Poll: More Americans Favor School School Officials Having Guns Than Weapons Ban

A recent poll conducted by Gallup shows that more Americans believe that several things would be more effective at preventing mass shootings at schools than a weapons ban, including having at least one school official carrying a firearm.

The poll was conducted with the number of adult participants being a little over 1,000.

The introduction to the polling results reads:

Americans are most likely to say that an increased police presence at schools, increased government spending on mental health screening and treatment, and decreased depiction of gun violence in entertainment venues would be effective in preventing mass shootings at schools. Americans rate the potential effectiveness of a ban on assault and semi-automatic guns as fourth on a list of six actions Gallup asked about.


As you will notice most people believe and increased presence of police officers would be the most effective. I tend to shy away from that myself as in most cases policemen are already disproportionate to the population, which makes it difficult to get an officer should an emergency arise.

Second on the list six propositions is more government spending on mental health screening and treatment. Again, not on my list of priorities as it involves bigger, more costly government.

Third is decreasing the depiction of gun violence on TV, movies and in video games. This may be a factor, but I think a small one. For instance I played "violent video games," watch films with violence and such and some of my older children do with me. That was never an issue that made me want to go play "shoot em up" at a mall or school. These things may simply add to the real problem, which is simply the depravity of man.

Notice in the fourth and fifth row are two things that have been talked about most recently: Banning semi-automatic firearms & arming at least one school official with a firearm. I'm not using the term "assault weapon," even though it was used in the poll, as I'm trying to honor what I wrote yesterday with regards to the use of the term.

While banning semi-automatic firearms overwhelmed the arming a school official in the "very effective" column, if you were to combine the very effective and somewhat effective, you discover that it actually outweighs the banning of semi-automatic guns.

The troubling aspect is the number of people that desire "more government intervention (ie. more police, government spending on mental health and obviously legislation that would deal with movies and video games). As you look at the image below, notice where my fellow Republicans show up in this regard.

gallup 2

While I'm glad to see those numbers in the Republican column low on gun bans and close to 50% on arming a school official, it is a bit troubling to think that those of the party of "smaller government" desire more government, especially police officers at their children's schools. I do understand that emotional draw that has though. I just think people should step back and see what is most cost effective and what would be a simple, yet common sense approach to dealing with security in this area.

Some say that arming teachers is implying "bigger government" I completely disagree. The reality would be that teachers could be allowed to carry their own firearms, provided they pay for their own training and concealed carry permits (CCW), along with the purchase of their own firearm and ammunition. There is no need for the government or the school system to dole out more money to finance this.

While some will laugh at that idea, I ask you, why are certain buildings, like schools, banks, and government facilities off limits to law abiding citizens who have gone through the process of obtaining a CCW? Obviously the government seems to trust them enough to carry their firearm concealed everywhere else, why not in these places? Frankly, I don't understand the logic and if we were to remove the "soft targets" of "gun free zones" such as schools and such, I think those who decide that they are going to attempt to murder innocent people will think twice about where they try to go and do it.

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter.

You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.

Print pagePDF pageEmail page



  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Russ-Henry/1287368319 Russ Henry

    Of all the mass murders since WWII only one has been outside a gun free zone!
    We armed citizens can protect ourselves and public places very well! The government has no business in control, They must supply background checks and organize FFL sites! That is all!

  • drbhelthi

    YES. Local school boards, in cooperation with the sheriff office, can acquire a retired vet. or retiree experienced in the use of a gun. Most communities around the USA have a number of such persons. Many of them would welcome a few hours daily of volunteer service among all that vim and vigor effused by children. Their presence in the school would also have carry-over effects of a favorable nature. Larger communities could even develop shifts of adult volunteers, so that no one would be obligated to spend more time in a school than one wishes to. Teachers and administrators are already overloaded with instructional and paper-work duties. Nor should teachers and school administrators be burdened with the additional duty of shooting anyone.

    • OldNYFirefighter

      It would also be protecting their own life. Don't forget four adult teachers & administrators were killed as well as the children. Armed intervention by any one of those could have prevented the tragedy that enfolded. It is in their best interests as well. They may also find shooting is a relaxing sport that would relieve tension & enhance their job performance. They already have a big responsibility & arming a couple of them would not complicate that responsibility & may very well keep them & the children safe from a would be attacker or assassin.

  • IddiKlu

    A major problem is, that most people are incapable of thinking about issues like this with logic only. Emotions always trip them up.
    Drifanwulf below is dead on!

  • Meathead

    The County Sheriff is the most powerful law enforcement officer in their county. Law enforcement officers can legally carry
    firearms into a "Gun Free Zone" school zone. The country sheriff can "deputize" anyone they so choose.

    Have the county sheriff deputize any eligible teacher or administrator
    who is willing to get
    trained, purchase their own weapon and conceal carry when at work.
    Nothing complex about this and virtually no cost to the county.

    KISS - Keep It Simple, Stupid!

    • BigUgly666

      You really do not want that

  • CaptTurbo

    Strange, I haven't seen these facts exposed on NBC, CBS, ABC, or MSNBC. Ha!

    • Patriot

      Nor will we see them!

  • Concerned Citizen

    But, but....

    This isn't what NPR has been telling me the last five days on the radio. Surely your information must be wrong Tim?

    [sarcasm off]

    • Patriot

      NPR? Good one Concerned Citizen.

  • Drifanwulf

    We have to be careful not to invite an increase of government control over our lives in order to attain more security. Ultimately it makes more sense for each citizen to be responsible for their own protection as well as for family and law abiding fellow citizens going about their daily routines. If more people obtained a concealed carry license the crime rate would decrease considerably. I believe a person contemplating a criminal act would be deterred from doing so if they knew there was at least a 75% chance they would be killed.

    • http://twitter.com/ramatwain Pat Pettie

      Exactly, it just the same as The War on Drugs: Because Prohibition Worked So Well. Since President Nixon declared war on drugs, we had lock up more of our people than any other country.
      I read a local newspaper in one day there were more than 4 cases of car crash that killed 6 people. Should we ban cars now? Did cars killed people?
      I saw on TV once long time ago, when Tom Select who supported the NRA had an argument with a commontatter on late night show about gun. I like Tom Select and even he supported NRA I had never heard that he wrongfully used gun.
      If we banned gun, the criminal will be so happy to walk into the bank and walk out with couple thousand dollars easily of course, the robbers will have gun but the security at the banks have not...

    • CaptTurbo

      They won't ban the guns protecting rich folks (banks). They just want you and I to be defenseless.