Since when does what the majority of people want effect the course of political policy?

I brought up that point to illustrate that a significant number, albeit outnumbered by two thirds, understand gun ownership. That is still a large majority that cannot be ignored. What politicians do can have so little to do with what constituents want of feel so the notion that politicians can feel emboldened by popular opinion does not always result in that side "winning". (I don't mean to be condescending. I'm trying to explain myself as simply as possible.) I just don't think it's about one side outweighing the other. As a corollary, look at the US electoral college method of electing a President but I digress.

Also, this assumes that all of the remaining two thirds are against gun ownership, the statistics of which I am unaware. It could well be that some or much of that two thirds who do not own guns are not opposed to civilian gun ownership, whether with restrictions or limitations or not. I would venture to say that there are many people who are not gun owners who have absolutely no problem with law abiding people who pass background checks owning firearms.

In light of that, the political will of the public that theoretically would drive political change might not be as strong as it would seem. Couple that with other variables that enter in the political decision making process and the course becomes even less clear.

__________________