Gallup : Despite Criticism, NRA Still Has Majority Support in U.S.

With gun control being a huge subject in the political world at the moment, the NRA is of course the target by some of those campaigning at the moment.

www.gallup.com...

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Despite a year of blistering criticism from gun control advocates about the National Rifle Association's hard-line stance against gun restrictions amid a spate of mass shootings nationwide, 58% in the U.S. have a favorable opinion of the NRA.

I did watch the Democrats first debate and most of them took quite an anti-NRA stance. The Gallup article goes on to mention Hillary Clinton.

In a year plagued with mass shootings, including a recent tragedy at a community college in Oregon, there has been a national debate as to whether the NRA, with its ardent support for gun rights, is somehow complicit in these shootings. For example, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has blamed the NRA for stifling the movement toward gun control. More broadly, some commentators in the news media and on social media have criticized the NRA for its theory that "a good guy with a gun" may stop "a bad guy with a gun" in mass shootings.

Even though the NRA has been getting hit and slammed hard with attacks mostly from the left, they're still holding their ground pretty well. Looking back the past few years, the NRA has been mostly successful with defending gun rights, with the exception of a few very far left leaning states. (IMO, those states were already too far leaning to do much about at that point in regards to firearms rights). Very minimal, if even material really, has been done at the federal level and doesn't look like it will change much, at least until we see what happens November 2016.

Additionally, this was the largest % of respondents with a "very favorable" view of the NRA since Gallup began this poll in 1989.

Yet in a Gallup poll from Oct. 7-11, a solid majority of Americans (58%) say they have an overall favorable impression of the NRA. This includes the highest recording of "very favorable" opinions (26%) since Gallup began asking this question in 1989.

In summary, despite all the verbal attacks on the NRA, the NRA has a very solid majority favor and will still be a political force of influence for the foreseeable future.

ETA - Forgot to say my opinion. I would say I lean in a mostly favorable stance of the NRA.

The NRA is just a group of gun and ammunition manufacturers who lobby Congress and spread fear to those who own guns in order to get them to buy more guns and ammo.

Preying on the fears of the weak-minded. I'm all about responsible gun ownership, but put me in the unfavorable column when dealing with the Big Guns N Bigger Ammo lobby.

a reply to: buni11687

Results for this Gallup poll are based on telephone interviews conducted Oct. 7-11, 2015, on the Gallup U.S. Daily survey, with a random sample of 1,015 adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia.

1,105 people?

I mean that can hardly show that the nation as a whole is more favorable.

Think it is possible that is the case but think one thousand is a but small to use to speak for 300 million.

I think the NRA just pimp out their followers to make money and use fear tactics to increase gun and ammo sales.
I don't like the NRA, but don't necessarily have issues with those that are members.

Was looking at some other polls, seems 1,105 is a common number for them....
Am I missing something as to how that can speak for any sizable amount of people?

a reply to: the owlbear

Inside the NRA's Money - $176 Million From Members, Record 5 Million Members
money.cnn.com...

Most money from Member donations.

Yes and the NRA has my vote too. I vote for liberty. I am disheartened by people's lack of critical thinking...going Denmark next? ..and remove all the pointy scissors?

Sorry...it's moronic and naive

a reply to: Sremmos80

1,105 is generally considered a pretty solid number in regards to polling.

Here's an article form the nytimes that lays it out fairly well. Statistically speaking, going much above 1,000 doesn't really have a big difference, and it costs more.

How Can the Opinions of 1,000 People Possibly Represent the Entire Country?

The point is that a randomly selected sample of a population can be used to estimate the views of the entire population. There is a big if here: if the correct methods are employed. Every member of the population has to have an equal or at least a known chance of being chosen, called probability sampling.

Pollsters are confident they can interview about 1,000 people to measure the views of a nation of over 300 million. With a larger sample, the accuracy of the poll, as measured by the margin of sampling error, increases. With 1,000 people, that margin is plus or minus 3 percentage points.

But doubling the number polled, which considerably increases the cost, shrinks the sampling error to only plus or minus 2 percentage points. A larger sample allows for better analysis of subgroups, but otherwise pollsters don’t get that much more bang for the buck by increasing the sample over 1,000.

I have a membership in the NRA because I believe it is important to defend the 2nd amendment against the gun control crowd. I don't donate to any politicians or political parties, but I will always give to defend my rights.

If you need an additional reason to join the NRA their magazine 'American Rifleman' is an outstanding publication that comes with your membership.

a reply to: buni11687



www.gallup.com...

Well by that token majority of Americans want stricter gun laws. Which is why this doesn't add up to me.
I guess I am kinda pigeonholing your typical NRA supporter but support of NRA and support for stricter gun laws doesn't add up to me.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: buni11687



www.gallup.com...

