I think the OP is well intentioned, but is probably focusing on the wrong demographics. The way I see it, there are 5 main POV on gun ownership and use in America (yes, these are sweeping generalizations, with huge overlap, but should illustrate my point, bear with me). I’m trying to phrase these sentiments in the most positive lights, and leaving out various politicians and special interest groups that use the sentiments as fig-leaf, so please take it as well intentioned.
-
It is time to get rid of all guns in America. The 2nd Amendment was never meant to protect gun rights, and even if it was, that represented a time far removed from the present. Guns are a clear and present danger to our way of life right now, and we have the right and responsibility to protect ourselves and our families from those who through intent or carelessness put us at risk. We should bend our efforts to utilizing every tool to stop or limit ownership whether or not they stand up in our current courts of law.
-
It is time to regulate all guns in America - they are a relic of our past, or are used in such a limited amount, such as hunters and target shooters, that legislation should be enabled to minimize the risks to everyone else. Nothing prevents us from regulating our firearms in ways similar to other established Western nations, and in the long run, we should bend our efforts to repealing the 2nd Amendment to close this portion of our nation’s history. We should use the law to increasingly regulate and limit the use of firearms while trying to find consensus that does not further separate the sides.
-
No strong convictions either way - they may have opinions, preferences, but are generally swayed along with public sentiment. One one side, they are often horrified at the public shootings, and think it shouldn’t happen, or worry about it happening to them / their family, but do not take an active role once each incident fades from immediacy. Some actually are swung the other way, in that they look at the shootings and think they should purchase a firearm to defend themselves, or get one before they get banned, because the imagined future scarcity creates a perceived need. If so purchased, they may fall into one of the following groups, but more likely they put it away and it gathers dust.
-
We have owned guns part/all of our lives, and are aware that they are a deadly tool. We take pride in our control - we take CCW classes / safety classes / training as well as reasonable precautions to keep our firearms out of the hands of children, family and strangers. We feel that yes there are risks, and our responsibility is part and parcel of the freedom we exercise. We abide by the laws that govern local jurisdictions, and do not seek to sidestep them, even if they increase our personal costs or responsibilities. We feel that those who seek to sidestep the law on either side are misguided, and that we will continue to exercise both rights and responsibilities until the time that the law is changed.
-
We feel that the clear meaning of “shall not be infringed” is sufficiently clear. These rights allow us to protect ourselves, our way of life, and our property. Those who seek to to talk about gun regulation make no bones that they see regulation as a path to banning, or preventing those whose sentiments they disagree with to be able to own firearms of any efficacy. In addition, those parties have no understanding of our culture and history with firearms, and if they do, they are utterly disdainful of it, making no effort to see our point of view, and demanding we accept their own.
Okay, book done. So back to the OP.
IMHO, the OP is posting from the POV of group 4, and is asking feedback from people in group 4 as well. It happens to be the group I’m in as well. And most of us are all for the points brought up in that post. So, you’re preaching to the choir as it were.
We’ve had many posters reply from groups 1 and 2 though - which is fine, they probably represent the majority of the board. And to be honest, if you forced most of us in group 4 to say what we think, we share more in common with group 2 than group 5. I would prefer to see a heavily restricted model a la Canada than a world of unlimited open and concealed carry from group 5. I personally, and others in this general group also see a certain inevitability in change in the direction of more regulation as the historical and cultural supports for firearm ownership fade over generations and changing demographics.
Group 5 isn’t going to agree with the premise, because they don’t see the cause being the firearm itself, and if you aren’t fixing the human factor, you aren’t fixing the problem. They can also point to individuals from 1 & 2 in the argument and honestly ask why should they accept your POV when you’re willing to sidestep the law just because you disagree with it - this group being relatively narrow Constitutionalists.
So the target should be group 3. 1 & 2 are in the bag, 5 is unwinnable, and 4 is willing to look to compromise. But here is where things get tricky. Because the people in 3 aren’t INVESTED. They aren’t indifferent, but it isn’t an issue that sways them to increase their activism, to vote for candidates that support this specific issue against their other preferences, or to vote against party lines. And, going back to the conversation we’ve had in other threads prior to this one, the USA has made it very difficult to implement major change on the federal level, which is what would be needed to effectively enforce any of the proposals.
In terms of winning the middle ground, it isn’t the NRA, gun owners, or manufacturers that are the greatest enemy to change - it’s apathy. We’re long past the point of any short, sharp shock changing a substantial number of views on the subject - individuals sure, but sufficient demographics to overcome the checks and balances built into the system, no.
Again I do believe this will change - we’re a far more urban population, which makes taking the time, energy, and money to go shooting increasingly substantial. Many fewer people hunt, and of those who hunt, far far fewer of them do so as a means of actual sustenance on the table than even 30 years ago. These changes are also changing the characteristics of gun owners - I’m personally in a similar situation to @enipla, a ton of inherited guns (and more on the way) and torn about what to do with them. The past three generations of my father-in-law’s family all hunted (as well as a few on his wife’s side) - in my wife’s generation, there is ONE hunter, and my wife and I who target shoot and had a pistol for self defense. And there is no one interested in the next generation as far as I can tell.
If there was an easy way for me to sell the firearms (the ones that aren’t heirlooms with family significance) at full value without having to do advertising, FFL transfers, and the like, I’d probably look to getting ride of 3/4 of them tomorrow. I will certainly have to do so when my FIL downsizes the rest of his collection onto me. But because in part it’s a chore, I instead have a safe full of guns I have never fired, and I’m far from the only one.
I look at this thread, and others, and see a lot of passionate people who want change NOW. And that is fine, I get it, and agree there is a problem. But I want it done within the law - and far too many people in this issue (and this thread) seem to feel that isn’t possible, or at least, not possible in a timely manner. And you’re probably right. Here’s the thing though, and bringing this all full circle : you need to move the numbers in the middle. Every poll out there says that the numbers that are generally sympathetic are there, but they aren’t motived to push and VOTE for what you want.
Yelling at the people who already disagree with you may feel great (and this thread is already pushing towards rant-level for some posters) but especially with loaded language it isn’t likely to move anyone out of their category.
We either need to work a hell of a lot harder at winning minds and energizing the voters (which seems to be very Very difficult as shown despite the last several years of epic polarization), or hope that the changing demographics and social shifts will, in time, and with many setbacks, shift the unthinkable (fully banning/regulation guns) to the possible, to the inevitable, to accomplished.
It happened for same sex marriage, and I think it will happen here as well. But not without a lot of additional, avoidable deaths in the meantime. And I think that the fact that a number of people want everything, all at once, and refuse to accept good faith of those who are willing to compromise like the OP are making any chance at short-term improvements -worse-.
