Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Gun control poll on FOX re:Tuscon shooting

94.54 to 5.46 but it means nothing. You can vote over and over, at least on my computer. There could just be one person voting yes and just us few voting no. miles

On another note, last week in our local newspaper(Killeen Daily Herald)a poll was started asking for people to vote on whether or not they supported the Texas Castle Doctrine. When I read it I figured the voting would be somewhat split or more would be against it. Well, two days ago the results came out and what a pleasant suprise to see a 100% support for the Castle Doctrine. I would have never thought this many would have been in support being there are some real winners in this town.

Dave

I voted no, but just once... More than that would make me a Chitcago Democrap!

They will be voting too. miles

94.57% or 32,592 people voting no vs 5.43% or 1,873 voting yes.

I only wish politicians cared about what their constituents wanted. That would make these polls a little more comforting.

Is this a nut case?


Charles Krauthammer, a syndicated columnist and board certified MD, mentioned on Fox News that back when he worked as a psychiatrist at Massachusetts General Hospital the law allowed people who exhibited mental illness such as Jared Loughner to be put in treatment even against their will. The law was changed and it seems that now people have to commit a crime before they can be forced into treatment.

Given that Seung-Hui Cho also exhibited mental illness before perpetrating the Virginia Tech massacre it seems that if Congress wants to pass some new law in response to the Arizona shooting, it should be a law that once again allows those exhibiting mental illness to be evaluated and put in treatment even against their will.

Acting all reactionary and passing ANY feelgood laws in response to this is the Dim Way.

With the exception of FOX, that poll will NEVER see the light of day in any of the leftist, socialist media.. Not so much as one WORD will appear..

To show how the other foot looks, here's a poll in this morning's "Pioneer Press".. Note the source: The Brady Bunch.. Gee, how UNUSUAL!!!!

With Seung-Hui Cho, Jared Loughner, and others there's a pattern emerging where someone who is known to exhibit mental illness goes over the edge, gets a gun legally because there's no official record of mental illness, and then goes on a shooting spree. If Congress feels compelled to pass a law in response to the Arizona shooting, and I'm not saying they should, the rational approach would be a law that at least compelled folks like Seung-Hui Cho and Jared Loughner to be diagnosed and have that diagnoses on record to make it harder for them to get a gun.

I just voted a bunch of times.

I voted for total gun control. Only the UN forces should have guns.

No! It's already illegal to kill people.

Currently at 94.67% NO.

I can understand the idea of prevention vs. reaction, but in my opinion, there is no way to diagnose someone as mentally ill, until they actually DO something to prove it.
I might be alone in this thought, but I think creating new laws that make it easier to lable people as loony tunes, will only lable more people loony tunes. Im sure this could/would be used as a tool to disarm America. The bar would be lowered to catch pretty much anyone, or everyone eventually. Have a verbal altercation w/ your nieghbor? Taking meds for anxieties or backpain? Are you a an alcoholic?
Gun rights are already lost for just about anything these days as it is, and history has proven it has no real effect on crime. A determined criminal will always find away.
The real solution in my opinion, is to arm more people. Making it socially acceptable nation wide. The a-holes/psycos would be weeded out in the first few months and within a year I bet most all crime would have dropped to nothing.
"Those who give up there freedoms for security, deserve niether freedom or security". Ben Franklin

Diagnoses of mental illness is not the problem, the problem is that under current law even those who exhibit serious mental illness can't be compelled to seek treatment or even an official diagnoses.



Jared Loughner's mental illness was so obvious that he was barred from attending college until he obtained a formal diagnoses that he wasn't a danger to others. He never did so. The bar doesn't have to be low to catch people like Seung-Hui Cho and Jared Loughner.



The bumper sticker is right, guns don't kill people, people kill people. If lawmakers don't focus on keeping people like Seung-Hui Cho and Jared Loughner from obtaining guns, then history shows that lawmakers will focus on banning guns and large capacity magazines. The former might actually prove beneficial, but we know from experience the latter doesn't work.



Arizona is one of just three states that allows anyone who can legally own a pistol to carry it concealed without a permit. Apart from compelling people to carry firearms, Arizona is as armed as any civilized society gets. Obviously, Loughner wasn't weeded out unless you mean weeded out after they commit a crime. Also, crime has not dropped to nothing in Arizona either.

We have a choice. When liberals use the Arizona shooting to push for more gun laws, the rational right should divert those laws towards the real problem, which is that obviously mentally unstable people can avoid formal diagnose, and if warranted, treatment. Such people pose a danger to the public and our freedoms.

Even more effective would be an adoption of a Vermont style handgun carry law in every state and outlaw "gun free zones." More guns means less crime. More guns means nutcases will be shut down before they can get off more than a few shots.

I watched a segment on 60 min where they went into prisons and talked to mental cases that had robbed and killed people. They were to be paroled soon and they asked them if they should be released and they said no, I should not be on the streets. 60 min then followed some of them and found that they could not get help or medication for their mental problems. How are the mental ill people, that they say are a problem, going to get help when the ones that have been in the system can't get help?

As of Jul. 29, 2010 Arizona residents at least 21 years old can carry a concealed weapon without a permit. Arizona, Alaska and Vermont are the only states that allow concealed weapons without a permit.

The Arizona shooting runs counter to the theory that if there were no restrictions on concealed weapon carry there would be no mass shootings. The common thread in most of these shootings are the nut cases who perpetrate them. Any law that could prevent such shooting would have to be directed at the mentally ill, not guns.

Not true. It certainly makes it harder for mass murderers, but nothing is perfect. It's only an improvement. No one said it would be impossible for a mass murderer to cause serious harm if we had Vermont style handgun carry laws.

It ASTOUNDS me that people turn to TV for news; what garbage.