Most Now Oppose an Assault Weapons Ban; Doubts About Stopping a Lone Wolf Run High (POLL)

ABC News:

Most Now Oppose an Assault Weapons Ban; Doubts About Stopping a Lone Wolf Run High (POLL)

A majority of Americans oppose banning assault weapons for the first time in more than 20 years of ABC News/Washington Post polls, with the public expressing vast doubt that the authorities can prevent “lone wolf” terrorist attacks and a substantial sense that armed citizens can help. Just 45 percent in this national survey favor an assault weapons ban, down 11 percentage points from an ABC/Post poll in 2013 and down from a peak of 80 percent in 1994. Fifty-three percent oppose such a ban, the most on record.

See PDF with full results here.

Indeed, while the division is a close one, Americans by 47-42 percent think that encouraging more people to carry guns legally is a better response to terrorism than enacting stricter gun control laws. Divisions across groups are vast, underscoring the nation’s gulf on gun issues.
There’s lopsided agreement on another concern: Just 22 percent express confidence in the government’s ability to prevent lone-wolf terrorist attacks, with 77 percent skeptical about it. Confidence in the government’s ability to stop a large-scale organized terrorist attack is much higher, albeit still well short of a majority -– 43 percent.

Take your pick: NRA propaganda has been extremely effective or the public is finally waking up to the fact that gun control will have little effect. vote for #2.

I’ve noticed lately that even left-wing outlets are running pieces admitting assault weapons bans are really just cosmetic and that shooters can be just as lethal, or almost with pistols or revolvers. Of course, such admissions on their part may be a prelude to calls for demands on restrictions handguns.

To me, it indicates how many people don’t really know what an “assault weapon” is.

But I’m not surprised the left is trying to get all guns banned.

The best way to invite a mass murderer into your business is to ban weapon-carrying citizens from entering.

Absolutely true.

That’s the problem here, this whole issue has become all or nothing in many people’s heads and we can’t seem to have a sensible discussion as a nation. We pretty much have the highest gun death rate in the developed world; yet we can’t talk about it.

Piers Morgan has a very loudly voiced opinion on them. It’s ludicrous of course.

“Shotguns with those handles are deadly”. Give. Me. Strength.

I saw Sheriff Dave Clarke coming on to his show and allowing Morgan to embarrass himself.

All Democrats want to take your guns because they want to bully anyone with opposing political views…even more. What their followers (Dems) don’t realise is that they want control over them too!

You appear to have a pretty limited viewpoint of the world. Please look, there is more information to be had.

Oh my viewpoint is clear. Barack Obama uses peoples’ deaths in these incidents to pursue the left’s dream which is take away the Second Amendment.
“Let’s have a conversation”. That sounds familiar…

Why not allow citizens concealed carry handguns? The assault rifle user may be surrounded with individuals with 9mm’s. They may not kill him, at first, but, as bad as it sounds, once he’s down and decides to continue to fire, there will be a response. On the other hand, should he see a lot of handguns pointed at him, though wounded, he may abandon the idea of clutching his rifle and be disarmed at gunpoint.


What is an “assault weapon” and how is it different from a “defense weapon?”

Spot on. Wonder what the stats say about shootings in GFZ’s?

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The interesting thing here is most people seem fine with convicted felons not having guns; but that would seem to run contrary to not infringing on keeping and bearing arms. Have we not been having a conversation already? Or is this more an issue of as long as it doesn’t apply to me it’s OK rather than principled clarity on an issue?

Consider what a militia is.

"a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.
    "a military force that engages in rebel or terrorist activities, typically in opposition to a regular army.
    "all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service."

I’m not debating the right to bear arms. I am a bit concerned about:

A) Individuals with semi-automatic or fully automatic weapons that are owned illegally, along with thousands of rounds of ammunition.

B) Various internet sites that actively encourage, or lend credibility to, 1) The government will take away your guns. Stock your bunker… and wait. Because any minute now, they are coming.

C) Individuals who buy and own AK-47s who are looking for reasons to use them. On other gang members, the police or other law-enforcement personnel. And HOW did these weapons get from where they were to “the bad parts of town”? Is anyone asking that question? One clip holds only so many rounds and they obviously know where to get more.

