Polls Offer Little Comfort for Supporters of Gun Control
Americans support tighter laws, but not as much as they distrust government and like owning guns.

People who advocate restricting gun ownership cite polls showing support for tighter firearms laws, but they're slow to point to evidence of support for owning the means of self-defense. For example, a majority of respondents in a recent poll say it's too easy to get a gun, but those who own them say having one makes them feel safer, and many non-owners are open to acquiring firearms. Further complicating matters for anti-gunners is that Americans overwhelmingly see threats to their safety in the government officials who enforce restrictive laws.
You are reading The Rattler from J.D. Tuccille and Reason. Get more of J.D.'s commentary on government overreach and threats to everyday liberty.
Cold Comfort for Prohibitionists
"A majority of Americans (61%) say it is too easy to legally obtain a gun in this country, while 30% say the ease of legally obtaining a gun is about right; 9% say it is too hard," Pew Research reported earlier this month. That's what gun control advocates like to hear, but it's really the only nugget of comfort they'll find in the survey.
"72% of U.S. gun owners say protection is a major reason they own a gun. That far surpasses the shares of gun owners who cite other reasons," the report adds. "And while a sizable majority of gun owners (71%) say they enjoy having a gun, an even larger share (81%) say they feel safer owning a gun."
Even more challenging for advocates of civilian disarmament, "about half of Americans who don't own a gun say they could never see themselves owning one (52%) while nearly as many could imagine themselves as gun owners in the future (47%)."
In fact, many of those who "don't own a gun" but "could imagine themselves as gun owners" may already have joined the ranks of those who do. While roughly one-third of respondents consistently tell pollsters they own guns, that almost certainly undercounts the total. Rutgers University's New Jersey Gun Violence Research Center recently assembled profiles of gun owners, applied them to those who claimed to not own guns, and concluded that the gun-owning share of the population is probably much higher than the official figure.
"It may be that a percentage of firearm owners are concerned that their information will be leaked and the government will take their firearms or that researchers who are from universities that are typically seen as liberal and anti-firearm access will paint firearm owners in a bad light," the authors noted.
When the Enforcers Are the Threat
Lying to researchers out of concern the government will obtain and misuse survey responses emphasizes a major challenge to gun control advocates: Americans overwhelmingly obtain firearms as a safety measure and also view the government itself as dangerous.
"Public trust in government remains low, as it has for much of the 21st century. Only two-in-ten Americans say they trust the government in Washington to do what is right 'just about always' (2%) or 'most of the time' (19%)," Pew noted last year.
"Fifty-eight percent (58%) of voters believe that the federal government today is a threat to the freedom and liberty of individual Americans," pollster Scott Rasmussen found in 2021.
"Two in three Americans (67%) identify big government as the country's biggest threat," according to Gallup in 2017.
Undoubtedly, much of the negative feeling toward government has to do with who wields its power. That means politicians who already are widely distrusted. But in our political system it especially means representatives of hostile political factions who gain office as one election gives way to another. According to 2022 NBC News polling, roughly 80 percent of Republicans and Democrats alike say the other political party "poses a threat that if not stopped will destroy America as we know it."
If you distrust the government and view it as a threat to your liberty—especially when, inevitably, control of its vast power falls into the hands of a political faction you fear—you'll probably see submitting to government attempts to track and limit civilian arms as a risky move. For a population that seeks safety in gun ownership, complying with restrictive firearms laws is a step in the wrong direction—no matter what survey respondents favor in the abstract.
Don't Forget Mundane Criminal Threats
Of course, protection isn't just about forting up against an overbearing state or enemy partisans. The desire to shield our families and ourselves from crime has long driven self-defense efforts. Crime rates and concerns about rising crime surged amidst chaos caused by COVID lockdowns and the social tensions of recent years. Video clips of flashmobs looting stores and stories of businesses closing their doors fuel the belief that many places, especially cities, are dangerous.
Fortunately, violent crime appears to be declining again as it was before pandemic-era disruptions. So are most property crimes other than car theft (which is up by a third over the same period last year). But that improvement is unlikely to boost confidence in the powers-that-be who are largely blamed for the mess.
"The ramifications of Covid policies advising people to abandon their offices are only beginning to be understood," John Chachas, the owner of luxury department store Gump's, wrote in an much-discussed open letter to the people of San Francisco. "Equally devastating have been a litany of destructive San Francisco strategies, including allowing the homeless to occupy our sidewalks, to openly distribute and use illegal drugs, to harass the public and to defile the city's streets."
There's that trust issue again. If government officials can't be trusted to protect the public, if instead they are thought to support policies that disrupt society and put people at risk, why would Americans obey limitations on their ability to protect themselves promoted by those same officials?
More Guns, Little Compliance with Restrictions
Gun sales are down from their peak according to analyses of FBI background check data. But Americans are still purchasing more than a million firearms per month. They're purchasing guns which 74 percent of owners told Pew researchers in 2017 are essential to their freedom, and which 72 percent now tell those same researchers are key to their protection. They're lying about owning firearms to researchers who they fear might identify them to government officials and political opponents they don't trust.
To put it bluntly, this is not an encouraging environment for advocates of gun restrictions. They might pass laws in jurisdictions under their control, but getting people to obey is an uphill battle.
"Data shows massive noncompliance with the assault weapon registration requirement," HudsonValleyOne reported in 2016 after New York tightened its laws, but before the rising tensions of recent years. "Based on an estimate from the National Shooting Sports Federation, about 1 million firearms in New York State meet the law's assault-weapon criteria, but just 44,000 have been registered."
"Compliance appears to have gotten worse," The Buffalo News noted last year. "While the Safe Act also required assault weapon owners to re-register their guns every five years, just 14,056 residents have submitted applications for recertification," down from 23,487 owners who registered in 2015.
That's discouraging for advocates of any sort of restrictions, though good news for those of us who prefer minimal government intrusion into people's lives. It also could have been predicted by anybody who knows the history of prohibitions—and of governments despised by their subjects.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
There are several nice stores in my area that will sell me all types of guns. I have always been able to walk out the door the same day with a new gun purchase. Seems about right to me.
I won't be happy until I can mail order a machine gun out of the Sears and Roebuck catalog, or rather its modern day equivalent, on Amazon. That will constitute "easy enough to acquire".
This^.
I smile every time I see a local yard sale with firearm displayed for sale. Buy one and just walk away with it. Another gun without a paper trail.
I'm making $90 an hour working from home. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is earning 16,000 US dollars a month by working on the connection, that was truly astounding for me, she prescribed for me to attempt it simply. Everybody must try this job now by just using this website... http://www.Payathome7.com
In the minds of some leftists I know, there are states where a 6-7 year old child with no ID or accompanying adult can walk into virtually any gun show with $75 cash and purchase a full-featured NATO standard select-fire M4 assault rifle with no background check or waiting period.
Nonsense. The kid has to be 12 or older, everybody knows that.
The commenter who alleges that an M4 can be easily had for $75 is either:
(1) abysmally ignorant about prices
(2) lying apurpose (to advance what agenda?)
(3) a potential purchaser of shares in the Brooklyn Bridge as income producing investment (If he’ll send me a check I’ll gladly mail him a share of the Brooklyn Bridge Toll Corporation for each $93.27 he sends, once the check clears.) Go long, young man, go long.
A final thought: never, never, ever tell a pollster, especially a "cold caller" your real opinion about anything. If questioned in person lie like a rug - there is no advantage to you for telling the truth, and while misdirection may yield no profit - you never know - it might.
The reality is probably mostly ignorance; I wouldn't put it past them to lie on the issue if they happened to know enough to be aware that something was inaccurate though. To the extent that they were propagating false information, I'd guess that it arose more from willful self-delusion than from intentional dishonesty; if you avoid knowing the truth then it's not technically lying to repeat a falsehood that you believe. Like most ideologues, they'd also be an easy mark to "buy a bridge" if the scam were modified to fit the appropriate ideological biases; they wouldn't buy the brooklyn bridge in particular but would be easy to con into paying for "carbon offsets" by any passing stranger and just trusting that something would get planted somewhere as a result.
I think the actual comments referred to a "machine gun" since they likely don't know that the US switched from M16 to M4 some time ago, but they also used the phrase "buck naked toddler". They were referring to southern Arizona at the height of when Operation "Fast and Furious" was happening but hadn't been made public yet, so it's possible that the claim was only a mild exaggeration over the conditions which had been created by the Holder DOJ suppression of law enforcement around illegal and straw purchases in the region.
