Previous Post
Next Post


That’s the question Gallup put to 1,015 adults in a poll whose results were released yesterday. And the survey said! Fifty-six percent answered yes, 41 percent said no, three percent said “say what?” It’s something of a shame that the pollsters added the bit about a criminal background check and training course. Those two requirements are a clear infringement on Americans’ natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. And don’t do a thing to increase “gun safety.” Still, the “feel good” caveats yielded the above result, which should get the anti-gun rights folks sweating bullets. Well, it would if . . .

they didn’t ignore it. Which, of course, they will. As will the mainstream media, the same folks who promoted the hell out of a different result in a different question in the same poll, regarding “stricter gun laws.”

In any case, Gallup’s pro-concealed carry stat is BIG news. Handgun sales outpaced long guns sales about five years ago and never looked back. The NSSF reports that “self-defense” accounts for more than sixty percent of new gun sales.

Drilling down, the news is downright exhilarating.


“Safer” wins amongst men and women. (Take that Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America.) And wouldn’t you know it, support for concealed carry is stronger amongst younger people than older folks. (Take that Adam “The NRA Is Doomed” Winkler.)  Again, all groups support concealed carry. Now, check this out:


Huh. Post-graduates – and post-graduates alone – are against concealed carry. This certainly accounts for – well, highlights – university teachers’ and administrators’ opposition to campus carry. Did I say alone? There’s one more group that said “nay” to concealed carry making the country safer. Can you guess? As Mister Rogers famously pronounced, sure you can!


If presidential candidate Hillary Clinton plans on “moving to the center” on gun rights after the clinching the Democratic nomination (should she get that far), the former First Lady better hope another Kardashian kerfuffle distracts voters from her recent anti-gun pandering. Just saying. And here’s the kicker:


Interesting. Non-gun owners support for concealed carry is within the margin or error. Same for big city and suburban residents (who likely account for the majority of the non-gun owning opponents). In other words, the antis are losing the battle “even” amongst voters who don’t own guns and/or live in Democrat strongholds. As they say, there’s everything to play for.

Taken as a whole, seen in context with the reported majority support for “stricter gun laws,” it’s safe to conclude that most Americans believe that guns are a good thing, not a bad thing (in the hands of law-abiding Americans). They also believe the antis’ constant refrain that “sensible gun safety laws” are a good thing, not a bad thing. Slippery slope to tyranny or not, the NRA, NSSF et al. are going with that flow, still talking about “fixing NICS” rather than restoring gun rights to their original, uninfringed status.

I reckon the pro-gun rights side has lost the cultural battle on gun control as a thing. Ground can be reclaimed – is being reclaimed – by the pro-2A side on the state level, what with concealed carry, campus carry and open carry making progress throughout the heartland (e.g., Illinois and Texas). That said, the antis have turned the screws on restrictions in several states (e.g., Colorado, Connecticut and New York) since Newtown.

Bottom line: more Americans are going hands-on with a firearm than ever before, rejecting the antis’ argument that a concealed carry gun makes you – and society – less safe. Will most of these newbies vote their guns when the anti-gun rights statists state? Count on it. And do everything you can to introduce a fence-straddler or anti-gun rights voter to a personal defense handgun.

[h/t TVM]

Previous Post
Next Post


    • Recently published data concerning Texans support for open carry-credibility unknown indicates that 70 + percent favor licensed concealed carry. but only 30+ percent are on-board with open carry. It is good that open carry is about to be legal and in the long run acceptance of it might grow as it has with concealed carry. Displays of public exhibitionism will NOT make this happen.

  1. Post Graduates…. Perhaps with regard to these things, they are educated beyond their intelligence? I’ve heard this way of describing it before, and I know some people like this.

    Perhaps there is a “right” amount of school, before someone in continuing their education starts to get dumber. ..perhaps kinda like cooking?

    • They’ve just spent more time living on college campuses and hanging out with the liberals that tend to infest such places. Statism is a communicable disease, if you give it enough time to incubate.

    • The post-grad figures might be explained by looking deeper into what degrees in which majors were involved in how great a population of the category “Postgraduates”.
      If only 5-6 polled were in that category, and 4 of them were MSW holders or candidates, that could explain a lot.

    • It’s probably not the postgraduate education that made them anti-gun. One data point: I have both a PhD and a CCW permit.

      • I think maybe you are the exception that proves the rule. Most of these academics fall into the trap of thinking that education makes you wiser and smarter.

        Sorry, but that ain’t how it works. I’ve seen some idiotic nonsense spouted centering on “I’m a scientist!” There’s too much entrenched culture there. It’s why I am so disconnected from school even though I am currently enrolled in it. It’s really off-putting.

        That’s not to say that learning can’t make you wiser, or that you shouldn’t learn, it just we could all do with a bit more humility.

        • “I’ve seen some idiotic nonsense spouted centering on ‘I’m a scientist’.”

          Agreed. I frequently find not only “argument from authority” used to justify idiocy on the internet, but even the unsubstantiated claim of academic ( or experiential ) qualifications of the author himself as an “expert” to lend weight to foolish opinions that are devoid of any other defense.
          I once encountered a woman who knew “civilians” should not be allowed to carry guns because “her brother-in-law, the cop” said it should not be allowed.

  2. Frankly, I don’t give a damn whether the US would be more safe or less safe. I only know that I’m more safe with a gun and less safe without one. That’s enough for me.

    • To settle this: a poll of 1,000 people can very much accurately represent a million or 10 million or even a hundred million people.

      thats not to say they always do, but it seems a lot of people assume that there’s no way 1,000 people can represent a much larger group.

      If those 1,000 are chosen correctly (and thats a big IF), it is highly improbably the findings for those 1,000 people differ drastically from the population at large.

  3. @Gman OC is scary to folks in States where they don’t see it even if they are progun in other ways. Why? I don’t know. Fear of the unknown maybe. I don’t think many even know open carry is legal in several States. This is changing–slowly.

    • “OC is scary to folks in States where they don’t see it even if they are progun ”

      Why do you say such a thing? Police have been open carrying for centuries in every state. No one seems to feel as though that is scary. So maybe it isn’t the gun they are scared of. Just their own insecurities.

      • A gun is just a gun. In and of itself it should not make anyone “scared”. The point is only who is carrying/wielding that weapon, and why.

        I see police open carrying and I am not generally alarmed because I want to believe that for the most part they are good people with good intentions, as am I when I open carry.

  4. Getting very tired and fed up being told I should seek ‘ permission ‘ from the state for what is ALREADY MY RIGHT and yours.
    Playing these games will only ERODE the right.

  5. In the same survey:
    23. Would you favor or oppose a law which would require universal background checks for all gun purchases in the U.S. using a centralized database across all 50 states?
    Favor 86 Oppose 12 No opinion 2

    I sure hope that 86% means that most of the surveyed think that’s what we have now and does not accurately reflect an significant majority believes in UBC’s. But then I see the next question. 37% of those same people think such a law would have a moderate to great impact in reducing mass shootings. And 53% of those same people think such a law would have little or no impact. So I wonder what that 86% was thinking when they responded to question 23.

    24. If such a law were passed, do you think it would reduce the number of mass shootings in the U.S. — a great deal, a moderate amount, a little, or not at all?
    A great deal 19 A moderate amount 28 A little 22 Not at all 31
    No opinion 1

    • And I wonder how much lower that 86% would have been if the following had been added:

      Would you favor or oppose a law which would require universal background checks for all gun purchases in the U.S. using a centralized database (in direct violation of the 4th Amendment) across all 50 states?

      • or add, “which would effectively create a national firearm registry over time.”

        • … which would eventually allow the government to confiscate all firearms…

          And that is my original point. What percentage of our population is actually knowledgeable enough to have a salient conversation on the topic and what percentage is simply parroting what they hear on the news?

  6. I find it encouraging that the strongest support comes from the 18 to 29 age group! Guess the next generation is nowhere near as dumb as the politicians were hoping for in spite of public education.

    • Here, here. As part of the post Sandy Hook generation I think today’s teens are more acutely aware of the 2nd Amendment than 30 something’s. And it is nice to see their pliable minds aren’t being coopted too badly by our liberal public (re) education system.

  7. Gallup can suck and pound their polls.


    What if it was 103% ? If they haven’t amended the Constitution it doesn’t mean butkis. If they HAD amended the Constitution, then I would devote more of my personal attention to ensuring they’d wished they hadn’t.

    • Amen. Polls can be interesting, sometimes even informative, but are meaningless in our constitutional republic. The Bill of Rights is not subject to revision by mere legislation, and certainly not by a poll or even a public question put before voters.

      • The Constitution is a piece of paper without sufficient popular support. You can keep shouting the citations for it until you’re blue while they’re packing you into the local equivalent of Gitmo, if and when it comes to that.

        • I JOE R., do solemnly swear, that should that event or circumstances be propagated on me, mine, or the people of America, that I will cause there to be such effect on the persons causing such detriment to the Constitution, that others in observance of such effect are of the opinion that those perpetrators suffered a sink-hole.
          SO HELP ME GOD

  8. Take that, antis!

    And, by the way, if there’s so much blood in the streets, why haven’t you drowned yet?

