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 2A supporters with two answers, the total came at 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.

Following a shooting in Glendale, Arizona, azcentral.com is running another poll. The shooting in Glendale involved a former Marine who fired a pistol at an accused shoplifter after a gun was pulled on a store security guard, 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

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

65 COMMENTS

  2. I used to love the AZCentral comments section for articles like this. Of course, now you have to pay a subscription for web access and to comment. No thanks. Very rarely do I even go there to read articles anymore as there are free online sources of local news.

  3. Good results all around. Though it does bother me that 25% of people would be cool with standing by and watching me die….

    • From the wording, they would allow their family to be killed too, as long as they themselves weren’t personally in danger.

    • What scares me more is the 16% that think you should just stand there and be killed, without fighting back.

  5. I’ve got a big stupid grin going right now, knowing that after readers here vote, the now 58.39% will climb closer to 70%.
    Excellent.

  6. Heh, that guy in the video talks about how the former Marine shouldn’t have shot at the thugs and how it was only a toy gun. What about the cases where cops have shot at and killed children with toy guns? What makes their case more just?

  7. Is there anything Arizona HASNT done right?
    Gun laws
    Minimum wage raise.
    Awesome place to live by default.

    I mean…DAMN!

    • But, but raising the minimum wage would hurt the (Rebublican) “job creators”! Mitt Romney and Peter Schiff said so. According to the TTAG hivemind, you must be a lib.

    • Raise “min wage” = idiotic as “common sense gun control”.

      1. If the individual’s labor per hour is not = in value to the min wage he will not be hired
      If his currently at 48/hr and the gov’t says now must be paid $10/hr, how much will you pay the guy currently receiving $10/hr? Both will be satisfied with $10/hr even though one is worth $8/hr our and the other is more valuable? NO the 2nd will get a MINIMUM of $12.10 (+25%). The guy formerly receiving $15.hr will now $18.75 and on up the skill, qualification, wage scale. All wages rise and in parallel so does the cost of living. Very short order in relative terms all workers are right back where they all started. For medium term leaves behind the SS/welfare/99wk unemployment crowd. Fed will take care of their “workers” and union retirees etc can count on that.

      2. Where does numbskull $10.10/hr come from? Not an even # so obviously derived from great minds doing great research? BS Obuma pull out of butt. IF so great why not make it $20.20/hr, $30.30. And cut hours to 30hr/week with 12weeks of vacation per yr (full on French).

      3. Why does Obuma/dems like this. Nothing do do with “help” the poor. They WANT inflation. Makes every $ he/they have borrowed/spent less expensive to repay. That is, in theory, easier to repay. Not that they will or intend to repay jus that they can keep on spending/buying votes (until it ALL crashes).

      Econ is not that hard if you throw out the university eggheads (as Obuma) and use “Commonsense”.

    • The cost of living goes up when minimum wage is raised. At best, it only makes the minimum wage worker feel good when he gets his check. That feeling goes away when he goes to spend that money and finds that it still doesn’t cover his expenditures.

    • Me personally, I believe in a minimum wage raise. Things are only going to get more expensive before they get cheaper. Besides, how else Johnny Q Citizen gonna afford that .22 ammo? OTOH, I do not believe paying a McDonald’s burger flipper 15 an hour is awesome. That’s just encouraging kids to stay out of school (not that 30k of debt is preferable)

      I also love how I started a flame war about minimum wage and NO ONE added to Arizona’s awesome traits list. 🙁

      And for the record, I’m no lib. I believe whatever the hell I want to believe. I don’t assign myself a label.

      • Your logic is flawed. Minimum wage is a base wage only. Employers are free to pay more. Also jobs covered by minimum wage were never meant to be life long raise a family careers. Also anyone who gets deeply in debt for college is an idiot. Go to a local Community College for the first 2 years and save your money for the last 2 years.

        • I don’t think you realize how many idiots we have, then. Thankfully I dodged that bullet.
          Read my reply to Rich for the rest BTW.

          • The idiots are the parents who allow their children to attend all 4 years at a major institution just for the “college experience” or because all of their friends are going.

        • That I can agree with. College for parents was LIGHTYEARS cheaper than what it is today. THEY COULD PAY FOR COLLEGE WITH A SUMMER JOB. We can barely eat with a summer job.
          Most just don’t get it, willfully or by ignorance.

      • ” I believe in a minimum wage raise. Things are only going to get more expensive before they get cheaper.”

        Why can you not see that it is the “minimum wage raise” that is DRIVING things to get more expensive? And why do you want to cut off the entrance of low-skilled workers into the job market? Minimum wages were originally passed by unions specifically to exclude blacks. How does it feel to join the Klan by default?

        • Considering I still haven’t received my hood, I can’t answer that question.
          Jesus I get it! I did some research (no thanks to ANYBODY else who told me I was wrong simply by saying “you’re stupid”) and…maybe I was slightly off.
          I still don’t think burger flippers deserve $15 an hour though.

          Next time you guys wanna tell me I’m wrong, CORRECT me instead of ATTACKING me. That’s a gun grabber mindset….

          • Benny,
            Like most people who support massive minimum wage increases, you aren’t stupid, your’re just misinformed and maybe locked into feelgoodism. People are paid the worth of their work. In the lower end of the worker spectrum are people unskilled and easily replaced so they are paid the least. Higher skilled workers who aren’t easily replaced are paid much higher wages but no more than their worth to the employer.
            Any hike of the minimum wage will result in four things. First it will result in workers who have earned wage increases to demand an equal increase in their wages. Next it will result in the price of goods and services going up to pay for the increased wages, taxes and benefits. Third it will result in the laying off of workers to try to hold down costs so the prices won’t have to be raised above levels people are willing to pay and lastly all prices will go up as a result due to the increased salaries (also known as inflation). People have more money to spend so businesses raise the prices to get at least a portion of it.
            The overall result is the gov’t will adjust up the level of income defined as poverty to accommodate the new norm of increased salaries. Its called the Overton Window.
            The NET result is nothing changes and a year from now you will be demanding a raise in the minimum wage again because its the right thing to do for the poor. And in the mean time all you have accomplished is screwing the American economy a little more.
            BTW, Jesus said the poor will always be among us and 2000 years later we see he was correct. I think it was Jefferson that said the best way to eliminate poverty is to make the poor uncomfortable in their position and 200 yrs later we see he is still correct also.

          • “I still don’t think burger flippers deserve $15 an hour though.”

            Burger flippers deserve to get paid exactly what the burger customer is willing to pay them to flip it.

        • Truth be told DBM, you actually didn’t give off vibes of “you’re stupid” with any of your responses. I do thank you for that AND your explanation.

          • Your welcome and feel free to tell me I’m wrong but please explain why. I just might be wrong because I’m ill-informed.

              • Rich,
                I used to think the only stupid question was the one that wasn’t asked but through the years I’ve had to alter that. Its only true if the person is intelligent and has not been informed.

              • Hm. Good point. Would a suitable corollary be something like, “If you ask enough people, eventually you’ll find somebody to give you the answer you want?” 😉

              • I’ve met people who wouldn’t understand the answer they wanted.:-)

                When I was in the army I was attached to an MI BN. The BN CDR looked like Jerry Lewis in “The Nutty Professor” only with grey hair and didn’t have the professors common sense (which was zero). Had to ask him what he needed explained about the word NO. Was it the N or the O that was confusing him. He just looked glassy eyed at me because the explanation went over his head.

  9. “Should Arizona citizens be able to use lethal force to protect people they think are in danger”
    Define “think they are in danger”

    • The legal standard for the danger required to justify lethal force in self-defense is well established. You will rarely if ever see such detail in polls for two reasons. First the people conducting the poll either don’t understand the details or they don’t want that information to be in the poll. Second to do the topic justice and have the average citizen understand the issue would make the poll question too long. A decent legal defense in a self-defense shooting requires considerable time dedicated to educating the jury about the legal details. There is no way that level of detail can be provided in a poll question.

      For the reasons above and others affecting the validity of poll results I try to be very careful to not take away the wrong conclusion when looking at any poll.

  12. Yeah, I see protecting my fellow human beings as my duty. I helped a woman that was being kidnapped by an ex-boy friend and the woman was sure he was going to kill her. I didn’t have to pull a weapon, my presence was enough. I would do it again; even if I had had to use a gun.

  13. This is because there’s been a growing trend of “not mine, don’t care” going on.

    Which I’m sure has absolutely not been helped by the increasing litigation surrounding everything.

    • But there are “Good Samaritan” laws around the country to help those with morals who good-faith assist.

    • It certainly wasn’t helped by the Zimmerman prosecution. See something, try to be a good witness, get your head slammed in the pavement for it, then charged with second degree murder for defending yourself. It’s not a great sales brochure for community involvement.

  14. I can see Bloomy calling Shannon on the phone and screaming at her to keep logging on to the poll to try to influence it . . .

  15. What are the legal ramifications for this guy? He shot at a perceived threat…LEOs have done the same, and killed people. (Some of those we’re good calls, some bad – that’s a discussion for another post.) I’m just curious if anyone knows what the outcome was for him beyond what the article states.

  16. Its a shame that almost 42% of the people say walk away and let someone be murdered rather than save the person if you have the ability to do so. May the 42% be the next victims and see everyone walk on by like nothings happening.

      • Jus, you must be a mind reader. People didn’t do anything when the perp attacked her and they didn’t do anything when he returned and killed her.

  17. This is a question that there could be a lot of answers to, depending on the circumstances. There is no clear “Yes”, or “No” How do you define “In danger” How much danger? The question given does not say in “danger of dying”

  18. As of my vote being cast, the poll reads as follows:

    Yes, it’s the right thing to do.

    59.23% (2,105 votes)

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

    25.6% (910 votes)

    No, they should alert the authorities.

    15.17% (539 votes)

    At least the general populace in Arizona (for most the part) still has its head squarely on its shoulders.

  19. I’ll feel better about CC out there in March when I head to Surprise for spring training. Desert heat in winter, good sense on gun matters… what’s not to like. Oh, right. Scorpions.

  20. I’m sure that the Good Samaritan in AZ has nothing to worry about. He won’t be charged and even if he is, I’m sure that the people he was trying to help will pay his legal fees and visit him every other weekend.

  21. “Four shots were fired, the miscreants fled on a motorcycle, the gun turned out to be a fake and no one was hurt.”

    That’s must be how a DGU and the accompanying adrenaline dump will F ‘up your aim.

    D*mn, I would hope a former Marine would get at least one to connect.

    I’m always concerned of this effect if I (God forbid) ever have to “clear leather” (Kydex in my case).

  22. I am having a hard time seeing the poll results in a positive light. The defense of others is allowed in all states. Even though it can be much more complicated to know what is going on and if your are justified, it is still allowed. To think that nearly 50% of the people responding to the poll don’t agree with what is already the law concerns me.

    It is my understanding that most states require only that the person defending another pass the reasonable man test to be justified. A few states are more strict and require that the person you are defending would also be justified. An example of where this would make a difference is if you come upon a person attacking another. If you shoot the person attacking and the person being attacked was the initial aggressor then you would not be justified in the more strict states. Make sure you know the situation before you decide to defend others or you could find yourself in a real legal mess.

    • Exactly my point. (above) Also, I believe that in some states the person being attacked must be your wife, son, husband, etc. before you can use lethal force.

      • In NJ that only applies if the attacker is a human. If its a vicious dog trying to kill your kid and you kill it you will get up to 10 yrs. NJ vicious animal act says you can only kill it if its harassing your livestock or attacking you. Oh and you have to kill it humanely or its 10 yrs in jail.

  23. Thank you for voting!
    Yes, it’s the right thing to do. 60.06% (2,188 votes)

    No, they should alert the authorities. 14.88% (542 votes)

    A person should only use lethal force if they themselves are in danger. 25.06% (913 votes)

Comments are closed.