Poll trend on Handgun possession

[The Vorlon]

I really like examing trends in poll results, and even though Gallup has rather wordy questions, they retain the same phraseology over time in many of the questions so as to allow valid comparison.

In this case, the specific question posed was:

"Do you think there should or should not be a law that would ban the possession of handguns, except by the police and other authorized persons?"

Date          Should          Should Not          Difference

  3/91            43%                  53%                   10%

  3/93            42                     54                      12

  4/99            38                     59                      21

10/04            36                     63                      27

10/07            30                     68                      38


Difference    -13                   +15                      28

An armed population is the ultimate guarantee against tyranny.

[CARLHAYDEN]

I really like examing trends in poll results, and even though Gallup has rather wordy questions, they retain the same phraseology over time in many of the questions so as to allow valid comparison.

In this case, the specific question posed was:

"Do you think there should or should not be a law that would ban the possession of handguns, except by the police and other authorized persons?"

Date          Should          Should Not          Difference

  3/91            43%                  53%                   10%

  3/93            42                     54                      12

  4/99            38                     59                      21

10/04            36                     63                      27

10/07            30                     68                      38


Difference    -13                   +15                      28

An armed population is the ultimate guarantee against tyranny.

Nice to see you back and posting.

[The Vorlon]

I really like examing trends in poll results, and even though Gallup has rather wordy questions, they retain the same phraseology over time in many of the questions so as to allow valid comparison.

In this case, the specific question posed was:

"Do you think there should or should not be a law that would ban the possession of handguns, except by the police and other authorized persons?"

Date          Should          Should Not          Difference

  3/91            43%                  53%                   10%

  3/93            42                     54                      12

  4/99            38                     59                      21

10/04            36                     63                      27

10/07            30                     68                      38


Difference    -13                   +15                      28

An armed population is the ultimate guarantee against tyranny.

Nice to see you back and posting.

Nice to see you again too

Just been psycho busy - very busy at work, have a new girlfriend which um, ah,  keeps me, un, ah, also busy -

She is in Germany over the holidays seeing her family so I have a week to catch my breath as it were, so I am catching up with the forum again.

I do like the trend on gun ownership too BTW.

The first thing the Communists always did when they took over a nation was to seize control of the media and then take away people's guns.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

I really like examing trends in poll results, and even though Gallup has rather wordy questions, they retain the same phraseology over time in many of the questions so as to allow valid comparison.

In this case, the specific question posed was:

"Do you think there should or should not be a law that would ban the possession of handguns, except by the police and other authorized persons?"

Date          Should          Should Not          Difference

  3/91            43%                  53%                   10%

  3/93            42                     54                      12

  4/99            38                     59                      21

10/04            36                     63                      27

10/07            30                     68                      38


Difference    -13                   +15                      28

I guess people started appreciating their rights more as the government got more right-wing and took away more rights.

[MODU]

I guess people started appreciating their rights more as the government got more right-wing and took away more rights.

Yeah, no kidding.  I can't believe how right-winged Clinton was until you pointed that out.  Only a 6% change?  SHEES!  Bush did 9%!  hahahaha

[Reignman]

Handguns. Whoop dee do. I think it's worth noting that even in the early 90s, the more popular response to this question was the same.

[Јas]

Quite frankly, I, along with pretty well the rest of the world, find the average American attitude towards guns to be sick and strange.  It's no wonder American society has gun problems when they're so amazingly paranoid about everything.

I wouldn't use the word sick, but in essence I agree.

An armed population is the ultimate guarantee against tyranny.

Absolutely! The power of the American Government would be no match for you and your gun!
LOL

[agcatter]

We in the United States have a clear constitutional right to own a handgun and have the right to defend ourselves and our family with that handgun should someone breaks into our house.

What is supposed to be the controversy?

[dead0man]

Absolutely! The power of the American Government would be no match for you and your gun!
LOL

So you think the average guy in the police and the military likes the Federal govt more than they like their fathers, brothers and uncles?  Who's going to come take these guns away?  Leftists with flashlights?

I won't hold my breath waiting for an answer.  It's easier for the left to ignore this fact and make jokes that don't make any sense in the real world.

[Јas]

Absolutely! The power of the American Government would be no match for you and your gun!
LOL

So you think the average guy in the police and the military likes the Federal govt more than they like their fathers, brothers and uncles?  Who's going to come take these guns away?  Leftists with flashlights?

I won't hold my breath waiting for an answer.  It's easier for the left to ignore this fact and make jokes that don't make any sense in the real world.

You seem to be confused.
I didn't suggest that anyone liked or disliked the Federal Government; nor did I suggest it would be a prudent course of action to try and disarm the American populace at this stage.

What I did suggest was that the idea that having a gun protects you from tyrannical government is remarkably silly. The idea that people genuinely believe this notion I find both amusing and disconcerting.

[dead0man]

You seem to be confused.
I didn't suggest that anyone liked or disliked the Federal Government; nor did I suggest it would be a prudent course of action to try and disarm the American populace at this stage.

What I did suggest was that the idea that having a gun protects you from tyrannical government is remarkably silly. The idea that people genuinely believe this notion I find both amusing and disconcerting.

If a tyrannical government is after me I'd much rather have a gun than not.  I find it amusing (but not disconcerting...I couldn't care less if somebody else protects themselves or not) that some people think they'd have a better chance against a tyranical government without one.

(by the way, I don't own a gun, have never owned one and may never own one.  I have no need for one.  I live in a safe neighborhood and rarely go into unsafe ones.  I didn't grow up with them.  My father never owned one.  But I would never ever vote for somebody that wanted to take away my right to own one.)

[Јas]

You seem to be confused.
I didn't suggest that anyone liked or disliked the Federal Government; nor did I suggest it would be a prudent course of action to try and disarm the American populace at this stage.

What I did suggest was that the idea that having a gun protects you from tyrannical government is remarkably silly. The idea that people genuinely believe this notion I find both amusing and disconcerting.

If a tyrannical government is after me I'd much rather have a gun than not.  I find it amusing (but not disconcerting...I couldn't care less if somebody else protects themselves or not) that some people think they'd have a better chance against a tyranical government without one.

Help me out here - under what circumstances does having a gun increase "your chances" against a hypothetical tyrannical American Government?

(by the way, I don't own a gun, have never owned one and may never own one.  I have no need for one.  I live in a safe neighborhood and rarely go into unsafe ones.  I didn't grow up with them.  My father never owned one.  But I would never ever vote for somebody that wanted to take away my right to own one.)

Good for you.
FTR, I don't own a gun; have never owned one; and an hugely unlikely ever to own one. I certainly have no need for one. Indeed, the great majority of our police force is unarmed. My father may or may not have had one, I'm not sure - though in the farming community it's not uncommon for persons to possess a rifle of some kind - though these aren't for reasons of protection (or to protect themselves against a hypothetical tyrannical government). Gun ownership isn't a substantive political issue here so is of no consideration when it comes to voting.

[dead0man]

Help me out here - under what circumstances does having a gun increase "your chances" against a hypothetical tyrannical American Government?

Seriously?  You can't think of any reasons why it would be beneficial to have a gun (or hundred) when a tyrannical govt comes for you.  Do you think guns only kill innocents?  Do you think the govt and it's people are invulnerable to firearms?  I don't understand how somebody couldn't see how a gun would be handy when a govt entity comes for you.  I'm not suggesting I'd win, I'm suggesting that if everybody that had a gun put up a fight when they came to take it, they'd stop trying after awhile or better yey, they wont try in the first place.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I agree.  We're different.  I understand you guys don't have a long history of a gun culture.  Great.  That's awesome.  I'm not saying being pro-gun is the right way, it's just the American way.  We like our guns, most of Europe doesn't.  We share a lot of cultural similarities, but we also have some differences.  Guns is one of them.  Feel free to look down your noses at us because of it, we've gotten used to it from you guys.  We really don't care that much anymore.  We're different, get over it.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Jas as someone with knowledge in Irish history, you should be aware what happened the last time a significant group of armed men (with common weapons) decided to take aim at a supposedly tyranical government. Though as I imagine most gun owners here major reason to owning a gun is "not getting killed" that route would not seem most desirable to them. Indivually alone the common gun owner is a flea near a massive vacuum cleaner when approached by the forces of the so-called "evil federal government".

Anyone else on Black helicopter watch?

[Јas]

Help me out here - under what circumstances does having a gun increase "your chances" against a hypothetical tyrannical American Government?

Seriously?  You can't think of any reasons why it would be beneficial to have a gun (or hundred) when a tyrannical govt comes for you.  Do you think guns only kill innocents?  Do you think the govt and it's people are invulnerable to firearms?  I don't understand how somebody couldn't see how a gun would be handy when a govt entity comes for you.  I'm not suggesting I'd win, I'm suggesting that if everybody that had a gun put up a fight when they came to take it, they'd stop trying after awhile or better yey, they wont try in the first place.

