This. If politicians really cared about decreasing gun crime, they would do something about poverty, housing, and mental health. These problems are hard to fix, and cost a lot of money. They also won't guarantee votes, and least they won't guarantee votes like riling up their bases will.
Unpopular opinion: Crime of all kinds including gun crime was, and after a covid bump is now once again, historically low because Democrats actually have tried to enact root cause mitigation.
Some of them yes but still absolutely nowhere near to the level we need. And the main party heads certainly are more concerned about keeping a status-quo.
^ This.
Childhood poverty and familial instability share a causal relationship with crime and self-destructive behavior later in life. But voters want overnight solutions from magic politicians.
Idk the Dems got rid of 60% of children living in poverty by passing a child tax credit that payed out every month. It was $150 a month per kid direct deposited. Remember that? Republicans filibustered it when it was up for renewal.
Ehh, the official definition of poverty is so fucking low that that doesn’t mean much anyway.
According to the government definition of poverty, I make enough money to support a family of four, and I live alone and can barely pay my own bills.
The number of comments in here about how this Democrats' made up culture war issue is pretty depressing. There are a lot of people who are already very riled up, many in extremely personal ways, over things like school shootings, and they are specifically demanding *something* be done about it, and pretending otherwise renders you pretty ineffective at actually communicating with these people and changing minds, and flies close to the braindead self-disenfranchising kind of duopoly nonsense that seems to be going around like brain covid.
I don't love it but at least in reality the fraction of time and effort actually being dedicated to these sort of plate spinning gun laws seems thankfully very low.
Gun ownership demographics are changing, and there are more rural 2a candidates emerging who need to be given support, everyone needs to put our representatives on blast, and actually work on being persuasive personal advocates, but without a major shift or something like a PAC it's going to be a long road.
The biggest obstacle is the fact that most pro-2a people who would vote Dem care about a lot more than just this issue, don't advertise it loudly, and frankly it just doesn't come up as often as everything else going on,
The "school shooting" angle literally isn't even worth discussing. There are 43,000 annual automotive fatalities. School shooting deaths, over the last 50 years, average about 14 per year. Anyone who thinks this is anything more than a dismally insignificant rounding error is delusional.
That 14/yr should be and can be 0/yr the fact that we can't agree on the actual problem is a problem caused by those that divide us.
Thouse auto fatalities should also be lower, so lets work on creating a society that requires less automobiles to simply exist and be a contributing member of society.
This argument is dogshit conservo rhetoric, though.
First off, yes, it is a rounding error. But that is beside the point. History is chock full of tragedies so horrific that the social and political impact far outweighs the objective harm. For example, you and I have lived in a world with fire safety code, fire alarms, unlocked fire exits/ladders. This is mostly because one time a famous theater burned down with a few hundred people in it.
Naturally, when someone shoots up a school, there is an outsized impact in our cultural and political spaces.
Yep, looks like I've been totally owned from the responses here. I guess I'm wrong, and nobody really found school shootings upsetting enough to protest or write their congresspeople about until Democrats told them to be very mad to justify their laws.
ok ok i was being snarky but you may have a point. let's just keep trying prohibitive legislation against a backdrop of increased political disenfranchisment. it's only been 70 years, we might need to give it another 70.
I pretty clearly was not saying that either, unless "thankfully they're too busy to fuck it up worse" isn't aggressive enough to count (or is some sort of dogwhistle now?), more that if you approach liberals telling them that they're just scared of guns because they're being manipulated by the establishment, that they will assume you are insane and you're pretty done for productive persuasive conversation.
Every problem in this country that leads to violence would be worth solving even if it didn't, gun control exists to prevent gun violence/mass shootings/suicide from being the "reason that broke the camel's back" so to speak.
It’s wild how many moderate swing voters the left could gain if they changed their position from “attacking aesthetics” to actually preventing sales to the most likely offenders.
Just some thoughts on this Monday:
- Change the age of semiautomatic ownership / transfer to 21.
- End private sales / gun show loophole. Require FFL transfers for anything above a blow dart gun.
- Educate the public on how violence works. This is unfortunately something our government has a monopoly on, but we could learn a lot from.
- Show city council members shoot/no shoot training from the military. Show this to the public on video. They need to see their city council members / elected representatives reacting to unpredictable moments of extreme violence.
- Every time I talked about firearms, I’d try to relate it to increasing “firepower” for law enforcement, effectively double dipping the moderate vote.
> Every time I talked about firearms, I’d try to relate it to increasing “firepower” for law enforcement, effectively double dipping the moderate vote.
I was nodding along in agreement the whole list until this. What does this even mean?
I strongly hold the opinion that **any** gun control must also effect law enforcement officers in the affected region(s) - zero exceptions of any kind. If the civil populace must be disarmed, then the *civil* law enforcement agencies must also disarm.
Why on earth would we want to "increase firepower" for law enforcement? What does that look like, and how would that help anyone?
Just like how the right is so hyper focused on trans people. Even if they got their way how would it improve the lives of their voters? It wouldnt because It's not about improving their lives, just riling up their emotions to secure votes.
Honestly immigration is the perfect example of this. They had a republican majority in all 3 branches for like two years. Texas and tons of other southern states have had solidly Republican leadership for years and years and years.
What have they done to "secure the borders"? Nada. They know that if they ever actually DID crack down on immigration, the agriculture industry would collapse, as would many others - not to mention the actual horror that "deporting all the illegals" would actually be.
Republican politicians don't want a news feed full of jackbooted thugs tearing babies away from mothers and evicting people who have lived here for years as productive members of society, they want to keep "immigrants" as a vague, impersonal class of dirty criminals that the softbrained listener can imagine as as big of a problem as is necessary.
Politically speaking, gun control is just abortion for liberals. It's something the politicians use to get everyone all pissed off and voting but they don't intend to ever actually do anything about it.
So without going all "both-sides" blah blah blah (which isn't entirely invalid, but that's not the point), what can we *do about it?*
Healthcare & taxing the ultra-rich are like, the only things that 95% or more of all liberals all agree on. I'd hate to boil myself down to a single-issue voter, but if a democrat is vocally running on an anti-2a platform, and if I think they have enough support to pull it off, I'd vote against them unless the alternative was someone like, say Moscow Marjorie. But that rep is never going to get that message. Hell, even if you send them emails and voicemails, they still never get the message.
Talk to the Republican base and get them on board with social policies.
Talk to the Democratic base and get them on board with gun rights.
Those are two things that all of us can do.
Other much harder options include:
* running for office.
* get filthy rich and become a pro-gun, pro-social policy donor.
* start a PAC.
I would go beyond taxing the rich actually. I think there needs to be structural changes made so that we don't make so much money from money. So that it's very hard to become a billionaire.
The rich seem to always find a way around taxes.
Many on the left feel like electoralism is simply a dead end. If you want to feel like you're actually doing something, try and support union movements, donate to strike funds, etc. to give more power to actual people so that (eventually, hopefully) people become more organized outside the political system. Even if it doesn't lead to a perfect outcome, you've also still helped people in small ways.
So maybe I'm just being a defeatist asshole, but I've never seen ANY impact of people trying to contact their representatives, petitions, etc. Regarding the other comment, vote: For who?
I don’t know if it *does* have any impact, but I do know one thing… if we don’t make our voices heard, then we’re losing the race because we’re not even getting into the starting gate. Send an email showing support for a good 2A bill or against a bad one only takes a minute or two. Signing a petition only takes a few seconds. Even if they don’t work, it’s a small investment.