D) Individuals who believe a race war or terrorists or some other threat is coming and they, and only they, will do their duty. Sadly, this includes that handful of individuals who are unstable.

Gun Free Zones should have an outer perimeter that includes passive and active gun detection. Such checkpoints may not be to anyone’s liking, but that’s too bad.

Get the facts.

From an article from 2013:

“We were finding that most homicides occur between people who know each other, people who are acquaintances or might be doing business together or might be living together. They’re not stranger-on-stranger shootings. They’re not mostly home intrusions.”


“Assault weapon” is just a buzzword for rifles that bear a superficial resemblance to military shoulder-fired weapons; have a metal stock, semi-automatic fire, capacity for a large magazine, etc.

Often these guns are functionally no different from ones that look quite acceptable.

While no fan of the armed society per se, I admit that the fixation on “assault weapons” is nonproductive. A much less fearsome-looking firearm can make someone just as deadly.


The founding fathers had enough sense to include protection of state militias for a reason, if you take away the ‘level playing field’ compared to the regular army, where does that leave the population?

Ive always felt it very strange modern day Govt would like us to view ‘militias’ and its members to be crazy, anti-govt wack jobs…Gee, whatever reason could they have for this?!

Imo, there is nothing wrong with people wanting to own AK47s, they are the most reliable weapon on the planet, used by the majority of militaries, just because some criminals and gangs use them does not mean they should be outlawed or banned for everyone.

One of the interesting things about the 2nd amendment is that to truly have a militia that could stand up to the US army we’d need a little more than guns these days… Our best bet would be to substantially defund the military, but then (stereo typically admittedly) many highly pro-gun people are also highly pro-military.

BTW, I’m not particularly anti-gun; just anti the intransigence around the issue.

It makes sense if you wrap your head around the thinking.

We NEED as much military as money can buy because otherwise the world is just waiting to conquer and enslave us.

We NEED as much personal armament as we can afford (or more) because the governmental leaders of our own “democracy” are aching to tyrannize and oppress us, but are afraid that if they try they will be killed.

Because both premises arise from fear rather than from rational thought (completely different brain functions), the incongruity of both doesn’t register.


I’m not really sure it’s really thinking in the first place. Honestly I think there is much more at play here. My own personal observation is that the people driven by this sort of thinking are in a way being left behind by American society. A lot of High School (or less) educated white males who are seeing their opportunities, especially decent employment, slipping away. So they tend to cling to what gives them a since of power and stability; “traditional” values and things like guns.

Not really. The US military would have a very difficult time putting down a homegrown civil insurrection. The reality is, tanks and missiles are very poor weapons for doing that. It requires men on the ground armed with basically the same weapons as the insurgents would have, unless you’re willing to start pancaking American cities. The total active strength of the US military is something less than 2M. Even 5% of US firearms owners would more than double the strength of the active military, and that assumes that all of the military would support putting down the insurrection. A study of the 1st US Civil War would tend to indicate that a significant number would side with the insurgency.

Traditional values does not equal owning guns. From the 1950s, sportsmen owned hunting rifles, which were perfectly fine if you wanted to kill people as well.

Those who think they can control the US military even under some manufactured pretext that allows for martial law to be imposed, better have the following:

  1. Assault helicopters.
  2. Bomb-proof shelters.
  3. Mortars.
  4. Grenade launchers and anti-tank weapons.
  5. Anti-tank and anti-personnel mines, including Claymores.
  6. A lot of assault rifles.
  7. At least one million rounds of ammunition or more.
  8. And enough food and water to maintain a battalion-sized force.
  9. Ground radar.

That is what the whacko sites stop short of saying, because they know if they did, they would be arrested under at least 4 laws, or more. Among them includes the phrase “advocate the violent overthrow of the government of the United States.”

But this is what occupies some minds out there. When the armored vehicles show up, along with the Humvees, and thousands of troops, well… at that point, it will be apparent. Drones flying overhead will mark and identify suspected locations. No “friendly” communications will be possible or unmonitored.

I don’t think people in the US want what happened in the Ukraine recently. Criminals, however, and stockpilers, will make a lot of money. I’m sure the FBI, at least, is aware of all of the existing militias out there.

Just trying to get things to their logical conclusion.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit