Poll: Less Than 50 Percent of Americans Have Negative Reaction To Senate Gun Vote

by Categorized: Gun control, Newtown Date:

Supporters of gun control legislation harshly criticized the Senate for its failure to pass a measure to expand background checks last week – a proposal backers say is supported by over 90 percent of Americans, according to a recent Q-poll. But a Pew survey conducted after the vote suggests that while 91 percent of the country may be in favor of that legislation, they might not feel particularly strongly about it one way or another. Just 47 percent of those polled expressed negative feelings about the Senate\’s vote on the Manchin-Toomey Amendment – more than the 39 percent who had a positive reaction but significantly less than the percent of the country who purportedly wanted the legislation to pass. Only 15 percent said they felt angry about the vote.


Read the full survey here.



The Courant is using Facebook comments on stories. To comment on courant.com articles, sign into Facebook and enter your comment in the field below. Comments will appear in your Facebook News Feed unless you choose otherwise. To report spam or abuse, click the X next to the comment. For guidelines on commenting, click here.

35 thoughts on “Poll: Less Than 50 Percent of Americans Have Negative Reaction To Senate Gun Vote

  1. sam

    Kind of makes you wonder where the politicians promoting gun control got that 91% number. They wouldnt make something like that up would they? Arent they all honest politicians? They wouldnt lie to the american public would they?

  2. kjaba


    Last Wednesday, as the news came in of the U.S. senate’s failure to obey the will of the people in strengthening gun laws by passing even a modest bill to strengthen background checks, I sat in stunned disbelief as the details unfolded. I felt nearly overwhelmed by an avalanche of powerful emotions. Disappointment, disgust, sadness, anger, betrayal, and shame at the senators were just a few among them. The one feeling noticeably missing, which is perhaps the saddest thing of all, was surprise. It is no surprise to realize that too many of our elected people in congress seem to consider “we the people” as little more than an annoying bunch to be ignored when possible and lied to when necessary. It is as if in the last few years roles have been switched. We the people are now here to vote certain members of the public into office; office holders are there to savor their power and influence and do whatever is necessary to preserve and protect what they have, and the people be damned. Neither is it a surprise that, in some circles, the congress of the United States is being referred to as the Taliban on the Potomac. The only way surprise would have been a factor would have been if that background bill had passed.

    On Thursday, after a somewhat fitful sleep, I awoke possessed of a startling new revelation, a new sense of justice, rightness, and the American Way. Gone were my doubts about nefarious goings on and self-centered actions in our beloved congress. For so many wasted months I have been WRONG WRONG WRONG, but I can see clearly now (even without orchestral accompaniment) that there is a new, bright path of righteousness before us which will, without any doubt, lead us all to a safe, happy, and prosperous future. Why, the Truth has been here all along! Our leaders in congress (and they are our leaders!) are there because they belong there. If they weren’t the best people we could choose, the very creme de la creme, why would we have sent them there in the first place? They all are good, decent, dedicated folks and honorable to a fault. I mean, there must be good reason why they go around addressing each other as “the honorable This” or “the honorable That.” They certainly wouldn’t lie.

    With my newfound clarity of mind and purpose I shall now address the “Gun Issue,” secure in the knowledge that my proposals will be accepted for what they are: strong, common sense approaches designed to bring sanity to a complex situation. The solution should have been obvious all along. After all, it’s a well-known American axiom: If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em.

    Proposal: All children, with the exception of the blind and quadriplegics, shall, upon reaching the age of sixteen, be required to carry a firearm whenever they are outside the physical perimeters of their primary abodes. Further, to ensure the safety of themselves and those around them, they must take, not later than one week before their sixteenth birthday, a firearm instruction course of not less than fifteen minutes duration consisting of the proper holding, loading, aiming and firing of a handgun, rifle, shotgun and assault rifle. Following the successful mastery of these weapons, they shall, under the direction of a certified member of the National Rifle Association, lustily sing, “God Bless America.”

