Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-13-2019, 04:40 PM
Wesley Clark is offline
2018 Midterm Prediction Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 22,382

The democrats abandoning gun control will not help them win the votes of rural whites


Its an argument a lot of people seem to be making. "If democrats abandon gun control, then rural whites will be more open to the party".

I disagree.

For one thing, gun control is fairly popular.

https://www.npr.org/2018/03/02/58984...rictions-grows

But more importantly, guns are a symptom of something else. They are a symptom of white people who fear multiculturalism.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3815007/

Quote:
After accounting for all explanatory variables, logistic regressions found that for each 1 point increase in symbolic racism there was a 50% increase in the odds of having a gun at home. After also accounting for having a gun in the home, there was still a 28% increase in support for permits to carry concealed handguns, for each one point increase in symbolic racism. The relationship between symbolic racism and opposition to banning handguns in the home (OR1.27 CI 1.03,1.58) was reduced to non-significant after accounting for having a gun in the home (OR1.17 CI.94,1.46), which likely represents self-interest in retaining property (guns).
https://splinternews.com/the-simple-...s-g-1793860212

Quote:
ANES uses a battery of four questions to measure racial resentment, including asking survey-takers to agree or disagree with statements like these:

“The Irish, Italians, Jews and many other minorities overcame prejudice and worked their way up. Blacks should do the same without any special favors.”

“Generations of slavery and discrimination have created conditions that make it difficult for Blacks to work their way out of the lower class.”

Respondents were asked to agree or disagree with these propositions, and we combined their answers into a resentment scale running from 0 to 1 (again, 0 meaning very little racial resentment, and 1 meaning very strong racial resentment).

Using this model, we found that racial resentment—not ethnicity, gender, geographic location, or political preference—was the single strongest predictor of gun ownership
Whites who find multiculturalism threatening cling to guns because their America is dying. The America they feel they know (a white christian patriarchy of native born people) is changing and America is rapidly becoming browner, more secular, more muslim, more feminist, more immigrant, etc. They are attached to guns because guns help them feel safe in a world where they feel their national identity and sense of privilege is going away. Plus guns help them feel safe in a world full of scary out-groups (latino immigrant street criminals. Black urban street criminals. Foreign muslim terrorists. Liberal government. etc).

The democratic party is the party that embraces multiculturalism. The republican party is the party that rejects multiculturalism. Even if the democrats abandon gun control, everyone still knows the democrats are the pro-multiculturalism party. So why would abandoning gun control make these people like the democrats when the main reason they cling to guns is because they find pro-democratic policies threatening?

Basically saying 'I support changing America into something that makes you feel threatened, but I also support your right to own a gun to keep yourself safe from the threats our party is visiting on you" is not a winning argument. But thats the argument people are making for why the democrats should abandon gun control.

FWIW I'm not saying all whites who own guns are racist. But its a major factor in hostility to gun control among whites. I'm a liberal gun owner and I know lots of liberals who oppose gun control because they feel they need guns to keep themselves safe from the rise of neo-fascism. And there are people who need guns to deal with hunting animals or dealing with threatening feral animals. Or people who need them because they live in areas the police don't patrol well or they can't trust the police. So I'm not saying owning a gun = racist. But its a major factor. But having said that, these people wouldn't be affected by most forms of gun control anyway.

For me personally I don't even know where I stand on gun control. I feel unless we confiscate the 300+ million guns already out there, gun control won't make much of a difference. And that'll never happen. The virginia tech shooter had a pistol and regular magazines.

However the 1934 gun control act made getting fully automatic weapons, among other things, hard to get. So if we passed strict gun control on a national level it may make a difference, but not for several decades (when the current guns are trashed and you can't buy new ones).
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion

Last edited by Wesley Clark; 02-13-2019 at 04:43 PM.
  #2  
Old 02-13-2019, 05:50 PM
Quartz's Avatar
Quartz is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Where haggis roam free
Posts: 31,111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
Whites who find multiculturalism threatening cling to guns because their America is dying.
Really? How about those who carry guns for their safety? You know, pistols to shoot snakes and rifles to shoot wolves, bears, and cougar? How about those who have guns to defend their livestock? How about those who have guns for pest control - rats, rabbits, coyotes, prairie dogs, etc? How about those people who have guns in the home because the police cannot attend an incident in any reasonable time? How about those who have guns for hunting?

Anyway in your interpretation of your second link you seem to be making the basic mistake of logic. That a racist is more likely to own guns does not mean that someone who owns guns is more likely to be a racist.
  #3  
Old 02-13-2019, 06:05 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 13,293
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz View Post
Really? How about those who carry guns for their safety? You know, pistols to shoot snakes and rifles to shoot wolves, bears, and cougar? How about those who have guns to defend their livestock? How about those who have guns for pest control - rats, rabbits, coyotes, prairie dogs, etc? How about those people who have guns in the home because the police cannot attend an incident in any reasonable time? How about those who have guns for hunting?
It doesn't appear he was talking about those people. But, in your opinion, do you think that the sort of rural whites who own guns for these reasons are (a) voting conservative, and (b) likely to suddenly go blue if democrats started shrugging about guns?
  #4  
Old 02-13-2019, 06:40 PM
Ruken is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 7,581
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz View Post
Really? How about those who carry guns for their safety? You know, pistols to shoot snakes and rifles to shoot wolves, bears, and cougar? How about those who have guns to defend their livestock? How about those who have guns for pest control - rats, rabbits, coyotes, prairie dogs, etc? How about those people who have guns in the home because the police cannot attend an incident in any reasonable time? How about those who have guns for hunting?

Anyway in your interpretation of your second link you seem to be making the basic mistake of logic. That a racist is more likely to own guns does not mean that someone who owns guns is more likely to be a racist.
Lol talk about basic mistakes of logic. All A are B does not mean all B are A. Regardless of whether he's correct or not, your objection is baseless per any middle school symbolic logic lesson.
  #5  
Old 02-13-2019, 07:04 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
... However the 1934 gun control act made getting fully automatic weapons, among other things, hard to get. So if we passed strict gun control on a national level it may make a difference, but not for several decades (when the current guns are trashed and you can't buy new ones).
Surely it's worth doing, even if we don't see immediate benefits.

No arguments about critter control or sport-hunting make sense as a defense of keeping automatic weapons freely available. Those weapons are for killing people.

And on the topic of Democratic messaging: the emphasis should be on measures that consistently receive wide support---background checks, etc. Few Democrats (or few that are running) are in favor of confiscation and similar harsh crack-downs on ownership of firearms. Democrats shouldn't let Republicans lie about that.

Last edited by Sherrerd; 02-13-2019 at 07:06 PM.
  #6  
Old 02-13-2019, 07:12 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 13,293
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
Democrats shouldn't let Republicans lie about that.
Yeah, like it's possible to make Republican(politican/news outlet)s tell the truth about anything.
  #7  
Old 02-13-2019, 07:20 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,421
While it's probably true that Democrats won't win any rural white votes by adopting a pro-gun stance, they can certainly fire up the rural white vote to show up to vote R by emphasizing an anti-gun stance.

(Of course, if Democrats became pro-gun, they'd anger their own base, who might refuse to come out and vote D. It's all a numbers game.)
  #8  
Old 02-13-2019, 07:24 PM
Ulfreida is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: pangolandia
Posts: 3,607
The only thing that will bring rural under-educated white males to vote Democratic is good jobs with good benefits for blue collar workers. If they saw that it was the Dems that brought those things to their area, anyway. I bet if that happened, they'd overlook a lot.
  #9  
Old 02-13-2019, 07:53 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,180
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
Yeah, like it's possible to make Republican(politican/news outlet)s tell the truth about anything.
True enough. I was thinking more of 'correcting the lies' as opposed to exercising the degree of control over fellow-humans required to prevent lying.

It's similar to the 'DEMS WANT OPEN BORDERS' lie that many elected Republicans are so fond of repeating---you can't keep them from saying it, but you can point out that it's a lie when they do.
  #10  
Old 02-13-2019, 10:04 PM
Wesley Clark is offline
2018 Midterm Prediction Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 22,382
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulfreida View Post
The only thing that will bring rural under-educated white males to vote Democratic is good jobs with good benefits for blue collar workers. If they saw that it was the Dems that brought those things to their area, anyway. I bet if that happened, they'd overlook a lot.
Thats possible, but its very abstract. Bill Clinton signed NAFTA, but he signed it with the help of republicans in congress.

Obama saved the auto industry, saving millions of jobs held by high school educated whites. It didn't win him any points with them.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #11  
Old 02-13-2019, 10:11 PM
Wesley Clark is offline
2018 Midterm Prediction Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 22,382
IMO, the only thing that'll win over high school educated white men is rebuilding the union movement.

I recall reading an article years ago about John Kerry's loss in the 2004 election. It mentioned how with rural white men he did terrible, unless those men were in a union. If those men weren't in a union, he lost them by 30-40 points or so. If they were, Kerry won them by 15-20 points.

So rebuilding the union movement, especially in vocations where high school educated whites work, could be an important part of winning over that demographic.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion

Last edited by Wesley Clark; 02-13-2019 at 10:13 PM.
  #12  
Old 02-14-2019, 07:03 AM
spifflog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 2,447
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
Thats possible, but its very abstract. Bill Clinton signed NAFTA, but he signed it with the help of republicans in congress.

Obama saved the auto industry, saving millions of jobs held by high school educated whites. It didn't win him any points with them.
From my limited personal perspective, Obamaís effort did make points with the aforementioned high school educated blue collar whites. My family members that fell into that camp, somewhat begrudgingly voted for Obama. What pushed them into the Trump camp, rightly or wrongly, is that they felt the democratic party increasing only talked about poor intercity and immigrant people. I know I know, those poor white males, are getting screwed! But they feel they are, and the only candidate that put them in the spotlight was Trump. I worry as democrat put up very left leaning candidates, than we may get the same thing again.
  #13  
Old 02-14-2019, 07:29 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,675
The 2018 midterms threw one big thing into sharp relief: Dems are winning the suburbs while losing rural America. (The reverse is true for the GOP.)

Seems like an advantageous trade to me.

So do the Dems want to support policies that will reinforce their gains in suburbia, or do they want to keep trying to win back rural America? While not all suburbanites are in favor of gun control and not all rural folks are against it, most suburbanites view the presence of guns as a threat, a danger to their kids.

There are issues where Dems can stand with rural folks in ways that don't give suburbanites any heartburn. Gun control isn't one of them. The gun control issue forces Dems to choose between the two constituencies. And cities + suburbs > rural America. Seems like a straightforward choice to me.
  #14  
Old 02-14-2019, 07:29 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,799
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz View Post
Really? How about those who carry guns for their safety? You know, pistols to shoot snakes and rifles to shoot wolves, bears, and cougar? How about those who have guns to defend their livestock? ...
There are about 400 million guns in America owned by civilians. How many of these guns do you think are used to defend livestock? How many gun owners have even seen a cougar outside a zoo?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz View Post
Anyway in your interpretation of your second link you seem to be making the basic mistake of logic. That a racist is more likely to own guns does not mean that someone who owns guns is more likely to be a racist.
Uhh ... you might want to work on your probability arithmetic there. I know you're a bridge player: If hands with 22+ hcp are more likely than average to open Two Clubs, then hands that open Two Clubs are likelier than average to have 22+ hcp.
  #15  
Old 02-14-2019, 09:00 AM
Quartz's Avatar
Quartz is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Where haggis roam free
Posts: 31,111
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Uhh ... you might want to work on your probability arithmetic there. I know you're a bridge player: If hands with 22+ hcp are more likely than average to open Two Clubs, then hands that open Two Clubs are likelier than average to have 22+ hcp.
Logic doesn't work like that. The rule is, 'If A implies B then NOT B implies NOT A'.

Or, if a racist is more likely to own guns then someone who doesn't own guns is less likely to be a racist. It doesn't mean that someone who owns guns is more likely to be a racist.
  #16  
Old 02-14-2019, 10:19 AM
JB99 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 870
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz View Post
Really? How about those who carry guns for their safety? You know, pistols to shoot snakes and rifles to shoot wolves, bears, and cougar? How about those who have guns to defend their livestock? How about those who have guns for pest control - rats, rabbits, coyotes, prairie dogs, etc? How about those people who have guns in the home because the police cannot attend an incident in any reasonable time? How about those who have guns for hunting?

Anyway in your interpretation of your second link you seem to be making the basic mistake of logic. That a racist is more likely to own guns does not mean that someone who owns guns is more likely to be a racist.
Well, since you couldnít be bothered to read the entire post, letís try this again:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark
FWIW I'm not saying all whites who own guns are racist. But its a major factor in hostility to gun control among whites. I'm a liberal gun owner and I know lots of liberals who oppose gun control because they feel they need guns to keep themselves safe from the rise of neo-fascism. And there are people who need guns to deal with hunting animals or dealing with threatening feral animals. Or people who need them because they live in areas the police don't patrol well or they can't trust the police. So I'm not saying owning a gun = racist. But its a major factor. But having said that, these people wouldn't be affected by most forms of gun control anyway.
It never occurred to me that he meant gun owners or racists. But rather a subset of white people were more likely to own guns than others.
  #17  
Old 02-14-2019, 11:17 AM
Quartz's Avatar
Quartz is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Where haggis roam free
Posts: 31,111
Quote:
Originally Posted by JB99 View Post
It never occurred to me that he meant gun owners or racists.
Actually, I did read it and the OP said and you quoted:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark
But its a major factor in hostility to gun control among whites.
And I'm questioning his mis-use of logic.
  #18  
Old 02-14-2019, 11:45 AM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,541
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
Its an argument a lot of people seem to be making. "If democrats abandon gun control, then rural whites will be more open to the party".

I disagree.

For one thing, gun control is fairly popular.

https://www.npr.org/2018/03/02/58984...rictions-grows

But more importantly, guns are a symptom of something else. They are a symptom of white people who fear multiculturalism.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3815007/



https://splinternews.com/the-simple-...s-g-1793860212



Whites who find multiculturalism threatening cling to guns because their America is dying. The America they feel they know (a white christian patriarchy of native born people) is changing and America is rapidly becoming browner, more secular, more muslim, more feminist, more immigrant, etc. They are attached to guns because guns help them feel safe in a world where they feel their national identity and sense of privilege is going away. Plus guns help them feel safe in a world full of scary out-groups (latino immigrant street criminals. Black urban street criminals. Foreign muslim terrorists. Liberal government. etc).

The democratic party is the party that embraces multiculturalism. The republican party is the party that rejects multiculturalism. Even if the democrats abandon gun control, everyone still knows the democrats are the pro-multiculturalism party. So why would abandoning gun control make these people like the democrats when the main reason they cling to guns is because they find pro-democratic policies threatening?

Basically saying 'I support changing America into something that makes you feel threatened, but I also support your right to own a gun to keep yourself safe from the threats our party is visiting on you" is not a winning argument. But thats the argument people are making for why the democrats should abandon gun control.

FWIW I'm not saying all whites who own guns are racist. But its a major factor in hostility to gun control among whites. I'm a liberal gun owner and I know lots of liberals who oppose gun control because they feel they need guns to keep themselves safe from the rise of neo-fascism. And there are people who need guns to deal with hunting animals or dealing with threatening feral animals. Or people who need them because they live in areas the police don't patrol well or they can't trust the police. So I'm not saying owning a gun = racist. But its a major factor. But having said that, these people wouldn't be affected by most forms of gun control anyway.

For me personally I don't even know where I stand on gun control. I feel unless we confiscate the 300+ million guns already out there, gun control won't make much of a difference. And that'll never happen. The virginia tech shooter had a pistol and regular magazines.

However the 1934 gun control act made getting fully automatic weapons, among other things, hard to get. So if we passed strict gun control on a national level it may make a difference, but not for several decades (when the current guns are trashed and you can't buy new ones).
Too long, and only skimmed, but I'll address the thread title. I think...it depends on what you mean, exactly, by 'gun control'. The devil, as always, is in the detail. To some folks, 'gun control' is pretty obviously a play to remove private ownership by hook or by crook. To others, it means practical and common sense controls we put on a lot of other dangerous things in our society to attempt to mitigate the damage having them be legal (or a right) would our could cause.

Either way, I think the Dems risk losing some of their voters. If you go too hard, you will lose people who would otherwise vote Democrat because, frankly, they don't want 'gun control' to equal 'gun ban' or anything like that. If you go too soft, then you will almost certainly piss off those who do equate gun control with eventual and systematic gun bans or extremely hard restrictions like in several European countries. Personally, I think there are more on the soft side of gun control than on the hard side, so, to me at least, it's not a matter of the Democrats abandoning gun control as the Democrats getting smart and informed about it, and reigning in their loony lefties (sort of like how I think they should on the nuclear debate). The US voter base by and large doesn't want radical...they want small, incremental changes at best. I think there IS quite a lot of support for gun control that equates to something like waiting lists or registration, but only if these aren't first steps towards eventual confiscation. People want a personal right to keep and bear arms. And they want to be safe (er) as well. Good, solid and effective (and not stupid) gun control I think could be a winning play by the Dems...if they can just reign in those who it all and want it now (heavy guitar cord!)....
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #19  
Old 02-14-2019, 01:56 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 13,293
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Uhh ... you might want to work on your probability arithmetic there. I know you're a bridge player: If hands with 22+ hcp are more likely than average to open Two Clubs, then hands that open Two Clubs are likelier than average to have 22+ hcp.
This is a probability problem, not a logic problem, but you're still wrong. If 90% of the population are right-handed, and left-handed people are three times as likely to own guns, then there are three times as many right-handed gun owners as left-handed gun owners, despite the left-handed people's higher preference for them.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled discussion.
  #20  
Old 02-14-2019, 02:21 PM
Manda JO is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 11,440
The relevant issue is how many people who would identify as pro-gun single-issue voters would otherwise vote democrats? It's not all gun owners--it's gun owners for whom gun control is their #1 issue. That's a much smaller subset.
  #21  
Old 02-14-2019, 02:45 PM
iamthewalrus(:3= is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 12,035
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
For one thing, gun control is fairly popular.