So you concede that your gun isn't actually of any substantive use to you when faced with a tyrannical government, but that indeed the support of the masses is what could be crucial?

Good for you.
FTR, I don't own a gun; have never owned one; and an hugely unlikely ever to own one. I certainly have no need for one. Indeed, the great majority of our police force is unarmed. My father may or may not have had one, I'm not sure - though in the farming community it's not uncommon for persons to possess a rifle of some kind - though these aren't for reasons of protection (or to protect themselves against a hypothetical tyrannical government). Gun ownership isn't a substantive political issue here so is of no consideration when it comes to voting.

I agree.  We're different.  I understand you guys don't have a long history of a gun culture.  Great.  That's awesome.  I'm not saying being pro-gun is the right way, it's just the American way.  We like our guns, most of Europe doesn't.  We share a lot of cultural similarities, but we also have some differences.  Guns is one of them.  Feel free to look down your noses at us because of it, we've gotten used to it from you guys.  We really don't care that much anymore.  We're different, get over it.

You seem quite keen to place me on the defensive. I don't look down my nose at Americans - which isn't to say I don't vociferously agree with various American ways and means (which includes American gun politics).

[Јas]

Jas as someone with knowledge in Irish history, you should be aware what happened the last time a significant group of armed men (with common weapons) decided to take aim at a supposedly tyranical government.

We declare the right of the people of Ireland to the ownership of Ireland, and to the unfettered control of Irish destinies, to be sovereign and indefeasible. The long usurpation of that right by a foreign people and government has not extinguished the right, nor can it ever be extinguished except by the destruction of the Irish people. In every generation the Irish people have asserted their right to national freedom and sovereignty: six times during the past three hundred years they have asserted it in arms. Standing on that fundamental right and again asserting it in arms in the face of the world, we hereby proclaim the Irish Republic as a Sovereign Independent State, and we pledge our lives and the lives of our comrades-in-arms to the cause of its freedom, of its welfare, and its exaltation among the nations.

Anyway, as I recall, the said government proceeded to declare martial law; use their armed forces with bigger guns (and indeed gunship) to shell a much geater area of the city than was under their opposition's control (to the point where the occupying forces started firing at each other believing themselves to be under fire from the insurgents). Having been met with uncompromising and sever force, the matter was over within a week with the unconditional surrunder of the rebel force, much to the apparant liking of the general populace.

Then the said government's response to the misadventure, over-zealous executions; deportations; arrests; etc... proceeded to underline the arguments about tyrannical government, swung popular support behind the removal of said government as reflected in the next elections; a unilateral declaration of independence (ignored by our American friends and others while they happily granted and recognised other claims); a war of independence; and so on...and so on...and so on....

[BTW, trying to write about such things from a nuetral perspective is incredibly difficult, and even so, I think I was from from suceeding...]

[dead0man]

So you concede that your gun isn't actually of any substantive use to you when faced with a tyrannical government, but that indeed the support of the masses is what could be crucial?

Sure, the support of the masses..... with guns.  An individual with or without a gun isn't going to be able to do much with a tyrannical govt against him.  A group of individuals with guns would.

But this is a pointless argument anyway.  There isn't a tyrannical govt out to get our guns and if there was, they'd have nobody to enforce it.  Do you really think the guys in the police and Army are going to shoot Americans because they won't give up their guns?  We have the 2nd Amendment, and an overwhelming majority of Americans agree with it.  We've heard all the arguments against them and we've decided that the pro's outweigh the cons.  You can think we're wrong, that's cool.  But guns ain't going anywhere.

[Јas]

So you concede that your gun isn't actually of any substantive use to you when faced with a tyrannical government, but that indeed the support of the masses is what could be crucial?

Sure, the support of the masses..... with guns.  An individual with or without a gun isn't going to be able to do much with a tyrannical govt against him.  A group of individuals with guns would.

Really. I beg to differ. For example, I refer you to this man and this man. No guns, but they changed things utterly.

But this is a pointless argument anyway.  There isn't a tyrannical govt out to get our guns and if there was, they'd have nobody to enforce it.  Do you really think the guys in the police and Army are going to shoot Americans because they won't give up their guns?  We have the 2nd Amendment, and an overwhelming majority of Americans agree with it.  We've heard all the arguments against them and we've decided that the pro's outweigh the cons.  You can think we're wrong, that's cool.  But guns ain't going anywhere.

I never suggested that the American government would or should try to forceably disarm Americans at large. I don't deny that there may be a majority in favour of their right to hold all manner of lethal weaponry.

All I said, all I've argued against (in this thread), is the idea that a gun is of any practicable use against a tyrannical government. Such an idea is tragically misguided and remarkably paranoid.

[Bono]

All I said, all I've argued against (in this thread), is the idea that a gun is of any practicable use against a tyrannical government. Such an idea is tragically misguided and remarkably paranoid.

I think Iraq and Somalia prove you wrong.

[Јas]

All I said, all I've argued against (in this thread), is the idea that a gun is of any practicable use against a tyrannical government. Such an idea is tragically misguided and remarkably paranoid.

I think Iraq and Somalia prove you wrong.

How so?

[Bono]

All I said, all I've argued against (in this thread), is the idea that a gun is of any practicable use against a tyrannical government. Such an idea is tragically misguided and remarkably paranoid.

I think Iraq and Somalia prove you wrong.

How so?

Well in Iraq insurgents with Ak-47s, RPGs and handmade explosives are proving to be pretty daunting. In Somalia, they were able to drive out toe US Army.

[Јas]

All I said, all I've argued against (in this thread), is the idea that a gun is of any practicable use against a tyrannical government. Such an idea is tragically misguided and remarkably paranoid.

I think Iraq and Somalia prove you wrong.

How so?

Well in Iraq insurgents with Ak-47s, RPGs and handmade explosives are proving to be pretty daunting. In Somalia, they were able to drive out toe US Army.

You're comparing mass organised armed uprisings with significant support in the indiginous community against a foreign occupying power to the case of an individual American with a gun who holds it in the belief he'll need it to protect himself against a hypothetical tyrannical government comes after him?

[Bono]

All I said, all I've argued against (in this thread), is the idea that a gun is of any practicable use against a tyrannical government. Such an idea is tragically misguided and remarkably paranoid.

I think Iraq and Somalia prove you wrong.

How so?

Well in Iraq insurgents with Ak-47s, RPGs and handmade explosives are proving to be pretty daunting. In Somalia, they were able to drive out toe US Army.

You're comparing mass organised armed uprisings with significant support in the indiginous community against a foreign occupying power to the case of an individual American with a gun who holds it in the belief he'll need it to protect himself against a hypothetical tyrannical government comes after him?

No, I'm comparing mass organised armed uprisings with significant support in the indiginous community against a foreign occupying power to the hypothetical case of a mass organized armed uprising with significant popular support against a hypothetical domestic tyrannical government.

[Јas]

All I said, all I've argued against (in this thread), is the idea that a gun is of any practicable use against a tyrannical government. Such an idea is tragically misguided and remarkably paranoid.

I think Iraq and Somalia prove you wrong.

How so?

Well in Iraq insurgents with Ak-47s, RPGs and handmade explosives are proving to be pretty daunting. In Somalia, they were able to drive out toe US Army.

You're comparing mass organised armed uprisings with significant support in the indiginous community against a foreign occupying power to the case of an individual American with a gun who holds it in the belief he'll need it to protect himself against a hypothetical tyrannical government comes after him?

No, I'm comparing mass organised armed uprisings with significant support in the indiginous community against a foreign occupying power to the hypothetical case of a mass organized armed uprising with significant popular support against a hypothetical domestic tyrannical government.

And under your theory a group of Americans who felt the current American govenrment was tyrannical and followed the example of those Iraqi insurgents who use their Ak-47s, RPGs and IEDs against their fellow Americans would be better off doing using arms rather than through the ballot box or some other form of non-violent movement?

[dead0man]

So you concede that your gun isn't actually of any substantive use to you when faced with a tyrannical government, but that indeed the support of the masses is what could be crucial?

Sure, the support of the masses..... with guns.  An individual with or without a gun isn't going to be able to do much with a tyrannical govt against him.  A group of individuals with guns would.

Really. I beg to differ. For example, I refer you to this man and this man. No guns, but they changed things utterly.

Ok, I'll give you Ghandi.  MLK wasn't fighting a tyrannical govt, he didn't do anything alone and many others also fighting for the same goal he was DID use guns.  Anne Frank fought a tyrannical govt without guns.  Lots of people died in Soviet gulags that fought tyranny without a gun.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I never suggested that the American government would or should try to forceably disarm Americans at large. I don't deny that there may be a majority in favour of their right to hold all manner of lethal weaponry.

All I said, all I've argued against (in this thread), is the idea that a gun is of any practicable use against a tyrannical government. Such an idea is tragically misguided and remarkably paranoid.
[/quote]And I keep telling you I'd rather die FIGHTING a tyrannical govt rather than die up against a wall and blind folded.