(Photo: National Rifle Association)
A majority of voters support a ban on bump stocks as well as other gun control measures in the wake of the mass killing in Las Vegas, according to a new poll.
Seventy-nine percent of those surveyed said that they “support” banning the use of “bump fire stocks, a gun accessory that allows a shooter to fire hundreds of rounds per minute.”
Overall 64 percent of voters support stricter gun laws, with 41 percent strongly supporting them. Only 29 percent oppose tougher gun laws with 16 percent in strong opposition.
The poll was commissioned by news organization POLITICO and conducted by Morning Consult, a D.C.-based survey research company. A total of 1,996 registered voters were surveyed. Results should have a plus or minus of 2 percentage points.
SEE ALSO: NBC Uses Pro-Gun Gallup Poll About Millennials to Peddle Gun Control
“The results of this survey demonstrate there is support for at least some new gun control measures, even if support for whole-scale reform is murkier,” said Kyle Dropp, Morning Consult’s co-founder and chief research officer.
“Sixty-four percent of voters, including 49 percent of Republicans, support stricter gun laws,” continued Dropp. “There are also individual proposals that receive even broader backing, such as 84 percent support for closing the gun show loophole.”
See complete results below:
The results of the poll were music to the ears of Shannon Watts, the founder of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, who saw it as a way to attack the NRA’s pro-gun agenda.
“While Americans support strengthening our nation’s gun laws, the gun lobby and its friends in Congress are shamefully working to roll back gun silencer safety laws and gut state gun laws through ‘concealed carry reciprocity,’” said Watts in a press release.
“The gun lobby’s agenda is endangering our families and communities, and is completely out of touch with the priorities of the American people,” she added. “Members of Congress are elected to respond to constituents’ demands, not kowtow to lobbyists’ desires.”
It’s not surprising that after a national tragedy like Vegas more voters support stricter gun laws than oppose them. We’ve seen this before, particularly after Newtown.
But as time passes after these events emotions cool and people become less reactionary.
Gallup has been studying this issue for decades. Its polling suggests that more Americans are inclined to oppose stricter regulations today than compared to the early 90s. See graph (above) for historic trend lines.
Similarly, a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll published in September asked 1,200 people to pick between the following statements:
- Statement A: The government will go too far in restricting the rights of citizens to own guns
- Statement B: The government will not do enough to regulate access to firearms
Fifty percent picked statement “A” compared with 45 percent who chose statement “B.” That same question was asked in 1995, with 35 percent of respondents picking statement “A” and 58 percent selecting statement “B.”
The problem with this or any regulation of 2A is what we call the “salami approach”. They slice just a thin bit off the salami, then do it again, and again, until the salami is totally gone. Since the intent of the anti 2A crowd is to destroy the whole salami, then we can’t allow even a thin slice to be removed. Of course, this prevents even sensible laws we can all get our heads around, from being passed. I blame this on the anti-gun crowd who don’t want sensible laws at all – they want a gun ban. Period.
As long as that exists, I say NO to all regulation, sensible or not.
While basically sound, your comment fails at the end. The problem is two-fold and hinges on your reference to “sensible.” What IS “sensible?” What you and I might call sensible is a very different thing from what a Schumer or Pelosi and their saps or lickspittle followers would call ‘sensible.’
Secondly, is the utter disingenuousness of them. They will lie, twist words and whole statement and take such out of context until just about ANYthing sounds ‘sensible.’
Anent your “salami” method, it’s called “incrementalism’ and they have been doing it for decades. That, of course, validates your last sentence.
Politico? Go no further. I will say this to any and all rabidly anti-American groups such as Politico that will try to disarm WE The People, these United States Of America and then task someone else to go door to door to seize OUR firearms if they get that lucky and then hide under their desks if and as they do…Don’t send someone else to do your dirty work for you. Do it yourself, but when you do make sure to kiss your families goodbye before you do because you will never see them again in this lifetime IF you do come pounding at my door. And IF you do come pounding at my door, be sure to wear full body armor from the top of your heads to the bottoms of your feet because your torsos won’t be my aim. And lastly, IF you or anyone comes pounding at my door with the intent of disarming me, the outcome of that will make the WORLD NEWS for days and weeks, possibly longer, but certainly not for only hours. You have my personal guarantee of that one.
Politico? I’m surprised they let that fact slip out….totally bogus poll…they decide what they want and then poll to get it…what a relief…now I know this whole poll is total bull*hit.
when I was in Vietnam I never used my auto setting being a country boy the ability to set your sights on a target was always my first thought not wasting ammo. The bump stock is a NO NO to me the so called silencer is a good idea.
“Public Support for Bump Stock Ban at 79 Percent, Says New Poll” What a crock of shit. This must be a poll from CNN or NBC or MSNBC or ABC or CBS. All FAKE news outlets. They pulled this poll out of their ass and should stick it back up there.
Yes, ban them, ban them and all devices like them! Today. Now. Last year. We gun nuts can easily live without them, and more people will live without them if we get rid of them because now future mass shooters will be more likely to use them.
