Gallup Poll: People prefer Arming schools and treating the mentally ill to AWB

Maybe they arent as stupid as I thought. Maybe there are enough half-brained individuals out there who when they see an AWB compliant firearm used to kill in a state with an AWB they conclude perhaps an AWB isnt exactly useful for preventing events like these.

Americans are most likely to say that an increased police presence at schools, increased government spending on mental health screening and treatment, and decreased depiction of gun violence in entertainment venues would be effective in preventing mass shootings at schools. Americans rate the potential effectiveness of a ban on assault and semi-automatic guns as fourth on a list of six actions Gallup asked about.

AWB comes in after limits on Video Games and TV violence even.

Gallup poll

Hmmm, that doesn't really "jive" with what the president said about "the vast majority of Americans" in this thread right here President Obama Speaks Today...

For the record, I am firmly convinced that Gallup has it correct and the Master of the White House is projecting his handler's feelings (or maybe his own) on the masses. Just my two cents.

ganjoa

Originally posted by ganjoa

Hmmm, that doesn't really "jive" with what the president said about "the vast majority of Americans" in this thread right here President Obama Speaks Today...

When a politician speaks it's either a blatant lie or a half truth.

In this case when a politician says "vast majority of Americans" he's trying to convince the individual viewer that they are wrong, they are in the minority and they should jump on the bandwagon even if it doesnt really exist.

I think all teachers should take fire arms training. Force all the teachers to carry one on their person unloaded of course. All it would take is some quick reactions from one teacher to save many lives. No need to wait precious minutes and seconds for police to arrive

Like I said when the first polls came out right after the shootings. The results were a combination of selective poll sampling and emotions. Now that people have had time to grieve they are starting to think more logically and less emotionally. I think as things start to get back to as normal as they can given the circumstances, people will realize the last thing we need in this country after this great tragedy is more restrictions on every day citizens rights when they had nothing to do with this at all.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


That politicians always spout "half-truths" if not out-and-out lies is a "given" - that they always have an agenda is a "given".
How can the president's words be "rebutted" given what Gallup has discovered in their polls?

At the moment I am grateful that some sort of poll was conducted, because if one believes what is said on TV news, "everyone" wants more restrictions on firearms owners - even firearms owners!!!! Let us not leave this B.S. unchallenged.

ganjoa .

we need to move slowly, lest we inflict another 'Patriot Act' on ourselves

reply to post by thisguyrighthere
How would mental health screening have prevented this latest horror? Even if lanza was prohibited from owning guns, he still had access to them via his mother.

Originally posted by Atzil321
reply to post by thisguyrighthere

 

How would mental health screening have prevented this latest horror? Even if lanza was prohibited from owning guns, he still had access to them via his mother.

Screening wouldnt have done anything.

If his mother had the resources to get some sort of home care aid or send him to a proper school he at least might have been manageable or out of the house and under 24 hour supervision.

She was actively petition the courts for conservatorship so she could send him to a proper boarding school situation. Some reports claim this is what set him off. Fear his mother was getting rid of him.

But of course there is a segment of the population who cant get past horrific visions of turn of the century institutions so they'll no doubt resist such measures as cruel. God forbid an individual actually get the help and care they need because wandering the streets and being in a dysfunctional home is so much better.

Originally posted by ganjoa

At the moment I am grateful that some sort of poll was conducted, because if one believes what is said on TV news, "everyone" wants more restrictions on firearms owners - even firearms owners!!!! Let us not leave this B.S. unchallenged.

ganjoa .

That's the divide and conquer. If the media says it's true then anyone who doesnt believe the same must be the odd one out. We'll there are millions and millions of "odd ones out" sitting at home listening to these pinheads tell them how they are the minority.

If they arent paying attention or otherwise connected to information they'll buy into it.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


I cant say I´m surprised.

Most Americans dont want a gun ban. It is the international community that has a hard on for our guns...

Which is why I say it is actually a globalists agenda so as to further Agenda 21 which calls for a completely disarmed population, especially so in the US.

Soooo.....

F U world. We are not banning guns. Go play some soccer and leave the US to Americans.

-----------------

The winds of change provide an opportunity to change the very fabric of the country we so love. The issue is not that guns are a problem but that this one incident is being used to promote the disarmament of the civilian population in the US by pitting the youth and liberal parts of the population against the conservatives and right wingers. With this the AGENDA 21 proponents like the Bush family and the globalists hope to make this a left VS right issue and a young VS old issue, so as to strip us of yet another liberty as was done in the UK.

The old is not the enemy, the right is not the enemy, The globalists agenda 21 IS, and that calls for a total disarmament of the US.

In the UK it was done in two phases. First the partial banning through eliminating the high caliber arms, then riding on public sentiment and the divide THEY created the total ban was put into effect. As per the needs of Agenda 21.

