I think that any Presidential candidate with a gun control stance too radical can’t win President.
A few facts and figures:
Most Americans are in favor of* some sort* of* mild* gun control- unspecified.
Most Americans are against banning large swaths of common firearms, such as handguns.
as Posted by septimus
*According to a recent Gallup poll, 72% of voters said that Gun policy would be extremely/very important to their choice of candidate for Congress. This was a higher percentage than for Taxes or Income/Wealth Distribution, and way ahead of Trade Policy and Climate Change.
… In March 2018 … a whopping 13% of Americans said “Guns/Gun Control” was “the most important problem facing the country today.” *
And as I have said- altho the “gun nut” vote is solid GOP, there are many Americans who just own a gun or three for hunting or self defense* and still vote Democrat.
So, in my opinion, if you want to ban all hand guns or all semi-automatics, you can’t win the Oval Office.
And conversely, if you want to allow howitzers, machineguns and hand grenades, you’re also gonna lose. I mean, look at Trump, thought to be a friend to gun owners, but who has been (he vacillates) in favor of some gun laws.
Please lets not turn this into yet another gun control debate over whether guns are good or bad, or how Denmark or Switzerland do XXX and still manage.
If candidate wants to become President, can they espouse a radical view on this pressing issue?
But it’s lower than healthcare (80%) or the economy (78%).
Also it doesn’t say those 72% are pro-gun. I myself consider gun policy to be a very important factor - I’m very much in favor of stricter gun control.
(Quote edited to restore hyperlink that was in septimus’ original post)
p.s. If you scroll further down in that link, it turns out more Democrats (76%) than Republicans (68%) consider gun policy to be an important issue. Which would suggest that a pro-gun-control track record is an advantage in the general election.
I would say this is resolved, even on this board. Only the fringe posters, IMHO, want either a total ban or a total open have any weapon you want type stance. Almost all others fall somewhere in-between those extremes, though obviously the devil is in the details wrt where on that sliding scale folks fall. I think most people on this board would consider me a pro-gun poster, but I have no issue with some gun control measures. I have issues with obvious slippery slope measures or the just plain stupid ones often advocated by folks who don’t know much, if anything about actual guns, but measures that actually make sense and aren’t intended as a path to total bans? I’m good with those. Hell, I’m good with total bans too, IF the proper procedure is followed and the steps are taken, within our system, to do it. I get extremely annoyed with those who wish to bypass those steps because they think they know what’s best for everyone and simply want to wave aside our system, in this one instance only, to be sure (:dubious:) to protect us all from ourselves.
Anyway, this is an issue that splits the Dems the most, since their more radical element does want full bans (without going through all that tiresome process stuff), while I think the majority of Dems simply want common sense controls, not outright bans. I actually think that a lot of Republicans would be ok with common sense controls as well, as I think this crosses party lines. The real issue is that the extremes on both sides, as seems to be often the case, try and drive out the middle to achieve their more radical (and fluffy headed) goals. JMHO of course.
Gun control is the forth most important issue for Demand D-leaners, behind healthcare, how women are treated, and income/wealth inequality.
It is lower for GOP/leaners, fifth, behind the economy, immigration, taxes, and healthcare.
The poll would have been more useful if they broke it out by urban v suburban v rural or by leaners or independents only. I’d be most interested in knowing how many R leaners (those who never or no longer are calling themselves R but have previously voted that way) rate gun control.
Overall it seems that this data suggests that being against moderate gun control measures will hurt in a general more than help.
One thing is clear though: a D who is not for some degree of gun control will piss off more D/leaners than win anyone over who is against some control.
By definition of course “too radical” is too much but how much is too radical? Any control position will be painted by the NRA as “too radical” and most who are swingable I think are going to discount what the NRA says.
Reality of course is that gun rights are secure no matter how radical a president’s position. Congress can pass some mild control maybe, if a president uses the office as a bully pulpit effectively and has D control of both Houses, but even that is a non-issue without control of both sides.
Detailed polls that matter the most are swing voters in PA, MI, and WI. What voters in Alabama or California think about this matter little.
Well, the NRA at one time said it was Ok with a ban on Bump stocks. But that’s about the most they will go nowadays. I think a Dem could easily support the Assault weapons ban back, without losing any support. Going as far as banning all handguns would be a disaster, even having once supported that viewpoint would haunt you.
A reactionary GOP prez could likely push thru a CWP nationwide rule. Maybe even bring back fully auto with the limits there used to be, but…:dubious:
Well, a President could pack SCOTUS with justices that go along with his viewpoints, but that would take some work. The moderates dont like going back on a earlier decision, so you’d have to get 4 judges in there, at least, maybe 5.
Yes, it’s more important what the swing states say.
Since ‘assault weapon’ is pretty much a meaningless and made up term that is only vaguely defined as ‘scary looking semi-automatic rifle’, I’d say it will depend on who the Dem is as to whether they would lost support or not. This is one of those slippery slope things, and the anti-gun folks (those with a clue anyway) know it. Now, if you instead said that a Dem pushing for a national background check measure for purchases, I think THAT could be an issue that is either neutral or even a positive for a Dem to pursue. There are other gun control measures that would pass the smell test a lot easier than an ‘assault weapon’ ban, which I think wouldn’t except in those states where the Dems already have such a lock as to make it meaningless.
Yes, that would work. However, there’d have to be some exceptions, like inherited guns. That’s the issue with the law in CA, (for example) a wife of a policeman killed in the line of duty is forced to sell his guns at a large discount to a gun dealer or pay high sums to get them transferred, if any are willing.
Please describe any other business that will pay market values for items they plan to sell later for a profit. They don’t exist… or don’t exist for long.
Given that you’ve thoroughly poisoned the well why not just be open and ask about greater gun control?
It’s thoroughly deceptive stuff like your OP that helped Clinton lose. From this side of the Atlantic, American politicians, particularly Democrats, need openness and honesty on policy issues.
Well, it will, as we have seen in other threads. We have posters that insist that any gun control is just the first step on a slippery slope, that they will refuse to compromise on anything at all, as long as there is a single person in the entire country who advocates for any kind of gun ban.
Then we have posters that insist that there there are no gun control policies that would have any effect whatsoever, and they insist that what it is that we really want is to ban all guns, and make law abiding gun owners into criminals, and to lock up hundreds of thousands and to kill thousands of gun owners in a confiscation effort.
So, in order to avoid any of all that, what is your idea of a mild gun control stance?
The only thing that I see as an issue whatsoever is if they don’t have a valid firearm safety certificate, and if they don’t have one, then they really shouldn’t be owning guns, even as a collection, as part of that certificate is about the safe storage of guns.
Having dealt with helping my sister to register the car that she inherited when our grandfather died, it seems as though transferring guns is actually much simpler, straightforward, and cheaper than car transfer.
You’ve trotted out this poor widow story a few times now, is it actually based on anything that you could cite, is it an anecdote, or is it an apocryphal parable?
The main thrust of my personal stance on gun control is specifically to decrease the number of guns that go into the hands of the criminal or the negligent. By requiring some level of accountability towards gun owners in the safe storage and disposition of their guns, we can lower the availability of guns on the black market substantially. If we can just get guns on the black market to be more expensive than buying a gun in a store or from a legitimate FFL at a show, that would make a great dent in criminal use of guns. By also requiring that people who own guns demonstrate that they are able and willing to use, store, and dispose of them responsibly, we can also cut down not only on the criminal use, but negligent accidents.
As far as suicide goes, I do not believe that a specific gun policy would address taht, as it is hard to screen someone for such tendencies, but I do think that decreasing the pervasiveness of gun culture will decrease the need for people to have a gun, therefore, reducing the likelihood of a gun being available at a time when someone is temporarily despondent.