https://www.npr.org/2018/03/02/58984...rictions-grows
I think that polls like this provide a useful perspective, but the implication you're drawing here is incorrect.

The problem with asking a question like "Should there be more gun restrictions?" is that it doesn't tell you how important that question is to people's votes. And the importance is highly asymmetric.

I, like most Americans, will agree that we should have more restrictions on private gun ownership. And, like most of the people who will say that, I don't think it's that important an issue. It's not remotely close to my highest political priority.

The people who don't want more restrictions on gun ownership, though: a bunch of them are single-issue voters on that issue.
  #22  
Old 02-14-2019, 03:09 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,244
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
Its an argument a lot of people seem to be making. "If democrats abandon gun control, then rural whites will be more open to the party".

I disagree.

For one thing, gun control is fairly popular.

https://www.npr.org/2018/03/02/58984...rictions-grows

But more importantly, guns are a symptom of something else. They are a symptom of white people who fear multiculturalism.
....
Basically saying 'I support changing America into something that makes you feel threatened, but I also support your right to own a gun to keep yourself safe from the threats our party is visiting on you" is not a winning argument. But thats the argument people are making for why the democrats should abandon gun control.

FWIW I'm not saying all whites who own guns are racist. But its a major factor in hostility to gun control among whites. I'm a liberal gun owner and I know lots of liberals who oppose gun control because they feel they need guns to keep themselves safe from the rise of neo-fascism. And there are people who need guns to deal with hunting animals or dealing with threatening feral animals. Or people who need them because they live in areas the police don't patrol well or they can't trust the police. So I'm not saying owning a gun = racist.
Yes, moderate gun control is rather popular, but that varies a lot as to how you word your poll and if some national tragedy has just occured.

But more strict gun control is not popular.

There are 100 Million gun owners in the USA. All Adults, mostly voters. More than voted for either candidate last Presidential election Maybe 5 Million NRA "gun nuts" who are die hard Republicans. You wanna lose 95 million votes? When only 120 Million even voted for President?

You will lose those votes if those 95 million think their guns will be taken away. So yeah sure, ban Bump stocks. Maybe even ban "assault weapons" depending on your definition. Ban the sale (but not possession) of extended magazines. More & better background checks. Those are the popular gun controls anyway.

But try to ban all semi-autos, or all handguns, and you not only violate the 2nd Ad, but you just lost 95 Million voters.

What is funny about your hypothesis is that it ignores that minorities own guns too, and for the exact same reasons whites do.
  #23  
Old 02-14-2019, 03:14 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,244
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
Surely it's worth doing, even if we don't see immediate benefits.

No arguments about critter control or sport-hunting make sense as a defense of keeping automatic weapons freely available. Those weapons are for killing people.

And on the topic of Democratic messaging: the emphasis should be on measures that consistently receive wide support---background checks, etc. Few Democrats (or few that are running) are in favor of confiscation and similar harsh crack-downs on ownership of firearms. Democrats shouldn't let Republicans lie about that.
Why? In fact gun control in America has never led to a reduction in violent crime. It's just bad logic to think that it will. Yeah sure there are small socialist nations in Europe, etc have strict gun control laws and low violent crime- they same nations that never had many guns, and never had very much violent crime. There are other nations with strict gun control and severe violent crime issues.

Automatic weapons are more or less currently banned. And have been so for quite some time.

Kamala Harris has shown she is very much in favor of confiscation without remuneration of all handguns, etc.