You obviously have no idea how these stocks work. It’s a technique, not the stock itself. Now, I don’t have one, and don’t want one, but think you should be able to if you want it. Say I did want one, but it was banned, like you suggest. You know what else I can use? The belt loop on my jeans, a shoe lace, a rubber band, and MANY other very common items. Banning these stocks changes absolutely nothing. And as the gentleman above a few posts said, the one thing I NEVER used in Iraq is the full auto setting on my rifle. I would much rather hit the enemy I’m shooting at once than scare him 30 times by missing. I’ll take it a step further. As a police officer now, I HOPE that if I ever get in another shooting, my opponent is using either one of these stocks or a true full auto, because that will make it harder for them to hit me!
Fake news. Is this the same polling agency that predicted Killery winning in a landslide?
That is a bullshit poll. I’ve shot bump stocks. I don’t like them. I feel they waste good ammo. With that being said, I oppose a ban on them. When will idiot anti-American liberals realize and understand, it’s the killers fault, not an inanimate object
Can a “constituent” who demands be the same as a “lobbyist” who desires or visa versa? After all, I’m a constituent of a couple of Congressmen & Senators, as well as one who supports the NRA, that’s what makes being an American in America great again!…. 🙂
Only some people in mental institutions or people that should be in mental institutions would believe this poll . Kind of like reading the national inquirer.
You can make any poll look like you want it to. I agree with the commenter above, is this the same pollster that predicted Hillarys’ landslide win?
I’ve commented on this before. I will reiterate that I am a CCP holder and carry daily. I also own a 9mm handgun, two semi-automatic rifles and a 12 gauge shotgun all of which are always loaded. On the other hand there are laws on the books which have banned civilian ownership of automatic weapons. “Bump stocks” violate if not the actual law certainly the spirit of the law by turning a semi-automatic firearm into almost an automatic firearm as the rate of fire from one of these weapons so equipped demonstrates.
I further believe the almost fanatical approach by some in the gun ownership community of “anything that regulates a firearm is a violation of the 2nd amendment” does more harm to our continual need to protect our right to bear arms than good. The reality is the 2nd amendment doesn’t cover accessories for your gun. It simply says we have the constitutional right assured that “the right to bear arms shall not be infringed”. It says nothing about sear pins, or bump stocks or any of the other accouterments which alter the original weapon to be used as manufactured.
I now relinquish the floor for all who will now tell me how stupid I am, and how I am really not a CCP holder, etc. etc. because I have taken a stand to keep the majority of America, gun owner or not, on the side of protecting our 2nd amendment rights by not appearing to be totally unreasonable in our approach.
The ‘spirit of the law’ is a liberal invention to wordsmith. You fell for it. There are exact definitions as to what defines a machine gun, and the bump stock does not fit the definition.
While you are correct that a bump stock or slide stock voolates the spirit of the law, it does not meet the definition of the law.
You need to read some other period documents and letters. You’re partially right, in that 2A covers some but not all things, except you have it backwards. It was meant to cover “military arms in common use at the time”, since we had just fought a war for our independence. So what is Constitutionally protected is anything of military value. So a sniper rifle is perfectly useful, as is a full-auto, since these are both common military weapons today. However, what is NOT covered, is the .22 you taught your kids to shoot cans with, the shotgun you use for dove hunting, and your deer rifle. Now I’m definitely against any ban, but if we’re going to make arguments about what we truly are or are not allowed to have and claim to base it on the Constitution, then it should be expected that we know what the Constitution says and the intent behind it. If we don’t, then the traitors can argue that the only thing available st the time of the writing was flintlock guns, so that’s all you and I are allowed to have, and you and I will be stupid enough to say “well, ok, you’re right”, and turn in everything else. Please study up on this instead of speaking untruths ( no matter how well intended) that do nothing but give the antis ammo to use against us. You and I have given up too many rights, our kids will have fewer, and if we’re not careful, our grandkids will have NONE!
You all are missing the point of the 2nd Amendment. It gives us nothing, it is saying that the government shall NOT infringe upon a right that we ALREADY have. Thus any regulatory system/ law is an infringement.
Seems cut and dry, unless we are giving up rights, to an entity that didn’t give them to us in the first place.
It’s the sane thing as everyone so ready to go to war ryte after 9/11 don’t kno with who but we’re ready for war ryte now someone has to pay cuz it’s not our fault gotta point the finger. Blind justice lashing out is all it is and when u do that u end up screwing yourself every time
Troll, your first amendment rights do not pertain to the use of electronic media, so you need to ditch that computer and go back to using a Quill and Parchment paper sent by the Pony Express!
Must be the same polling people that said Hillary would be the president.
LOL
I changed the Forest Gump line “life is like a box of chocolates” to “life is like a load of horse shit, you know yer gonna get it you just don’t know how much”.
Another poll from a liberal apparatchik. What was the targeted demographic sampling?
ATF ruled these bump stocks don’t alter the mechanical fire control to the extent it converts the firearm into a machine gun.
Many of these measures are already law.
