Support for Gun Control at an All-Time Low

[RichardInFlorida]

I saw that a Gallup survey has shown that support for gun control is at an all-time low.

While this is good, it looks like we still have a lot of work to do. 49% of those surveyed believed more restrictions on gun sales are needed! Argh!:banghead:

At least the trends are in the right direction!

 

[hak]

and for those who still say the issues aren't about 'party affiliation' at least in this sampling it does matter by a factor of greater than 2:1

(republicans vs. Democrats "want gun laws more strict" column) image link from gallup poll above.

 

[JImbothefiveth]

That's still less than it used to be. It used to be that 68 percent of Democrats want stricter laws.

Although it does stop a few myths about that.

 

[RichardInFlorida]

Yeah, I was pretty shocked that independents supported more strict gun laws by 47%... I figured the survey would lump Libertarians into the independent category, and the figure would be much lower.

 

[JImbothefiveth]

Only a few percent of independants are libertarians.

 

[KarenTOC]

"all-time low?"

Well, we can stop debating creationism vs. evolution now. Apparently time began when Gallop started doing polls.

 

[jfh]

for direct reference to the Gallup poll, here is the link to the article on the Gallup site.

So, while we have the topical inferences--i.e., the poll was conducted last October, and does not measure any impact of the recent mass-shooting events--the article does comment on the long-term trends (50 years) on this subject.

Jim H.

 

[hso]

It is important to know that this information is from a survey Gallup conducted last October. That's before the election and before the recent spate of mass murders.

It is also important for those nostalgic for the "good old days" to look at the graph that extends back to the '60s when support for a handgun ban was higher than it was during the ban happy 90s.

Discussion

Since last October, several shooting sprees around the country have made headline news, including a Christmas Eve incident in California where a man dressed as Santa Claus killed nine guests at a house party. In March, a gunman killed 10 innocents at an Alabama home, including several members of his family, a guest of the family, and her 18-month-old daughter. And on April 3, an immigrant from Vietnam living near Binghamton, N.Y., went on a shooting spree at a citizenship center there, taking the lives of 13 workers and fellow immigrants.

The impact of this string of horrific shootings could have altered Americans' views on gun laws since Gallup last measured them. Gallup polling in 1999 suggests that the Columbine High School shootings in April of that year resulted in a slight increase in support for stricter gun laws, lasting for at least two months. However, this past October's record-low support for gun control was obtained after several high-profile gun crimes were carried out in 2007 and 2008, including the Virginia Tech shootings in April 2007, billed as "the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history." That incident resulted in the deaths of 32 people aside from the shooter.

In fact, reduced support for gun-control measures in recent years corresponds with a decline in the national murder rate over the same period. According to FBI statistics, the murder rate dropped sharply in the late 1990s -- falling from 8.2 victims per 100,000 inhabitants in 1995 to 5.7 by 1999 -- and has since remained between 5.5 and 5.7.

The higher public support for banning guns and strengthening gun laws seen from about 1988 through 1993 -- the year the Brady Bill (which provided for a waiting period and a national criminal background check before a handgun purchase) was passed in Congress -- corresponds with the relatively high U.S. murder rate recorded during those years. According to the FBI, there were more than 8 murders per 100,000 inhabitants in the United States in each year from 1988 through 1994, peaking at 9.8 murders in 1991.

The FBI has yet to release its report on crime in 2008, but assuming the lower murder rates seen in recent years continue, Americans will be faced with the conflicting factors of a relatively low overall murder rate, but a spate of recent mass shooting incidents. How the public will interpret this in terms of the need for stricter gun laws remains to be seen.

Survey Methods

Results are based on telephone interviews with 1,011 national adults, aged 18 and older, conducted Oct. 3-5, 2008. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points.

Interviews are conducted with respondents on land-line telephones (for respondents with a land-line telephone) and cellular phones (for respondents who are cell-phone only).

In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.

 

[RP88]

that is a disgustingly small sample size.

 

[jfh]

RP88: Actually, that's a good sample size--and it 'maximizes' the cost-benefit ratio of polling. With samples below that size, the sampling error max starts ballooning up--but it would take many more samples (8x, for example) to reduce the sampling error to perhaps 2%.

An important side (political) benefit is that the Gallup operation is widely seen as a 'Democrat' operation, so the distribution of this info is being in front of readers who will not agree with it, but will be reluctant to dismiss it.

As the discussion quote points out, this is an example of a long-term trend. Arguably, what we--gunnies--can do to maintain that trend is up for discussion.

Jim H.

 

[RP88]

what it doesnt explain is if the sample size had equal distribution of characteristics/parameters in the sample, or if it was a sample size for each parameter, etc. Unless i missed it, of course...

Out of the 1000 or so, how many were of each parameter (dem, rep, male, female, age, etc.)? That can lead to a wider margin of error, correct?

