![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Police survey on gun control:
• Asked if a federal ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds would reduce violent crime, only 2.7% said yes, to 95.7% no.
• Only 7.6% thought a ban on so-called assault weapons would reduce violent crime; 71% thought it wouldn't help, and 20.5% thought it would aggravate the problem.
• On the more general question of what effect the White House's suite of gun restrictions would have on the safety of police officers, only 11.6% said it would help; 60.6% thought it would have no effect, and 24.6% thought it would make cops less safe.
• Asked what the likely outcome would have been at Aurora and Newtown had a legally armed civilian been on the scene, 80% said it would have meant fewer casualties and 6.2% said it would have prevented casualties altogether. Only 5.5% said it would have led to greater loss of life.
• Asked which measure would help most in preventing large-scale public shootings, a plurality (28.8%) said more-permissive concealed-carry policies for civilians. The second and third choices were also not on the Obama agenda: more-aggressive institutionalization of the mentally ill (19.6%) and more armed guards (15.8%). Only then do we get improved background screening for gun purchasers, (14%), followed by longer prison terms for gun-related violent crimes (7.9%). Bringing up the rear were tighter limits on weapons sales (1.5%) and legislative restrictions on "assault weapons" and magazines (0.9%).
Common sense?
• Asked if a federal ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds would reduce violent crime, only 2.7% said yes, to 95.7% no.
• Only 7.6% thought a ban on so-called assault weapons would reduce violent crime; 71% thought it wouldn't help, and 20.5% thought it would aggravate the problem.
• On the more general question of what effect the White House's suite of gun restrictions would have on the safety of police officers, only 11.6% said it would help; 60.6% thought it would have no effect, and 24.6% thought it would make cops less safe.
• Asked what the likely outcome would have been at Aurora and Newtown had a legally armed civilian been on the scene, 80% said it would have meant fewer casualties and 6.2% said it would have prevented casualties altogether. Only 5.5% said it would have led to greater loss of life.
• Asked which measure would help most in preventing large-scale public shootings, a plurality (28.8%) said more-permissive concealed-carry policies for civilians. The second and third choices were also not on the Obama agenda: more-aggressive institutionalization of the mentally ill (19.6%) and more armed guards (15.8%). Only then do we get improved background screening for gun purchasers, (14%), followed by longer prison terms for gun-related violent crimes (7.9%). Bringing up the rear were tighter limits on weapons sales (1.5%) and legislative restrictions on "assault weapons" and magazines (0.9%).
Common sense?
Tags:
no subject
Это по поводу вот этого (http://arbat.livejournal.com/721168.html?thread=36454160#t36454160)
Если бы вы потрудились прочесть его примерчик (http://thefire.org/article/15522.html) по ссылке, то смогли бы убедиться, что:
1) Пример не в тему, т к Арбат утверждал, что свободу слова на кампусах ограничивают кодексы по хейт спич; в приведенном им примере ограничение было неизбирательным относительно содержания. Запрещались носить любые знаки из соображений безопасности, причем делалось это аж с 1990 г, и запрещались только знаки. Таким образом, оспариваемые в иске регуляции кампуса относились к форме выражения, а не к содержанию лозунгов.
2) Пример подтверждает мою правоту, что вы не можете судить свой штат, ни в ЮС суде, ни в суде штата, т к иск был подан в ЮС Дистрикт против администации колледжа. Почему нельзя судить свой штат, и в каких редких случаях все-таки можно это делать, гуглите на 11th Amendment или на "sovereign immunity", узнаете много нового для себя.
3) Арбат может сколько угодно ссать кипятком по поводу уступки администрации колледжа, но внесудебное соглашение, на которое пошли стороны, не создает юридического прецедента. Одна администрация прогнулась, другая может и не прогнуться, и казус в Охайо никакого значения для суда, если до него дойдет дело, не имеет.
3) По этой же причине мы так и не узнали, что по поводу этой ситуации думает ЮС суд.
В общем, Арбат привел пример, который на 50% мимо, на 50% подтверждает мою правоту.
Успехов.