Select Page

Shocking gun numbers from a shocking source

Shocking gun numbers from a shocking source

In the days following the horrific mass murder in Uvalde, Texas, the media has been reporting that 70 percent of the American people favor more gun restrictions.  MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough even claimed a 90 percent figure. 

Most of the reports then pivoted to wonder how the National Rifle Association and Republicans in Congress could oppose what they deemed “sensible gun measures” against such overwhelming public support.    Perhaps there is not that much support for more gun restrictions.

Of all the spectacular changes in the stories about Uvalde … police ran in, no they did not … teacher left the door open, no she did not … I was also shocked by another dramatic change in the reporting on public opinion on guns – and this time from CNN.

CNN’s resident numbers cruncher, Harry Enten, went to the magic board to provide a detailed look at public opinion about guns and gun restrictions.  The first numbers on the board grabbed my immediate attention.  I had to reverse the screen to make sure I had seen it correctly.

Here is what it showed.

The number of people who are dissatisfied with current gun laws and want more restrictions was 36 percent. Conversely, the percentage of the population who are either satisfied with the current gun laws – or are dissatisfied and want less of them – is 54 percent of the American public.  

That’s what they said.  More than half the American public does not want more gun restrictions – and since only a little more than one-third of Americans own guns, that has to include millions of folks who do not own a gun.

Enten took the issue even further – to where the rubber hits the road.  How do people vote on gun issues?  He provided two specific referenda proposing greater restrictions on guns – one in Maine and one in Nevada.  The Maine plebiscite failed in a 51 to 49 vote.  The Nevada referendum passed by the slimmest of margins – 50.4 to 49.6.  Basically, America is split down the middle on more gun restrictions – leaning ever so slightly to the opposition.  That is far from the narrative being peddled by the left-wing media.

There will inevitably be a lot of pushbacks against those numbers, but they better explain political reality than the numbers being pushed by Scarborough et al.  It may be why so many members of Congress – Republican and Democrat – do not support major gun restrictions.  It is not the money from the NRA after all – but the fact that the legislators have a hand on the pulse of the people back home.

The distribution of voters also makes a huge difference.  They are not likely to be evenly distributed across the country.  Rather, those favoring stricter gun laws are concentrated in Democrat states and highly populated urban areas – that have stricter gun laws.  Those favoring less strict gun laws are concentrated in Republican states with fewer restrictions.  We may not get a clear view of this dynamic since virtually all the major media personnel reporting on gun legislation are concentrated in Democrat states with greater anti-gun cultures.  They are reporting their biases.

The fact that this report came from CNN was surprising, but it does give it greater credibility since that network is generally the voice of the left.  Had this come from FOX News, you know how numb-nuts like Brian Stelter would have pounced on it.  Hmmm.  What does he say now that it comes from his own employer?

While most of the leftwing media has been wallowing in the propaganda narratives about guns – and virtually everything else — the CNN report seems like a breath of fresh air. I wonder if this is the result of the new ownership at CNN realizing that progressive propaganda programming is going out of style.

So, there ‘tis.

About The Author

Larry Horist

So,there‘tis… The opinions, perspectives and analyses of Larry HoristLarry Horist is a businessman, conservative writer and political strategist with an extensive background in economics and public policy. Clients of his consulting firm have included such conservative icons as Steve Forbes and Milton Friedman. He has served as a consultant to the Nixon White House and travelled the country as a spokesman for President Reagan’s economic reforms. He has testified as an expert witness before numerous legislative bodies, including the U. S. Congress. Horist has lectured and taught courses at numerous colleges and universities, including Harvard, Northwestern, DePaul universities, Hope College and his alma mater, Knox College. He has been a guest on hundreds of public affairs talk shows, and hosted his own program, “Chicago In Sight,” on WIND radio. Horist was a one-time candidate for mayor of Chicago and served as Executive Director of the City Club of Chicago, where he led a successful two-year campaign to save the historic Chicago Theatre from the wrecking ball. An award-winning debater, his insightful and sometimes controversial commentaries appear frequently on the editorial pages of newspapers across the nation. He is praised by readers for his style, substance and sense of humor. According to one reader, Horist is the “new Charles Krauthammer.” He is actively semi-retired in Boca Raton, Florida where he devotes his time to writing. So, there ‘tis is Horist’s signature sign off.

16 Comments

  1. Curtis

    Gun control shouldn’t be considered. I damned sure won’t comply

    Reply
  2. Trebor Retsbew

    When you only ask Gun owners, what other numbers would you expect to see. The fact is the most respected polls like PEW, differ in a huge way, PEW report says 81% Support STRICTER background checks, and RED FLAG laws. 63% want assault weapons done away with for private ownership, 64% support Stroner laws on Concealed Carry permits.
    Those numbers do differ a lot with the ones in this article. If Republicans are so sure they are right why not put it on the ballot, and let the voters have their say, about the regulation the Democrats are pushing, because we know from experience that legislators seldom do what the majority of the people the represent want even though the Constitution says that is what they are suppose to do.

    Reply
    • frank Stetson

      What poll was this? Looks like Gallup, but Joe does not seem to know. As the pandemic continues, crime rises, recession looms, not surprising to see a shift towards guns — the sales certainly show it.

      Reply
      • Frank

        We need to relax gun laws and encourage people to defend themselves. In many cities the police are useless. The people are being fed bull shit. Constitutional carry should be the law everywhere

        Reply
        • Ben

          I especially want to arm the little children so we can really look like a 3rd world shithole.

          After everyone is armed and we have a level lethal playing field, we will need some arms escalation: grenades or rpg’s? I like the grenades, with optional launchers, more flexibility for my killing fields.

          Then when the Texas bounty hunters come to protect our rape babies, we can slaughter them while screaming: “woke this, motherfuckers,” ah, life will be grand.

          More guns just can’t ALWAYS be the answer. Even Larry does not own a gun, doesn’t want to, doesn’t need to…..apparently. Frank though, just sees more as the solution. More guns equals more gun deaths, period.

          Reply
          • Lonnie

            Just murder the children before they’re born. Less trouble that way

          • larry Horist

            I know the left hates to saying … the best defense against a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a guy. Statistically, that is proven beyond any doubt. Virtually all killers and potential kills — pursuing a crime with a gun — are taken out by a good person with a gun. It is usually the police, but often private citizens. I have often said that if me and my family were in a theatre when a shooter showed up, I would hope that a lot of good people in that theatre would be armed.

            We do a lot of hypotheticals about an armed teacher not able to use a pistol (and it really not all that complicated) or accidentally shooting an innocent person. But it is equally fair to hypothetically suggest that if the teachers in Uvalde were armed, a lot of kids would still be alive — maybe all of them. If both teachers were armed, they would have been an even better chance than one of them would have had an opportunity to shoot the killer.

    • larry Horist

      Trebor Retsbew … or is it Robert Webster? No matter. Keep in mind, the numbers in my commentary are not my numbers or reported in some obscure biased publication. This is CNN with a left wing bias. While they are out of line with other polling, they do tend to explain why legislators are not moved to support the various gun limitations. Part of the explanation is, of course, distribution of the voter. If you are a legislator in a pro-gun state, most of you voters are opposed to what they consider excessive regulation. Distribution of voters is the reason why Democrats can win the popular voter and lose the Electoral Vote. It is due to large imbalanced Democrat’s majorities in a few states as opposed to Republican majorities in more states. You mention open carry and congeal carry being opposed by most citizens nationally, but they are support by the most people in most states. If there is so much opposition, how is it possible that virtually all states and protectorates to allow concealed carry. The only exceptions are American Samoa and the Mariana Islands. 47 states allow open carry of long guns — and 27 states allow open carry of hand guns. You cannot have these numbers if the population is opposed. My only explanation is that people do not give honest answers to pollster. They want to sound anti-gun, but they really are not.

      You mention putting it to ballot tests. CNN did that analysis, and the gun restriction side lost one and barely won one — suggesting that again those overwhelming polls are not reflecting real public opinion.

      Finally, you sat the Constitution require legislators to act according to majority opinion. That is simply not true. Legislators often act against majority opinion if the opinion is contrary tot he Constitution. Also, Legislator are expected to act in the public interest even when they feel that the public opinion is not in the public interest If you ever took political science, you would know of the duo role of legislators as “representatives” and as “educators.”

      The other weakness of polling is that it does not always indicate the depth of the opinion. It is it a deciding factor when voting — or just an unimportant opinion to them. Democrats keep focusing on guns and abortion even though most analysis show that those issues do not impact on most voters as a primary concern. The get the narrow band of one-issue voters excited, but not the huge middle ground.

      So … In my opinion, the polling on guns (and abortion) are not reflective or the actual opinion — and even when they are, those opinions will not be decisive driving votes.

      Reply
      • Kawika56

        DemonRats used to be satisfied in telling us what TO think, but now they want to tell us what we ARE thinking

        Reply
        • Ben

          You think?

          Reply
      • Frank strtson

        Trebor Ratblow.

        Reply
  3. Poorgrandchildren

    Since Democrats claim to be the compassionate party, isn’t it time for them to show a little compassion for the millions of people disarmed and then murdered by their own governments and others?

    Blacks were disarmed after being freed from slavery and left defenseless against armed whites.

    Women need guns to defend themselves against some men.

    Russians were able to overthrow the tyranny of Czar Nicholas, II because they had guns, as many were armed veterans of World War I. Unfortunately, they established a new form of tyranny and confiscated guns from the masses so Russians now cannot overthrow the new tyrants.

    American Colonists were able to overthrow the tyranny of King George, III because they had guns, as many were armed hunters. Unfortunately, Leftists want to confiscate our guns and leave us defenseless against their form of tyranny.

    Germans voluntarily gave up their guns. Then the Nazis came into power and murdered millions of them.

    On December 29, 1890, the Seventh Cavalry (U.S. Army) forcibly disarmed most of the Lakota Native Americans near the Wounded Knee Creek in South Dakota and then massacred approximately 300 men, women, and children in the group.

    The list of disarmed victims is endless, and they deserve some compassion.

    Reply
    • Kawika56

      The Racist History of Gun Control
      Let’s start with the racist origins of gun control in the Jim Crow South. That’s right; the first gun control laws were meant to keep guns out of the hands of Blacks, leaving them defenseless against the KKK. The worst massacres in American history weren’t Orlando and Las Vegas. As National Review’s Kevin Williamson recounts, “That happened in — depending on who is doing the counting — 1917 in East St. Louis, or in 1873 in Colfax, La., or in 1921 in Tulsa, Okla., or in 1919 in Arkansas. All of those were mob-violence episodes in which white terrorists, often working under the leadership of Democrat politicians, massacred African Americans, hundreds at a time. Some were shot, some were hanged, and some were burned alive.” Unarmed and defenseless Blacks.

      Reply
      • Ben

        Nope, no thinking going on round here.

        Reply
        • Clint

          Especially from you. Asshole

          Reply
          • Ben

            Clintoris:
            Yawn, you can do better, put some effort into your work.
            Takes one to know one?

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published.