PRINCETON, NJ -- Americans' immediate reaction to President Barack Obama's proposals for new laws designed to reduce gun violence is more positive than negative, with 53% saying they would want their representative in Congress to vote for the set of proposed new laws, while 41% say their representative should vote against them.

These results are from Gallup polling conducted Thursday, Jan. 17, the day after Obama's announcement. The question asked Americans about the "set" of new laws, even though in reality, to the extent the House and the Senate pursue these proposals, it could be on a one-by-one basis. The results suggest that Obama begins his campaign for passage of the laws with a majority -- but not a supermajority -- of the public behind him.

The question explicitly identified the gun proposals as those that President Obama announced on Wednesday, making it not surprising to find that the strongest support for the proposals comes among Democrats and liberals, and the weakest support comes among Republicans and conservatives. Additionally, groups that traditionally lean more Democratic -- nonwhites, Easterners, and those with postgraduate educations -- are significantly above average in support.

Implications

The Obama administration has made the enactment of new laws designed to reduce gun violence a major short-term emphasis in the aftermath of the Dec. 14 mass shooting at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn. Americans' general support for stricter gun control laws surged after Newtown, and previous research has shown significant support for elements of the Obama proposals, including background checks and bans on high-capacity ammunition clips.

Now, the administration has put forth a concrete set of proposals on gun violence, and Americans' initial reaction to the idea of their being passed into law is generally positive. Fifty-three percent want their member of Congress to vote for that set of laws, but a substantial minority, 41%, want their member to vote against it. The highly partisan reaction to the proposal among rank-and-file Americans underscores what is likely to be a highly partisan political negotiation in the Senate and in the House in the weeks and months ahead.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/159959/americans-reaction-obama-gun-proposals-positive.aspx

This poll was a random sampling that weighted responses in accordance to the make up of the US population. It contacted by land lines and cell phones. For more on the sampling method used, click the link.

Should be interesting to see how this develops as Obama's proposals continue to get more exposure to the general public. Now, a single poll can be wrong, which is why an aggregation of polls always gets much more accurate results. Gallup isn't the only polling firm to find majority support for new gun laws:

Of course, the general question asked here was "Do you support stricter gun laws" without specifying which laws. This new Gallup poll is the first to demonstrate that Americans support Obama's proposals specifically.

I can already guess the replies from some, but polls ARE accurate. Individual polls may or may not be, but a collection of polls are, and so far these polls in general are pointing strongly towards support for some new gun control policies. Whether or not they truly support Obama's proposals, well, Gallup is a nice start but I'm sure we'll be getting more numbers soon to tell us just how accurate they are. ;)

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/10/which-polls-fared-best-and-worst-in-the-2012-presidential-race/

Of the 23 polling firms who published 5 polls before the presidential election, Gallup was 7.2 percentage points wrong. The next worst firm was 4.5, then 3.7, then all the rest were within 3.

Of course this may not apply to this poll, but any polling firm that is 7.2 points predicting the wrong winner when everyone else was very close and polls in general were very accurate has a serious political agenda problem.

Heartening to see. I imagine a lot of casual gun owners don't want the worse-than-the-wild-west atmosphere that the gun lobby is pitching. Most people get that (as much as some of us might like them to) the government's not going to come and take your guns away, and the rest is just common sense.

Actually I didn't see much bad as far as gun control is concerned in Obama's executive orders. My issues are more with the privacy aspects. Of course, much of his executive orders were things they should have already been enforcing. 

As for legislation, the majority of Americans still oppose an assault weapons ban and many understand the reason for the second amendment. 

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/gun_control/65_see_gun_rights_as_protection_against_tyranny

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 65% of American Adults think the purpose of the Second Amendment is to make sure that people are able to protect themselves from tyranny. Only 17% disagree, while another 18% are not sure. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Not surprisingly, 72% of those with a gun in their family regard the Second Amendment as a protection against tyranny. However, even a majority (57%) of those without a gun in their home hold that view.

Many gun control advocates talk of the right to gun ownership as relating to hunting and recreational uses only.

While there are often wide partisan differences of opinion on gun-related issues, even 54% of Democrats agree with 75% of Republicans and 68% of those not affiliated with either major party that the right to own a gun is to ensure such freedom.

As Americans search for answers to the Newtown shooting, attitudes on gun ownership are “not likely to change in a nation where six out of 10 adults would rather live in a neighborhood where they can own a gun and most would feel safer if their children attended a school with an armed security guard.” Scott Rasmussen explains in his latest weekly newspaper column that if Congress is “not willing to go as far as the president wants on gun control, perhaps they… might take stronger action on mental health issues or increase the penalties for crimes committed with a gun. "

Democratic senators are also afraid of what happened to them after the 1994 assault weapons ban, and are far more conservative in their voting options.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/15/leading-democratic-gun-control-activist-says-assault-weapons-ban-will-not-pass/

"“We’re not gonna get an outright ban,” New York Rep. Carolyn McCarthy told reporters Tuesday."

“I think he could pass a package, without the ban. And I think he probably thinks that too,” McCarthy said. “But let’s play it out. We’ll see. We’ll see what the president offers tomorrow, and we’ll go from there. Each day is a moving target.”

A big issue (for gun control advocates) is that people who are for gun control have no other options but to vote democrat, because they agree with most other issues that fall bipartisan anyway. It's the moderates and the conservatives who tend to vote on this matter alone, and it's precisely why many democrats are afraid of voting for gun control. The Democratic party was cleaned out and took HUGE hits in congress after the 1994 act (which was packaged with other measures, by the way and was instituted in a time when most people were for gun control ( a strong majority rather than a lenient majority.)

I'm surprised at how many elderly people support this. They are usually the ones who are super patriotic.

This whole issue is just one big Kabuki theater photo op designed for Obama to try and score political points off of a national tragedy. Most people agree we should have things like federal background checks in place, including more than 80% of NRA members. That's not in dispute.

What is in dispute is how bringing back the cosmetic "assault weapons ban" and other initiatives like limiting the capacities of magazines is going to prevent the next Columbine, Aurora or Sandy Hook shooting. NONE of the proposed "gun control" laws would have prevented any of these situations for occurring in the first place, and the number of dead would have been pretty much the same with the proposed laws in place, especially when a gunman's intended target is a classroom full of kindergarteners.

And the vast majority of gun violence in this country is done with handguns... but don't tell the media that. They'd have you believe that if we just get rid of the "Bushmaster" and similar rifles there would be hardly any shootings in this country.

I would put it more as in most people not knowing what the laws actually mean.

Assault weapons SOUND scary, even though many people don't realize it'd ban the guns they have.  Thinking instead it means machine guns and other automatic weapons.

Ask people vague questions about current events or politics and you will get a disproportinate positive response ...

In fact, besides asking questions in an order to get a particular result, this is one of the most common ways that biased polling firms get the results they want.