What gun show loophole? All firearms sales by a licensed firearms dealers are subject to federal law and procedures, including a background check. Private sellers are subject to Federal, state, and local laws and event host rules on selling firearms to individuals who are not otherwise prohibited from obtaining, possession, or owning a firearm. There are stiff penalties for transferring a weapon to someone not permitted to obtain or possess a firearm. Unfortunately, making that determination can be difficult if a criminal or psycho has took measures to conceal condition, use a fake identity, obtained through a straw purchase, or stolen.
What a load of shit. They must have polled the DNC, TOTAL BULLSHIT
Are these the same poling companies that showed Killary being the president with the Donald having a zero chance?
I seriously doubt these numbers as well!
Guess people will have to learn and practice bump firing like I did in the good old days before we had these “bump” stocks.
Most people with an hour of range time can get it down reliably.
Of course bump stocks should be banned! I am a gun owner and gun lover just like many of you but it offends and frankly scares me that there are replacement parts available over-the-counter and without a background check to turn weapons of war into otherwise illegal firearms. AR-15s, AK-47s and similar assault rifles should not be available for civilian ownership and are not covered by the second amendment, in the same way that the first amendment does not cover hate speech. Slower minds keep right, indeed!
You can have your right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness but those rights end where my right to life, housing, health care and education begin. If these common sense gun safety measures save even one life, it will all be worth it for that greater security. It boggles my mind that some states allow private party transfers, especially on AR-15s!
Year was 1995. A man named Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people and he did not use any firearms. He did it with a bomb. Depraved evil people will do mass killings if they wish and your dreams of gun laws stopping them will do nothing. Another evil murderer killed about 80 people in France with an automobile. Wake up. Firearms are not the problem. We have all the gun laws we need.
More people have been killed at outdoor events by stolen semi-trucks, C4 suicide vests, and pressure cooker bombs than by “bump stocks” or “ARs.” BTW, you have no constitutional “right” to housing, healthcare, and education.
“Weapons of war”, don’t remember those being excluded from the 2nd. Seems that’s the point of amendment, to protect weapons ownership of those things useful to protect your liberty.
Your “common sense” restrictions have already seriously restricted access to those. Stop labeling yourself as a gun owner/lover, it means nothing. I know more people who own no firearms that are far more protective of the 2nd than you.
@ Blue dog, sorry your girl did not win……………..
Just to be clear, there\’s no \”right\” to housing, healthcare or education guaranteed anywhere I\’m aware. Those are things each of us work for. Sure there can and should be support organizations for those who are down – private charitable organizations – but it\’s no one\’s right.Bump stocks are no more evil then a crockpot or a truck. It takes an evil person to use one incorrectly for bad things to happen. Each of them are just things and have no aspirations of their own. What we need to do is determine how to best handle evil people. They screw everything up.
The whole reason for the 2nd amendment was for the populace to have access to the same small arms as being used by the military. That to prevent them being suppressed by them. An armed population keeps the government honest.
Agree with you. The 2nd Amendment was put in place to protect the citizenry from a tyrannical government, such as we have today. The 1st Amendment is the most important, and the 2nd was placed to protect all of the other Bill of Rights in the Constitution. It is not about hunting, concealed carry, type of firearm, or how you store your firearm. Many a Constitutional scholar will tell you that all gun laws are unconstitutional or unlawful. Also, it is noted many times in the Federalist Papers by the architects of the Constitution that the citizenry needs to have the same weapons as the army to have adequate protection from a misaligned government. The 2nd is in place as a check. Look back in history and see how humans were murdered after their government took away the guns. Look at crime, murder stats, and terrorism in ‘gun free’ countries.
Military versions of AR-15’s and AK-47’s are NOT available to civilian owners, look a like’s are but not the real ones. And why does the second amendment not cover them. At the time of the revolution there was no standing army for the colonies so ALL private weapons were military weapons so there was no distinction as to what was allowed and not allowed in the constitution. The colonist did not own muskets as they were the military weapon of the British Army and outlawed for civilian ownership. The Colonist had rifles, cannons, bombs and anything else they could supply to the militia with no help from a government that did not exist. There have been multi-shot fast loading weapons since 1481 so where does the 2nd Amendment restrict them. ANY law that puts a restriction on the 2nd is UNCONTITIONAL no manner how minor. The only thing that keeps the government in check is the 2nd and if you want to see what happens when that is gone just look and any numbers of nations in the world where the PEOPLE do not have the right to gun ownership.
Military versions of AR-15\’s and AK-47\’s are NOT available to civilian owners, look a like\’s are but not the real ones. And why does the second amendment not cover them. At the time of the revolution there was no standing army for the colonies so ALL private weapons were military weapons so there was no distinction as to what was allowed and not allowed in the constitution. The colonist did not own muskets as they were the military weapon of the British Army and outlawed for civilian ownership. The Colonist had rifles, cannons, bombs and anything else they could supply to the militia with no help from a government that did not exist. There have been multi-shot fast loading weapons since 1481 so where does the 2nd Amendment restrict them. ANY law that puts a restriction on the 2nd is UNCONTITIONAL no manner how minor. The only thing that keeps the government in check is the 2nd and if you want to see what happens when that is gone just look and any numbers of nations in the world where the PEOPLE do not have the right to gun ownership.