Where have the gun control advocates gone?

[Texashiker]

As I was visiting some websites that promote gun control after a mass shooting, it dawned upon me that the sites have not mentioned gun control in several months.

The silence leads me to believe their opinion on gun control is based on emotion rather than logic.

My opinion, if you believe in something, and you have a firm stance on the topic, then you talk about it.

When my family and I get together the conversation usually turns to politics, taxes, retirement, money, kids,,,, and other stuff that impacts our everyday life.

If the authors of the big websites truly want gun control, why do they only write about it when there is a mass shooting and when emotions are running high?

Take huffpost and motherjones for example. In the months after sandy hook there was some kind of anti-gun / pro-gun control article almost every other day. But for the past few months both sites have been quiet on gun control.

While on the other hand, pro-gun sites like the truth about guns, NRA, and guns save lives have some kind of pro-gun article just about everyday.

It appears to me the pro-gun authors are doing a better job of educating the public than the gun haters.

 

[Genx87]

They are waiting for the next mass shooting to push their agenda. It is difficult to push an agenda when emotions are low.

 

[Smoblikat]

You answered your own question.

Gun control is a "fair weather friend", as in, they only care about it when it suits their emotional and political agenda.

 

[KB]

I think gun control folks are laying low because, one, they lost the national argment. No gun control was passed at a national level because of Sandy Hook and the state gun control actions were inadequate (actually do very little to stop such killings).

Two, we haven't had big mass shootings, that weren't gang or drug related, in which gun control would have worked. The DC Navy yard shooter purchased his gun legally, was a Navy contractor and used a shotgun, not an assault rifle. He got his pistol by shooting a cop.

Third, we have had several high profile knifings. Knife control is seen as truly desperate, so no one will put out the argument for it.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/nyc-responders-dead-brooklyn-stabbing-20693675
http://abcnews.go.com/US/massachuse...tabbing-danvers-high-school/story?id=20656240
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/04/mass-stabbing-lone-star-college/64046/

 

[thraashman]

Well they could always try to shut down the government to get their way despite having lost the fight and no hope of that tactic working. That seems to be the popular tactic amongst the far right.

 

[Texashiker]

Two, we haven't had big mass shootings, that weren't gang or drug related, in which gun control would have worked. The DC Navy yard shooter purchased his gun legally, was a Navy contractor and used a shotgun, not an assault rifle. He got his pistol by shooting a cop.

I would like to add the mental health of the shooters are usually drawn into question.

Adam Lanza, history of some kind of mental illness.

Aurora Colorado theater, shooter pleading insane.

Navy yard shooter, reported hearing voices before the shooting.

It seems to me the gun control people might finally be realizing we have a mental health crisis, rather than a gun control crisis.

 

[sportage]

I suppose wearing a seat belt can be thought as an agenda also?
We're still here. Just ducking while and waiting for all the gun nuts to shoot each other.
Then we will surface again.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

The vast majority of the people who supported gun control laws were merely being good puppets for our dear leader and his agenda at the time.

Nowadays they have been directed to focus on this idiotic socialized healthcare system.

 

[Genx87]

Well they could always try to shut down the government to get their way despite having lost the fight and no hope of that tactic working. That seems to be the popular tactic amongst the far right.

Is this a shutting down the govt but leaving 85% of it open type of shutdown?

 

[SpatiallyAware]

I suppose wearing a seat belt can be thought as an agenda also?
We're still here. Just ducking while and waiting for all the gun nuts to shoot each other.
Then we will surface again.

LOL

The number of gun owners, CCW gun owners in particular, has skyrocketed over the last few years.

There are far more gunowners, young gunowners, who aren't going to allow any more rights to be stripped.

To be honest, 10-15 years ago I really thought the gun grabbers would succeed. It's interesting to see that the gun owners 'gave them an inch' and they 'took a mile'..... So now everyone absolutely refuses to cooperate with any gun grabber bills.

We're seeing the archaic magazine limits get pulled, I mean pretty much every state has headed strongly towards LESS gun control other than caliporndrugfornia and a select few northeast states.

 

[Orignal Earl]

The amount of actual people who see a " 4 people stabbed to death" headline, and have as a first thought " gun control" are a very tiny minority.
There's probably way more people out there concerned about abortion ( yes Londo I can't back that up, just haveing a thought)
In the US the whole issue seems to mostly get any attention because it's used as a way to get some votes one way or another

Edit- and of course a very tiny amount of IT guys with no life and obsessing on the issue

 

[unokitty]

Could it be that the 'gun control' lobby is less about guns and more about extending government control?

Uno

 

[glenn1]

I would like to think the lack of recent activity is due to them rethinking their message. They would do a lot better if they focused on the weapons actually used in most gang violence - cheap .25 pistols. Instead they seem to be completely fixated on "assault rifles" which are a non-issue for the most part. Put a laser-like focus on the guns actually used in gang shooting and stop worrying about the AR-15 variants used by hunters in "flyover country" (already a poor choice compared to something like a Remington 700) and the .357 Magnum owned by Alaskans to defend their kids against getting eaten by a bear.

 

[WelshBloke]

As I was visiting some websites that promote gun control after a mass shooting, it dawned upon me that the sites have not mentioned gun control in several months.

The silence leads me to believe their opinion on gun control is based on emotion rather than logic.

My opinion, if you believe in something, and you have a firm stance on the topic, then you talk about it.

When my family and I get together the conversation usually turns to politics, taxes, retirement, money, kids,,,, and other stuff that impacts our everyday life.

If the authors of the big websites truly want gun control, why do they only write about it when there is a mass shooting and when emotions are running high?

Take huffpost and motherjones for example. In the months after sandy hook there was some kind of anti-gun / pro-gun control article almost every other day. But for the past few months both sites have been quiet on gun control.

While on the other hand, pro-gun sites like the truth about guns, NRA, and guns save lives have some kind of pro-gun article just about everyday.

It appears to me the pro-gun authors are doing a better job of educating the public than the gun haters.

Maybe you pro gun folks stopped shouting long enough to notice that not that many people were arguing with you in the first place? :biggrin:

 

[DominionSeraph]

Where have all the birthers gone?
"The Clintons murdered Vince Foster?"
"Harry Potter promotes witchcraft?"
Why is the Republican party trying to hide its racism?

 

[tweaker2]

Where are they you ask? Why, they're under your bed, in your closet, hiding in the dark, dank corners of your basement. They're your son-in-law, the local sheriff, the pastor of your church, your spouse. Why, they're EVERYWHERE! Or so the NRA propaganda ministry would have you believe. Well, what I said is at least partly true. You can sort that out for yourself.

 

[Texashiker]

Maybe you pro gun folks stopped shouting long enough to notice that not that many people were arguing with you in the first place? :biggrin:

I think you are right.

It seems to me the only people pushing gun control were the far left. Once those far left people got sidetracked with immigration or abortion, they pretty much forgot about gun control

 

[Tom]

I think gun control folks are laying low because, one, they lost the national argment. No gun control was passed at a national level because of Sandy Hook and the state gun control actions were inadequate (actually do very little to stop such killings).

Two, we haven't had big mass shootings, that weren't gang or drug related, in which gun control would have worked. The DC Navy yard shooter purchased his gun legally, was a Navy contractor and used a shotgun, not an assault rifle. He got his pistol by shooting a cop.

Third, we have had several high profile knifings. Knife control is seen as truly desperate, so no one will put out the argument for it.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/nyc-responders-dead-brooklyn-stabbing-20693675
http://abcnews.go.com/US/massachuse...tabbing-danvers-high-school/story?id=20656240
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/04/mass-stabbing-lone-star-college/64046/

First of all the "gun control advocates" are largely a fiction created to have something to scare people into voting on one issue. Just like scary gays and scary immigrants.

Secondly, things that sensible people do support, like better background checks, could have possibly prevented the DC shooter from buying a shotgun right before he attacked.

 

[WelshBloke]

I think you are right.

It seems to me the only people pushing gun control were the far left. Once those far left people got sidetracked with immigration or abortion, they pretty much forgot about gun control

I can only really comment on what I see here on this forum.

How it usually goes.

*Thread started about some tragedy which may involve (but not necessarily) guns*

Couple of reasonable responses expressing sorrow.

Sarcastic post saying "we should ban [object involved in original story]"

Post stating that if the victim was armed this wouldn't have happened.

Someone disagreeing with the above.

Lots of posts saying "OMG [poster above] wants to take all our guns!!!!!"