    All males, females and transgendered, sixteen years of age and older (except the aforementioned B and Q), shall carry the firearm of their choice, be it a handgun, rifle, shotgun or assault rifle, in an open, honest and conspicuous manner in order to ensure peace, calm, and tranquillity among the populace by signifying in an unspoken but direct and friendly way, that they are neither to be trifled with nor have their rights abridged. Enactment of this rule will necessarily make that amusing old wheeze known as the “Concealed Carry Permit” obsolete and irrelevant, since firearms shall henceforth and forevermore be proudly shown, not hidden. In certain cases where the carrying of firearms could be considered unnecessarily onerous and/or antithetical to the proper performance of the task at hand, exceptions may be considered on a case-by-case basis. Examples might be, but are not limited to, couples engaged in a marriage ceremony, those undergoing a major hospital operation, patrons of a public bathhouse, athletes while engaged in football games, wrestling matches, swimming meets and the like.

    It is expected that boys reaching the age of sixteen (real American boys, that is) will eagerly look forward to carrying a firearm. After years of being conditioned by action movies and playing fun-filled, gun-filled video games, today’s young men (and tomorrow’s leaders) will surely embrace with the utmost alacrity and joy the chance to sling an AR-15 over their shoulders or strap a Glock automatic to their hips. They will revel at their newfound machismo and bless the day that congress saw fit to change the bearing of arms from a right to a requirement.

    Girls, on the other hand, may be a tougher sell, but with imagination, forethought, and patriotic determination, they too will welcome the call to make a safer America. Today, however, many girls look upon the wearing of a firearm of any type with less than wide-eyed enthusiasm and fail to see it as the popular fashion statement it will surely become. This patriotic negativity can easily be overcome by allowing females, if they wish, to forego carrying shotguns, rifles, and assault weapons and mandating that only handguns need be borne. These can be made available in small calibers to fit nicely into purses (like the “lady pistols” of yore) and be manufactured in various attractive shades of pink, puce, heliotrope, or what have you. The one downside to this is, of course, that a small-caliber handgun, attractive as it may be, cannot be seen if carried in a purse, tote, or inside a lady’s garment. Therefore, an added requirement must be that any female carrying a firearm that cannot be readily seen must display, on said purse, tote, or garment, a pin large enough to be visible at a distance of not less than twenty paces and on which the admonishment, “Don’t Tread On Me!” must be clearly seen. Naturally, in the interests of taste and ensemble coordination, these pins will be available in various shapes, sizes and colors at one’s friendly neighborhood gun shop.

    Other common sense regulations pertaining to “The Gun Issue” will be forthcoming, but for now, have a nice day and God bless America.?

    1. Betrayed Democrat

      kjaba: No need for any more of your posts if this is what you are trying to pass off as ‘common sense’. Your ramblings merely take up space – they’re not being read in their entirety because of they’re lack of anything LIKE common sense. We get enough bull from wildbill/bill/jimmyboggs to keep everyone disgusted.

      But wait, you could be him plagiarizing someone elses’ writings. Wouldn’t put it past him

    2. bill

      kjaba: Good stuff. I for one have read it several times and laugh each time. You should submit it to both “Shouts and Mummers” from the New Yorker as well, The Funny Times – both of which pay.

  3. Connecticut Guns

    We will soon be debuting your newest self defense weaponry.

    The first product to proudly exhibit is a modified Abrams tank. This new mini Abrams, also known as the Holy Moses, is a hybrid that is economic on fuel use and the drive train is a modified truck wheels. Designed to easily fit in your car driveway with the gun turret pointing out over your lawn scape.

    To compliment this needed defense against your garden variety common criminal and federal government, we not have in stock, hiliodrone – a miniature drone that can hover about your house or your neighbor’s house for up to 48 hours with super visual and capacity to fire on command. This devise can be synchronized with the Holy Moses to fire on command.

    Hurry now while supplies last. We sold out of our A-15s on false fear that John Q Idiot would be unable to procure his own lovable Tommy Gun.

    1. johngaltwhereru

      Heller already removed, specifically by name, a functional tank from the list of arms you have a Constitutional right to own.

      Compare that to the most owned rifle in the United States, the AR-15, which obviously falls under the category of “common use”, which Heller also spelled out.

      Also, Tommy Guns are automatic weapons, AR-15’s are not.

      Nice rant though. Short on facts, reality or legitimacy, but entertaining.

      1. bill

        It’s satire, Johngalt. Enjoy it for what it is.

        BTW; No go to San Jose. The costs saving are minimal over Uconn. I guess I’ll miss the good house.

        1. johngaltwhereru

          That sucks. I was hoping for face to face debate.

          Ex-pats want to get away from it, and locals have no idea.

          1. Kim

            I’ll go in his stead. I got no teeth but I can argue from any position. Usually I argue best when I’m on the bottom.

          2. bill

            johngalt: Still can be done. Send me a ticket and I will be glad to fly down and berate you face to face – preferably on stage in a public meeting.

  4. johngaltwhereru

    We have one poll showing 90% approval for background checks.

    We have another poll that shows less than half of people care that background checks failed to pass.

    I wonder which poll is accurate? Let’s see. If we took all other issues that are polled in America today, is there somewhere around a 50/50 split, give or take 10 points, or a 90/10 split?

    I can’t think of a single issue on which 90% of Americans agree. Sure can think of a bunch of issues where the country is divided around 50/50.

    Leads me to believe the 90% approval stat was either b.s., or the question was asked in a manner that ignored details or was intended to skew results.

    1. bill

      You are a bit of an enigma, John. As a healer, you such don’t give a dam about the obvious side of rightful saving of lives over the wrong side of wanton killing. Or perhaps you think of gun victims as an endless supply of income for the medical industry.

      For someone so educated, you just don’t get it. I could expect an intransigent view from someone in the arms business.

      I have stated before, the momentum remains on our side. It will be a long haul as I already knew it would be. In one of my presentations at the LOB public hearings, I noted a few points:

      1) Most English-speaking countries have strong bans on guns for obvious reasons. And they don’t worry about their governments breaking down their doors.

      2) When a conservative republican who supports the status quo on guns gets shot like James Brady did, you found your own gun control foundation and make it your life’s work because you became the actual victim.

      3) Our side has an endless supply of volunteers to march forward when destiny calls. But this volunteer will not be marching in the streets or calling their congressman. No, this kind of volunteer will, without choice, come forward and be shot down either as an individual or in a group. And each time this happens, more supporters will come forth to advocate for change against our maddening gun culture.

      It is a costly fight be we will win in the end and your side will simply loose. I wish I could throw some money down in a wager with you but who would hold it, LOL?

      1. Betrayed Democrat

        billyboy with his usual pretense at a moral high ground on killing when he knows that many people will die because their gun rights are restricted by zealots like him. Many more than the few who have been slaughtered by deranged individuals, during incidents like Aurora. But it doesn’t matter how many will die as a result of his zealotry, as long as the few he focuses on are dragged into his anti-freedom plans.

        He also likes to pretend that gun-free countries are filled with citizens who don’t worry about their doors being kicked in, as if he has personal experience in this fallacy. At the very least he leaves out the word ‘yet’ after ‘kicked in’. At the most, they are having their doors kicked in by a combination of government criminals and street criminals, but don’t have the freedom to complain about it because they don’t have the means to defend themselves.

        What he doesn’t explain is why he doesn’t live in one of the places that he loves so much. Or why he doesn’t support disarming the police like is done in those countries he claims are so safe.

        In his case, it’s easy to see why he doesn’t get it – we call it ‘ignorance’ and following the party line

        1. bill

          Kim, stop being a troll. I am communicating with your superior. butt out.

          But of course you can’t because you need constant attention.

  5. johngaltwhereru


    I am interested in correcting the cause of problems.

    For example, if you have a brain tumor, a powerful narcotic might block some of the pain associated with that tumor. However, it would be better to no longer have the tumor.

    The same can be said of the “remedy” recently given in response to the Sandy Hook tragedy. The root cause of that problem was an untreated mental illness. The treatment offered was to ban the tool the mentally ill individual chose. This did not address the root cause of the problem.

    Bombs, poison or fire, among other things, would have been even more deadly. Do you honestly believe that if Lanza didn’t have access to guns, he would have just decided to ignore the demons in his head?

    1. billy

      I don’t disagree with you on this point. Of course it is a mental illness that pervades to a greater extent, our society. Broken homes… One reason why Japanese kids generally handle violent game videos better.

      But this is only one component. Guns as they have evolved, have no place in society. The developed world can be wrong by limiting these weapons and we right since we are a violent society. You are a smart man. Look at the data. Oh, so you have and your partisan libertarianism refuses to allow you to see solutions.

      Poor man. I am glad I am not so partisan to have such a calcified method of thinking.

      1. johngaltwhereru


        I am a realist.

        We are no more likely to rid the world of guns, or for that matter stop people from getting them, than we have been successful in ridding the world of drugs.

        Guns will always be here. Drugs will always be here. Items that millions of people want will always be readily available to those who want them.

