The politics of gun control
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 12:21:25 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  The politics of gun control
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: The politics of gun control  (Read 850 times)
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,841
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: October 22, 2017, 04:10:51 AM »

Is it safe to say that the reason why gun control will always be a losing issue for the Democrats isn't because the majority doesn't support it (polls consistently show they do), but because of voters' priorities? Putting it simply, if gun control magically vanished as an issue tomorrow, would a non negligible amount of people be more open to voting Republican? It seems very rare to find someone who says gun control is a top tier reason why they vote Democrat. On the other side of the coin, if gun control vanished as an issue, there's probably a decent chunk of voters that would at least be potentially reachable for Democrats that currently aren't. It seems like you constantly hear about being pro-gun being a major driving force for someone to identify as a Republican and/or support them...and there just doesn't seem to be that same driving force for being anti-gun and identifying as a Democrat and/or supporting them.

Of course, this is just my theory, I could be totally off base here. What does Atlas think?
Logged
darklordoftech
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,388
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: October 22, 2017, 04:39:28 AM »
« Edited: October 22, 2017, 04:41:44 AM by darklordoftech »

Anti-gun voters tend to be concentrated in urban locations and/or tend not to give much thought to guns unless a shooting or a crime wave is in the news. Suburban anti-gun voters rarely deal with guns in their lives and therefore don't give much thought to guns. Voters who fear that the government will "take their guns" are more spread out and tend to be very passionate about guns.

Interestingly, I find that people with "puritanical" views and proponents of age restrictions tend to be anti-gun.
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,080
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: October 22, 2017, 05:32:23 AM »

Interestingly, I find that people with "puritanical" views and proponents of age restrictions tend to be anti-gun.
authoritarians, they come in all colors.


The majority may support the vague term "gun control", but what actual policy do they support?

Another problem your side has on this issue is that when you do pass laws, you often pass stupid ones out of emotion instead of logic.  The AWB of course, but I always like to bring up California banning .50 cal rifles even though one had never been used in a crime in the state.  "But it looks scary and why would someone need something like that?" is a dumb reason to ban something and isn't going to reduce crime.  Plus people like me get to bring it up as an example for decades Smiley
Logged
vanguard96
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 754
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: October 24, 2017, 09:31:20 AM »

Interestingly, I find that people with "puritanical" views and proponents of age restrictions tend to be anti-gun.
authoritarians, they come in all colors.


The majority may support the vague term "gun control", but what actual policy do they support?

Another problem your side has on this issue is that when you do pass laws, you often pass stupid ones out of emotion instead of logic.  The AWB of course, but I always like to bring up California banning .50 cal rifles even though one had never been used in a crime in the state.  "But it looks scary and why would someone need something like that?" is a dumb reason to ban something and isn't going to reduce crime.  Plus people like me get to bring it up as an example for decades Smiley

I don't understand the 10-round magazine limit some liberals propose.

If you assume criminals don't pay attention to the laws then the limit is enforced on law-abiding gun owners. Police officers have told me that 10 is 'not enough' in a home defense situation. In a place like Detroit or Chicago then what do you do if the police does not arrive for 45-60 minutes? Why the one-size fits all laws all the time that assume a rapid police response?

And people point to Las Vegas and say it smashed the 'good guy with a gun theory'. Well, no a sniper situation does not preclude the possibility of other situations where brandishing a gun may prevent someone else from death, severe injury, or abduction:
* a knife or machete rampage that kills multiple people such as in NYC, London
* an attacker at a church or other enclosed gathering location - where if all guns need to be in the car -
* an armed mugging of a group - where an unarmed person even a trained fighter(s) would not be able to protect the entire group particularly children, elderly, etc.

Of course many people should not feel like they have to carry a weapon. However each person's situation is different and it is a ultimately the individual's decision. They have to understand too that they need to be very careful with how they use their weapon given the legal and social repercussions.

Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,999
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: October 24, 2017, 12:34:21 PM »

There are a few anti-gun activists and a few people who think any gun control is going to fundamentally change their way of life (i.e., being able to hunt), and most people think that gun control being passed won't really affect that much and if it's not passed, it'll affect even less.
Logged
tschandler
Rookie
**
Posts: 200
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: November 15, 2017, 02:00:35 PM »

Gun Control is a losing issue for Democrats because they don't understand guns, it is really that simple.
Logged
Dr. MB
MB
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,813
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: November 16, 2017, 11:51:24 PM »

Gun control is the #1 issue where I disagree with the Democrats. I oppose gun control, besides the background check and the prevention of criminals and terrorists from owning guns, and don't support weapon bans in any way.

