Mother Jones: Gun Control's Biggest Problem: Most People Just Don't Care Very Much

[hack89]

But this is a bad misreading of what polls can tell us. There are (at least) two related problems here:

1. Most polls don't tell us how deeply people feel. Sure, lots of American think that universal background checks are a good idea, but they don't really care that much. In a recent Gallup poll of most important problems, gun control ranked 22nd, with only 2 percent rating it their most important issue. Needless to say, though, gun owners are opposed to background checks, and they care a lot.

2. Most polls don't tell us about the tradeoffs people are willing to make. In the abstract, sure, maybe a majority of Americans think we should make it harder to buy guns. But if there's a real-world price to pay how willing are they to pay it? A few months ago, a Pew poll that pitted gun control against gun rights found that gun rights won by 52-46 percent.

There are lots of polls, and some of them probably show a greater intensity among those who support gun control. A lot depends on question wording. But that's sort of my point: If you get substantially different responses because of small changes in question wording or depending on which precise issues you ask about (background checks vs. assault weapons, gun locks vs. large-capacity magazines) that's a sign of low intensity.

Atkins is certainly right that Democratic legislators won't act on gun control until voters are mobilized, but that puts the cart before the horse. You can't mobilize voters on an issue they don't really care much about in the first place. In this case, I think the folks who prioritize issue-area visibility and engagement probably have the better of the argument. Until voters who favor gun control feel as strongly as those who oppose it, all the field work in the world won't do any good.

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/10/gun-controls-biggest-problem-most-people-just-dont-care-very-much

[potone]

1. I wonder if part of the problem is a feeling of hopelessness.

Given the fact that in a 2008 Supreme Court decision the Court broke with precedent in asserting an individual right to own guns, as well as the relentless rhetoric against any sort of new gun control laws, I think many people may have simply given up on the idea that any laws that could be effective could ever be passed. That, plus the fact that we have become acclimated to accepting this level of gun violence all contribute to a seeming apathy on the topic.

[hack89]

3. Most people live in safe areas far from gun violence

gun violence is concentrated in America. If you avoid certain areas in certain cities than your chances of getting shot go way down.

The Supreme Court decision is irrelevant to strict gun control. It did not stop NY and CT from passing strict gun control measures post-Sandy Hook. I will also point out that the 2008 Democratic Party platform stated that the 2A protects an individual right to keep and bear arms.

[merrily]

2. I disagree. It's that we don't know which law could possibly stop these kinds of events, short of

collecting every gun in the country, which the 2nd Amendment does not allow us to do. And talking amending the Constitution on this is unrealistic to the point of willful ignorance.

In most cases, the guns were obtained legally. And, if you are intent on shooting someone, or many someones, are you really doing to hesitate to violate a gun law?

In Boston, a few years back, a toddler was shot in high chair by a bullet that came through the window from a street fight. She was crippled for life. If someone thinks I didn't care about that, or about Sandy Hook or Oregon or any other senseless shooting, he or she can kiss my caring bottom

[Nuclear Unicorn]

4. It never ceases to amaze me that Mother Jones magazine is so pro-gun control considering its moniker

[Nitram]

5. Yes, this is the real problem. nt