Most people strongly support the First Amendment. Are they “freakish”, too?
Yes, but of that 48% only a small subset likely favors getting rid of rape exceptions to abortion bans. A 2022 poll found that 63% of people who oppose generally legalized abortion, support making an exception in cases of rape. You’re getting down to something like 20% or lower who don’t support a rape exception. But States are passing these laws. The recent major study “How Americans Understand Abortion”, finds that only around 14% of the entire country is opposed to abortion in all circumstances.
The problem with guns presents a very similar problem–the small minority who are extremists about it, this is a one issue topic for them. If you don’t pander to it, you may lose that vote (not to the Democrats, but to disinterest and voter apathy.) There is no real “contra” position in the GOP; yes, a majority of Republicans are in favor of greater gun control and in favor of some moderately pro-life position that is nowhere near a total ban, but the people that want absolutely no gun regulations care about the topic deeply, as do the people who want an end to all abortions. The people with “mush middle” positions, these topics are on a long list of other political topics they care about, and not generally near the top of the list.
No one said that.
No, the GOP blocks them, like everything else wanted by sane Americans.
Right. The GOP has lost the voter demographic battle. So they have to cater to that 5% who want no gun laws, that 14% who want all abortion banned, and yes, clearly that minority who are out and out racists. The GOP even caters to the Proud boys and such. They can’t afford to lose the loony gun nuts, the loony ban all abortion Evangelicals, nor even the loony hard core and proud of it racists. The GOP needs that loony right wing nut lobby.
You said that.
95/5 is 95 people on one side and 5 on the other or, a 95% vs 5% difference.
Yeah, this is something that keeps coming up, for some reason it’s always supposed to be that we are in some never before seen crisis of violent crime all through society.
Maybe it seems that way to many because between the mid 1990s and the early 20teens there was a generalized bottoming out of crime, to levels lower than before the 1960s, and we got comfortable and forgot about cycles and waves.
Another part of it is that what crime is happening seems different. That’s where mass casualty incidents come in because that is something that’s just as newsworthy in both high crime and low crime times and places, and it works on the special fear of “something that could happen to me or to one of my family while we’re just minding our business”. We don’t like to admit to ourselves, if someone could assure us violence would be inflicted only strictly undesirables-on-undesirables and out of the way, society would just shrug.
Which however does not say that the 95% are all sharing one or another attitude, just that they’re not the firebreathers.
But I believe DrDeth was specifically referring to how many were the “hard core gun lovers” that you described this way:
To which, I was about to reply like he did: have you? Notice you referred to “owners”, not enthusiasts or geeks or lovers (he did).
If you meant have we heard all the ones who are out there loud and proud in their “2A Community” channels and can’t seem to stop being total putzes about it? Yes we have heard them and they are a PITA both politically and personally. But most people I’ve met who own guns are not fetishists who care more about their guns than about their families.
Of course I have not.
But I live in this country and have noted the utter failure of almost any gun control regulations over the past 50 years.
That’s a helluva thing if only 5% really care in a supposed democracy. I grant that not all things need 51% or better to decide what does or does not become rules in a democracy but if gun control is truly only the province of 5% it is remarkable that it has failed utterly in my lifetime (I am 55).
Besides the wars that were going on? Which is part of another difference between now and the 1950-1980s. A lot more of the population had not only handled and been trained to use guns, but also used them and had them used against them. Veterans from WW1 and 2, Korea, Vietnam. All wars that happened when the draft was in place.
Compare that population to the 1990s to today, where the military is all volunteer, and crime and shootings have dropped. Seems like that also would have an effect beyond and aside from the media.
I find myself really interested in firearms history, so I would really appreciate a cite that guns weren’t designed for killing.
That’s a bogus comparison that always comes up in gun debates. Cars are vital to modern life, cars are intended for transportation, not killing, and moreover, they’re well regulated: you cannot legally drive on a public road without a valid license and vehicle registration and (usually) mandatory insurance, and you can be deprived of that right if you are deemed a high-risk driver. Guns are designed mainly for killing, and for the vast majority of people, are unnecessary and more likely to constitute a liability than a benefit. And yet despite this, in the US gun regulation is far, far too lax relative to the risks. Flawed reasoning like comparing guns to cars is precisely why the US has by far the highest rate of gun violence in the developed world.
Absolutely false. The US has the worst homicide rate among advanced developed countries. All countries with a worse homicide record than the US are either less developed and/or have a history of domestic violence or criminality. A few selected examples (full list at the link); numbers are national homicide rate per 100,000:
US 6.3
UK 1.2
Canada 2.0
Australia 0.9
France 1.2
Germany 0.8
Greece 0.8
Netherlands 0.6
That argument fails because other countries have media with the same proclivities; indeed, in Canada we typically have access to exactly the same media as Americans (CNN, the major TV networks, etc.). Yet there are hardly any mass shootings in Canada, and the total gun-related death rate from all causes is more than six times higher in the US than in Canada.
Anyway, to answer the OP, no. If neither the extraordinary rate of gun violence in the US compared to the rest of the developed world nor the extraordinary incidence of mass shootings has even moved the needle on gun supporters’ views of gun control, I don’t think any further incidents will change their minds. We’ll continue seeing bogus rationalizations like the ones above, and paradoxically, more mass shootings will probably drive up gun ownership even further.
Gun owner: I’m in favor of sensible gun regulation. Those 5% of gun owners who are fanatics don’t represent me.
Same gun owner:
The goal of a police officer using a gun should be. And your point was about what guns are designed to do.
I mean, I’ve always been told (by trained gun owners) that “shoot to wound” is a very bad practice. So if an officer uses his gun, he should be intending to kill. Were these gun owners wrong?
Also, by omission you have basically admitted the design function of “home security” usage is killing people.
Such as…? And I’m not talking about handcrafted, custom-engraved duelling pistols here. Most guns that I see in “collections” are stock-standard production guns which are being collected, but are not designed to be collected. A WWII-era German Luger may be very collectable, but it was designed to kill.
No.
What I said was that only 5% of gun owners were hardcore gun lovers, who are single issue voters.
More gun owners than that will vote against gun control, but they are not single issue voters. Just like there are voters on both sides of the abortion debate, but only a few are single issue voters. About 15% it seems are single issue anti-abortion voters.
It of course, all depends on the gun control law. Having all guns sales going through a background check is very popular. Banning handguns is not.
There have been dozens and dozens of state gun control laws passed. And the Feds even passed a mild assault weapons ban, but it sunsetted out. No one said only 5% care. I would say nearly all gun owners care. Just how much depends a lot. But only 5% will fight tooth and nail against any gun control at all.
They “care”-how touching.
Let me know when they stand up and openly oppose the supposed 5%. You would think that 95% of gun owners could easily render the other 5% totally ineffective in no time whatsoever, and yet…
According to Pew Research, roughly half of Americans (53%) favor stricter gun laws, a decline since 2019, according to the Center’s April 2021 survey. 32% say the existing laws – which are obviously very ineffective – are about right and 14% say they should be less strict. So about 46% would either do nothing about gun control or further weaken already near-useless laws. That’s a hell of a lot more than 5%.
Furthermore the NRA, one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington out of all proportion to their membership numbers, has consistently opposed gun control in any form for decades. Also, there’s the interesting question of what those who say they want “stricter” laws are really advocating. I doubt that there’s an ice cube’s chance in hell that US gun control could ever be on par with the rest of the civilized world. It’s pretty much doom for any politician to even talk about it in today’s political climate, except in the most liberal constituencies.
That .5% figure seems like a very precise number. Please share the link to the source where you obtained it.
Because if you made owning, and especially carrying a handgun, difficult and presumed illegal, you could have a much easier time sweeping them off the streets of the big cities, which is where the gun deaths are happening.
It doesn’t have to be as hard and as expensive as getting a machine permit, but it could be something like that. The practical ban on machine guns has done wonders for preventing them from being used in crimes.
I’m not saying that handguns should be as difficult to get approval for, but make it much harder than it is today.
How? You find someone with a gun, for whatever reason. Do they have a permit? No? Then it’s a crime. Yes? Then they’re fine. How does banning legal concealed carry help you get illegally carried guns off the street?
No, it didn’t, because one, they had a perfect record before, so they only maintained that record, and did not improve on it, and two, older guns were grandfathered in so the pre-1986 machine guns are still around and in use, still not being used in crimes.
The fact that you use an example where no crimes were being committed and gun owners had a responsible, perfect record and then support and point to a ban on that as being effective clearly indicates that you aren’t actually interested in good-faith discussions on public safety when crafting laws, you just want to ban guns, even if it’s a law that targets the most law-abiding and least harmful groups and does no actual good.
I definitely do not want to ban guns. Don’t put words in my mouth. I have no issue with long guns, shotguns, AR-15s.
On the machine gun front, weren’t they already basically banned since the 1930s?
If you’re 55 a lot of gun control laws passed in your lifetime, you are just not aware of them.
What? (I don’t follow.)
ETA: I follow now, thanks. I need more time to respond before the edit window closes.
The Brady act and the assault weapons ban, from the Clinton administration, come to mind.
~Max