The above Gallup Survey chart shows sentiment towards gun control over time.
- Sixty-seven percent of Americans say the laws covering the sale of firearms should be made stricter. This represents an increase of seven percentage points since last fall and is the highest in any Gallup survey since 1993.
- In addition to the two-thirds of Americans wanting stricter gun laws, 28% say gun laws should be kept as they are now and 4% say they should be made less strict. Both percentages have declined significantly in recent years.
- Currently, 90% of Democrats say they want stricter gun laws, compared with 65% of independents and 41% of Republicans. All groups are more likely to favor stricter laws than they were two years ago, but Democrats’ preferences were already in place before the Parkland shooting. Since then, independents and Republicans have become more likely to want stricter gun laws.
- A slim majority of Republicans, 52%, prefer that gun laws be kept as they are now, rather than becoming stricter. Just 6% of Republicans, down from 13% in 2016, say gun laws should be made less strict.
- The average percentage mentioning guns has been 1% since Gallup began asking the most important problem question monthly in 2001.Guns now rank second as the most important problem in the country — behind dissatisfaction with government, which 22% of Americans mention. Immigration, race relations and unifying the country are also mentioned by at least 5% of U.S. adults.
A record-high percentage name guns as the most Important problem.
Gun Control By Party
People will deny anything, so I will even provide excuses.
- Gallup is nothing but lies.
- The survey is wrong now, but it was accurate between 2008 and 2011.
- Before 2008 and after 2011, Gallup made up the data to appease the liberal media.
It’s absurd to deny a shift in sentiment has take place, but comments to my post Gun Control Sentiment Shifts Dramatically show much absurdity.
Mike “Mish” Shedlock
These gun control arguments darken the skies every day. It is becoming a very dark age reactionary place
Those wondering about the Latin Phrase above: It’s from the prologue of the Gospel according to St. John: ‘Et lux in tenebris lucet et tenebrae eam non conprehenderunt’. It translates as The Light shines in the darkness and the darkness could not comprehend or understand it.
This is complete overkill, but only an entire excerpt from a book could possibly justify the point I’m trying to make. This is from pioneering Jungian psychologist Dr Jordan B Peterson’s “12 Rules For Life” first chapter:
———————————-
Because territory matters, and because the best locales are always in short supply, territory-seeking among animals produces conflict. Conflict, in turn, produces another problem: how to win or lose without the disagreeing parties incurring too great a cost. This latter point is particularly important. Imagine that two birds engage in a squabble about a desirable nesting area. The interaction can easily degenerate into outright physical combat. Under such circumstances, one bird, usually the largest, will eventually win—but even the victor may be hurt by the fight. That means a third bird, an undamaged, canny bystander, can move in, opportunistically, and defeat the now-crippled victor. That is not at all a good deal for the first two birds.
Conflict—and Territory
Over the millennia, animals who must co-habit with others in the same territories have in consequence learned many tricks to establish dominance, while risking the least amount of possible damage. A defeated wolf, for example, will roll over on its back, exposing its throat to the victor, who will not then deign to tear it out. The now-dominant wolf may still require a future hunting partner, after all, even one as pathetic as his now-defeated foe. Bearded dragons, remarkable social lizards, wave their front legs peaceably at one another to indicate their wish for continued social harmony. Dolphins produce specialized sound pulses while hunting and during other times of high excitement to reduce potential conflict among dominant and subordinate group members. Such behavior is endemic in the community of living things.
Lobsters, scuttling around on the ocean floor, are no exception. If you catch a few dozen, and transport them to a new location, you can observe their status-forming rituals and techniques. Each lobster will first begin to explore the new territory, partly to map its details, and partly to find a good place for shelter. Lobsters learn a lot about where they live, and they remember what they learn. If you startle one near its nest, it will quickly zip back and hide there. If you startle it some distance away, however, it will immediately dart towards the nearest suitable shelter, previously identified and now remembered.
A lobster needs a safe hiding place to rest, free from predators and the forces of nature. Furthermore, as lobsters grow, they moult, or shed their shells, which leaves them soft and vulnerable for extended periods of time. A burrow under a rock makes a good lobster home, particularly if it is located where shells and other detritus can be dragged into place to cover the entrance, once the lobster is snugly ensconced inside. However, there may be only a small number of high-quality shelters or hiding places in each new territory. They are scarce and valuable. Other lobsters continually seek them out.
This means that lobsters often encounter one another when out exploring. Researchers have demonstrated that even a lobster raised in isolation knows what to do when such a thing happens. It has complex defensive and aggressive behaviours built right into its nervous system. It begins to dance around, like a boxer, opening and raising its claws, moving backward, forward, and side to side, mirroring its opponent, waving its opened claws back and forth. At the same time, it employs special jets under its eyes to direct streams of liquid at its opponent. The liquid spray contains a mix of chemicals that tell the other lobster about its size, sex, health, and mood.
Sometimes one lobster can tell immediately from the display of claw size that it is much smaller than its opponent, and will back down without a fight. The chemical information exchanged in the spray can have the same effect, convincing a less healthy or less aggressive lobster to retreat. That’s dispute resolution Level 1. If the two lobsters are very close in size and apparent ability, however, or if the exchange of liquid has been insufficiently informative, they will proceed to dispute resolution Level 2. With antennae whipping madly and claws folded downward, one will advance, and the other retreat. Then the defender will advance, and the aggressor retreat. After a couple of rounds of this behaviour, the more nervous of the lobsters may feel that continuing is not in his best interest. He will flick his tail reflexively, dart backwards, and vanish, to try his luck elsewhere. If neither blinks, however, the lobsters move to Level 3, which involves genuine combat.
This time, the now enraged lobsters come at each other viciously, with their claws extended, to grapple. Each tries to flip the other on its back. A successfully flipped lobster will conclude that its opponent is capable of inflicting serious damage. It generally gives up and leaves (although it harbours intense resentment and gossips endlessly about the victor behind its back). If neither can overturn the other—or if one will not quit despite being flipped—the lobsters move to Level 4. Doing so involves extreme risk, and is not something to be engaged in without forethought: one or both lobsters will emerge damaged from the ensuing fray, perhaps fatally.
The animals advance on each other, with increasing speed. Their claws are open, so they can grab a leg, or antenna, or an eye-stalk, or anything else exposed and vulnerable. Once a body part has been successfully grabbed, the grabber will tail-flick backwards, sharply, with claw clamped firmly shut, and try to tear it off. Disputes that have escalated to this point typically create a clear winner and loser. The loser is unlikely to survive, particularly if he or she remains in the territory occupied by the winner, now a mortal enemy.
In the aftermath of a losing battle, regardless of how aggressively a lobster has behaved, it becomes unwilling to fight further, even against another, previously defeated opponent. A vanquished competitor loses confidence, sometimes for days. Sometimes the defeat can have even more severe consequences. If a dominant lobster is badly defeated, its brain basically dissolves. Then it grows a new, subordinate’s brain—one more appropriate to its new, lowly position. Its original brain just isn’t sophisticated to manage the transformation from king to bottom dog without virtually complete dissolution and regrowth. Anyone who has experienced a painful transformation after a serious defeat in romance or career may feel some sense of kinship with the once successful crustacean.
@Pater_Tenebrarum
Et lux in tenebris lucet et tenebrae eam non conprehenderunt.
I’d agree with you, but it would be meaningless: Ultimately we’re always living in an anarchy whatever the state of things.
Where you create a power void, someone or something will rise to fill that void. And don’t talk to me about moral choices with regards to this: for all intents and purposes this is a law of nature.
Any moral system that counts on the 7 billion individuals living on this planet to spontaneously adopt it without any regards to the natural forces already working within human beings is impossible to take seriously.
Nevertheless, the spirit of utter pure freedom along with mutual peace and respect in your utopian fantasy is indeed very noble and good.
