Red State support for "Assault Weapons" bans?

[Lumpy]

I had a "discussion" (argument) with my brother today who insists that "public opinion is changing" with respect to support for gun control even in traditionally pro-gun states. Along with the oft-repeated claim of "80% of Americans are in favor of passing new firearms laws" like Red Flag, background checks, magazine limits, etc. I tried to explain that to the best of my research all these claims have to be qualified, that gun control proponents routinely exaggerate their support if not outright lie, and that it's not that cut-and-dried. He basically accused me of sticking my head in the sand, ignoring widespread credible reporting, and only listening to "NRA propaganda".

Now gun control efforts are taking place in such surprising locales as Texas and Tennessee in addition to the usual suspects such as Oregon and Vermont. What's the straight talk on this? A temporary push by Dems in the wake of several grievous gun massacres, or something more serious?

[Jackpine Savage]

Two points.

There is no such thing as 'credible reporting' anymore. EVERYTHING is politicized.

There are blue leftwing cities in every state, including red ones. That is where the rot starts.

[rtk]

“Two points.

There is no such thing as 'credible reporting' anymore. EVERYTHING is politicized.

There are blue leftwing cities in every state, including red ones. That is where the rot starts.”


Exactly.

[Markemp]

Things change. If you can't sell your position better than those who think differently, you're going to have a bad time. There are limits to how far name calling can get you.

I think gun enthusiasts have a messaging problem.

[Holland&Holland]

Things change. If you can't sell your position better than those who think differently, you're going to have a bad time. There are limits to how far name calling can get you.

I think gun enthusiasts have a messaging problem.

Yes, we do, though it is not name calling that is the issue as your side is just as good at that. If you can’t agree with that then you are just not being intellectually honest.

What we have a problem with is a segment of our society that is willing to trade freedom for a false sense of safety.

[Markemp]

Things change. If you can't sell your position better than those who think differently, you're going to have a bad time. There are limits to how far name calling can get you.

I think gun enthusiasts have a messaging problem.

Yes, we do, though it is not name calling that is the issue as your side is just as good at that. If you can’t agree with that then you are just not being intellectually honest.

What we have a problem with is a segment of our society that is willing to trade freedom for a false sense of safety.

If you want to cut down gun injuries and deaths in half, how do you propose we do it? Or is the current situation acceptable to you?

[rtk]

Things change. If you can't sell your position better than those who think differently, you're going to have a bad time. There are limits to how far name calling can get you.

I think gun enthusiasts have a messaging problem.

[rtk]

Things change. If you can't sell your position better than those who think differently, you're going to have a bad time. There are limits to how far name calling can get you.

I think gun enthusiasts have a messaging problem.

I think you have a troll problem.

[Erud]

If you want to cut down gun injuries and deaths in half, how do you propose we do it? Or is the current situation acceptable to you?

Where does “in half” come from? Was that mentioned somewhere in this thread and I missed it, or are you just throwing out a number? You didn’t ask me, but I guess I’d start by enforcing current laws to the fullest, and punishing criminals seriously enough that other criminals are forced to seriously consider the consequences of their actions. Making new laws that will only be followed by people who don’t break laws won’t get you any closer to your goal.

[xd ED]

Things change. If you can't sell your position better than those who think differently, you're going to have a bad time. There are limits to how far name calling can get you.

I think gun enthusiasts have a messaging problem.

Yes, we do, though it is not name calling that is the issue as your side is just as good at that. If you can’t agree with that then you are just not being intellectually honest.

What we have a problem with is a segment of our society that is willing to trade freedom for a false sense of safety.

If you want to cut down gun injuries and deaths in half, how do you propose we do it? Or is the current situation acceptable to you?

So, half the number current fatalities are acceptable to you?
If we cut the number of homicides in Chicago in 1/2, you'd be content with 400 people killed in 2020?
Who do you wish to be on that list?

See how it works?

If you were to actually take an objective look at who (not what) is causing the death, destruction, and mayhem, you would observe the overwhelming majority of violent crime is caused by a small segment of the population; criminals with multiple arrests and convictions of violent crime, and gun crimes on their records. If that relative small number of criminals had actually been effectively punished for their previous criminal acts with incarceration, they would not be on the street terrorizing law abiding civilized people, and we likely would be far safer than the level you suggest to be acceptable.

[Markemp]

Yes, we do, though it is not name calling that is the issue as your side is just as good at that. If you can’t agree with that then you are just not being intellectually honest.

What we have a problem with is a segment of our society that is willing to trade freedom for a false sense of safety.

If you want to cut down gun injuries and deaths in half, how do you propose we do it? Or is the current situation acceptable to you?

So, half the number current fatalities are acceptable to you?
If we cut the number of homicides in Chicago in 1/2, you'd be content with 400 people killed in 2020?
Who do you wish to be on that list?

See how it works?

If you were to actually take an objective look at who (not what) is causing the death, destruction, and mayhem, you would observe the overwhelming majority of violent crime is caused by a small segment of the population; criminals with multiple arrests and convictions of violent crime, and gun crimes on their records. If that relative small number of criminals had actually been effectively punished for their previous criminal acts with incarceration, they would not be on the street terrorizing law abiding civilized people, and we likely would be far safer than the level you suggest to be acceptable.

I'm not satisfied with just half. I'm trying to find a starting point.

I'm getting the answer that, in the most heavily incarcerated country in the world, incarcerate more people. Is there a relationship between putting people in prison and lower crime?

I feel like if we deal with the recidivism rate, that could have a huge impact on lowering the prison population. What ideas does everyone have for dealing with recidivism? The Koch brothers were huge proponents on dealing with that issue.

[xd ED]

"...Is there a relationship between putting people in prison and lower crime?"

Ever seen an inmate doing a life sentence for murder do a drive-by shooting?

[Markemp]

"...Is there a relationship between putting people in prison and lower crime?"

Ever seen an inmate doing a life sentence for murder do a drive-by shooting?

Doesn't explain why we incarcerate people at the highest rate in the world, and it doesn't seem to help. The problem is far more complicated than "lock everyone up."

Do you *honestly* believe that the solution to gun crime is just putting more people in jail for longer sentences?

[xd ED]

"...Is there a relationship between putting people in prison and lower crime?"

Ever seen an inmate doing a life sentence for murder do a drive-by shooting?

Doesn't explain why we incarcerate people at the highest rate in the world, and it doesn't seem to help. The problem is far more complicated than "lock everyone up."

Do you *honestly* believe that the solution to gun crime is just putting more people in jail for longer sentences?

Do you *honestly* believe that the solution to gun crime is just putting more laws on the books that go unenforced?
We could start by actually enforcing the current laws, and yes, punishing those who violate them.
If we aren't doing that, what is served with more legislation?
Or would you elect to also not enforce the laws you advocate? To what purpose?


You seem to view the problem as a fault of society for punishing criminals.
I see the problem of individuals performing criminal acts against society.

[Markemp]

We could start by actually enforcing the current laws, and yes, punishing those who violate them.
If we aren't doing that, what is served with more legislation?
Or would you elect to also not enforce the laws you advocate? To what purpose?


You seem to view the problem as a fault of society for punishing criminals.
I see the problem of individuals performing criminal acts against society.

I'm all for punishing criminals for the crimes they commit. I think you're assigning some beliefs to me that I just don't hold.

My question is how do you keep people from going back to jail after they've served their sentence. You went off on a tangent there.