Majority of Americans Oppose More Gun Control

Status
Not open for further replies.
F

flashman70

Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2006
Messages
246
Location
Northern VA; 2nd home in SC
Maybe we're not voices crying out in the wilderness. Maybe Americans get it despite the filter of the MSM.


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.
(LOGO: http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/prnh/20030425/ATNLOGO)
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.
About Zogby International
Zogby International (http://www.zogby.com) has been tracking public
opinion since 1984 in North America, Latin America, the Middle East, Asia,
and Europe and is a leader in the public opinion field and regularly
conducts polling for Reuters and MSNBC.
 
That's a change (a good one, too). Maybe most people are starting to realize that gun laws really don't do too much.
 
I'm not an American yet and I oppose gun control, in fact most if not all other foreigners I work with also oppose it, they can tell you first hand what it is like to come from countries where you have to be military, LEO or a high ranking "Party Member" to have the privilege of obtaining a firearm.
 
Like always, the options on the poll reflect the pollster's biases.

Here's mine. Which of the two statements is closer to your opinion?
(a) Pollsters are dumber than a bag of hammers
(b) Pollsters are dumb, but still just barely beat out a bag of hammers.

In the poll they did, there should have been a third option:
Most of the gun control laws already on the books are useless at best and counterproductive at worst. We should seriously consider repealing some of these.
 
The problem is that politicians don't like enforcing laws that someone else passed. Every politician's predecessor was a complete idiot or the current one wouldn't have been elected to replace him. They only like to pass new legislation to show that they're "doing something".

A good analogy is the Minneapolis bridge collapse. No politician gets votes by repairing existing bridges. They get votes by building new unnecessary bridges.
 
Gun Control

Guns are among the easiest things in the world to control. Just leave'em alone and they won't bother anybody. After having owned and used guns for approaching a half-century, I can offer a qualified statement that I've never seen one shoot anyone of its own volition.

People, on the other hand, seem to be the fly in the ointment...
 
According to other sources gun ownership is down. Some issues arn't about what the public wants, its about what is right and wrong. I have a right to defend my life & liberty, as does Sarah Brady.
 
I wholeheartedly agree, we must enforce existing laws, We should start with not only the oldest gun law, but also the one that seems to be ignored the most by everyone from lowly local officials up to Presidents. And by enforcing this one all the little infringements would be thrown out, therefore reverting to a single gun law, as was originally intended:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
 
Like always, the options on the poll reflect the pollster's biases.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, and Zogby ain't exactly on our side. So fit THEIR poll finds this, it's great news. Remeber just a decade ago the polls asking similar questions were showing that Americans wanted stronger gun control laws.
 
It troubles me that so many people are sacrificed to the fantasy that people are safer when they have no way to defend themselves against superior force.

That fantasy surrenders control of violent situations to criminals and the mentally or emotionally ill. They are the very people whose power we should want to diminish rather than increase.

We are not talking about forcing everyone to own a firearm. We are talking only about the basic right of people to protect their own lives if they choose to do so and about their basic duty to protect the lives of those they love.

People who don't want to save themselves certainly should not be required to do so, but people who do want a last best chance to live when attacked by deadly force must not be denied it. I do not understand parents who insist that their governments deny them any means to defend their children against death or severe bodily harm.

It's good if more people really are beginning to acknowledge such basic principles but the human cost of their learning is painful to me. Dogs don't need to have it explained to them. Surely people are smarter than dogs.
 
The poll numbers were about 50% through the 1990's. I think Americans have by-and-large awakened to the fact that personal security is a personal responsibility and not the responsibility of the gubment. I think 9/11 and the awareness of our vulnerability to terrorists and the aftermath of Katrina have opened many eyes. People in my sphere of influence who considered me a paranoid right-winger back in the day now ask my advice on firearms, ammo, etc. While it's heartening that people are waking up, I think the politicians have realized that the way to control us is not by "gun control" but by "ammo control" and you're going to see most of the nanny state's efforts head more in that direction.
 
Vonderek makes a good point, if you look at historical polls that is a major shift in sentiment. It wasn't until 200X-something that sentiment against gun control was above 50%. The Internet has really been our biggest ally in letting us get our message out and point out the hypocrisy and foolishness of some of these laws.
 
I have a feeling that the internet has broken alot of gun control stuff down and the number of progun people is up. But I also think the majority of americans just don't care and are going to answer whatever way the wording of the poll leads them. I don't think the majority of americans are pro or antigun, I think its just not an issue they worry about.
 
I am not sure this poll proves anything since it is a very small sample of people. I don't trust polls to be very accurate. Unless they are done with large samples of people from different parts of the country. So I would take it with a grain of salt.
 
csbyte: the size of the sample isn't really the issue - it's whether the sample is representative of the population as a whole, and whether the margin of error is small enough to meaningfully answer the question. Sample size does help reduce sampling error, but a well-selected sample can be quite representative and certainly even a very large sample can be biased if the selection strategy is poor.

Most sceintifically conducted polls quote a +/- margin of error, and smaller samples generally will have a larger margin of error. However, there is nothing inherently wrong with that. You don't always need the smallest possible margin of error, you just need a margin of error that is small enough to answer your question.

In this case, the +/- 3.1% margin of error is still plenty accurate enough to make the results meaningful, because 66 to 31 is pretty much the same result as 63 to 34. In this case, the sample size is large enough (and the margin of error small enough) to meaningfully answer the question.

If we were talking about an extremely closely-divided issue and got an answer of 49.5 to 50.5 with a +/- 4% margin of error, then I would agree with you that the poll could have used a larger sample. But in the case of the poll quoted above, a larger sample would not add anything to the meaning of the results.
 
I think like soybomb, at least a lot of americans don't event think about it and if they get asked ______ questions like that, they just probably go with whatever the poller is saying.