For instance, due specifically to the pervasiveness of guns, I personally am on the edge of buying one. I feel that there is a non dismissable chance that I will find myself in a situation where the fact that a criminal has a gun and I don’t will put me at a disadvantage. I am not worried about melee weapons or fisticuffs as much, I can run from those, I can’t run from bullets. However, I also don’t entirely trust myself. I went through some shit some time back that had I had a really easy way out, I don’t know that I wouldn’t have taken it. I get that many gun advocates like to talk about the suicide stat and claim that we only include it to pad the numbers, even though it has been explained many times that that is not why we include it in the number of lives we believe could be saved with a smart gun control policy, and while they may disagree with the possible causes and effects of guns and suicide, the repeated accusation taht we use that stat in bad faith proves that they are treating the entire debate in bad faith.
Do you think that suicide pills should be sold at the corner drug store? How about an alarm clock with a high voltage line next to the snooze button? Would you condone a promotion, buy a lottery ticket, and get a suicide bag along with it?
I’m all for people having the right to end their lives if they truly feel as though their life actually causes them more misery than a human should have to accept. That doesn’t mean that we should make it so easy and convenient that it is done on a whim.
In three cities they tried it. And as been pointed out here numerous times (but gin control advocates), a city wide gun ban is useless, any such gun ban needs to be expanded nationwide.
And yes, posters on this board have suggested it, or a ban on all semi-automatics.
So, there’s no strawman. It has been suggested and is currently supported.
Senator Dianne Feinstein “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an out right ban, picking up every one of them…Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in. I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren’t here.”
Jan Schakowsky, U.S. Representative from Illinois
“I* believe……this is my final word……I believe that I’m supporting the Constitution of the United States which does not give the right for any individual to own a handgun….”
*
Pete Stark, U.S. Representative from California
“*If a bill to ban handguns came to the house floor, I would vote for it.”
*
William Clay, U.S. Representative from Missouri
” …we need much stricter gun control, and eventually should bar the ownership of handguns”
John Chafee, Former U.S. Senator from Rhode Island
“I shortly will introduce legislation banning the sale, manufacture or possession of handguns (with exceptions for law enforcement and licensed target clubs)… . It is time to act. We cannot go on like this. Ban them!
Bobby Rush, U.S. Representative from Illinois
“My staff and I right now are working on a comprehensive gun-control bill. We don’t have all the details, but for instance, regulating the sale and purchase of bullets. Ultimately, I would like to see the manufacture and possession of handguns banned except for military and police use. But that’s the endgame. And in the meantime, there are some specific things that we can do with legislation
Right. But here’s the point, let’s assume you want to sell a used collectable, that Hummel figure you have. And you see it is selling for $150,
Now you can sell it on craigslist, on ebay, at a yard sale, on a collectors board, to a friend, a swap meet, a collectors convention- or take it to a dealer.
The dealer will give you less. That’s the free market, they need a profit margin.
But with guns in CA, you can only take to a dealer. Period. You can’t sell it any other way. And the dealer knows this. They have you over a barrel. Take what they offer or turn it in to the police. And if you decide to keep an inherited gun, you must take it to a dealer, who is free to charge you whatever they wish to transfer it.
Poisoned the well? Deceptive? I am saying that the USA voter considers gun control a important issue and radical views on it are not palatable to the voters. That’s true for many things. I even pointed out that a radical pro gun policy would backfire also.
The recent evidence is that being strong on gun control will strongly help in a Democratic primary, and help moderately in the general. The NRA’s wrath has no teeth now.
Yes, the pro gun people insist that no gun control can work, since guns can flow easily from other jurisdictions. Thus, gun controls must be nationwide.
Assault weapon bans can be mild gun control. I am not in favor of them, as there’s no clear cut definition of what is a “Assault weapon”.
Bump stock bans are Ok, and I am in favor.
More and better background checks are mild. The devil in in the details, of course.
Prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill- again details matter.
Laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings.
Laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
Laws against fully automatic weapons.
all of these are mild.
Yes, there can be exceptions if the widow wants to keep the gun, but if she decides to sell it?
Interesting idea, and perhaps yes, but I would insist you go thru counseling first before being able to buy such pills.