Most gun owners support restrictions. Why aren’t their voices heard?

[sarisataka]

Most gun owners support restrictions. Why aren’t their voices heard?

Once again, their voices are missing from the debate.

Gun owners who favor tighter restrictions on firearms say they are in the same position after the mass shooting in Oregon as they have been following other rampages — shut out of the argument.

The pattern, they say, is frustrating and familiar: The what-should-be-done discussion pits anti-gun groups against the National Rifle Association and its allies, who are adamantly opposed to any new restrictions on weapons.

Gun owners who occupy the middle ground complain that they are rarely sought out or heard, yet polls show that the majority of gun owners support universal background checks and other controversial limits. President Obama is reportedly considering using his executive authority to impose new ­background-check requirements for high-volume dealers in private sales — and many gun owners may support that.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/most-gun-owners-support-background-checks-and-other-limits-so-why-arent-their-voices-heard/2015/10/07/af9c96b0-6c41-11e5-aa5b-f78a98956699_story.html

The article analyses why they are ignored by half the debate. I wonder if anyone can have input from the other half as to why this group is ignored.

[Duckhunter935]

1. I too would like see some comments

[trumad]

2. Because they are all talk.

Especially around here.

[sarisataka]

8. Incorrect

I campaigned for the MN DV law, which was never mentioned in GCRA as the vote approached.

Others have spoken of their activities, contacting teps, going to public hearings etc.

Besides the article is addressing talking and listening. Talk does nothing if no one is listening.

[Glassunion]

12. I own guns. I want tighter restrictions.

It's too easy to get them.

[YabaDabaNoDinoNo]

46. Nailed it! If they REALLY wanted their voices heard they would have formed their own group

by now.

GOA was formed not that long ago because they thought the NRA was too liberal!

Nothing is stopping the so called moderates from forming their own group except for will.

Perhaps the reality is the so called moderate ones actually agree with the NRA seeing that many continue their NRA memberships.

[Lizzie Poppet]

3. Sometimes they are.

But you don't hear those voices unless you participate in online discussions on the subject, etc. You don't hear them in the news media because the news media tends to only cover the hair-on-fire types on either side of this debate. Reasonable people actually trying to find solutions aren't mediagenic.

[Glassunion]

13. +1

[Eleanors38]

15. Correct. I would add MSM is the ONLY viable element in gun-control politics...

and has no overriding interest in presenting a moderate side to pro-2A beliefs. Frankly, the WaPo has a long and deep commitment to gun-ban prohibitionist doctrine which has little moderated. MSM has contributed hugely to this state of affairs, but contrary to the lawyer's homily, it can indeed profit from its own error.

[NutmegYankee]

4. Nobody wants to work with them.

The NRA nuts consider them traitors and the control freaks consider them gunners or gun nuts regardless of their views. The extremists rule the debate on both sides. DU is filled with reasonable gun owners like myself. I stopped commenting because all I get is hate.

One person above even said "all talk", but I voted for Dannel Malloy as Governor of Connecticut twice, even after he passed some of the strictest laws in the country. I also voted to elect senators Blumenthal and Murphy, who are leaders on reasonable gun control. But hey, it's just fucking talk.

[GGJohn]

5. ^^^^This^^^^

You nailed it.
We firearm owners are constantly called names, gun humpers, ammosexuals, gun fetishist, gun lovers, blood on our hands, etc.
And the pro gun control members really wonder why we don't trust them?

[Logical]

26. BULLSHIT! I am a firearm owner and CC license holder and never are offended by those terms......

they are talking about the gun owners who are the ones with the "cold dead hands" mentality or fucking think someday their dumb asses will need to over throw the government so everyone needs their guns. Or want to open carry to a presidential speech just to make a point and rile people up.

Or support the NRA and their bullshit exaggerations about the dems and Obama.

So if you are not one of those idiots then you should not be offended.

[sarisataka]

34. Are there other groups

who you tell them not to be offended by pejoratives because they do not apply to everyone?

[Logical]

42. Yes, climate change deniers, CT nuts, secessionists, etc. nt

[Kaleva]

33. I'm a gun owner and I'm not offended by such names.

[GGJohn]

37. I'm not either, I have a very thick skin.

40+ years in the Army will do that to one.
I was just pointing out that it does happen, with frequency, on DU.

[pocoloco]

54. True, but if you mention "Hoplophobia" your post gets removed!

A term coined by "Jeff" Cooper, a United States Marine, the creator of the "modern technique" of handgun shooting, and an expert on the use and history of small arms.

[Lizzie Poppet]

7. Yep: "all talk" here, too.

Because I didn't actively campaign for Oregon's recently-enacted UBC law.

Oh, wait...

[Eleanors38]

16. I sympathize. And there IS NO FALSE EQUIVALENCY in terms of this verbage.

[Hortensis]

6. They are sincere, but they are not passionate about this one issue.

They go to the polls for others.

[Eleanors38]

18. I believe Mother Jones had a recent sobering account on the depth of...

Commitment voters have to the issue of gun-control, and MJ is not very moderate on gun-control.

[Hortensis]

19. What was MJ's assessment of them, Eleanors38?

[Eleanors38]

21. As I recall, the conclusion was how can any gun control be achieved...

when the issue is neither high priority nor consistent regarding the average American. IIRC, MJ sites some of the same statics and charts that have been posted by Gungeoneers for quite a while. The issue does not rise to the level of significant activism.

I note that by such measures as demonstrations, marches, letters to Congresscritters, etc. the controllers have poor numbers, and there seems little grassroots $$. Those monies spent come from foundations and a couple of billionaires. The "moderate" side of the debate, imo, should be seen in a similar manner, only without the billionaires. Frankly, my gun-owning friends (and I) see the debate as one over how damaging gun-control is to liberal politics and the need to take back states and regions largely lost due to these persistent politics. I support UBCs, better testing for CC, overhaul of the BG system, and much stronger enforcement of criminal violations both in the NICS system and when crimes are committed.

Part of the reason we have this acrimonious debate is because the "mass murders" (now "mass shootings," since you can better paint a picture of a society gone wild) are the starting points for arguments when many, many more are killed in nightly violence, which evidently holds little interest for MSM or for some in DU. It seems some "lives matter" more than others in this debate.

[hack89]

9. The extremists on both sides of the issue dominate the debate

Partly, I think, because many enjoy the cultural war moralizing more than doing the actual work to change things.

[ecstatic]

10. Many don't want to be associated with the topic

As Bill Maher said, he's a gun owner, but not a proud gun owner.

[Eleanors38]

22. This is a good point, though overdrawn. Gun-owners hold weapons primarily for SD...

which on its face does not make for big public concerns. Only when the chatter swings close to bans, does this mass of people become concerned. And how is that concern expressed? Mainly by Not taking a side. The 800 lb NRA gorilla may stink up tthe joint, but it will take care of bidness. This places the dynamic almost totally in the more militant hands of pro-2A folks, and in a small way the MSM (the only really viable voice for control, and if the last 40 yrs are taken into account, not a moderate voice).

Frankly, the controllers need to step back and really address ANY issues they think involve guns more clearly: Is it schoolyard spectaculars which concern them? Is it the nightly grind of urban homicide? Is it over all crime? To me the big focus is dealing with the CelebroPunk theater & school shootings, and not the far worse problem of violent crime. And the weapon chosen to fight the scourge of photogenic mass murder is a regime of prohibition imposed on the 99% of gun-owners which will some how be shamed into startng a movment against their own gun safes.

Thereby, the same wheel spends round & round.

[Warpy]

11. Most Christians aren't foaming fundy nutcases and they're not heard

for much the same reason: an organized and well funded minority will always drown out the majority until the majority gets fed up enough to slap them down hard.

[Glassunion]

14. Gun owner here.

I vote. I don't scream from the rooftops foaming at mouth about gun control. It's too easy to buy a firearm. I fell they should be registered and all sales go through a background check. Period.

I vote for the Dem candidate that shares my views.

The discussion needs to happen. But it needs to happen without the foaming mouth breathers.

[jeff47]

17. Because the NRA represents gun manufacturers, not gun owners.

The money's in making the guns, not owning them. So no one is lobbying on behalf of gun owners.

More gun restrictions mean fewer gun purchases, and thus less money for the NRA's backers. So they lobby against all restrictions.

[oneshooter]

39. It is repeated bullshit like that that keeps me not trusting the grabbers/banners.

To say/repeat that with no proof at all reveled to me that you really don't care about truth.

So why should I pay ANY attention to your rants.

[jeff47]

41. It's cute when people don't bother to look at the books of the groups they support.

The NRA's money isn't coming from gun owners. They get WAY more from manufacturers.

[oneshooter]

52. Those are voluntary donations from theit customers.

The NRA "Round up" program.

http://www.midwayusa.com/nra-support

http://www.tjsafari.com/nra_round_up.cfm

It is a voluntary program by the sellers, customers and the NRA.

