![[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
Стас, ну здесь уже вы ломитесь в широко открытую дверь. Но, если я верно понял, вы со мной согласны, что это не есть наказание.
"Т е вопрос не в Конституции, а в ее трактовке.--Это бессмысленная фраза - в любом практическом смысле, Конституция и её текущая трактовка есть одно и то же."
Как же меня поражают иногда самопровозглашеные знатоки Америки, "права", Конституции и ты ды и ты пы. Стас, вы что, никогда в жизни не заглядывали на сайт Верховного Суда? А ведь у них там есть даже отдельная страничка, которая так и называется, The Court and Constitutional Interpretation. И там вы могли бы прочесть, что As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution... it is evident that constitutional interpretation and application were made necessary by the very nature of the Constitution. Понятно? Как ВС Конституцию трактует, так оно и будет. См www.supremecourt.gov/about/constitutional.aspx
Патентный закон канешн не Конституция, но в нонешнем рассмотрении дела о патентовании генетических последовательностей уже два члена ВС (Каган и Кеннеди) высказались, что если ВС решит против Мириада, то это может повредить бизнесам, которым будет труднее добиваться инвестиций. Т е ВС может исходить не из буквы закона, который запрещает патентовать все, что создано природой, а из возможных последствий собственного решения для одной из заинтересованных сторон. Ну а теперь представьте, что не дай Бог, на каком-то кампусе произойдут беспорядки с жертвами--и полетит ваша свобода слова, как фанера над Парижем, потому что ВС вынесет решение, исходя не из буквы Конституции, а из возможных последствий своего решения.
"Думаю, что нет - фейерверки не представляются мне родом высказывания, хотя, возможно, если вам удастся доказать обратное, то значит, правильный ответ будет - да."
Да вы, никак, пытаетесь трактовать 1ю Поправку? :))