Would allowing White House visitors to bring firearms into the WH increase the POTUS' safety?

[ZombieHorde]

Poll question: Would allowing White House visitors to bring firearms into the WH increase the POTUS' safety?

[imdjh]

1. I had to do it- the best answer wasn't offered.

4- This is a silly poll. √

[dmallind]

2. Depends

Does he already have armed protection? Then he's already covered. I think this is the case, no?

Do the rest of us? Not normally. In this scenario there would indeed be a difference in increasing our safety.

[HereSince1628]

3. Great Caesar's Ghost! n/t

[spin]

4. No. The White House is not a gun free zone...

the President has excellent protection.

I have a concealed weapons permit but there are places I am not allowed to carry. For example, a courtroom. The last time I was a witness in a trial, there were five armed police officers in the courtroom, and the judge might have also been packing heat.

I would say the judge and the courtroom was well protected.

[petronius]

6. Would excluding all firearms from the WH improve safety for the President?

:shrug:

Yeah, probably not...

[jody]

5. You have way too much free time. n/t

[gorfle]

7. I voted no.

I voted no.

I am extremely pro-right-to-keep-and-bear arms. I believe in concealed carry, and I believe that being armed is a responsible civic duty that allows good people to stand up to bad people.

That said, I am all in favor of certain gun-free zones, specifically places where there are high-profile, controversial targets who are likely to be targeted by deranged people. Such places would be most government buildings. Why? Because there are always people who are outraged at their government. Allowing the free passage of arms through such places is a plain invitation for disaster, and even though armed good people in such places very well might be able to resist such an attack by a deranged person, the target is simply too inviting to take the risk. In contrast, the allowance of carrying weapons in general public places does not precipitate any particular risk of attack.

Further, such places of government, especially the White House, have extensive armed security forces in place already. It's hard to imagine a more secure place on earth than the White House.

[Howzit]

12. "Why? Because there are always people who are outraged at their government"

I believe this is the reason for the DC handgun ban, not to reduce crime but to reduce the risk to politicians doing what politicians do.

[raimius]

8. NO!

Don't get me wrong. I support carry rights, but this question is rediculous. POTUS already has some of the best armed security in the world. Having well-armed security AND a screening process is the most secure set-up. The government WILL protect POTUS. It has no duty to protect us lowly citizens (nor effective power to do so), which is why I support letting people defend themselves.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

9. Yes.

Providing of course that they were properly vetted, highly trained, adhered to strict guidelines and were willing to give their life in defense of the President.

David

[Tim01]

10. Would he be safer if me and a bunch of my friends were milling around?

In addition to some of the most highly trained and capable protection professionals in the entire world,and their arsenal. Nope.

Really silly.

[yay]

11. I voted pie

But no it wouldn't increase his safety. Me and a lowly pistol could never compare to highly trained and equipped security forces.

However it wouldn't hurt it either.