Re-post as needed.
Liberals are losing the gun debate because we are too timid. We are either pleading a vague "do SOMEthing" or offering the most obvious and easy solutions - the background checks and the machine gun bans. While the other side's response is literally "do nothing."
It's time to start asking for more significant measures, moving the terms of debate and saying what we really think about guns.
The fundamental problem is that there is a sliver of the electorate who are single issue gun voters. And they really do literally believe that even the mildest of regulation is a slippery slope toward the government taking away their guns.
It's not about the NRA money. It's about the ideology. The NRA money just follows to the people who are already inclined to the ideology.
My uncle in northern Wisconsin is one of these people. He told my dad "I would vote for Hitler before I would vote for Hillary" because he literally believed she would send the feds to take away his guns.
Their numbers are tiny but their influence is magnified in low turnout Republican primaries. And their absolutism has closed the Overton Window of acceptable terms of gun debate into a narrow crack above the sill that you could block with a towel.
So how do gun absolutists respond to tragedy? Usually, with silence. But after Las Vegas, Bill O'Reilly slipped and said what they really think. In October he wrote: "This is the price of freedom. Violent nuts are allowed to roam free until they do damage, no matter how threatening they are. The 2nd Amendment is clear that Americans have a right to arm themselves for protection. Even the loons."
It seems from the context that O'Reilly was only describing, not fully endorsing, this view of mass shootings as a sad but necessary evil - but it's the best summation I've ever seen of the otherwise unspoken mindset.
So what do I think about guns?
I loathe guns.
Guns are barbaric.
We need more people to say that. We need to create a culture where it is just as acceptable to declare loathing of guns as it is to declare love of guns.
It is not going to be possible to make it harder for the mentally ill to get guns without also making it harder for regular people to get guns. We need to make it harder for regular people to get guns and we need there to be fewer guns.
We need to destroy the myth that we "need" hunting to control wildlife populations, and we need to restore an environment with more natural predator-prey relationships.
We need to fight back against the "culture" and "values" arguments for hunting/guns just as hard as conservatives push back against marriage equality and choice. No. I don't like your "lifestyle."
Unconstitutional? Hey, the right proposes unconstitutional shit All. The. Time. It doesn't (usually) pass but it moves the terms of debate.
I have much more to say but I'm not ready to and I think it would be counter-productive. Hey, what I've already said may be counterproductive.
Am I an extremist? Sure.
But I'm less extreme than "mass shootings are the price of a free society and the correct response is to do nothing." Yet that position is in the mainstream and mine are not.
What seems to be different about this shooting is that the kids are speaking out and that they were aware enough mid-crisis to send messages and take pictures. Also relatively unusual that shooter was captured alive.
Of course the fact that school shootings are common enough to have patterns to compare is literally insane.
Machismo is part of the problem. Another part of the problem is that we
have 89 guns per 100 people while even countries with "lots" of guns
have more like 30. Background checks and bans on "extreme" guns are NOT enough. We need to
start demanding FEWER guns in America. We need to reduce a gun ownership
rate that's TRIPLE that of places like Canada. We need to treat 89 guns
per 100 people as the public health hazard it is.
I am sure the thoughts and prayers of conservatives are sincere. But they think of the gun violence epidemic as mere tragedy, as senseless, as no more possible to control than weather. But "this is the price of a free society" is policy. It's ideology.
No. This is NOT the price of freedom. All freedoms have limits. And when it comes to guns we need less "freedom."
Time to move the mainstream.