In an effort to better understand how teenagers feel about guns, StageofLife.com, an educational resource and blogging community for teens and college students, asked over 7,000 students and teen bloggers the question, “Where do we go after the Newtown school shooting?” for its most recent national writing prompt.
600 students fully completed the gun survey and over 350 submitted a personal essay on the gun debate issue.
Before submitting their gun debate essays to StageofLife.com, teens and college students took a survey revealing the following statistics about teens' attitudes towards guns:
--10.1% of teens feel gun laws should be eased so that it's easier for law abiding citizens to own and carry guns both at home and in public.
--13.4% of teens feel we should keep current gun laws "as is."
--56.4% of teens feel we should keep the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution in tact, but add new federal gun control laws to restrict the access to high-capacity ammunition clips or certain semi/automatic assault weapons, closing gun show loopholes, etc.
Friday, March 1, 2013
Teens Agree
Yahoo News reports
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Why would you seek data which is polled from non-citizens (with regard to franchise) , with regard to the Second Amendment, and who are explicitly prohibited from exercising their rights? They have no idea what the Second Amendment means, or how such constitutional provisions apply to civilian life, and who have no desire or ability to express political thought. Polls should not be collected from those who are not registered to vote, as such Juveniles, Felons, and other non-citizens, have NO RIGHTS under the constitution, and therefore cannot responsibly be consulted in the application of such enshrined Rights.
ReplyDeleteTo reiterate the statements of previous commentators, how is public opinion in any way indicative of responsible public policy?
Did I say "public opinion in any way indicative of responsible public policy?" No. I didn't.
ReplyDeleteYou know who knows nothing about the 2nd Amendment? Gun rights advocates. They think it has relevance and meaning in today's society. They have to, because unless they have it to fall back on, all their arguments for gun ownership are failures.
Referring to gun rights advocates, Mikeb wrote, "all their arguments for gun ownership are failures."
DeleteTry on these arguments.
If someone attacks you in the city of Detroit:
Call 911 and an ANSWERING SERVICE, NOT 911 DISPATCHERS, answers your call. If they deem your call important, they will connect you to actual 911 dispatchers where you can waste valuable time explaining your emergency again. After reporting your emergency, you can relax with your attacker and exchange recipes during the 20 minute average police response time to PRIORITY dispatches. Of course that 20 minutes also gives you enough time to negotiate with your attacker to put on a condom before he rapes you.
If someone attacks you in Chicago:
Call 911 and dispatchers will kindly schedule a police car to come out THE NEXT DAY FOR ASSAULTS AND ROBBERIES. The up side? When police show up the next day, the bruises, swelling, and stitches from your attack will show up really well on the police photos for evidence.
If you live in a large city and a riot breaks out:
Large chunks of the city will have absolutely no police presence or response for days. Rioters killed at least 26 people (not including additional deaths due to arson and hit-and-run auto deaths!) in Los Angeles during the 1991 riots. Rioter injured countless more.
If someone attacks you in a rural location:
It can easily take police over 30 minutes to respond -- and longer if the weather or road conditions are hazardous.
The simple fact, Mikeb, is that our fine police officers have no legal obligation to protect anyone. And even if they wanted to protect you, there is no guarantee that they can. The only people who are guaranteed to be close enough to protect you are yourself, your family, and your neighbors. And the surest way to repel attackers -- especially if there are multiple attackers and/or they are armed with any kind of weapon -- is with a firearm. That is reality. Like it or leave it.
I'm sorry, Mike, but the idea that our rights are somehow subject to social utility arguments (of which "relevance and meaning in today's society" is an example) is specious. I say this for a number of reasons. First, the Supreme Court noted in Cruikshank that our civil liberties are neither granted by the Constitution nor dependent on it for their existence. Second, history tells us in no uncertain terms that the right (and need) for self-defense never goes away. Third, history also tells us that the right to self-defense is always under attack. There are other reasons, but these are sufficient to demonstrate the importance of the 2nd Amendment.
DeleteNow, you may not like the 2nd Amendment or the rights it protects. You may not like the idea of people having access to arms. You may not like the idea that there are people walking around legally carrying weapons, either open or concealed. You may prefer having access to firearms severely restricted. You may wish access to firearms and ownership of them was reserved primarily to the state and its agents. You may prefer any number of things as regards the 2nd Amendment. As I understand it, you're currently able to live in a place where your wishes are largely the case. Just don't expect everyone in the US to endorse it for life here.
As for your 'Did I say "public opinion in any way indicative of responsible public policy?" No. I didn't' statement, I'm curious. If you weren't suggesting it has any bearing on public policy, responsible or otherwise, why did you post it?
I see this as the fault of our current educational system. We're not teaching basic American values anymore. Of course, teenagers shift their opinions like a flock of birds, but they'll hit real life soon enough.
ReplyDeleteBut Mikeb, when you post an article titled, Teens Agree, you imply that this matters for public policy.
I agree, thought I extend that fault to parents. One reason may be that freedom, real freedom, is messy. Everything doesn't get tied up neatly in a box and everyone doesn't always walk away from the negotiating table in smiling agreement on every point. Your freedom might make me uncomfortable. I might have to hear, see or have knowledge of things on your part that I don't endorse or even actively dislike. So what? Freedom is not subject to my feelings or to yours. Your freedom must remain inviolate for mine to have any hope of being assured. The converse is also true.
DeleteExactly so. A corollary to that is the idea that we don't have the right to go through life without being offended. The older I get, the more and more a policy of "If it harms no one, do as you will" makes sense to me.
DeleteI agree. I have no interest in controlling those around me...or in being controlled.
Delete