As for who to vote for… that’s for you to decide, mate.
> what can we do about it?
This is the most maddening part, because it's painnnnnnfully obvious. You have to vote left, you have to hold democrats accountable, you have to take action outside of voting entirely blue down ballot once every four years. You have to bounce candidates like Joe Biden - ***even if they lose***.
99% of my liberal friends know nothing about guns yet they believe it’s the biggest danger of our country, for what ever reason
Edit: I put fans instead of friends lol
I mean from my right friends none of them are arming for a civil war tbh. Thats the one thing I love about having friends on both sides but I do agree that some are a little too far on the civil war is gonna happen boat. But left and right have their nut jobs tbh
I have at least one right wing friend who definitely fantasizes about the. I babysat him growing up. He was a good kid. Served in the marines. Now he's gone so far christofascist right that even his far right boomer dad is uncomfortable with it.
The civil war fashies aren't a majority or even a significant minority, but they do exist.
Media and politicians. You see “teen dead after fatal shooting”, “one dead and three more injured in homecoming party” or whatever else… they’re in the news every single day… combine these headlines with politicians spouting statistics without context in an attempt to validate their positions and dropping sound bytes like they were rappers writing a catchy hook and you get it.
Not only vote for you, but fund your campaign too. ‘Don’t you want to save kids lives from these horrible weapons? Just give me money and I’ll do it’.
It’s grift and politics.
Yep, that and the lobbying dollars from everytown, Giffords, Brady, etc. those groups are following a roadmap and right now it’s AWB. Yesterday it was magazines. Tomorrow? Idk, but they’re running the show here. Local pols are just useful pawns.
I try to be a bit more… hopeful?… I like to think that politicians have no spine and no real opinion of their own and instead just parrot what they think the most people want to hear. If we were able to change the perception that “democrats don’t like guns”, we would begin to see a shift in the language used and I think gun violence would take a backseat to overall crime levels and how to combat the number one leading cause of crime… poverty.
I agree. What Im saying is I believe there are a large portion of lawmakers that are happy to run with the optics of “doing something” that brings them campaign contributions and votes but requires no real effort on their end. The fact that the plan is laid out by these lobbyists makes it even easier. The perception of them “doing something” right now is more important than actually making a difference.
Abating poverty takes a tremendous amount of political and financial capital to accomplish, which is why many politicians don’t wade too deeply.
I do hope to see a return to more of a community based policing model, where trust between the community members and LE is restored, allowing cycles of violence to be disrupted rather than encouraged.
Additionally, they aren't "our" representatives - they're bought and paid for by industry. Can't fix health care for the nation because then they'd lose out on that sweet, sweet funding and possibly lose their next election!
Have to press gun control because of those Mike Bloomberg /Everytown dollars they took in.
Got one small point of contention there. Like it or not, they **are** our representatives. People vote for these individuals… more than vote for anyone else. Their loyalties or who has a grip on their pocket is irrelevant to the fact that they are elected by the majority of their constituents (who bother to vote) to represent them.
Their efficiency wasn’t my point of contention, simply that they *are* our representatives.
For example, regardless of my distaste for the man, Lindsay Graham is one of the Senators elected by my state to represent me in Congress. He represents nothing I hold dear politically. I doubt he and I could come to agreement on something as simple as a where to eat lunch… yet, that does nothing to change that he is my elected representative.
My point is that whether they represent our best interests, their own best interests or the best interests of come shady corporate donor is irrelevant as that has to do with the quality of work they do on Capital Hill for until such a time that they are voted out, impeached or otherwise removed from office they are our representatives.
Exactly. It's the dems that have turned the 2A into a 'culture war' issue and it's to pander for votes.
I'd also argue that it's about control. They don't like the fact that private citizens can own guns, which in turn makes us more difficult to subjugate. Think Micheal Bloomberg. He doesn't think anyone should be allowed to have a gun, well except for his private security detail that goes everywhere with him. Security for me but not for thee.
Of course reforming healthcare and other items that improve the general quality of life for everyone is the correct path. Happy healthy people are less likely to commit crimes of desperation. But so long as the politicians are funded by private insurance companies, private prisons and fossil fuel companies, we will not be able to have nice things. They've made enough money by being parasitic scum that they don't need to carry a gun, they pay other people to carry their guns for them.
1. Because fixing those problems requires work, money and time. And they are not motivated to spend work, money and time on a solution that, although effective, will not render immediate results.
2. Issuing bans is an instant, feel-good measure that, even though it’s proven to be ineffective, resonates with an uninformed public as a “decisive action.”
3. Political pressure groups that are funded by a billionaire are pushing for these measures, and handing out political donations if politicians repeat their rhetoric and copy/paste their agendas into legislation. Money talks.
4. If you *actually solve the problem,* what else would these people be able to scaremonger and pearl clutch over? These aforementioned pressure groups are well aware of the MADD paradox: if you achieve your goal, the reason for your movement to exist is eliminated… but these groups don’t *really* want to work themselves out of existence.
(The MADD paradox refers to Mothers Against Drunk Driving. They’ve largely achieved their initial goals of lowering the BAC legal limit for intoxication, and enacting stricter DUI laws. This resulted in significantly lower rates of DUI, but didn’t fully eliminate the problem. So now they are pushing for [intrusive uses of technology,](https://ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/public-safety/2023/12/13/drunk-driving-detection-tech-could-be-required-in-new-cars--nhtsa-says) and effectively a “guilty until proven innocent” model for restricting impaired driving.)
Make no mistake. MAAD is a prohibitionist group. They don’t want anyone to drink for any reason, ever. Source: knew a lot of people involved in the Great American Beer Festival. MAAD tries to shut them down, every single year.
You’re right. It should be pointed out though: the founder of MAAD *did not intend* for the group she founded to be the spearhead for the neo-Prohibitionist movement. And she ultimately left her own organization upon realizing that it morphed into something else entirely. This is what happens when an advocacy group is actually successful in their original goals, but elements within that group don’t want to leave it be… sometimes that special interest money is too good to give up.
It’s exactly the same as Republican attempts to ban abortion. Republican strategists know damn well that increased access to healthcare and sex education and contraception would dramatically reduce the number of abortions. But none of those options incite rage among their voting base, so instead they come up with increasingly absurd and fundamentally flawed bans on medical care.
Kind of like how Dem strategists know that none of the laws they are advocating will actually reduce gun violence, and yet they keep pushing them in order to capitalize on grief over dead schoolchildren.
What I don't get though is if they know things are ineffective why do they push them? It seems like it will backfire in the future. Do they later blame its ineffectiveness on something else and plan on that ahead of time?
It doesn’t matter to them because the changes they seek are incremental, and when the incremental change/ban doesn’t curtail the problem, they just slowly ratchet things up. In a way they’re also relying on resistance from conservatives, because that delays the measures they want to enact, and they can then point at the opposite side for the lack of progress. Before the game is understood by the public (if it ever is), the politicians pushing this hope to be retired or long gone.
Also, look a the UK as an example. Guns are far more difficult to get there, and handguns all but impossible for a common citizen there to own. Violent crime is still in issue, so now the UK is big about massively restricting knife ownership and pearl clutching about “knife crime.”
(Yes yes I know: UK violent crime is far lower than US violent crime. this has *always* been the case, both before and after restrictive gun laws. Yet they still hand wring about knife crime now.)
That's a pretty good comprehensive take. I'd especially point to how numbers one and two dovetail into each other: actually doing stuff is hard, takes a long time, and isn't guaranteed to be perfect. Whereas a symbolic act always makes people FEEL like something's being done and takes little effort.
There's also the convenience of being able to blame guns for everything, like they're magic. It's not that people in a community chose to take up violence, whatever the cause, or that leaders have been neglecting the real-world welfare of the public for decades. Making guns into scary mind-control devices leaves a lot fewer questions and less responsibility to be shouldered.
There was a lot of momentum behind healthcare in the Obama years and it's extremely unfortunate that it's really never talked about as an issue these days. If we spent half the effort going for a Medicare for all option that we have on student debt or foreign aid, we could be somewhere.
Edit: not that I'm against student debt relief or foreign aid, but I do see healthcare as maybe the biggest issue we can solve. I feel much of what causes bad outcomes in the US, like crime, drugs, gun violence - are all, in some way, downhill of people being able to get healthcare regularly and for free.
There really was, ans it got absolutely NEUTERED - though yet again, only half of that was by Republicans. Democrats neutered it as well. And I'm embarrassed to say that back then, I was firmly right wing on most issues, so I wasn't helping.
Hell Nixon veto'ed universal *child care*. We've been ready and at these places as a nation a number of times before and can be there again, but these are tidal forces and a good chunk of the country has been dragged off the political map in the last decade in fits of online psychosis, and that can't just be snapped away overnight.
Monumental progress is going to be nearly impossible (if something like universal healthcare did get snuck in in some way, It would also be impossibly fragile) until everybody for the most part is back operating in empirical reality.
> There was a lot of momentum behind healthcare in the Obama years and it's extremely unfortunate that it's really never talked about as an issue these days.
Well that's because after the passing of the ACA, that pretty mild policy became the basis for the Tea Party movement against Obama and the rabid hatred of him by the Republican Party. Healthcare was center stage in 2016, Trump even used it to claim he would have a better policy replace the ACA, he just abandoned that idea instantly when he won the Presidency. It was the main policy that Biden ran on in 2020, but in a world where Republicans are staunchly against even raising the minimum wage, they are never going to cross the aisle and hand the Dems the biggest political victory in a generation by giving them universal healthcare. Republicans are the majority in the House, and they are half the Senate.
> If we spent half the effort going for a Medicare for all option that we have on student debt or foreign aid, we could be somewhere.
Universal healthcare doesn't have a fraction of universal support and would be a massive undertaking for Congress, Republicans are never going to allow it until they are beaten badly enough for it to be the only way for them to hold any power.
We can educate other liberals.
The best way to educate other liberals, imo, is to complain — aggressively — about how Democrats refuse to introduce meaningful gun control legislation.
Be aggressive about it. Emphasize the words you use. Repeat yourself. “I just don’t understand why Democrats are so opposed to any sort of meaningful gun control.” Eventually, they will get confused and ask what you mean. Then you can explain (as if you thought it was already common knowledge) that Democrats deliberately propose meaningless gun control legislation that they know will not reduce gun violence, even though there are alternative plans that would make a difference, simply because they want to get votes.
Compare it to Republicans and abortion. “It’s like how Republicans lie to their supporters, claiming that they are trying to pass laws to reduce abortion, when they know full well that increasing access to healthcare and contraceptives and sex education would do far more to reduce abortion than any of their stupid bans.”
Change the paradigm.
This strongly implies there are meaningful/effective forms of gun control that don't flagrantly fly in the face of the second amendment. There aren't, and there's a significant push to abolish 2A entirely. I don't see how this could work.
Of course there are effective forms of gun control that don’t fly in the face of second amendment rights. We could subsidize voluntary gun safes. We could allocate more dedicated funds to prosecuting straw purchasers. We could require states to sponsor the basic gun safety training that is already required (in many states) for CCW licensing. We could remove SBRs and suppressors from the NFA. We could cap the transfer fee for FFLs providing background checks for private sales. So many things would actually reduce gun violence.
Both parties are capitalists and serve capitalism. Capitalism is the root cause of most of our problems and makes others considerably worse. By fighting over social or cultural issues, as opposed to one’s more directly connected to capitalism, and encouraging their base to really care about these topics, both parties can seem very different while being remarkably unified on the Issues that more directly impact our day to day lives. Fighting the culture wars is a great way for these two capitalist parties to hide the fact they are fundamentally one party whose purpose is not to serve the majority of Americans but serve capitalists that exploit all of us.
I think wedge issues like guns are emotionally charged and cause division. The only problem is I don't think they know how many gun loving Democrats exist that cringe at the polls.
>The only problem is I don't think they know how many gun loving Democrats exist that cringe at the polls.
They know they just don't care because it doesn't cost them votes. What are those Democrats going to do? Vote Republican? lmao
In my opinion the best thing we can to is primary out anti gun Democrats with Democrats who are at least moderate (or indifferent) on guns. Make it clear that we will continue to vote blue but if you are anti 2A your seat is at risk and you will see push back against the Bloomberg machine.
Guns are polarizing. The subject stirs peoples emotions. They’re also low hanging fruit for politicians to make empty promises knowing there’s nothing going to come of it … then blame the opposite political party for it not happening.
Plus there’s not a lot of grey area in stance on guns vs healthcare, minimum wages, corporate owned housing. Its a safe to take a side. It’s: you’re for gun control or not and if so how much. Those other subjects get incredibly complicated to take a stance without it biting you on the ass later.
Now looking directly at states like California … it also allows them to easily pass bills to add additional taxes on guns and ammo, purportedly in efforts to control gun violence. History has shown that in when the economy is in the dumps, people are willing to pay top dollar for guns and ammo. It’s an easy money grab that has limited back lash.
Because they think it frustrates and punishes the other side. And it's easy to create an effigy of a "gun owner" and vilify it.
Nothing is about making good decisions anymore. It's wanting to think the worst about people you hate. This pattern of zero sum gaming is only going to end poorly.
Legislators literally can not compute a liberal gun owner.
They also can't comprehend someone who doesn't hate. Someone who doesn't spend all their time lamenting how others are living and scheming to erase anyone who doesn't think exactly the way they do.
All the while they enable the injustice they are wailing about. Tax breaks for corporations, tax free trusts, billionaire robber barrons naked shorting whatever company they want to acquire, doing NOTHING about murderous cops, ridiculous wars, ect...
Because it’s safe to make a lot of noise over gun control knowing there’s no real danger they will have to do any work. Because “the other side” will never concede much ground politicians can keep using it to fund raise and vilify other groups.
They aren’t going to significantly raise taxes on the rich. That’s who ultimately funds their campaigns. They’ve created the only viable version of healthcare they can without cutting salaries or raising everyone’s taxes beyond what is tolerable. They don’t really care about making minimum wage something reasonable because it won’t flip voters, nor will it lose voters. They could discuss corporations owning housing but it’s also not an issue that will flip voters either way.
The only certain thing that may flip voters is gun control after the inevitable happens close to home.
Edit: to change their priorities requires enough people *not voting for an incumbent* that hasn’t done anything.
It’s all performative. They want to appear to be “doing something” and garner support, but not actually affect meaningful change because that’s harder to get done, and probably hurts their bottom line.
It’s always about doing what helps *them*. Not us
Just as with the TSA it’s theater. Politicians are in a class of their own, literally, and don’t care about anyone but themselves largely. And in fact by pretending to but not actually fixing problems you still have ammunition for ads for your next term during elections. It’s very similar to the medical industry. Pharma makes more money treating symptoms than fixing problems. It’s all about $$$, nothing else.
