Return to Answer

When you get down to it, the NRA isn't really what stops most gun control measures from passing though. The NRA has only a few million members--but according to a recent Gallup poll, around 42% of American households own at least one firearm¹. In short, the NRA isn't even like the tip of the iceberg--it's more like the flash of reflected sun you see when the sun happens to hit the iceberg at just the right angle. The iceberg isn't just two or three times the size; it's more like dozens of times the size.

The other difficulty that's run into when trying to pass gun control legislation is simple evidence (or lack of it). Despite hundreds² of laws, it's essentially impossible to point to any of them having led to even a small (but measurable) reduction in crime. If anything, rather the opposite seems to be true. Years ago, John Lott did a study showing an inverse relationship--i.e., that more ownership and more permissive gun laws generally lead to reduced crime. He's now up to the third edition of his book so he keeps the statistics and such reasonably up to date.

So what's actually likely to happen?

Despite all this, there are a few areas where enough Americans agree that I'd expect to see more laws passed in the (relatively) near future. For example, a recent Gallup Poll estimates that 96% of Americans favor requiring background checks for all gun purchases. That's a large enough majority that it strikes me as nearly inevitable that it will actually happen. Smaller but still significant majorities favor requiring a 30-day waiting period for all gun sales, and requiring that all firearms be registered with the police.

1. And note: that's what's reported. At least to me, it seems likely that the real number is somewhat higher; few people are likely to report owning a firearm if they really don't, but some (e.g., people who own illegal firearms) are likely to say they don't even though they really do.
2. If you want to get technical, the real number is much higher (twenty thousand has been thrown around for decades now), but many of those are local laws that are superseded by state laws (and such) so they have no real effect.

When you get down to it, the NRA isn't really what stops most gun control measures from passing though. The NRA has only a few million members--but according to a recent Gallup poll, around 42% of American households own at least one firearm¹. The NRA just the tip of the iceberg.

The other difficulty that's run into when trying to pass gun control legislation is simple evidence (or lack of it). Despite hundreds² of laws, it's essentially impossible to point to any of them having led to even a small (but measurable) reduction in crime. To the extent there's actual evidence (and I'd say that extent is pretty minimal), it seems to indicate that the opposite is true. Years ago, John Lott did a study showing an inverse relationship--i.e., that more ownership and more permissive gun laws generally lead to reduced crime. He's now up to the third edition of his book so he keeps the statistics and such reasonably up to date.

So what will happen?

I doubt that the anti-gun lobby is going to gain a huge amount of momentum particularly soon. On the other hand, I do think the pro-gun lobby is slowly losing momentum, and (more importantly) supporters.

Both sides have been fighting this for decades now. Both habitually make statements that run right on the ragged edge between distortions of the truth and outright lies. Both routinely treat (even extremely weak) correlation as proof of causation. In short, both sides have given the vast majority of people more than ample reason to ignore most of what they have to say (and it would appear that most people have responded--while mass shootings lead to a small, short-term rise in sentiment favoring firearm control laws, the reality is that most people are probably more concerned about whether there's an accident that will slow their commute this morning than they are about crimes committed with guns³.

Nonetheless, there is a pretty clear long-term trend toward a higher percentage of the population living in urban areas. That tends to lead to an ever-decreasing percentage of people who hunt, own firearms, or think of firearms as having any real place in their own lives. Eventually, the pro-gun faction is almost certain to become a small enough minority that they'll lose political influence, and laws will be passed that sharply curtail private ownership of firearms.

What about the shorter term?

There are a few areas where enough Americans currently agree that I'd expect to see more laws passed in the (relatively) near future. For example, a recent Gallup Poll estimates that 96% of Americans favor requiring background checks for all gun purchases. That's a large enough majority that it strikes me as nearly inevitable that it will actually happen. Smaller but still significant majorities favor requiring a 30-day waiting period for all gun sales, and requiring that all firearms be registered with the police.

1. And note: that's what's reported. At least to me, it seems likely that the real number is somewhat higher; few people are likely to report owning a firearm if they really don't, but some (e.g., people who own illegal firearms) are likely to say they don't even though they really do.
2. If you want to get technical, the real number is much higher (twenty thousand has been thrown around for decades now), but many of those are local laws that are superseded by state laws (and such) so they have no real effect.
3. I suppose it may sound like I'm painting people as being rather callous toward victims of shooting. A fair argument could be made, however, that the callousness is in very little attention being paid to the fact that well over twice as many people die in traffic accidents as by shooting (~37,000 annually vs. ~13,000 annually).

There is a fairly powerful anti-gun lobby in the US. It's managed to get hundreds of laws passed--thousands if you look carefully, but many of those are local laws superseded by state laws (and such) so they have no real effect.

