(OH) Gun control issues stir readers' passions

Oatka

New member
Poll breakdown at the end. Lots of statements to comment on.

Gun control issues stir readers' passions
By Dan Horn
The Cincinnati Enquirer

The vast majority of Enquirer readers who responded to a recent questionnaire on gun-control issues overwhelming support the right of law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons.
But there's plenty of disagreement over whether the government should regulate that right.
The unscientific survey, taken in September and October, asked readers to share their opinions about a Hamilton County court battle over Ohio's concealed weapons law.
That battle will resume in coming weeks as Common Pleas Judge Robert Ruehlman begins hearing arguments about whether the law is unconstitutional.
Nearly 1,200 readers responded to the Enquirer's questions with letters or e-mails that ran the gamut, from impassioned pleas to lectures on constitutional law.
Responses made it clear guns and gun-control laws are hot-button issues in America today.
The vast majority of those who responded — 1,098 to 81 — think the U.S. Constitution allows law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons.
But 650 readers said they favor at least some restrictions. Another 535 opposed any government regulation.
Many readers expressed support for the four Cincinnatians who are challenging Ohio's concealed weapons law in Judge Ruehlman's court.
The four have sued local police agencies, claiming they need to carry guns for self-defense.
Their attorneys have argued that Ohio law is unfair because it does not allow citizens to get permits to carry concealed guns.
“Guns have always been a part of this country,” wrote Steve Bay of Colerain Township. “They played a large role in how this country came to be. I don't believe more gun laws will make a difference.”
Many said they would support a law allowing citizens to carry concealed guns, but only if gun training courses are required with every permit.
“The right to carry a concealed weapon should be done very carefully,” wrote Dwayne Stephens of Cincinnati. “If someone chooses to pull a concealed weapon, it should be done only if their lives are being threatened.”
One reader said any talk of more restrictive gun laws
is “ludicrous” because the Constitution specifically protects the right to bear arms. Others think some government regulation is not only constitutional, but necessary.
Patti Foster of Indian Hill said more regulations would encourage those who own guns to use them more responsibly.
“You need a license to catch a fish,” Ms. Foster wrote. “How can we condone less stringent controls on owning a gun?”
Another gun control supporter cited recent school shootings as proof that some government regulation is needed.
“If these school shootings represent what unfettered Second Amendment rights get us, count me out,” wrote Stephany Kleinberg of Fort Mitchell.
But supporters of broader gun control laws were in the minority by more than a 10-to-1 margin. And nearly as many agreed they would feel less safe with more gun control laws.
“Criminals can still get guns,” wrote David Broxtermann, an eighth-grader at Colerain Middle School.
He was among more than 50 students at the school who participated in a class discussion before mailing their opinions.
The survey's results are unscientific because those questioned were not part of a random sample.
The total numbers vary from question to question because some readers did not answer every question.
While most who responded were from Greater Cincinnati, e-mails came from California, Alabama and Arizona.

Copyright 1995-2000. The Cincinnati Enquirer

POLL:

READERS SPEAK UP

The results of The Enquirer's reader survey on concealed weapons and gun control:
1. Do law-abiding citizens have a constitutional right to carry concealed weapons?
• Yes: 1098 • No: 81
2. Should there be restrictions on those who carry concealed guns?
• Yes: 650 • No: 535
3. Do you favor stronger gun control laws?
• Yes: 1073 • No: 96
4. Would stronger gun control laws make you feel more or less safe?
• More: 116 • Less: 1030
 
Hmmm. Oatka, check the numbers at the bottom. Are any of those inverted? I'm not sure how much editing (if any) you did to get that breakdown at the end. One figure in particular tends to stand out.

Mike

------------------
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects." -Robert Heinlein
 
I had a revelation regarding gun control and the current election cycle. Remember when Patrick Kennedy (the puke) boasted that gun control would be an issue the Dems would hang around the necks of the Repubs? Don't hear that now, do ya boys? Here's why.

The presidential campaigns are (correctly) focused on those states that are "in play", also referred to as the battleground states. In those states, like Michigan, Pennsylvania, Missouri, and Ohio, gun control is a LOSER for the Dems. The polls we had thrown in our faces last year (75% support "common sense" gun control laws) were heavily skewed by soccer moms, Northeastern, LA, SanFran, and Seattle liberals. Those voters all already in the Dem camp, whether or not Al trumpets "lisence, registration" or not. Absent another Reichstag fire, excuse me, Columbine or OKCity, gun control is dead during an election cycle. We win, they can go to hell.
 
Back
Top