        We won’t institutionalize all the criminally mentally ill people either. However, in cases like Adam Lanza, Jared Loughner and James Holmes, people were actively trying to get these people admitted for a known illness, and were unsuccessful. This needs to be much easier, and it is the only thing that would have changed any of those tragedies.

        As far as society as a whole, we have already discussed the disproportionate number of gun murders committed by blacks and hispanics. That is one of many cultural issues that need to be addressed in those communities. We should not revoke the rights of all citizens because of problems in minority communities. The problems should be dealt with in those communities.

        1. bill

          Johgalt: I am glad you brought up having a tumor. You say that the proliferation of guns cannot be stopped. Is that like say that cancer cannot be cured? Or any disease? I hope you didn’t stop practicing on account of a sense that progress cannot be made finding cures for disease.

          Obviously the analogy holds just as a gun ban can and will reduce gun violence – just as it has in England and Australia and other places. Here is where facts just can’t connect to your brain connectors. It beats the sheet out of me why?

          Ah… of course, your predisposed need for ideological purity.

          As for your pronounced racial views, law off the racism. It doesn’t become you unless you feel a sens of empowerment to actually thumb your nose at causes and solutions on a historical and contemporary bases.

          so I will grant you that there may be some correlation between inner city urban areas and gun violence. But here I would suggest that you understand the causes of inter-generational poverty such as virtually 400 years of oppression. but you wouldn’t understand that. Are you Jewish? if you are, you should have some familiarity with the situation. Even then, many don’t understand the color difference factor.

          May you swim with a crocodile.

          1. Johngaltwhereru

            The statements I have expressed on race are not “views”; they are statistical facts provided by the FBI.

            Factors that contribute to the statistical facts that minorities are disproportionately responsible for gun violence are irrelevant to the current discussion.

            That being said, I am Irish, the original group that the British oppressed. My ancestors were slaves and/or indentured far more recently than African American Slaves.

          2. Johngaltwhereru

            Oh, I forgot your non sequitur of a cancer argument.

            Nobody wants cancer, and ending cancer is a nearly universal desire.

            Millions of people want guns and/or drugs. Eliminating either of those is no even remotely close to a universal desire.q

            Try a more logical argument.

          3. bill

            Johngalt: I will not let you get away with such faulty reasoning.

            I used the most difficult search for a cure for cancer as an analogy to the difficulty of outlawing guns and the long term planning needed to buy back guns and cut off their supply even if it takes 100 years. Your reasoning is so faulty that if this were a debating session, I would win hands down.

            Many more millions of people DO NOT WANT GUNS and they infringe on our right to live with out the fear of being gun down at ever turn. So stop your your bullshit. Wanting cancer or not wanting cancer is nonessential to my proposition.

            Being a slave doesn’t mean that you need to be walked in shackles. So you are Irish. Are you by chance Afro Irish? Perhaps you might still be walking in chains singing a sea shanty with a conga beat.

            Do you know how to sing a sea shanty with a conga beat, Johngalt?

            You jump in the water with a crocodile.

            Oh, and the statistical facts that you recite I don’t argue with. You obviously didn’t read what I wrote to you probably because you have a half drunk bottle Irish whiskey on your table and you are drooling right about now.

          4. Johngaltwhereru


            We are going to have to agree to disagree on what is logical.

            I will never agree that banning a heavily desired product that serves a purpose for millions of people is in any way equivalent to eliminating cancer.

            In turn, you see guns as a cancer, and will never see the difference.

            Onto my heritage. I have been described as “black Irish”. However it has never been due to my rhythm. Usually, it is because someone had caught a glimpse of me with my pants down.

          5. bill

            johngalt; your Ayn Randian world is a fantasy world invented by a benzadrine freak with a damaged brain.

          6. johngaltwhereru


            Your Liberal Utopian World is only accessable by unicorns that fly by farting rainbows.

            Everyone knows that variety of unicorn is extinct.

          7. bill

            MitasMulligan: May I use that title somewhere?

            Isn’t it so sweet when your obedient bottom, Kim, comes around to defend you? He is so devoted.

            Don’t stretch him too much or he won’t be able to hold gas anymore.

  6. Joey

    Poll or Propaganga? Q-poll or Pew survey, what’s the point? The results are of NO value without knowing HOW MANY people participated.

Comments are closed.