Well by that token majority of Americans want stricter gun laws. Which is why this doesn't add up to me.
I guess I am kinda pigeonholing your typical NRA supporter but support of NRA and support for stricter gun laws doesn't add up to me.

I think one thing that sometimes is overlooked/not asked is why the person polled has an opinion on xyz subject.

For example, I have a mostly favorable view of the NRA but also support stronger sentencing for those that have committed firearm related crimes (ex - Aggravated Assault with a Firearm). Going off of the gun laws poll, then I would be considered as having support for stricter gun laws because of my latter opinion.

a reply to: buni11687

Well that one was about gun sales, so they did ask why.

Fifty-five percent of Americans say they want laws covering the sale of firearms to be stricter than they are now, a distinct rise of eight percentage points from 2014. Fewer Americans than last year want the laws to be less strict, and the proportion who want the laws to stay the same has also declined slightly.

a reply to: BlueJacket

Yup, that's why I rejoined the NRA.

Here are the things that baffle me:

- I see terms like "reasonable" applied to gun ownership. Rarely do I hear the same term applied to any other right enumerated in the constitution. The 1st amendment comes closest with yelling fire in a theater. But despite that, our government still funds porn in the name of "art", which is free speech. Not to mention the farce resulting from Citizens United. So, all in all, the 2nd Amendment is the only right that we are being brow beaten over not being "reasonable" with. I say that until people are asked to be reasonable with providing quarters to the military, it is asinine to expect any other inalienable right to be abrogated. Thats what the word "inalienable" means....it cannot be abrogated.

- Gun owners have been reasonable. Thats why I m not allowed to have that Howitzer that I want. And I can't mount a rocket to the top of my Jeep, either. Although I think it may give me a decided advantage when trying to merge into traffic. But with all the restrictions in place (many of which are not fully enforced, and have already been laid upon my neck like a yoke), the time for reason is over. Of course the NRA has a "hard line stance". Because after the erosion of the 2nd amendment got to where it is, they said "No more." You can't just forget about all the restrictions in place, and the road that got us here. Its not hard line when you are pushed and pushed and pushed, and keep giving, and then finally have had enough and just won't give one damned more inch. That is called "not being a push over". Instead, i believe that people wanting more restrictions should be more reasonable, and quit coming back to erode my inalienable right even further.

originally posted by: the owlbear
The NRA is just a group of gun and ammunition manufacturers who lobby Congress and spread fear to those who own guns in order to get them to buy more guns and ammo.

Preying on the fears of the weak-minded. I'm all about responsible gun ownership, but put me in the unfavorable column when dealing with the Big Guns N Bigger Ammo lobby.

Hummm... I am not a manufacturer of ammo or guns.. Most of my friends I have met a competitions fall in the same category yet we are all members of the NRA, simply because they are a voice against the idiots in Washington.

There are other organizations with the same goals to do whatever they can to protect the 2d and if that includes rating politicians on their gun policies then so be it..

One voice is like one arrow and is easily broken by one strong man; but take a bundle of many and they can not be broken , no matter how big and strong someone thinks they are. Right now the NRA is the bundle of many.

If anyone thinks 25USD a year is to much for a magazine, news letter, and to have someone in the face of misguided miscreants whose idea of utopia would disarm us all then ... ?

Funny how anyone who goes against a political agenda is always demonized. The old intimidate, infiltrate and exterminate is alive and well just look around.

a reply to: buni11687

Favourable or unfavourable statistics aside, debates aside, one thing stands out among all other aspects regarding US citizens and their relationship with the US government vis-a-vis gun ownership and that is:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

Now, it is abundantly clear to this poster that the security of a free state is currently being compromised by the US government because the NSA spies, the FBI entraps, the CIA wars and the DHS / domestic law enforcement is upgrading to military grade enforcement - so your freedom is in jeapordy and politicians want to erode the constitution and amendments of inconvenience, so I'll say it again, just to drive it home....

Never before in the history of the United States of America has it been more vital that citizens are armed, because as sure as sh!t, your government wants to fully disarm you - one "restriction" and "mass shooting" at a time, one "comparison to Australia" at a time - FACT.

I'm glad this poll supports the NRA, even though in the big scheme of things, it's irrelevant to what the US governments real modus operandi is in regards to this topic.

a reply to: infolurker

I cancelled my membership about 5 years ago, yet they still send me magazines. I am not sure if I am off their roles.


They do some good for the second, but they have also gone over the line at times IMO so I stopped supporting them.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: buni11687



www.gallup.com...

Well by that token majority of Americans want stricter gun laws. Which is why this doesn't add up to me.
I guess I am kinda pigeonholing your typical NRA supporter but support of NRA and support for stricter gun laws doesn't add up to me.