 

[Orignal Earl]

Where are they you ask? Why, they're under your bed, in your closet, hiding in the dark, dank corners of your basement. They're your son-in-law, the local sheriff, the pastor of your church, your spouse. Why, they're EVERYWHERE! Or so the NRA propaganda ministry would have you believe. Well, what I said is at least partly true. You can sort that out for yourself.

What? What?
No no, it's none of the people I actually know in real life.
My good friend is black, my doc is Muslim, my next door neighbor is Mexican, The it guy at the office, the are all great people.
It's all the black folk, Muslims, and Mexicans and IT guys, I see on the internet that are the crazy ones....
Lol ,)

 

[irishScott]

First of all the "gun control advocates" are largely a fiction created to have something to scare people into voting on one issue. Just like scary gays and scary immigrants.

Secondly, things that sensible people do support, like better background checks, could have possibly prevented the DC shooter from buying a shotgun right before he attacked.

So Feinstein, McCarthy, Cuomo, Bloomberg, Obama, Biden, and their useless assault weapons/magazine bans are a fiction? God I wish. I think you just answered the OP's question. It appears gun control advocates are trying to pretend they don't exist; so as to convince the populace that the pro-gunners are fighting boogie men. Tactic of desperation if I ever heard one. They'll have to lie low for a decade before people (gun owners) even start to forget.

When you can guarantee that said background checks won't turn into a defacto ban or registry, I'm listening. Right now your political advocates are far from "sensible". The only reason they don't repeal the 2nd amendment outright is because they aren't being allowed. With some very rare exceptions, their "sensible" legislation is merely an attempt to inch forward.

 

[tweaker2]

I think you are right.

It seems to me the only people pushing gun control were the far left. Once those far left people got sidetracked with immigration or abortion, they pretty much forgot about gun control

Unlike some folks who cannot come to the realization that some things are best left alone, you know, like "Obamacare" for instance , IMO, once the SCOTUS ruled in favor of pro-gun advocates, the gun control folks who had a minor stake in the issue, which I believe were the majority, backed off and those that were left came to realize they didn't have the numbers or the emotional verve to be successful.

It only seems logical to me that the gun control advocates are going to wait until the SCOTUS membership leans the other way, which will start the ball rolling toward a better chance for them to tighten up firearm ownership laws. It's either that or some monstrosity of an incident or a string thereof will create the perfect storm for sweeping changes of those laws at the state level.

 

[Texashiker]

I can only really comment on what I see here on this forum.

How it usually goes.

*Thread started about some tragedy which may involve (but not necessarily) guns*

<snip>

Yea, pretty much.

My opinion on the matter, gun control advocates in congress do not want gun control.

People like feinstien talk gun control to make the liberal far left happy. That way she can go home during re-election and say she fought the good fight. And if re-elected she will fight harder for more gun control. This makes the people in her district happy.

Reality is, gun manufacturers are important to national security and the economy. The economy simply can not support closing a sector that provides jobs and money.

Not too many elected officials are willing to lose jobs in their district. A ban on certain types of guns will do just that.

It only seems logical to me that the gun control advocates are going to wait until the SCOTUS membership leans the other way, which will start the ball rolling toward a better chance for them to tighten up firearm ownership laws. It's either that or some monstrosity of an incident or a string thereof will create the perfect storm for sweeping changes of those laws at the state level.

Which is why Ruth said she is not retiring until obama runs out of time to appoint a new supreme court justice.

 

[tweaker2]

What? What?
No no, it's none of the people I actually know in real life.
My good friend is black, my doc is Muslim, my next door neighbor is Mexican, The it guy at the office, the are all great people.
It's all the black folk, Muslims, and Mexicans and IT guys, I see on the internet that are the crazy ones....
Lol ,)

I lol'd. :thumbsup:

 

[thraashman]

Which is a more common problem in this country, gun violence or voter fraud? (Answer: gun violence)
Which would be more likely to limit their respective problem, intelligent gun control or voter id laws? (Answer: Intelligent gun control)
Which proposed solution infringes less on the Constitutional rights of the populace? (Answer: intelligent gun control)
Which does the populace support more? (Answer: Gun control)
Which does Republicans support? (Answer: The unpopular, ineffective, massively Constitutionally infringing one)

Perhaps those on the right should either stop freaking out about limited gun control when they're countrywide instituting the most unconstitutional voter restriction laws we've seen since before the Civil Rights movement.