Skip to comments.
Before Recent Shootings, Gun-Control Support Was Fading - Americans evenly divided at 49% on need...
Gallup ^
| April 8, 2009
| Lydia Saad
Posted on 04/08/2009 10:06:21 AM PDT by neverdem
Americans evenly divided at 49% on need for stricter gun laws
PRINCETON, NJ -- In Gallup polling conducted prior to last week's gun massacre at an immigrant center in Binghamton, N.Y., only 29% of Americans said the possession of handguns by private citizens should be banned in the United States. While similar to the 30% recorded in 2007, the latest reading is the smallest percentage favoring a handgun ban since Gallup first polled on this nearly 50 years ago.

Public support for restricting the sale and possession of handguns to "police and other authorized persons" was relatively high in the early 1990s, with 41% to 43% in favor, but has since edged lower. At the same time, opposition to a ban has increased from 53% in 1991 to 69% in the most recent survey.
The latest figures come from the most recent installment of Gallup's annual Crime survey, conducted Oct. 3-5, 2008. It is unclear what impact, if any, the recent Binghamton incident may have on Americans' views of gun control.
Separately, the October Crime survey found just under half of Americans, 49%, wanting the laws covering the sale of firearms to be made stricter than they are now. This is the lowest percentage favoring stricter gun laws in Gallup trends since the question was first asked in 1990. While only 8% say gun laws should be made less strict, 41% say they should remain as they are now.

Thus, as of last fall, Americans were evenly divided at 49% each over whether the laws covering the sale of firearms should be made stricter, or not. This contrasts with public opinion in the early 1990s, when the balance of opinion was more than 2 to 1 in favor of making gun...
(Excerpt) Read more at gallup.com ...
TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Front Page News; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 111th; 2009polls; agenda; banglist; first100days; goebbelswouldbeproud; guncontrol; guncontrolpolling; hhobanglist; pravdamedia; shallnotbeinfringed; stalinisttactics; zogbyism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-43 next last
1
posted on
04/08/2009 10:06:21 AM PDT
by
neverdem
To: neverdem
The media is very good at using these stories to shape public opinion and push their agenda.
To: neverdem
Rights unfer the US Constitution should not be subject to the whim of polls.
The right to keep and bear arms is a God given right.
3
posted on
04/08/2009 10:08:44 AM PDT
by
stockpirate
("When governments fear the people, there is liberty. " T. Jefferson)
To: stockpirate
4
posted on
04/08/2009 10:10:21 AM PDT
by
ClearCase_guy
(American Revolution II -- overdue)
To: neverdem
Sounds like only 8% of Americans get it. Isn’t that the percent of patriots around during the 1770s?
5
posted on
04/08/2009 10:11:52 AM PDT
by
1010RD
(First Do No Harm)
To: stockpirate
Damned Straight on that one! I don’t give a rat’s damn if 98% of the people want gun control - it is simply not their right to infringe mine!
6
posted on
04/08/2009 10:12:02 AM PDT
by
Gaffer
To: neverdem
29% of Americans said the possession of handguns by private citizens should be banned in the United StatesI'm sure that opinion is required of all new U.S Government employees.
Anyway, these crazed killers don't seem to have trouble finding "gun free zones".If a gun band went into effect I don't think they would have any problem find a firearm.
7
posted on
04/08/2009 10:13:14 AM PDT
by
oyez
(People! You're being pimped!)
To: ClearCase_guy
Molan Libe, Greek for “come and get them”
8
posted on
04/08/2009 10:14:29 AM PDT
by
stockpirate
("When governments fear the people, there is liberty. " T. Jefferson)
To: neverdem
Too bad they couldn't focus on the part where victim disarmament zones are dangerous to your health.
People intent on creating mayhem don't go to where people could cut their little rampages short.
9
posted on
04/08/2009 10:16:41 AM PDT
by
Dead Corpse
(1000110010101010100001001001111)
To: neverdem
I'm all in favor of gun control.
"Gun control" means hitting what you're aiming for, right?
10
posted on
04/08/2009 10:17:44 AM PDT
by
Zeddicus
To: neverdem
I'll have the wife dial 911 as I defend my home with my 2nd Amendment protected right to bare arms - those trying to come in will get double ought from both barrels
11
posted on
04/08/2009 10:18:10 AM PDT
by
SoldierDad
(Proud Dad of a U.S. Army Infantry Soldier presently instructing at Ft. Benning.)
To: neverdem
Given the increased number of nuts engaging in mass shootings, the argument should be for more folks to be armed as a disincentive to potential attackers. If nothing else, it gives the armed person some potential for survival vs being an unarmed victim. A slightly better outcome would be successful interdiction of an attempted shooting of others by armed citizens in attendance. As noted in the Binghampton case, the police were exactly useless. Wong fired 98 rounds in just over a one minute time frame. He is reported to have committed suicide when he heard the police siren. That damage was done long before the police got the first call.
A handgun ban would disarm the entire law abiding population. The nut jobs would ignore the law. Most of them intend to commit multiple homicides followed by a suicide. Such persons have no fear of the legal consequences of their actions. It is simply immoral to force law abiding people to be disarmed victims.
12
posted on
04/08/2009 10:19:15 AM PDT
by
Myrddin
To: Dead Corpse
So they polled 1011 people but 29% still seems curiously high to me. I’d like to know more about what times the calls where made and to which regions of the country.
I’ve never met (but I know they’re out there) anyone who was for an all-out handgun ban. Even the libs I know are mostly gun-owners. They just don’t like the scary black rifles.
To: neverdem
Here is my blog post from Feb 15 2008
How long till help arrives?
Let's say you are at a
store. Any store will do. You're minding your own business and someone walks in the door, pulls out a gun and starts shooting. How long did it take to injure or kill several people? Estimates range from 5 seconds to 1 minute.
Let's say you are in a
college classroom, teaching or a student.
Someone walks in the door, pulls out a gun and starts shooting. How long did it take to injure or kill several people? Estimates range from 5 seconds to 1 minute.
Let's say you are at home sleeping.
Someone breaks into your house, you wake up, run down the hall, and they shoot you, then take your children. How long did it take? Estimates range from 5 seconds to 1 minute.
What is the average police response time in your city?
Los Angelas is about seven minutes, 30 seconds (1995).
New York has been ranges from 6.5 to 13 minutes (1996).
San Francisco is about 6 minutes (2003)
Now tell me. Which would you rather do if confronted with an armed person who is most definitely shooting other people...or you?
Call 911 and wait for the response?
Or have a way to defend yourself with equal force on force?
Most people I know choose defend yourself and others with equal force.
14
posted on
04/08/2009 10:22:02 AM PDT
by
Domandred
(Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.)
To: Myrddin
A handgun ban would disarm the entire law abiding population.And probably dramatically increase the ranks of the non-law abiding.
15
posted on
04/08/2009 10:22:41 AM PDT
by
gundog
To: SoldierDad
I'll have the wife dial 911 as I defend my home with my 2nd Amendment protected right to bare arms - those trying to come in will get double ought from both barrels It's Spring again. The weather is warm. I'm enjoying the right to bare arms again as well. When the snow melts off the range, I'll exercise my right to bear arms as well. In an emergency, I grab the firearm first, then call 911 to deal with the emergency outside the house. I give the dispatcher my cell phone number and inform the officers that I'm armed inside. Please inform me when the outside is secure. At that time I'll secure my firearm. I'm not interested in injuring the responding LEOs nor being shot by them.
16
posted on
04/08/2009 10:24:55 AM PDT
by
Myrddin
To: neverdem
... obeyed New York's laws except the ones about homicide, manslaughter and maybe fraud ...
And the fact that he was in a GUN FREE ZONE.
17
posted on
04/08/2009 10:27:40 AM PDT
by
bamahead
(Few men desire liberty; most men wish only for a just master. -- Sallust)
To: Myrddin
Okay, so I’ll bear arms with my bare arms and take out the bad guys with my L.C. Smith.
18
posted on
04/08/2009 10:29:24 AM PDT
by
SoldierDad
(Proud Dad of a U.S. Army Infantry Soldier presently instructing at Ft. Benning.)
To: Domandred
The last time I had to pull a firearm out and wait on a 911 response, it took San Diego PD 20 minutes to respond. There was a continued loud pounding on my front door. It continued for the entire period that I had to wait for the response. I had no clear view of the front door from inside. In the end, it turned out to be a large German Shepherd that was excited by the scent of my female Rat Terrier. The SDPD chased the dog away and rang the doorbell. I put my firearm away and answered the door after notifying the dispatcher that the firearm was secured and officers notified.
19
posted on
04/08/2009 10:30:02 AM PDT
by
Myrddin
To: KansasGirl
Ok. Read the title....
“...Americans evenly divided at 49% on NEED...”
Need? Huh? It aint a question of need!!!!
The morons that write these pieces are pinko
commie liberals.....
20
posted on
04/08/2009 10:33:18 AM PDT
by
murrie
(For God so loved the world, that he gave His only begotten Son..........)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-43 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson