If The GOP Really Cared About Guns Deaths, They Would Do Something.

[TheMastersNemesis]

The GOP mocks the deaths of people via gun violence. The mock the victims of Sandi Hook, their parents and their families. And they mock an criticize Obama who shows he care. They mocked and downplayed the attack on Gabby Giffords BECAUSE SHE IS A DEMOCRAT. And they further mock her efforts that support gun control legislation.

Yet they will probably win a lot of elections in 2016. They crave and worship violence. They are blowing the officials of the NRA. Why? What the fuck is wrong with this country?

Addendum. My former Op title perhaps was too harsh. You would think the GOP would do something about controlling the amount and kind of guns or allow background checks. The fact that they support open carry anywhere any time with any weapon says volumes. Of course they won't allow guns in Congress or at their town halls.

[cali]

1. Because gun control is considered a priority issue by only 2%

[TampaAnimusVortex]

3. Bingo! Here is why also...

http://www.people-press.org/2015/08/13/gun-rights-vs-gun-control/#total

[branford]

2. Opposing many gun control policies,

particularly when such policies are not supported by an individual senator's or congressman's constituents and/or would not have prevented the tragedies that engendered the proposals (as admitted by the White House on a number of occasions), does not constitute "mocking the deaths of people via gun violence" or the "craving or worship of violence." If you view the issue in such binary terms and see everyone who opposes gun control as such irredeemable monsters, including may otherwise very liberal Democrats like some DU members, you should not be surprised that they're unwilling to negotiate, no less compromise, with people like you.

Recall that there are 80-100+ million legal gun owners in the USA, representing more than one out of every three adults and about half of all households, including both Republicans and many Democrats, and guns are both an important part of the history and culture and essential tool in the lives of many people, particularly in rural and exurban communities. Many people of good character and intentions simply don't view firearms the same way as you and others, and horribly disparaging these people and their representatives is often the reason why many elections are needlessly lost by our Party. Remember that Bill Clinton blames his loss of Congress on his Assault Weapons Ban and Al Gore's loss of his home state of Tennessee, and thus the presidency to Bush(!), on his gun control advocacy. The fact that even purportedly popular UBC's couldn't pass a Democratic-controlled Senate with President Obama practically begging speaks volumes of the extent, depth and strength of the opposition to gun control measures among a great many Americans.

Also note that the NRA has about 5 million members. That's only about 5% of firearms owners. Complaining about and blaming the NRA for all gun control losses and offering the most demeaning stereotypes of all gun owners is not only ludicrous and insulting, but alienates the other 95+% of gun owners, and helps explain why these tens of millions of people, many in important swing states, let the NRA effectively speak for them.

Ironically, many of the president's recent executive orders are actions that have been demanded by groups like the NRA for quite some time, including more resources to process background checks, stricter enforcement of current laws such as those concerning straw purchases, and improved mental health resources. I question why the president waited until the last year of his second term to finally implement such measures. By your standards, he and other national Democrats either "didn't care about gun violence deaths," used the issue for little more than disingenuous political pandering, or they are now serving the vile wishes of the dreaded NRA.

Simply, gun rights are a cultural battle and the issue is far more nuanced than you suggest. Appreciating the who and why of gun rights and its supporters may lead to some compromise, but you'll first need to abandon the notion that people who have different ideas are not all monsters.

[beevul]

4. That deserves an OP of its own.

Opposing many gun control policies, particularly when such policies are not supported by an individual senator's or congressman's constituents and/or would not have prevented the tragedies that engendered the proposals (as admitted by the White House on a number of occasions), does not constitute "mocking the deaths of people via gun violence" or the "craving or worship of violence." If you view the issue in such binary terms and see everyone who opposes gun control as such irredeemable monsters, including may otherwise very liberal Democrats like some DU members, you should not be surprised that they're unwilling to negotiate, no less compromise, with people like you.

That deserves an OP of its own.

[EX500rider]

13. There you go all making sense & stuff....lol

Glad to see you around, hadn't seen any of your posts in the last few weeks in LBN or GD.

[yeoman6987]

5. When the president signs EO's but admits it won't stop the murderers from

Killing. Well....

[2naSalit]

6. The keep holding office

thanks to gerrymandering and voting machines alnog with control of the M$M.

[nadinbrzezinski]

7. Part of it but far form all

The R's have deep benches. The D's don't.

Until dems start running candidates everywhere and for every office well cry me a river

[2naSalit]

8. Indeed.

[branford]

9. Statewide races cannot be gerrymandered.

The GOP controls the Senate and demonstrably more governorships and other statewide offices than our Party. Blaming gerrymandering and voting fraud (which our Party actually claims doesn't really happen to any significant degree as an essential part of our opposition to voter ID) for our electoral losses is just lazy and often fails to recognize that voters (including registered Democrats) may truly disagree, often quite strongly, with some of our policies. If we do little more than look for convenient scapegoats for electoral defeats, rather than acknowledging and then fixing the problems and perceptions of some of our policies and candidates, we will continue to needlessly lose elections.

Further, you need only looks at any number of recent polls and historical trends concerning gun rights to understand why candidates and sitting representatives oppose many gun control policies. Gun control has always been an electoral loser for our party, as Clinton, Gore and now Obama can readily attest.

Whether you like it or not, many tens of millions of Americans genuinely oppose gun control, including both Republicans and Democrats, these gun rights supporters are often clustered in important and competitive states and districts, and they always vote.

[pansypoo53219]

10. MONEY for ads AND gerrymandering AND a rite leaning media.

[branford]

11. Money? Media? Gerrymandering?

For heaven's sake, you have a pet (Republican) billionaire who owns a media conglomerate and dozens of gun control groups and celebrity supporters.

It's not the money. For instance, in mostly Blue Colorado, gun control advocates outspent the recall supporters by over 6 to 1, and still lost (and we then lost the CO Senate race). It's also not the media. Virtually every major outlet sans Fox is practically sycophantic concerning the president's gun control efforts. My earlier post dealt with the absurdity of the gerrymandering argument. Besides, Democrats couldn't even pass UBC"s in the Senate when the controlled the body.

You need only look at dozens of recent polls that unequivocally demonstrate not only the vast extent of support for gun rights and against gun control measures (and its concentration in electorally important areas), but that the depth and intensity of those positions often determine elections. Even sometimes when we do win difficult elections, such as the recent governor race in Louisiana, Jon Bel Edwards, the victorious Democrat, will necessarily support gun rights in order to win (93% rating from the NRA and is pro-life!).

It might be difficult to accept, but many millions of American voters genuinely do not agree with you and others about gun control, these people are in both political parties, they vote, and they expect their representatives act accordingly.

[maxsolomon]

12. The Gungeon has spoken, so now you know the answer.

On another forum, it was asserted that the US is, overall, a conservative and reactionary country. I tend to agree. The question is why.

I assert that we are a thoroughly propagandized country: we are exceptional, God Mit Uns, we have the best healthcare, our Military protects our Freedom, etc. Most of us have never left the borders to find out that these ideas are false.

Further, I would assert that we are a terrified country, terrorized by the specter of violence (in Media, by the NRA, what have you), and the only concrete security offered, or at least the only promise of it, is firearms. You see this specious reasoning on DU in every gun thread (I live in the country, the cops won't be here for 15 minutes, I need a gun, etc.).

Lastly, Guns are not Penis substitutes, as many dismissively joke, but they do give their owners metaphorical chubbies. They are FUN; they give their user a feeling of power, of prowess. That is, when they're not killing our loved ones. Or ourselves.

Decipimur Specie Recti. The 30K deaths a year (yes, I know 2/3 are suicides) are just the price of our unparalleled Freedom.

[branford]

14. I certainly hope those are not part of the Democratic talking points for the 2016 election.

Last edited Fri Jan 8, 2016, 12:50 AM - Edit history (1)

If that's how Americans of all political persuasions believe Democrats feel about them and America, it's no wonder why abominations like Trump and Cruz achieve such widespread support.