I find the fallacy of the last 100 comments on this page and anarchist thought in general is in over looking what power is.
The right to own guns is not about having the means to cause violence, that’s a very narrow assumption people are working with.
Guns are about power. And even the most intangible and indirect threat of violence will translate into a power currency of profound importance.
The social and psychological effects of weaponry are the most important aspect of discussion the ownership of weaponry yet they are the most overlooked.
I personally think individuals should be able to own tanks and nuclear-tipped missiles as well. Defense should be privatized completely. You’d be surprised what a polite society this would produce. But then, I would privatize everything, I don’t see the need for a State.
Back in the 80s you could buy an AK47 in Maputo for 20 Rand (then about 7 dollars if I recall correctly)… those were the times! Also, Denel sold a shot gun with a round magazine, it looked like a 1930s tommy gun and worked real well. South African gun shops were real candy stores at the time. And of course, being well armed was generally highly advisable.
Why gun control needs to be rejected: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uA3jiXpPDB8
In the face of all of the failings of the government in this case, we are now going to ignore everything that history has taught us and blame the guns? Lose the libertarian label. Its embarrassing. Or read the Federalist Papers.
https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?singlepost=3438878
Bandwagon bias article with color photo’s. A fireman’s opinion included.
Where is the change in sentiment about all of the mass shooters whom almost all were on some type of prescribed drug for mental issues?
The only thing one can learn from the gun “debate” is the incredible willingness of so many to dishonestly evade and misconstrue other people’s words.
Nothing like a good old gun debate. For Mish, I would say you should look at what constituted the militia in the late 1700’s and you will have your answer on the Constitutional front. As for an AK47 only being for killing kids, that is patently idiotic and I am surprised it was even written. If you are talking about a full auto AK, which I assume you are, they have been used for decades as defensive weapons. If you are referring to a semi-auto variant, you are still incorrect. Any firearm can be used to kill a person but I have never heard of a model specifically made to kill kids. I am trained in hand to hand combat as well as various weapons. Anyone who believes a person cannot acquire a weapon illegally or kill people without a semi-auto is living in a fantasy land. A criminal can not only buy an illegal weapon easily if they have enough cash, but they can get a weapon from LE since they would have no problem killing another person.
On the semi-auto vs non, watch a video of a trained person shooting and reloading a revolver and tell me you are safe if a semi-auto ban were in effect. Jerry Miculek is the best example. People who have never trained in military tactics for combat using firearms, edged weapons, stick fighting, and hand/feet combat have no idea what can be done quickly if you wish to harm another person or wish to get a firearm from those who are carrying one. To believe criminals will abide by laws is pure foolishness.
If you were faced with a riot or a gang, even 3 people with illegal weapons (or even knives), what weapon would be most useful (assuming you are not trained in multiple forms of defense)? Would you want a knife, a revolver, or a semi-auto? What if faced with 10 people willing to kill you and your family? To say there are no reasons to have a useful weapon that can be use in defense other than killing kids is also naive. Are women and elderly to be left at the mercy of criminals when they have less ability (on average) to be physically able to defend themselves against criminals?
If you truly wish to infringe on a right, then work towards an amendment (and once again, see what the term militia meant when the Constitution was written – hint: it was not a standing army of regulars). Have people not studied history and know the basic facts of the United States?
And someone else mentioned it but you should do better research before posting a picture of a vet with an M4 who says a civilian should not own one when an M4 is not semi-auto only. Perhaps that vet is either a fool or a tool but using false statements do not give confidence in anyone’s arguments.
“If you think an Ak47 will protect you from the government, you are only nuts. Look at the destruction the US caused in Syria, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan etc. Your pathetic AK-47 is meaningless except for killing kids. You need nukes to be taken seriously. If North Korea did not have them, they would be flattened.”
That’s a common misconception. But, as the Afghans demonstrated very clearly in the 80s, you don’t need nukes to stand up to a nuclear power. Ditto for the Somalis in the 90s. And now, those crafty Afghans are in the midst of a rerun; faced with occupation by their second nuclear superpower in 30-40 years.
The reason for that, is there is a distinction between being occupied, suppressed and enslaved on one hand; and being annihilated along with all else, on the other. As a tool for the former, nukes are simply too coarse. They’re great defensively, since annihilating your enemy, along with the part of the world from where he hails, pretty much ensures he is no longer a threat. But even if Antebellum plantation owners had them by the truckloads, they wouldn’t serve nearly as well as simple rifles, whips and dogs, for keeping their niggas from getting too uppity about that currently unfashionable (in the US) thing called freedom.
What the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan did demonstrate, is that citizen militias do need the ability to neutralize low flying aircraft (helicopter gunships etc…), as well as punch through armor light enough to be reasonably deployed in populated areas. AKs, ARs etc. aren’t quite enough. Both above, are tools very much suited for oppression. Not simply strategic annihilation. Which makes it critical that militias (as in, all able-bodied men 15-65, not just a few lackeys vetted by the oppressive state, in any society with even the most rudimentary aspiration of being considered free) need unrestricted access to them. Ditto, nowadays, to anti drone defenses. Where current best practice still seem to be high rate of fire machine guns.
That’s what the NRA, as well as all Americans not yet uncritically indoctrinated enough to be specifically turned on by the thought of being reduced to simple slaves, need to focus on. Instead of the childishness Trump is involving himself in, and the even more destructive and denigrating nonsense emanating from the left. None of which ever amount to anything more than Gommiment should do this, gommiment should do that; while pathetic, worthless, useless little me should just lie there bent over and willing, oh soo happy that Massa promised, on teevee, to use a little more lube on me, than he would on my neighbor with a slightly different heir color.
If you think an Ak47 will protect you from the government, you are only nuts. Look at the destruction the US caused in Syria, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan etc. Your pathetic AK-47 is meaningless except for killing kids. You need nukes to be taken seriously. If North Korea did not have them, they would be flattened.
Don’t be concerned about what others have.
The issue is school safety not gun control. Our cognitive dissonance is at work, on the one hand we know the NSA sweeps our phone call records and compiles data on everyone of us, but we can’t stop a mentally ill person who buys a gun in one store and walks next door and buys a boatload of ammo, even when these purchases are recorded. How can the super spy agency deep state be so good and so bad at this. Putting this back on the states (to pass their own gun control laws) does nothing to bring coordinated scrutiny of gun purchases and gun owners, that requires a central authority. You can be sure the President isn’t afraid to sit in the White House, why are our school kids afraid, its the same cast of bad actors?
Interesting how the tweet from Westside Fireman applies to US foreign policy as well.
The Afghan war is now over 16 years old.
“I carried an M-4 in the Afghanistan desert for almost a year. These have no place in civilian hands.” I haven’t heard of anyone calling for a ban on selling M-4’s. I am guessing that is because they are not for sale to civilians in the first place. Westside Fireman is a hypocrite for telling others to make less enemies, as that is what he was doing in the Middleast with his M-4.
“A record-high percentage name guns as the most Important problem.” Polls are fickle. Hillary had a 20 point lead and lost. Should have seen the outpouring of love for the police in Pomona Ca ,after officer Gonzolas was killed by a criminal. Meanwhile, up in Oakland Ca you can see the outpouring of hate for the police, after an unarmed alleged criminal was shot by them and killed. I would guess that the 17 killed in Parkland, wish a teacher had a gun on them and stopped Cruz after he fired the first few shots.
“Some people doubt there is a shift in gun sentiment, so let’s display the clear shift for comment.” The thing about shifts in sentiment is that it then shifts back in the other direction. Everything was going the way of globalism.
We need M16s to protect us from a tyrannical government. Any intellectual Libertarian knows this. Mish, you can no longer call yourself a Libertarian since you clearly want more gun control.
Has Gallup polled to test the sentiment against teen texting while driving? Has Gallup polled to see if any teen students have been educated about the Liberty Amendments to the Constitution and why the Second Amendment was put into the Constitution? Has Gallup polled to see how many teens have been educated about the fact that more people were killed by their own government than by all the wars in the 20th century?
Another couple of hundred million gun grab supporters in San Francisco, won’t change gun laws faced by people elsewhere much. If all Gallup is measuring is increased urbanization, indoctrination and/or radicalization by the average poll responder, it doesn’t amount to much in the bigger scheme of things.
The biggest, and least likely to derail, demographic trend in America, is Mormonization. The guys in Utah, Idaho and increasingly Colorado and the rest of the Rockies; as well as over time points further away; are simultaneously fertile and can afford to raise children in their towns of choice. As opposed to San Franciscans busy banning anyone from giving children roofs over their heads. And Mormons tend to hold the US constitution in at least some sort of regard.
As lasting opinion changes go, demographics trump the attention spans of the “OMG! Tweet Kardashian! Make Hope and Change Great Again! set” any day.
Temporarily Trump, by making Republican a cussword, is certainly doing his part to get gun (along with everything else) grabbing totalitarians elected. But by way of temporary electoral mechanics. Not lasting sentiment change.
“.its DEMOCRATS not conservatives who commit the vast majority of gun violence in the USA”…. you have some data to back this up with? Or are you saying that because someone killed someone else in an area that leans democrat, they are a democrat.
And my point remains….its DEMOCRATS not conservatives who commit the vast majority of gun violence in the USA. Despite false depictions and portrayals of the left wing media.
ID is was the fastest growing state in the entire USA in population growth in 2017. Boise is a decent size city quickly growing with a metro area approaching 700,000. Not all “vast wastelands of empty space”. Even in heavily populated red states like TX/NC/TN, etc….., gun violence is in the BLUE areas of those states, not the red areas of those states. That was my point.
MT, ID, WY, Dakotas, etc. are vast wastelands of empty space. Even if I owned a gun and wanted to shoot at something I’d have to drive four hours to do it. By then I be so bored with my miserable existence I’d just turn on myself.
I think its a really fascinating that places that generally have the most vocal 2nd amendment supporters and high rates of gun ownership, actually have really LOW rates of gun violence. Red states full of gun zealots such as MT, ID, WY, ND, SD, etc..actually have very little gun violence. And even red states that do have gun violence….say like TX, AL, MO, TN, LA, etc…….that gun violence almost exclusively takes place in the BLUE dots within those red states. So its interesting that conservatives are the supporters of gun rights, yet Democrats commit the vast majority of the gun violence in America, And they commit that gun violence in mostly Democrat heavy areas.
There is no mention of the 100,000,000 guns in America owned by law-abiding citizens of this country. Only that an 18 year-old shouldn’t have one. In fact, the guns are not the problem. Millions upon millions of guns lie peacefully in their safes, drawers, holsters, etc. for years, decades on end. Most of them never being fired. Billions of rounds of ammunition wait silently with them. What have these inert guns and bullets done to make people who don’t even know them or own one of them demand that they be sacrificed on the alter of “child safety”? Childish stupidity and immature bleating for attention and useful idiots of those who would attack, destroy and “fundamentally change America” according to Obama. These people are the Sheep. They cry for and demand that Sheepdogs risk their lives for them and I don’t mean just the police. Anybody with the guts to stand up to terror. But they would restrict the very tools of the trade of the Sheepdog upon whom they depend to defend them from the Wolf. The Sheepdog is the one who makes the decision for what weapons he needs to do his work, not the Sheep. Shut up and go back to school and learn about the real world.
The mass shootings are what create gun control conversations and mass media attention. But in terms of % of the total killed by firearms annually in America, the mass shootings are a mere tiny rounding error of the total. What 700+ killed by firearms annually in a year JUST in Chicago mostly black on black??? Chicago in one year has more killed by firearms then ALL the mass shootings in what 30 yrs?!! Most of the gun violence in America is disproportionately black on black and hispanic on hispanic. I’m not making a statement for or against gun control. Just a mere observance of a fact that is ALWAYS missed in the left wing media. Probably 75% of the perpetrators of gun deaths in America are folks who vote Democrat (or would if they did vote). Just wanted to make this point.
Cellphones kill: https://youtu.be/luSyF5LcSvI
Your point? What did I truncate? I stand by my assertion that you rarely, if ever, mention the Constitution. Yet you post polls over and over. I really don’t care what 52% of American idiots think today, after a knee-jerk reaction to a shooting. Knee-jerk reactions are what gave us the Patriot Act…which I assume you oppose? Not sure. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Not some poll of morons the day after a shooting. You are dead wrong on this.
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.
Here is what is says:
The idea that these nuts are primarily motivated by fame doesn’t seem too good. If you’re going strictly for fame, you gotta figure you should make a bee line for the free fire zones where the cops are on your side until you pull the trigger. And where the targets are maximally fame-inducing. Elementary schools. But, schools are a mid-range category. Workplace and Other top the charts. (Other is malls, stores, etc.)
And they don’t happen at all in most of the States.
School shootings average about once every couple years. That’s out of 140,000 schools in the US, currently. So no need for students to cower beneath their desks any time soon. Tornadoes don’t hit schools nearly as often, we can note. But, they could be in the running with a couple really bad weather reports.
1) The Association of Nut Job Shooter’s EOA Report will look real good with respect to race. But they are going to have the feds down on them like a ton of bricks on gender. They look like an advanced tech company with no HR and no PR people. All male.
Couple quick things are apparent:
Their list has ~100 ‘mass shootings’.
Yeah, yeah, Mother Jones. Old hippies channeling their crystals to communicate with … blah blah. But something is weird and unexpected over at MJ. Someone there seems to be interested in starting from facts first.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data/
For those interested in information, the following link seems very good:
The Constitution: Her’s an excellent discussion: https://alumni.berkeley.edu/california-magazine/just-in/2017-08-28/so-about-well-regulated-militia-part-constitution
The level of support for tighter gun regulations is where it was just before the assault weapons ban was passed.
Restrictions like magazine size, mandatory registration (already used in several states), bump stock ban, and more comprehensive background checks are constitutionally permissible and have political tailwinds.
Change is coming. Part of my job is selling firearms. I relatively seldom sell to a first time buyer. The ones buying are getting a coyote gun to go with their deer rifle or a shotgun to go with their pistol. Gun sales may be up in total, but a smaller portion of the population is buying. And before anyone asks, my state went 65% for Trump.
Mish, probably many of the posters here are professional (or perhaps amateur) trolls and won’t seem to discuss your core hypothesis – whether there has been a significant actionable change in the outlook on tightening of gun laws. Maybe you should create another moderated post and any response which is in favor or against gun regulation will not be accepted?
So, speaking to the Gallup stats – taking into account the likely bias, you have dems which are 90% for control (which has not changed) and you have repubs who are still less than 50% for control – which implies the deadlock continues.
Gun control comes down to the red state / blue state split and the battle lines have only hardened. I still haven’t seen any anecdotal nor hard data to imply that “change is coming”.
And banning bump stocks doesn’t count.
Thanks – Goodbye. As for the constitution, please look it up, and tell me what it says about “well-regulated militias” instead of truncating a sentence as you see fit.
You do realize that automatic weapons have been outlawed in the US since the 1930s, right? Learn your facts before you post. Makes you look REALLY stupid otherwise.
Posting a tons of polls, as Mish does, only lends weight to the 20%-30% of Americans who are retards, by any definition. Check an IQ bell curve….there are 35 to 50 millions Americans who are literally semi-retarded. I place zero value in their opinion or poll results. The Constitution rules the land….and until Mish pays it lip service, I won’t be back here again. I quit this site once for a year, due to Mish’s ignorant gun-control bullshit. I’ll do it again in a second. Especially considering how wrong he’s been on just about everything since.