Bump Stocks and Public Opinion

Chapter 5 discusses public opinion, its measurements, where our opinions come from, and the efficacy of the public in steering policy change. Reading this chapter takes on a new significance in light of recent events. Although many blogposts this week have been about the shooting in Parkland, FL, it is almost a disservice to relate this public opinion framework to anything else. Our country’s attention has been once again turned to the question of gun control (or lack thereof), mental health care in the US, and how to best respond to violence in our schools.

If a metric of how our government is doing is public opinion polls, the results of these polls and surveys should indicate to our representatives what change citizens would like to see. While Americans have differing opinions on the application of the Second Amendment, and whether the average person should have access to a gun, most people can agree that automatic weapons are unnecessary in the hands of a civilian. Attachments to semi automatic weapons, known as bump stocks, have the ability to mimic the capabilities of a fully automatic weapon. These allow guns to fire nearly hundreds of rounds in a minute and have been used in several recent mass shootings, resulting in mass fatalities. Recent polls in response to the FL incident indicate that 82% of Americans support a ban on these modifications. A comparable Quinnipiac University poll reported 73% of people feel this way. There are multiple takeaways from these results: that certain discrepancies in the way surveys are collected result in disparities in conclusions, and that despite this it is safe to assume a majority support this policy.

Based off of this conclusion, we can evaluate if our government is “working” based off of whether they respond to this shift in public opinion by banning bump stocks. Trump announced Tuesday that he has a desire to impose this type of ban, despite receiving campaign contributions from the National Rifle Association, which does not condone this type of ban. In this instance, regardless of whether or not the ban is passed, the POTUS as a symbol of our government, seems to be succeeding at gauging and responding to public opinion. As discussed in the chapter, the ability of unqualified Americans without ties to politics to affect policy change is controversial. We have seen dozens of teenagers come forward in the wake of the Parkland shooting, and reactions have been mixed. Some feel empowered by the passions of these young people, and believe that they should have a voice in the public forum, while others say they are too young and ignorant to have a viable opinion. Whatever you believe, the permeance of media coverage and the ease with which news is transmitted has allowed these teenagers to make their voices heard. Whether their demands will be met remains to be seen, but it seems as though President Trump has been aware of the shifting sentiments and has been receptive to them in part.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/04/us/bump-stock-las-vegas-gun.html

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/355376-poll-82-support-a-ban-on-bump-stocks

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/20/us/politics/trump-bump-stocks.html

https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/12/politics/nra-opposes-bump-stock-bills/index.html

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20171012/nra-opposes-legislation-banning-bump-stocks

8 Responses to "Bump Stocks and Public Opinion"

Timothy Miller says:

February 26, 2018 at 9:09 am

Sara,
Thanks for writing on what is obviously a very popular topic today. I like how you related it to the current chapter and added links to help us look further in depth. Within the past few weeks I’ve seen videos all over about Trump ignoring questions about rights to gun control during addresses to the media. The fact that he wouldn’t make comments about it to the nation was very discouraging as a citizen so it is nice to read the articles you attached about Trump’s proposal so ban the purchase of bump stocks. Obviously, based on the polls, the American public would like to see change and I am not doubting that, but we have to look at who was polled and things like that to ensure appropriateness. I’m very interested to see what Trump really does with this issue. Despite getting campaign support from the NRA, it does sound like he is open to restricting gun rights, but he is no newcomer to saying one thing but acting another way. I think teenagers thoughts should be some of the most valued, after all, I haven’t heard much about mass shootings in retirement homes since 2009. Teenagers are living through it and seeing their friends shot in killed in front of their eyes so it would be unjust to ignore what they have to say.
James Hulbert says:

February 26, 2018 at 8:01 pm

Sara,

Thank you for your post on such a debated and relevant topic like gun control. Although bump stocks are no doubt a step in the right direction, I think it is important that Americans know the facts. As you mentioned, ‘the ability of unqualified Americans without ties to politics to affect policy change is controversial.” With that being said, it is so vital for those voting in polls and speaking to representatives to understand that a bump stock was not used in this recent Florida school shooting. This was the result of the ability to easily purchase FULLY automatic military-style rifles. That is the problem. The AR-15 was at America’s most deadly shootings including a Las Vegas concert, an Orlando nightclub, the elementary school in Newtown, and now the Florida high school. However, since people are uninformed, people hear about Trump’s new desire for banning bump stocks and think it is the greatest thing ever. Regardless, as you said, this is a representation of Trump responding to public opinion and getting a better public image for it. As far as gun control and school shootings go, Americans should realize that banning bump stocks would be putting a band-aid on a much bigger problem.
Joanna Briand says:

February 27, 2018 at 12:16 am

Thank you very much for your post.

I wanted to expand upon your idea that regardless of anyone’s beliefs pertaining to gun laws, the media has allowed the teenagers to make their voices heard. Not only that, but I truly believe that these surviving students are a major reason that this shooting has remained forefront in a national conversation. They are young, savvy, committed and resolute in their convictions. In regard to public opinion, I think the survivors of the Parkland shooting are playing a unique role in voicing their own beliefs as opposed to, for example, simply taking a survey. They are using the unfortunate position that they have been placed in to make a difference by campaigning for what they believe should change. This role is different than any other poll that simply highlights “what most millennials feel”. As people who experienced gun violence first hand, they are using their situations to their advantage by sharing their opinions as such young people in the faces of intimidating, more veteran politicians. This is simply unprecedented, to have people individually step forward into the spotlight at such a young age and speak their mind especially on such a sensitive, problematic topic. While it will be interesting to see what comes out of this, I think it is important to acknowledge the courage that these young adults have to speak forward amongst such a volatile political climate.
Carlin O'Neill says:

February 27, 2018 at 2:06 pm

Hi Sara,

I agree that people across the United States have been making an effort to have their seemingly majority public opinion in favor of gun control known. Specifically, this discussion made me think of the many sit in’s, demonstrations, and school strikes that students are planning to hold in the coming months across the nation. This delineates to officials the solidarity that students from all walks of life and from many different states feel is binding them together in the name of ending gun violence. I also believe that, as you stated in your post, the media and social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook has made it much easier for these nationwide student groups to come together and express their like opinions, and for them to agree on the dates and times that they will stand up against gun violence. In light of these horrible events, the public opinion has definitely been able to more strongly shine through as students publicly band together across the nation via social media and planned demonstrations. I also believe that the government has been receptive of and recognizes these public opinions, but the question remains in what will actually be done to assuage the public and their wants and needs? Thanks for your post!
Virginia Myers says:

February 27, 2018 at 6:58 pm

Dear Sara,

Thank you for your reflection. You stated, “If a metric of how our government is doing is public opinion polls, the results of these polls and surveys should indicate to our representatives what change citizens would like to see.” Trump’s actions do not prove democracy is effective or that it is working because his messages, actions, and policy changes are contradicting. First off, how is he doing what is in the best interest of the people if innocent lives are being taken? On the other side of that argument, he is doing what is in the best interest of the NRA, a political group that supported his campaign and supports his presidency.

I’m curious about an element of this statement in your post: “We can evaluate if our government is “working” based off of whether they respond to this shift in public opinion by banning bump stocks.” What is the “shift” in public opinion? What were the stats/poll results before the two polls you are referencing? Has the public’s opinion changed since the recent mass shootings? As we discussed in class, in order for us to have popular sovereignty, the government needs to know what we want to do and the official way we express our opinion is through voting, but elections only happen periodically, and events are always occurring and changing our opinions. Public opinion provides an opportunity for the government to hear our opinion before officials are voted out of office, but, as you mentioned, there are problems with the accuracy of polls and surveys based on the situation of the poll (such as the nature of the question, timing, outside factors, etc.) and how likely they are to predict the true outcome of the future.

Regarding the controversial nature of young kids participating in the political playing field, I believe we should consider the opinions of young people that may be less informed about politics or the workings of the government. Particularly in the Parkland shooting, these people are directly affected by events that happen in this country (i.e. gun control regulations), so why shouldn’t they have an opinion and be able to voice that to the public? Emma Gonzalez, a senior at the Parkland school, accused Trump of setting a “crass monetary value on the lives of gunshot victims by taking so much money from the gun-right groups.” She said, “If you don’t do anything to prevent this from continuing to occur, that number of gunshot victims will go up and the number that they are worth will go down.” This goes to show that young voices matter and they can have quality contributions that the public should recognize and take note of.