Sure, the emphasis should be on measures that consistently receive wide support---background checks, etc..
  #24  
Old 02-14-2019, 03:17 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,244
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
There are about 400 million guns in America owned by civilians. How many of these guns do you think are used to defend livestock? How many gun owners have even seen a cougar outside a zoo?
How many are used to murder?

Most guns are collected, used for target shooting, home defense, hobbies, security, etc. Very few are used to murder. Too many are used for suicide.
  #25  
Old 02-14-2019, 03:20 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,244
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manda JO View Post
The relevant issue is how many people who would identify as pro-gun single-issue voters would otherwise vote democrats? It's not all gun owners--it's gun owners for whom gun control is their #1 issue. That's a much smaller subset.
It is, true, and it's maybe 5 Million. But there's 95 million who will vote if their own guns are threatened.
  #26  
Old 02-14-2019, 03:45 PM
Ulfreida is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: pangolandia
Posts: 3,607
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Why? In fact gun control in America has never led to a reduction in violent crime. It's just bad logic to think that it will. Yeah sure there are small socialist nations in Europe, etc have strict gun control laws and low violent crime- they same nations that never had many guns, and never had very much violent crime. There are other nations with strict gun control and severe violent crime issues.

Automatic weapons are more or less currently banned. And have been so for quite some time.

Kamala Harris has shown she is very much in favor of confiscation without remuneration of all handguns, etc.

Sure, the emphasis should be on measures that consistently receive wide support---background checks, etc..
Oh piff. Gun control has never led to a reduction in crime in the US because it's never been done. Pull my other leg.
  #27  
Old 02-14-2019, 04:00 PM
bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 18,443
Quote:
Originally Posted by spifflog View Post
What pushed them into the Trump camp, rightly or wrongly, is that they felt the democratic party increasing only talked about poor intercity and immigrant people. I know I know, those poor white males, are getting screwed! But they feel they are, and the only candidate that put them in the spotlight was Trump. I worry as democrat put up very left leaning candidates, than we may get the same thing again.
I've said this same exact thing a dozen times on this board, and all I get is comments about how the Democratic party is looking out for them and they're too ignorant to see it, or how they're just racist.

I worry about the same thing you do for the reason I list above, and the reason you mentioned.
  #28  
Old 02-14-2019, 04:05 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,618
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulfreida View Post
Oh piff. Gun control has never led to a reduction in crime in the US because it's never been done. Pull my other leg.
Washington DC had effectively banned gun ownership for decades. Chicago too. California has loads of gun control (and so do a bunch of other left-leaning states).

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 02-14-2019 at 04:06 PM.
  #29  
Old 02-14-2019, 04:13 PM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,541
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulfreida View Post
Oh piff. Gun control has never led to a reduction in crime in the US because it's never been done. Pull my other leg.
Ok...I'll pull it. How are you defining 'gun control' that in the US has 'never been done'? Because there have been plenty of gun control laws put in at both the federal and state levels...that's a fact, not really open for debate. So I'm curious how you are defining your terms, or if you actually thought about what you posted before posting it.

Your post does illustrate why I think the OP needs to define his terms though, because what 'gun control' means pretty obviously differs from person to person, and it's going to impact the answer to the OP.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!

Last edited by XT; 02-14-2019 at 04:14 PM.
  #30  
Old 02-14-2019, 04:17 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,399
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
While it's probably true that Democrats won't win any rural white votes by adopting a pro-gun stance, they can certainly fire up the rural white vote to show up to vote R by emphasizing an anti-gun stance.
Pretty much this.

Quote:
(Of course, if Democrats became pro-gun, they'd anger their own base, who might refuse to come out and vote D. It's all a numbers game.)
Not sure that is true while Trump is in office. Anyone on the left pretty much HAS to vote. Many on the right are not nearly as energized. Give them less to get energized about and you can take over government. Then decide which issues you are willing to lose elections over.
  #31  
Old 02-14-2019, 04:24 PM
EscAlaMike is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Alabama
Posts: 1,649
The only way rural whites will move back to the Democratic side is if the Democrats can reverse the perception that they are frothing at the mouth for dead babies, and that is the perception among rural whites.

I have said this before, and I will say it again. It's all about the abortion issue.
  #32  
Old 02-14-2019, 04:29 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,587
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscAlaMike View Post
The only way rural whites will move back to the Democratic side is if the Democrats can reverse the perception that they are frothing at the mouth for dead babies, and that is the perception among rural whites.

