I agree. If the Democratics can frame the issue to make clear they are not seeking to repeal the second amendment or “grab” everyone’s gun, sensible gun regulation might be less scary.
However, I’d rather they didn’t make it the central part of the campaign. Win the election and then introduce common sense gun regulation.
In the OP’s linked article they mention:
Now I am sure a poll taken right now would bring a higher number but unless there’s another media grabbing shooting spree in October, I suspect the 6% number to be about where people are at again in November.
Instead of making gun control or regulation or whatever the focus of the 2018 election, were I a Democratic Party Strategist, I’d make Good Government a focal point. A message along the lines of:
This reinforces the fact that Republicans can’t run shit, and how do you argue against Good Government? It paints Republican ineptitude as the reason we’re less safe and why many of us feel like we’re treading water financially (even though “the numbers” show our economy to be humming at peak performance). It also hits a buzz theme that many Americans treasure: freedom/liberty. It flips the script that government takes away freedoms, by making the point that, when done well, government guarantees and preserves our freedoms.
But most importantly (especially in regard to this thread), with this message at the core of the campaign season, you can plug any number of issues (depending on audience, district, state, hot news story) into candidates’ speeches around this. Guns fits into the matter of safety, but *freedom *allows red-state candidates to take a strong stand on the 2nd Amendment. *Safety *can also be used to talk about the issue of North Korea, China, Iran, etc. *Freedom *can be tailored to immigrants, LGBTQ, moderate Republicans sick of Trump, etc. *Prosperity *can be used to talk about wage fights (for the progressive crowds), jobs (for the blue collar, union crowds), trade, healthcare, income inequality, etc.
So I guess gun control can be *an *issue in 2018 for Dems, but it shouldn’t be *the *issue. That should be Good Government-- with the ultimate goal being freedom, stability and prosperity. And yes, gun control/regulation can fit into that.
You really don’t understand anything about the people you’d categorize as “gun nuts” - you don’t understand what motivates them. You have extremely simple, even childish ideas about who they are and what they want, and it’s not accurate. You’re convinced that you cannot possibly alienate them because they’re all already full blown Trump cultists that can be reached, which conveniently justifies your strategy that in reality will alienate the ones on your side and the ones in the middle too.
I’m a gun nut, almost certainly by your definition. I’ve interacted with a lot of people involved in “gun culture” - I have a much more nuanced and realistic understanding of who they are than you do. You’re convinced they’re all die-hard Republicans - but, as just one counter-example, I’m probably the most anti-Republican person on this board (want my credentials?) and I’m a gun nut. How does that compute?
Whatever numbers I give you, you’re just going to play the no true scotsman game with the term “gun nuts”
Pew gun ownership demographic data shows that the issue is much less clear conservative/liberal than you think it is.
Aha, I see now, you have no attachment to reality whatsoever.
You lost the presidency to the most unsuitable candidate of all time - the most obviously unsuitable candidate of all time - because you insisted on running the only candidate in the world that he could possibly beat.
And your conclusion from this is “we were right”
Literally any other democrat could’ve run against Trump and won in a landslide. People were screaming this from the rooftops before the election - by forcing Hillary down everyone’s throats, you were giving Republicans the candidate they wanted to run against most, because it was the only candidate hated widely enough for Trump to stand a chance.
And you told everyone what a misogynist they were for even daring to question the great Hillary, the most qualified president ever ever, etc. Hell, and maybe she was. And maybe everyone disliked her for totally irrational reason. EVEN SO, you knew that she was one of the most hated people on Earth and ran her anyway. Result: President Trump.
And… you still think you’re right, and you did the right thing, and there was nothing that could’ve been done. How could I possibly convince you of the merits of a particular electoral strategy when you can’t even concede that forcing Hillary was obviously the wrong strategy?
And now you want to do the same thing to 2018. Take something that should be an easy slam dunk and instead put it on hard mode by alienating part of your base, energizing your opposition, turning independents against you, and for nothing at all - for no gain. It makes no sense.
