Polling Report.com has a recent posting of the results of numerous polls that have been taken on the gun control issue. After Sandy Hook there have been many polls taken trying to get a handle on the feelings of the American people in regard to guns.
We found one poll very interesting. It was the CNN poll taken January 14-15, 2013, nearly a month after Sandy Hook. There were numerous questions asked, however the two that was struck us were the following:
"Do you favor or oppose stricter gun control laws?"
55% favored
44% opposed
1% was unsure
"Do you think having stricter gun control laws would reduce the amount of violence int he country, or not?"
39% Said it would reduce
61% Said it would not reduce
We find the dichotomy of the two questions remarkable. On the one hand we see that a slight majority of the 800+ respondents wanted stricter gun control laws while over 6 of 10 thought that it would NOT reduce violence in the country.
The question has to be asked, if it will not reduce violence, why do it in the first place?
That people's answer says more about this country than all the gun control advocates have said. If it will not reduce killing, maiming and violence, we need to look elsewhere. It is not the tool no more than knives, clubs, and other tools. It is the person who is using the item that makes the difference.
Ted Nugent has said many times that he was testing a gun for the past thirty years. It has been locked and loaded but has yet to fire itself. Guns simply are tools and do not get themselves up and shoot someone. It is the nut who pulls the trigger that causes the problem.
The problem is the nut, not the law abiding person who happens to own a gun. The Sandy Hook killer's mother did everything legally. She purchased the gun legally and went through a background check as is required (and would be under most of the new Obama rules). That issue seems to have been missed in all of the discussion.
Where we feel she was negligent is that she did not secure the weapons, especially since she knew (or should have known) that her son was mentally unstable. Storing guns in a closet is not a solution even if no one has problems in the home.
We feel there is a responsibility on the part of a gun owner to properly secure his guns. If one can afford a gun, it is incumbent on the owner to make sure that no one has access to it. On this issue Ms. Lanza was guilty.
All the gun laws in the world, short of confiscation, will not stop someone who has access to a gun from using it. Laws only stop law abiding, sane individuals.
The follow up question has to be, how does a free society stop someone crazy from killing. Do we need to say that no one who has ever seen a psychologist, a psychiatrist or taken any mood altering drugs can own a gun? That would eliminate a number of people who had a bad spot in life like a marriage breakup, a death of a loved one, school problems or any other challenge to which their response was to seek help.
If we make contact with a mental health professional the law, we will prevent people from seeking help. Is that the message we want to send? If so, we will have more people like the Aurora shooter who had never sought mental help. Major Nidal was a psychiatrist, what does that say?
Would you not agree that a jail is a pretty closed society? Do they have guards at the entrances and bars on the windows? Please explain to me how in that closed up environment, why are guns acquired on occasion, why are drugs freely available and why do murders/injuries occur? If we cannot prevent drugs, murders and guns in a totally controlled environment, how are we to do it in a free society?
Once someone can explain that to us, we will vote for gun control. However, until that time, an legislation will only disarm and endanger the law abiding and will have no effect on the lawless. The people know that and the CNN survey proves it.
Conservative Tom
We found one poll very interesting. It was the CNN poll taken January 14-15, 2013, nearly a month after Sandy Hook. There were numerous questions asked, however the two that was struck us were the following:
"Do you favor or oppose stricter gun control laws?"
55% favored
44% opposed
1% was unsure
"Do you think having stricter gun control laws would reduce the amount of violence int he country, or not?"
39% Said it would reduce
61% Said it would not reduce
We find the dichotomy of the two questions remarkable. On the one hand we see that a slight majority of the 800+ respondents wanted stricter gun control laws while over 6 of 10 thought that it would NOT reduce violence in the country.
The question has to be asked, if it will not reduce violence, why do it in the first place?
That people's answer says more about this country than all the gun control advocates have said. If it will not reduce killing, maiming and violence, we need to look elsewhere. It is not the tool no more than knives, clubs, and other tools. It is the person who is using the item that makes the difference.
Ted Nugent has said many times that he was testing a gun for the past thirty years. It has been locked and loaded but has yet to fire itself. Guns simply are tools and do not get themselves up and shoot someone. It is the nut who pulls the trigger that causes the problem.
The problem is the nut, not the law abiding person who happens to own a gun. The Sandy Hook killer's mother did everything legally. She purchased the gun legally and went through a background check as is required (and would be under most of the new Obama rules). That issue seems to have been missed in all of the discussion.
Where we feel she was negligent is that she did not secure the weapons, especially since she knew (or should have known) that her son was mentally unstable. Storing guns in a closet is not a solution even if no one has problems in the home.
We feel there is a responsibility on the part of a gun owner to properly secure his guns. If one can afford a gun, it is incumbent on the owner to make sure that no one has access to it. On this issue Ms. Lanza was guilty.
All the gun laws in the world, short of confiscation, will not stop someone who has access to a gun from using it. Laws only stop law abiding, sane individuals.
The follow up question has to be, how does a free society stop someone crazy from killing. Do we need to say that no one who has ever seen a psychologist, a psychiatrist or taken any mood altering drugs can own a gun? That would eliminate a number of people who had a bad spot in life like a marriage breakup, a death of a loved one, school problems or any other challenge to which their response was to seek help.
If we make contact with a mental health professional the law, we will prevent people from seeking help. Is that the message we want to send? If so, we will have more people like the Aurora shooter who had never sought mental help. Major Nidal was a psychiatrist, what does that say?
Would you not agree that a jail is a pretty closed society? Do they have guards at the entrances and bars on the windows? Please explain to me how in that closed up environment, why are guns acquired on occasion, why are drugs freely available and why do murders/injuries occur? If we cannot prevent drugs, murders and guns in a totally controlled environment, how are we to do it in a free society?
Once someone can explain that to us, we will vote for gun control. However, until that time, an legislation will only disarm and endanger the law abiding and will have no effect on the lawless. The people know that and the CNN survey proves it.
Conservative Tom
| |
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for commenting. Your comments are needed for helping to improve the discussion.