Why mass shootings don't convince gun owners to support gun control

[IronLionZion]

https://www.vox.com/2015/12/4/9845146/mass-shootings-gun-control?utm_campaign=vox&utm_content=entry&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook

Note: This piece was first published in December 2015, in the wake of the San Bernadino shooting.

One thing I often hear in the wake of these endless mass shootings is, "Surely this will convince those gun people. Surely the carnage and suffering are bad enough now that they'll feel compelled to support some gun control."

This betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the cognitive and emotional dynamics at work. It presumes that mass shootings constitute an argument against guns, to be weighed against arguments in their favor. But to gun enthusiasts, mass shootings are not arguments against guns but for them. The rise in mass shootings is only convincing both sides that they're right, causing them to dig in further.

It's not even clear that opinions on guns and gun violence remain amenable to argument. Over the past few decades, gun ownership in the US has evolved from a practical issue for rural homeowners and hunters to a kind of gesture of tribal solidarity, an act of defiance toward Obama, the left, and all the changes they represent. The gun lobby has become more hardened and uncompromising, pushing guns into schools, churches, and universities.

This has taken place in the context of a broader and deeper polarization of the country, as Red America and Blue America have become more ideologically homogeneous and distant from one another. The two sides are now composed of people who quite literally think and feel differently — and are less and less able to communicate. The gun issue is a salient example, but far from the only one.

This suggests that if the status quo on guns in the US is to change, it will be through overwhelming political force, not through evidence and argument. Guns have now ascended to the level of worldview and identity, areas largely beyond the reach of persuasion.

[OhioBlue]

3. It's not just insensitive, it's disgusting.

1. Those who support unlimited gun ownership have loved ones that don't agree with them and have innocent children in their lives - that you would wish their deaths is disgusting to me.
2. I hate to be in a position to defend those that support unlimited gun ownership, but the very vast majority of them do not think it is perfectly alright that anyone's friends or family die in a mass shooting.

You should delete your post.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

5. Ahh, but those who support unlimited gun ownership don't give a flying fuck if someone

else is murdered by a gun. Why should they be exempt?

Maybe, just maybe, if they were to lose family and friends in a mass shooting they would finally understand the toll.

[MicaelS]

16. Yours is a disgusting POV.

To wish death on ANY innocents is the mark of a perverted mind.

[Baconator]

6. That's the kind of thing mass murderers say...

Seriously... What the hell is wrong with you?

[babylonsister]

2. This I have witnessed...

"...a kind of gesture of tribal solidarity, an act of defiance toward Obama, the left, and all the changes they represent."

Supposed smart people I know get/are still stupid.

[appal_jack]

7. It's happening on both sides.

I'd like the Democratic Party to retain a substantial support for the Second Amendment as an individual right in its Party platform. This shouldn't be controversial at all.

I'd also like the Democratic Party to acknowledge that the most popular firearms sold since at least the 1980's have been semi-automatic actions, and that possibilities for broad "assault weapons" bans are now impractical and counter productive. This latter belief of mine may be controversial in Democratic circles, but dropping further AWB proposals would go a long way toward reducing the tribalism associated with gun issues discussed above.

-app

[samir.g]

4. Because gun humpers are soulless cowards

[Lee-Lee]

8. Its the same reason DUI deaths dont make all drinkers want to ban alcohol

Or people who use marijuana don’t feel responsible for violence associated with some people who traffic in it.

Or why people who text don’t feel accountable for all the deaths caused by texting and driving.


Because when it’s something that you do or own and you do it responsibly and don’t harm anyone you don’t feel responsible for someone else’s actions or evil.

If you went into a crowded bar in a Saturday night and started showing everyone pictures of mangled bodies from drunk driving deaths and telling them that they are to blame because they put their recreational driving ahead of saving lives with sensible bans on alcohol- do you think you would change anyone’s mind?

[IronLionZion]

9. America did ban alcohol, and changed the constitution to do it

and then repealed it.

We don't have to change gun supporters' minds, we just need to get enough of the moderate folks to support reform. Gun humpers need to be alienated as extremists, not coddled with patient arguments or evidence. It's pointless discussing with them as they dig in deeper.

[Amishman]

10. It's a good parallel. Banning ownership and production has rarely worked

Prohibition failed, the war on drugs is a failure.

When the conversation turns to bans, particularly retroactive ones, the conversation dies. I remain convinced that if an assault weapons ban hadn't been pushed and incited the gunners, Toomey-Manchin could have been passed and we would have universal background checks.

Controlling who and how (background checks, raised age, safe storage, licensing, proficiency tests) is far more practical than pushing bans.

[IronLionZion]

13. I'm convinced some people on our side like the status quo

and like to keep claiming it's impossible to pass sensible change only because they don't want it to change, not because it really is impossible.

[Lee-Lee]

11. The irony of your response is deep

You acknowledge that in a similar case prohibition of a product people wanted didn’t work and indeed had so many problems it was given up on.

Then you proceed to call for the same sort of prohibition on another product anyway.

[IronLionZion]

12. Why have laws if people break them?

We can pass laws and we can change the constitution. We don't have to change the minds of the people who like it, we just have to outnumber them by enough.

[Lee-Lee]

14. The answer is you make laws that are effective and accomplish what your goal is

Not just laws because they sound good or you like the idea, regardless of if they will actually work or are the best solution for the problem you seek to address.

Prohibition was passed in response to a perceived problem. It failed to address the problem and instead created even greater problems.

[IronLionZion]

15. So what laws are effective to accomplish the goal

of reducing mass shootings?

Plenty of examples of laws in other countries have been shared here on DU along with their results. It sounds like some on our side don't want anything to change.

[Lee-Lee]

17. Its a long list- Ill respind more when Im not on a phone.

But you generally will get far more effective results by interventions that idneify and stop or get help for people likely to commit these acts than you get from blanket actions that are 99.999% focused on enforcement against people of no risk of harming anyone while.

Let’s say you can do one thing of two with money and manpower.

Option one is to ban “assault weapons”, but then back and push enforcement actions around that.

Option two is to have better LE enforcement of existing laws, better mental health systems, better access to them, and better training in schools that identifies these kinds of people and intervenes before it’s too late.

Let’s say you went with option one. That leaves Cruz out there, still a danger. Instead of an AR-15 he buys 4 handguns with 10rd magazines and is able to do just as much damage as he did with the AR. Or adds Molotov cocktails or gets everyone outside with a fire alarm and then runs them over with a truck he rented or stole.

You go with option 2 and you get an intervention that either gets him treatment so he isn’t a danger to others or gets him into inpatient treatment and off the streets if that isn’t possible.

[raccoon]

19. Good post. Everybody thinks they're the exception. nt

[MicaelS]

18. Thanks for posting this.

This explains the gun owning crowd better than anything else I have read.