MAKE US YOUR HOMEPAGE | Tuesday, February 09, 2010 | WIRELESS CONTACT US | SUBSCRIBER SERVICES | SIGN IN SIGN OUT | MY PROFILE PAGE | MY ACCOUNT

Home > News > Article

Newspaper View Newspaper View      Print this story Print      Email this story Email      Comment Comment      RSS RSS     
Share      Bookmark Bookmark

Sooners favor guns, oppose stricter laws

 
By RANDY KREHBIEL World Staff Writer
Published: 5/20/2007  3:34 AM
Last Modified: 5/20/2007  3:34 AM

Country songs featuring Oklahoma, gun racks and pickup trucks still ring true.

Oklahomans are about twice as likely to own guns as their fellow Americans, according to the most recent Oklahoma Poll, and they're not too keen on further regulation of them, either.

"I'm not for much of any restrictions, except on fully automatic weapons, and that's already there," said Sally Kimsey, a rancher near Wardville in southeastern Oklahoma.

Almost 60 percent of the 752 likely voters surveyed by SoonerPoll.com on April 27-30 said they own guns. That compares to the 32 percent nationally, according to an AP/Ipsos National Public Affairs poll conducted one week earlier.

Fifty-four percent of Oklahoma Poll respondents said they do not believe the U.S. needs stricter gun laws in view of the 33 shooting deaths at Virginia Tech University last month.

"That didn't have anything to do with guns," Kimsey said. "That had . . . to do with a breakdown in the mental health system."

The results don't necessarily mean Oklahomans think anybody should be able to own any kind of firearm. World War II veteran Durward Keeter of rural Adair County said people should be able to own "hunting guns" but not "those high-powered guns they fight with."

Phyllis Postoak of Jay favors a ban on assault weapons.

"There's no reason to have one. They're to kill people. And if you need a handgun, why can't you wait three days? What's the hurry?"

Oklahomans outside the state's two major metro areas were more likely to own guns and oppose gun control than their city cousins, especially those in the six-county Tulsa metro area.

Just under half of Tulsans said they own guns, compared to 58 percent in Oklahoma City and 64 percent in the more rural sections of the state.

Small majorities opposed more gun control in the metro areas, but the spread was 17 percentage points among non-metro Oklahomans.

Only 21 percent of rural respondents were worried about becoming victims of gun violence, compared to 26 percent in Oklahoma City and 32 percent in Tulsa.

Poll consultant Al Soltow, vice president of research for the University of Tulsa, said there may be more concern in urban areas because "there is a greater concentration of population, where somebody berserk with a gun is a much greater danger."

"And, in rural areas you could argue there is an attitude, because the proximity of police is much less, there is more of a responsibility to take care of yourself."

Kimsey agreed.

"I've got an hour, maybe an hour and a half for law enforcement to get here," she said. "I have had to call them a time or two, and I don't think it's ever taken less than an hour and a half. I don't even have 911."

Rural Oklahomans also have to ward off animals preying on livestock and tend to hunt more, too.

Most of the controversy about guns, though, involves shooting at humans, usually in more populated areas. Some contend that arming themselves protects individuals against violence, while others argue that more guns lead to more shooting.

The Oklahoma Poll found that those who did not own guns were slightly more fearful of gun violence than gun owners, but gun owners were slightly more likely to know someone who had actually experienced such violence.

But the big difference among those who own guns and those who don't is that those who don't are much more likely to favor more gun laws.

Sixty-three percent of those without guns said they want more laws, while 65 percent of gun owners said they don't.

Democrats and women tended to favor stricter gun laws, while Republicans and men did not.

"I'm anti-gun," said Dallas Saunders, a Democrat. "The less there are around, the less trouble they're going to cause.

"I know it's very controversial," she said, "but I think people get them too easily. When we lived in Missouri, we used to drive by a store that said 'guns, ammo and liquor.' "

Postoak said the Second Amendment, which provides for "a well-regulated militia" and "the right of people to keep and bear arms," is often misapplied.

"There was a reason for them to have guns then," she said. "They were the army, pretty much. And if they didn't hunt, they didn't eat in a lot of cases. Times have changed. Guns are unnecessary in most cases, in my opinion.

"I know that puts me in a minority in Oklahoma."


Randy Krehbiel 581-8365
randy.krehbiel@tulsaworld.com


About the Oklahoma Poll

Soonerpoll.com conducted the scientific telephone survey April 27-30 of 752 likely Oklahoma voters.

Respondents included 310 R epublicans, 416 Democrats and 26 independents selected randomly from voters who have established a frequent voting pattern.

The margin of error is plus or minus 3.5 percent.

The Oklahoma Poll is sponsored by the Tulsa World and KOTV, channel 6.

By RANDY KREHBIEL World Staff Writer

Newspaper View Newspaper View      Print this story Print      Email this story Email      Comment Comment      RSS RSS     
Share      Bookmark Bookmark

Reader Comments
       Add your comment

6 comments have been made on this story so far. Tell us what you think below!

Report Comment Reporting Comments

If you see a comment that violates our terms and conditions, please help us by clicking the "Report this Comment" link next to a comment. That will alert the web staff to review the comment. Thank you.  -- Web Editor Jason Collington
 
 
Report Comment
Josh Mathis, broken arrow (5/20/2007 11:58:24 PM)
Why is it that people feel if guns are more regulated that somehow the ones that 'criminals' own will mysteriously disappear. Really, who benefits from these bans and stricter regs? Its the guys who don't abide by them in the first place. Only law abiding citizens will mind the laws. This just restricts them on there rights to own. The ones who commit the crimes really could care less what laws are on the books about firearms.

I am a student at one of the state universities. I am a former soldier and veteran on the Iraq war. If I am legal to carry then why shouldn't i be allowed to carry on a college campus. Because of some laws I could be stopped from carrying. Do you think that anyone who is determined to use a gun in a crime (ie. mass murders) will be stopped by the 'gun-free zones'. All it does is tells the man that he is going to meet little resistance and probably no resistance in the forms of other firearms. Its just rediculous that people fall for these false sence of securities that people call 'needed' gun restrictions. I guess common sence is no longer common.

Report Comment
FIRSTSAI, University of Kansas (5/21/2007 7:27:46 PM)
First of all, I think you're mixing apples with oranges. Contrary to popular belief, "criminals" only account for a small percentage of annual shootings. Accidental shootings, suicides, and shootings by non-criminals by far make up the majority of shootings. The kid who shot those college kids last month, was not a criminal, but was still able to get two guns. There is a sad, but pervasive wild west mentality going through this country, that somehow, you're safer with a gun than without one. Tell that to the gun owner in Kansas two weeks ago, who had 33 guns stolen from him, in his home, while he was there, or the guy who had 18 black powder rifles, a truck, and a trailer stolen from a motel parking lot. The problem is, there are too many guns around, and they are too easy to obtain. I have a concealed-carry permit, but I found out the hard way, that carring a concealed weapon is very difficult, not only because of all the places you have to go to that prohibit them, but if I get into a situation where someone pulls a gun on me first, which is more likely than not, or tries to carjack me, there is a time lag where they have the advantage...I'm likely to get shot, and have my weapon stolen, and used to shoot someone else. Bottom line...there are a lot of crazy people out there that want guns, and there are a lot of criminals out there that want guns. If your gun gets stolen because you carelessly left it lying around, are you willing to accept the responsibility or punishment if it is used to hurt someone?
Report Comment
Steve, (5/22/2007 8:55:11 AM)
It is OK for FIRSTAL to have a concealed weapons permit, but no one else can have a weapon. Must be a democrat.
Report Comment
RDA, (5/22/2007 10:54:45 AM)
How come we can't stop drugs so we need to decriminalize them? We can't stop illegal aliens we need to legalize them we can't stop guns we need to ban them? hmmmmmm
Report Comment
RDA, (5/22/2007 10:58:49 AM)
How come we can't stop drugs so we need to decriminalize them? We can't stop illegal aliens we need to legalize them we can't stop guns we need to ban them? hmmmmmm
Report Comment
Ron Ballew, Lawton, OK (5/22/2007 1:55:37 PM)
The people's "Right to Keep and Bear Arms" was enshrined in the Constitution so that the people would always have the power to overthrow a despotic govenment. If the people are armed, the government will respect their opinion; if the people are unarmed they are not free men; they are servants.
 

 
Add Your Comment 
In order to post a comment on this article, you must sign in to Tulsaworld.com. If you do not have a site account, you can create an account for free.

 
  
Post Your Comment
 


Most Popular Stories
Comments made yesterday 2,015
Total Comments 1,031,924
Register to make reader comments

Most Popular Stories




Tulsa World

Home | About Tulsa World | Advertise With Us | Privacy | Usage Agreement | FAQ and Help | Contact Us | Today's Headlines
Copyright © 2010, World Publishing Co. All rights reserved.




Advanced Search