the Gallup poll on the rifle ban

Gallup polls the American public on various policy issues including gun policy.

In October 2016, Gallup published the results of its poll on the so-called assault-weapons ban. Gallup claims that the public has the least amount of support for the ban since polling began. In October 2016, support in the public for banning various rifles is at 36%.

The Gallup news organization or its writer is at a loss to explain the declining support for the rifle ban, a decline found among Rep, Dem and Independents and a decline which is present despite occasional evil-doer attacks.

The writer of the Gallup article offers a completely unfounded speculation that support for the ban has fallen because people like to oppose new governmental initiatives which had been proposed by some in the White House, congress or as presidential candidates. The writer suggests that the low poll number may reflect “backlash” against governmental or news elites recommending the rifle ban. Otherwise, he can’t understand it at all.

Various dumb-dumbs call the ban an assault weapons ban, although the weapons to be banned are not machine guns, but ordinary semi-automatic rifles, which are the vast majority of rifles. The bans in some laws add a feature here or there or a look or a grip design to say such and such rifle shall be among the rifles being banned.

The far more likely reason for the sharp decline in support for the rifle ban is that people have read and considered the idea that guns often serve as a deterrent to crime, and that idea has gradually won the day, even among half of Democrats.

The truth is that rifles might not be needed for most self-defense, but rifles are useful for defense against mob violence–violence such as took place in the Rodney King riots and in some BLM protest-riots, mob violence that police either could not or seemingly would not use force to stop.

No one should be burned alive while in a convenience store as a clerk or while defending one’s shop in LA, because police chose not to handle a mob either cause they have decided the mob is too big or the police are stretched too thin or because police have some other reason for not intervening.

In 2001, there was a large Mardi Gras event in Seattle and police had instructions to stay on the perimeter and not intervene, and a man in the party crowd tried to stop a sexual assault, and the man named Kime was beaten and killed in the presence of friends, and a few feet farther away, the police themselves who were watching.

You would have hoped that an officer would have disobeyed orders and, if necessary, had fired a weapon. Police say, “We don’t fire warning shots.” A gunshot is at 140 to 190 decibels and it is louder than thunder. The spd obeyed their orders; they did not intervene against a riotous handful of a party crowd and Kris Kime was killed in front of them.

Police apparently did not even intervene when the man was dead and the man’s dead body was carried out of the area by unarmed and off-duty friends or persons of first responder type out of uniform.

So, a person might need rifles against a protest mob or a lynching group or some rioters who think arson is a good idea.

This form is for those who don't wish to comment using a facebook login

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *