Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-02-2019, 10:51 PM
E-DUB's Avatar
E-DUB is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,859

The likely effect of mass shootings on the 2020 elections.


The dynamic on the gun issue has always been that the pro-gun voter votes on that issue, but the pro-gun control voter does not. Is that likely to change as an outgrowth of the mass shootings? Will the mobilization of pro-gun control forces taken in combination with the problems being faced with the NRA change the dynamics?
  #2  
Old 09-03-2019, 08:49 AM
Jonathan Chance is online now
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 23,007
I'd say minimal at best. Ideologues on both sides are already in separate camps, so to speak, and would never cross over.

It's possible that continued mass shootings could move some people in the squishy middle for whom guns have never been a top three issue - I'd bet there's a lot of those people out there - and in a tight election it could tip some congressional and state-level seats. But in terms of mass shootings, I don't see the issue moving millions of votes.
  #3  
Old 09-03-2019, 09:57 AM
Joey P is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 29,391
I can't imagine it's going to make any real difference. The right will either not answer the questions, answer them with some version of 'our thoughts and prayers are with the victims of [most recent shooting(s)] but this isn't the time or place to be discussing gun control'. The left will push for more gun control, which will run the gamut from requiring more/better background checks to getting rid of guns altogether.
I think an insignificant number of middle of the road voters will cross the aisle because they tired of all the shootings or cross the other way because they want easier access to guns to protect themselves because of all the shootings.

Like many other issues, it seems we can already took a good guess at what a candidate, based on their political party, will say or want to do. So much so that I wish we'd move past the topic and find other things to discuss. Republicans want less restrictions on guns, democrats want more. Do we really have to listen to 10's or 100's of hours of discussion and debate about it over the next year?
  #4  
Old 09-03-2019, 10:07 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance View Post
Ideologues on both sides
I would have hoped you knew better.

Quote:
But in terms of mass shootings, I don't see the issue moving millions of votes.
As long as it can be made clear that the Republicans, led by McConnell, are obstructing progress on saving lives, it will move votes - and it won't take many.
  #5  
Old 09-03-2019, 10:13 AM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,128
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
As long as it can be made clear that the Republicans, led by McConnell, are obstructing progress on saving lives, it will move votes - and it won't take many.
That can't be made clear, because it is an argument that only appeals to ideologues on one side.

"Republicans don't care about lives" is the left-wing equivalent of "thoughts and prayers". It's the expression of emotion, not policy. And once policy becomes the center of discussion, it loses relevance.

Regards,
Shodan
  #6  
Old 09-03-2019, 10:16 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,906
I doubt it will have any significant effect. I think that sadly, mass shootings have become background noise to Americans, broadly speaking.
  #7  
Old 09-03-2019, 10:20 AM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,670
I can't see how mass shootings could have any effect but to push the election left. The anti-gun argument is simple, straightforward, and makes immediate "sense": Guns are involved in shootings. Ban guns, and the shootings go away. (The logic may be flawed, but it's as simple as it gets.) This will move a certain number of voters.

The pro-gun argument, on the other hand, requires mental gymnastics: Guns are involved in shootings. But if a good guy has a gun, he can stop a bad guy with a gun. So our response to mass shootings should be to permit even more gun ownership. That is a much harder mental sales pitch to the electorate; it sounds contradictory. It doesn't convince many.

Last edited by Velocity; 09-03-2019 at 10:23 AM.
  #8  
Old 09-03-2019, 10:36 AM
E-DUB's Avatar
E-DUB is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,859
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
I can't see how mass shootings could have any effect but to push the election left. The anti-gun argument is simple, straightforward, and makes immediate "sense": Guns are involved in shootings. Ban guns, and the shootings go away. (The logic may be flawed, but it's as simple as it gets.) This will move a certain number of voters.

The pro-gun argument, on the other hand, requires mental gymnastics: Guns are involved in shootings. But if a good guy has a gun, he can stop a bad guy with a gun. So our response to mass shootings should be to permit even more gun ownership. That is a much harder mental sales pitch to the electorate; it sounds contradictory. It doesn't convince many.
Fewer guns, few shooting does sound almost axiomatic and is supportable by pointing at, gasp, other countries. The only real outlier would be Switzerland, which has fairly widespread gun ownership, but not as many shootings as that would suggest likely.
  #9  
Old 09-03-2019, 11:04 AM
Joey P is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 29,391
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
I can't see how mass shootings could have any effect but to push the election left. The anti-gun argument is simple, straightforward, and makes immediate "sense": Guns are involved in shootings. Ban guns, and the shootings go away. (The logic may be flawed, but it's as simple as it gets.) This will move a certain number of voters.

The pro-gun argument, on the other hand, requires mental gymnastics: Guns are involved in shootings. But if a good guy has a gun, he can stop a bad guy with a gun. So our response to mass shootings should be to permit even more gun ownership. That is a much harder mental sales pitch to the electorate; it sounds contradictory. It doesn't convince many.
That could, without too much work, be turned around.
The convoluted anti-gun argument: Banning guns will only take guns away from good guys, bad guys will always find a way to get guns, but less guns overall still makes it harder for bad guys to get guns. Look at all the other wealthy nations around the world and have, more or less banned guns and the amount of death by guns they have is nearly insignificant compared to ours. Perhaps we should look more deeply into why that's working and implement some of their practices here.

The simple pro-gun argument: I need a gun to protect myself.
  #10  
Old 09-03-2019, 11:39 AM
Akaj's Avatar
Akaj is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: In the vanishing middle
Posts: 817
And what if Trump proposes, and McConnell agrees to go along with, a couple of new laws that address the minor, low hanging fruit on the gun control tree? Expand background checks a little, ban obscenely large magazines, close a gun show loophole? The House would have to approve or be seen as utter hypocrites.

End result: very few single-issue gun rights voters get turned off, but lots of undecideds see Trump and the GOP "doing something" to stop mass shootings.

It seems like a slam-dunk for Trump, but would GOP congresspeople really get primaried for supporting such trivial legislation?
__________________
I'm not expecting any surprises.
  #11  
Old 09-03-2019, 11:41 AM
Hermitian's Avatar
Hermitian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,617
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I doubt it will have any significant effect. I think that sadly, mass shootings have become background noise to Americans, broadly speaking.
This.
  #12  
Old 09-03-2019, 02:43 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,457
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
"Republicans don't care about lives" is the left-wing equivalent of "thoughts and prayers".

Regards,
Shodan
I too dislike this generalization. Someone may simply be against the gun control group's proposals because he believes they won't be effective. If, though, such a person does indeed care about stopping people from dying due to guns, it would behoove him to offer his own proposals for how to do this. If he does not, then it is reasonable to conclude that he doesn't care much about those lost lives. This conclusion is even more reasonable when it comes to politicians. If one of your duties as an elected official is to look out for the well-being of all citizens, and in the face of 35,000+ people dying because of guns every year, you off no proposals of your own, then this is the only thing that is reasonable to conclude.
  #13  
Old 09-03-2019, 03:08 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I doubt it will have any significant effect. I think that sadly, mass shootings have become background noise to Americans, broadly speaking.
I think you see broad frustration, not acceptance. That's easily fixed in a campaign by a semi-capable candidate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
"Republicans don't care about lives" is the left-wing equivalent
It might be, if it weren't a strawman.

Quote:
It's the expression of emotion, not policy.
You know very well what policy proposals are under discussion, just like you know very well that their basis is a respect for basic morality and civilized society itself. You even know you're always welcome to participate by offering constructive proposals of your own, with a similar basis. By dismissing fundamental morality as "emotion", however, you're implicitly claiming to be on the side of facts and reasoning and logic instead. I suggest that hasn't been an effective approach for you, not because it isn't well-received by the ignorant and emotional, but because your audience knows it isn't based on what you claim it to be.

Quote:
And once policy becomes the center of discussion, it loses relevance.
The reasons for a policy never become irrelevant to a discussion about it. There is, however, no "discussion" if one side sticks to "Constitutional right! Gun grabbers! Slippery slope!" and other avoidance-tactic strawmen (speaking of emotionalism, btw), and is enabled by the contemptuous above-it-all disengagement of the both-sides-ists.

A semi-capable (and unafraid) candidate can easily point all that out, too, since we all know it, and encourage the sane majority to vote to end the madness. It isn't like the deplorables, clinging to their guns and their religion, are going to vote Dem by and large, anyway.