    • You really shouldn’t get all hyped up over nothing. Question 23 sheds new light on the stupidity of our electorate.

  9. Certainly most people are safer when more people carry. We also tend to be more aware of our surroundings and let’s not forget MORE FREE.

  10. So, the younger the demographics get, the greater the belief that Americans would be more safe if more people carried concealed?

    What’s this about losing the younger generations?

    Apparently, the only people who routinely disagree are old, liberal, post-grads.

    • I have speculated that the decline in Millennials playing golf is a reflection of their growing interest in firearms. They can’t afford to do both right now and our choosing 9mm over a 9 Iron.

        • Know who is more a recreational masochist than a golfer trying to go around the course in 18 strokes? That would be me and every other “paper puncher”, trying to put one bullet hole in the exact center of a target, then put nine more bullets through that hole.
          Gentlemen, choose your frustration.

        • A man and his wife are playing the fifth hole at their club when he slices his drive so far to the right it rolls into an equipment barn. He finds the ball and plans to take a drop when she says, “Let me go down to the other end of the barn and hold the door open. Then you can hit your ball through the door and back to the fairway.”

          He thinks this is a good idea, so she holds the door. He takes a big swing, but rather than flying through the door, the ball hits her in the head and kills her.

          A year later, the same man and his new bride are playing the same hole when he again slices the ball into the shed. He finds it and plans to take an unplayable lie when she says, “Let me go down to the other end of the barn and hold the door open. Then you can hit your ball through the door and back to the fairway.”

          He looks at her, shakes his head, and explains, “No way. The last time I tried that, I took a triple bogey on this hole!”

        • Golf is a harsh Mistress. First she beats you and then she screws you. But unless you get to play some other sport at thevDivision I or higher it is the greatest game you will ever play.

    • Was very surprising how against CCW the older generations are, especially since they’re widely touted as the more patriotic, American, etc and judging by those polls have likely been voting our freedom away…

      • If you know the history of carry in general and concealed carry in particular in this country, you should know that it is much more liberalized now than pretty much ever since the end of 19th century or so. All those older people who are still alive grew up in a society with much more regulation in that regard. Heck, in most of the South both concealed and open for handguns was banned outright.

      • John Lott’s book is dry and a bit hard to read as it focuses a lot on statistics. However, if you are as old as I am and tend to spend more time on the John it is a great read in short bursts. His information and evidence on how the Liberal Press distort the news, does not research before printing and does not report pro-gun news is very enlightening. And his book is a great reference when you need to look something up. He answers every critic’s comments about his book and backs up his rebuttals with facts and references. And he does this all in a very polite fashion that almost makes you feel bad for those that were dumb enough to refute his facts. All in all it is a GREAT book and every gun owner and 2A advocate should have a copy of it. John Lott is a real American Hero to anyone that believes in Freedom and The Constitution.

  11. Looks like the youngin’s are on our side.
    Goes to support the notion that the anti’s are mostly geriatric Fudd’s and paranoid seniors *cough, Hillary, cough* afraid the coloreds will damage their picket fences. That’s who it was in the 80’s and 90’s. That’s who it has always been and that’s who it is today.

  12. I am a Ph.D with a gun. Can I claim minority status and get government goodies beyond my pension ?

    • Spoken like a true liberal

      Ask not what your country can do for you…

      Something today’s Democrats just don’t seem to understand.

      • @Gman: I think that is exactly the point he was trying to make. Not all PhD’s are gun grabbers but it appears that the majority of them are. Glad he is the exception to that rule. We need more like him. I imagine you have to be brave to be pro-gun in most colleges and universities today.

  13. It’s annoying that a question like this breaks down along political lines. Whether you’re safer with a gun or not shouldn’t be a political or ideological issue, but a practical one. Apparently people aren’t capable of rational, individual thought when there’s ideological group think to cling to.

  14. The interesting thing here is that over 1/3 of democrats are for carry. I wonder how strong the support is on each side ? I’m thinking our best stratagey going forward is keep republicans in power in free states BUT let’s start voting in the democratic primaries in slave states.

  15. Awesome!


    A poll of 1,015 people? That is a really small sampling.

    While I like the result, it is hardly something to rest laurels upon.

    Not trying to crap on the results or the poll, just trying to be consistent logically. Questioning their 90% support result from a poll of 2k people means I should also question the results from a poll of only 1k people.

    • Actually, 1,000 is a pretty standard sample size, and yields a decent margin of error at the 95% confidence level. When people talk small sample size, it’s for surveys that are double digits, or low triple digits. The margins of error get huge and swamp any effect you may or may not be seeing.

