Poll: Public Still Against More Gun Control
Despite all the blather by liberals like Clinton, Obama, Kennedy, Bloomberg, et al, the vast majority of the public does NOT support additional gun control as a way to fight crime. That’s according to this new Zogby poll:
LOS ANGELES, Aug. 21 /PRNewswire/ — A recent Zogby International poll question conducted for Associated Television News found that 66% of the American voting public in a recent poll of 1,020 Americans from August 8-11, 2007 (margin of error of +/- 3.1%) found that the American public rejects the notion that new gun control laws are needed.
The poll asked: “Which of the following two statements regarding gun control comes closer to your own opinion?
Statement A: There needs to be new and tougher gun control legislation to help in the fight against gun crime.
Statement B: There are enough laws on the books. What is needed is better enforcement of current laws regarding gun control.
Conversely, only 31% of the American public think new and tougher gun control legislation are needed.
A majority of voters who support enforcement of gun laws already on the books exists virtually across all demographic groups and in all regions of the country with the only exception being Asian and liberal voters.
Considering some unfortunate, high-profile killings in recent months, the results of this poll are surprising and gratifying. What it says is that two-thirds of the American public realize that it isn’t the firearm but rather the criminal misusing it and that to fight crime, we already have the laws on the books; we just need to enforce them.
Maybe that’s why most of the Democratic candidates have remained silent (even on their websites) about the issue. Unfortunately, while they might not be talking about it, they surely will push for or sign any new gun control legislation that reaches their desk if they make it to the Oval Office. In all fairness, so would Giuliani or Romney if they do.
10 Responses to “Poll: Public Still Against More Gun Control”
on 22 Aug 2007 at 7:42 am # Sailorcurt
I still contend that these polls are useless regardless of whether the outcome is in our favor or theirs.
99% of the general population has no clue what “existing gun laws” are and are, therefore, not qualified to determine whether they should be increased, enforced, or reduced.
I firmly believe that if every American was subjected to the restrictions and hoops required to purchase a firearm and they became aware of what the existing gun laws actually are, a large number would switch from “enforce existing laws” to “that’s ridiculous, why do I have to do THAT?”
Furthermore, if all Americans were unequivocally made aware of the utter ineffectiveness of gun control as crime control, an even larger number would advocate eliminating some of the roadblocks to lawful gun ownership.
Many times, polls reflect either the biases of the pollster, or the ignorance of those polled better than actual valid “public opinion”.
Because I dismiss polls that don’t support my positions, I must, for consistency’s sake, dismiss polls that do support my positions.
“Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual).”
— Ayn Rand
on 22 Aug 2007 at 11:40 am # Brett Bellmore
I have to think that, had there been a third option available, a significant fraction of that 66% would have opted for, “We need to start repealing gun laws, and in the meanwhile, relax enforcement of the more stupid ones.” In fact, why WERE the only options the status quo, or harsher laws?
on 22 Aug 2007 at 12:39 pm # jack
I agree 100% with Sailorcurt. I have the Fed and state gun laws in front of me. 702 pages. To render a worthwile opinion in a poll, one would have to have have a handle on what laws exist already. Jack.
on 22 Aug 2007 at 1:52 pm # triticale
There have also been polls with conditional questions. “If it would save just one child, would you support…” and then they report a high support finding.
on 22 Aug 2007 at 7:50 pm # Daniel
It doesn’t matter.
Congress has clearly demonstrated a “holier than thou” and “we know what’s best for you” attitudes.
Right up until the Shamnesty Bill.
Then we stood up and told them what’s what.
Trouble is, they will still do what they think is “best for us” anyway.
No matter what we say.
The only way to fix this is to turn all of them out.
Then they will understand who the boss is.
on 23 Aug 2007 at 5:33 pm # Zach Marks
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/zach-marks/give-them-uzis-and-watch-_b_61474.html
on 23 Aug 2007 at 5:34 pm # Zach Marks
sorry bout that. meant to leave my comment:
Our lax gun control laws have enabled dealers to flood urban areas with. How can making it easier for, say, malicious crack kingpins to get their hands on guns be a step in the right direction? I argue in my op-ed on the Huffington Posttoday that while the way to get to the root of most social problems is to provide economic opportunity, it’s foolish to repeal gun control laws. Check it out hereand please share your comments.
on 24 Aug 2007 at 7:38 am # Keith
Zack,
Gun laws do not affect the criminals one iota. The recent FBI research paper “violent encounters” points out that no gun law had affected the ability of any of the felons in their study (who had attacked police officers) to get guns (links to the study can be found at xavier thoughts).
I’ve often pointed out here that despite full auto guns being illegal for 80 years, self loading rifles for 20 and handguns for 10, criminals in Britain have no difficulty in obtaining the latest and best for their purposes.
Even in the mid nineties per 100,000 population you were twice as likely to be burgled or mugged in Britain than in the States. since then crime has continued to fall in the states and to rise in britain. Indeed, since the ban on handguns, their crimminal misuse has doubled. The criminals know that their victims are disarmed.
As I’ve posted here lots of times, the market in illegal weapons is managing to source the latest and the best. the only place I can think of where home made guns are meeting some of the demand is Chechenya (the Borz machine pistol). For anyone willing to put their mind to it, a submachinegun is probably the easiest gun to make (see www.thehomegunsmith.com for examples of submachineguns made from standard pipes with ordinary hand tools).
What have I said so far:
laws are not going to stop crimminals getting guns: show me anywhere in the world that they have.
Now for the otherside of the equation, the value of having responsible members of society armed.
In his 2000 update of a study into mass public shootings, John Lott was able to demonstrate a highly significant correllation between the passage of a concealed carry permitting law in a state and an average of 75% reduction in mass public shootings in that state, he was also able to show drastic (and statistically significant) reductions in other crimes. What was particularly interesting was that when mass shootings did take place in such a state, then they were in “gun free zones”. go check it out on John lott’s site, while there, also check out the Appalachian law school mass shooting which was ended by two mature students with CCWs, and contrast that to the “Gun free” Virginia tech.
Also go take a look at Gary Mausers new paper on the (lack of a) link between firearms availability and murder or suicide rates.
Go check out the numerous accounts, here and on the two sites I’ve mentioned of armed individuals defending themselves and others.
Summary; with “tough” gun laws you do not affect the mutants, you just make the honest Joe and Jane into disarmed victims.
Thats all before I get to the 100M plus murdered by Govts in the 20th Century, after gun laws had disarmed them.
Keith
on 24 Aug 2007 at 9:18 am # Keith
Zach,
I don’t disagree that economic development and oportunity is the best long term cure for criminality, but first of all you need the conditions where that development can take place.
I’ve worked in plenty of deprived areas, I’ve seen the attempts to lure big business into an area, sure it gets a politician a few minutes of TV coverage but when the big company moves its production out again the problems are back and worse than before.
For the smaller businesses that are going to provide the bulk of jobs to come in, they need to know that they can get their property and business insured before they go to the bank for a startup loan and overdraft facilities, that they aren’t going to be robbed or mugged every few months and that they are not going to be paying all that they have worked for to a bunch of protection racketeers.
In Britain, many of the old coal mining, ship building and Iron and steel making areas are pretty much no go areas for the cops, and the little scumbags know that the businesses are not armed.
The schools cannot recruit teachers to work in them and few of the kids attend anyway.
your anwer to this please?
Keith
on 24 Aug 2007 at 11:58 am # thirdpower
Boy Zach, you’re really trying to advertise yourself. Too bad you don’t know what you’re talking about when it comes to firearms and the laws pertaining to them as has already been shown by the comments at HuffPo and the other sites you’ve advertised at.