General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsNBC News : The Reasons for the Decline in Support for Gun Control
I saw this headline and let out a
http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/reasons-decline-support-gun-control-n440101
The gun debate in the United States has changed a lot over the last 20 years. Support for gun control has declined sharply as support for gun rights has risen, as we noted earlier this week. Those trends are evident in data from a range of sources including Gallup and the Pew Research Center.
The decline in violent crime over the past 25 years has been remarkable. In 1990, there were 729 violent crimes reported for every 100,000 people in the United States, according to the FBI's Uniform Crime Statistics. The number got as high as 757 in 1992 - and then it began to fall steadily over the next 20 years.
These numbers aren't meant to suggest that people's attitudes about guns affected the violent crime rate, but it could be the other way around.
Despite the headlines about mass shootings, like last week's in Oregon, in terms of people's day-to-day lives and the stories in local media, violent crime is less of an issue today than it was in the United States in 1994. The numbers are still high when compared to other developed countries, but low compared to where the country used to be.
spanone
(135,823 posts)underpants
(182,772 posts)The Gallup poll (surprise) is a mess of options and the small change in the first graph of Less Strict Gun Control is misrepresented.
The Pew graph goes back past 2000. Notice the spike right after Columbine. Since Newtown the lines are like a vine. There are no polls since Umpqua - seems like the pollsters are letting it settle so as not to provoke the NRA's wrath.
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)Various efforts to regulate handguns, assault rifles, high capacity magazines, etc. appear unrelated to crime in general. Neither side seems to be correct in this debate. Making guns less accessible does not reduce crime. Arming more citizens does not reduce crime. The mass shootings are different from crime in general, and may be addressed by specific gun control measures, such as expanded background checks, a better system of identifying unstable people and denying them firearms, etc.
underpants
(182,772 posts)Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)Shandris
(3,447 posts)Even though I don't believe half of those people are actually people (ie, sockpuppets/trolls/paid shills), it doesn't matter. What matters is the perception. And the perception is that we want to completely, unequivocally, totally disarm the entire nation. We're watching what Europe looks like right now under those conditions, and people are scared. So long as they think you'll disarm them completely, or that you'll try to do it incrementally (another one of those things that is probably only half true but accomplishes the desired effect), you'll get pushback even if a million people are killed.
Mockery and shame may be 'what works', but there's a limit to its effectiveness before it generates pushback. That moment was a LONG time ago and the teapot is making noise at this point. When its the media's default position, you know its the profitable or popular one.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,174 posts)A slight reduction in the perceived problem will lessen support of the actual, overall problem.
The US is still far and away the unabashed leader in both gun violence and gun ownership amongst developed, 1st world nations.
hack89
(39,171 posts)I just think that gun control is a low priority issue for voters because it is not a daily, in your face thing for people like jobs. The majority of Americans live in safe places where violent crime is not common.
ripcord
(5,346 posts)The message isn't resonating like it used to.