New Gallup poll shows support for gun control at historic low

[JohnRich 4]

News:

New Gallup poll shows support for gun control at historic low

"In Gallup polling conducted prior to last week's gun massacre at an immigrant center in Binghamton, N.Y., only 29% of Americans said the possession of handguns by private citizens should be banned in the United States. While similar to the 30% recorded in 2007, the latest reading is the smallest percentage favoring a handgun ban since Gallup first polled on this nearly 50 years ago..."

Source: http://www.gallup.com/poll/117361/Support-Gun-Control-Laws-Time-Lows.aspx

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

In Gallup polling conducted prior to last week's gun massacre at an immigrant center

bet there is a swing this week. But by summer, would be back to this same value.

[TomAiello 26]

I think the biggest indicator that gun-control is going to be a non-starting issue is the number of democrats elected on pro-gun platforms in the last election. They've finally sorted out that agreeing with their constituents is one of the best ways to get elected. The corollary is that failing to agree with their constituents is a good way to not get elected again.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[nerdgirl 0]

Any speculation on why the support for banning “possession of handguns by private citizens in the United States” was highest during the first survey in 1960 (60%) and overall trend has been downward since?

60% of survey respondents supported a complete ban on possession of private handguns in 1961. That surprised me. I wonder how it tracks with handgun possession.

There’s a slight increase in 1981, likely attributable to the attempted assassination of President Reagan, and a much smaller temporary upswing likely attributable to Columbine in 1999. There does not appear to be an upswing in 1964 tho’.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[riddler 0]

I find the polls misleading, because some of them are about banning assault weapons, and other are about requiring special background checks for handguns, and all of them get lumped by the media into "gun control".

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[Capt.Slog 0]

Quote

News:

New Gallup poll shows support for gun control at historic low

"In Gallup polling conducted prior to last week's gun massacre at an immigrant center in Binghamton, N.Y., only 29% of Americans said the possession of handguns by private citizens should be banned in the United States. While similar to the 30% recorded in 2007, the latest reading is the smallest percentage favoring a handgun ban since Gallup first polled on this nearly 50 years ago..."

Source: http://www.gallup.com/poll/117361/Support-Gun-Control-Laws-Time-Lows.aspx

You confuse "BAN" with "CONTROL".

Quite deliberate on your part, I'm sure.

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

Any speculation on why the support for banning “possession of handguns by private citizens in the United States” was highest during the first survey in 1960 (60%) and overall trend has been downward since?

Improvement in weapons technology, and change in distribution of ownership are my guesses.

In 1960, most people had a WWII era view of firearms. People owned rifles, real weapons were rifles, handguns were less common and generally used by fewer people.

Today, there are a lot more handguns out there, and people view them as more necessary in society than they did in 1960.

Personally, I'm against gun bans, but I'd be more concerned about a ban on rifles than one on handguns. Rifles speak much more directly to the original intent of the 2nd amendment.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[piper17 1]

"Rifles speak much more directly to the original intent of the Second Amendment"?

Care to elaborate or cite your source for this? I'd be interested in reading about it.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition"...Rudyard Kipling

[DJL 235]

He's talking about how rifles are necessary for a militia and furthermore how several of the Amendments are neccary for the citizens to be able to remove themselves from governance if the current government becomes corrupted.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[piper17 1]

Then, are you saying that the militia did not carry pistols? Officers of the militia carried pistols and sabers (or other forms of edged weapons)

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition"...Rudyard Kipling

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Personally, I'm against gun bans, but I'd be more concerned about a ban on rifles than one on handguns. Rifles speak much more directly to the original intent of the 2nd amendment.

The intent was prevention of a government that stopped listening to its people. Handguns are the answer to that now. People walking down the street with a rifle stand out rather brightly, don't make for stealthy revolutionaries.

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

Quote

Personally, I'm against gun bans, but I'd be more concerned about a ban on rifles than one on handguns. Rifles speak much more directly to the original intent of the 2nd amendment.

The intent was prevention of a government that stopped listening to its people. Handguns are the answer to that now. People walking down the street with a rifle stand out rather brightly, don't make for stealthy revolutionaries.

I don't know that I agree. If we're ever in a real, open revolution situation (and I sincerely hope I never have to live through that), I can tell you that my handguns will be staying in the safe. Revolutions involve honest-to-god military conflict, and for that sort of thing a rifle is going to be in much greater demand.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[DJL 235]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Personally, I'm against gun bans, but I'd be more concerned about a ban on rifles than one on handguns. Rifles speak much more directly to the original intent of the 2nd amendment.

The intent was prevention of a government that stopped listening to its people. Handguns are the answer to that now. People walking down the street with a rifle stand out rather brightly, don't make for stealthy revolutionaries.

I don't know that I agree. If we're ever in a real, open revolution situation (and I sincerely hope I never have to live through that), I can tell you that my handguns will be staying in the safe. Revolutions involve honest-to-god military conflict, and for that sort of thing a rifle is going to be in much greater demand.

I don't know if I agree even with that and perhaps it's time to qualify this amendment to modern times. It should read "..the right to bear arms, nuclear attack subs, aircraft carriers, big fuckin' tanks, and wicked helicopters with night vision." Hey, I'm just sayin. If we're following the intent of the original document then those are the only things that will allow this militia to do anything. It'll take more than a bunch of kids yelling WOLVERINES!!!!

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[warpedskydiver 0]

You might be forgetting the entire nation is filled with people who know how to operate all that equipment.


They are called Veterans for a reason.

They are not civilians and are not active duty, they are a separate category completely.

[warpedskydiver 0]

When push come to shove, a high percentage of Veterans and active duty alike would protect our Constitution, not a corrupt government issuing illegal orders.

Why on earth do you think so many are against Veterans having guns and actually seem to fear them as if they were damaged goods?

It is easier to garner support for your scheme if you can label and portray a group in a negative fashion.

[DJL 235]

Quote

You might be forgetting the entire nation is filled with people who know how to operate all that equipment.


They are called Veterans for a reason.

They are not civilians and are not active duty, they are a separate category completely.

Now all we need is for the Amendment to be re-written and we're all set.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[downwardspiral 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Personally, I'm against gun bans, but I'd be more concerned about a ban on rifles than one on handguns. Rifles speak much more directly to the original intent of the 2nd amendment.

The intent was prevention of a government that stopped listening to its people. Handguns are the answer to that now. People walking down the street with a rifle stand out rather brightly, don't make for stealthy revolutionaries.

I don't know that I agree. If we're ever in a real, open revolution situation (and I sincerely hope I never have to live through that), I can tell you that my handguns will be staying in the safe. Revolutions involve honest-to-god military conflict, and for that sort of thing a rifle is going to be in much greater demand.

I don't know if I agree even with that and perhaps it's time to qualify this amendment to modern times. It should read "..the right to bear arms, nuclear attack subs, aircraft carriers, big fuckin' tanks, and wicked helicopters with night vision." Hey, I'm just sayin. If we're following the intent of the original document then those are the only things that will allow this militia to do anything. It'll take more than a bunch of kids yelling WOLVERINES!!!!

I bet the Russians felt the same in the 80's

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

perhaps it's time to qualify this amendment to modern times. It should read "..the right to bear arms, nuclear attack subs, aircraft carriers, big fuckin' tanks, and wicked helicopters with night vision."

The original interpretation of the 2nd Amendment (up until very modern times) was that it protected the right to possess _military style_ weapons.

In 1939, the court ruled that a short barrel shotgun was not protected because it was not in normal military usage.

In my (admittedly zany right wing gun nut) opinion, the 2nd amendment was meant to protect civilian ownership of common military weapons, and as written ought to be applied to big fuckin' tanks and wicked helicopters with night vision.

I think that reading the Constitution, with a knowledge of the immediate history of the drafters, it's pretty obvious they weren't concerned with hunting or (at least in the immediate sense) self defense. The reason they gave the right to bear arms it's own paragraph was that it was the cornerstone that secured the other rights enumerated in the other 9 paragraphs. They lumped together free speech, religion and assembly, but they wanted to make sure that there was no confusion about the right to keep and bear arms. That's because the right of the people to fight (in the violent conflict sense of the word) oppression by their own government was _the_ foundational principle of our nation.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

My history may be a little flawed here, but...

Wasn't the Battle of Lexington and Concord (the "shot heard 'round the world") that essentially kicked off the American Revolution a case of the Brits going to the local armory to remove the cannons and shot that were stored there?

They weren't as concerned with the rifles as with the cannon the citizens had. They wanted to disarm the local militia. They failed.

Feel free to correct me if I'm mistaken.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[DJL 235]

Quote

I bet the Russians felt the same in the 80's

What the hell, are you not an American. That totally would have worked in the 80's. They'd never have seen it coming. I can only guess that you didn't correctly listen to the audio clip. Let me show you how. After you click the link below raise your right fist in the air and flex your bicept. Lip-Mime along with the audio and then bring both hands down as if you're holding a machine gun. Act out the machine gun motion. If the pure awesomeness of this doesn't enlighten you that we would kick some Ruski but then...you're gay.

WOLVERINES!!!!

[downwardspiral 0]

I was actually referring to this.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

The original interpretation of the 2nd Amendment (up until very modern times) was that it protected the right to possess _military style_ weapons.

In 1939, the court ruled that a short barrel shotgun was not protected because it was not in normal military usage.

And to be more precise, it said that Miller could establish this in a new trial. But he was deceased at this point, so there was no attempt to do so.

There are enough circumstances where short shotguns are used that it's quite possible that it would have been upheld.

[warpedskydiver 0]

The WWI "trench gun" is an example and was so prevalent that the Germans complained about is and executed any soldier captured with a shotgun.

Shotguns; The original assault gun

Because once you get assaulted....you stay assaulted.

The Iraqis are fairly fearful of them as well after seeing the effects of them on Bad Guys.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Quote

Any speculation on why the support for banning “possession of handguns by private citizens in the United States” was highest during the first survey in 1960 (60%) and overall trend has been downward since?

Improvement in weapons technology, and change in distribution of ownership are my guesses.

In 1960, most people had a WWII era view of firearms. People owned rifles, real weapons were rifles, handguns were less common and generally used by fewer people.

Today, there are a lot more handguns out there ….

Suspect that most of those empirical observations are correct.

They don't explain the trend (i.e., suggest hypothetical causality) in my mind. Perhaps the second point might correlate to changes w/r/t changes in the wider population’s relationship and perceptions of security role of law enforcement and authority in general, i.e., post-early 1970s.

What metaphorically struck me in the Pew data was that the trend runs counter to the idea that the larger public has embraced a “nanny-state.” Perhaps, this one issue (banning “possession of handguns by private citizens in the United States”) is anomalous to other issues? Perhaps pre-1960, we had more localized “nanny-relations” (town authorities)? I dunno … just interesting trend to me.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying