General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Why we lost the gun debate in the Senate, and why we'll keep losing it. [View all]TheKentuckian
(25,023 posts)More deadly was the initial strident overreach that radicalized the opposition and gave them something to run with.
I think a background check expansion would have definitely passed if that was sought from the start, it could have even been framed in a pro right to keep and bear arms fashion as a way to make sure weapons are the wrong folks do not pose a threat while absolutely not interfering with the rights of law abiding, rational, and peaceable citizens and taxpayers.
Instead, we got talks of bans and much more radical talk from individuals and non-elected folks and the whole conversation is forever tainted by the opening bids no matter if they are punted a million miles from the table later.
Some of that 90% was already raised against the effort regardless of what it morphed to now.
There are also misleading numbers in this issue that mislead at least some portion of gun control advocates which are the support numbers because you are not accounting for priority, extent of polar agreement, or passion.
Not many are white hot on the issue, either way but the pros seem to greatly outnumber the antis where there is zealotry. Then once you get past that four percent or so of the population, it may be more of a disparity in numbers with polar agreement as well as passion.
Sure, 90% may believe in background checks and some other large number generically supports gun control BUT a pretty significant majority believes in the individual right to keep and bear arms. There is no "100% take all the guns and bullets" going down so immediately after the outnumbered zealots a lot of the generic supporters of pro gun control contingent are to varying degrees fundamentally at odds with those that drive the agenda on end game which distorts the support pretty significantly.