AZ: Second Online Poll Hammers Those in Favor of Citizen Disarmament

Gun Watch ^ | 17 January, 2014 | Dean Weingarten

[marktwain]

Second amendment supporters at Arizona Capitol in 2013

A recent poll from the Seattle Times ran through the blogosphere with decidedly positive results for second amendment activists.   In spite of splitting the second amendment supporters with two answers, the total came with 79% in favor of a strict reading of the second amendment (no infringements) and 18 percent in favor of the status quo.   Only 7% were for increased restrictions on second amendment rights, even worded as a "background check" measure.

It appears that many people have been educated and have become more sophisticated in their understanding of the law and the issues in the year following the tragedy at Newtown.

Now, following a shooting in Glendale, Arizona, azcentral.com is running another poll.   The shooting in Glendale involved a former Marine fired a pistol at an accused shoplifter after a gun was pulled on a store security person, and then pointed at the Marine.   The Marine's wife was coming out of the store and about to become involved in the dangerous scenario.    Four shots were fired, the miscreants fled on a motorcycle, the gun turned out to be a fake, and no one was hurt.

Again,  we have three answers in the poll: two rather positive for those who believe  in protecting themselves, and one devoted to trusting the authorities to protect you.   Again, the answers supportive of self defense and the second amendment are hammering those opposed.

Here is the question and the current results:

 Should Arizona citizens be able to use lethal force to protect people they think are in danger?

Yes, it's the right thing to do.                                                         58.28%

No, they should alert the authorities.                                            16.53%

A person should only use lethal force if they themselves are in danger.   25.19%

 Here is a link to the poll

©2013 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

[marktwain]

These polls are not scientific, but they are a good measure of political "intensity", which is the amount of passion that each side has about the issue.

[Still Thinking]

Love it, EACH of the (probably intentionally) divided pro-rights options is beating the statist anti-rights answer individually. Good thing they split the pro options, it’d really be embarrassing otherwise.

[jsanders2001]

Yes they are. And they are to put the Feds on notice that we are aware of what they are trying to do, their long range goals, and that we will not stand for it even if blood has to be spilled.

[LibLieSlayer]

“Shall Not be infringed”... not one more inch.

[AZ .44 MAG]

Let’s pile on!

[lcms rev]

This is a difficult question. If I come into an incident late, I don’t know who is at fault, who is in danger, etc. I could make an assumption about who the bad guy is, and accidentally shoot another armed citizen who had just gained the upper hand on a criminal. For this reason, the armed citizen should be cautious in getting involved in such an incident.

However, this doesn’t mean that I should be unable to intervene if I am absolutely certain of who is at fault, and that without my intervention an innocent person would be dealt grave bodily injury.

[dynachrome]

Thanks to AZ.44Mag for the ping!

FREEP THIS POLL ***PING!*** FRmail me if you want to be added or removed from the Fearless Poll-Freeping Freepers Ping list. (multiple votes using multiple internetz devices are allowed!) And be sure to ping me to any polls that need Freepin', if I miss them. (looks like a medium volume list) (gordongekko909, founder of the pinglist, stays on the list until his ghost signs up for the list)

[dynachrome]

Direct link to the poll:

http://www.azcentral.com/community/glendale/articles/20140110experts-glendale-case-spotlights-legal-checks-vigilantism.html

[Ditter]

freeped it!

[KGeorge]

58.88% Yes, to protect anyone.
16.2 % No- alert authorities
25% Only if it is they, themselves, in danger

[Jeff Chandler]

Freeped.

[EXCH54FE]

Yes, it’s the right thing to do. 58.83% (1,799 votes)

No, they should alert the authorities. 16.29% (498 votes)

A person should only use lethal force if they themselves are in danger. 25% (761 votes)

Total Votes: 3,058

[TheOldLady]

Yes, it’s the right thing to do.
58.84% (1,801 votes)

No, they should alert the authorities.
16.3% (499 votes)

A person should only use lethal force if they themselves are in danger.
24.86% (761 votes)

Total Votes: 3,061

[Bon of Babble]

Alert the authorities? What a LAUGH!!

Yes, it’s the right thing to do. 58.86% (1,813 votes)

No, they should alert the authorities. 16.27% (501 votes)

A person should only use lethal force if they themselves are in danger. 24.87% (766 votes)

Total Votes: 3,080