simple solution to a problem made much more complex than need be. Spend OUR money on US for a change.
The effectiveness of a few US bans
1) Banning the entry of illegal immigrants – FAIL
2) Banning the entry of illegal drugs – FAIL
3) Banning nuclear weapons world wide – FAIL (Pakistan and North Korea just a few)
Knowing that the effectiveness of banning anything is so bad, and knowing that the US would be held hostage the moment we eliminated our Nuclear weapons, WHY SHOULD I NOT BE ABLE TO PROTECT MY FAMILY WITH AN ASSAULT WEAPON?
If the principle in CT would have had a Saige 12 shotgun (or any gun for that matter) she would have saved herself, her children and staff. She was so brave to try and save them by attacking him unarmed, as brave as an Marine or Navy Seal, she just did not have the tools to make it effective.
The US is only effective in protecting the people of this country, and other weak countries, because we protect from a position of power, not of weakness. MY HOME AND FAMILY WILL BE PROTECTED FROM A POSITION OF POWER! It is not only about hunting, it is about Protection.
I wrote this not because I love guns, but rather, I LOVE MY FAMILY!
Jaime Maliszewski
we take our most prized and irreplacable children and send the to a place were there no protection. they can not defend them selfves, carry a knife and we, as adults can not protect them. Then we advertise there is no means of protection. This makes less sense than advertising a bank full of gold with no vault and we leave the doors open!!! Weak and sick mined people have always taken advantage of soft targets!! Dont want to loose what is important then protect it!! This should be a priority if they our important to us!! Why do we spend millions gaurding a president that wont salute the flag of the county he leads and not our children?
You’ve got a redundant typo:
“(we also think armed, highly trained and armed staff…” –> “(we also think armed, highly trained staff…”