I would like to get your opinion.

[potone]

It seems that every week now we have a mass shooting, and sometimes more than one. What I keep wondering about is why so many gun owners and the NRA seem to oppose ANY restrictions on gun sales. I do know that not all of the NRA membership feel that way, but the leadership does and they have the influence on Congress. What is it that people are so frightened of? Is it personal safety, or government tyranny, racial strife or what? It just flies in the face of the fact that other democratic countries that have strict gun control laws have far less gun violence. I really am mystified by the psychology of it; it seems neurotic to me at best, and downright paranoid at worst. Does anyone really think that our armed forces would declare war on the American people? It isn't in their tradition.

[HassleCat]

1. Old NRA, new NRA

I was an NRA member many years ago. The NRA opposed most gun control proposals, but did not reflexively go into a screaming fit whenever a new gun law was introduced. Then a guy named Wayne LaPierre took over, and the NRA adopted the general attitude that one new gun law would trigger an avalanche, leading to eventual registration confiscation, etc. Over the years, the NRA has opposed everything, across the board, regardless of whether or not it would be effective, or in harmony with the 2nd Amendment. They pissed off many police officers when they opposed legislation to ban specially coated bullet designed to penetrate body armor. The recent opposition to expanded background checks is a better known example of their blind opposition.

Some people propose they operate at the behest of arms manufacturers, who make big money from the sale of military style weapons. Others theorize they just wanted to boost membership by courting the more extreme gun owners. I don't know, but I can't be in an organization with a bunch of people who drool over assault rifles, stockpile weapons and ammunition, show up to defend Cliven Bundy, carry loaded weapons in family restaurants, and generally act like fools. I enjoyed target shooting, reloading my own ammo, etc. and I was happy the NRA defended my rights to own firearms, but they've become more of a right wing political organization now, attracting a crazy element that did not seem to be there before.

[Hoyt]

2. It's all those things. Irrational people should not be arming up and walking among us.

Personally, I think racism is at bottom of much of it. But, whatever, it's sick.

[NutmegYankee]

3. It's often called The Backfire Effect.

http://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06/10/the-backfire-effect/

Basically, if you have a deeply held belief and it gets challenged, the typical human response is not to change your opinion, it's to Double Down. I own firearms, mainly family heirlooms on the third generation, and felt very strongly about their sentimental value. I have many memories with my father learning to shoot and he died from cancer while I was young. When people said obnoxious things about gun owners, I got very defensive and considered those people to be my enemy because I wasn't doing anything wrong.

However, over the years I've changed my opinions to be in favor of requiring a permit to purchase a firearm, ensuring a thorough background check, and interview to ensure you intend only legal uses, and a safety class so you don't use the firearm recklessly. I still disagree on some proposals, for which I am treated as persona non grata by a few posters here. Yes, I once held a very Pro-gun rights view, but my heart is torn by the lives taken in our incessant gun violence. I just can't take the carnage anymore. Too many beautiful lives taken over petty bullshit.

[ellisonz]

8. I personally am glad to see you coming to your senses.

This just can't go on. I am perfectly fine with responsible gun ownership for hunting and defense of the home. Handing out weapons designed to excel at taking lives to anyone who wants and letting them take them everywhere they want is beyond insanity and it takes beautiful lives over petty bullshit. We need common sense gun control that protects the right to bear arm while recognizing the public interest in public safety!

[NutmegYankee]

9. I agree with your view.

I've actually held that opinion for awhile now. Talk about cognitive dissonance...

The problem is you tend to get balkanized in a culture war, and it becomes you or them. And moderate positions are not voiced or discussed as each side seeks purity. I certainly got rolled up into it. It tended to distract from my otherwise egalitarian political views.

[ellisonz]

10. Yes!

I think the formal Democratic Party position on gun control is very reasonable. I would also add that President Obama has done his best to deal with this problem and if the Republicans were more open dialogue there is plenty of middleground to found.

I just want my family and my community to be safe.

[etherealtruth]

11. I have always found you to be a very thoughtful poster ....

... I have always gotten the impression that you were raised around guns and gun owners (the sensible truly responsible gun owners) .... and were astounded at the reaction many of us here have had toward gun proponents.

I also got the impression that you are as horrified as we (gun opponents) are by each and every tragedy involving guns ... it appeared that it made you think about what you think is really important in this world.

I hate guns .... but, hope you hold on to your family heirlooms and memories.


Again, I have always appreciated and respected your willingness to talk about "our" (gun opponents) differences in a respectful and civil way.

We could all use a little of your thoughtfulness and introspection.

Funny how we all actually have more in conman than we have differences.

[flamin lib]

4. Good question and it has as many answers as there are gun owners.

A little history first. The NRA was formed right after the Civil War to teach marksmanship because so many soldiers couldn't fit the broad side of a barn while standing inside it. Gun safety went hand in hand with marksmanship.

Up through the 1950s the NRA's mission was squarely on the side of safety and outdoor sportsmanship. During the '50s American demographics began to shift to a more urban-centric population and hunting as well as other shooting sports began to decline. Gun sales followed that trend until the late '60s when the civil rights movement and the counterculture flourished. The white middle class became frightened of the riots, drug use, black people in general and rapid change. There was a feeling of impotency against the fear and lack of control.

Gun manufacturers saw a demand for home and self defense firearms and the NRA shifted direction. In 1970 Wayne Lapeirre was hired as a lobbyist to foster a new approach to gun marketing. Lapierre was a lobbyist and knew nothing about firearms. It was said that the safest place to be when Lapierre was handling a gun was in another state, but he knew Washington and he knew marketing.

Gun makers shifted emphasis from hunting to defense and machismo. They needed a lobby in DC and found it in the new NRA. The signature of the new direction was 'give an inch, lose a mile' and no one will protect you and your family except yourself. Marksmanship and safety took a distant back seat to fear, fear of 'them', and fear that if you didn't get a gun soon there woludn't be any when you needed one. The NRA's funding now came from gun and ammo manufacturers, not the membership.

The NRA is still marketing fear and has added masculinity to the program. Guns make men powerful, more attractive and more desirable. It's no longer about safety and marksmanship, it's about sales. The legislative agenda is now aimed at getting guns in places and into the hands of anyone with cash. Gun laws shifted from a personal background check by local law enforcement to an instant NICS check ab 'shall issue'. Stand your ground laws replaced duty to retreat when possible even though deadly force was always part of self defense.

More guns, that's the NRA's sole mission now.

[potone]

6. Thank you for that informative post!

I know very little of the history of the NRA, but I know that it wasn't always this knee-jerk reflexively hostile to any and all regulations of guns. That explains a lot; I was told that the leadership is not elected by the members but is based on the size of their donations to their organization. If that is true, it also may account for the seeming discrepancy between the views of the leadership and those of the rank and file members. The reason I asked in the first place is because I went to the other gun forum and was astounded at the hostility there against any type of regulation of guns.

[etherealtruth]

12. That is a good historical description; however ...

I do believe there was a final step .... the NRA has become a defacto arm of conservatives

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/10/15/1336791/-The-NRA-is-a-far-right-conservative-organization-that-works-against-Democrats
This election, it has spent $17 million through Oct. 13, almost all to benefit Republicans. That’s more than eight times what it shelled out in the 2006 congressional races. [...]
“The clear message to Democrats is if you’re trying to decide between doing the right thing and making some sort of political decision to satisfy the NRA, it’s a false choice,” said Arkadi Gerney, a senior vice president at the Democratic-aligned Center for American Progress in Washington. “Just do the right thing, because this group is going to come after you no matter what.”

As for the NRA’s decision not to oppose [Sen. Susan Collins], he said, “The clear message is: If you cross the NRA and you’re a Republican, there’ll be no consequences.”

NRA expands its role from fight for gun rights to conservative causes

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/06/politics/nra-alec/
Less well known is that the NRA has also helped ALEC spread other conservative laws that have nothing to do with gun rights.
ALEC drafts and shares model bills with state legislators to promote corporation-friendly and conservative social policy.
A watchdog group called the Center for Media and Democracy first documented the NRA's role in these bills with ALEC.

[Lizzie Poppet]

5. The NRA is a fringe group, even among gun owners.

That's one reason such a small percentage of gun owners are actually members. Among the rest of America's gun owners (c. 80 million of us), there is actually considerable support for several types of additional gun regulations. Universal background checks probably lead the way, along with much better enforcement of the laws against straw purchases, improvement/expansion of the NICS database, etc.

[ellisonz]

7. I would argue that most of the NRA membership does agree with that position...

...otherwise they would have left long ago. Sadly, these views go far beyond the formal NRA membership. They are grounded in all of the nonsense that you describe. They are loons!

[uppityperson]

14. Lock up or kill the "scumbags"? Who would be in charge of determining which needed to be

incarcerated forever or killed?

[Statistical]

16. The premise is false ...

" the NRA seem to oppose ANY restrictions on gun sales"

If that were true the NRA would be advocating the removal of NFA restrictions (military weapons), ending background checks, restoring the right for violent felons to own firearms. I think we can both agree that isn't correct.

I assume you probably mean oppose "any NEW restrictions"? I can't speak for the NRA but I know many gun owners are wary of so called "reasonable restrictions" which are neither reasonable nor effective.

Waiting Periods - proven ineffective and infringes upon population which may be most at need of personal protection
Gun Registration - expensive and utterly useless for solving crime. Criminal are automatically exempt. In countries with registration schemes it is often ignored.

The one area where the NRA is wrong is in not supporting Universal Background Checks however understand this isn't some magical solution. There is little evidence to support this would be more than closing a common sense technicality and would most likely have no statistically significant effect on homicide rate, number of mass shootings, accidental deaths, or suicides.

I think improving NICS and finding ways to make it easier to flag mentally ill persons would be more effective but the later is tough to do and requires a radical change to mental health in this country. It isn't a nice soundbite like "ban assault weapons" and would be expensive and a long term strategy but it could help significantly.

So what new restrictions would you like to see and what effect do you think they will have?