Lastly, when evaluating how our government is doing, we have to look further than the POTUS making a statement in response to public opinion polls. Similarly to polls, the media doesn’t explicitly tell the public that there are problems with the accuracy of statements the president makes. Trump may have announced his desire to impose a ban on bump stocks, but he also receives campaign contributions from the NRA, which doesn’t condone a total ban on bump stocks. What does this say about our government? Despite Trump’s order to the Justice Department to issue regulations banning bump stocks, there was “deep skepticism in Washington that anything would change because of the long history of inaction by state and federal politicians after similar mass shootings.” For example, Trump promised unwavering fealty last year to the NRA: “To the NRA, I can proudly say I will never, ever let you down.” In response to Trump’s pledge of loyalty, the NRA donated $30 M to his campaign. It is also unclear whether Trump’s statement of support for the measure might be linked to other legislation that the NRA backs, which is why it is important to research fully about the president’s past actions to discover whether what he says to the public matches with what his actions have been and will be. Again, this is similar to the nature of polling – although there may appear to be support to ban bump stocks as indicated by the polls, will they actually be banned? There are so many outside factors that affect the way policy change is made.
David Shaw says:

February 28, 2018 at 12:58 am

Hey Sara,

Though Trump does seem marginally less burdened by the NRA baggage than do many of his Republican counterparts, I’d restrain my optimism for the time being. It’s important to note that his early discussions of legislature have been dominated by calls for arming teachers and weaponizing schools, not taking away assault rifles. Even in the White House meeting he had with the shooting victims, video footage emerged of him grossly distorting the results he got from a vote of hands over whether or not attendees believed arming teachers would be effective. Furthermore, it must be remembered that any implemented legislation won’t come directly from him, but will have to be pushed by Party leaders like Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell, and to say that they’ve been coy about making any meaningful change that doesn’t still slide along their own agenda is putting it quite mildly. So while I greatly admire what the students of that unfortunate school are doing, their fight ahead remains long and mostly uphill, as shaking the GOP out of its NRA-presided cell will take some incredible work.
Austin Marsilia says:

February 28, 2018 at 7:31 pm

Sara,
I believe that it is an incorrect statement to say that the NRA does not condone the ban of bump stocks. In an official statement issued in the wake of the Vegas shooting, the NRA called on the ATF and federal government to reevaluate the legality of bump stocks and believes that these devices should be banned or more heavily regulated. Even as someone who has shot at competitive levels, is currently part of the Army, and has grown up around guns, I agree with the public consensus to ban bump stocks. However, I do wish that you did more research on how a bump stock works. It is not simply an attachment that allows a semi-automatic weapon to magically turn into a fully-automatic one, but it involves extreme coordination and skill to make it work correctly. This process involves pushing the stock and lower receiver against the upper receiver while aggressively pulling the barrel towards the shooter, a process that uses the weapon’s recoil to re-chamber a follow up round more rapidly. A bump stock can prove to be very dangerous to the unexperienced shooter, is unnecessary when owning a firearm, and an insult to the sport of shooting. In addition, I agree that a civilian should not have the ability to utilize such a weapons system because of the risk it poses to the public and law enforcement.
In closing, I believe your argument is sound and well written. It also harps on the ability for average people to make changes in American politics, a unique aspect of our government. For next time, potentially include more research about the device you are discussing as well as double check the information about a particular organization’s stance on your topic. Below I have included the link to the NRA’s homepage addressing the issue of bump stocks.

NRA Joint Statement: https://home.nra.org/joint-statement
Alexander Morris says:

February 28, 2018 at 8:41 pm

Sara,

Very interesting and intriguing post. You brought up and interesting point in your text about the second amendment and its capabilities on controlling gun control. I too, support and believe the conclusions you found are an accurate depiction of our societies thoughts on gun control. (or lack of) Another interesting topic that has risen in response to the recent mass killings is whether or not the second amendment is out dated. Our Constitution was based of the rules and time period when guns were not as advanced as they are now. They are no longer a pile of muskets or hand guns, they have evolved to be mass killing machines that can be handle by any ordinary person. As you noted, they can be attached with bump stocks, which means that automatic weapons may be used similarly to automatic guns. Not only should bump stocks become harder to attain, they should be very limited in the amount to which they are sold. In the mass shooting in Las Vegas, many bump stocks were found on the guns used by the killer. This resulted in almost double the amount of ammunition he was able to fire at one time. Relating to your point about young people contributing politically is an interesting and skeptical topic. I believe that people’s voices should be heard no matter what age, however, in an instance like this it can be very challenging. I also believe working with the NRA productively could help find a reasonable solution as well. All in all, great post!

Comments are closed.