U.Chicago: "Terrorism Worries Increase Support to Regulate Firearms"

[K-Romulus]

http://www.newswise.com/p/articles/view/528797/

Newswise — Terrorism Worries Increase American Support to Regulate Firearms Concern over terrorism has further increased Americans’ support for firearm regulation according to a report from the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago.

“Some have speculated that the 9/11 terrorist attacks undermined support for regulating firearms, arguing that fear of terrorism increased the public desire for firearms for self-defense,” said Tom W. Smith, Director of the General Social Survey (GSS) at NORC, which conducted the study and found an opposite perspective.

Support for including criminal background checks for all gun sales, including those involving private sales between individuals, rose to 80 percent in 2006 from 77.5 percent in 2001, Smith said.

“When asked directly whether ‘gun control laws should be stricter, making it harder for people to purchase firearms’ as a result of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, 76.5 percent backed this idea and only 16 percent endorsed less strict gun controls,” said Smith. The findings are in “Public Attitudes Toward the Regulation of Firearms,” a study funded by Chicago’s Joyce Foundation as part of the 2006 GSS survey.

Among the other findings in the study are:

• Gun ownership in the United States has declined in the past 30 years. It has gone from a high of about 55 percent in the mid-1970s to 35 percent in the most recent GSS survey.

• People support tight regulation of firearms: 91 percent support making it illegal to use guns while under the influence of alcohol; 85 percent want the sale of 50-caliber rifles limited, and 82 percent want the sale of semi-automatic assault weapons limited.

• People also strongly support requiring a police permit before a gun could be purchased, with support around 80 percent since the early 1990s.

Like support for requiring police permits in order to purchase guns, support for regulation has remained strong or has increased in recent years, Smith said. . Backing for making the penalty for illegally selling guns tougher than illegal-drug sales remained steady at about 55 percent in each survey.

A 2001 GSS survey on firearm regulation showed strong support for gun-safety courses, mandatory registration of firearms, as well as for requirements that handguns be personalized (equipped with devices so non-owners cannot fire them). The survey also showed strong support for a mandatory five-day waiting period to buy a handgun. People also showed strong support for regular re-registration of handguns.

“In brief, strong majorities of the public back a wide range of measures to regulate firearms and stricter punishments for those who violate gun laws,” Smith said. “Support has been high for decades and is as high or higher today for individual restrictions than it has been in the past.”

The General Social Survey, supported by the National Science Foundation, has been conducted since 1972, and is based on face-to-face interviews of randomly selected people who represent a scientifically accurate cross section of Americans. Unlike opinion polls, which ask people about topics related to current events, the GSS captures changes in opinion about issues that remain of enduring importance in society.

The linked webpage includes a short video of the researcher who "discusses why American gun ownership has declined and why people support firearm regulation."

 

[Juna]

about sums it up

 

[bg]

The Joyce Foundation. Sure glad THEY aren't biased..

 

[FieroCDSP]

82% of people want semi-auto "assault" weapons limited? BS!!! I have yet to find a single legal descriptive of what an "assault weapon" is that isn't based on fear of a GL that can't be used without the RPG (which is illegal) or bayonette that is supposedly more deadly than the ammo in the gun. This leads us to believe that people are afraid of something they have no understanding of. Maybe 100% of Americans should be afraid of taxes, because no-one knows how the tax-code works.
82% in Chicago, maybe. Try Texas, or Ohio for that matter.

 

[Ratzinger_p38]

They mention their process to eliminating guns in this country. Step 1 - Portray guns in the media as evil things not to be touched Step 2 - Kill the gun culture by regulating what is still legal, so people wont want to go through the headaches of getting a firearm Step 3 - Ban one gun at a time Machine Guns, Semi Auto MG clones, pistols, handguns, shotguns. Only gun that is legal is a .22 single shot, and even then youll have to go get permission from the city, county and state police as well as a note from the gorvernor.

 

[LAR-15]

How come I never hear folks talking about gun control on the street?

 

[ServiceSoon]

I think the United States Government is a greater threat to the United States than any other terrorist organization!

How many times has the USA Gov done harm to the USA and its people? Intentionally, monetarily, etc? 50 times per year (not including leap year)

How many times has any other terrorist organization done harm to the USA and its people? Twice

Chicagoians are just a bunch of miss-guided souls with poor leadership.

 

[ChestyP]

• Gun ownership in the United States has declined in the past 30 years. It has gone from a high of about 55 percent in the mid-1970s to 35 percent in the most recent GSS survey.

No, the percentage of individuals willing to admit to some stranger on the telephone that they own guns has decreased from 55% to 35%. There's a difference. As the mainstream media demonization of guns and gun owners increases, the number of closet gun owners has also increased. The only way you'll find out they own a gun is if you sneak into their home at 3 a.m.!

 

[dasmi]

I think the United States Government is a greater threat to the United States than any other terrorist organization!

Ding ding ding! You win.

 

[ServiceSoon]

The only way you'll find out they own a gun is if you sneak into their home at 3 a.m.!

and I wouldn't suggest that for obvious reasons.

 

[ArmedBear]

85% of people want .50 caliber rifle sales limited?

I question their "scientific" result, for a number of reasons:

1. This has not been asked for decades. As an issue, it was invented only a few years ago. So how does this question fit their claim that they are scientifically studying long-term social attitudes?

