Poll shows little societal change over gun control after Las Vegas shooting

The mass shooting at Las Vegas concert that killed 58 and wounded 540 didn't sway already divided opinions on gun laws among Americans. 

Elaine Thompson/AP/File
Rifles line a wall above people standing in a gun shop in Seattle on Dec. 19, 2012. The slaying of five dozen people at a Las Vegas music festival did little to change Americans' opinions about the nation’s gun laws, according to a new poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research.

The slaying of five dozen people in Las Vegas did little to change Americans' opinions about gun laws.

The nation is closely divided on whether restricting firearms would reduce such mass shootings or homicides, though a majority favor tighter laws as they have for several years, according to a new poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research.

The massive divide on stricter limits remains firmly in place.

The survey was conducted from Oct. 12-16, about two weeks after Stephen Paddock fired on a crowded musical festival taking place on across the street from his hotel room, killing 58 and wounding more than 540 before killing himself. It's the deadliest mass shooting in modern United States history.

In this latest survey, 61 percent said the country's gun laws should be tougher, while 27 percent would rather see them remain the same and 11 percent want them to be less strict. That's similar to the results of an AP-GfK poll in July 2016.

Nearly 9 in 10 Democrats, and a third of Republicans, want to see gun laws made stricter.

Kenny Garcia, a resident of Stockton, Calif., and a former gun owner, said he's torn about whether tighter gun laws would lead to a reduction in mass shootings.

"That's the hard part," Mr. Garcia said. "How do you control something like that when you have no idea where it's coming from, whether you control the guns or not?"

Still, he's frustrated by easy availability of some devices – such as the "bump stocks" used by the Las Vegas shooter to make his semi-automatic guns mimic the more rapid fire of automatic weapons.

"They give people access to these things, then they question after something horrible happens, but yet the answer is right there," he said. "It just doesn't make sense."

About half of Americans said they think making it more difficult to buy a gun would reduce the number of mass shootings in the country, and slightly under half said it would reduce the number of homicides.

About half felt it would reduce the number of accidental shootings, 4 in 10 felt that it would reduce the number of suicides and only about a third felt it would reduce gang violence.

Alea Leonard, a data analyst, said she's torn about whether the nation's gun laws should be more strict, in part because different parts of the country have different experiences with crime.

"Here, I feel like everyone should be able to carry a .22 [caliber handgun] on them," said Ms. Leonard, who lives in Orange County, Calif. Her neighborhood, she said, has a high crime rate and in the five months since she moved there, a 14-year-old was shot in the back of the head.

She grew up in California, but spent some summers in Wyoming. She never before felt the need to have a gun but is now researching what it would take to carry a firearm.

There are indications of a generational divide on the issue. Most of those in the survey who are younger than 30 said they believe stricter gun laws would result in fewer mass shootings, homicides, and accidental shootings.

The poll also found that a majority of Americans disapprove of how President Trump is handling gun control. Mr. Trump is the first president since former President Ronald Reagan to address the annual meeting of the National Rifle Association. One of his sons has voiced strong support for easing the restrictions on gun silencers.

Some 59 percent voiced disapproval with Trump's handling of the issue, while 40 percent said they approved. About half of Americans age 60 and over approve of how he is handling the issue, compared with fewer than 4 in 10 of those under 60. Politically, 79 percent of people who identify as Republican approve of Trump's handling of gun issues, while 61 percent of independents and 89 percent of Democrats disapprove. Sixty percent of gun owners approve of Trump on the issue.

The poll also showed Americans divided over which party, if any, they trust to handle gun control. Close to a third give Democrats the edge while 28 percent prefer Republicans, and 31 percent say they don't trust either party.

The AP-NORC poll of 1,054 adults was conducted Oct. 12-16 using a sample drawn from NORC's probability-based AmeriSpeak panel, which is designed to be representative of the US population. The margin of sampling error for all respondents is plus or minus 4.0 percentage points.

Respondents were first selected randomly using address-based sampling methods, and later interviewed online or by phone.

This story was reported by the Associated Press. 

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.