Just like with Hillary, you’re convinced that you’re right, so who cares about the actual strategy or consequences. You’re right and you’re going to force everyone to realize that because somehow your rightness will win out, even if it doesn’t. And then when it blows up in your face spectacularly… you still tell yourself you were right.
So when you lose the 2018 election because you gave the Republicans the only thing that could save them, you’ll pat yourself on the back and convince yourself how right you were.
Oh, please. Gun violence has been trending down for decades. We’ve been having occasional big shootings for decades. The idea that there’s “no longer any excuse for inaction” is bullshit. There’s nothing unusual going on right now. There’s no reason that this has to be addressed at this very moment. That’s a purely emotional reaction.
On the other hand, the Republican control of government absolutely has to be addressed at this very moment. They’re dismantling the government as best they can. They appointed people to head agencies who want to destroy those agencies. They’re stacking the judiciary. They’re gerrymandering hard. They’re preparing to suppress votes. They’re giving foreigners an open invitation to meddle in our elections. That IS a crisis that needs to be handled immediately or we may lose our ability to handle it at all.
Okay, so there’s a Sandy Hook or Parkland every other day, eh? Weird that our media only reported, well, Sandy Hook and Parkland. I guess they must not like reporting about big school massacres. Weird that they reported Parkland. Huh.
Yeah, I read the same shitty article you did about how there’s a school shooting every 2 days. Except that they defined “school shooting” to include absolutely anything involving a gun at a school, including several incidents where teachers killed themselves when no one else was in the building and didn’t endanger anyone. But that’s totally the same thing as Columbine.
The reality is as far as big school shootings go, we’ve had Columbine, Sandy Hook, Parkland, and if you want to count college, Virginia Tech. That’s four in almost 20 years. Can you imagine any other issue in which a handful of people die per year on average that we collectively lose our shit over and demand that Something Must Be Done?
Painting this as some sort of existential threat that we can’t survive is utterly ridiculous.
I wasn’t characterizing anyone’s position in the portion you quoted, so I don’t even see how a straw man could’ve been in that statement. Please explain what you think the straw man was in what you quoted.
Tell me - give me your best guess - as a percentage, what are the chances that any random school-age kid in the US will die in a school shooting next year? What are the chances they’ll be negatively impacted by Republican policies?
Also, again, tell me - if this is an issue that hurts democrats electorally, making it more likely they lose the election - at which point they cannot enact gun control legislation - then how in the world is it a superior strategy to make this an election issue, rather than to not make it an election issue, win the election, and then actually enact the gun control legislation?
Even if your only goal is to enact the gun control legislation, the latter scenario is obviously preferable.
So why is it that you want to go with the election-losing result that makes it less likely for gun control to happen? Would you rather lose an election so that you can condescend to everyone about how right you were in a lost cause than to win it?
Thanks for playing.
You’re very delicate. But then picking a few nits with the style of my presentation is entirely easier than substantively addressing the issues I raised in my post. I understand that this is a concession, and that’s fine, since I couldn’t convince you that 2+2=4 if you thought 2+2=5 was somehow righteous so I’m not particulary interested in engaging with you anyway. Hopefully some of what I said will register with others, though.
That’s what I am expecting, that Democrats will NOT prioritize gun control in the coming elections. That would be smart. It would of course also be smart for Republicans to not let them get away with deemphasizing the issue as the elections get close.
Just having to take part in an “active shooter” drill has negative implications for the children. Fires and tornadoes are impersonal threats that if you follow instructions, you are very likely to be fine. Shooters on campus, there’s really no way to train for that in such a way that you are likely to be fine in an actual situation.
Fortunately, most of those negative implications will be against guns, so as they grow up and vote, they will be voting against your gun interests every single time, they are not going to want their kids to go through what they went through. And for the kids who actually witnessed or were injured in a school shooting, they are going to be the leaders of the anti-gun movement.
It’ll be a bit, but you are losing your chance to have input on the debate. Public perception will shift, and those who refused to make any sort of compromise for the sake of public safety will not have their feelings even the slightest bit under consideration.
