ELECTIONATE JANUARY 3, 2013
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
If President Obama is counting on a new wave of popular support to help push stricter gun laws through Congress -- as he said he was on Sunday -- then he might want to take a closer look at the latest opinion polls. While the public is more amenable to new gun laws than it was before the shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, there hasn't been a fundamental shift in its attitudes toward gun rights and specific gun-control laws. Perhaps more importantly, the Republican rank and file remain opposed to new gun-control measures, making it tough for even modest new gun laws to pass the House.
While other mass shootings since Columbine haven't moved the polls on gun control, the massacre in Newtown did leave a noticeable imprint on public opinion. The four post-Sandy Hook polls show a majority of Americans supporting stricter but unspecified gun laws, up from the mid-forties after the July shooting in Aurora, Colorado. Even so, the public remains divided on the broader question, with only a plurality of Americans preferring gun control to gun rights. With only a tenuous majority that believing that gun control should trump gun rights, the coalition for stricter gun laws will have to include voters who support gun rights.
This coalition supports modest gun-control proposals, like background checks and banning high-capacity magazines—the latter of which receives 53 and 62 percent support in Pew Research and USA Today/Gallup surveys, respectively. The coalition fractures, however, on the issue of an assault-weapons ban. USA Today/Gallup and Pew Research surveys show that just 44 percent support banning semi-automatic rifles, while only an ABC/Washington Post poll shows majority support. The public is overwhelmingly opposed to more ambitious proposals, like a ban on hand guns. In each instance, public support for these proposals remained near pre-Newtown levels, even though many voters flipped on the general case for new gun control laws.
It's possible that public support for gun control will increase further, and there are signs that the sustained debate over gun control since Newtown has resulted in an additional increase in public support for new gun control laws, even beyond the initial post-Sandy Hook bump. For instance, a HuffPo/YouGov survey conducted immediately after Sandy Hook found that 50 percent supported stricter gun laws, but that increased to 55 percent one week later. That might not be especially surprising given that the public gun control debate was relatively one-sided after Newtown--and that gun-rights advocates, like the NRA, appeared to misstep once they entered the fray. If gun control advocates continue to press their case and the media remains focused on the issue, then it might be possible to squeeze out additional public support. After all, support for gun control laws was higher a decade ago, especially after Columbine. On the other hand, public support for new gun control measures could begin to fade if the gun issue falls to the back-burner; the post-Columbine gun control bump faded quickly.
But additional increases in public support for new gun control measures would require additional gains among Republican-leaners, who remain relatively unified against gun control. Just 29 and 38 percent of Republicans support stricter gun laws according to ABC/Washington Post and CBS News polls, respectively. Pew Research found that just 27 percent of Republicans think gun control should take precedence over gun rights, up from 26 percent prior to Newtown. Presumably, there is even less Republican support for more specific measures, like an assault weapons ban. It's unclear, then, how any such measures squeeze through the GOP-controlled House. Many House Republicans have more to fear from a conservative primary challenger than a Democrat in their safely Republican districts. If House Republicans are most responsive to the opinion of Republican primary voters, then the broader shift in public opinion is unlikely to change the minds of members of Congress from conservative districts.
Between the public's relative skepticism of specific gun-control proposals and continued Republican opposition, public opinion might not be a game changing asset for gun control supporters. Republican action on high-capacity magazines and other limited gun control measures would need to come from, of all places, lawmakers reassessing the merits of a policy. That's not impossible; a few NRA-backed Republicans have indicated their willingness to reassess gun laws after Newtown, and probably not because of public pressure. But if House Republicans are as beholden to the conservative base as is generally assumed, then Republican defections on gun control would be rare.
Edited 1/3: "high-capacity magazines" replaces "high-capacity cartridges"
5 comments
Nate, unless I'm totally wrong, I think you mean high-capacity magazines, not high-capacity cartridges. The debate is about the legitimacy of having a large store of bullets available on the firearm itself for extended semi-automatic shooting, something that doesn't make any sense for either hunting or home defense in the normal sense of those terms.
- ironyroad
January 3, 2013 at 2:06am
"For instance, a HuffPo/YouGov survey conducted immediately after Sandy Hook found that 50 percent supported stricter gun laws, but that increased to 55 percent one week later. That might not be especially surprising given that the public gun control debate was relatively one-sided after Newtown--and that gun-rights advocates, like the NRA, appeared to misstep once they entered the fray." Maybe it's not so surprising, given the fact that the Newton shootings were so unsettling as to produce a visceral reaction in just about anyone paying attention to the issue. And for a lot of people, the visceral reaction to a mass shooting is to obtain a gun (or think about obtaining a gun) so as to protect oneself and one's family. Once people have the time and space to think a little more rationally about the issue, at least some of those whose first reaction was to get an AR-15 of their own now think that perhaps that's not a useful response to a mass shooting, and that other ideas are better.
- wildboy
January 3, 2013 at 8:55am
There are a number of reflexive feel good measures that could be taken: eliminate high capacity magazines, force people who own assault rifles to take out special liability insurance, close gun show loop holes, create a national database, etc. I think the problem is that there hasn't been enough study to really develop a comprehensive method. I suggest refunding the CDC to examine gun violence as a public health issue and let's apply some real social and behavioral science methodology to this problem. the CDC has this ability, but the NRA along with the goofy republicans stripped it away. We might then come up with something that actually matters and would really help. P.S., I own multiple rifles and don't agree with the Supreme Court's current interpretation of the 2nd amendment, but also don't think that much difference would be made by the ideas that are currently floating around. This is still more about political gain than it is solving the problem.
- jedshivers
January 3, 2013 at 1:44pm
Thanks, irony, for pointing this out. It may sound trivial, but vocabulary counts here if you want to maintain credibility. The inability to distinguish between a cartridge and a magazine is a great example of a mistake that shows unfamiliarity with the subject material. Nobody who knows guns would make that mistake. Many gun owners read that sort of thing, and then immediately dismiss the rest of the piece. And a lot of those gun owners are not NRA supporters. I'm a lifelong gun owner, intensely opposed to the NRA, and would readily agree to a ban on high capacity magazines. They are a machismo-based fetish that have no legitimate role in the peaceful use of firearms. If there's going to be a reasoned discussion of gun ownership, the rural right has to stop pretending that civilian firepower is a guarantee against tyrrany, and the urban sophisticate left has to overcome their "eeww, that's icky" approach to firearms. Basic vocabulary lessons would be most helpful in that regard. BTW, controlling magazines could be way more effective at stopping shooting sprees than is commonly assumed. Reloading makes the shooter vulnerable, for at least a brief period. The Long Island RR shooter was taken down by unarmed passengers when he stopped to change magazines, and several other sprees have ended when the gun jammed during reload. That ain't a safeguard, but it ain't chopped liver either.
- gwcross
January 3, 2013 at 5:27pm
"If there's going to be a reasoned discussion of gun ownership, the rural right has to stop pretending that civilian firepower is a guarantee against tyrrany, and the urban sophisticate left has to overcome their 'eeww, that's icky' approach to firearms." gw, I couldn't agree more. Also, from our side of the fence, we have taken down rightwing blowhards who talk about things they have not the shadow of a clue about, and it behooves us therefore to be accurate when we talk about things.
- ironyroad
January 3, 2013 at 11:39pm