• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Why gun control push fizzled?

I think the problem is the unwavering hostility towards the legislation by the NRA and many of it's members. For them it's a very emotional issue on which they will not compromise. They are very skilled at targeting senators or members of congress who vote for gun control. The politicians know that.

People who support expanded gun legislation usually have other issues they are interested in, people who are anti-gun control do not. This is their bottom line. This is their 'must-have' position.

After the Newtown shooting, gun control advocates redoubled their efforts with a nation mourning the loss of school children. The issue also galvanized the Obama administration. However, they have thus-far been outmatched by efforts of a powerful gun lobby and a motivated and vocal interest group, the National Rifle Association, said Jon Vernick, co-director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research.
Click to expand...

For the Republican party, being against gun laws is an attractive position. It wins them support of the gun lobby and Republicans who are willing to compromise are usually willing to overlook gun issues for the greater good of the party.
 
newyorkguy said:
I think the problem is the unwavering hostility towards the legislation by the NRA and many of it's members. For them it's a very emotional issue on which they will not compromise. They are very skilled at targeting senators or members of congress who vote for gun control. The politicians know that.

People who support expanded gun legislation usually have other issues they are interested in, people who are anti-gun control do not. This is their bottom line. This is their 'must-have' position.



For the Republican party, being against gun laws is an attractive position. It wins them support of the gun lobby and Republicans who are willing to compromise are usually willing to overlook gun issues for the greater good of the party.
Click to expand...


"For them"?

You paint a very narrow view of people that do not support stricter gun legislation. I wonder if emotion could be driving that brush? ;)
 
I don't think we can discount the influence of the NRA.. However, I'm on a number of gun-oriented forums and "NRA" doesn't get tossed around too much. Rather, for the more extreme folks, it's the old "they're coming for our guns" fears.
However, just as influential would be the opinion (which I share) that the proposed efforts and legislation simply would not produce the expected results.
Adding layers of difficulty to weapons ownership and use by ordinary citizens.... And providing little impediment to the criminal.

Everyone talked a lot about "keeping guns out of the hands of crazy people", but no one provided a practical notion as to how this laudable goal might be achieved.
 
newyorkguy said:
I think the problem is the unwavering hostility towards the legislation by the NRA and many of it's members.
Click to expand...

Hardly. The bills suck. They call standard capacity magazines high capacity as this somehow makes them abnormal instead of the usual thing. They say it is just a background check bill when it is also a registration scheme. They say it isn't a gun grab when the bill would have required registration that the government is not required to perform. The major media outlets give the bill sponsors a pass when it comes to critical thinking, but not all Americans are that stupid.

These people sat on their hands for ten years since their last AWB sunset. They choose to dance on TV during a national tragedy and tell us that the restrictions that made hardly any difference in the 90's were the solution now.

Ranb
 
Cut to the chase: Democracy in action. MOST Americans like the idea of armed Americans.

"Blaming the NRA" makes as much sense as blaming any other PAC- "Blame MADD" for lower alcohol levels? "Blame ACLU" for lots of stuff, Or "Credit the American representational system of democracy" for listening to the People in all these issues?

I think we should "Blame the Democratic Party" for stirring up the issue in the mean time. While there are obviously a lot of pro-gun people in both parties, most of the anti-gunners are in the Dems. I guess each party has it's extremists that the party ought to sit on.
 
casebro said:
Cut to the chase: Democracy in action. MOST Americans like the idea of armed Americans.

...
Click to expand...

Where I live in the Northeast I doubt that's true. I think the real problem is, most people (like me and my wife) seldom give guns or gun control a thought.

However, as you can see by the previous responses, it's not happening. Too many people are opposed to it.

Don't discount the NRA. Getting reelected takes money. Campaign financing has lots to do with who gets on the ballot in the primaries.

What I personally would like to see is a reduction in the two-hundred-thousand guns stolen every year from private owners, and better controls over gun manufacturers who, when subject to ATF inspections are usually unable to account for thousand of gun --especially handguns -- they manufactured.
 
Last edited:
newyorkguy said:
What I personally would like to see is a reduction in the two-hundred-thousand guns stolen every year from private owners, and better controls over gun manufacturers who, when subject to FTA inspections are usually unable to account for thousand of gun --especially handguns -- they manufactured.
Click to expand...

So you want better police coverage (universal) and manufacturer tracing of guns sold to distributors (to end user)?

I wonder what the latter's extra step will accomplish (considering required records that are kept on end user).
 
Last edited:
casebro said:
Cut to the chase: Democracy in action. MOST Americans like the idea of armed Americans.
Click to expand...
This is so phenomenally wrong (in thread context) that it boggles the mind. According to numerous polls, public support for the legislation was in the 80-90% range.
 
newyorkguy said:
Where I live in the Northeast I doubt that's true. I think the real problem is, most people (like me and my wife) seldom give guns or gun control a thought.
Click to expand...

You'd be surprised. You're in the NYC area correct? Well over here by Lake Erie the most liberal people I know are highly suspicious of gun control efforts probably because most of them know TONS of people who own guns, aren't violent, and have never, ever had an incident, or are gun owners themselves. Yes, many of them are for better gun control and regulation methods so when they see what they consider lip service and bad legislation, they feel betrayed. It ruffles feathers and turns many of the off to the push entirely. All they see are more politicians pandering to anti-gun nuts, and then of course the gun nuts (for them the very unpopular NRA). Fitting into neither end, they give up and focus on other things. Perhaps if there were more gun violence locally they wouldn't. But there isn't so they do.
 
DGM said:
So you want better police coverage (universal) and manufacturer tracing of guns sold to distributors (to end user)?

I wonder what the latter's extra step will accomplish (considering required records that are kept on end user).
Click to expand...

Better police coverage to prevent gun theft from private owners? I didn't suggest that you did, how would that work? I was thinking more along the lines of requiring gun safes.

The ATF (I called them the FTA in my earlier post, subconsciously remembering an old Army slogan? :D) are suspicious that many of these 'missing' firearms are being sold illegally. And they're not lost AFTER they get to distributors by the way, they're gone missing before they even leave the factory.

What do you think should be done DGM? Nothing? Just load 'em up, boys and commence...FIRING!
 
newyorkguy said:
People who support expanded gun legislation usually have other issues they are interested in, people who are anti-gun control do not. This is their bottom line. This is their 'must-have' position.
Click to expand...

This pretty much sums it up. Pretty much sums up everything, in fact.

Politics is what we label the behavior of trying to get something you want by giving up other things you want less. There isn't really anything wrong with that, it's how humans work together.

The unfortunate side effect is that if a bunch of people really want something, and don't care about much else, it is really hard to bargain with them unless you care just as much. Most people don't care that much. We have jobs, families, etc, and there are far more pressing issues for us.

On the flipside, though, I don't think it is fair to say that just because 90% of the population supports X, we should do X. The reality is that most of that 90% just answered "yes" on a survey and probably wouldn't do much in the way of actively helping bring X about. Especially when it comes to gun control, the minority seems to be much more invested in their position. That has to be weighed, since after all, it is politics.
 
newyorkguy said:
What do you think should be done DGM? Nothing? Just load 'em up, boys and commence...FIRING!
Click to expand...

I figure just quoting this is enough to show the emotion I asked about in my original response (and never got a reply).

As far as what should be done. Enforce what is already here.

Do you really think a gun safe is going to stop a determined thief? Yeah, bank robberies don't happen either.
 
tyr_13 said:
You'd be surprised. You're in the NYC area correct? Well over here by Lake Erie...
Click to expand...

I said the Northeast. In my mind that doesn't include western New York. I'm sure you're right, gun control is probably not a big issue with western New Yorkers.

tyr_13 said:
Yes, many of them are for better gun control and regulation methods so when they see what they consider lip service and bad legislation, they feel betrayed.
Click to expand...

The problem with this is, gun control is w-a-y down the list of concerns here in the Northeast. I'd be surprised if any but a small minority have any idea what is proposed, whether it's good or bad. Just large numbers of people who believe there is too much gun violence.
 
newyorkguy said:
The ATF (I called them the FTA in my earlier post, subconsciously remembering an old Army slogan? :D) are suspicious that many of these 'missing' firearms are being sold illegally. And they're not lost AFTER they get to distributors by the way, they're gone missing before they even leave the factory.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't this be a law enforcement issue, not a gun control (law)?
 
Last edited:
DGM said:
I figure just quoting this is enough to show the emotion I asked about in my original response (and never got a reply).
Click to expand...


I'm ignoring your attempt to turn this into a personal argument, yes.

DGM said:
As far as what should be done. Enforce what is already here.
Click to expand...
That sounds like 'don't do anything.'

DGM said:
Do you really think a gun safe is going to stop a determined thief? Yeah, bank robberies don't happen either.
Click to expand...

Yes I do think gun safes would prevent many guns from being stolen. They won't stop all so why bother, is that what you mean?
 
varwoche said:
This is so phenomenally wrong (in thread context) that it boggles the mind. According to numerous polls, public support for the legislation was in the 80-90% range.
Click to expand...
Is that true or was public support for some sort of some form of background checks that are not currently required by law for gun sales. Isn't there a difference between that and what was in the bill?

The most recent surveys included a CNN/ORC International poll released last week that indicated 86% of the public supported some form of background checks that are not currently required by law for gun sales, and an ABC News/Washington Post survey released Tuesday which indicated that 86% of Americans said they favored background checks for gun sales on the internet and at gun shows.
Click to expand...
 
If the proposed legislation had previously been in effect for the last 10 years, it wouldn't have prevented any of the high-profile shootings. So just what was it's purpose?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom