Opposition to "Assault Weapon" Ban at Record High, Support at Record Low

Gun Watch ^ | 19 April, 2016 | Dean Weingarten

[marktwain]

Image from ABC News


The above chart, created by ABC News, illustrates the trajectory of support and opposition for policies promoted by media elites that have no actual basis in fact or logic.  New media allows a significant, underdog, method to distribute facts about the policy.  The chart is a little misleading.  It starts in the middle of 1994, when the elite media control was near its height, and at the end of a blitz of media efforts to push the "Assault Weapon Ban" policy.

These sort of policies, that rely on emotion, have to be enacted quickly, before the public can discover how much they have been mislead.  That is what happened with the "Assault Weapon Ban" (AWB).  In the case of the  AWB, the proponents were not worried about the public learning the truth; they controlled the media, with almost no effective opposition.  But that was changing quickly.  Talk radio had already begun to make inroads, and the Internet was just starting to become a viable method of mass communication.

The opponents of the ban, more attuned to reality, had managed to include a sunset to the bill ten years in the future.  By the time the sunset came due, enough people had learned the truth to prevent an extension of the bill.

I recall talking to a former military officer who was a manager in the Civil Service.  It was about 1992, as the propaganda campaign in favor of the AWB was ramping up. He was astounded that the AWB only affected semi-automatic firearms.  He had assumed, from the propaganda, that it was all about fully automatic arms; those had already been excessively regulated for 60 years.  He understood the implications quickly and clearly.  It only took a minute to explain them.

That is what has happened to a large plurality of the electorate as they have become educated on the issue.  35% completely reversed their positions. It is because they have been exposed to facts and rationality instead of purely emotional arguments and falsehoods. 

You see the same effect in multiple attempts to pass more infringements on Second Amendment rights.  The current campaign is for the vague phrase "Universal Background Checks" (UBC).  The percentage in favor and against started at about the same level shown for the AWB in 1994.  There were about 80% to 90% in favor in selectively worded polls in 2013.  Nearly all the support was based on ignorance, emotional arguments, and false representation of the actual legislation.

The support for UBC is already eroding, as more and more people are becoming informed.  Even  in liberal Washington state, with massive funding by Bloomberg and several other enormously wealthy elitists, with an ad campaign based on falsehoods, the actual vote was only 60% for, an erosion of 20-30%.  There was almost no effective opposition.  The opposition to the referendum was outspent by 15-1, and the major media in the area actively supported UBC.

Emotion and lies can sway an electorate; but when there is a means of getting the facts out, emotional support, based on lies, eventually is eroded.  That is why the proponents push so hard to pass the measures quickly.  The good news is that once former voters are educated, they are much harder to fool again.  A bit of credibility is lost each time this happens.  That credibility was built up over decades of relatively careful reporting, followed by decades of an effective control over the media; it has been worn away to a fraction of what it was 30 years ago.  Faith in news reporting is at a low not seen for a long time.

There is plenty of room for faith in the media to fall further.  The gallup poll taken in 2015 puts faith in the media at 40%.  Presumably, those are people who obtain most of their information from the old, elite, media.  Younger people are more skeptical yet, with their trust level down to 36%.

Even more skepticism is likely in the future.  Credibility is slow to build, and easily eroded. That is a good thing for those who are Second Amendment supporters.

©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

[marktwain]

The "Assault Weapon Ban" was never based on facts or logic. It was always a media created, emotion driven way to push infringements on the Second Amendment.

[RC one]

make no mistake, the dems don’t give a ____ about any opposition to their anti-second amendment agenda. If they have the power, it will happen and part of me wants to see what happens when they attempt to “come and take ‘em”.

[Smokin' Joe]

Americans haven’t been spending their hard-earned money on firearms, accessories, and ammunition to meekly surrender them to be picked over and destroyed.

[SkyPilot]

They are not, nor were they ever, "Assault Weapons." Those by definition are capable of automatic fire.

These are, and were, semi-autos that liberals thought looked "scary" - and they used these weapons as the proverbial nose of the camel under the tent in order to usher in even more unconstitutional 2nd amendment violations.

[Vaquero]

Oh the left has mostly been successful in CHANGING that definition. it was Hitlers armorers who came up with the name sturmgewehr in 1944 for the intermediate caliber rifle designed by Schmieser.

So now here in NY, you can’t own a semi auto rifle with any of the following components. Bayonet lug, pistol grip, barrel threaded for anything. Magazine limit of 10 rounds

So you can’t buy an AR but you can buy a Ruger Mini 14. Same caliber, same semi auto rate of fire but the Ruger ain’t so scary looking

Logic! Thy name is LEFTIST.

[V_TWIN]

“The chart is a little misleading”

From abc news?? NO, say it ain’t so. /s/

[BuffaloJack]

Liberals have historically always opposed private ownership of weapons. It’s because they fear the populace.

[Wyrd bið ful aræd]

Here in the People's Republic of Massachusetts, bayonet lugs, pistols grips, thread-barrels, adjustable stocks, are all "banned features." But "banned features" aren't banned per se, you just can't have more than two on a gun...Except in some cases, you can't have any (eg folding stock). Further, no gun is legal unless it is listed, by name, on the "approved weapons roster." But lest you think a gun being on the approved weapons roster means it's, you know, approved, think again. There are three, count 'em, THREE lists, and the only one that is authoritative and has final say on what you can and can't buy, the AG's list, is (surprise) not available to the public! I think you can buy (of course they don't just give it to you) an unofficial copy, that comes with the caveat that it is unofficial and not to be used for reference because it's probably different from the real AG list...Worthless, in other words.

And of course, no magazine with a capacity of more than 10 rounds, unless said mag was manufactured/imported before 1998. So the supply is scanty and expensive. Some guy got busted and charged a couple years ago because he was found in possession of a couple 30-round mags that, lacking a date-stamp, were deemed by default illegal...How many mags come with a date-stamp?

[ctdonath2]

Support is one thing. Compliance is another.

NY’s latest version of the ban requires grandfathered owners register.
The compliance rate is 4%.

Someone needs to ask Hillary how she will deal with 96% of otherwise law abiding citizens choosing instead to, thru no action on their part, become declared felons.

[Travis McGee]

[Travis McGee]

(Corrected caption)

[Flintlock]

Ya think we might need ‘em??

Me too.

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks marktwain. No one, not even those who claim to, beleive the obvious recent lie of Zero, that we live in themost peaceful era in human history -- and realize that the terrorists never have any trouble getting any kind of weapon they want, no matter where they live.