This is what I am saying.

You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.
Rahm Emanuel

I explain it here
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I've said it before and I'll say it again. We just keep throwing prescription drugs at kids these days, without worrying about the consequences and side effects or any type of actual mental health treatment for them. I learned the hard way that I could not even force my (at the time) 14 year old to take anger management classes.

So we have lost the ability to get our children help when they need it, unless it is pharmaceutical, and then when the unthinkable happens, we just blame the tool they used.
I'm glad more people are seeing the real issue here. I know from experience that there is no help available to a child with issues. And the schools will boot them, claiming no resources to help them.

We created this mess, and we better figure out a way to fix it, immediately!

Though I agree with both sentiments, I think it is a bit over the top to arm teachers.

Why not have a couple security guys in a room with CCTV and the ability to truly lock down a school. What I mean is have control of doors. Keep them "free" unless there is trouble in which case the guys in the room can lock down the portion of school that has the trouble and a hotline to a quick reactionary force.

Not the greatest of ideas I know but at least it is a start to the brainstorming.

EDIT:

Oh yea.. and what about those audio sensors that detect gunshots?

It can be argued that gross violence (like the Quentin Tarantino films) should be rated like Pornography. The violence in movies and especially the "simulation killing games" does more damage to young men's minds than most care to admit.

reply to post by Terminal1


I dont think arming teachers is a good idea either. Allowing already armed people who happen to be teachers to carry at work is a different story.

There seems to be this idea going around that somebody wants to jam a gun in a teachers hand and say "here, you deal with it."

That's not only stupid but it's also wrong to impose you will onto another person.

Allowing a teacher to carry is very different from forcing a teacher to carry.

I like the real lockdown capability. Could simply be done with a heavy door a few feet after the regular access door. Even if you force your way into the lobby area you wouldnt be able to get any further in.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


Yea... not to say that having some teachers carry may influence other teachers and cause a bad environment in the workplace in general. I can't see that as a good thing for the students.

Have to take that power out of the teachers hands and into someone whose sole purpose is to protect the school grounds and buildings.

I was kinda envisioning the "man traps" that are in banks for some reason. Have these types of doors in sections as to actually trap an "intruder" in a certain section till help arrives and also wall off the intruder from the population.

Good way to create jobs and I'd pay an extra few bucks in property taxes to have it done.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


I think the telling point from this survey is that only 36% of independents and 26% of republicans said they favored gun bans. Democrats on the other hand came in with 61% supporting limiting rights.

I'm not trying to make this a D vs R thing. I think it just points to a media bias that promotes agenda and ideology over facts, reason, or honesty. It also shows that this is an issue where we as a nation are letting our voice be cowed under the threat of being labeled. It is time for the pro-liberty forces to let their voices ring out.

One of the main reasons I support the Libertarian party is because they came out against the talk of gun bans, and supporting the right of teachers to be armed by the following Monday. They were respectful and then went to work while others cowered and thought up the most politically correct answer.

Originally posted by Terminal1
reply to post by thisguyrighthere

 

Yea... not to say that having some teachers carry may influence other teachers and cause a bad environment in the workplace in general. I can't see that as a good thing for the students.

What would be the negative affect? Concealed Carry permit holders are fourteen times less likely to be arrested for a crime. Less than .5% of concealed carry licenses are ever revoked for gun law violations of any type. (You can have it revoked for walking in to a Pizza Hut in some states because it serves alcohol. That would be a nonviolent violation.) It is estimated that 30,000 Americans are actively carrying a concealed weapon at any given time.

How would properly trained teachers carrying a concealed weapon make things bad? It already happens in Texas. Nobody has been killed by a rouge teacher yet.

reply to post by MikeNice81


I understand but what I am suggesting is that teachers should worry about teaching and not security. Leave that worry to security.

Also, you know as well as I that there would be many teachers that would not like the idea of their co-workers be armed. I would even wager that a good portion of teachers would be for an AWB to begin with.

That in itself would create too much friction in the workplace.

Here's my compromise that might address some of the problems:

Improve the FBI Instant Background Check system that all gun dealers must use when selling a firearm.

What I mean by improve, and some people won't like this, is include mental health records for individuals who have sought psychological counseling for certain disorders and who are on certain medications that show a history of causing violent tendencies. Furthermore, if they live with parents, include the parents' information in the system as well since that is clearly a problem.

At such time as those individuals show improvement and are able to pass multiple evaluations that deem them no longer predisposed to violent acts, they can have their ability to purchase firearms reinstated.

The problem with this idea is who gets to determine which disorders go on the list, and which don't? This is yet another reason why laws seldom work... you have the worst type of people making them.

Unfortunately, nobody wants to be insensitive to people who are mentally ill so instead they attack guns.