In the wake of the Aurora, CO shooting tragedy there has been somber coverage, and somber political coverage. Multiple outlets have pronounced "gun control" doomed. Even Huffington Post's senior polling editor Mark Blumenthal (with whom I rarely disagree), declares "gun control polls show long-term decline." But polling reveals a few helpful points to consider before rendering a verdict.
Over-reliance on the word "control" skews results. As I've written about before, the "control" frame is used frequently by the press and in nearly all national polls. But no gun law advocates talk of "controlling" guns. Pew's long-standing question asks respondents whether it is more important to "control gun ownership" or "protect the rights of Americans to own guns." It's no surprise it doesn't test very well. Gun law advocates want safety, not control as its own end.
Another common question is more stable, and shows support for stricter gun laws. Far from "long term decline," a three-way question used by Gallup and others shows quite a bit of stability. The language is typically: "Do you feel the laws covering the sale of guns should be made more strict, less strict, or kept as they are now?" This presentation my firm did for the bipartisan group Mayors Against Illegal Guns compiles recent data, and shows a plurality continue to want to see laws "more strict," with hardly any saying "less strict."
There are many, many popular proposals up for discussion. Tightening our gun laws doesn't have to mean an assault weapons ban. Yet even those favorable to the gun safety cause use this data point to suggest why the political will for reform isn't there. Our polling for MAIG has consistently shown strong support for a series of tighter gun laws, including tightening requirements for carrying a concealed gun, requiring reporting of lost and stolen guns, improving data sharing, and tracking bulk purchases of assault rifles. Even people in gun-owning households support these proposals. (See the above presentation, as well as this one.)
In the days ahead, we should not look at the polling coverage and simply throw up our hands. On the contrary, there are many (popular!) ways to improve our current gun laws without infringing on the rights of law-abiding citizens.
Follow Margie Omero on Twitter: www.twitter.com/MargieOmero
Who would have thought that the 5 states with the lowest per capita shootings would have included New York and New Jersey? It comes back to the effect that the laws have on the general population.
Interestingly, increases in gun violence also corrolate to States with lower incomes and states that tend to vote Republican. Funny though, I don't personally know any poor folk that have shot anyone, nor any Republicans that have shot anyone. (reference the same study cited above)
We have seen what a failure the Brady Law was, so bad that the Dems did not even attempt to fight for renewal of it. As a political stance, it has some value to the Left, but as a reality, it has no value to anyone at all.
We had a warning about 9/11 that the Bush Administration failed to heed. If the police had gone to this guys' apartment if they had been notified that he bought 6000 rounds of ammunition in a short time, this tragedy may have been prevented.
Gun sales expand before Aurora shooting
http://bit.ly/M80noM
Gun sales expand even more after Aurora shooting.
http://nyp.st/LNoHL3