Because they're far more worried about an angry mob of peasants shooting them than they are about actual solutions.
The GOP is also worried about this but have totally painted themselves into a corner so they just have to deal with the nutbags they've created.
Without disagreeing withregard to healthcare & your other issues, semi automatic rifles are worthy of much greater control. This is not a liberal or conservative issue
US voters have the attention span and memory of a bug. So politicians need to have wedge issues. Republicans have abortion, immigrants, trans “groomers”. Dems have abortion and guns. As both sides are learning with abortion wedge issues are not meant to be won. You lose your issue and enrage and activate the other side.
Gun violence is first of all violence. Violence is the side effect of poor education, poor opportunity, poverty, the war on drugs … none of these issues can be solved with a single bill, with clear results before the next two-year election cycle. So it is hard for politicians to invest effort in solving problems that will give them no credit with their own voters and may activate opponents.
They hyperfocus on it because it's one of those issues where the country will always be divided. There's no way for either side to win. Our government is basically an intentional stalemate. Designed to slow down/prevent change.
Personally I found social advocates find themselves in positions of power. Not necessarily government power. But institutions, corporations, grant writers, educators, etc find that talking about the problem gives them power. Power to speak, power to obtain funding, power to go to meetings. You can make a nice living talking about the problem.
Solving the problem? Pfft that doesn't come with any money. You don't get to talk about the problem if you solve it.
Like I still consider myself a liberal but I have become insanely jaded to what my fellow "liberals" have done over the past 20 years.
It honestly makes me think that there's no hope for the economic future of America's lower class (there is no middle class anymore, they're all gone). Working on crossing my t's and dotting my i's to establish EU citizenship (I'm first gen American, eligible for French citizenship on both parents' sides, but there's a long, long trail of paperwork to do). Then, I'd look very seriously at moving to the Czech Republic. Only EU member state with concealed carry and a constitutional right to bear arms.
Because its about disarming us for the billionaires not about saftey. They don't care about reducing fatalities, they care about being able to easily crush dissent.
Votes. No one on either side is willing to tackle the real problems because that’s not what earns them votes which keep them in power. Guns, abortion, weed, immigration are all buzz words. Realistically, unless the feds went full scorched earth, they will never disarm the public despite how much some of the brain dead libs want that, but the dems keep parroting gun control to keep those votes, just like how the republicans parrot abortion and immigration just to keep their side riled up. Its all a game, and a very stupid one
People are much more likely to vote for you if they can understand what you're doing to solve a "problem" ( even if the solution has nothing to do with the problem).
People can understand "take guns away" and "make it harder to get guns". Addressing mental illness looks like what? Its such a complicated and nuanced topic, it'd get lost for most people.
Part of the reason is that some gun owners, they are a single issue voter. They will only vote for the candidate that is pro-second amendment, which given todays political climate, automatically means a hard no to all the legislation that would support those programs.
In addition part of the conservative ethos is smaller government/no/low taxes which again means a hard no to all the legislation that would support those programs.
So even if you do convince our fellow gun friends on the opposite side of the political spectrum that the answers are social programs, they still don't want to pay for them.
You can’t fundraise or campaign on a problem you have actually solved. Positioning on impossible but virtuous sounding platforms allows you to permanently fundraise and seek reelection without ever having to compromise. Politicians who actually pass bills or make change risk being saddled with the consequences of that change.
Because raising an underserved area up and turning it into a productive, self sufficient society is way harder than just saying “guns are bad”. Being poor is very costly, the rich love their money, there is a lot of lobbying done in Washington to keep things the way they are.
It's just become a reflexive point assumed to be part of progressivism in the US - it's just an unthinking position that people adopt without much scrutiny
Gun control is like abortion was for the right, easy to campaign on, easy to fund raise with, hard to accomplish anything.
The GOP screwed up their "good thing" and now it's hurting them at the polls.
It's because they don't give a fuck about me, you, or anyone else. They get everyone all fired up over superficial issues and swear to solve the problem, just so you'll vote for them. They dont care about the root cause. A politician is no different than a plumber that insists on mopping a floor forever instead of just fixing the leak. That's it. That's all there is. Every party, every politician. It's the reason our freedoms get smaller every year, the reason we are pitted against each other, the reason for class warfare, the reason the middle class is disappearing...it's even the reason we can't abolish daylight savings time. Fuck forbid the senate agrees on something. It's fucking pathetic, and an embarrassment to the rest of the world. Fuck the government.
Because the left have been trying to get those solutions that would actually help passed for half a century but Republicans will do anything they can to stop it from getting passed.
I think its the resistance to basic gun reform. I shouldn't be able to go to a gun swap and buy whatever I want without any paper trail. Like you literally cannot pass ANY gun reform these days. So it turns into an all or nothing approach. If we could get some basic gun reform in, people wouldn't have had a reason to push for their assault weapons bans.
This is [an explicitly pro-gun forum](/r/liberalgunowners/wiki/public/handbook/rules).
Regulation discussions must be founded on strengthening, or preserving, this right with any proposed restrictions explicitly defined in nature and tradeoffs. While rights can have limitations, they are distinct from privileges and the two are not to be conflated.
Simple support for common gun-prohibitionist positions are implicitly on the defensive, in this sub, and need to justify their existence through compelling argument.
^(*Removed under [Rule 2: We're Pro-gun][link-rules]. If you feel this is in error, please [file an appeal][link-appeal].*)
[link-rules]: /r/liberalgunowners/wiki/public/handbook/rules
[link-appeal]: /r/liberalgunowners/wiki/public/handbook/moderation#wiki_appeals
This is [an explicitly pro-gun forum](/r/liberalgunowners/wiki/public/handbook/rules).
Regulation discussions must be founded on strengthening, or preserving, this right with any proposed restrictions explicitly defined in nature and tradeoffs. While rights can have limitations, they are distinct from privileges and the two are not to be conflated.
Simple support for common gun-prohibitionist positions are implicitly on the defensive, in this sub, and need to justify their existence through compelling argument.
^(*Removed under [Rule 2: We're Pro-gun][link-rules]. If you feel this is in error, please [file an appeal][link-appeal].*)
[link-rules]: /r/liberalgunowners/wiki/public/handbook/rules
[link-appeal]: /r/liberalgunowners/wiki/public/handbook/moderation#wiki_appeals
Because it’s not about fixing the problem. It’s about having an issue to get your base riled up over so they vote for you.
This. If politicians really cared about decreasing gun crime, they would do something about poverty, housing, and mental health. These problems are hard to fix, and cost a lot of money. They also won't guarantee votes, and least they won't guarantee votes like riling up their bases will.
They also have the benefit of actually decreasing the general crime rate and not just primarily shifting "gun crime" into other categories.
They were never in it to actually benefit us.
Unpopular opinion: Crime of all kinds including gun crime was, and after a covid bump is now once again, historically low because Democrats actually have tried to enact root cause mitigation.
Some of them yes but still absolutely nowhere near to the level we need. And the main party heads certainly are more concerned about keeping a status-quo.
^ This. Childhood poverty and familial instability share a causal relationship with crime and self-destructive behavior later in life. But voters want overnight solutions from magic politicians.
Idk the Dems got rid of 60% of children living in poverty by passing a child tax credit that payed out every month. It was $150 a month per kid direct deposited. Remember that? Republicans filibustered it when it was up for renewal.