Moreover, it's this condescension, elitism, and seeming revulsion of much of American culture and their fellow Americans, certainly well beyond the issue of firearms, that explains why even with such idiots as Palin, Trump, and others fools at their helm, Republicans still manage to control both Houses of Congress and a clear majority of state governments.

Americans can certainly have good faith disagreements concerning gun rights, but I don't know how you and others could honestly be surprised about the lack of support for gun control when your arguments express such incredible disdain for so many, if not a clear majority, of your fellow Americans, regardless of their political affiliation.

[maxsolomon]

17. Its Elitist to discuss the way things actually are, then?

My disdain is not limited to RKBA Absolutists. It's Omni-directional - in addition to every Republican of "good faith", I disdain most of the sky-is-falling hysteria on DU, and especially the we're-just-as-bad reflexive blaming of America for all the planet's ills. This is a nation, in general, with its head up its ass.

I'm well aware that half the American voting public is motivated by spite, resentment, and their own willful ignorance. Unlike any Liberal that's actually running for election, I don't care about the feelings of Gun Owners anymore, and I'm not going to coddle anyone, least of all on DU. I have no illusions that Gun Owners, and the Gungeon in particular, could be persuaded to change their opinions at this point. Do you?

[branford]

18. "Coddle" gun owners?

Besides the condescension, it's not your decision whether to politically "coddle" gun owners or not. Gun rights proponents are winning based on simply democracy, no matter your disdain for those holding opinions different than your own.

Ironically, I don't own any firearms, although easily legally able to do so (I'm a NYC attorney), and while I clearly support gun rights for a variety of reasons, I'm a "moderate" on the issue by any definition of the term. In theory, I would support UBC's, firearms safety and proficiency training, etc.

You question whether members of the Gungeon and other gun rights advocates could be persuaded to change their opinions. I don't accept your one-sided premise. Are you and other gun control proponents also open to persuasion and actual compromise?

More importantly, I'm not a fool, and most gun control proponents are not willing to compromise, and are equally if not more intransigent than gun rights proponents. It's hard to give credence, no less good faith, to people like the president claiming they believe in an individual right to own firearms and that they don't want to take guns from Americans when many of these same people are on record time and again supporting such policies. If the president, Clinton, and others truly believed what they say, why do they constantly reference British and Australian gun control (i.e., confiscation and VERY strict regulation) as a model for the USA? It's no different from how conservatives want every increasing "safety" regulations on abortion. Liberals and Democrats are not stupid, and we recognize an obvious incrementalist strategy to outlaw abortion. Gun rights advocates are no less perceptive.

So, yes, I'm willing to negotiate and compromise with an open mind. However, true compromise requires both sides to give-up something to achieve a greater goal. Despite being on the losing side for decades, what have gun control advocates offered the other side? A willingness to accept slightly less gun control, when you can achieve none on your own, is not compromise, but a demand for surrender.

For instance, I would accept UBC's, with sufficient protections against anything resembling a registration list, as well as national standards on training and safety, increased funding and better coordination for NICS, and similar matters, even going as far as bans on the open carrying of firearms in non-hunting and related circumstances. However, in return, I would demand total and complete national concealed carry reciprocity, just like how a driver's license in the USA is good in every state and town. How opened minded do you believe politicians in San Francisco, New York and Chicago, would be to such a compromise?

[NickB79]

15. If ANYONE cared about gun deaths, they'd address the elephant in the room: SUICIDE

Because 20,000 of the 30,000 gun deaths in the US are due to people ending their own lives.

Cut the number of murders via guns in half, you save 5,000 lives a year.

Cut the number of suicides via gun in half, you save 10,000.

Yet precious little has been said about programs to reduce suicides via gun.

[branford]

16. It doesn't really work that way.

Despite having a fraction of the number of guns as the USA, the overall suicide rates of much of the rest of the developed world are comparable to ours, and in some gun control havens like Japan and South Korea, suicide rates are much higher.

Generally people who want to kill themselves will find a way. You're just as dead if you use a gun, jump off a bridge, take too many pills, etc.

Nevertheless, improvements in mental health treatment and suicide prevention are certainly worthwhile policies, and ironically have been supported for some time by groups such as the NRA.