51% of Americans are opposed to banning "assault" weapons. While the numbers in favor of other kinds of gun control have had a large swing in public opinion since last year. It will likely even out after this fades from the 24 hour news cycle. http://m.usatoday.com/article/news/1791827
"In terms of specific laws, however, the ban on assault weapons, which are a favorite target of gun control advocates including Obama -- hasn't gained any significant support, according to the poll. Forty-four percent support such a move and 51% are against it. In October 2011, 43% supported an assault weapons ban and 51% said they were against it."
Published: 12/26/2012 06:43pm The NRA, the nation's most powerful gun rights organization, has called for the federal government to put armed guards on duty in every school in the aftermath of the Newtown shooting and has flatly rejected any calls for tougher gun laws. Other laws backed by Obama and gun control advocates score much more favorably with the public: A near-unanimous 92% support background checks for buyers at gun shows, and 62% favor bans on high-capacity magazines, which can carry as many as 30 rounds of ammunition. Keene notes that only small portion of guns are bought at gun shows, and most of those sales are from licensed dealers who are required to do background checks. Surveys of inmates by the Justice Department found that about 1% were carrying guns bought at gun shows at the time of their crime. "It would make sense to do something if it was a problem," Keene said. "When you get into the question of the so-called gun loophole and Congress asks, 'What is this going to solve?' Then it's a whole different kind of deal."
Putting arming guards in every school is a recipe for disaster. The financial costs of doing so would be tremendous. There would also be at least a few instances annually where accidental shootings occur, ending up with people suffering unnecessary injuries or deaths. This is not to say that this option should be off the table. For schools with viable security official apparatuses, allowing certain individual to conceal carry on a may-issue basis could be a distinct possibility. However, a better option would be the modernization of school security systems to include video monitoring. While there may be right to privacy issues at play, I think it is practically decided that the rights of school attendees should be reasonably curbed in the name of creating a safe and secure learning environment.
I'd imagine we could transfer funds from elsewhere. And really, with the way we spend money, armed guards in each school would be chump change in comparison. Plus, there is no reason why this has to be federally funded. It could be city or state level. I think the deterrence of an armed guard would probably outweigh this. What good is video monitoring, and how much are we to spend on video equipment and the people to monitor the cameras (since money is a concern)?
The federal government provides grants to states for public school emergency preparedness. I suspect funds could be transferred from there. Municipal and state governments also have funds for such purposes as well. However, unless a school already has a credible security official apparatus in place, I see little reason why schools should hire armed security guards. Furthermore, video monitoring provides security officials with more time to inform teachers, students, and administrative officials to seek safe areas of the school in the event of a trespasser. It may also allow security officials to contact police in a more timely matter. But to be honest, both policies could work in tandem, and neither is likely completely compatible with each area of the country, school district, or even school zone.
That was part of the article not my opinion. I do not agree with the increase of police officers in schools either it was just one of a number of counter proposal made in my mind just to have some ideas put on the table. The NRA could not just say deal with it there is nothing that can be done. I personal think little can be done that will be cost-effective and not infringe rights of the people. These events may happen to often in most people including my opinion. They are still too rare and committed by extremely evil individuals. Much like serial killings I do not think they can be stopped or even reduced.
An "assault rifle" ban ain't gonna happen. Way too much opposition. Guards in schools (beyond what you have today) ain't gonna happen. The entitlements ate up all the money. Everybody has gotten over the shock and realized you just can't stop the random wacko.
I am sorry my friend. You cannot say... Or the USA Today cannot say, that 51% of Americans oppose such a ban. You can say, "51% of the polled", or "51% of readers who opted to respond". It DOES NOT mean 51% of Americans think as such. There exists a statistical MARGIN OF ERROR that increases as the percentage of population sample decreases. If you ask 1 person of 300 million, your margin of error is vast, if you ask 1 million people your margin of error is still VERY large. WE DO NOT EVER EXTRAPOLATE TO THE ENTIRE POPULATION, and claim the poll somehow speaks for them, we use what they have polled to gain a sense. The poll outcome depends greatly on geographic location, economic makeup, etc. etc. The USA TODAY is NOT a scientific poll. We only know that 51% of however many USA Today readers who decided to answer that question decided they don't want an assault rifle ban. That is all.
Well I have to agree with you. All polls can be anomalies I suppose. It was also by Gallup and they poll regularly on this topic and the results have been fairly close to this. So while you are correct the politicians who will vote on this issue will pay attention to these polls. History suggest that if you represent certain areas and vote for gun bans you will be replaced. These numbers will cause problems for any passage of a "assault" weapons ban. It will be 2015 before anything major has a chance.
if very few were effected by the so-called gun loophole, then I say where is the problem, most already do background checks they said anyways that said, I do not really believe any handguns or shotguns should be background checked, just proof your an American over 18 should be enough, such as a drivers license .... lets restrict background checks to guns like machine guns and assault rifles
Many schools are now opening law enforcement stations in their schools. Local sheriff or city police now have officers that work out of the school, it's where they do paperwork or whatever. In my opinion this is the best route since most schools have no problem finding a few extra rooms for police and there is no cost to them yet you always have a police force on hand who are non-intrusive.
