Support for Gun Control in US at its Lowest Level in More than 50 Years

Great news, for shooting enthusiasts such as myself, not to mention American freedom.

But what's behind the fundamental shift since the '50s?

Quote:

---

Support for gun control is at its lowest level in more than 50 years, according to a recent Gallup Poll.

In fact, 26 percent of those surveyed think there should be a law banning the possession of handguns, except by the police and other authorized people, reports a Wednesday Gallup poll. On the other hand, 73 percent oppose such a ban — the highest percentage reflecting such sentiment since polling on the issue started in 1959.
Continue Reading

Over the past 50 years, the United States has changed its mind drastically on whether a handgun ban is appropriate. In 1959, 60 percent supported a handgun ban, while only 36 percent opposed it.

With regard to semiautomatic guns known as assault rifles, 53 percent oppose laws that would make it illegal to manufacture, sell or possess them; only 43 percent agree with that sort of ban. This year marks the first time that more people were against a ban than for it.

A plurality of respondents — 44 percent — want firearms regulations to be kept as they are now, while 11 percent favor less strict gun laws; 43 percent suggest stricter gun laws are necessary.

Views on gun laws have changed dramatically over the past twenty years to the point where no key demographic subgroup favors a ban on handguns. Only those living in Eastern America, Democrats and those without guns in the household still have majority support for stricter gun laws generally, Gallup reports.

The polling firm suggested that the trend could be a reflection of a rising libertarian feeling in the American population or growing American comfort with guns. One 2008 Gallup poll found widespread agreement with the notion that the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right of Americans to own guns.

The trend did not appear to be related to a rise in gun ownership, which has stayed steady over the past 10 years, or any major shifts in American attitudes towards crime, fear of time, or reports of being victimized, reports Gallup.

This poll was conducted on Oct. 6-9, with a sample of 1,005 adults. The margin of error is plus or minus four percentage points.

---

Hardly surprising with crisis, uncertainty and all that

It could just be that it's out of the news. By 2000, most politicians realized supporting gun control would only hurt their chances.

Gun control and abortion threads in the Backroom, yeah! I still say we need to arm the fetuses to make the procedure more sporting.

That is interesting. It's not like we haven't had high profile handgun shootings. That senator lady was less than a year ago wasn't it?

My educated guess is that it's the result of a lot of work by pro-firearms folks to push for gun rights over the decades.

Plus, a lot of the anti-gun arguments in US politics are based on fear mongering and lies. After a while it becomes clear that the blood in the streets the anti-gun folks always predict if some pro-gun law is passed isn't going to happen.

CR

I can, at a push understand the justification for allowing handgun ownership, but assault rifles? Crackers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catiline

I can, at a push understand the justification for allowing handgun ownership, but assault rifles? Crackers.

---

The 2nd amendment was written to allow the people to overthrow a tyrannical government - for which you need modern rifles.

Also, what are called assault rifles all the time by anti-gun folks (and copied by the media) are actually semi-auto rifles. True, military, assault rifles have the capability to fire fully automatically.

Also, semi-auto rifles are rarely used in crime.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

The 2nd amendment was written to allow the people to overthrow a tyrannical government - for which you need modern rifles.

Also, what are called assault rifles all the time by anti-gun folks (and copied by the media) are actually semi-auto rifles. True, military, assault rifles have the capability to fire fully automatically.

Also, semi-auto rifles are rarely used in crime.

CR

---

The practical difference between a semi-auto and full-auto weapon is not as meaningful as the calibur, barrel type, magazine capacity and the type of action the weapon uses. Cut the full auto out of the M-16 and you actually have a more dangerous weapon in most instances because you remove the temptation to "rock and roll", which is pointless execpt for things like room clearence. Most battle rifles, including early version of the M-14 and FAL/SLR were single shot but their range and destructive potential is greater than their replacements, to the extent that reconditioned or similar weapons are being issued for the sort of long range firefights soldiers have in Afganistan.

Your "overthrow tyrannical government" tack is a complete non starter for two reasons.

1. The modern US militias would be rolled over by even your National Guard, to say nothing of the US Army, no chance none. They would be much more vulnerable than, for example, the Afgan tribesmen.

2. From the perspective of the Founding Fathers your government should already have been overthrown, although because of its sheer size and complexity rather than any percieved democratic deficit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

The 2nd amendment was written to allow the people to overthrow a tyrannical government - for which you need modern rifles.

---

Unless you add an amendment to include mechanized armor, warplanes, emplacements, the right to fortify centers of populations, SSMs, SAMs, anti radar and thermal jammers, coastal defenses, as well tactical nuclear weaponry and the means to delivery them, you don't stand a chance. You can mimic the tactics of partisan resistance movements that were common during World War II, but honestly, how much support do you think you would get? Could you push your family to live in filth for an unknown amount of time? Can you survive constantly moving through ruins and the wilderness, supplying yourself and others with the provisions you need? This includes stealing, destroying, and using innocents as tactical diversions, as well as other things that are difficult to justify no matter the situation.

Even if you had combat assault rifles, they may very well be confiscated. Tell me, when is the right time to abandon everything and run into the woods?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gallup

With regard to semiautomatic guns known as assault rifles, 53 percent oppose laws that would make it illegal to manufacture, sell or possess them; only 43 percent agree with that sort of ban. This year marks the first time that more people were against a ban than for it.

A plurality of respondents — 44 percent — want firearms regulations to be kept as they are now, while 11 percent favor less strict gun laws; 43 percent suggest stricter gun laws are necessary.

---

It seems odd to me that only 43% want to ban assault rifles and 43% want stricter gun laws. Aren't assault rifles already banned in some places in the US? I would have thought more people would support banning assault rifles than would want stricter laws, as some may be happy with the status quo which is sometimes against assault rifles.

I wonder if the wording of the question on assault rifles confused some people - speaking of banning the manufacturing of the weapons? Interpreted literally, everyone should be against banning the manufacturing of assault rifles, at least for their own military. I guess many people in the US would not interpret the question so literally, but we do know that how you word a question can have large impacts on opinion poll data.

those stats tell me more about the perceived average penis size in America than any actual information about guns.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki

That is interesting. It's not like we haven't had high profile handgun shootings. That senator lady was less than a year ago wasn't it?

---

That's what I was thinking. I've been worried about gun rights since Columbine, but it seems the trend has gone in the other direction despite the recent spate of mass shootings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PVC

1. The modern US militias would be rolled over by even your National Guard, to say nothing of the US Army, no chance none. They would be much more vulnerable than, for example, the Afgan tribesmen.

---

There is absolutely no way to make such a statement with any degree of certainty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrossLoper

Even if you had combat assault rifles, they may very well be confiscated. Tell me, when is the right time to abandon everything and run into the woods?

---

When the government starts confiscating guns! :grin:

Ahaha, gun threads bring out the worst in Europeans without fail.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

There is absolutely no way to make such a statement with any degree of certainty.

---

yes there is.
there is only way thing nowadays that can keep an overwhelming military force from just rolling over the most determined "insurgent" force.
and that's bad P.R.
the question is, "how far is the big guy willing to go to win?" are they willing to resort to absolute extreme measures if necessary? do they not care how it might look to the rest of the world?....or can they cover it up at the very least?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

There is absolutely no way to make such a statement with any degree of certainty.

---

Oh, of course there is, Afgan fighters are rural sheep herders who play polo with severed heads and brew their coffee over an open fire. By contrast most Americans are urban, shop at Walmart and get their coffee at Starbucks; to say nothing of the obesity rate. Further, despite the Afgans having their collective backsides repeatedly handed to them by US soldiers for over a decade now you would think the US was losing from the moaning going on in the States. To be blunt, not only is the average US citizen profoundly unsuited to armed resistence against your government, they have no stomach for it either. The cries of a few for even laxer gun laws seem like bravado from where I am sitting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Oh, of course there is, Afgan fighters are rural sheep herders who play polo with severed heads and brew their coffee over an open fire. By contrast most Americans are urban, shop at Walmart and get their coffee at Starbucks; to say nothing of the obesity rate. Further, despite the Afgans having their collective backsides repeatedly handed to them by US soldiers for over a decade now you would think the US was losing from the moaning going on in the States. To be blunt, not only is the average US citizen profoundly unsuited to armed resistence against your government, they have no stomach for it either. The cries of a few for even laxer gun laws seem like bravado from where I am sitting.

---

You see, by relying on so many assumptions (many of which are little more than poorly reasoned stereotypes), you've already eliminated any certainty in your analysis. There are so many factors that would play in to any such scenario, definitive statements about how it would play out are impossible to make without more specific information. :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

You see, by relying on so many assumptions (many of which are little more than poorly reasoned stereotypes), you've already eliminated any certainty in your analysis. There are so many factors that would play in to any such scenario, definitive statements about how it would play out are impossible to make without more specific information. :shrug:

---

Please elaborate.I find this interesting.If you guys can be more clear about the definition of what over throwing a tyrannical government might actually mean in practice?

Higher chance for a Militarist Coup then a 'Revolution' in America where the 'People' overthrow the government.

Based on common social trends and political views alone, nevermind the 'Hardware' involved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

to say nothing of the obesity rate

---

Survival situations tend to help with the shedding of pounds.

The US did have an armed revolution once, it was called the Civil War. How did that turn out?

@Panzer, how exactly do you imagine a revolution playing out that does not involve immediate win for the feds?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrossLOPER

Survival situations tend to help with the shedding of pounds.

---

But not for obese people. Obese people tend to roll over and die in such situations primarily because they've ruined the efficiency of their metabolism. That's why you'll find that obese people do not just eat “more” they also complain of being hungry sooner after their meal. By the way, it is a very similar story for those people who “hit the gym” so often but for them it is the energy saving features of the metabolism which no longer work well. (Their body being too big: idle muscle is rather inefficient.)

It's the people who are underweight to slightly overweight and don't work out for the sake of it that survive, or in other words those don't who didn't need a diet in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrossLOPER

Survival situations tend to help with the shedding of pounds.

---

If you don't die.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

If you don't die.

---

actually that also results in weight loss :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

Please elaborate.I find this interesting.If you guys can be more clear about the definition of what over throwing a tyrannical government might actually mean in practice?

---

The success or failure of any insurgency is based on a rather large array of factors, such as popular support, size and scope, geographic distribution, resources, money and/or economic situation, political organization and alignment, foreign support, production capacity, and literally thousands more – and those apply to both the insurgent forces and the government. Without outlining a scenario that at least attempts to address some of those specifics, it is rather foolish to make a definitive statement about the success or failure of a hypothetical insurgency.

Further, basing such an assessment purely on the (unsupported) notion that Americans are too fat, lazy, and/or comfortable to mount such a insurgency in comparison to Afghanis reveals a dearth of critical thinking, not only about the potential advantages Americans might enjoy over Afghanis in such a conflict, but about the nature of insurgency itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ACIN

The US did have an armed revolution once, it was called the Civil War. How did that turn out?

---

There was one before that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TA

@Panzer, how exactly do you imagine a revolution playing out that does not involve immediate win for the feds?

---

I have no idea. I don't spend much time thinking about the subject as I see it as such a remote possibility. My support for gun rights is based primarily on my belief in personal freedom and my enjoyment of shooting as a hobby and more distantly on the fact that I live in a city with a large, impoverished, and restive black population that very much resembles that which plunged Los Angeles into chaos in 1992. I do not fear government, but a lack of government - and it is good to know that I have options for my and my family's security apart from reliance on the government in case of a breakdown in social order.

A successful insurgency in the United States would likely conform to the conditions laid out in the 2010 RAND study on the subject. There would have to be significant popular support, international sponsorship, availible sanctuary, and a weakening of the federal government. None of these are out of the realm of possibility, especially considering that for a sizable insurgency to even develop, the US would likely have to undergo a signficant transition toward tyranny - one which would alarm the US populace and the international community.

I refuse to believe you guys really imagine a revolt against a tyrannical gov't to look like you are describing it. Heck, there just was one in libya, which clearly involved defecting military units, captured military units, and support from other countries. You don't believe it any more than you believe the 2nd amendment allows nukes, it's just one of the talking points you pull out when you don't want to make an actual argument about gun control :shrug:

Fire arms bring conflict down to wits, ignoring physique and brawn. When I served, it was the combat units that had the lousiest physical training scores. The hospital, admin, supply units etc had all the time to get high two mile run and push up scores. The line units often look out of shape in comparison.