It's definitely a losing issue for the Democrats. They'd get more votes if they stopped pushing gun control.
Logged
TPIG
ThatConservativeGuy
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,997
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: 1.91


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: November 17, 2017, 01:24:59 PM »
« Edited: November 17, 2017, 01:40:32 PM by ThatConservativeGuy »

To liberals, gun control is simply public safety issue. To conservatives/libertarians, the topic of guns speaks to larger ideas about the fundamental relationship between the citizenry and the government, liberty and tyranny, independence and servitude. Because this issue is so fundamental to us, it inspires a lot more passion and is the reason it is more often a top tier issue for conservatives than liberals.
Logged
🦀🎂🦀🎂
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,192
Kiribati


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: November 17, 2017, 02:27:51 PM »

Dems would be easier with this issue if they always hide behind public initiatives and referendums to get their agenda through.
Logged
vanguard96
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 754
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: November 18, 2017, 07:44:10 PM »

Dems would be easier with this issue if they always hide behind public initiatives and referendums to get their agenda through.

So they feel uneasy about executive orders by governors (like in Massachusetts) and presidents? If it is "the will of the majority" it is OK?

To strict constitutionalists, individualists, and natural rights folks a democracy of this type can represent authoritarianism all the same even if liberal gun control advocates feel somehow better about it.

 
Logged
🦀🎂🦀🎂
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,192
Kiribati


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: November 18, 2017, 10:56:23 PM »

Dems would be easier with this issue if they always hide behind public initiatives and referendums to get their agenda through.

So they feel uneasy about executive orders by governors (like in Massachusetts) and presidents? If it is "the will of the majority" it is OK?

To strict constitutionalists, individualists, and natural rights folks a democracy of this type can represent authoritarianism all the same even if liberal gun control advocates feel somehow better about it.

 

ah yes, but I'm talking tactically. Most people aren't "strict constitutionalists, individualists, and natural rights folks" and thise that are aren't typically a key swing demographic. The trouble the gun control lobby gets itself in is that it self-caricaturises itself as an elitist movement, which harms it in the long run. Better to at least hide behind public policy votes (and as an advantage that gives legrooom for pro gun legislators).
Logged
Statilius the Epicurean
Thersites
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,596
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: November 19, 2017, 02:11:43 AM »

Dems would be easier with this issue if they always hide behind public initiatives and referendums to get their agenda through.

So they feel uneasy about executive orders by governors (like in Massachusetts) and presidents? If it is "the will of the majority" it is OK?

To strict constitutionalists, individualists, and natural rights folks a democracy of this type can represent authoritarianism all the same even if liberal gun control advocates feel somehow better about it.

 

ah yes, but I'm talking tactically. Most people aren't "strict constitutionalists, individualists, and natural rights folks" and thise that are aren't typically a key swing demographic. The trouble the gun control lobby gets itself in is that it self-caricaturises itself as an elitist movement, which harms it in the long run. Better to at least hide behind public policy votes (and as an advantage that gives legrooom for pro gun legislators).

You can't hide behind public initiatives on the federal level which makes such a strategy irrelevant to national politics
Logged
Kingpoleon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,144
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: November 22, 2017, 04:46:37 AM »

Dems would be easier with this issue if they always hide behind public initiatives and referendums to get their agenda through.

So they feel uneasy about executive orders by governors (like in Massachusetts) and presidents? If it is "the will of the majority" it is OK?
You have a better solution, Sherlock?

The fact of the matter is, that is how a democracy works. You cannot claim to be a small-r republican and a small-d democrat unless you really believe in the consent of the governed, and, yes, that means sometimes policies will pass that a minority of voters oppose and a majority of voters support, which is not the same thing, by any means, as “tyranny of the majority/masses”.
Logged
🦀🎂🦀🎂
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,192
Kiribati


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: November 22, 2017, 11:37:43 PM »

Dems would be easier with this issue if they always hide behind public initiatives and referendums to get their agenda through.

So they feel uneasy about executive orders by governors (like in Massachusetts) and presidents? If it is "the will of the majority" it is OK?

To strict constitutionalists, individualists, and natural rights folks a democracy of this type can represent authoritarianism all the same even if liberal gun control advocates feel somehow better about it.

 

ah yes, but I'm talking tactically. Most people aren't "strict constitutionalists, individualists, and natural rights folks" and thise that are aren't typically a key swing demographic. The trouble the gun control lobby gets itself in is that it self-caricaturises itself as an elitist movement, which harms it in the long run. Better to at least hide behind public policy votes (and as an advantage that gives legrooom for pro gun legislators).

You can't hide behind public initiatives on the federal level which makes such a strategy irrelevant to national politics

That's sort of my point. I don't think that any bill that is able to have a significant effect on gun control is likely to pass in Congress, so the Dems should demote it as a "national issue".
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.047 seconds with 12 queries.