When you get down to it, the NRA isn't really what stops most gun control measures from passing though. The NRA has only a few million members--but according to a recent Gallup poll, around 42% of American households own at least one firearm¹. In short, the NRA isn't even like the tip of the iceberg--it's more like the flash of reflected sun you see when the sun happens to hit the iceberg at just the right angle. The iceberg isn't just two or three times the size; it's more like dozens of times the size.

The other difficulty that's run into when trying to pass gun control legislation is simple evidence (or lack of it). Despite hundreds² of laws, it's essentially impossible to point to any of them having led to even a small (but measurable) reduction in crime. If anything, rather the opposite seems to be true. Years ago, John Lott did a study showing an inverse relationship--i.e., that more ownership and more permissive gun laws generally lead to reduced crime. He's now up to the third edition of his book so he keeps the statistics and such reasonably up to date.

Of course, his conclusions have been criticized, and some of the criticism is undoubtedly fair--but regardless of whether his claims are 100% factually correct, they seem sufficiently well supported for a fair number of people to find them credible, so he's shaped public opinion to at least some degree.

So what's actually likely to happen?

Despite all this, there are a few areas where enough Americans agree that I'd expect to see more laws passed in the (relatively) near future. For example, a recent Gallup Poll estimates that 96% of Americans favor requiring background checks for all gun purchases. That's a large enough majority that it strikes me as nearly inevitable that it will actually happen. Smaller but still significant majorities favor requiring a 30-day waiting period for all gun sales, and requiring that all firearms be registered with the police.

Summary

• Quite a few laws have actually been passed.
• There seems to be essentially no evidence that any of them has been at all successful.
• The single biggest problem for the anti-gun lobby is lack of supporters.
• Requiring background checks for all firearms sales seems sufficiently popular that (at least in my estimation) it's likely to happen fairly soon.

1. And note: that's what's reported. At least to me, it seems like that the real number is somewhat higher; few people are likely to report owning a firearm if they really don't, but some (e.g., people who own illegal firearms) are likely to say they don't even though they really do.
2. If you want to get technical, the real number is much higher (twenty thousand has been thrown around for decades now), but many of those are local laws that are superseded by state laws (and such) so they have no real effect.

There is a fairly powerful anti-gun lobby in the US. It's managed to get hundreds of laws passed.

When you get down to it, the NRA isn't really what stops most gun control measures from passing though. The NRA has only a few million members--but according to a recent Gallup poll, around 42% of American households own at least one firearm¹. In short, the NRA isn't even like the tip of the iceberg--it's more like the flash of reflected sun you see when the sun happens to hit the iceberg at just the right angle. The iceberg isn't just two or three times the size; it's more like dozens of times the size.

The other difficulty that's run into when trying to pass gun control legislation is simple evidence (or lack of it). Despite hundreds² of laws, it's essentially impossible to point to any of them having led to even a small (but measurable) reduction in crime. If anything, rather the opposite seems to be true. Years ago, John Lott did a study showing an inverse relationship--i.e., that more ownership and more permissive gun laws generally lead to reduced crime. He's now up to the third edition of his book so he keeps the statistics and such reasonably up to date.

Of course, his conclusions have been criticized, and some of the criticism is undoubtedly fair--but regardless of whether his claims are 100% factually correct, they seem sufficiently well supported for a fair number of people to find them credible, so he's shaped public opinion to at least some degree.

So what's actually likely to happen?

Despite all this, there are a few areas where enough Americans agree that I'd expect to see more laws passed in the (relatively) near future. For example, a recent Gallup Poll estimates that 96% of Americans favor requiring background checks for all gun purchases. That's a large enough majority that it strikes me as nearly inevitable that it will actually happen. Smaller but still significant majorities favor requiring a 30-day waiting period for all gun sales, and requiring that all firearms be registered with the police.

Summary

• Quite a few laws have actually been passed.
• There seems to be essentially no evidence that any of them has been at all successful.
• The single biggest problem for the anti-gun lobby is that they're almost certainly vastly outnumbered by those who own firearms or are at least somewhat friendly to that cause.
• Requiring background checks for all firearms sales seems sufficiently popular that (at least in my estimation) it's likely to happen fairly soon.

1. And note: that's what's reported. At least to me, it seems likely that the real number is somewhat higher; few people are likely to report owning a firearm if they really don't, but some (e.g., people who own illegal firearms) are likely to say they don't even though they really do.
2. If you want to get technical, the real number is much higher (twenty thousand has been thrown around for decades now), but many of those are local laws that are superseded by state laws (and such) so they have no real effect.

There is a fairly powerful anti-gun lobby in the US. It's managed to get hundreds of laws passed--thousands if you look carefully, but many of those are local laws superseded by state laws (and such) so they have no real effect.

When you get down to it, the NRA isn't really what stops most gun control measures from passing though. The NRA has only a few million members--but according to a recent Gallup poll, around 42% of American households own at least one firearm¹. In short, the NRA isn't even like the tip of the iceberg--it's more like the flash of reflected sun you see when the sun happens to hit the iceberg at just the right angle. The iceberg isn't just two or three times the size; it's more like dozens of times the size.

The other difficulty that's run into when trying to pass gun control legislation is simple evidence (or lack of it). Despite hundreds² of laws, it's essentially impossible to point to any of them having led to even a small (but measurable) reduction in crime. If anything, rather the opposite seems to be true. Years ago, John Lott did a study showing an inverse relationship--i.e., that more ownership and more permissive gun laws generally lead to reduced crime. He's now up to the third edition of his book so he keeps the statistics and such reasonably up to date.

In fairness, I feel obliged to point out that many have criticized what he presents--but at least from what I've seen, the strongest of those critiques basically comes down to saying: "the evidence in this direction is probably somewhat weaker than he suggests".

So what's actually likely to happen?

Despite all this, there are a few areas where enough Americans agree that I'd expect to see more laws passed in the (relatively) near future. For example, a recent Gallup Poll estimates that 96% of Americans favor requiring background checks for all gun purchases. That's a large enough majority that it strikes me as nearly inevitable that it will actually happen. Smaller but still significant majorities favor requiring a 30-day waiting period for all gun sales, and requiring that all firearms be registered with the police.

Summary

• Quite a few laws have actually been passed.
• There seems to be essentially no evidence that any of them has been at all successful.
• The single biggest problem for the anti-gun lobby is lack of supporters.
• Requiring background checks for all firearms sales seems sufficiently popular that (at least in my estimation) it's likely to happen fairly soon.

1. And note: that's what's reported. At least to me, it seems like that the real number is somewhat higher; few people are likely to report owning a firearm if they really don't, but some (e.g., people who own illegal firearms) are likely to say they don't even though they really do.
2. If you want to get technical, the real number is much higher (twenty thousand has been thrown around for decades now), but many of those are local laws that are superseded by state laws (and such) so they have no real effect.

There is a fairly powerful anti-gun lobby in the US. It's managed to get hundreds of laws passed--thousands if you look carefully, but many of those are local laws superseded by state laws (and such) so they have no real effect.

When you get down to it, the NRA isn't really what stops most gun control measures from passing though. The NRA has only a few million members--but according to a recent Gallup poll, around 42% of American households own at least one firearm¹. In short, the NRA isn't even like the tip of the iceberg--it's more like the flash of reflected sun you see when the sun happens to hit the iceberg at just the right angle. The iceberg isn't just two or three times the size; it's more like dozens of times the size.

The other difficulty that's run into when trying to pass gun control legislation is simple evidence (or lack of it). Despite hundreds² of laws, it's essentially impossible to point to any of them having led to even a small (but measurable) reduction in crime. If anything, rather the opposite seems to be true. Years ago, John Lott did a study showing an inverse relationship--i.e., that more ownership and more permissive gun laws generally lead to reduced crime. He's now up to the third edition of his book so he keeps the statistics and such reasonably up to date.

Of course, his conclusions have been criticized, and some of the criticism is undoubtedly fair--but regardless of whether his claims are 100% factually correct, they seem sufficiently well supported for a fair number of people to find them credible, so he's shaped public opinion to at least some degree.

So what's actually likely to happen?

Despite all this, there are a few areas where enough Americans agree that I'd expect to see more laws passed in the (relatively) near future. For example, a recent Gallup Poll estimates that 96% of Americans favor requiring background checks for all gun purchases. That's a large enough majority that it strikes me as nearly inevitable that it will actually happen. Smaller but still significant majorities favor requiring a 30-day waiting period for all gun sales, and requiring that all firearms be registered with the police.

Summary

• Quite a few laws have actually been passed.
• There seems to be essentially no evidence that any of them has been at all successful.
• The single biggest problem for the anti-gun lobby is lack of supporters.
• Requiring background checks for all firearms sales seems sufficiently popular that (at least in my estimation) it's likely to happen fairly soon.

1. And note: that's what's reported. At least to me, it seems like that the real number is somewhat higher; few people are likely to report owning a firearm if they really don't, but some (e.g., people who own illegal firearms) are likely to say they don't even though they really do.
2. If you want to get technical, the real number is much higher (twenty thousand has been thrown around for decades now), but many of those are local laws that are superseded by state laws (and such) so they have no real effect.