Even if Americans being poorly endowed, fatsos was a halfway worthwhile argument I still can't understand why anyone would give up the right to bear arms just because the military has an even higher level of tech. To me that's all the more reason.

Also, you guys who are saying the military is too strong for the civilians so abandon your gun rights, who do you think the military is comprised of? :dizzy2:

There's actually a book written on a modern revolution in the US - Unintended Consequences, wherein the freedom fighters - a group of folks with no central leadership, but a shared hatred of government tyranny, begin killing government agents (mainly ATF) until the federal government gives in to their demands for repeal of unconstitutional laws. There's no formation of groups of rebel soldiers hiding in the mountains then duking it out with the military. In this way the 'rebels' hit the real 'targets' - the government, while avoiding the difficult obstacles - soldiers and other military.

Also noteworthy - in those articles PJ linked about Afghan marksmanship (or lack thereof), the rifles being used to hit the most American soldiers aren't AKs but WWII era rifles that are both more accurate and more powerful. A modern hunting rifle is an improvement over those guns, and is used by many American hunters with even better marksmanship.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

There's actually a book written on a modern revolution in the US - Unintended Consequences, wherein the freedom fighters - a group of folks with no central leadership, but a shared hatred of government tyranny, begin killing government agents (mainly ATF) until the federal government gives in to their demands for repeal of unconstitutional laws. There's no formation of groups of rebel soldiers hiding in the mountains then duking it out with the military. In this way the 'rebels' hit the real 'targets' - the government, while avoiding the difficult obstacles - soldiers and other military.
CR

---

So if terrorists systematically attack federal agents, the federal legislature and most state legislatures will unanimously agree to the demands of said terrorists?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

I refuse to believe you guys really imagine a revolt against a tyrannical gov't to look like you are describing it. Heck, there just was one in libya, which clearly involved defecting military units, captured military units, and support from other countries. You don't believe it any more than you believe the 2nd amendment allows nukes, it's just one of the talking points you pull out when you don't want to make an actual argument about gun control :shrug:

---

Not really, it was basically the US military that toppled Gaddafi, and his military couldn't compete against the American one, who would bale you guys out? Canada and Mexico? Even assuming the UK and France wanted to help you, rather than back the government, how would we get our gear there? We have one rusty carrier between us and I seriously doubt we could put together a battlegroup around the De Gaulle capable of protecting her from American Carrier groups, subs and land-based air assetts.

More than anything else though, we Europeans (who generally have tighter gun controls and less polarised politcs) can't really imagine that any "rebellion" would be worthwile supporting from an ethical, logistical or political standpoint.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proletariat

Fire arms bring conflict down to wits, ignoring physique and brawn. When I served, it was the combat units that had the lousiest physical training scores. The hospital, admin, supply units etc had all the time to get high two mile run and push up scores. The line units often look out of shape in comparison.

Even if Americans being poorly endowed, fatsos was a halfway worthwhile argument I still can't understand why anyone would give up the right to bear arms just because the military has an even higher level of tech. To me that's all the more reason.

Also, you guys who are saying the military is too strong for the civilians so abandon your gun rights, who do you think the military is comprised of? :dizzy2:

---

Really? I wouldn't know, about that, but I remember that British mechanised infantry used to think of US LI as pretty unfit in compariseon to themselves. That could just be international rivalry though, and I don't know if your experience is repeated accross nations generally. I also don't know where you're from, come to that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Also noteworthy - in those articles PJ linked about Afghan marksmanship (or lack thereof), the rifles being used to hit the most American soldiers aren't AKs but WWII era rifles that are both more accurate and more powerful. A modern hunting rifle is an improvement over those guns, and is used by many American hunters with even better marksmanship.

CR

---

This is pretty well known, hence Royal Marines being issued 7.62 calibre rifles without full auto capability to replace SA80II. A bigger bullet perfomrs better over longer ranges than a smaller, lighter, one.