2. If I asked a random sample of people what a .50 BMG rifle is, do you really think 85% could tell me?

3. "Limited" is a pretty broad term. We shouldn't sell them to convicted violent felons? Or, we shouldn't sell them to 5-year-olds? What does "limited" mean? Both "limits" are already in place. Does this just mean that people don't think we should START selling them legally to convicted felons or 5-year-olds, or do people support FURTHER limits? If so, WHAT limits? The NRA supports "limits" on gun sales.

4. Election results tell us that, even among the people who self-select by bothering to vote, 85% of American citizens would probably not agree that the sky is blue. Numbers this high, for a rather esoteric question, are suspect. Did they include "Don't Know", "Don't Care", "Never heard of it!" in the answers?

Frankly, I don't dispute that there is broad-based support for attempts to prevent the sale of guns to criminals or terrorists. I don't think that the laws do much good, but this comes as no big surprise. However, I don't buy a study that asks people questions about a technical subject and gets back some numbers like that. I wonder if 85% of shooters know what a .50 BMG rifle is. I wouldn't believe a study that claimed that 85% of Americans didn't want the sale of .50 BMG rifles "limited." Or cell phones, chewing gum, liquor, fast food...

 

[bumm]

If the results of this poll had any connection to reality, politicians would be falling all over each other to promise more gun control laws to get that 85% of the people to vote for them. it doesn't work out that way.
It would be interesting to see how the questions of the poll were worded, how the possible answers were arranged, (Several anti answers vs. one pro-gun answer,) and how the population sample was selected to answer the poll. This was obviously cooked up to come up with the answers they wanted so that they could use it to attempt to influence public opinion.
Marty

 

[C. Rabbit]

People support tight regulation of firearms: 91 percent support making it illegal to use guns while under the influence of alcohol; 85 percent want the sale of 50-caliber rifles limited, and 82 percent want the sale of semi-automatic assault weapons limited.

I wonder, having taken a stats class, just what questions they asked to determine that. Five will get ya ten that it included some fear and emotion inducing phrase.

CR

 

[velojym]

Of course a terrorist will be less likely to act in an unarmed and helpless society. Why in the world would I actually believe that an armed populace could ever discourage that sort of person?
Oh, yeah... Switzerland.

 

[Glockfan.45]

Just another rotten thing to come out of Chicago. Oh well....I'm off in search of lanterns to knock over .

 

[Elza]

For those too young to remember, Prodigy was an internet service provider about 20 years ago. They were always running polls on the various subjects of the day. They offered one regarding gun ownership. The first question was “Do you own guns?” It was soon discovered that if you answered this question ‘yes’ it skipped over the next several questions (they of course were not visible to the person answering the poll) and answered all of them in a very anti-gun manner. If you answered ‘no’ it allowed you to answer the questions as you saw fit. Needless to say they got the crap hammered out of them. They tried to tell everyone that it was “just a programming error” and was in no way intended to slant the results of the poll. Yeah, right!

 

[coltrane679]

Terrorism hysteria has been used to trample the Constitution generally--why should the 2nd Amendment be any different?

 

[Redneck with a 40]

My response to this garbage is this:

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/443/the-nras-image-improves-as-support-for-gun-control-slips

Enough said.

 

[Duncan223]

Redneck with a 40

My response to this garbage is this:

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/443/the-nras-image-improves-as-support-for-gun-control-slips

Enough said.

While the poll you cite appears to be "good" for pro-gun rights, it is skewed as well.

Look at the second question - there are only two responses available:

Should gun laws be stricter?
[_] More Strict
[_] Kept as now

What about a third option? Maybe something like 'No, the gun laws need to be repealed and the BATFE disbanded'.

 

[Redneck with a 40]

At least my link indicates that the NRA is steadily gaining popularity, and the other side is losing momentum.

 

[DonP]

Keep in mind guys that the U of Chicago is in Hyde park, the most upscale and hard core Liberal part of Mayor Daley's utopian city, even more so than Lincoln Park.

John Lott used to be there and left years ago, in part because of the political climate.

It's a great school if your area is math, medicine, physics, economics or archaelology (Oriental Institute is there). More Nobel Prize winners in those categories have lunch there ever day than anywhere else on the planet.

Their sociology classes and public policy work is a bad joke in many academic circles.

 

[johncolo]

The thing I dont undestand is why there always hurting the good gun owners if a criminal wants a gun hes gonna get it one way or another making gun laws tougher isnt gonna solve a thing.

 

[cherryriver]

And let's not forget that the University of Chicago, in Hyde Park, is where Barack Obama claims to be a "constitutional law professor".
Of course, he's just a guest lecturer and on leave anyway, but Obama, who opposes private ownership of firearms altogether, is the sort of person the U of C hooks up with to extend their cred.
Once upon a time, U of C was a place where thinking and knowledge was the goal. Not many people think that's the case anymore, except those with a world vision of progressive nirvana.

 

[lamazza]

That headline makes no sense at all!
How would you fight them? with hamburger buns?

 

[James T Thomas]

fear and awe

Most any kind of worries, angst, or turmoil will be used to justify the control of arms and the citizenry.

How about it Aussies? Killing of school children? There is a post here on THR, or perhaps it is on another site about the indications of an impending attack in American schools. Then what do you suppose the cry will be?

Fright over global warming. Fear of bird flu. Watch the television NEWS if you want to come away wondering "the sky is falling," what shall we do, or more specifically, who will save us from the big bad wolf?

You can tell the wolves in sheep's clothing, because they will be the one's crying to the scattered sheep, "over here, come over here, and I will protect you."