Maybe YOU should do more study.

[jeff47]

53. Nope, they aren't. The NRA's PACs are enormous

and almost entirely funded by gun manufacturers. Those PACs are how the NRA actually lobbies. So they're going to lobby on behalf of the people who give them the most money.

[hack89]

67. They aren't even in the top 20 when it comes to PACs.

https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/toppacs.php?Type=C&cycle=2014

[jeff47]

68. Yet they are bigger than money spent on "NRA member" activities.

Which was the entire point.

[underpants]

57. Nailed it

[Iggo]

20. Speak up.

[sarisataka]

31. It is not a speaking problem

it is a hearing problem.

[MiniMe]

23. Because the NRA has the $$

[Rex]

25. And they have their gun lobby in Congress.

[Duckhunter935]

27. And Bloomberg

Is a multi billionaire, much more than the NRA

[laundry_queen]

43. LOL seriously? nt

[Duckhunter935]

48. Very

He directly funds his AstroTurf "gun safety" organizations that really do nothing for firearms safety. More like gun control.

[laundry_queen]

50. And the gun manufacturers fund nothing?

And they are too poor to fund their side? Lolz.


And pro gun orgs do the same. It always cracks me up when people are all accusatory about something being done on the other side that is also done on their side. But that doesn't count. or something.

Every time I hear a gun nut yell 'Bloomberg' it reminds me of freepers yelling 'Soros!'

[Duckhunter935]

51. The manufacturers tend to

Support the NSSF. The individual and retailers tend to support the NRA. FYI the manufacturers are not all that big, COLT just filed chapter 11.

[Rex]

24. Part of it might be that some of us do not care much about the issue as far

as owning a weapon goes. Some of us do care, enough to want bans on assault weapons and extended clips/speed loaders etc.. I think a few would give up their weapons since they don't use them and probably rarely think about firearms on a daily or weekly basis.

I fall into that last group, they are not that important to my everyday life. Also, I would like to see some bans on certain types of firearms that are easy to convert to automatic.

Part of the problem is NOW we are on the cusp of having printers that can make individually tailored firearms! IOW, things are going to get far more complex, before they get easier.

[mmonk]

28. I'm not sure what you mean. Which half is the other half?

I am a gun owner that approves of background checks, closing gun show loopholes, restrictions where appropriate, etc.. I know neither the NRA nor rightwing politicians would support my position but I know plenty of gun owners that do. It is the manufacturers controlling all this and their political clout.

[sarisataka]

30. You would be in the gun owner group

as am I who accepts such restrictions as reasonable.

The article addresses the NRA in depth, to whom we are traitors.

The other half I speak of is the gun control side to whom we are still ammosexuals clinging to our guns.

Neither group is willing to listen.

[Kang Colby]

29. Because gun controllers tend to be absolutists.

Last edited Mon Oct 12, 2015, 03:16 PM - Edit history (2)

Aside from that point, the article is crap. "49% of gun owners support bans on high power assault weapons." Sell it to Disney, because I'm not buying it.

While I realize there are a few Fudd gun owners, they are very few and far between...and I don't think I've ever actually met one.

[Buzz cook]

35. That's a logical error

While I realize there are a few Fudd gun owners, they are very few and far between...and I don't think I've ever actually met one.

You can't compare your own anecdotal experience to a scientific poll.
That's like climate change deniers saying it's all a hoax because it snowed.

[Kang Colby]

40. Incorrect.

I didn't take the time to look for and review the methodology and actual questions associated with the poll in question. Nevertheless, while I acknowledge my experience is anecdotal; I've also been involved with gun rights advocacy for quite some time. I find it strange that according to the article 49% of gun owners support AWBs, meanwhile even the national gun control special interest groups have put the AWB strategy on the back burner.

I've met a lot of gun owners from all walks of life, hunters, collectors, dealers, competitive shooters, and gunsmiths, and I don't recall *any of them expressing even tacit support for "assault weapon bans."

I am however aware of *gun control advocates who own, have owned, or have given firearms as gifts. The subtle but important difference here is that in my experience only individuals who readily identify themselves as gun control supporters support AWBs. Someone who supports AWBs, generally would support broader bans and restrictions as well.

Thanks

[Lizzie Poppet]

55. Do you have info on the specific poll that arrived at that 49% figure?

I'd have to have a look at the methodology before accepting that it's indeed "scientific" (and yes, I'm qualified to make that assessment). I'd want to look at the text of the poll questions, the size of the sample set, the selection criteria, etc. That result is so vastly counterintuitive to my own experience* that I also have a problem accepting that figure at face value. Before accepting that poll's results, I'd want to assure myself that it's not a situation similar to the polls purporting to show a decrease in total number of gun owners (non-verified phone surveys on possession of a controversial item = useless).

*I'm a very active competitive shooter...I talk to a LOT of gun owners. Moreover, I've been involved in the gun control/gun rights issue for years, and thus have read countless articles relating to this subject. My evidence is still anecdotal, but it's a LOT of anecdotal evidence, and I'd be surprised if it were a skewed sample of gun owners.

[Buzz cook]

32. Money and the media

As we've seen with the Tea Party, lots of money backing a very vocal and active splinter group can achieve power.

Once that splinter gets power the media, who are the guardians of public discourse, promote them as the voice of everyone of the entire group of which they are a small part. The media do this because they only recognize money and power.

Once the media recognizes a group it becomes an entrenched power and will remain so until it loses power or is out monied and powered by some other group. Even then the media will just play one group off of another.

[Skittles]

36. because they are gun owners, not gun humpers

only gun humpers count, and the NRA represents THEM

[TipTok]

38. Middle of the road folks rarely move anything...

It's the extreme on both sides who influence legislation...

[Victor_c3]

44. I'm a moderate former-gun owner

The system, at least in my example and in New York, seems to work.

I used to have a carry-conceal pistol permit and I used to own three pistols (I came from a family of gun-nuts). About 16 months ago I attempted suicide and subsequently was involuntarily confined to a psychiatric hospital for a decent amount of time. Before I was even released I received notice of a court order to revoke my pistol permit and to relinquish possession of my firearms. As my wife and I never thought it was a good idea to keep firearms in our house with our two young children (which I tout as the only reason I didn't grab my pistol for my suicide attempt) I had no issue following the order. It seemed like a logical thing in my situation and I figured that it would also provide my family with some peace of mind in the future.

Honestly, I believe even 16 months after my suicide attempt that if I had easy access to a firearm the urge to use it for suicide would be too much for me to resist. It'd be quick, easy, and very final.

[pablo_marmol]

45. Don Kates raised this issue a looooooong time ago.

He's referred to the "gun control"/gun rights argument as a tripartite debate -- with 1/3 of the combatants drowned out.

I suspect that moderate gun owners are ignored because they refuse to sign off on the obvious, stupid lies of The Controllers ("assault weapons", "gun show loopholes", the "menace" of armor piercing rounds etc.) and they're not manic enough to please the gun rights extremists. They have no place to call home.

[Lee-Lee]

47. I'm right here being ignored like most other gun owners on here

For example I and others have been saying over and over if you want UBC to pass you must craft and new law to be palatable to gun owners- like modernizing and opening NICS up to private individuals.

But we get ignored. I promise you any new laws will have the same broken and asinine ideas that to achieve UBC you must force a gun owner even loaning a gun to someone who already has guns to both go down to a gun shop, waste money paying for a check, waste time on paperwork- and then do it all again a few days later after the loan. And I bet it will even require it for people like me who are exempt from the check- a true waste of time and money.

And, because nobody listens to our voices the law will be proposed like that and will fail because gun owners will see the stupidity in how the authors of the bill try to accomplish the goal.

And, when it fails again, we will be still here saying "told you so, you should have listened to us."

[kelliekat44]

49. They're not talking. nt

[friendly_iconoclast]

60. They are. The NRA and the 'hate guns with every fiber of their beings' crowd drown them out

[jwirr]

56. I think this is very important. My family own guns. If the

gun owners do not speak out and help get reasonable laws in place then eventually the laws will come anyhow and they may not be as reasonable as they could be with the input of hunters, collectors and other owners who recognize there is a need for regulations.

I think all too many gun owners think that the NRA is looking out for them. No the NRA is only looking out for the money men who sell the guns. The more the better.

[beardown]

58. Great stuff and real discussions

With years of acrimony, it doesn't take much before the usual suspects start dropping insults and discussion killers and hits one of several dozen trip wires.

I liked the comparison to why do moderate christians get ignored while the religious right loonies drive the agenda. A lot goes back to the media and who owns the media.

I think that real and effective responses to gun violence, albeit in marginal steps, are possible and perhaps some larger steps like decriminalizing drugs to take the money and need to gun protect turf out of the equation.

A key thing to remember is that we didn't get where we are overnight and any 'quick' solution will almost certainly have to be Draconian and thus even more divisive . A pro control poster a few days back had some nice suggestions on slowly removing the criminal gunners and guns over time and I think it is a general template of how a solution could work.

Nice to see a real discussion.

[YoungDemCA]

59. Because to many Americans, guns are a partisan issue

Democratic gun owners is an inconvenient nuance.

Also, white men from rural and suburban areas are statistically speaking, the most likely demographics to own guns. There is a lot of overlap with the Republican base there.

Finally, the leadership of prominent gun rights organizations like the NRA and the even more extreme Gun Owners of America have taken a hard-line, Take-No-Prisoners stance on the issue. Hard not to feel polarized by them.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

61. Personally, I hate guns.

Even when I see a gun somewhere where it naturally is expected to be, like on a police man's belt, I can't but help but get a bit of the willies because I know what it can do and what it is specifically designed to do. A key purpose of a gun is to end a person's life, whether justifiably or not. There's a lot of power in such a machine. They are not normal tools; they are extra-ordinary ones, not to be taken lightly or frivolously.

That all being said, if I ever were forced into a situation where I believed my family or home was at serious, actual risk (for example, if there was a rash of armed home invasions in my neighborhood), I would consider purchasing a gun for home protection notwithstanding my complete and total disdain for them.

However, even in such a situation, where I myself identified an actual need for a gun, I personally would want to be suggested to the highest level of scrutiny and screening. I would want extensive background checks and references. I would want a waiting period. I would want a mental health examination. I would want my gun to be registered in my name. I would purchase that gun with the heaviest of hearts knowing full well what it is capable of and what it was designed to do. In no way would I ever view it as a toy or a thing of beauty. It would only be a necessary evil.

Thankfully, I'm not in that position yet. But if I ever were, hell yes would I want as many restrictions on my ownership of the gun as possible.

[Rafale]

62. I supported gun control for over four decades....

In that time, I have come to realize that gun control is fools gold. I've been in three wars and when not at war I've lived on both the west and east coast of the US, witnessing all kinds of crime. I've seen people stabbed and thrown off of buildings. I've witnessed mass murdering car bombs. I've seen criminals bypass gun laws by buying on the street in open air drug markets in cities with the toughest gun laws. I no longer believe any form of gun control works. I've asked myself why and at this point in my life I believe it is the nature of our culture, our fascination with violence and machismo. Honestly sometimes I agree with people when they ask me if background checks are a good idea because that's what they want to hear and few good people are openminded enough to hear the view I express here and now; sometimes I just don't want to be bothered by either rabid knee-jerk responses from the left and the right because neither the left nor the right understand why there is so much violence in the US.

Mental health is also a serious issue. Right now I know of several people with sever depression that should never own a gun (or a knife for that matter). Unless we live in a North Korea-like state, in which we watch & report on our neighbors when we see the slightest sign of deviance, I do not believe my state will ever know their mental condition for a background check. One of them I talked out of getting a gun, but I wonder if they will change their mind. Honesty, if I were a sick person, honestly I could mow down a dozen kids at a school bus stop. No one could stop me and this sort of thing has happened before. Our culture in this country is very much in need of healing. All the wars we are currently fighting abroad is also not helping. I can't take the President seriously about stopping gun violence when he takes actions daily that support every other kind of violence. When is it okay to kill US citizens without Due Process and use a killer robot in the sky? Why are we involved in everyone else's war around the entire globe? Weird. Why are you good people not protesting in the streets about all these wars (I wish you were)?

If I'm ever confronted with a life and death confrontation such as a home invasion, I hope that I have the opportunity to run. If I fail, I will protect myself. Hopefully none of you good people will take my right to self defense away with poorly written laws and misguided attempts to legislate something that has been unattainable in our violent culture.

I know you don't agree with me, but it sounded like maybe a couple of you had a serious question about "sensible" gun owners. This Afghanistan vet offered it up. Take care.

With respect,
R

[beardown]

63. Hard to compare the PNAC verison of America against Norway or Australia

I wonder how key of a point it is that in the USA we are accustomed to having our government blow the crap out of anyone stupid enough to have their nation on top of our oil.

Lots of times when the discussion compares USA guns and deaths to other countries, I always come back to thinking "well how many of those nations have over 100 bases around the world, have 24 hour killer drones over some regions, and have invaded nations virtually every couple of years during my adult life", etc.

In fairness to the PNAC, we've been blowing up other countries long before Cheney and his chickenhawk crew came into power.

[virginia mountainman]

64. I have been a gun rights advocate for 20 years

And I agree with you..

[patsimp]

66. Because the other group is very loud and buys politicians