Majority of Americans now oppose assault weapons ban

For the first time in nearly two decades most Americans don't support a ban on assault weapons, a new poll shows. 

Keith Srakocic/AP/File
For the first time in 20 years, a majority of Americans say they oppose banning assault weapons, according to a new poll from ABC News and The Washington Post

Most Americans are now opposed to a ban on so-called assault weapons – for the first time in 20 years, according to a new national poll from ABC News and The Washington Post. 

The poll released Wednesday shows that support for such a ban has fallen by nearly 50 percent since 1994.

Fifty-three percent of those surveyed oppose such a ban. Just 45 percent 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.

“The increase in opposition to banning assault weapons since 2013 peaks in some groups – up 18 points among strong conservatives, 17 points among higher-income earners and 16 points in the generally more liberal Northeast. But it’s a broadly based trend,” pollster Gary Langer notes.

According to the poll findings, just a few groups, including people identified as liberals, Democrats, women, African-Americans, and respondents older than 56 still support a ban.

While there is no legal definition of an assault weapon, the term is commonly understood to refer to military-style, semi-automatic rifles, often with pistol grips and detachable magazines.

The findings echo a poll by The  New York Times and CBS News released last week which found a majority of Americans are opposed to renewing an assault weapons ban for the first time in its 20 years of polling on the issue. According to the poll, 0nly 44 percent of Americans support the position, 50 percent oppose it.

These trends point to a shift away from the position favored by President Barack Obama and many other Americans who responded to the recent attack in San Bernardino, Calif., by calling for stricter gun control laws.

In a speech to the nation from the Oval Office earlier this month,  Obama said, “we also need to make it harder for people to buy powerful assault weapons like the ones that were used in San Bernardino,” the president explained. “What we can do – and must do – is make it harder for them to kill.”

The New York Times also advocated gun control to reduce gun violence through its first front-page editorial in nearly a century, calling gun violence a “disgrace,” downplaying the possible terrorism motive, and calling for an elimination of military-style semi-automatic rifles like the ones used in the California attack.

A Gallup poll conducted last week shows that Americans are more worried about terrorist attacks than mass shootings. Those polled by ABC and The Washington Post are not confident in the ability of the government to stop a terrorist attack and they think that a better way to respond to terrorism is for people to legally carry more guns.   

“Among the roughly three-quarters of Americans who doubt the government’s ability to prevent a lone-wolf attack, 57 percent oppose banning assault weapons, vs. 41 percent in support. Those numbers are reversed among those who are more confident in government counterterrorism – 56 percent favor banning such weapons, while 42 percent are opposed,” Langer notes.

The ABC News/Washington Post poll surveyed 1,002 adults from Dec. 10 to 13 using live interviewers and reaching respondents through both landline and cell phones. The results have a margin of sampling error of 3.5 points.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

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

QR Code to Majority of Americans now oppose assault weapons ban
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today