      This yielded ±4% margin of error at 95% confidence level, which means that if they ran this survey multiple times, 95% of the time the numbers would come out between 4% above or below the reported results. That tells you what size grain of salt to take this with. If the numbers are within the margin of error, you really can’t say much. If they’re outside of it, then there’s the possibility of a real effect involved.

  16. WHOOPIE! We WON!!

    Except we haven’t.

    Pour more fluoride and lithium into the water supply and the atmosphere!

    This shall not stand!!! TYRANNY 4EVER!

  17. Well, just intuitively, that’s pretty impressive this soon after a spate of nationally-carried shooting stories (most of which would have been left to local news outlets but for the media’s dedication to the anti-gun cause, but still…). Come to think of it, looks like the Oregon shooter has indeed faded from the news, guess the LA Times and CNN couldn’t convince many folks that a mixed-race/black-as-Obama man living with his black mother was another Dylan Roof.

    • According to Henry Louis Gates, most African-Americans are of mixed race, having on average 20% to 35% European/Caucasian DNA.

      Race isn’t science. It’s a social construct. And a damn stupid one at that.

      • Yes, it’s interesting that in Central America, a mixed-race person of black and white ancestry is deemed “white” by the society at large, whereas hereabouts such folks are generally deemed “black” by society at large. But I disagree that race is totally “not science, but social”. I mean, your guy is talking about numerical percentages of “white” DNA. There are definite physical characteristics associated with different races. The reaction to race is what is “societal”. BTW, that’s Henry Louis Gates of “obviously, the police acted stupidly” fame, right?

        • There are certainly genetic differences, but there’s no such thing as “black DNA” or “white DNA” per se. Both blacks and whites are more genetically diverse within their race than the distance between the average of two races. That’s what they mean when they say race is a social construct – we take some random subset of visible DNA differences (like skin color), and arbitrarily lump it together in two groups. And we don’t even consistently define those groups – basically, we have a bunch of traits, and having just one of them moves you from the “white” category and into the “black” one – effectively, a One Drop Rule.

  18. Encouraging if nothing else. AND I don’t agree with mandatory training. It’s nice but not required in my next door state of Indiana. And I don’t don’t see any daily bloodbaths…

  19. And whats white the many victims in may issue states in poll ??
    Theres still a lot of million whiteout defense right ………

  20. We are going to lose this fight if we don’t stop depending on JUST the Second Amendment: These background checks, and even the simple requirement of being compelled to ask government permission before being “allowed” to exercise a right — ANY RIGHT — is a violation not only of our 2nd Amendment right but also a violation of our 4th, 5th, and 10th Amendment rights. And background checks have never prevented a crime in the history of the planet, and were never intended to: They were intended to SUCKER GUN OWNERS into thinking “Hey, I’m certified by government as one of the good guys!” when in fact they have waived their 2nd, 4th, 5th and 10th Amendment RIGHTS in exchange for the PRIVILEGE of (temporarily) keeping and bearing arms, and they will have no rights left to claim when government decides to REVOKE THE PRIVILEGE. Gun owners had better wise up and pro-actively RECLAIM their rights, by notarized affidavit, for example, because we have very little time left before the UN, under zerObama’s “Strong Cities” initiative, comes in at revokes the privilege.

    • Undoubtedly correct. The Supremes have pretty much rolled over and given Congress what ever they want under the guise of regulating interstate commerce, but a strict reading would show that Congress has no authority to regulate the sale of a firearm between you and I provided we live in the same state.

  21. For all the jubilation here, you guys seem to be missing the fact that an answer to this question doesn’t really imply anything with respect to other issues you care about. Your average TTAGer is a 2A absolutist, or near so; and the most common reason cited is some form of the natural rights theory that includes RKBA. Hence, all the talk here about “shall not be infringed” and “come and take” etc.

    But these guys who answered “yes” in the poll? Vast majority of them don’t care about all that. They say “yes” because you have managed to successfully sell the “good guy with a gun” meme to them. Which is great, but it’s an utilitarian reason. not rights-based reason. And that means that on any other question, they may well take a different position.

    For example, take those same people, and ask them if the person carrying a gun should pass a background check and be licensed for that, and I bet you that vast majority will say “yes”. Ask them if they think that it should be legal to carry with a “high-capacity magazine”, and quite a few will say “no”. Ask them if they think that “assault weapons” should be illegal, and again many will say “no”. And so on.

    Which also means that this really tells you nothing about whether the NRA is doomed or not (at least in its present shape).

Comments are closed.