Why Does the Gun Lobby have so much control over Congress?

[Parche]

:shrug::hi:

[lob1]

1. NWA=national wifle association.

[slackmaster]

43. That's not quite what I thought

[SteveM]

62. Either the airline was behind the times -- or way ahead of them. nt

[gateley]

2. $$$$$$ nt

[ixion]

3. The MIC

would be my bet.

[Recursion]

4. In what sense?

The only gun legislation I can remember lately were the consistent-carry laws in national parks and the poison pill Republicans put in for DC voting rights.

[quinnox]

5. It's the NRA. Not sure what Northwest Airlines has to do

with it?

[jazzhound]

46. "Not sure what Northwest Airlines has to do with it?"

The gun "control" airship has sailed?

[TheKentuckian]

6. Not enough. The government does not fear the population nearly as much as is required for balance

[Riftaxe]

7. Perhaps Congress agree withs 73% of the American

public? http://www.gallup.com/poll/105721/public-believes-americans-right-own-guns.aspx">Gallup Poll :shrug:

Which really irritates opponents in that it prevents them subjugating the American people to their own views.

[X_Digger]

8. Or inversely, they disagree with the shrinking number who want more control..

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/08/gun.control.poll/

Now, a recent poll reveals a sudden drop -- only 39 percent of Americans now favor stricter gun laws, according to a new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

9. IBTMTG

[michreject]

12. In before the move to gungeon

:)

[virginia mountainman]

10. Because, the American public utterly despises gun control ..

As do most Democrats (just look at all of us from coast to coast)......

This fact, has been proven time and time again. Just look at how shall issue CCW has spread almost nationonwide,



Gun Control supporters can take their failed republican policys, and shove up their ..... for all I care... After all Bloomberg, Brady, Helmke, are ALL Repukes..

I can assure you, that I, as a Democratic operative, in a swing state, that I WILL UTTERLY REFUSE, to support ANY candidate that supports gun control.... Not only will I refuse to help...I will work against them... I am not the only operative that feels this way, quite the contrary, I am one of many..

But this is not an issue, as ALL the local, state and federal elected officials ARE Democrats and I help them, they, to a man, are exceedingly pro gun...

They full well understand their first vote, in support of Gun Control, will be among their last.

[divideandconquer]

17. America's despicable gun culture, "Disaster Crapitalism" and Astroturfing at it's finest

The whole rest of the civilized world has stronger gun control than the USA and the whole rest of the civilized world has a lower murder rate. We suffer a higher murder rate than India and suffer endless fear and terror from local gunmen endlessly on "scareds#itless and faux news" all hours of the day and night. Now that the gun lobby has escalated the power in hand of the average gunner, the police now have heavily armed and protected SWAT teams ready to go, in a moment's notice and that induces even more terror. Now our schools, workplaces and even churches must now have metal detectors. Guns everywhere is just a part of the decline of America to third world status.
Click on this chart and weep America. <http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita>

[virginia mountainman]

22. Speak for yourself...

You may be scared $hitle$$, but that don't give you the right, to infringe on MY RIGHTS...

Once you clean the crap off yourself, come back and we can talk, like reasonable people.

[spin]

28. Your data is 10 years old ...

SOURCE: Seventh United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems, covering the period 1998 - 2000 (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Centre for International Crime Prevention)
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita

The crime rate in the United States is actually falling.

What's Behind America's Falling Crime Rate
By David Von Drehle Monday, Feb. 22, 2010

Health care, climate change, terrorism — is it even possible to solve big problems? The mood in Washington is not very hopeful these days. But take a look at what has happened to one of the biggest, toughest problems facing the country 20 years ago: violent crime. For years, Americans ranked crime at or near the top of their list of urgent issues. Every politician, from alderman to President, was expected to have a crime-fighting agenda, yet many experts despaired of solutions. By 1991, the murder rate in the U.S. reached a near record 9.8 per 100,000 people. Meanwhile, criminologists began to theorize that a looming generation of so-called superpredators would soon make things even worse.

Then, a breakthrough. Crime rates started falling. Apart from a few bumps and plateaus, they continued to drop through boom times and recessions, through peace and war, under Democrats and Republicans. Last year's murder rate may be the lowest since the mid-1960s, according to preliminary statistics released by the Department of Justice. The human dimension of this turnaround is extraordinary: had the rate remained unchanged, an additional 170,000 Americans would have been murdered in the years since 1992. That's more U.S. lives than were lost in combat in World War I, Korea, Vietnam and Iraq — combined. In a single year, 2008, lower crime rates meant 40,000 fewer rapes, 380,000 fewer robberies, half a million fewer aggravated assaults and 1.6 million fewer burglaries than we would have seen if rates had remained at peak levels.

There's a catch, though. No one can convincingly explain exactly how the crime problem was solved. Police chiefs around the country credit improved police work. Demographers cite changing demographics of an aging population. Some theorists point to the evolution of the drug trade at both the wholesale and retail levels, while for veterans of the Clinton Administration, the preferred explanation is their initiative to hire more cops. Renegade economist Steven Levitt has speculated that legalized abortion caused the drop in crime. (Fewer unwanted babies in the 1970s and '80s grew up to be thugs in the 1990s and beyond.)
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1963761-1,00.html

Let's take a look at violent crime in Great Britain.

The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S.

By James Slack
Last updated at 12:14 AM on 3rd July 2009

Britain's violent crime record is worse than any other country in the European union, it has been revealed.

Official crime figures show the UK also has a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S. and even South Africa - widely considered one of the world's most dangerous countries.

The figures comes on the day new Home Secretary Alan Johnson makes his first major speech on crime, promising to be tough on loutish behaviour.

***snip***



The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, Canada 935, Australia 92 and South Africa 1,609. emphasis added
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html

Gun sales have skyrocketed in the last 10 years, but the violent crime rate has fallen.

I can't say that more gun = less crime, but I can say that more guns does NOT equal more crime.

[divideandconquer]

32. We have the more MURDERS per capita, "gun enthusiasts" can't disprove that

That why they change the subject.

[jazzhound]

33. As long as we're on the subject of "changing the subject"

care to explain how your primary assertion that more guns = more crime isn't backed up by the facts?

As in, why is it that the violent crime rate has been falling steadily since 1994 while the gun supply has been steadily increasing? (I won't be holding my breath!)

The fact that we have a higher murder rate than the UK becomes a rather unimpressive statistic when you consider that the murder rate in the US is steadily falling as our gun stock increases and gun laws become less restrictive.

Cross-country comparisons have historically been used by both sides of the debate, and with poor results. What is useful in looking at crime rates in countries like the UK is what has happened as they have tightened up their gun laws.........and to date the results are extremely unimpressive.

[jazzhound]

45. Still waiting for a response.

You're unwilling to even address this subject, aren't you?

[divideandconquer]

52. More guns=more murder

If the Brits had more guns I'm sure they would have more murder, they know that and that's why they have strong gun regs just like Australia.

[X_Digger]

55. Except that isn't true..

In the last 25 years, the number of guns in the US has gone up. Yet murder is down.

[jazzhound]

56. Your thesis has been debunked over and over again on

this forum, yet you keep on with your babble.

If more guns did in fact equal more murder, the murder rate in the U.S. would be climbing instead of dropping.

I asked you to address the fact that the rate of violent crime in the United States is dropping at the same time that the number of eebil gunz is increasing and gun laws are becoming less restrictive.

You refuse to do so, and for good reason ----- because the evidence refutes your emotion-based theory.

[TheWraith]

57. You also ignore one other critical fact.

The UK had a lower murder rate than ours before they banned guns, and it stayed EXACTLY the same after they banned guns.

[SteveM]

64. Wrong. "More guns [does not] = more murder." Fixed, now. nt

[Euromutt]

74. An assertion unsupported by evidence

As I've pointed out with some frequency on this forum, historical research indicates that homicide levels in England and Germany between 1300 and 1350 were at least twice as high as the highest recorded U.S. homicide rate, and often several times higher in certain areas. Oxford was worse than D.C. at the height of the crack wars. And that was before man-portable firearms even existed in Europe.

And in the present day, the homicide rate in Russia is three or four times that of the United States, and relatively little of it is committed using firearms. But, of course, Russia isn't part of the "civilized world" in your book, and neither are the Baltic republics (despite all three being EU member states).

[spin]

37. Murders are just one form of violent crime ...

However, I will grant that we have a higher rate of homicides than many other developed nations. It would also be fair to admit that the fact that we have much more access to firearms than other nations, contribute to this higher rate. However much of our homicide rate is caused by gang warfare. We could totally dry up the current supply of firearms in our country through bans and confiscations, but the gangs would still have access to firearms. If you can smuggle tons of marijuana into our country, smuggling firearms would be a minor inconvenience.

Gun involvement in homicides were gang related homicides which increased after 1980, homicides that occurred during the commission of a felony which increased from 55% in 1985 to 77% in 2005, homicides resulting from arguments which declined to the lowest levels recorded recently, and homicides resulting from other circumstances which remained relatively constant.Due to the fact that gang killing has become a normal part of inner cities, many including police, hold preconceptions about the causes of death in inner cities. When a death is labeled gang related it lowers the chances that it will be investigated and increases the chances that the perpetrator will remain at large. In addition, victims of gang killings often determine the priority a case will be given by police. Jenkins (1988) argues that many serial murder cases remain unknown to police and that cases involving Black offenders and victims are especially likely to escape official attention.<41>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States#Homicide

But even examining homicide data, our country has shown improvement in recent years at the same time the number of firearms in the country were increasing and "shall issue" concealed carry and now open carry have gained favor in our nation.

Long term trends and patterns

Homicide rates recently declined to levels last seen in the late 1960's

* The homicide rate nearly doubled from the mid 1960's to the late 1970's.

* In 1980, it peaked at 10.2 per 100,000 population and subsequently fell off to 7.9 per 100,000 in 1984.

* It rose again in the late 1980's and early 1990's to another peak in 1991 of 9.8 per 100,000.

* From 1992 to 2000, the rate declined sharply. Since then, the rate has been stable.

Key Facts at a Glance

Homicide rates recently declined to levels last seen in the mid-1960s



Note: The 2001 rate includes deaths attributed to the 9/11 terrorism attacks.

Source: National Center for Health Statistics, Vital Statistics
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/hmrt.cfm

I will still hold to my views that more guns does not cause more murders or more crime. I will also point out that many of the homicides in our country are caused by turf wars between drug gangs. If we had a more rational drug policy in our country, most of these murders would never occur. We might have fewer homicides by 100,000 than other countries with strict gun control.

[PavePusher]

39. Most interestingly, the homocide rates rise and spike seemingly congruently to...

the periods of alcohol and drug prohibition enforcement and, with drugs, the rise in use of powder cocaine and heroin, then crack cocaine. Does the phrase "marketing wars" come to mind, in a really bad way?

Doesn't seem to correlate to any gun ownership pattern that I can tell.

Go. Figure.

[spin]

48. Many factors influence the violent crime rate ...

The factors involving firearms during this period of time were the increase in the number of such weapons, a change in popularity from revolvers to semi-auto pistols, the rise in popularity for the "assault weapon" or "black rifles", and how our the states in our country approved "shall issue" concealed firearms licenses.



Some have argued that right to carry caused the major decrease in violent crime we have seen in the last few years.





I personally feel that allowing honest citizens to carry a weapon for self defense does save lives and may have some effect on the nature of crime in the state where they live. But I don't believe that Right to Carry is the root cause of the drop in violent crime. I suspect better police work and the advent of more cameras on the street. There are plenty of theories but no one really knows. Let's just hope the trend continues.

But it does seem obvious that violent crime does not increase merely because more firearms are sold and has little to do with the fact that many of these firearms are "assault weapons".

[jazzhound]

44. self-delete

[DissedByBush]

51. Some of our cities do have a very high murder rate

Don't those tend to be the ones with strict anti-gun laws?

[divideandconquer]

54. New Orleans is the worst, St Louis second worst

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_cities_by_crime_rate

[friendly_iconoclast]

53. And our murder rate has declined, a fact you should be applauding instead of eliding.

Those pesky verifiable statistics make it harder to post faith-promoting rumors, don't they?

[jazzhound]

75. Don Kates spends some time exploring this point:

And our murder rate has declined, a fact you should be applauding instead of eliding.

Kates points out that the complete lack of interest on the part of the controllers in the declining rate of gun violence and gun accidents provides a very important lesson --- because if in fact the pro-"control" squad were genuinely interested in saving lives, this statistic would be of great interest to them. The fact that they care not a whit about exploring the reasons why gun violence and accidents are declining as the gun supply increases proves that all they are really interested in is control ----- and NOT saving lives.

Which is why I refuse to dignify their position by referring to it as gun control, but instead describe it as gun "control".

[cleanhippie]

59. What is a "gun enthusiast?"

Can you be more specific?

[shadowrider]

68. Gun "Enthusiast" = Back handed smackdown of RKBA supporters but it's accepted by the mods

since it doesn't say "gun n*ts" etc.

[katandmoon]

31. Bingo.

[Euromutt]

36. Define "civilized world"

Oh no wait, I remember what your definition is: it excludes any country with a homicide rate higher than the United States' (e.g. Russia, Estonia and Venezuela, to name but three). Thus, your claim actually reads "countries with a lower homicide rate than the United States all have a homicide rate lower than the United States'." Undeniably true, in the way that tautologies are, but not actually very meaningful.

[proteus_lives]

49. Piss and moan all you like.

The majority of Americans aren't control freaks like you.

[SteveM]

63. Gun-controllers made the modern NRA...

If you are a gun-controller, go to mirror, get answer.

[jazzhound]

34. And this, IMO, is what makes you a truly loyal Democrat:

I can assure you, that I, as a Democratic operative, in a swing state, that I WILL UTTERLY REFUSE, to support ANY candidate that supports gun control.... Not only will I refuse to help...I will work against them... I am not the only operative that feels this way, quite the contrary, I am one of many..

You understand that tough love = true love.

Only when the Democratic Party hits bottom on the gun rights issue and completely disavows the dishonest elements of gun "control" will we ever have hopes of maximizing our potential. Until then, we will slog along with this albatross.......dishonestly claiming a "moral superiority" to the Repubs.

W/regard to the issue of the U.S. auto industry --- were the patriots those who were buying American, or those who purchased superior imports......forcing U.S. companies to compete more effectively by improving their product? It's a no-brainer for me.

[valerief]

11. $$$$$$$. nt

[Imajika]

15. You mean $$$$ from the majority of Americans...

...who oppose gun control right?

It has been refreshing to see the once powerful anti-gun groups lose all favor in the eyes of the American people. Now that the Democratic party has dumped them, the gun grabbers are becoming more and more fringe and less and less relevant.

[oneshooter]

18. Really, has the DNC dropped the plank on gun control? Till then they are screwing themselves. n/t

[Imajika]

20. They may pay it lip service...

..but for the most part the Democratic Party has abandoned it. Was it even an issue 2008? I don't even know if Republicans bother accusing Democrats of being gun grabbers these days. Thankfully the Democratic Party is almost not even associated with gun control anymore.

[Bold Lib]

23. As long as it stays in the party platform it will be an issue. It needs to be removed.

[jazzhound]

25. Could not agree more fervently. n/t

[SteveM]

66. Sorry, the DNC is still passing gas at a garden party...

As long as that stinker remains in the Platform; as long as the AG calls for bans; as long as party figures get gun-control coverage by the always obliging (and pro-gun-control) MSM, the issue REMAINS. You cannot wish it away; you cannot whistle pass the graveyard. The GOP and many independent voters know the gun-controllers have been beaten back, but still find a warm place to relieve themselves -- in the Democratic Party.

The question is: Why, why, WHY does the Democratic Party keep this target on its back? Do you have any thoughts?

[jazzhound]

70. Steve, your question becomes all the more serious

w/regard to my state ---- California. Talk about bs backfiring feel-good nonsense, the new ammunition law is a classic example of Dem stupidity. And sadly, it ends up damaging Democratic candidates nationwide. This is a why I joined the California Rifle & Pistol Association recently --- I feel it's my duty to help push back against the self-destructive idiots who are giving away the farm.

As to why the party keeps the target on it's back, I can only guess that (like the ACLU) Dem leadership doesn't want to upset the base.......even though the base is gradually getting wise.

Slowly but surely, more folks are getting the truth -- that more guns does not = more violent crime.

My two cents.

[SteveM]

71. There is a "story" behind the DNC's clinging to this issue...

one that needs rooting out; who keeps promoting it, who is being mollified, what power/threats to the controllers have over the rest of the Party? It would require a good journalist to slog through this -- but unfortunately MSM is rather suspect in this regard.

[virginia mountainman]

26. Yep you said it... $$$$

In the 2008 election cycle, gun rights advocates gave parties and candidates 41 times more than their opponents ($2.4 million versus $57,900) and spent 34 more times on lobbying in 2008 ($3.9 million versus $115,000).

Seems like Gun Rights people, open their wallets, and gun control supporters, "talk alot".

Makes sense, given just how unpopular gun control is.

[SteveM]

65. Popular causes, political personalities, organizations get more $$$$$$. nt

[Imajika]

13. Because most people agree with the gun lobby?

The NRA and other gun rights groups have a lot of support throughout the nation from both Republicans and Democrats.

The worst thing the Democratic Party ever got associated with was the gun grabbers. We wasted so much time, energy and goodwill from the American people by having our party tied to gun control legislation. Thankfully, gun control is mostly dead and buried. Please just let it go.

What does the picture of the airplane have to do with the gun lobby?

[X_Digger]

14. nvm, lob1 beat me to it. n/t

[xchrom]

16. Money + fear = good campaign horseshit

And perverted rulings on the 2nd.

[oneshooter]

19. So lets hear your version. n/t

[SteveM]

67. In light of postings upstream, do you care to explain your position? nt

[Bold Lib]

21. Because they represent a large group of the voting public.

[jazzhound]

24. First of all, the phrase "the gun lobby" needs to be

confronted.

How is that that a large number of relatively small donations to President Obama's campaign is referred to as a righteous grassroots effort, while a large number of relatively small donations to the NRA is referred to as "The Gun Lobby"?

Answer: It is no accident. The proponents of gun "control" need to distract their followers from the simple fact that The Gun Lobby is composed of a very large group of dedicated citizens, and convince them that it's some sort of big evil monster. Granted, there are some large donors to TGL, but then too there are large donors to presidential campaigns. The phrase TGL is used quite intentionally to DEPERSONALIZE and DEMONIZE.

So rewrite the question thusly: Why does a large group of dedicated citizens have so much control over Congress?

Boring answer: Because any large group of dedicated citizens will have a strong influence over Congress.

As virginia mountainman has repeatedly pointed out ---- we are IN IT to WIN IT. The facts don't support what gun "control" proponents argue for, and the general population has figured it out.

[Callisto32]

58. Because guns are icky?

[pipoman]

27. Unrec for

disingenuous and inflammatory subject and title

[TygrBright]

29. Because they're armed & dangerous? (eeeeek, sorry... can't resist the cheap ones) n/t

[cowman]

30. Because we're armed

we're dangerous? WTF kind of comment is that?

[SteveM]

69. Cheap for a reason. Better get a refund. nt

[krispos42]

35. Because nobody is making gun-free people's lives harder to be gun-free

But plenty of people are making gun-owning peoples lives harder. so they get motivated, and organized, and put their money where there mouth is.

It would not surprise me in the slightest that more money flows from DUers to the NRA than from DUers to the Brady Campaign.

[jazzhound]

40. +1

"It would not surprise me in the slightest that more money flows from DUers to the NRA than from DUers to the Brady Campaign."

[Euromutt]

38. Because the NRA is skilled at mobilizing large numbers of single-issue voters

And by "large," I mean "sufficiently large to influence the outcome of an election," particularly ones that are determined by geographical areas smaller than entire states; i.e. not so much in gubernatorial and Senate elections, but definitely House, state legislature and local elections. In certain political circles, "NRA" stands for "Never Re-elected Again," and if there's politicians typically want, it's to be re-elected.

[GreenStormCloud]

41. Because we vote. N/T

[cowman]

42. This is one of the few issues

that Congress actually listens to what the American People want. the majority of them remember what happened in 93 with the passsage of the phony AWB and don't want a repeat of that.

[aikoaiko]

47. Or, why does the Bill of Rights have so much control over Congress?

:shrug:

[PavePusher]

50. Awesome for the win!

If only they (Congress) were more consistent about it. Sigh.

[Remmah2]

60. Is that a loaded question?

Perhaps it's because congress recognizes the Second Amendment as a civil right?

[SteveM]

61. Uh, maybe because 3/4 of Americans think 2A is an individual right?...

Or because gun-controllers/prohibitionists took on a culture war doomed to failure? Or because the motivation behind gun prohibitionists was to make peace, love and understanding a fate accompli by merely passing yet another ban? Or because most Americans believe in self-defense?

What are your thoughts?

[beevul]

72. Because of the brady bunch...

Because of the brady bunch - formerly known as handgun control inc. Because of The anti-gun mindset. "The choice of criminals and gangbangers" - referring to rifles, for example. "Its a collective right", for example.
"It authorizes a well regulated militia" for example.

For decades groups like those I mentioned above, bombarded the masses with statements like those I quoted above.

Those groups and thier supporters pushed. And pushed. And pushed some more.

Threw around the word reasonable, in an attempt to paint those that did not agree with them as unreasonable.

I could spend an hour listing the reasons. I really could.


The bottom line is that all of the above - the things and groups I mentioned and the ones I didnt...somewhere along the line, were the straw that broke the camels proverbial back and all the ones before it.


When a group of people are pushed and pushed and pushed some more, it is inevitable that at some point those people will decide theyve had enough.

Gun owners, which make up the voting power of the "gun lobby" are one such group of people.

Its really not that complicated.

The anti-gun lobby and its supporters got pushy. Rude. Nasty.

And this is the natural result.

[Bold Lib]

73. Why have you not responded to any of the folks that answered your question?