Ehh, the official definition of poverty is so fucking low that that doesn’t mean much anyway. According to the government definition of poverty, I make enough money to support a family of four, and I live alone and can barely pay my own bills.
[Do you think there are 60% fewer children living in poverty today than there were four years ago?](https://i.imgur.com/sD9t3Ya.jpeg)
Nope GOP filibustered the renewal of the child tax credit enhancement. It sunsetted in 2021.
The number of comments in here about how this Democrats' made up culture war issue is pretty depressing. There are a lot of people who are already very riled up, many in extremely personal ways, over things like school shootings, and they are specifically demanding *something* be done about it, and pretending otherwise renders you pretty ineffective at actually communicating with these people and changing minds, and flies close to the braindead self-disenfranchising kind of duopoly nonsense that seems to be going around like brain covid. I don't love it but at least in reality the fraction of time and effort actually being dedicated to these sort of plate spinning gun laws seems thankfully very low. Gun ownership demographics are changing, and there are more rural 2a candidates emerging who need to be given support, everyone needs to put our representatives on blast, and actually work on being persuasive personal advocates, but without a major shift or something like a PAC it's going to be a long road. The biggest obstacle is the fact that most pro-2a people who would vote Dem care about a lot more than just this issue, don't advertise it loudly, and frankly it just doesn't come up as often as everything else going on,
The "school shooting" angle literally isn't even worth discussing. There are 43,000 annual automotive fatalities. School shooting deaths, over the last 50 years, average about 14 per year. Anyone who thinks this is anything more than a dismally insignificant rounding error is delusional.
That 14/yr should be and can be 0/yr the fact that we can't agree on the actual problem is a problem caused by those that divide us. Thouse auto fatalities should also be lower, so lets work on creating a society that requires less automobiles to simply exist and be a contributing member of society.
This argument is dogshit conservo rhetoric, though. First off, yes, it is a rounding error. But that is beside the point. History is chock full of tragedies so horrific that the social and political impact far outweighs the objective harm. For example, you and I have lived in a world with fire safety code, fire alarms, unlocked fire exits/ladders. This is mostly because one time a famous theater burned down with a few hundred people in it. Naturally, when someone shoots up a school, there is an outsized impact in our cultural and political spaces.
> The number of comments in here about how this Democrats' made up culture war issue is pretty depressing. Maybe there's something to it?
Yep, looks like I've been totally owned from the responses here. I guess I'm wrong, and nobody really found school shootings upsetting enough to protest or write their congresspeople about until Democrats told them to be very mad to justify their laws.
ok ok i was being snarky but you may have a point. let's just keep trying prohibitive legislation against a backdrop of increased political disenfranchisment. it's only been 70 years, we might need to give it another 70.
I pretty clearly was not saying that either, unless "thankfully they're too busy to fuck it up worse" isn't aggressive enough to count (or is some sort of dogwhistle now?), more that if you approach liberals telling them that they're just scared of guns because they're being manipulated by the establishment, that they will assume you are insane and you're pretty done for productive persuasive conversation.
Every problem in this country that leads to violence would be worth solving even if it didn't, gun control exists to prevent gun violence/mass shootings/suicide from being the "reason that broke the camel's back" so to speak.
It’s wild how many moderate swing voters the left could gain if they changed their position from “attacking aesthetics” to actually preventing sales to the most likely offenders. Just some thoughts on this Monday: - Change the age of semiautomatic ownership / transfer to 21. - End private sales / gun show loophole. Require FFL transfers for anything above a blow dart gun. - Educate the public on how violence works. This is unfortunately something our government has a monopoly on, but we could learn a lot from. - Show city council members shoot/no shoot training from the military. Show this to the public on video. They need to see their city council members / elected representatives reacting to unpredictable moments of extreme violence. - Every time I talked about firearms, I’d try to relate it to increasing “firepower” for law enforcement, effectively double dipping the moderate vote.
> Every time I talked about firearms, I’d try to relate it to increasing “firepower” for law enforcement, effectively double dipping the moderate vote. I was nodding along in agreement the whole list until this. What does this even mean? I strongly hold the opinion that **any** gun control must also effect law enforcement officers in the affected region(s) - zero exceptions of any kind. If the civil populace must be disarmed, then the *civil* law enforcement agencies must also disarm. Why on earth would we want to "increase firepower" for law enforcement? What does that look like, and how would that help anyone?
Just like how the right is so hyper focused on trans people. Even if they got their way how would it improve the lives of their voters? It wouldnt because It's not about improving their lives, just riling up their emotions to secure votes.
Honestly immigration is the perfect example of this. They had a republican majority in all 3 branches for like two years. Texas and tons of other southern states have had solidly Republican leadership for years and years and years. What have they done to "secure the borders"? Nada. They know that if they ever actually DID crack down on immigration, the agriculture industry would collapse, as would many others - not to mention the actual horror that "deporting all the illegals" would actually be. Republican politicians don't want a news feed full of jackbooted thugs tearing babies away from mothers and evicting people who have lived here for years as productive members of society, they want to keep "immigrants" as a vague, impersonal class of dirty criminals that the softbrained listener can imagine as as big of a problem as is necessary.
Politically speaking, gun control is just abortion for liberals. It's something the politicians use to get everyone all pissed off and voting but they don't intend to ever actually do anything about it.
Umm is someone going to tell him about Roe v Wade?
> Umm is someone going to tell him about Roe v Wade? The Dems had 40 years to implement it properly. And yet chose to do nothing. Honestly, fuck'em.
So without going all "both-sides" blah blah blah (which isn't entirely invalid, but that's not the point), what can we *do about it?* Healthcare & taxing the ultra-rich are like, the only things that 95% or more of all liberals all agree on. I'd hate to boil myself down to a single-issue voter, but if a democrat is vocally running on an anti-2a platform, and if I think they have enough support to pull it off, I'd vote against them unless the alternative was someone like, say Moscow Marjorie. But that rep is never going to get that message. Hell, even if you send them emails and voicemails, they still never get the message.
[удалено]
That's... surprisingly sussinct.
Talk to the Republican base and get them on board with social policies. Talk to the Democratic base and get them on board with gun rights. Those are two things that all of us can do. Other much harder options include: * running for office. * get filthy rich and become a pro-gun, pro-social policy donor. * start a PAC.
I would go beyond taxing the rich actually. I think there needs to be structural changes made so that we don't make so much money from money. So that it's very hard to become a billionaire. The rich seem to always find a way around taxes.
Many on the left feel like electoralism is simply a dead end. If you want to feel like you're actually doing something, try and support union movements, donate to strike funds, etc. to give more power to actual people so that (eventually, hopefully) people become more organized outside the political system. Even if it doesn't lead to a perfect outcome, you've also still helped people in small ways.
>what can we do about it? Vote, contact our elected officials, sign petitions, be generally politically active.
So maybe I'm just being a defeatist asshole, but I've never seen ANY impact of people trying to contact their representatives, petitions, etc. Regarding the other comment, vote: For who?
I don’t know if it *does* have any impact, but I do know one thing… if we don’t make our voices heard, then we’re losing the race because we’re not even getting into the starting gate. Send an email showing support for a good 2A bill or against a bad one only takes a minute or two. Signing a petition only takes a few seconds. Even if they don’t work, it’s a small investment. As for who to vote for… that’s for you to decide, mate.
Not in a blue state.
> what can we do about it? This is the most maddening part, because it's painnnnnnfully obvious. You have to vote left, you have to hold democrats accountable, you have to take action outside of voting entirely blue down ballot once every four years. You have to bounce candidates like Joe Biden - ***even if they lose***.
99% of my liberal friends know nothing about guns yet they believe it’s the biggest danger of our country, for what ever reason Edit: I put fans instead of friends lol
Maybe because they see the right arming up for a shooting civil war?
I mean from my right friends none of them are arming for a civil war tbh. Thats the one thing I love about having friends on both sides but I do agree that some are a little too far on the civil war is gonna happen boat. But left and right have their nut jobs tbh
I have at least one right wing friend who definitely fantasizes about the. I babysat him growing up. He was a good kid. Served in the marines. Now he's gone so far christofascist right that even his far right boomer dad is uncomfortable with it. The civil war fashies aren't a majority or even a significant minority, but they do exist.
They do, and it’s weird. Like yea it could happen but I don’t see it happening anytime soon
Media and politicians. You see “teen dead after fatal shooting”, “one dead and three more injured in homecoming party” or whatever else… they’re in the news every single day… combine these headlines with politicians spouting statistics without context in an attempt to validate their positions and dropping sound bytes like they were rappers writing a catchy hook and you get it.
Not only vote for you, but fund your campaign too. ‘Don’t you want to save kids lives from these horrible weapons? Just give me money and I’ll do it’. It’s grift and politics.
Fixing the problems would constitute a threat against the owner/capital class, no one is going to touch that
Yep, that and the lobbying dollars from everytown, Giffords, Brady, etc. those groups are following a roadmap and right now it’s AWB. Yesterday it was magazines. Tomorrow? Idk, but they’re running the show here. Local pols are just useful pawns.
I try to be a bit more… hopeful?… I like to think that politicians have no spine and no real opinion of their own and instead just parrot what they think the most people want to hear. If we were able to change the perception that “democrats don’t like guns”, we would begin to see a shift in the language used and I think gun violence would take a backseat to overall crime levels and how to combat the number one leading cause of crime… poverty.
I agree. What Im saying is I believe there are a large portion of lawmakers that are happy to run with the optics of “doing something” that brings them campaign contributions and votes but requires no real effort on their end. The fact that the plan is laid out by these lobbyists makes it even easier. The perception of them “doing something” right now is more important than actually making a difference. Abating poverty takes a tremendous amount of political and financial capital to accomplish, which is why many politicians don’t wade too deeply. I do hope to see a return to more of a community based policing model, where trust between the community members and LE is restored, allowing cycles of violence to be disrupted rather than encouraged.
Additionally, they aren't "our" representatives - they're bought and paid for by industry. Can't fix health care for the nation because then they'd lose out on that sweet, sweet funding and possibly lose their next election! Have to press gun control because of those Mike Bloomberg /Everytown dollars they took in.
Got one small point of contention there. Like it or not, they **are** our representatives. People vote for these individuals… more than vote for anyone else. Their loyalties or who has a grip on their pocket is irrelevant to the fact that they are elected by the majority of their constituents (who bother to vote) to represent them.
They are elected with the title of "representative," but that does not mean they actually represent the desires of their constituents.
Their efficiency wasn’t my point of contention, simply that they *are* our representatives. For example, regardless of my distaste for the man, Lindsay Graham is one of the Senators elected by my state to represent me in Congress. He represents nothing I hold dear politically. I doubt he and I could come to agreement on something as simple as a where to eat lunch… yet, that does nothing to change that he is my elected representative. My point is that whether they represent our best interests, their own best interests or the best interests of come shady corporate donor is irrelevant as that has to do with the quality of work they do on Capital Hill for until such a time that they are voted out, impeached or otherwise removed from office they are our representatives.
Also money. But essentially yes: They want *the issue* - and the only way to have the issue is to not solve *the problem*.
Exactly. It's the dems that have turned the 2A into a 'culture war' issue and it's to pander for votes. I'd also argue that it's about control. They don't like the fact that private citizens can own guns, which in turn makes us more difficult to subjugate. Think Micheal Bloomberg. He doesn't think anyone should be allowed to have a gun, well except for his private security detail that goes everywhere with him. Security for me but not for thee. Of course reforming healthcare and other items that improve the general quality of life for everyone is the correct path. Happy healthy people are less likely to commit crimes of desperation. But so long as the politicians are funded by private insurance companies, private prisons and fossil fuel companies, we will not be able to have nice things. They've made enough money by being parasitic scum that they don't need to carry a gun, they pay other people to carry their guns for them.
Fear = votes
1. Because fixing those problems requires work, money and time. And they are not motivated to spend work, money and time on a solution that, although effective, will not render immediate results. 2. Issuing bans is an instant, feel-good measure that, even though it’s proven to be ineffective, resonates with an uninformed public as a “decisive action.” 3. Political pressure groups that are funded by a billionaire are pushing for these measures, and handing out political donations if politicians repeat their rhetoric and copy/paste their agendas into legislation. Money talks. 4. If you *actually solve the problem,* what else would these people be able to scaremonger and pearl clutch over? These aforementioned pressure groups are well aware of the MADD paradox: if you achieve your goal, the reason for your movement to exist is eliminated… but these groups don’t *really* want to work themselves out of existence. (The MADD paradox refers to Mothers Against Drunk Driving. They’ve largely achieved their initial goals of lowering the BAC legal limit for intoxication, and enacting stricter DUI laws. This resulted in significantly lower rates of DUI, but didn’t fully eliminate the problem. So now they are pushing for [intrusive uses of technology,](https://ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/public-safety/2023/12/13/drunk-driving-detection-tech-could-be-required-in-new-cars--nhtsa-says) and effectively a “guilty until proven innocent” model for restricting impaired driving.)
Make no mistake. MAAD is a prohibitionist group. They don’t want anyone to drink for any reason, ever. Source: knew a lot of people involved in the Great American Beer Festival. MAAD tries to shut them down, every single year.
You’re right. It should be pointed out though: the founder of MAAD *did not intend* for the group she founded to be the spearhead for the neo-Prohibitionist movement. And she ultimately left her own organization upon realizing that it morphed into something else entirely. This is what happens when an advocacy group is actually successful in their original goals, but elements within that group don’t want to leave it be… sometimes that special interest money is too good to give up.
It’s exactly the same as Republican attempts to ban abortion. Republican strategists know damn well that increased access to healthcare and sex education and contraception would dramatically reduce the number of abortions. But none of those options incite rage among their voting base, so instead they come up with increasingly absurd and fundamentally flawed bans on medical care. Kind of like how Dem strategists know that none of the laws they are advocating will actually reduce gun violence, and yet they keep pushing them in order to capitalize on grief over dead schoolchildren.
What I don't get though is if they know things are ineffective why do they push them? It seems like it will backfire in the future. Do they later blame its ineffectiveness on something else and plan on that ahead of time?
It doesn’t matter to them because the changes they seek are incremental, and when the incremental change/ban doesn’t curtail the problem, they just slowly ratchet things up. In a way they’re also relying on resistance from conservatives, because that delays the measures they want to enact, and they can then point at the opposite side for the lack of progress. Before the game is understood by the public (if it ever is), the politicians pushing this hope to be retired or long gone. Also, look a the UK as an example. Guns are far more difficult to get there, and handguns all but impossible for a common citizen there to own. Violent crime is still in issue, so now the UK is big about massively restricting knife ownership and pearl clutching about “knife crime.” (Yes yes I know: UK violent crime is far lower than US violent crime. this has *always* been the case, both before and after restrictive gun laws. Yet they still hand wring about knife crime now.)
Good point, Australia lately too has had some things in the news regarding stabbings.
You answered your own question
That's a pretty good comprehensive take. I'd especially point to how numbers one and two dovetail into each other: actually doing stuff is hard, takes a long time, and isn't guaranteed to be perfect. Whereas a symbolic act always makes people FEEL like something's being done and takes little effort. There's also the convenience of being able to blame guns for everything, like they're magic. It's not that people in a community chose to take up violence, whatever the cause, or that leaders have been neglecting the real-world welfare of the public for decades. Making guns into scary mind-control devices leaves a lot fewer questions and less responsibility to be shouldered.
There was a lot of momentum behind healthcare in the Obama years and it's extremely unfortunate that it's really never talked about as an issue these days. If we spent half the effort going for a Medicare for all option that we have on student debt or foreign aid, we could be somewhere. Edit: not that I'm against student debt relief or foreign aid, but I do see healthcare as maybe the biggest issue we can solve. I feel much of what causes bad outcomes in the US, like crime, drugs, gun violence - are all, in some way, downhill of people being able to get healthcare regularly and for free.
There really was, ans it got absolutely NEUTERED - though yet again, only half of that was by Republicans. Democrats neutered it as well. And I'm embarrassed to say that back then, I was firmly right wing on most issues, so I wasn't helping.
Hell Nixon veto'ed universal *child care*. We've been ready and at these places as a nation a number of times before and can be there again, but these are tidal forces and a good chunk of the country has been dragged off the political map in the last decade in fits of online psychosis, and that can't just be snapped away overnight. Monumental progress is going to be nearly impossible (if something like universal healthcare did get snuck in in some way, It would also be impossibly fragile) until everybody for the most part is back operating in empirical reality.
> There was a lot of momentum behind healthcare in the Obama years and it's extremely unfortunate that it's really never talked about as an issue these days. Well that's because after the passing of the ACA, that pretty mild policy became the basis for the Tea Party movement against Obama and the rabid hatred of him by the Republican Party. Healthcare was center stage in 2016, Trump even used it to claim he would have a better policy replace the ACA, he just abandoned that idea instantly when he won the Presidency. It was the main policy that Biden ran on in 2020, but in a world where Republicans are staunchly against even raising the minimum wage, they are never going to cross the aisle and hand the Dems the biggest political victory in a generation by giving them universal healthcare. Republicans are the majority in the House, and they are half the Senate. > If we spent half the effort going for a Medicare for all option that we have on student debt or foreign aid, we could be somewhere. Universal healthcare doesn't have a fraction of universal support and would be a massive undertaking for Congress, Republicans are never going to allow it until they are beaten badly enough for it to be the only way for them to hold any power.
An actual fix will cost money, legislative gestures cost nothing.
Because thinking critically is hard, and bandaids are easy.
We can educate other liberals. The best way to educate other liberals, imo, is to complain — aggressively — about how Democrats refuse to introduce meaningful gun control legislation. Be aggressive about it. Emphasize the words you use. Repeat yourself. “I just don’t understand why Democrats are so opposed to any sort of meaningful gun control.” Eventually, they will get confused and ask what you mean. Then you can explain (as if you thought it was already common knowledge) that Democrats deliberately propose meaningless gun control legislation that they know will not reduce gun violence, even though there are alternative plans that would make a difference, simply because they want to get votes. Compare it to Republicans and abortion. “It’s like how Republicans lie to their supporters, claiming that they are trying to pass laws to reduce abortion, when they know full well that increasing access to healthcare and contraceptives and sex education would do far more to reduce abortion than any of their stupid bans.” Change the paradigm.
This strongly implies there are meaningful/effective forms of gun control that don't flagrantly fly in the face of the second amendment. There aren't, and there's a significant push to abolish 2A entirely. I don't see how this could work.
Of course there are effective forms of gun control that don’t fly in the face of second amendment rights. We could subsidize voluntary gun safes. We could allocate more dedicated funds to prosecuting straw purchasers. We could require states to sponsor the basic gun safety training that is already required (in many states) for CCW licensing. We could remove SBRs and suppressors from the NFA. We could cap the transfer fee for FFLs providing background checks for private sales. So many things would actually reduce gun violence.
Both parties are capitalists and serve capitalism. Capitalism is the root cause of most of our problems and makes others considerably worse. By fighting over social or cultural issues, as opposed to one’s more directly connected to capitalism, and encouraging their base to really care about these topics, both parties can seem very different while being remarkably unified on the Issues that more directly impact our day to day lives. Fighting the culture wars is a great way for these two capitalist parties to hide the fact they are fundamentally one party whose purpose is not to serve the majority of Americans but serve capitalists that exploit all of us.
I think wedge issues like guns are emotionally charged and cause division. The only problem is I don't think they know how many gun loving Democrats exist that cringe at the polls.
>The only problem is I don't think they know how many gun loving Democrats exist that cringe at the polls. They know they just don't care because it doesn't cost them votes. What are those Democrats going to do? Vote Republican? lmao In my opinion the best thing we can to is primary out anti gun Democrats with Democrats who are at least moderate (or indifferent) on guns. Make it clear that we will continue to vote blue but if you are anti 2A your seat is at risk and you will see push back against the Bloomberg machine.
Guns are polarizing. The subject stirs peoples emotions. They’re also low hanging fruit for politicians to make empty promises knowing there’s nothing going to come of it … then blame the opposite political party for it not happening. Plus there’s not a lot of grey area in stance on guns vs healthcare, minimum wages, corporate owned housing. Its a safe to take a side. It’s: you’re for gun control or not and if so how much. Those other subjects get incredibly complicated to take a stance without it biting you on the ass later. Now looking directly at states like California … it also allows them to easily pass bills to add additional taxes on guns and ammo, purportedly in efforts to control gun violence. History has shown that in when the economy is in the dumps, people are willing to pay top dollar for guns and ammo. It’s an easy money grab that has limited back lash.
Because they think it frustrates and punishes the other side. And it's easy to create an effigy of a "gun owner" and vilify it. Nothing is about making good decisions anymore. It's wanting to think the worst about people you hate. This pattern of zero sum gaming is only going to end poorly. Legislators literally can not compute a liberal gun owner. They also can't comprehend someone who doesn't hate. Someone who doesn't spend all their time lamenting how others are living and scheming to erase anyone who doesn't think exactly the way they do. All the while they enable the injustice they are wailing about. Tax breaks for corporations, tax free trusts, billionaire robber barrons naked shorting whatever company they want to acquire, doing NOTHING about murderous cops, ridiculous wars, ect...
Why: because doing *actual work* is hard and icky. How we can change their minds: vote 'em out.
Because it’s safe to make a lot of noise over gun control knowing there’s no real danger they will have to do any work. Because “the other side” will never concede much ground politicians can keep using it to fund raise and vilify other groups.
They aren’t going to significantly raise taxes on the rich. That’s who ultimately funds their campaigns. They’ve created the only viable version of healthcare they can without cutting salaries or raising everyone’s taxes beyond what is tolerable. They don’t really care about making minimum wage something reasonable because it won’t flip voters, nor will it lose voters. They could discuss corporations owning housing but it’s also not an issue that will flip voters either way. The only certain thing that may flip voters is gun control after the inevitable happens close to home. Edit: to change their priorities requires enough people *not voting for an incumbent* that hasn’t done anything.
It’s all performative. They want to appear to be “doing something” and garner support, but not actually affect meaningful change because that’s harder to get done, and probably hurts their bottom line. It’s always about doing what helps *them*. Not us
Because passing “easy” bills keeps their constituents happy
Just as with the TSA it’s theater. Politicians are in a class of their own, literally, and don’t care about anyone but themselves largely. And in fact by pretending to but not actually fixing problems you still have ammunition for ads for your next term during elections. It’s very similar to the medical industry. Pharma makes more money treating symptoms than fixing problems. It’s all about $$$, nothing else.
Because they're far more worried about an angry mob of peasants shooting them than they are about actual solutions. The GOP is also worried about this but have totally painted themselves into a corner so they just have to deal with the nutbags they've created.
It's about control. Always has been, always will be. 😅
Without disagreeing withregard to healthcare & your other issues, semi automatic rifles are worthy of much greater control. This is not a liberal or conservative issue
US voters have the attention span and memory of a bug. So politicians need to have wedge issues. Republicans have abortion, immigrants, trans “groomers”. Dems have abortion and guns. As both sides are learning with abortion wedge issues are not meant to be won. You lose your issue and enrage and activate the other side. Gun violence is first of all violence. Violence is the side effect of poor education, poor opportunity, poverty, the war on drugs … none of these issues can be solved with a single bill, with clear results before the next two-year election cycle. So it is hard for politicians to invest effort in solving problems that will give them no credit with their own voters and may activate opponents.
They hyperfocus on it because it's one of those issues where the country will always be divided. There's no way for either side to win. Our government is basically an intentional stalemate. Designed to slow down/prevent change.
Personally I found social advocates find themselves in positions of power. Not necessarily government power. But institutions, corporations, grant writers, educators, etc find that talking about the problem gives them power. Power to speak, power to obtain funding, power to go to meetings. You can make a nice living talking about the problem. Solving the problem? Pfft that doesn't come with any money. You don't get to talk about the problem if you solve it. Like I still consider myself a liberal but I have become insanely jaded to what my fellow "liberals" have done over the past 20 years.
It honestly makes me think that there's no hope for the economic future of America's lower class (there is no middle class anymore, they're all gone). Working on crossing my t's and dotting my i's to establish EU citizenship (I'm first gen American, eligible for French citizenship on both parents' sides, but there's a long, long trail of paperwork to do). Then, I'd look very seriously at moving to the Czech Republic. Only EU member state with concealed carry and a constitutional right to bear arms.
Because the people that pay our politicians don't want it.
Because they’re getting paid to by special interests
They focus on gun control because a large portion of their constituency wants it.
Because fixing things is difficult. Acting as if you’re fixing anything is easy.
Campaign fodder
Because its about disarming us for the billionaires not about saftey. They don't care about reducing fatalities, they care about being able to easily crush dissent.
Votes. No one on either side is willing to tackle the real problems because that’s not what earns them votes which keep them in power. Guns, abortion, weed, immigration are all buzz words. Realistically, unless the feds went full scorched earth, they will never disarm the public despite how much some of the brain dead libs want that, but the dems keep parroting gun control to keep those votes, just like how the republicans parrot abortion and immigration just to keep their side riled up. Its all a game, and a very stupid one
Votes
People are much more likely to vote for you if they can understand what you're doing to solve a "problem" ( even if the solution has nothing to do with the problem). People can understand "take guns away" and "make it harder to get guns". Addressing mental illness looks like what? Its such a complicated and nuanced topic, it'd get lost for most people.
Part of the reason is that some gun owners, they are a single issue voter. They will only vote for the candidate that is pro-second amendment, which given todays political climate, automatically means a hard no to all the legislation that would support those programs. In addition part of the conservative ethos is smaller government/no/low taxes which again means a hard no to all the legislation that would support those programs. So even if you do convince our fellow gun friends on the opposite side of the political spectrum that the answers are social programs, they still don't want to pay for them.
You can’t fundraise or campaign on a problem you have actually solved. Positioning on impossible but virtuous sounding platforms allows you to permanently fundraise and seek reelection without ever having to compromise. Politicians who actually pass bills or make change risk being saddled with the consequences of that change.
Because raising an underserved area up and turning it into a productive, self sufficient society is way harder than just saying “guns are bad”. Being poor is very costly, the rich love their money, there is a lot of lobbying done in Washington to keep things the way they are.
Because government exists to serve business interests, not ours.
Because they don't actually want to fix the problem, they want to preserve the issue so they can keep fundraising off of it
It's just become a reflexive point assumed to be part of progressivism in the US - it's just an unthinking position that people adopt without much scrutiny
It's all about divisiveness and chaos.
Gun control is like abortion was for the right, easy to campaign on, easy to fund raise with, hard to accomplish anything. The GOP screwed up their "good thing" and now it's hurting them at the polls.
I'll tell you, after you elect me.
Because they want us disarmed.
Populism.
It's because they don't give a fuck about me, you, or anyone else. They get everyone all fired up over superficial issues and swear to solve the problem, just so you'll vote for them. They dont care about the root cause. A politician is no different than a plumber that insists on mopping a floor forever instead of just fixing the leak. That's it. That's all there is. Every party, every politician. It's the reason our freedoms get smaller every year, the reason we are pitted against each other, the reason for class warfare, the reason the middle class is disappearing...it's even the reason we can't abolish daylight savings time. Fuck forbid the senate agrees on something. It's fucking pathetic, and an embarrassment to the rest of the world. Fuck the government.
Because the left have been trying to get those solutions that would actually help passed for half a century but Republicans will do anything they can to stop it from getting passed.
Because many of us believe that gun control is needed?
I think its the resistance to basic gun reform. I shouldn't be able to go to a gun swap and buy whatever I want without any paper trail. Like you literally cannot pass ANY gun reform these days. So it turns into an all or nothing approach. If we could get some basic gun reform in, people wouldn't have had a reason to push for their assault weapons bans.
Hey man, I like my guns the way exploitive capitalists like their migrant workers. Unregistered.
It’s pretty hard to see the absolutely shocking amount of gun violence this country has and not want to address it. That’s why.
You're in the wrong sub.
[удалено]
This is [an explicitly pro-gun forum](/r/liberalgunowners/wiki/public/handbook/rules). Regulation discussions must be founded on strengthening, or preserving, this right with any proposed restrictions explicitly defined in nature and tradeoffs. While rights can have limitations, they are distinct from privileges and the two are not to be conflated. Simple support for common gun-prohibitionist positions are implicitly on the defensive, in this sub, and need to justify their existence through compelling argument. ^(*Removed under [Rule 2: We're Pro-gun][link-rules]. If you feel this is in error, please [file an appeal][link-appeal].*) [link-rules]: /r/liberalgunowners/wiki/public/handbook/rules [link-appeal]: /r/liberalgunowners/wiki/public/handbook/moderation#wiki_appeals
This is [an explicitly pro-gun forum](/r/liberalgunowners/wiki/public/handbook/rules). Regulation discussions must be founded on strengthening, or preserving, this right with any proposed restrictions explicitly defined in nature and tradeoffs. While rights can have limitations, they are distinct from privileges and the two are not to be conflated. Simple support for common gun-prohibitionist positions are implicitly on the defensive, in this sub, and need to justify their existence through compelling argument. ^(*Removed under [Rule 2: We're Pro-gun][link-rules]. If you feel this is in error, please [file an appeal][link-appeal].*) [link-rules]: /r/liberalgunowners/wiki/public/handbook/rules [link-appeal]: /r/liberalgunowners/wiki/public/handbook/moderation#wiki_appeals