How did gun control become a "losing issue" for Democrats?

[Willie Pep]

I am wondering if members here could help with some history. It seems like there used to be more support for gun control legislation. It seems like up until the 1990s there was more support for gun control laws culminating in legislation like the Brady Bill. But since then there has been a big push against gun control and now many people, including some liberals, seem to see the issue as a political liability and a losing issue for Democrats.

So what accounts for this change? I have heard theories ranging from the decline in crime making people less anxious about controlling gun violence (the theory being that white Americans tended to be more supportive of gun control when they thought it would take guns away from non-white criminals but not themselves) to blowback from incidents like Ruby Ridge and Waco in the 1990s that made people wary of government overreach.

Your thoughts?

[Skittles]

1. it's not Democrats who are losing

it is AMERICA

[dweller]

3. this 🔺

[FSogol]

2. It's not a losing issue. Right wing viewpoints much?

[Motownman78]

4. Because for a lot of states

especially rural ones like South dakota, wyoming, idaho, montana new mexico, colorado, alabama, gun violence really isn't a thing that concerns them. These are places people leave their front doors unlocked at night.

[Skittles]

15. until the local axe murder occurs

then EVERYONE locks their door

[Motownman78]

18. Not even then

it is a totally different mentality where gun violence is seen as a big city problem. And these rural states and areas are represented by a majority in the house and senate.

[PatrickforO]

27. Just the Senate.

Every state has two US Senators. Even states like Wyoming and the Dakotas. This was because our founders worried about our people being subjected to the 'tyranny of the majority.' This way, the Senators of tiny states can wield as much power or more as the Senators from populous states. Funny...sounds like the 'tyranny of the minority' to me.

As to the House, each district in the House is made up of approximately 711,000 people. The problem here is gerrymandering, which has allowed some districts to be 'comfortable' whacko districts just because of the way they are drawn.

[whathehell]

34. If they view gun violence as a "big city problem"

and they don't LIVE there, who, or what are their arsenals of

semi- automatics "protecting" them from?

[Skittles]

41. yes, I have lived rural and seen the sheer hypocrisy

I know all about "small town values"

[hack89]

5. Because they fixate on gun bans

and people really don't support them.

[whathehell]

10. Um, background checks aren't "gun bans"

and after the Sandy Hook massacre, were supported by 96% of all Americans, gun owners included. The Repuke backed NRA opposed them and they didn't pass.

[whathehell]

20. I am in FAVOR of the Assault Weapons Ban.

as are MOST Americans..They are weapons of WAR and they ARE banned in every other civilized country.

What "poisons the well" in this country is Paranoia, Toxic Masculinity and the Profit Motive of the NRA.

[hack89]

21. And in one post you answered the OP's question. nt

[whathehell]

23. and that answer tells me your stance is in the minority here..

since you clearly don't WANT any gun control....For most here, background checks alone aren't enough.

[hack89]

25. I voluntarily live in a blue state with strict gun control

I support most gun control measures with only two exceptions - AWBs and registration.
That still leaves plenty of things that can be done. Plenty of things we can agree on.

[whathehell]

28. Uh huh

Please explain you, or any civilian in this country would need an automatic weapon, and how and why this would outweigh the RIGHT of Americans to live with a reasonable expectation of safety?


PS. The "strict" gun laws in the US , are viewed as quite loose in other countries. --- .Just sayin'.

[hack89]

29. No one needs automatic weapons

all of mine are semi-automatic. The shooter used bump stocks that are in a legal grey area - the gun receivers were still semi-automatic. Bump stocks should be illegal.

[whathehell]

30. That's correct, so why do you oppose banning them?

"all of mine are semi-automatic"

"All" of them, lol? How many do you own and why do you need semi-automatic weapons?

[hack89]

33. I don't oppose banning automatic weapons.

I own four AR-15s - one for each family member. We compete in shooting competitions as a family. AR-15s are the standard rifle for them.

[whathehell]

35. Uh huh

How old are you, if I may ask?

[Kingofalldems]

32. So you are claiming background checks would have passed

without Feinstein?

[hack89]

36. They had a much better chance.

UBCs have wide support among gun owners so it would have been hard for the NRA to oppose it. AWBs, on the other hand, have little support among gun owners. Additionally, AWBs historically have never been that popular with the general population with support oscillating between the high 50s to the high 30s. Adding an AWB to the mix allowed the NRA to change the subject and rally support against the entire package.

http://news.gallup.com/poll/196658/support-assault-weapons-ban-record-low.aspx

[Kingofalldems]

37. That's a good story.

NRA won't allow any gun legislation.

[whathehell]

24. Um, no..they "fixate" on restricting Weapons of war

for civilians.

[Baitball Blogger]

6. For the same reason that minority issues were kept out of the conversations the closer we got to

election day.

It's hard to really commit when you're trying to appeal to swing voters and/or Democrats who are pro-gun. The NRA has better control of this issue, than the Democrats do because they can directly talk to their supporters.

[sarcasmo]

7. NRA owns the GOP.

[stuffmatters]

12. Given what we now know about Putin dark money/propaganda, does Putin own the NRA too?

I've ALWAYS wondered how the NRA had so much money that they could essentially pick & choose Republican legislators.

[sarcasmo]

13. Pence received 30 million in donations from the NRA.

[stuffmatters]

17. Yeah, I'm really starting to ? where the NRA really got/ gets it's obscene wealth to own the GOP.

And definitely, NRA's outsized power and funding of the GOP goes back at least to Reagan, the era when "drown govt in a bathtub" and ginned up RW culture wars got shotgun married.

[bettyellen]

8. I think the GOP turned toward fear of "other" Americans when the world seemed safer- after the cold

War ended and we had less violence in the late eighties and nineties. And they've stuck with that despite having outside threats they also like to harp on since 9/11.

I don't get how guns and football are symbolic of patriotism to people- both can be so brutal- and devoid of any sort of democratic principals. It doesn't compute.

[marylandblue]

9. Because the GOP formula God, guns and gays worked

[Hoyt]

11. Some Democrats can't envision life without a closet full of guns and one or two

strapped to their body when they walk out the door. Most GOPers are that way.

It's amazing to me that either supports someone who sold illegal guns to Ayran Nation (Ruby Ridge) or raped young girls (Waco).

[Sgent]

14. The Brady Bill

is what killed us. Its the reason that Newt and the R's took over the House for the first time in 40+ years. Ever since then D's have been on the wrong side of gun control.

The problem was the assault weapons ban, as it banned guns functionally equivalent to hunting rifles, with the differences being cosmetic. The R's then leveraged that into the D's are trying to take your guns.

Since then, its become more and more one sided (R vs D), and there are enough single issue voters on the R side that they can primary an R candidate who doesn't vote with them.

[moda253]

38. Yep. We skipped facts and science with the argument and just went for emotion

We literally said "Judge this book (gun) by it's cover (looks)" which was a very bad misstep. It made democrats look like they wanted to take away everyone's gun. Setting aside the argument over whether outlawing all guns is a good idea or not, the concept is not something that was ever doable, and was never going to be accepted by the general public.

This was the worst mistake we could have made on gon control

[JI7]

16. it's not really a losing issue. Joe Manchin decided to support Gun Control after Sandy Hook, Terry

Mcauliffe , and Obama and Clinton and other democrats have won statewide in Virginia running on Gun Control Platform.

the gun issue is more related to civil rights and minorities . racist white people want to be armed to defend themselves against the minorities.

their reaction to Philando Castile shooting shows this.

[aikoaiko]

22. We pushed for stupid laws and the gun banner wing of the gun control contingent was hubristic

The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban was the fomenting issue for many RLBA activists and it caught on with many gun owners.

The AWB accomplished nothing except motivating gun owners and the NRA.

[democratisphere]

26. Most gun owners are responsible gun owners and are not insane,

crazy or raging. Why would any political party alienate this large group of voters or potential voters.

[Orsino]

31. American phallocentrism and male inadequacy started it...

...but we are experiencing a positive feedback loop, in which increasing marginalization of citizens leads to more gun violence, which spurs more gun sales for self-defense, which gives the NRA more lobbying power, which relaxes gun restrictions, which leads to more gun sales and the marginalization of non-gun owners.

I don't know how we stop.

[louis c]

39. The politics of rabid minorities

The gun issue polls exceedingly well for stricter laws. Something like 80% to 20%.

The 80%, however, prioritize many other issues. Union rights (my priority), abortion rights, gay rights, health care, education and so on.

That 20% couldn't give a shit about anything else accept their guns. Other issues may be important, but anyone running who wants common sense restrictions on their "gun rights" becomes a non-starter.

[inwiththenew]

40. We blew it in 1994 with some lame half measure

The so called "Assault Weapon Ban" didn't really ban anything other than features which contributed little to the lethality of the weapon. But either way that wasn't what should have been gone after.

What should have been gone after was handguns. They are far and away the biggest killers. Even if you got rid of all the assault weapons you are only talking about maybe a 5-7% reduction in gun deaths. Handguns make up the largest killer by huge margin. They are also the most commonly used in crimes.

Now since 1994 look how many states have passed law allowing people to carry handguns on their person. So that genie is completely out of the bottle now.