The internet have helped us a lot and we should keep using it in a wise way so we can keep growing. And keep bringing people to our side of the house and have them join our growing community on the internet or our own friends and neighbors.

Big example I have a friend that basically was "no guns in my house" I invite him to the range, show him my guns, nothing, I got nothing until like 3 weeks ago that somebody broke in a house close to his. They kicked the door in around 3:00 in the morning, while the owners were inside. They ran when the owner went out with a gun :D . So this Saturday we are going to the gun shop, he's going to buy a gun, finally. We already went to the range and he's liking it now. he wants a rifle too after he shot mine, lol :D
 
cbsbyte,

Gallup asked a different question. Admittedly it was a question about more or less the same isuse, but it wasn't exactly the same question.

One finding that is very consistent throughout the history of polling: even the slightest difference in the format or wording of a question can make a big difference in the results.

Personally I think what this really reflects is that on just about any controversial issue, there are probably only 10 or 15% of die-hard believers on each side of the issue, with a big mass of people in the middle who don't care very much and are easily swayed by the latest headline, or easily swayed by some slight nuance in the wording of the question.

Notice that Zogby was really giving us a choice where both answers were a version of "more strict:" stricter enforcement of existing laws, or new stricter laws. Gallup gave the choices "keep things the same," "relax gun regulation," or "make gun regulation stricter." It is easy to see how these different questions could produce wildly different results.

Don't get me wrong, I agree there are some very real reasons to question how meaningful poll results are. I just don't think sample size is the most prominent of these reasons.
 
I would like to hear that, but polls often are biased and favor those giving them.
If you ask people "Do you favor taking guns away from law abiding people?" or "Do you favor infringing on the rights of law abiding people and making legal purchases more difficult?" "Do you favor allowing firearm ownership for self defense in extreme emergencies?" You will usualy get a pro gun response. With enough questions like that you could say the poll "shows opposition to gun control".

If however you asked questions like "Do you want to reduce gun crime by making it more difficult to aquire firearms?" "Do you support common sense reform on gun laws?" "Do you support mandatory background checks on people purchasing a dangerous firearm?" "Do you support common sense laws to keep deadly assault weapons off the street?" "Do you support keeping guns out of the hands of criminals?"
Then you get the sheeple responding in favor of gun control. The same thing is done in the print on voting ballots, although less obvious. The limited information given is designed to make one feel a specific decision is potentialy dangerous, and the other is just a minor step that won't really infringe, but can increase safety (which is does not, but it does infringe.

It really is in the wording which suggest one option is evil and one makes logical sense.
The goal is usualy to pass additional restriction, or in this case to show opposition for it. You see many media polls just like this which favor additional gun laws.
Now many of us into firearms know that the laws do not achieve the purpose for which they are passed, and often work only to increase government controls on arms. To reduce legal ownership, and to expand prohibited persons, to expand financial cost of purchasing and owning firearms, and in general to take more power from the citizens and give more to government.

Many people have a vulnerable gateway on one "common sense gun law" or another through which restrictions and infringement can progress. Even gun owners who feel they support onwership. They feel many restrictions are bad, but then those against ______ (something they don't see or imagine applying to them) make sense. Through those gateways additional restrictions pass.

Governments do not like the ownership of arms by commoners, never have and never will. The only exceptions in history have been when the government fears foriegn conquest more than domestic threats. The US government has no fear of any foriegn conquest. So logicly they would be against firearm ownership in general, only varying on an individual level when a politician feels thier constituents want a specific vote on an issue. Otherwise they are going to vote in favor of more government ovesight on most issues. They are the government after all, and increasing thier own authority makes the process of implementing decisions easier and more cost effective.

The citizens in general do not give much thought to any specific topic and allow others to think for them, then make decisions based on what they are shown. This means in any given year they can be made to think well or poorly of firearm ownership.

Children growing up today are being taught that firearms are bad. They get suspended for drawing them, they get suspended for playing guns even when it is just thier finger and thumb, and they are forced to cut the firearms out of toy soldiers hands for arts and crafts projects. The list goes on and on. The not so subtle message here is that guns are very very bad. Now while some kids may choose to embrace them anyways, it will more often than not be out of a sense of rebellion rather than knowledge, just like they do with certain music, clothing etc, and as they grow up and return to the values they grew up with once again, they will reject guns as a part of that, and support restrictions. So the future voters being created now are going to see firearms as a bad thing.
This is why we must work to change the perspective of society, not for the fight today, but for the fight down the road as well. Today's children being brought up in a society where even talking or drawing a gun, having a toy soldier with one, is all punished as a negative thought or action...when they become the voters, outnumbering us as all younger generations always do, we need to have impacted thier thoughts enough to counter this anti culture they spent most of thier formative years in education subjected to.

It is a tough road, and why we need to also focus on changing the policies and attitudes of these places in the meantime through ridicule as well as education.

Polls mean little on this subject, actions mean a lot more. The poll reflects the opinion of those doing the poll more often than not.
 
That makes good sense. Enforce the laws, but there are already enough laws. Personally I think the laws are too restrictive.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

M
  • Locked
Poll: more Americans oppose gun control than ever
Replies
17
Views
670
rbernie
rbernie
S
  • Locked
Gallup boss: More Americans oppose gun control than ever
Replies
21
Views
1K
REAPER4206969
R
C
  • Locked
Sen Chuck Schumer on "Meet The Press"
2
Replies
37
Views
3K
NYSportsman
N
hso
  • Locked
Pew Research poll shows attitudes unchanged about gun laws
Replies
2
Views
330
Fishslayer
Fishslayer
K
  • Locked
Gun Rights Reality.
2 3
Replies
64
Views
2K
Art Eatman
A
Back
Top