I am pro-gun, to some extent. I think they’re interesting and fun to shoot. They have times and places where they actually serve a utility function as well. I have considered buying one, but have never had a time when I had a few hundred bucks that didn’t have a better use. OTOH, I am against gun violence. So I like to see some sort of compromise so that responsible people can still have their defense and their toys, while people that are not so responsible have them restricted. If such a compromise cannot be reached, if you insist that the only way to reduce gun violence is to repeal 2A, guess what all these kids that were forced to imagine the prospect of being gunned down along with their classmates and teachers are going to be pushing for when they get to voting age?
The core problem may be a culture that can see a gun as just another kind of ‘toy’, for distraction and amusement.
k9: Well put, and exactly right. It’s closer than you think, too. There are plenty of high schoolers who are going to vote in this fall’s elections, and the bulk of their schoolmates will be eligible for the *very next *Presidential election. The Parkland students (I almost said “kids”, excuse me; they are certainly not, not anymore) and those they’ve inspired are just the start of this newest political movement, and you’ll be seeing a lot more of them. A helluva lot of their parents and family members are on their side, too. They don’t and should not be tolerant of suggestions, like the one quoted just above, that some casualty rate among them should be considered acceptable.
Yes, it would be a big win for the Republicans to tout gun freedom as their big issue. They should loudly decry background checks so as to energize their base.
There must be some reason the White House won’t release the picture of the Republican president signing the order stopping his Democratic predecessor’s order to make it harder for the mentally ill to buy guns. Hmm, wonder wonder wonder …
Bullshit. I’m the voter you claim doesn’t exist. Despise Trump. Voted third party because I also despise Hillary. Would seriously consider voting Dem…unless the Dem candidate supports any form of gun control other than the ability to consistently hit one’s intended target.
No new gun laws. This is my line in the sand. Cross it and I’ll vote against you.
Molon Labe.
The Democrats’ big problem on this issue is, they keep saying “Nobody wants to confiscate all your guns. We just want common sense gun laws.” But when you ask what kind of common sense laws they have in mind, it’s invariably something like, “Why can’t we do what Australia did?”
Which is… mandatory buyback. Or, more plainly, confiscation.
I don’t know if there are common sense laws that even most gun owners could get behind. But mandatory buyback sure isn’t it.
Bottom line? It simply isn’t true that “nobody” wants to confiscate all the guns. Countless SDMB regulars DO want confiscation, and aren’t shy about saying so.
Don’t kid yourself. You’re a Republican who can’t stomach Trump. Give you a less personally reprehensible Republican nominee and you’re in the bag.
You don’t know what you’re talking about. Every political contribution I’ve made in the last decade+ has gone to a Democratic candidate. I’m so disgusted with the GOP in my home state that I’m supporting Dems…pro 2nd Amendment Dems…in local elections. But I won’t support or vote for a gun grabber.
The risk is energizing the other party’s base more than your own, aka “why Hillary lost”. It remains to be seen if voters in 2018 are motivated enough by a desire for gun control to turn out in greater numbers than those who are motivated by a distaste for gun control.
Republicans are going to want to talk about the economy, jobs, national security. Do Dems want to talk about gun control and how bad Trump is? Trump isn’t running.
Regards,
Shodan
Sure, and that’s why the Reps need to backpedal their “Molon Labe” (tee hee, that’s so cute) stuff. They’re doing a damn fine job painting themselves as the pro-murder-rights party, and that energizes the hell out of the life-matters people - who do, as you know, have far more non-voters available to convince to turn out.
This, plus Republicans have decided to sic their alt-right troll army on teen survivors who are speaking up for more regulation. Another eight months of attacking school children and shooting survivors is not a good look for the Republicans.
And it really is the survivors who are leading this push for gun control, not the DNC. Nobody at Dem Central wants to do this, now. Trying to blow off the anger of the survivors by calling them Leftist puppets is Republican ratfuckery.
Normally, I would say that the Dems shouldn’t spend their political capitol on gun control, but if the Survivors want a fight on this, I’m happy to let them lead it. Hopefully, it leads them straight to the ballot box.
This kind of ridiculous over the top rhetoric will cost you the mid-term elections. It won’t sell outside of the coasts and big cities…and most of the House doesn’t come from those places.