I have said this before, and I will say it again. It's all about the abortion issue.
There's no point in reaching out to folks whose hostility is entirely or nearly entirely based on fantasies from right-wing radio and other infotainment sources.
  #33  
Old 02-14-2019, 04:39 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,244
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulfreida View Post
Oh piff. Gun control has never led to a reduction in crime in the US because it's never been done. Pull my other leg.
They banned handguns in DC, SF and Chicago. Those three had such strict gun control laws that it led to Heller.
  #34  
Old 02-15-2019, 08:54 AM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,399
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscAlaMike View Post
The only way rural whites will move back to the Democratic side is if the Democrats can reverse the perception that they are frothing at the mouth for dead babies, and that is the perception among rural whites.

I have said this before, and I will say it again. It's all about the abortion issue.
I know more than a few pro-choice pro-gun people. I am one so maybe I just know more people like that.
  #35  
Old 02-15-2019, 09:18 AM
MichaelEmouse's Avatar
MichaelEmouse is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 7,364
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulfreida View Post
The only thing that will bring rural under-educated white males to vote Democratic is good jobs with good benefits for blue collar workers. If they saw that it was the Dems that brought those things to their area, anyway. I bet if that happened, they'd overlook a lot.
So, it's never going to happen? Rural under-educated white males (I would add middle-aged or old) are never going to get good jobs with good benefits unless they change at least one of those traits which would mean getting training or moving out to cities, preferably both.

The GOP, however, only has to vaguely promise good jobs with good benefits for blue collar workers and that same demographic eagerly believes it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
The 2018 midterms threw one big thing into sharp relief: Dems are winning the suburbs while losing rural America. (The reverse is true for the GOP.)

Seems like an advantageous trade to me.

So do the Dems want to support policies that will reinforce their gains in suburbia, or do they want to keep trying to win back rural America? While not all suburbanites are in favor of gun control and not all rural folks are against it, most suburbanites view the presence of guns as a threat, a danger to their kids.

There are issues where Dems can stand with rural folks in ways that don't give suburbanites any heartburn. Gun control isn't one of them. The gun control issue forces Dems to choose between the two constituencies. And cities + suburbs > rural America. Seems like a straightforward choice to me.
Education is increasingly that differentiates Dems from Repubs. With Trump, that's going to accelerate.

It's really too bad that the US system gives disproportionate clout to rural states. As rural states empty out and sink deeper, you'll have more and more distance between the bulk of the population doing well in the cities and a small backward population that still has a lot of representatives, delegates and especially senators. You'll feel like the early city dwellers 10 000 years ago who were harried by those who were still hunter-gatherers.
  #36  
Old 02-15-2019, 10:00 AM
bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 18,443
I want to point out that correlation does not equal causation in the study the OP cites. IT doesn't follow that because a metric of race resentment increases in tune with gun ownership, then those people are necessarily buying guns BECAUSE of race resentment.

My personal opinion, as influenced by growing up in a conservative, suburban middle/lower-middle class white area, is that they're both a symptom of the same thing- fear. Fear of change, fear of the other (usually black people), and fear of losing what little socioeconomic standing they already have.
  #37  
Old 02-15-2019, 01:12 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,244
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
I know more than a few pro-choice pro-gun people. I am one so maybe I just know more people like that.
I know many such.
  #38  
Old 02-15-2019, 01:19 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 13,293
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
I know many such.
But are they pro-choice enough to flip and start writing the dreaded D in the ballot boxes?

I'm of the opinion that most rural white conservatives aren't single issue voters dependent only on guns. Gun restrictions of some type or another might be a deal-breaker for them, but that doesn't mean that's all they care about.
  #39  
Old 02-15-2019, 01:36 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,244
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
But are they pro-choice enough to flip and start writing the dreaded D in the ballot boxes?

I'm of the opinion that most rural white conservatives aren't single issue voters dependent only on guns. Gun restrictions of some type or another might be a deal-breaker for them, but that doesn't mean that's all they care about.
Obviously yes, of course. There are 95 million non-NRA gun owner voters in this nation. At least half of them voted Dem.

And true, almost none of them are single issue voters. Propose any 'reasonable" gun law and they wont have a knee jerk reaction to it- they may or may not vote GOP based upon the law. Propose any gun law that would take their own guns away- and you have lost their vote- and thus lost any chance of winning any national election.
  #40  
Old 02-15-2019, 08:14 PM
Paul in Qatar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Dammam, Saudi Arabia
Posts: 12,962
A party that wishes to win nationally cannot have much in the way of doctrine. The Democratic Party will have to have people on both sides of most issues.
__________________
800-237-5055
Shrine Hospitals for Children (North America)
Never any fee
Do you know a child in need?
  #41  
Old 02-15-2019, 08:50 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 8,999
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
IMO, the only thing that'll win over high school educated white men is rebuilding the union movement.

