Time for Democrats to ditch gun control.

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

zzyzxroad

Diamond Member
Jan 29, 2017
3,255
2,272
136
Nobody cares about suicides with guns. People care about suicides but don't care about whether its with guns or without guns.

If there were zero other gun deaths besides suicides, I doubt there'd be a gun control movement.
My point was suicided is a bigger issue and get less discussion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nickqt

pauldun170

Diamond Member
Sep 26, 2011
9,142
5,089
136
I don't think not running on gun control would stop Republicans from lying about them running on gun control.

This is exactly it.
Every Democrat could avoid the topic of guns all together and join the thought and prayer brigade and FoxNews\Talking Heads\GOP mailer\Candidate would be dropping Democrats taking away your guns talking points like there was a quota system in place.

If The Republican machine can train their followers into repeating "Socialism and Communism" talking points they can certainly keep the NRA fear train going
 

Veliko

Diamond Member
Feb 16, 2011
3,597
127
106
It wouldn't make any difference.

The Democrats aren't socialists and Joe Biden doesn't have a shed load of radical left policies planned, yet the Republicans will quite happily say that the Dems are socialists who want to implement radical left policies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DaaQ and nickqt

repoman0

Diamond Member
Jun 17, 2010
4,701
3,727
136
This is exactly it.
Every Democrat could avoid the topic of guns all together and join the thought and prayer brigade and FoxNews\Talking Heads\GOP mailer\Candidate would be dropping Democrats taking away your guns talking points like there was a quota system in place.

If The Republican machine can train their followers into repeating "Socialism and Communism" talking points they can certainly keep the NRA fear train going

The thing is, they have examples to point to of heavily democratic states that have kind of dumb restrictions in place. In my state, AR-15s and AK-47s are outlawed, as are >10 round magazines. But if I wanted to pay extra money, I could buy an artificially inflated pre-1994 AR-15 no problem. I can also buy a Mini-14 at any gun shop which is basically the same thing and quite easily get 30 round magazines for it. So they can somewhat correctly point out that the restrictions are pointless and overreaching, and don’t really solve anything. Goes a long way toward the perception that the state is a “nanny state” to some people, and that perception doesn’t stop at our borders. It’s just a waste of political capital, and regardless of what the right wing media says, removing those restrictions would go a long way with some people I think. And as I’ve said on here before, it only takes a couple percent shift away from the GOP on this issue and they don’t win POTUS or Congress nationally again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rommelrommel

balloonshark

Diamond Member
Jun 5, 2008
6,580
3,059
136
Everyone who voted Dem gets a free AR-15 and Canik TP9? That might wake up the right lol
After not owning a gun for almost 20 years I couldn't ignore the crazy anymore. In May I bought a Canik TP9 DA and just got my AR-15 put together and bore sighted on Tue. ;)

This year had record setting gun sales and many of them were first time buyers. It would be great seeing libs in rainbow shirts and pussy hats sipping on their green smoothies showing up at the ranges.
 

pauldun170

Diamond Member
Sep 26, 2011
9,142
5,089
136
The thing is, they have examples to point to of heavily democratic states that have kind of dumb restrictions in place. In my state, AR-15s and AK-47s are outlawed, as are >10 round magazines. But if I wanted to pay extra money, I could buy an artificially inflated pre-1994 AR-15 no problem. I can also buy a Mini-14 at any gun shop which is basically the same thing and quite easily get 30 round magazines for it. So they can somewhat correctly point out that the restrictions are pointless and overreaching, and don’t really solve anything. Goes a long way toward the perception that the state is a “nanny state” to some people, and that perception doesn’t stop at our borders. It’s just a waste of political capital, and regardless of what the right wing media says, removing those restrictions would go a long way with some people I think. And as I’ve said on here before, it only takes a couple percent shift away from the GOP on this issue and they don’t win POTUS or Congress nationally again.

If democrats were to stop all efforts and for every shooting respond with "Sucks to be you", the talking points would still continue.
That's all I'm saying
 

repoman0

Diamond Member
Jun 17, 2010
4,701
3,727
136
If democrats were to stop all efforts and for every shooting respond with "Sucks to be you", the talking points would still continue.
That's all I'm saying

I agree with you, but I also think that at least a small minority wouldn’t buy it, and that’d be enough.
 

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
13,634
8,521
136
Holy crap all of those complete sentences with real examples and reasoning and not meaningless talking points.

what a world!

What country is that?

The past?
It's another country, apparently. They do things differerently there.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,632
50,853
136
It’s funny how the response when Republicans win is that democrats should adopt Republican policies. When democrats win they should also adopt Republican policies.

Gun control is a very popular idea, it is just unpopular among a very specific set of voters. A lot of democratic positions on it poll at like 80%+!

There are a number of policies democrats should probably abandon or de-emphasize but gun control isn’t one of them.
 

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
14,221
4,452
136
Here is the truth: no Democrat really supports any substantial gun control.
All but a few extremists on both sides basically agree on the same few gun control points.
The 'they are coming for your guns' is almost entirely a boogyman of the Right.

The only two planks concerning gun control in the Democratic policy is this:
  • expand and strengthen background checks for those who want to purchase a firearm
  • ensure that guns don’t fall into the hands of terrorists (whether they be domestic or foreign), domestic abusers, other violent criminals, or those who have shown signs of danger toward themselves or others.
That is it. A few Conservitives might disagree with the first one, but not that many.
 
  • Like
Reactions: soulcougher73

Maxima1

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2013
3,538
759
146
It’s funny how the response when Republicans win is that democrats should adopt Republican policies. When democrats win they should also adopt Republican policies.

Yeah, so is the response of the Democratic establishment.

Gun control is a very popular idea, it is just unpopular among a very specific set of voters. A lot of democratic positions on it poll at like 80%+!

There are a number of policies democrats should probably abandon or de-emphasize but gun control isn’t one of them.

This is not a winner.


Are you for or against a law which would make it illegal to manufacture, sell or possess semi-automatic guns known as assault rifles?

ForAgainstNo opinion
%%%
2019 Aug 15-30 ^47511
2018 Oct 1-1040573
2017 Oct 5-1148493
2016 Oct 5-936613
2012 Dec 19-2244515
2011 Oct 6-943535
2004 Oct 11-1450464
2000 Oct 25-28 #59392
1996 Apr 25-28 #5742

 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
It’s funny how the response when Republicans win is that democrats should adopt Republican policies. When democrats win they should also adopt Republican policies.

Gun control is a very popular idea, it is just unpopular among a very specific set of voters. A lot of democratic positions on it poll at like 80%+!

There are a number of policies democrats should probably abandon or de-emphasize but gun control isn’t one of them.

In case you haven't noticed, it wasn't a Democrat "win," it was more of a split decision. We didn't win the Senate, so Biden won't get to pass legislation we want, appoint judges we want, or even form a cabinet we want. Now what should we do about it? Senate has a bias towards small, rural states, which get same 2 senators as large urban states. We need to win those states to get the Senate so we can pass things that are important to us, and they aren't generally hot on gun control. Secondly, GOP won state legislatures, so they will continue gerrymandering Democrats into urban enclaves, meaning evenly split states like NC will continue having 70+% Republican House delegation, that is unless we go after the rural vote, in which case again, we would need to revisit gun control to appeal to those voters.
So we can be stuck on this gun control issue which we can't pass anyways, or we can ditch it, talk about issues that actually matter to most people across America, like health care and education, and actually build a majority party.
Finally, we shouldn't just have a debate on whether to push gun control as a political calculation, but also whether our current position on it still make sense in the rise of fascistic tendencies on the right that threaten to send this country into civil strife and armed mob rule. Trumpism isn't going away any time soon. Those people are still there, armed and on "standby," waiting for the next authoritarian personality cult leader to come along and give them orders. Maybe the next one won't be a bone spurs coward like Trump but a real thug. It seems like now is not the time to continue to unilaterally disarm and hope for the best.
 

SmCaudata

Senior member
Oct 8, 2006
969
1,532
136
Agreed. Go after universal background checks. Package that with something like making suppressors unrestricted (they do protect hearing better than earmuffs). Then be done with guns.

Healthcare, livable wages and environment/climate change are the most important things and are something that the vast majority of Americans can get behind.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bitek and repoman0

Sunburn74

Diamond Member
Oct 5, 2009
5,037
2,615
136
Again, i agree they should stop talking about it and just do it and when people ask them about it just play dumb like the republicans do. Just pass subtle restrictions slowly and slowly without talking about.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,632
50,853
136
In case you haven't noticed, it wasn't a Democrat "win," it was more of a split decision. We didn't win the Senate, so Biden won't get to pass legislation we want, appoint judges we want, or even form a cabinet we want. Now what should we do about it? Senate has a bias towards small, rural states, which get same 2 senators as large urban states. We need to win those states to get the Senate so we can pass things that are important to us, and they aren't generally hot on gun control. Secondly, GOP won state legislatures, so they will continue gerrymandering Democrats into urban enclaves, meaning evenly split states like NC will continue having 70+% Republican House delegation, that is unless we go after the rural vote, in which case again, we would need to revisit gun control to appeal to those voters.
So we can be stuck on this gun control issue which we can't pass anyways, or we can ditch it, talk about issues that actually matter to most people across America, like health care and education, and actually build a majority party.
Finally, we shouldn't just have a debate on whether to push gun control as a political calculation, but also whether our current position on it still make sense in the rise of fascistic tendencies on the right that threaten to send this country into civil strife and armed mob rule. Trumpism isn't going away any time soon. Those people are still there, armed and on "standby," waiting for the next authoritarian personality cult leader to come along and give them orders. Maybe the next one won't be a bone spurs coward like Trump but a real thug. It seems like now is not the time to continue to unilaterally disarm and hope for the best.
You shouldn’t confuse structural advantages for Republicans with them winning voters. In the end it looks like they will win the popular vote by about five points. Abandoning popular policies is unlikely to help them get more.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
You shouldn’t confuse structural advantages for Republicans with them winning voters. In the end it looks like they will win the popular vote by about five points. Abandoning popular policies is unlikely to help them get more.
You are confusing winning popular votes with winning power to get policies passed. Ask Hillary Clinton and Al Gore. We need to win in the world we live in, not the world we wished we lived in, in order to change the world.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,632
50,853
136
You are confusing winning popular votes with winning power to get policies passed. Ask Hillary Clinton and Al Gore. We need to win in the world we live in, not the world we wished we lived in, in order to change the world.
But why would adopting unpopular policies help with this?
 

MrSquished

Lifer
Jan 14, 2013
23,079
21,201
136
Assault weapons ban is not a popular policy. Agree that few would complain about universal background checks.

See my earlier post. I would say proceed with universal background checks and stop talking about assault weapon bans. But even wait on the background checks until after the 2022 midterms.
 
  • Like
Reactions: repoman0

Sunburn74

Diamond Member
Oct 5, 2009
5,037
2,615
136
My point was suicided is a bigger issue and get less discussion.

I would disagree that suicide is a bigger issue than other deaths from gun violence. I do agree that it gets less discussion. I'm not saying I think US suicide rates are great or that suicide doesn't matter (suicide is terrible), but to me I feel that in terms of a negative impact on society non-suicide gun violence has much greater costs and impacts because it has much greater externalities and social costs. We don't for example fund police or have incredible prison systems or legal systems to take care of people committing suicide at home.

I mean in NY if you shoot yourself in the leg, it'll cost 100 to 200K for the state to imprison you per year. In california, for death penalty cases for gun violence they say it costs more than a quarter billion dollars from the time the person is arrested to the time the person is finally executed for the state in terms of total costs. That's 250 million dollars spent by the State of Ca per person on death row, largely for gun violence. In fact, I kind of wonder if juries had to sign the price tag at the time of sentencing, they'd keep going for death penalties.

Anyway thats not even talking about the costs to victims.
 
Last edited:

repoman0

Diamond Member
Jun 17, 2010
4,701
3,727
136
Gallup does not agree.

Considering most Dem policies on their own poll at like 80%, that’s pretty weak. I’m sure it’s plenty popular in reliably blue cities, but it’s incredibly toxic in many areas that Dems are going to need to win. Biden just won by historic margins and is barely squeaking by in the EC.
 

renz20003

Platinum Member
Mar 14, 2011
2,714
634
136
We don’t have a gun problem, we have a society that breeds whacked out mass killers. Let’s work on that.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,632
50,853
136
Considering most Dem policies on their own poll at like 80%, that’s pretty weak. I’m sure it’s plenty popular in reliably blue cities, but it’s incredibly toxic in many areas that Dems are going to need to win. Biden just won by historic margins and is barely squeaking by in the EC.
I mean I guess. It has close to 2/3rds support.

I’m just saying as a general rule ditching policies that have 2/3rds support is not a great way to increase your margins. It could be that opposition is highly concentrated in strategic areas, although I would want to see data on that.

I think the best argument for dropping it is related but I don’t find it super convincing - mainly that gun rights people are single issue voters similar to the anti abortion folks. I am skeptical that many would change parties though in either case.