Yeah hard to know how he really stands on the issue with just the 8 emojis.
It will be his final post as well, methinks.
Here are the Gallup pollresults from October 5-11, 2017:
In this poll, only 4% of people list guns/gun control as the most important issue, and that would include people on both sides. So it doesn’t seem like the number of single issue gun rights voters would be significant enough to change the conversation without heavy lobbying by the NRA.
This ignores electoral politics. Elections are won by appealing to swing voters and swing districts. One of the most sought after class of swing voters has been blue collar whites. They have been historically open to the Democrats message on economics but open to Republicans on cultural issues. That is why Trump won, he was able to attract cultural voters in traditionally democrat places like Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Democrats soft sell gun control to avoid turning these voters off and Republicans hard sell gun rights to appeal to them.
I’m not sure you read the OP very carefully. The question is not why the political debate has been won by the NRA. the question is why there isn’t a lobby of any siignificance) that opposes the NRA. Go ahead, read the OP. What the voters vote for is not the question at hand. It doesn’t matter if they’re single-issue voters or multi-issue voters or if they vote based on alphabetical order. The question is; why is there a single, powerful pro-gun lobby, but no one powerful anti-gun lobby?
The answer is unquestionably money. The NRA is largely supported by gun manufacturers, who have a vested financial interest in funding the NRA and directing it to oppose almost any gun control legislation and to keep the issue in the news by suggesting the gun grabbers are on the way (which elevates sales.) So they pay big bucks to have Wayne LaPierre do their thing. It’s LaPierre’s job to take the heat. He says controversial things because he’s supposed to be the lightning rod, so people aren’t protesting outside the Springfield Armory factory. Who made the AR-15 used to massacre the little boys and girls in Newtown? Most people don’t know. But you heard from the NRA.
There is no major company that has a vested interest in guns NOT being sold. There is no one who would pay for a lobby as big as the “National Gun Control Group.” There are such groups, but lacking major business backing, they are relatively small potatoes.
doorhinge’s claim is equally silly; this has nothing to do with whether gun control legislation is supported or not. Despite his biased claims, it IS, but that is not an explanation for the question posed by the OP. The NRA exists because it is well funded by companies that benefit from its existence. There is no similarly notable or wealthy opposing lobby because there is no one with the incentive to fund it. Member fees are a small fraction of the NRA’s revenues; they exist to benefit big industry, not their members.
I wish I could find the cite that went over the NRA’s funding sources. Anyone know where that one went?
Here is a pdfstudy about the NRA’s funding sources. Its total revenue was about 350 million. The dues from members were 50.5% of revenue, 27.7% from individual and corporate donations, 7.9% from licensing and other business interests, and 7% from advertising in its publications.
Here’s one:
And another:
The NRA gets the great majority of it’s funding from membership dues and individual contributions. The idea that it’s largely funded by “the gun industry”, like most gun control arguments, is malarkey, at best. But like most anti-gun falsehoods, it keeps getting repeated over and over.
What abut money that goes to reps from the industry itself and through various ways.
How much money do you think the NRA gives to politicians? Almost all their political spending consists of telling gun owners which politicians are trying to pass gun control laws.
There are a shit ton of single issue gun rights voters. They will vote for a pro-choice, pro-Obamacare, pro-gay rights, pro-free trade, etc. etc. etc. that is pro-gun rights if the other guy is an advocate of gun control.
There are almost no voters who will vote for a pro-life, anti-Obamacare, anti-gay rights, etc.etc.etc. politician just because they are in favor of gun control. Almost NONE.
If pro gun rights Democrat were to run against a pro-gun control Republican, those gun voters would come out to vote for the Democrat, but the pro-gun control voters would still not vote for the Republican because they want abortion rights, they don’t want pointless wars, they don’t want tax cuts for the rich, etc.
It’s hard for just the reason you state: gun owners are a relatively small but extremely vocal, determined, and politically active group and therefore have a greatly disproportionate amount of political influence. For decades now it has been to the point that advocacy of gun control is pretty much the kiss of death for any politician, and especially for a Republican, who can’t merely be neutral but is typically expected to be strongly pro-gun and anti-regulation, even if it means crazy people can easily get all the guns they want.
This is similar to the issue of corporate influence over the legislative process that we’ve butted heads about in a different context, but not quite the same because it involves an exceptionally dedicated lobbying organization with multiple self-interested drivers, not just corporations. But it’s the same idea of special interests corrupting the democratic process.
This short article from the New Yorker tries to strike an optimistic tone by suggesting that this landscape may be changing, but I don’t believe it. It does, however, illustrate just how bad it is. An excerpt:
In many accounts, the power of the N.R.A. comes down to money. The organization has an annual operating budget of some quarter of a billion dollars, and between 2000 and 2010 it spent fifteen times as much on campaign contributions as gun-control advocates did. But money is less crucial than you’d think. The N.R.A.’s annual lobbying budget is around three million dollars, which is about a fifteenth of what, say, the National Association of Realtors spends. The N.R.A.’s biggest asset isn’t cash but the devotion of its members. Adam Winkler, a law professor at U.C.L.A. and the author of the 2011 book “Gunfight,” told me, “N.R.A. members are politically engaged and politically active. They call and write elected officials, they show up to vote, and they vote based on the gun issue.” In one revealing study, people who were in favor of permits for gun owners described themselves as more invested in the issue than gun-rights supporters did. Yet people in the latter group were four times as likely to have donated money and written a politician about the issue.
The N.R.A.’s ability to mobilize is a classic example of what the advertising guru David Ogilvy called the power of one “big idea.” Beginning in the nineteen-seventies, the N.R.A. relentlessly promoted the view that the right to own a gun is sacrosanct …
The New York Times does a good analysis of it, too:
Inside the Power of the N.R.A.
A lot of Hollywood stars are pro gun control but they look like major hypocrites when they 1. have armed bodyguards and 2. act in movies where their characters are shooting guns. I think it was Tom Selleck who shut up Rosie Odonell by pointing out she had armed security after she slammed him on his pro gun stance.
On a related note once on a local call-in tv show where the topic was gun control I shut up the host by pointing out she lived in a safe gated community in the suburbs and even her gun control guest admitted that living in a dangerous area of the city might warrant a gun for protection.
Cite?
Last I heard individuals supported about 50%, Gun companies and etc about 25%.
Being pro gun control is not the same as wanting all guns banned. I fail to see the hypocrisy.
Yeah, it’s the usual false dichotomy / excluded middle.
As I understand, gun companies fund election campaigns more than the NRA.
I do. Wanting the average person to NOT be able to have a gun for security but themselves, having armed security.
Thing is we already have dozens if not more gun control laws on the books, and they all failed to stop this madman.
Reminds me of an old adage: The difference between smart people and dumb people isn’t that smart people don’t make mistakes. They just don’t keep making the same mistakes over and over again.
This is the correct answer. Look at the biggest lobbying groups in Washington, they’re almost all financially backed by an entire industry. Big pharma, banking, agriculture, tech, mining, oil, etc. etc. etc. There are financial interests driving them. Even whatever lobbying groups exist that are anti-those-things have financial interest. Big pharma vs. health insurers, for example. But almost no one will realize financial gain by NOT selling guns. Thus, no huge anti-gun lobby.
If that were true (and I’m deeply skeptical that gun companies are a significant source of funding for election campaigns), why does the left place such an emphasis on the NRA?
ETA: take this thread, for an example. It’s “Why not an anti-NRA lobby” and not ‘Why not an anti-Ruger/S&W/Remington lobby’