Sandy Hook School Shooting

Post-Sandy Hook Support for Gun Control Already Slipping


More grist for the argument that Obama has started a fight on guns he knows he's going to lose: CNN reports that post-Sandy Hook a CNN/Time Magazine/ORC International poll released yesterday shows support for gun control already slipping (though not yet below majority, but it hasn't been that long):

According to the survey, 56% support a ban on semi-automatic guns, but that's down from 62% in a CNN poll taken in the days after the shooting at Sandy Hook. The same is true for a ban on high-capacity ammunition clips—62% in December, down to 58% now—as well as a requirement for all gun owners to register their firearms with the local government—78% last month, down to 69% now.

"Those changes are likely due to the passage of time, as the initial shock of the Newtown tragedy has begun to wear off, and may indicate why the White House has put the gun issue on a fast track," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.

Alas, support for background checks on all sales—the law change that will do the most to cut off perfectly innocent people's ability to practice a core human and constitutional right, and to bedevil Americans trying to just sell one of their possession—are still overwhelming:

Americans are evenly divided on restricting ammunition purchases, but they strongly favor background checks at all levels—92% want them at gun stores, 87% want them at gun shows, and 75% favor background checks even for person-to-person transactions between individuals.

An interesting and promising age-demographic detail:

 Two-thirds of women, for example, favor a ban on semi-automatic assault weapons, while a majority of men oppose such a ban. Support for that proposal is nine points higher among people over 50 years old than it is among younger Americans. Those patterns repeat on many other gun proposals.

Emily Ekins analyzed December's gun-related polling.

NEXT: Nate Silver: Entitlement Programs Drive Growth in Federal Spending

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. No Alt-text on that picture? You’re better than this, Doherty. Here’s one: “The best Christmas ever.” How much for the lot?

    1. You’ll put an eye out with those things!

    2. “Test running the new 3D printer.”

      1. This one wins the contest. Have some ampersands!


        1. And Reason, your character limit is screwed up. It kept telling me my post had a 50-character-long word in it, even when I deliberately shortened the amount of ampersands to less than 50 characters (my apologies to Jerry for the loss of the extra ampersands).

    3. You’re doing God’s work, mr.

      /god complex

    4. Maybe “Soon, Airsoft collections such as this will be banned.”

  2. Then they need to hurry up and pass this.

  3. Dead children have a very short shelf life.

    1. I guess they only matter when the political battle isn’t dangerous. Then again, maybe guns don’t pose a particular threat to children.

    2. It’s January they should be good until, at least March.

      A root cellar works well.

    3. Exactly what I was thinking. You know somewhere one of these fucking ghouls saw this poll and thought, “I hate to say it, but we could use another tragedy.”

  4. Oh Dems, you are so very fucked in the midterms. So very fucked.

    1. They had the Republicans on the verge of collapse. If they had played their cards right the Republicans might have split with the Tea Party types forming a third party. Instead the sight of dead children got them so excited and happy they just couldn’t help but go full retard on a gun control bender.

      They basically just gave millions of people who otherwise didn’t have one a reason to vote Republican. They really are comically stupid.

      1. Thank Jeebus all these statists are so fucking stupid. If they weren’t, we’d all be in concentration camps by now.

        1. You know, when studying 1930s and 40s European history, I’m always thinking how dumb the Nazis really were. Yet they seem like geniuses compared to the current political class. I guess we’re just lucky.

          1. Baby, you’s so talented and they so’s dumb.

          2. The Nazis were clowns. They were nothing but criminal rejects. Julius Striker was a border line retard. I am really a retard. Georbles was a cheap pervert. The only one of the top Nazis who was anything but a pathetic loser and failure at virtually everything they tried in life was Goering, who really was a great pilot and war hero in World War I. The rest of them were like a collection of the worst criminal reprobates and perverts imaginable.

            1. I am really a retard

              John’s epic poor typing skills come home to roost. Well done, John. Hoist by your petard, indeed.

            2. John, you need to ask Hit & Run to delete that comment.

              1. Check that. I mean really a retard. He actually was. The Nuremberg court find that he had like a 75 IQ. Striker was so bad and so crude and horrible, even the other Nazis hated him.

              2. I won’t delete it. You know what I meant. It will give our resident trolls something to jerk off over.

                1. Perhaps you’re right, and yes, I understood what you meant.

            3. Otherwise, I agree. They were goons, idiots, and failures for the most part, starting with their leader.

            4. “I am really a retard”

              Another happy Mongoloid!

            5. Strasser might have been smart too. A little too smart.

      2. It’s only fair. The GOP would do the same for them.

    2. Like the Special Olympics — anyone could beat those retards except these other retards.

      1. We need to change the rules to let the non-stupid/non-venal/non-power-hungry compete.

        1. Step 1: Ban lawyers from law-making.

          No offense, but it would give us a generation where the guys and gals who went to law-school to become law-makers would be ineligible. After 50 years, we could allow them back in and ban the next larval politician career choice.

          1. I don’t have a problem with lawyers making laws per se; I have a problem with them making laws that they can benefit from both during and after their terms in the legislature.

            1. I have a problem with them making the laws so convoluted that only they can understand what they mean.

              1. Me, too, but I think part of the reason for that is to hide that they’re paying themselves off.

    3. This.
      I can’t wait to see what happens in NY in 2014.

  5. This is what happens when you don’t act fast enough.
    Americans have the Attention span of a goldfish.

      1. Who?

        1. Wah?

            1. Gesundheit!

            2. Poor, old, senile Pro Lib…

  6. You know, if I squint real hard, I can see a version of “background checks” that I could live with. Characteristics of universal include, at least :

    1) universal open access. Just a web site. You enter identifying information, and it tells you if it thinks there is a reason you shouldn’t sell somebody a gun.

    2) the website in question wouldn’t actually carry any force of law behind it per se. You can still sell somebody your gun if you think the site is wrong or the reason is stupid. But it could be used to hold you liable if you sell somebody a gun, and then they go on a rampage. But that’d be up to a jury to decide if you were being stupid.

    3) actual transactions where guns change hands aren’t recorded at all. The identity of the person requesting the check wouldn’t be recorded at all. Just having somebody run a check on you wouldn’t constitute prima facie or admissible evidence that you bought or were even thinking about buying a gun. The NRA or GOA could write a script that performed daily checks on random people plus a whole bunch of gun grabbbers to keep the list of people who have had their record pulled “dirty”.

    I can probably be talked out this. I’m just thinking out loud.

    1. I’m entirely against the background check. There should be nothing illegal about the purchase of weapons in the United States. It should be easier to do so than to purchase a Butterfinger. Selling and purchasing firearms are as victimless as the selling and purchasing of hammers.

      There is no reason to believe it satisfies grabber lust to co scheme with them. In fact, Rand Paul has the right idea. His proposed bill does two things. 1) liberalizes gun laws even further and 2) restricts the actions of the executive branch. Every time an event occurs that motivates grabbers occurs we ram through bills like that, they might prove hesitant to push through their nonsense.

      1. I always said that guns should be treated no differently than books. Both are objects of a protected right.

        In an ideal world, your average 14 year old should be able to walk into any gun store, liquor store, hardware store, gas station and walk out with a belt-fed machine gun.

        If she can afford it, it’s hers. It’s between her and her parents if she can keep it in her room.

    2. I’m not wholly unimpressed by this, if we’re absolutely wedded to the idea of universal background checks. Rather than creating another irremediable no-fly list, leave it at the vendor’s (and the jury’s) discretion. Of course, this is precisely the reason such a system would never pass muster for the left, since it’s a means of enforcing liability rather than “preventing” tragedies. Democrats would prefer to see their pointless showboating legislation go up in flames than commit to a compromise that doesn’t punish gunowners.

      1. Ya it’s really just a purely a rhetorical suggestion. No gun grabbers would ever consider this. But it can be used to demonstrate that they actually want more than they say want. They actually want to start on a path towards registration and confiscation.

        I’m also OK with Killaz “Fuck you. Read the 2nd amendment” response. But if you want to attempt to argue on Progressive turf, I think my proposal is useful.

  7. Cops get punished:

    Posted: Jan 17, 2013 8:55 AM EST
    Updated: Jan 17, 2013 12:57 PM EST
    By WCAX News – bio | email

    A firing range has announced the Burlington Police Department is not welcome to train at its facilities any longer.

    Last week the Burlington City Council voted to ban semi-automatic rifles and large capacity magazines in the city limits.

    The chairman of the Lamoille Valley Fish and Game Club explained in a letter that it cannot support the city with such a prejudice against the club, and has voted to suspend the city’s use of the range for law enforcement officers.

    Burlington Police Chief Michael Schirling says it will affect how and when officers train with their firearms. The weapons ban still needs to go before lawmakers and voters.…..dium=email

    1. How sad that the poor bastards won’t be as effective killing “vicious” dogs.

    2. Nice work guys. I knew someone in Burlington would manage to do something right besides beer and loose nursing students eventually.

      1. You mean you weren’t already satisfied?

        1. It was a good time in undergrad.

    3. That’s just freaking awesome.

      If the recent gun control law stands in NY (obviously I hope it doesn’t) I hope the exemption for cops DOES NOT get put in. Restricting magazine capacity for citizens and not for law enforcement is pure Nazism.

  8. It’s kind of comical and sad at the same time since the gun control people live in their own little bubble completely divorced from how Americans actually feel about guns and violence.

    Liberals are so gung-ho about it simply because it means they can stick it to the other team, that’s why the NRA is a convenient Goldstein for them to project their hate onto.

    1. Projecting the hate on the NRA also lets them ignore how widespread gun ownership really is and how much that gun owners can mobilize as a voting bloc.

      Approximately 61 million Obama voters. Approximately 80 million gun owners, by some surveys.

      Blaming the NRA, imagining that supporters of gun rights are a small and extreme lobby as opposed to a sizable mass of Americans is how they delude themselves about having a mandate to “do something.”

      1. Some of those Obama voters are like my brother — voted for the bastard twice, and reportedly has enough ammo to ward off mass looting following an apocalypse.

        Dunno when the cognitive dissonance will get great enough.

      2. Yet I wonder how many gunowners support some conception of some of the legislation currently being pushed, if for no other reason than because they think it will never apply to them. The sort of people who, after these shootings, think that anything must be better than this.

        1. I hear a lot of crap like:

          “So people that have their guns get to keep them, but that’s it. And they’ll have to make do with 10 round magazine. I’m sure they’ll be grandfathered in. I’m sure people will have to find other kinds of rifles to buy”

          I just go “uh-huh” a lot as they explain the future to me in a kind of ‘it’s no big deal’ tone. When they finally finish, I ask what part of the legislation would actually make a difference at Sandy Hook and point that nothing in the wish list is new; everything is 10-25 years old. I get a lot of talk about how he’s not going to take any guns away, blah blah blah.

          They just can’t bring themselves to question Obama or criticize his dumb ideas.

  9. According to the survey, 56% support a ban on semi-automatic guns

    I’m guessing that many of that 56% don’t realize that that means virtually all guns.

    1. That kind of stands out to me as well. I think if more people actually understood what the term “semi-automatic” really means that number would be a lot lower. Also, more proof that the average person is dumber than a box of rocks.

  10. “Those changes are likely due to the passage of time, as the initial shock of the Newtown tragedy has begun to wear off, and may indicate why the White House has put the gun issue on a fast track,”says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.

    I’d say it is likely due to us “having that national conversation” the grabbers wanted so bad.

    1. I’d say it is likely due to us “having that national conversation” the grabbers wanted so bad.

      And of course when no notable changes are made to federal gun law after this national conversation about gun control, after the next tragedy, TEAM BLUE will stand atop a pile of dead bodies, wave bloody shirts, and ask why we refuse to have a national conversation about gun control.

  11. Twenty children and six adults were killed in Newtown, Conn., last month, and the media quickly, and justifiably, descended to tell the tragic story. In the first few weeks of January in Chicago, 25 people have already been murdered. Most were young black and Hispanic men, murdered by other young black and Hispanic men.
    In Chicago, it’s Newtown every month. But the media haven’t converged on Chicago this month.
    You don’t know the names of those kids and adults gunned down in Chicago this January, all by handguns.

    You don’t know their names because the real racism that exists in the media is this: A young black male’s life is not worth reporting when it is taken by another black male.
    You don’t know the names because the media don’t or can’t blame the deaths in Chicago on a weapon like the AR-15, or on the NRA.
    You don’t know their names because the media aren’t interested in getting at the real cause of much of the senseless gun violence in America: fatherlessness.…..lee-habeeb

    1. The elephants used their trunks to throw sticks at the rhinos, chased them over long hours and great distances and stomped to death a tenth of the herd ? all for no discernible reason.

      Park managers decided they had no choice but to kill some of the worst juvenile offenders. They had killed five of them when someone came up with another bright idea: Bring in some of the mature males from Kruger and hope that the bigger, stronger males could bring the adolescents under control.

      To the delight of the park officials, it worked. The big bulls, quickly establishing the natural hierarchy, became the dominant sexual partners of the females, and the reduction in sexual activity among the juveniles lowered soaring testosterone levels and reduced their violent behavior.

      The new discipline, it turned out, was not just a matter of size intimidation. The young bulls actually started following the Big Daddies around, yielding to their authority and learning from them proper elephant conduct. The assaults on the white rhinos ended abruptly.

      1. Elephants driving out rinos isn’t always bad.

      2. One day an out of work mime was visiting and hoping to earn some money. The zookeeper explained that the zoo’s most popular attraction, a gorilla had died suddenly. He offered the mime a job to dress up as the gorilla until they could get a new one. The mime accepted. The next morning the mime put on the gorilla suit and entered the cage. It was a great job. He could sleep all he wanted, play and make fun of people and he drew bigger crowds than he ever did as a mime. But, eventually the crowds tired of him and began to pay more attention to the lion in the cage next to his. In an effort to recapture their attention, he climbed to the top of his cage, crawled across a partition, and dangled from the top of the lion’s cage. The lion was mad, but the crowd loved it so much that the zoo keeper came and gave the mime a raise. Each time the mime taunted the lion, he got bigger and bigger raises. But one day he slipped and fell into the lion’s cage. The mime ran, but the lion finally caught up with the mime and had him pinned to the ground. The mime was screaming and fighting for his life, yelling “Someone help me, PLEASE, help me!!!!” The lion leaned over and said, “Shut up you moron! Do you want to get us both fired??”

    2. You don’t hear about it in Chicago because you can’t blame it on loose gun laws in Chicago.

      1. Of course you can. Are there still guns in Chicago? Evidently. Are the gun laws doing enough? Obviously not. Are they too loose? Of course!

      2. No, they blame all the lower crime cities around Chicago for the guns in Chicago. Remember how it’s Virginia’s fault that there are still guns in DC?

  12. Makes me wonder how many of that 56% could define “semi-automatic” correctly, rather than thinking it means “machine-gun”.

    (Those of us who Know Guns and Know Gun People forget how little the Average Joe knows, and how infectious the deliberate confusion of the two classes has been; I was recently “informed” that the NRA was “opposing banning automatic weapons” that “the assault weapon ban had banned before it expired”…

    Not a word of that’s true, but try telling that to someone Sure It’s Gospel.)

    (I also wonder how the background-check-for-everybody provision would poll when it was made clear that it’s not for “sales”, but “transfers”, so “dad giving his son a rifle at 18” means “call the Feds and pay $20″…

    Makes me wonder what problem the proponents think that’s even solving – the black market purchasers who cause problems are already committing far worse crimes, that they can already be punished for if/when caught.)

  13. So 92% of people want something that’s already done. This is definitely one of those times when you can point to the media as simply not doing its job of informing people of actual laws.

    How can people not know that background checks are done at gun stores, a mere 19 years after the fucking law was passed?

    1. I assume this means was a total of 92% made up of people polled who either a) didn’t know that gun stores do background checks and thought they should plus b) people who knew that checks are done and thought they should continue doing them.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.