Clearly they didn't poll people in NJ about how easy it is to get a gun here. It's easier to buy one off the black market than to get one legally. And it costs less because you don't have to pay for the mandatory shit the state makes you go through.
Laws are meaningless if you can't enforce them.
The purpose of laws is to give officials leverage against people they don't like, or whenever they want someone to make an example of to keep the population in line. I have never expected government officials to actually enforce any of their laws because that would require them to actually work at their jobs, interfering with their opportunities to consume donuts.
“…leverage against people they don’t like”. The #1 true thing about most governments
I don't know if the black market is easier in CA, but from what I hear the prices are about half of those at legal dealers and there's no restrictions about handguns having to be "on roster".
Polls Offer Little Comfort for Supporters of Gun Control
I don't know what polls you've been looking at, but the polls I've seen still give Joe Biden a good chance of being re-elected. How much more comfort do supporters of gun control want? (Of course, we all know there's not a chance in hell of Joe Biden being the nominee in 2024.)
Polling something that clearly says "shall not be infringed".
Piss off.
The polls do have some value for supporters of the Second Amendment, though. It's a form of early warning we might have to switch defense postures.
Hunter Biden should be the poster child for why it is a bad idea.
The favored will never be punished for violating those laws anyway.
You can buy a sawed-off shotgun in Canada.
You can buy one in the US if you jump through enough hoops.
Or you can make one and risk federal persecution.
How short do you need the thing to be?
It's pretty easy and perfectly legal to get a Mossberg Shockwave or Remington Tac14 with a 14" barrel in most states. Swapping the grip to something that results in a length under 26" will get you in trouble, but I couldn't imagine really handling something like the one-handed sawed off double barrels depicted in older gangster movies; maybe in a 20ga, but even low velocity 12ga loads kick back so hard that I'm always glad to have two hands on my shockwave when I take it to the range.
That's the fake sock version.
I can buy one for the cost of a serviceable hack saw in the US.
The devil's in the details. Most people will say 'yes' if asked 'Do you support sensible gun safety legislation?', but then when specific proposals are named (limits on gun purchases, exorbitant ammo taxes, red flag laws, national gun registry, etc.) people balk.
When people ask about sensible gun regulation i always ask what regulation beyond what we already have are you looking for. they never have an answer other than what already exist or they think no one should have guns
See the research I linked and summarized below.
I would support universal background checks nationally. (Private sales in many states do not require them.)
I would support every state restricting gun possession by people under domestic violence protection orders (or even just asking them to voluntarily give them up temporarily as part of a resolution process)
I would support every state having laws putting responsibility and accountability on parents for keeping their children from accessing and using guns (suicide, assault, and accidents)
I only support 'gun free zones' where professional, armed security or police are standard. But then again...
I do not support widespread concealed carry or stand your ground laws. (Everyone's better off avoiding confrontation in the first place, if possible, and people are likely to be overconfident and aggressive if they have a gun. Think George Zimmerman - From what I know of the case, he reasonably thought his life was in danger when he fired. But would he have gotten out of the car where Trayvon Martin could see him if he didn't have a gun? The 911 dispatcher told him not to.)
Move to California. It is already the utopia you support.
"I would support universal background checks nationally. (Private sales in many states do not require them.)"
If a father sells his gun to his son or whatever --- what the hell is the point of doing a background check for that?
"I would support every state restricting gun possession by people under domestic violence protection orders (or even just asking them to voluntarily give them up temporarily as part of a resolution process)"
Given that it only requires an accusation to get one --- fuck that noise. There is very little due process in receiving protection orders.
"I would support every state having laws putting responsibility and accountability on parents for keeping their children from accessing and using guns (suicide, assault, and accidents)"
So, parents are to be in charge of everything in their kid's life --- EXCEPT their gender? Either parents are paramount or they are not. You cannot pick and choose.
"I only support ‘gun free zones’ where professional, armed security or police are standard."
I'd support them if the owners are personally liable for damages if somebody is shot in their establishment. Limit somebody from protecting themselves and it is on you to provide it instead.
"I do not support widespread concealed carry or stand your ground laws. (Everyone’s better off avoiding confrontation in the first place, if possible, and people are likely to be overconfident and aggressive if they have a gun. Think George Zimmerman – From what I know of the case, he reasonably thought his life was in danger when he fired. But would he have gotten out of the car where Trayvon Martin could see him if he didn’t have a gun? The 911 dispatcher told him not to.)"
"The guy who was nearly killed by a thug for walking on the same sidewalk as him? What about him? Is walking on a sidewalk near somebody else a crime now?
Trayvon caused the entire incident and his death was completely justified. Tragic --- but justified.
If he told the 911 dispatcher to go fuck herself and walked on the sidewalk anyway --- Trayvon was STILL 100% guilty and his killing was as clear a case of self-defense as humanly possible.
Only one person of the two committed a crime. Only one of the two was remotely in the wrong. That one person was the one who died to his own actions.
Where is your imperial evidence that carrying somehow changes someone from a cautious individual to an aggressor. Of course carrying a gun makes your likely to use it. Hard to shoot if it’s sitting at home in your safe.
I doubt there's hard evidence to suggest that people who carry every day are more agressive as a result.
One bit of "common sense" that I can't imagine could be legislated is that anyone who thinks that a world where most people carried concealed would escalate every disagreement to a gunfight really shouldn't own firearms themselves. Since people tend to "project" their own thinking onto others, having that mindset indicates to me that the person in question doesn't have the temperament to carry responsibly.
I support shall not be infringed.
I support you eating a gigantic bowl of dicks and then playing chicken with a train.
Do you want Les Assassins en Fauteuils Roulants?
Because that's how you get Assassins en Fauteuils Roulants.
"Think George Zimmerman – From what I know of the case, he reasonably thought his life was in danger when he fired. But would he have gotten out of the car where Trayvon Martin could see him if he didn’t have a gun? The 911 dispatcher told him not to."
1. The 911 dispatcher told him "We don't need you to do that." If you honestly think that means an order not to, your native language is not English, and you haven't learned it very well.
2. On the tape, the dispatcher repeatedly asks Zimmerman where Martin went after Zimmerman said he had walked behind a house and went after sight from the road. She was coming as close to asking Zimmerman to follow Martin on foot as she could while staying near the policy that dispatchers do NOT incur legal liability by telling a caller what to do. Then there's a car door slamming. One to two minutes later, Zimmerman was already at the spot where Martin later attacked him. He could not see Martin and did not know which way he had gone. THIS is where the dispatcher finally realizes that he is out of the car, and says "We don't need you to do that."
3. Not only was the whole story of Zimmerman chasing Martin against the dispatcher's orders fabricated, but it was also impossible. Zimmerman was 5' 6", chubby, and even working out at a gym for a year had not improved his physical condition enough to pass the police entrance physical. Martin was at least 5" taller and on the high school football team. There's no way Zimmerman could have chased him down.
4. A government witness established where Martin was at this time: in the backyard of the house where he was living, quite out of sight of Zimmerman. He used his cell phone to call a girl, made some racist and homophobic jokes about the "cracker" that had been eyeing him, and finally said he was going to go back and put a beatdown on the "cracker". Now, this was one of the least credible witnesses by demeanor - but if the prosecutors didn't believe her, why did they put her on the stand?
But even without this testimony - which I'm sure could have been checked against cell phone records if the prosecutor cared about the truth - tracing the transcript of the 911 call against the map shows clearly that Zimmerman walked for under two minutes trying to find Martin, gave up, and stayed at about the same spot for several minutes of further conversation with the dispatcher. It clearly shows that Martin had got clean away, and could have reached his house at a slow walk. BUT HE CAME BACK to attack Zimmerman.
5. Zimmerman's bruises on his face and the back of his head, and the bruises on Martin's knuckles clearly show that Martin was on top of him, punching and trying to smash his skull against the ground. This was an attack that could have ended in Zimmerman's death or brain damage. The shooting was in self-defense.
people are likely to be overconfident and aggressive if they have a gun.
Not true. I’ve carried a gun concealed. It’s a sobering experience. Even a fully justified shooting would be traumatic and possibly a big legal hassle, to be avoided if at all possible. I was MUCH more likely to avoid trouble – avoid giving offense, back down from fights, avoid showing money, etc. – considering how bad trouble could be if it happened.
Or as Heinlein said, "An armed society is a polite society."
So you're a hoplophobe. Okay. Thanks for letting us know.
By the way, as someone with a CCW my state of mind while carrying is always in de-escalation and avoidance mode. The only thing worse than using a gun in self defense is not being able to use a gun in self defense when needed. No matter how justified I may be in any future self defense shooting I fully expect to:
1) Lose my firearm to the "justice" system
2) Spend at least one night in jail
3) Have enormous legal fees
4) Be extremely traumatized from having to shoot someone to protect myself or my family
5) Lose my job due to the time the legal system would require me to spend to remain out of prison
6) The possibility of being bankrupted by the attacker or his family in civil litigation
7) Having my family subjected to the vitriol from the anti - self defense crowd because:
8) The local and possibly the national media will have my name, face, employer, and home plastered all over everyone's phones, computers, TVs, etc. constantly
TLDR; I would only shoot someone as a last resort and only after doing my best to avoid and de-escalate the situation because even a "successful" self defense shooting would have an incredible amount of negative results for me.
The insertion of the word "sensible" makes the entire question so subjective that almost anyone would answer yes. Who doesn't support "sensible" policy (however they choose to envision it) on virtually any issue.
Some people consider the hyper-restrictive gun laws in Japan to be "sensible".
Most people in the USA who claim to support the "common sense" agenda of new laws don't understand that 95% of the laws they want to see enacted are already on the books at the Federal level, and the remaining 5% are both unconstitutional and fundamentally unenforceable.
That is the problem with "sensible" gun safety legislation, it's never sensible.
Polls don't matter to the anti-gun crowd. They KNOW that guns are bad and that everyone who owns one is just waiting for a chance to kill them.
The constitution doesn’t mean anything to them either.
Polls are fickle; our Constitution is not.
Wouldn’t it be something, if it were so respected and adhered to, that it didn’t matter which tribe’s preferred party was in office at the time? To the extent that it would not make any difference if a Trump or Biden were running the administrative wing, that our fundamental rights were protected no matter how many thought one way at a particular time or who they elected?
This is not a threat to democracy, by the way, but an assurance that it could never be used to steamroll your opponents, or just people you do not like or agree with.
While the Constitution may not be fickle, those who interpret and enforce it and who swear to uphold and defend it, but who take advantage of every opportunity to ignore or bypass it with legislation and regulations and executive orders ARE fickle.
It has always kind of baffled me that the folks who claim to only want “reasonable, commonsense” gun laws do not put any political or rhetorical space between themselves and the extremists who advocate draconian, prohibitionist gun laws. One has to conclude that the gun control “movement” is driven by the extremists.
None of them ebver advocated repealing the gun laws in Chicago or D.C..
None demand Hunter be punished for his quite explicit violation of gun laws.
If the favored class do not have to abide by them, why do others?
I agree. Until we enforce the laws we have, new laws won’t change anything. This is to you Hunter.
Most of the people who actively promote the repeal of 2A see it as a "reasonable, common-sense" position.
I've only ever seen one person who was willing to admit that the idea of eliminating 10% of the Bill of Rights was something that might be considered to be extreme, and he was also up front with the expectation that doing so wouldn't actually do a whole lot to reduce violence and criminal use of guns.
There is no gun control movement. There is however a very aggressive and dishonest gun confiscation movement.
First of all, if your firearm is properly cleaned and lubricated you wouldn't want to set it on top of your dress shirts in a drawer. And secondly, people who own firearms for their protection against official and unofficial criminals couldn't care less what the polls say. The whole point of the Second Amendment is to prevent people who want to restrict firearm possession from restricting firearm possession. If such people manage to overcome the Second Amendment, they'll find out very quickly what that means for them.
Which side told us that police habitually hunt down and gun down unarmed Black men?
Which side told us that the criminal justice system is systemically racist?
I give up ... which side?
The same side pushing for stricter gun control laws...which will be enforced by these very same police in this very same system.
Rather than looking to polls about how people think and feel about the issue, perhaps we should consider what research can tell us.
What has evidence that it works, at least somewhat:
- Minimum age requirements lowering firearm suicide rates among young people. (moderate evidence)
- Prohibitions related to domestic violence reducing intimate partner homicide (moderate evidence)
- Background checks decreasing total homicides and firearm homicides (moderate evidence)
- Waiting periods reducing suicide and violent crime with firearms (moderate evidence)
- Evidence supports laws regarding access to firearms by children (such as holding parents accountable) reducing suicide, accidents, and firearm homicides and assaults among young people
What doesn't work, evidence is for limited effect, or data is inconclusive:
- Assault weapon bans and bans on high capacity magazines (limited evidence that bans on high capacity magazines affect mass shootings or number of fatalities, inconclusive otherwise)
- Gun free zones (inconclusive with respect to violent crime)
- Background checks' effect on mass shootings and suicide is inconclusive
- Evidence supports that concealed carry and stand-your-ground laws increase firearm homicides
Completely biased studies by prohibitionists.
Wanna know how I know? Not one study listed DGU's. They have been intentionally omitted.
Wanna know how I know? Not one study listed DGU’s.
So what do studies that list defensive gun use say that these don't? And in what way are they not including them?
What has evidence that it works
Shall not be infringed, Hihn.
I seriously question most of those.
- background checks are legally required for anyone buying a gun from anyone not in the business of selling guns. The exception is in states where your concealed carry permit background check substitutes for the federal background check.
- waiting periods can kill those who end protection now, and not in a week or two. The mere presence of a shotgun very likely caused the guy who had assaulted me, and continued to stalk me, to stop the stalking. How many battered women are killed by the guys stalking them? You don’t know, and neither do the people doing those surveys. But we do know, from surveys, that far more lives are saved every year from having and often displaying guns, than are lost to firearms.
- almost all gun deaths involve handguns. You must be 18 to possess one, and 21 to buy one. .
- what happens if you are forced to lock up your guns, due to children in the household, and you need it - now? Same problem as above - you have no idea how often people are killed because they couldn’t access their gun quickly enough. Or just display it. That said, I am not opposed to making parents responsible for the actions of their minor children.
background checks are legally required for anyone buying a gun from anyone not in the business of selling guns. The exception is in states where your concealed carry permit background check substitutes for the federal background check.
I think you have that backwards. The federal background check is required when purchasing from a federally licensed dealer. Private sales between people that aren't in the business of buying/selling guns only require background checks if the state requires it. And I thought that concealed carry permits just allowed people to get past waiting periods, not the background check. (A person that last renewed their CC permit 11 months ago could have become barred from possessing a gun in the meantime, for instance.)
waiting periods can kill those who end protection now, and not in a week or two.
If you need protection "now", then wouldn't contacting law enforcement be your best bet? At least, you would hope that they could do something if the need was that immediate.
But we do know, from surveys, that far more lives are saved every year from having and often displaying guns, than are lost to firearms.
Survey results are not objective data. A person saying that they were 'saved' because they displayed a gun could be wrong. It could be that they just escalated a situation, or made someone else fearful for no reason. I suspect that the studies that Rand was looking at for evidence of how concealed carry and stand-your-ground laws impacted violence were looking for correlations between those policies and overall gun violence rates. If more people being armed was beneficial, then you'd see lower gun homicide and assault rates in places with more liberal carry and self-defense laws. They are reporting the opposite, it seems.
what happens if you are forced to lock up your guns, due to children in the household, and you need it – now?
Maybe it isn't about forcing guns to be locked up if children are present, but holding parents responsible if a child gets hold of the gun and does something bad with it. Then, a parent can consider exactly how to store the gun and educate their children and how much they trust their children to respect their rules. It would certainly encourage parents to consider risks vs. benefits what storage options are appropriate when obviously not all parents do.
That said, I am not opposed to making parents responsible for the actions of their minor children.
That is my position as well. I would add that how a gun is stored can itself be evidence that a parent was negligent, though. A gun kept loaded or stored next to ammo in a closet or nightstand when children live in the house is always unsafe.
Like Marlene Armstrong did back in 1986?
https://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,1825234,00.html
"If more people being armed was beneficial, then you’d see lower gun homicide and assault rates in places with more liberal carry and self-defense laws. They are reporting the opposite, it seems."
Are you seriously pretending that Burlington, Vermont has a higher homicide and assault rate than Chicago, Illinois? You just totally blew your credibility.
“A gun kept loaded or stored next to ammo in a closet or nightstand when children live in the house is always unsafe.”
Then every single one of my father’s my own guns must be defective. In over half a century none of those “unsafe” guns owned by my father or me have been used by any minor to hurt anyone, either accidentally or on purpose.
Suicide is a personal choice, so I really don’t care about that.
[– Assault weapon bans and bans on high capacity magazines (limited evidence that bans on high capacity magazines affect mass shootings or number of fatalities, inconclusive otherwise)]
Mass shootings (when gang related and domestic violence crimes are excluded) are actually so uncommon that it's virtually impossible to correlate the actual rate of them to much of anything. FBI crime data from the 1980s through 2010s pretty clearly indicates from the lack of any inflection points when the 1994 federal ban came and went that those policies had little to no impact on violent crime or gun crime; this makes sense since the banned "assault weapons" are a subset of firearms which are used less often in homicide than "bare hands/blunt object" or knives.
[– Gun free zones (inconclusive with respect to violent crime)]
There's a pretty strong correlation between places that are targeted by random mass-shooters and gun free zones to suggest that creating and advertising "soft targets" might increase certain kinds of risks, unless there's someone around with a CCW permit who chooses to disobey that designation.
[– Background checks’ effect on mass shootings and suicide is inconclusive]
Virtually all of the non gang-related "mass shooters" passed one or more background checks to obtain the weapons used, unless they used a weapon belonging to a family member (Columbine & Sandy Hook).
[– Evidence supports that concealed carry and stand-your-ground laws increase firearm homicides]
I'd be fascinated to see any such "evidence". Especially if it wasn't funded/published with any involvement by Michael Bloomberg, since his stuff gets debunked by outlets like The Atlantic, NPR, and Mother Jones with some regularity. Is the key here in counting shootings which are found by either LEO investigators or by criminal juries to have been justifiable Self Defense as if they were "homicides"?
“Hell yes, we are going to take your AR-15.”
Response? Literally millions of AR-15’s sold, mass non-compliance of any bans, 45 States allow Open Carry, and Constitutional Carry laws (repeal of gun-control) passed in 27 States, women and minorities are now fastest growing purchasers of guns.
This is the new third-rail for Dems.
Also polls are garbage, especially polls about guns. I'd say double any poll number pro-gun, and halve any poll number anti-gun, and you are getting closer to reality...
I would support 1 restriction - people who fold their dress shirts and put them in a drawer shouldn't be allowed to own guns.
These polls need to ask a follow-up question and correlate the percentage of those who think it's "too easy" to get a gun if they've ever actually attempted to purchase one.
Prior to 2019, a very small percentage of people who claimed to believe in "common sense" restrictions had much of an idea what the current laws actually were, or else they'd realize that more than half of their slate of "direly needed reforms" are already on the books and have been for decades at this point.
If you really wanted to terrify them, try to explain that consumer-grade 3D-printing and CNC tech is at most 10 years from rendering a lot of gun control more or less irrelevant to anyone not choosing to abide by the law willfully.
The deep state will make lying to pollsters a felony.
Just like AGW Climate CO2 Nazis not supporting nuclear power, Gun Control Nazis not supporting firearm safety courses in public schools are complete hypocrites. Both cases demonstrate an conclusion seeking supporting facts, and a closed, lemming mind.
Just wondering - -
Does anyone posting here have their first amendment speech permit?
Have they paid for a full background check with fingerprints at the local sheriff's office?
Have they paid for a state mandated training course in the first amendment?
Do they keep their keyboard locked safely away when not in use?
Really? No one?
Some amendments are more equal than others, I guess.
I do have my 1A permit. It's on the same sheet of steel that my 2A permit is on...
Polls seldom reflect actual voter support for proposed laws. When 80%+ poll supporting stricter gun restrictions, state ballot referenda pass or fail by a percent or less. So-called "common sense" bills get amended to the point of insanity before getting snuffed out. It’s as though gun control proponents would rather have nothing if they can’t have it all.