Either way, I find it very interesting that the gender group was somewhat close to evenly split, and even more so that the total consensus for all of the age groups (even the younger crowd like me) was pretty much at the middle-line.

 

[Titan6]

HSO I think that we understand that polls were notoriously bad back 50s and that even as late as 2007 primary all major polls were calling for Clinton to win Iowa but a large margin. We know how that turned out. I don't put much stock in polls although some pols live by them.

 

[Madcap_Magician]

One thing that this poll doesn't address is this: Most people, particularly those who do not own firearms, cannot tell you anything about current firearms regulations and laws, and therefore are not really in a position to say whether or not "more" or "less" such regulation is needed.

 

[jeff-10]

The big thing that poll shows you is that gun control opinion does not appear to be geographic or age based. It appears to be more about gender and political affilitation.

 

[Zoogster]

Most people, particularly those who do not own firearms, cannot tell you anything about current firearms regulations and laws

Often that is true. Many people without firearms are unaware of the steps already required. Not knowing the already unconstitional infringements that exist they automaticly think some controls would help.

Most other polls are also biased and direct the person to vote a certain way.

"In light of recent killings do you think more Gun Control is necessary to reduce the amount of unnecessary death?"

They often are written similar to that with those key points included in different words.
The person completely unfamiliar with firearm laws (and often unfamiliar with the Constition, the discussions of the founders or why it is a right) thinks yes killings are bad, and yes reducing unnecessary death is ideal. So yes Gun Control is needed.
The polls often provide Gun Control as the solution in the question and so the person is often more inclined to agree with the proposed solution on an issue they know nothing about.
The polls lead people to a desired conclusion, and only those who already have strong feelings one way or another vote differently.

 

[Phatty]

It's hard for me to wrap my mind around the fact that one out of every four adult males in the United States would like to ban handguns. Unbelievable.

 

[KBintheSLC]

Whats the scoop with women and guns in this poll? You would think that the physically less-dominant half of our species would be more supportive of tools that level the playing field.

I guess they feel comfortable fending off rapists with their bare hands.

It's hard for me to wrap my mind around the fact that one out of every four adult males in the United States would like to ban handguns. Unbelievable.

Just because they are males, does not make them men. Real men are not slaves... they are either free, or they are dead.

....

 

[jfh]

I've now spent a bit of time wandering around the Gallup site. Here's some basic info about it--

As I said earlier, what we have here is today's report--a basic white paper, if you will--on a poll they did last November. The paper is a precis, so to speak, and does not give any of the details of their (polling) methodology, etc., etc.

The link I used provides links to related topics at one spot--and the site organization doesn't appear to provide this elsewhere, other than in a manual-look-up alphabetical index. I think I picked this one up from my Google "gun-control" news applet....

At any rate, one can wander around more, and see what else they have said about their polls.

Polling is nothing more than a snapshot of attitudes at a given point in time. If well-done--i.e., with good methodology and without bias in drawing it up--it can provide information about 'most any topic (some of which we are inferring in this thread).

So, once again--here's that link to the report. Note the eight links above the report, the sidebar "related items," and the two drop-down hot links above it as well.

Jim H.

 

[Phatty]

Whats the scoop with women and guns in this poll? You would think that the physically less-dominant half of our species would be more supportive of tools that level the playing field.

I'll take a shot at answering that question, and I apologize in advance for what's sure to be taken as a sexist argument.

In my experience, women are more susceptible to altruistic viewpoints and respond positively to politicians who advocate for unatainable, yet nice sounding ideas such as world peace, elimination of poverty, health care to all, etc. Maybe this is because women repond more strongly to the emotional pull of arguments rather than analyzing the logic behind them. Thus, when faced with the question, "would you like all handguns to be banned" the women conjure up an image in their head of a world without any weapons, where there is no crime and everybody lives happily ever after. So, of course the women say, "Yes."

Another reason may be simply that women are scared of the unknown. They probably have never handled, much less seen in person, a handgun, so there is an unhealthy fear of the weapon itself. Also, from their perspective, they never intend to exercise their right to arm themselves with a handgun. So they believe that since they don't have a gun, if they can get the handguns out of everyone else's hands then they will be safer. I honestly don't think it even crosses their minds that criminals won't bother complying with a handgun ban.

 

[Blackbeard]

I want to see a poll that asks if the people think gun laws should be more strict, and then tests them on their knowledge of the gun laws. It does no good to say "stricter gun laws" unless you know how strict they are now.

What percent of people who want stricter gun laws think you can buy a machine gun with just a driver's license?

 

[#shooter]

The stat that stuck out for me is that 52% of 18-34 group favored new/more gun laws. That doesn't bode well for the future.

 

[Carl]

Gun enthusiasts need to be more aggressive with the mainstream media. The reason why so many people are against firearms is because only the liberal anti-gun agenda is aggressive enough to constantly be in control of the media and unaware citizens are getting a one sided view on something they otherwise wouldn't really know about.