RSS Feed MenuToday I’m wandering a little afield from “things that go boom” into the fens of public opinion and policy, in response to an inquiry from the Mujaddid al-Majawritî who e-mailed your humble contributor this CNN story which argues “Since 2001, most Americans have favored stricter gun laws, though support has slightly dropped in recent years: 54 percent favored stricter laws in 2001, compared with 50 percent in 2007, according to Gallup polling.” The Boss inquired why this issue might be so volatile, as gun control seems to be one of those ideological positions, like abortion, where once people make up their minds they stick with the position.
Such speculation is above my pay grade as FrumForum.com’s humble armorer, but given that there’s literally nothing below my pay grade, I thought I’d give it a shot.
Looking at the Gallup numbers, the CNN lead is, er, misleading. As even they say a few paragraphs in, the “since 2001” increase in support for gun-control is actually part of “a gradual, long-term decline in support for gun control from the early 1990s to 2008,” which they attribute to a decline in the murder rate. The 2001 number presumably reflects the idea that the events of September eleventh of that year caused a swath of the citizenry to realize that legal handgun sales might encourage terrorists.
In fact, looking a little deeper, we find that the Gallup numbers over the last fifty years show support for handgun control declining at a fairly constant, if slow, rate with occasional upticks in support, the last really large one coming in 1980–2:
Still, support hasn’t seen the high side of fifty percent since the Johnson Administration.
Given the long-term trend, David’s question, why would we see another drop now? may not actually have an answer relating to current events, but it’s worth throwing out a few hypotheses, and y’all are welcome to contribute your own theories in the comments.
One theory might be the continuing demonstration of the inefficacy of gun control relative to crime. People certainly pay attention to whether they feel safe, and periods of increased gun control (like the Clinton-era “assault-weapons” ban spoken of so highly by the Attorney General) have not provided them with any greater sense of security.
To take that theory a step further, the converse might be true. Given the high-profile multiple-victim public shootings of the last few years—a category of crime gun-control advocates frequently cite as something to be ameliorated by restricting access to guns — it’s possible that folk wisdom may be shifting towards what the Lott-Landes studies here, have purported to demonstrate, that the possibility of being killed “prematurely” by a bystander is the sole effective deterrent against these kinds of atrocities.
Why? The shooters usually expect to die by their own or the police’s hand, so they can only be dissuaded by getting killed before they “make their point” or kill some hypothetical number of people. Concealed-carry laws are a deterrent, in theory (or fact, if the studies are to be believed), because if any adult in the area can theoretically shoot you (dead or incapacitated) you have no way to ensure your fame and heap of bodies, so what’s the point?
Very cautious police responses driven by “officer-safety” policies in some incidents (like the Columbine shooting) may also have influenced some to believe that it’d be better to have a gun — or an armed, law-abiding citizen — on the scene rather than waiting for the police, who might not be all that immediately helpful. (I intend no disrespect to lawmen: as anyone who’s watched more than a couple episodes of COPS knows, police forces are full of potentially heroic officers who are ready and willing to risk their lives for the people whom they protect and serve. Departmental policies, however, often serve bureaucratic interests and restrain the natural bravery of these exceptional men and women.)
Another cause might be that the proliferation of concealed-carry laws of varying degrees of liberality may in itself have driven down support for gun control. Forty-eight states (all but Illinois and Wisconsin) allow law-abiding citizens to carry concealed handguns under various circumstances. These laws were mostly passed over the past twenty years, and in the run up to passage in most states, opponents warned of dire and bloody consequences: gunfights breaking out over fender-benders and the like.
The fact that none of these dire predictions came to pass, and in some places crime actually dropped (whether related to the law or not), may have created a consciousness that gun control doesn’t affect crime.
Another theory might be demographic: urbanites tend to support gun control because they’re surrounded by huge numbers of strangers and close to high-crime areas; and suburbanites and exurbanites don’t, because they know their neighbors and are farther from the nearest police station. As cities have shrunk, the overall fear of gun violence may have lessened.
Last, it may be (though it’d be hard to prove) that majority support for gun-control measures in the 1950s is the historical anomaly. America is, after all, the land which coined the phrase, “God may have created man, but Colonel Colt made them equal.” The tradition of firearms ownership and the positive contributions of armed law-abiding citizens runs long and deep. Indeed, the Second Amendment’s “militia clause” likely refers not to a professional gendarmerie or military organization, but simply the general populace.
The “Greatest Generation” fought and won World War Two, which may have endowed them with two anomalous experiences: trust in government and an abhorrence of violence. Together with the low violent-crime rates of the 1950s, these attitudes may have coalesced in a consensus something like, “Who needs a gun? The police keep us safe.” When this proved illusory, rates dropped again — either returning to a historical level or to new lows because of the fear of violent crime.
Thus endeth the spitballing.
What say you? Is the recent decline in support for gun control based upon current events? Perhaps something as fanciful as, e.g., the Obama Administration may be more serious about restricting guns, calling some proponents’ bluff? Or that with a Democrat in the White House some erstwhile proponents are no longer as fearful of their fellow man and don’t feel the need to take his gun? Or that an indelibly racist America is taking to arms because of a black man in the White House? (Which would be, to say the least, ironic.)
Or is this a non-story?
Mike K // Apr 16, 2009 at 10:10 pm
See you at the NRA meeting in Phoenix next month. I still remember when Chicago had a gun turn-in day after they banned all private firearms. I was really annoyed when I learned that my father had turned in a couple of good hand guns. I was in California at the time. A few years later, he was mugged on the front porch and only getting the front door open so the dog could attack the muggers saved him. I wonder if he changed his mind ? Too late to ask him now.
RLHotchkiss // Apr 16, 2009 at 10:54 pm
Ever since I moved to California from Mississippi, I have noticed a difference. I personally am avidly anti-gun for personal defense, though pro gun for hunting. I am a typical urbanite. I have just read to many stories of children killed by a bullet that just seems to come out no where. Inside the city if you shoot a 9 mm round, you have just no way of knowing where it will go. Even if you shoot your attacker right in the chest it can pass through him and into a house where some kid playing.But I do notice that people in California do seem more likely to be more aggressive. Several times I have thought, they wouldn’t do that in Mississippi because they would think that I have a gun. I think lots of people who don’t carry enjoy the social boundaries that the threat of a gun poses.I think the greatest argument for gun laws is that it allows police to arrest someone who appears to be ready to commit a crime but hasn’t done anything.For example a lady calls the police and says my ex-husband is standing in the parking lot and he has a gun.The officer approaches him and ask “What are you doing”"Bird watching”"Do you have a gun?”"Yes”"Why do you have it.”"To protect myself from crime.”What can the officer do?the answer is tell the lady to call if he trespasses or starts shooting.The argument that using a gun would help in spree killings though is pretty iffy. Very few people can kill a person. It is a real problem for the military and they intensively train soldiers.Basically, unless you already are sniper, or you are the one in a hundred that look a person in eye and pull the trigger you are likely at most to close your eyes and shoot in the general direction of the attacker, which will just draw you, its always a male, to his attention. It will just be an embarrassing way to die.But mostly, I think the NRA has just worn people down. They no longer hope for gun control and have moved on to battles that might be one.And if it stops a few people from going of you, maybe its not such a bad thing.
Mike K // Apr 17, 2009 at 7:44 am
Hotchkiss would have been shocked by a talk radio program I listened to years ago. There used to be a left-leaning talk show host named Michael Jackson. I used to listen because he did good interviews. He finally wore out his welcome about the time Rush Limbaugh became popular. One day, he had a show on people carrying guns in LA. He had the then-chief of police on as a guest. It was hilarious because ALL his callers were women who carried concealed handguns. He kept scolding them and telling them they risked arrest.In each case, their answer was that they refused to be a victim. At the end of each call, he would make some comment to his guest about how odd that caller had been; then the next call would be the same ! I thoroughly enjoyed it. There were a lot of concealed weapons in the hands of good citizens even in LA in the 90s.Guns in the hands of good citizens make us all safer.
bloodstar // Apr 17, 2009 at 11:08 am
Eh, I think it’s simply because america has become more libertarian in nature, and I think a growing awareness that guns aren’t EEEEvil really helps to erode support for gun restrictions.As far as the short term dip, Who knows, We typically know what causes the sharp rises, The Reagan Shooting, Columbine, etc Then as those super sensational events fade into memory people default back to a libertarian mindset (or at the very least a live and let live attitude).
Oneon1isto // Apr 17, 2009 at 12:06 pm
That poll asks a pretty surreal, all or nothing question. Nowadays, gun control generally centers around assault weapons and “gun free zone” issues, and doesn’t involve the outright banning of firearms altogether.Perhaps if you asked the question: “are you for or against gun control policies that applied in and around school zones” you might receive a different answer. Or airports. Or government facilities. Point being, its a really bad question.
Bulldoglover100 // Apr 17, 2009 at 1:23 pm
So far all I have seen from the Obama Admin. is a release that they do not intend to go anywhere near the gun issue. Same scare tactics were used when Bill Clinton abused the office of President too and the only people who benefit are the people who sell guns.It should be a choice but one that still protects the citizens of this country. Not sure where that middle is but taking my guns will never be an answer for me. In this day and age we must be able to protect ourselves….but that very same term “This day and age” demands that we take a larger view of the reality of what has occured over the past 100 years in this country. Population has boomed to the point we can no longer be the society that we craved from the 30’s to the 70’s. It just isn;t ever going to go backwards though some still use magical thinking. Crime rate is higher than ever and people killed with guns is at an all time high. We need to figure out something that works to keep us safe and allows us to keep our guns but makes it harder for those nut jobs to get their hands on them.
Mike K // Apr 17, 2009 at 8:47 pm
If you want to see nut job arguments, look at the Volkh Conspiracy, especially the comments.http://volokh.com/posts/1239985644.shtmlThe commenters who don’t know anything about guns are always good for a laugh but they vote.
danbmil99 // Apr 17, 2009 at 11:12 pm
It makes me think Obama is still somewhat in touch with reality. The truth is that guns are a hopeless issue for him — it would just give the right a perfect cause to galvanize them (better than a non-existent tax hike). This BS about guns going to Mexico is laughable — no drug dealer would be caught dead with the semi’s we can legally buy here.He’s smart; he’ll let city mayors fight this one.
A.B. // Apr 18, 2009 at 8:06 am
“is this a non-story?” Only if we all agree to pretend it isn’t. Great observations, JMB. I particularly like the comments about the post-WWII “mood,” as I would call it. Worthy of a further look, that. Thanks for the link, too. Good on ya!
Are Americans warming to gun control? | The Informant // Jan 18, 2011 at 1:40 pm
[...] that back in the mid 1900s, not only were there simply fewer guns out on the streets, but people trusted law enforcement to protect them and saw little need to carry guns. And then it could be that lawmakers have simply not been [...]