Last edited by ElvisL1ves; 09-03-2019 at 03:10 PM.
  #14  
Old 09-03-2019, 03:29 PM
not what you'd expect is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,904
I'm seeing reports that Walmart is going to quit selling ammo for rifles. This could be big news?

What do you guys think?
  #15  
Old 09-03-2019, 03:41 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,067
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I doubt it will have any significant effect. I think that sadly, mass shootings have become background noise to Americans, broadly speaking.
And I find this just...pathetic.

We've become apathetic, and pathetic at the same time. Leader of the free world my ass.
  #16  
Old 09-03-2019, 03:46 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,067
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
I too dislike this generalization. Someone may simply be against the gun control group's proposals because he believes they won't be effective.
If we truly proposed gun control at the federal level -- like real gun control and not this Mickey Mouse shit of trying to ban bump stocks -- we'd see a real decline in gun violence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
If, though, such a person does indeed care about stopping people from dying due to guns, it would behoove him to offer his own proposals for how to do this.
A better idea is to start reading about how other developed countries regulate guns and how they don't have the insanity we have here, and to stop believing in American exceptionalism. We're exceptionally violent, overweight, under-insured, over-indebted, and ignorant, but other than that not that exceptional. Maybe the Anglo-American's "America" is a fucked up place and we can, and need, to do better. There's that.
  #17  
Old 09-03-2019, 04:03 PM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
I too dislike this generalization. Someone may simply be against the gun control group's proposals because he believes they won't be effective. If, though, such a person does indeed care about stopping people from dying due to guns, it would behoove him to offer his own proposals for how to do this. If he does not, then it is reasonable to conclude that he doesn't care much about those lost lives. This conclusion is even more reasonable when it comes to politicians. If one of your duties as an elected official is to look out for the well-being of all citizens, and in the face of 35,000+ people dying because of guns every year, you off no proposals of your own, then this is the only thing that is reasonable to conclude.
Neither side is listening to anything the other side says.

Mass shootings have not triggered much by way of new proposals. Nor are they likely to - these are rare enough to be anomalies. More background checks? The Odessa shooter failed one already. Enforce the existing laws more strictly? The gun control side won't take that for an answer. Banning bump stocks? That didn't seem to help.

Banning hand guns, or banning semi-automatic weapons, are not new policies.

Regards,
Shodan
  #18  
Old 09-03-2019, 04:03 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,457
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
If we truly proposed gun control at the federal level -- like real gun control and not this Mickey Mouse shit of trying to ban bump stocks -- we'd see a real decline in gun violence.
Absolutely. You can build a bump stock at home for under $10. Literally. We need real gun control. You know, getting rid of guns. But that is a discussion for another thread!

Quote:
A better idea is to start reading about how other developed countries regulate guns...
This is not a better idea than mine. You merely added to it.
  #19  
Old 09-03-2019, 04:07 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,457
Nm

Last edited by Fiddle Peghead; 09-03-2019 at 04:11 PM.
  #20  
Old 09-03-2019, 04:11 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,457
Nm
  #21  
Old 09-03-2019, 04:11 PM
Hermitian's Avatar
Hermitian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,617
Quote:
Originally Posted by not what you'd expect View Post
I'm seeing reports that Walmart is going to quit selling ammo for rifles. This could be big news?

What do you guys think?
That is not quite what CNN is saying:

Quote:
The company, America's largest retailer, said it will stop selling handgun ammunition and "short-barrel rifle ammunition," such as the .223 caliber and 5.56 caliber, that can also be used on assault-style weapons after selling all of its current inventory. Walmart (WMT) will also stop selling handguns in Alaska, the only state where it still sells handguns. And Walmart will request that customers no longer openly carry guns into its 4,700 US stores, or its Sam's Club stores, in states that allow open carry.

However, Walmart will continue to sell long barrel deer rifles and shotguns and much of the ammunition for those guns. Walmart will also continue to allow concealed carry by customers with permits in its stores.
  #22  
Old 09-03-2019, 04:12 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,457
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Neither side is listening to anything the other side says.

Mass shootings have not triggered much by way of new proposals. Nor are they likely to - these are rare enough to be anomalies. More background checks? The Odessa shooter failed one already. Enforce the existing laws more strictly? The gun control side won't take that for an answer. Banning bump stocks? That didn't seem to help.

Banning hand guns, or banning semi-automatic weapons, are not new policies.

Regards,
Shodan
You completely ignored my point.
  #23  
Old 09-03-2019, 05:00 PM
DinoR is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 3,733
Quote:
Originally Posted by not what you'd expect View Post
I'm seeing reports that Walmart is going to quit selling ammo for rifles. This could be big news?

What do you guys think?
Not big news at all. Rifles account for only a tiny chunk of gun deaths. They are the scary, splashed all over the media deaths; there just aren't many of them. Online purchases of ammo are also simple. It's about as hard as ordering a DVD from Amazon (although IIRC Amazon doesn't do ammo.) You can get ammo delivered right to your door in a couple days. Guns are harder to get legally. If you can get the gun, ammo is the easy bit.

So Walmart is limiting the potential shooters who use a rifle, don't already have some ammo on hand for the next range trip, and can't buy ammo locally anyplace but Walmart.
  #24  
Old 09-03-2019, 06:09 PM
Jonathan Chance is online now
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 23,007
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
I would have hoped you knew better.
As I said...
  #25  
Old 09-03-2019, 06:32 PM
iamthewalrus(:3= is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 12,107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
I can't see how mass shootings could have any effect but to push the election left.
One way in which they might not do so is that increased talk by politicians on the left about finding policy solutions to mass shootings will mobilize more pro-gun voters on the right to vote against those politicians than it will mobilize gun-control voters to vote for them.

This is the story of gun control efforts in the US. The minority of voters who are opposed to (most) measures are highly motivated. The majority that is in favor of them is not.

Getting an issue in the forefront of the public's mind might result in the less-motivated voters to go vote... or it might not. It's not obvious to me which effect wins there.
  #26  
Old 09-03-2019, 06:37 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance View Post
As I said...
Got anything to contribute?
  #27  
Old 09-03-2019, 10:23 PM
Jonathan Chance is online now
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 23,007
I think I did in post #2, above.

The rest is obvious.
  #28  
Old 09-03-2019, 10:48 PM
Barack Obama is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
I would have hoped you knew better.

As long as it can be made clear that the Republicans, led by McConnell, are obstructing progress on saving lives, it will move votes - and it won't take many.
It won't matter.


Here's the issue, most people are not very informed, they get their information from a single source typically mainstream media on the television. The left, often has very nuanced policy proposals while the rights is more straight forward, this immediately causes right winged policies to look more attractive at first glance (to the low informed single source voters). Add these false narratives into the equation and of course you're going to have hard liners on both sides. When a leftist says gun control, the right assumes they mean banning guns. In many cases some leftist do want to ban specific guns or make it harder to obtain certain weapons. So any conversation about gun control automatically gets conflated with outright banning firearms. We see this on the immigration topic as well. Trump touts about open borders then right wingers assume any leftist talk about immigration reform is automatically open borders.
  #29  
Old 09-03-2019, 10:57 PM
Barack Obama is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Neither side is listening to anything the other side says.

Mass shootings have not triggered much by way of new proposals. Nor are they likely to - these are rare enough to be anomalies. More background checks? The Odessa shooter failed one already. Enforce the existing laws more strictly? The gun control side won't take that for an answer. Banning bump stocks? That didn't seem to help.

Banning hand guns, or banning semi-automatic weapons, are not new policies.

Regards,
Shodan
I wouldn't call mass shooting anomalies when we have an disproportionate amount of them occur in the US even when you scale population/shootings.

It's relatively rare to all the other forms of gun violence, but that doesn't invalidate the correlation between mass shootings, and firearms per capita, increasing wealth inquality, poorer social programs, and increase accessibility of information. The reason why the centrists in the democratic party started really cracking down on the gun control proposals is because of these mass shootings. Bernie Sanders until 2013 wasn't that hard on firearms until the mass shootings started to pick up pace.

You also make this seem like the "gun control side" is unwilling to compromise... they're willing to take ANY form of gun control including making our existing laws tougher, such as closing the boyfriend loophole for example. It really appears like you're downplaying/ignoring why gun control has became as big of a debate as healthcare. Cops and black people have been getting murdered via firearms for a long time now, mass shootings or shooting up little jimmy's school, everyone no matter who they are gets pissed off about that hence why we're now talking about the topic.
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 05:29 PM.

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