I recall reading an article years ago about John Kerry's loss in the 2004 election. It mentioned how with rural white men he did terrible, unless those men were in a union. If those men weren't in a union, he lost them by 30-40 points or so. If they were, Kerry won them by 15-20 points.

So rebuilding the union movement, especially in vocations where high school educated whites work, could be an important part of winning over that demographic.
Good luck with that. This isnít the immediate post WWII era when there were no other options.

And why should the Dems pander to a demographic they hold in contempt?
  #42  
Old 02-15-2019, 09:59 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,587
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
And why should the Dems pander to a demographic they hold in contempt?
Have you been listening to Hannity again?
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #43  
Old 02-15-2019, 10:03 PM
E-DUB's Avatar
E-DUB is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,823
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
They banned handguns in DC, SF and Chicago. Those three had such strict gun control laws that it led to Heller.
I'm tired of folks bringing up Chicago. They are so close to Indiana with lax gun laws that the Chicago laws aren't even a factor. We don't know if gun controls laws would work. We only know that localized ones don't.
  #44  
Old 02-15-2019, 10:43 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,244
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-DUB View Post
I'm tired of folks bringing up Chicago. They are so close to Indiana with lax gun laws that the Chicago laws aren't even a factor. We don't know if gun controls laws would work. We only know that localized ones don't.
Sure, that's always the excuse. "Those gun laws didnt work, so we need more, stronger gun laws over larger jurisdictions. " Maybe- gun laws don't work.

Well, how about all of California? Strongest gun laws in the nation, still high violent crime.
  #45  
Old 02-15-2019, 10:51 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,618
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-DUB View Post
I'm tired of folks bringing up Chicago. They are so close to Indiana with lax gun laws that the Chicago laws aren't even a factor. We don't know if gun controls laws would work. We only know that localized ones don't.
Why doesn't Indiana have Chicago-level violent crime?
  #46  
Old 02-17-2019, 11:46 PM
Qin Shi Huangdi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: California
Posts: 9,092
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Why doesn't Indiana have Chicago-level violent crime?
Because all else equal, places with higher densities of population do have higher crime rates. This is why state and municipal gun restrictions are generally so ineffective.
__________________
Clinton/Schweitzer '16
  #47  
Old 02-18-2019, 10:36 AM
JXJohns's Avatar
JXJohns is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Middle of the Midwest
Posts: 2,497
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-DUB View Post
I'm tired of folks bringing up Chicago. They are so close to Indiana with lax gun laws that the Chicago laws aren't even a factor. We don't know if gun controls laws would work. We only know that localized ones don't.
The same Federal laws apply between buyers and sellers from Ill and IN. They simply choose to break the laws. I'm tired of having to bring this up every time.
  #48  
Old 02-18-2019, 03:55 PM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulfreida View Post
Oh piff. Gun control has never led to a reduction in crime in the US because it's never been done. Pull my other leg.
I don't think you are going to appeal to a lot of gun owners by saying "ok, gun control hasn't reduced crime, but you ain't seen nothing yet".

Regards,
Shodan
  #49  
Old 02-18-2019, 06:46 PM
DMC is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 3,740
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Sure, that's always the excuse. "Those gun laws didnt work, so we need more, stronger gun laws over larger jurisdictions. " Maybe- gun laws don't work.

Well, how about all of California? Strongest gun laws in the nation, still high violent crime.
On a per capita basis, California has a pretty low number of firearms related deaths. In fact, there is a correlation between restrictions and low firearms deaths across the country. Sure, not all firearms deaths are the result of violent crimes, as many are simply accidents, but dead is dead, and the more restrictions the fewer dead.
  #50  
Old 02-18-2019, 08:57 PM
KarlGauss's Avatar
KarlGauss is online now
Entangled
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Between pole and tropic
Posts: 8,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
. . . guns help them feel safe in a world full of scary out-groups (latino immigrant street criminals. Black urban street criminals. Foreign muslim terrorists. Liberal government. etc). . . .
I think it's mostly fear of the black man coming to ravish their sisters and daughters.

Last edited by KarlGauss; 02-18-2019 at 08:58 PM.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:21 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017