worry, on 21 February 2018 - 09:39 PM, said:
I've posted this before, where it related to partisanship, but what it shows more generally is that it really does depend on how you present "gun control" when polling:
I don't discount the CNN article, but it does include adults of all parties under 35, which gets into the older millennial cohort too (and doesn't include Gen Z). Which is fine because I'm talking generally about a generation (or 1.5 generations I guess), but I think you'll find when you get to the nuances things are more interesting even w/ millennials. For instance, this article doesn't disagree with those findings, but delves a little further into distinctions: https://www.politico...-on-guns-215703
And in terms of the 'moderates' you're talking about, as far as I'm concerned they're already there. 50% of people across the board support generic "gun control" -- way more, when you break it down to individual proposals (and as you know, that doesn't mean 50% vs. 50%, it's 50% vs. like something in the 30s, and then a know-nothing chunk that hovers around 10%). And that's everyone, with a multi-million dollar disinformation campaign and literally no fact-based information campaign to counter it. Imagine how things would be different if a gun control campaign arose w/ even a quarter of the ubiquity of the anti-smoking movement. The moderates exist, it's the organizing and leadership that's been absent.
I don't see a big danger in people getting excited about nascent movements. I'd argue there's much more danger in listening to so-called 'voices of moderation' who roll their eyes at nascent movements that don't produce immediate results, not because they care about the advancement of the issue but because they profit from the status quo and/or trolling. Kowtowing to dissent for its own sake, even from liars and morons, is how you end up with a slate of the world's foremost dumbasses like David Brooks talking gun control, Bret Stephens talking climate science, Bari Weiss talking #MeToo, and countless "let's hear them out" gentle profiles of neo-Nazis and Trump voters at the "paper of record".
Again, I see no evidence of a change in gun culture.
Most of the polling you are citing has not really changed over time. The problem with the polls listed is they don't ask people how much they care.
The people who love guns and are paranoid about a slippery slope, and will blanket oppose any attempt at regulation care about it passionately. They go to rallies, they call their congressmen, they vote, and they will absolutely decide their vote based on that issue alone. That means any Republican, house or senate, knows that if they help at all on gun control, those people are all going to back a gun toting primary challenger (who will also get a big fat NRA cheque).
In the meantime, there are many republicans you could talk into more background checks, or wait periods, or regulating trade shows and private sales. But while they are happy to say they support it, it doesn't change their vote. They won't go democrat because the republican didn't back a gun control measure, because they still prefer the republican position on taxes, or abortion, or gay marriage, or health care. And they won't back an anti-gun primary challenge, because there won't be one, and again, they care about other issues more.
In the meantime, safe "blue" districts run up the score on being in favour of gun control, but don't bring enough votes in congress to get anything done. And a few swing state democrats actually risk their seats if they back this too much, because again, they can only lose voters. There are not many on the fence moderate voters who'll back Joe Manchin if he backs gun control, but with otherwise vote republican (or primary him).
Further, as I said earlier, the democratic tactics are half assed. Can you tell me specifically which republicans killed background checks or private sales regulation after Sandy Hook? It never comes to a vote. It dies in committee or never gets scheduled, because all the uproar is only while the shooting is in the news cycle. Democrats don't need voters mad now. They need to try to do something, get the republicans to kill it, and then sign a giant spotlight on the specific people who blocked it.
As for "killing guns", that is part of the problem with the debates when there is a mass shooting. The rhetoric calls out people taking NRA money. You get arguments about how stupid the 2nd amendment is. You get a lot of talk about the evils of guns in general. And all of that feeds into an "all or nothing" mentality. It lets right wing media treat the debate as if the other side wants to take away all guns. It gets caught in side arguments over the amendment, or over whether a specific thing complained about could have prevented that particular shooting.
To get any progress on this, you need to first organize people, then propose a specific measure relating to the incident, with a specific narrative of how it could have prevented the tragedy, and then you need to highlight the popular support for that specific measure, and again, you then need to tell everyone who to blame if a committee chairman won't let it out, or if Ryan/McConnell won't allow a vote on it (or the nay votes if you ever get a vote).
And if you really really are determined to get something done, you need anti-gun people in gerrymandered districts registering republican for the specific purpose of backing a primary challenge to anyone that stood in the way.
As for "nascent movements", there is nothing wrong with getting excited. You just have to be clear eyed about what they mean. Loud != unanimous. I am not even saying any of the movements are wrong. I am saying that making bold pronouncements about how everything is changed from this day forward just leads to disappointment when the change doesn't happen simply. For a movement to work, it needs a realistic view of its level of support, and of what it will take to get things done.