I bet the secret service considers themselves "good guys with guns" And Obama certainly agrees, so the left's bashing of that saying a good guy with a gun isn't going to help is a pretty glaring contradiction. Of course the extreme PC leftist media won't correct that error since they are too stupid to even know what they are saying in the first place.
How about the private schools where vocally anti gun senators and congress members send their kids to, and it has armed guards, and then they come out speaking against teachers, or public schools having armed guards?

Such hypocrites it boggles the mind. The anti gun crowds in our own government are nothing but blatant and hypocritical imbeciles without the brain power to even process simple concepts. Maybe that is because ideology has been poured into their brains for so long.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
Here are the things that baffle me:

- I see terms like "reasonable" applied to gun ownership. Rarely do I hear the same term applied to any other right enumerated in the constitution. The 1st amendment comes closest with yelling fire in a theater. But despite that, our government still funds porn in the name of "art", which is free speech. Not to mention the farce resulting from Citizens United. So, all in all, the 2nd Amendment is the only right that we are being brow beaten over not being "reasonable" with. I say that until people are asked to be reasonable with providing quarters to the military, it is asinine to expect any other inalienable right to be abrogated. Thats what the word "inalienable" means....it cannot be abrogated.

- Gun owners have been reasonable. Thats why I m not allowed to have that Howitzer that I want. And I can't mount a rocket to the top of my Jeep, either. Although I think it may give me a decided advantage when trying to merge into traffic. But with all the restrictions in place (many of which are not fully enforced, and have already been laid upon my neck like a yoke), the time for reason is over. Of course the NRA has a "hard line stance". Because after the erosion of the 2nd amendment got to where it is, they said "No more." You can't just forget about all the restrictions in place, and the road that got us here. Its not hard line when you are pushed and pushed and pushed, and keep giving, and then finally have had enough and just won't give one damned more inch. That is called "not being a push over". Instead, i believe that people wanting more restrictions should be more reasonable, and quit coming back to erode my inalienable right even further.

I don't often see the term reasonable applied to gun owners, but often see the term responsible applied. I have no problem with responsible people owning firearms, but am damn tired of seeing stories where a 5 YO has shot an 8 YO with a firearm an irresponsible owner left lying about. My problem with the NRA is that they ignore these stories, and refuse to comment.

Polls are an interesting thing, supposedly the pollsters can't call cell phones, so the only folks they can find to poll are old white folks, something tells me this skews the polls.

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: buni11687

Favourable or unfavourable statistics aside, debates aside, one thing stands out among all other aspects regarding US citizens and their relationship with the US government vis-a-vis gun ownership and that is:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

Now, it is abundantly clear to this poster that the security of a free state is currently being compromised by the US government because the NSA spies, the FBI entraps, the CIA wars and the DHS / domestic law enforcement is upgrading to military grade enforcement - so your freedom is in jeapordy and politicians want to erode the constitution and amendments of inconvenience, so I'll say it again, just to drive it home....

Never before in the history of the United States of America has it been more vital that citizens are armed, because as sure as sh!t, your government wants to fully disarm you - one "restriction" and "mass shooting" at a time, one "comparison to Australia" at a time - FACT.

I'm glad this poll supports the NRA, even though in the big scheme of things, it's irrelevant to what the US governments real modus operandi is in regards to this topic.

Please point me to the website of a well regulated militia. I am not anti gun, am anti idiots owning them. There are too many accidental shootings, suicide by gun, and other gun related injuries in this country. There is a huge difference between a guy smacking his old lady around and emptying a clip in her.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: buni11687



www.gallup.com...

Well by that token majority of Americans want stricter gun laws. Which is why this doesn't add up to me.
I guess I am kinda pigeonholing your typical NRA supporter but support of NRA and support for stricter gun laws doesn't add up to me.

If I had to guess, that particular result on more/less support for gun control is probably an outlier and/or indicates that the shift in support toward more gun control is in some way tepid or that is otherwise not inconsistent with their NRA support. Given that the other questions on the NRA and handgun ownership are at or near their historical trend lines, I agree, it doesn't add up if taken at face value.

Also, note that CNN/ORC has another poll out in the last week that does not show this spike in support for increased gun control. We probably won't know for certain until they run another series of polls on the question in the next few months, but I tend to think that spike upward will dissipate in Gallup's next round of polling.

Guess I will go on my usual rant, that no one from the pro-gun side has ever answered. I live in an open carry state, my son, open carries at times when I am with him, I have no problem with that. However he had an in-law that felt the need to open carry to a 5 YO's family birthday party picnic at a private home, not in the inner city, something that seemed a bit inappropriate to me.

2nd question, outside of walking a field looking for game, or all out war, can someone please give me a reasonable cause to open carry long guns?

ETA: Guess I just brought reasonable into the conversation. Hats off to texan, guess that word is used.