Why Aren’t gun owners reliable voters?

[GEM]

Sadly, when we vote on the gun issue (and I'm including both pro- and anti-gun votes), we vote for promises and not results. No politician has ever delivered results on the gun issue. I'm cynical enough to believe this is intentional. Both sides use this as an excuse for mobilization and, above all, for fundraising. If the gun issue was ever "solved" (whatever that means), these activists would lose their livelihoods. What happened regarding the NRA is all too typical. It's just that the NRA insiders got too confident and failed to cover their tracks adequately. Make no mistake, there are still people enriching themselves over guns (both pro and con). (David Hogg has made a career over the blood of his classmates at the Parkland high school. Disgusting.)

Miami said:

And "pragmatically, even in the most anti states, you can get some kind of gun for home SD."

That's certainly true for handguns but except in NYC, in NYS you could get the good ol' shotgun. Even in NYC, when I was a kid, Macy's used to sell long arms. My relatives on Long Island had shotguns. Since most folks weren't into carry - that probably sufficed. I recall an I Love Lucy episode where they were in Westchester and had sporting pumps which they broke out for some home SD. It's only recently in history that we had the handgun push. Note that most permit folks don't actually carry much and train - talk about apathy.

To Alexander A - it is my tin foil hat view that the conservatives on Scotus (and the Dems) are political beasts and titrate major social decisions as to influence elections. Bruen was a reward for gun folks supporting the GOP BUT it was partial reinforcement if you know that term. If the 4 remanded cases and the various TROs and interlocutory appeals were taken with a positive outcome, the issue would be done and GONE from GOP political appeals. Thus, folks who were prone to one issue voting in their weighting might look at the candidates (who are not so appealing on many other dimensions) and vote otherwise. Now, Scotus is supposed to be nonpolitical but a BIG hint is in the behavior and activity of Thomas' and Alito's spouses - they are full bore activists and probably discuss such with them (despite the neutral BS - I'm married - the idea the spouse isn't talking is ridiculous). So they are fully aware of the issues. They partially reinforce the need for gun positive justices with basically trivial issues for us - on drug users or domestic abusers, now ghost guns. None of that gets rid of AWBs - a crucial issue or carry restrictions. Having to register some frame means jack squat compared to the major issues that they aren't dealing with.

It is not clear that the other justices are gung-ho for more gun rights. Not locked in amber is a hint and the shot at Trump with an EBR - might play into their own minds.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

I keep hearing how gun owners, as a whole, are inconsistent voters. I am kinda flabbergasted by that, if true. I guess there are reasons, but I can’t think of good ones.

This is an easy answer as indicated by many previous answers - gun owners are not a homogeneous group. Even if gun owners were consistent voters, that would not mean that they would vote the same way. Guns are not the central focus of the lives of many people, either in day to day activities or in their voting.

There are people for whom reproductive rights are more of an issue. Other people are worried about health care, religious issues, retirement issues, wage issues, etc. etc. etc.

So you can be a gun owner, and you can be a voter, but a voter without a central gun focus.

This is a classic example. Boattale has his/her own particular perspectives and will vote accordingly. We all vote our own agenda, if we vote, whether or not that agenda is in agreement with anybody else doesn't matter to a lot of folks.

Forgive me for not being able to work up even the slightest bit of worry about gun rights in the U.S. Nothing bad is happening that will ever affect me, and I'm to the point of looking after Number One.

 

[Miami_JBT]

I still think it's an attempt at sarcasm because not many level-headed or clear-thinking people would make a statement like that.

I hope so.... but I deal with people who make statements just like that.

 

[MikeInOr]

I keep hearing how gun owners, as a whole, are inconsistent voters. I am kinda flabbergasted by that, if true. I guess there are reasons, but I can’t think of good ones.

I did run across one person who said he didn’t want to vote for Trump. I told him that the way I see it, my vote is more for the SCOTUS judges that will be appointed in the next 4 years. Not sure if I swayed him or not.

Any observations one way or another?

Gun laws are high on my voting agenda but they are definitely not the the top of my agenda and I am not a single issue voter.

I have always voted against Trump even though it meant voting for a candidate that makes me sick to my stomach... and I always will vote against Trump. He represents the opposite of what I want my country to be. While voting for what ever non-Trump democratic candidate running against him I vote Republican for state governor and legislature offices.

I value my gun rights greatly but I value the future of the country I leave for my children more!

 

[Durango_Dave]

I hear of a lot of gun owners that are no-compromise when it comes to gun laws.
For example ask a gun enthusiast about bump stocks and they say "it's a stupid gimmick that allows the gun to bounce back and forth causing you to press the trigger very fast. The gun's no longer accurate with one installed."

But then the same guys will vehemently oppose any bill to outlaw them. They say it's a slippery slope. Once they outlaw bumpstocks then they'll outlaw all semi-automatic rifles, then bolt action, then revolvers.

Me - I'm fine with many laws I think are reasonable such as universal background checks.

 

[AlexanderA]

I'm personally working my way out of a job. I make less as a fulltime gun rights lobbyist than I did as a cop.

OK, present company excepted. If only they were all as honest as you are.

 

[Eutycus]

I hear of a lot of gun owners that are no-compromise when it comes to gun laws.
For example ask a gun enthusiast about bump stocks and they say "it's a stupid gimmick that allows the gun to bounce back and forth causing you to press the trigger very fast. The gun's no longer accurate with one installed."

But then the same guys will vehemently oppose any bill to outlaw them. They say it's a slippery slope. Once they outlaw bumpstocks then they'll outlaw all semi-automatic rifles, then bolt action, then revolvers.

Me - I'm fine with many laws I think are reasonable such as universal background checks.

I too think bump stocks are worthless but to vote against them would be letting "them" get their foot into the door. Like they haven't already?

 

[AlexanderA]

I would tell them that it is bigger than that one office. It's also ALL federal judge nominations for the duration of that term.

Don't assume that the situation with the Supreme Court will remain as is. Although it's practically impossible to remove Supreme Court justices, Congress could trim SC jurisdiction with a simple law (for example, by excluding 2nd Amendment cases). And although justices have lifetime appointments, that doesn't necessarily mean that the lifetime service must be on the Supreme Court. A law could be passed putting justices on "emeritus" or "senior" status after, say, 18 years on the SC bench, or rotating them out to the Circuits.

And don't forget the idea, circulating among conservative circles, for convening an "Article 5 Convention." This could end up giving us an entirely new constitution, even though the proponents swear up and down that it wouldn't. It's doubtful that the 2nd Amendment would survive such a process. (Remember, the only historical precedent we have for this is the original constitutional convention, which was called to "revise the Articles of Confederation." It very quickly exceeded that scope.)

 

[Eutycus]

There are things like bump stocks , high capacity magazines, even semi-automatics etc. that I wouldn't loose any sleep over if they were taken off the market. Or allowing background checks for instance. But that would be one of the steps in furthering gun control,One baby step at a time. Geez, I'm starting to sound like a single issue voter.

 

[MikeInOr]

As middle of the road as McCain or Romney were, they were more conservative than Obama, and as ungentlemanly or crude as Trump may be he is more conservative than either Biden or Harris.

I not only voted for McCain I donated to his campaign. I think he was a great man, a great leader and a great politician.

I sincerely wish Trump leaned just a little more to the right!

 

[Eutycus]

I not only voted for McCain I donated to his campaign. I think he was a great man, a great leader and a great politician.

I sincerely wish Trump leaned just a little more to the right!

He can't help it, he's from NYC.

 

[CapnMac]

The unstated assumption in the OP is that gun owners are single issue voters, and that they vote on the gun issue and on nothing else. For most people, it's a lot more complicated than that

It's important to understand that being a gun owner doesn't really make someone part of the "gun community".

and they estimated several million gun owners or more were not active voters.

All of these things are linked.
The number of registered voters (no matter what their interest or orientation) who do not vote is larger than the margins of victory in most elections.

The "why's" that those people stay at home are not simple, but are, in fact myriad.

This is not helped by the incredibly individualistic nature of "gun owners" as a whole. They do what thy do, and you are Not Their Boss. "Our" community can be a stubborn lot, too. Telling them they ought do a thing (even in their own interest) can be a sure way to get them to not do that thing. That's not absolute, which is equally frustrating to anyone who would like to change that condition.

Lest "we" thing we are special this is something that occurs for any number of other political concerns, interests, affiliations or the like. Dirty little (open) secret is that the "antis" have this same problem, too--they can get people to be all rah-rah at a rally, but getting them to vote, let alone vote the preferred (directed) way is just as hard as for "our" side to get the same results.

 

[Miami_JBT]

I hear of a lot of gun owners that are no-compromise when it comes to gun laws.
For example ask a gun enthusiast about bump stocks and they say "it's a stupid gimmick that allows the gun to bounce back and forth causing you to press the trigger very fast. The gun's no longer accurate with one installed."

But then the same guys will vehemently oppose any bill to outlaw them. They say it's a slippery slope. Once they outlaw bumpstocks then they'll outlaw all semi-automatic rifles, then bolt action, then revolvers.

Me - I'm fine with many laws I think are reasonable such as universal background checks.

I personally owned one as a range toy and nothing more. Thanks to Republicans, it is still a felony to possess one in FL.

Thr outlawing of them in no way solved anything. Because here's shocking news.

CRIMINALS ARE CRIMINALS BECAUSE THEY BREAK THE LAW. LIKE MURDER, RAPE, AND THEFT.

Gun control doesn't stop 'em from doing any of that. Universal background checks won't either. NY, CA, and elsewhere have it. It hasn't deterred anything at all.

 

[Miami_JBT]

There are things like bump stocks , high capacity magazines, even semi-automatics etc. that I wouldn't loose any sleep over if they were taken off the market. Or allowing background checks for instance. But that would be one of the steps in furthering gun control,One baby step at a time. Geez, I'm starting to sound like a single issue voter.

I lose sleep over any civil right being curtailed. The Second Amendment is the canary in the coal mine. If lawmakers treat that bad, they'll treat your First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendment rights like crap too.

 

[AlexanderA]

The number of registered voters (no matter what their interest or orientation) who do not vote is larger than the margins of victory in most elections.

Unlike in some other counties, there is no penalty in the U.S. for not voting. And it's not for us to try to shame people into voting.

Some people don't vote simply because they're too lazy and can't be bothered. But others don't vote for conscientious reasons. They don't like any of the choices on the ballot. What are they to do? Not show up at the polling place at all? Show up, but leave the line on the ballot blank? Vote third party? Write in "Mickey Mouse"? I myself voted for John Anderson in 1980, Ross Perot in '92, and Jill Stein in 2016, just as a protest against the major party choices. Otherwise I would have stayed home entirely. One thing is sure -- I'm done voting for "the lesser of the two evils." The lesser of the two evils is still evil.

 

[Eutycus]

CRIMINALS? You also mean like people who cross borders illegally?

 

[Eutycus]

Not voting is voting in a way. It helps determine the outcome.Protest votes do that as well.

 

[bearcreek]

Me - I'm fine with many laws I think are reasonable such as universal background checks.

I would be fine with them too, if governments had a long history of being 100% reliable and trustworthy for the entirety of their existence.

 

[Miami_JBT]

Unlike in some other counties, there is no penalty in the U.S. for not voting. And it's not for us to try to shame people into voting.

Some people don't vote simply because they're too lazy and can't be bothered. But others don't vote for conscientious reasons. They don't like any of the choices on the ballot. What are they to do? Not show up at the polling place at all? Show up, but leave the line on the ballot blank? Vote third party? Write in "Mickey Mouse"? I myself voted for John Anderson in 1980, Ross Perot in '92, and Jill Stein in 2016, just as a protest against the major party choices. Otherwise I would have stayed home entirely. One thing is sure -- I'm done voting for "the lesser of the two evils." The lesser of the two evils is still evil.

Too many people focus on the executive and not the legislative branch. That's the real power and real problem.

 

[Durango_Dave]

I would be fine with them too, if governments had a long history of being 100% reliable and trustworthy for the entirety of their existence.

Not all laws are about government control over citizens. Most laws are to protect the good guys from the bad guys. I'd even say that universal background checks help the good guys while helping track down the back guys.

I hear many people say universal background checks could never work without a gun registry. That's not true at all.

Here's how: Lets say I buy a new gun. I go through a background check and take my new gun to the range. There I say "I don't like this gun". Some stranger overhears me and says "if you don't want that gun I'll buy it from you". I say "okay but we have to do this legally. You need a background check". We go down to Buds Gun Shop and he gets a background check. It comes back good and I sell the gun right there.
Later the gun is used in a crime. Police go to the 1st gun shop where I bought the gun and they give out my name. Police come knocking on my door. I say "No, I sold that gun. We used Buds Gun Shop as the FFL and they have the paperwork to prove my innocence."

 

[bearcreek]

Not all laws are about government control over citizens. Most laws are to protect the good guys from the bad guys. I'd even say that universal background checks help the good guys while helping track down the back guys.

That may be the original intent. The problem is what it can be used for later. Government's are far more dangerous to the health and well being of civilians than criminals are. History has proven that to be the case over and over again. Even with the best of intentions, the risk of things like UBC's does not justify the "reward".

 

[Eutycus]

This has been an interesting thread but sadly this thread is not going to solve anything. Gun owners as a rule are older adults, which would mean they are set in their ways. And way too many are not consistent voters for some reason. But if you can't be consistent at least be educated.

 

[jmorris]

Guns are not the central focus of the lives of many people, either in day to day activities or in their voting.

I don't know about that, I probably vote on that single issue like some women vote for the right to abortion. I'd vote for not having a POTUS at all before I'd vote for a gun grabber. Why I don't like Trump but I'm also not an idiot, so I vote for the lesser that two evils, consistently.

Instead of asking "why", I think "how to" might be more productive. Every election day, our team carpools to vote, on the way to lunch, together. Hopefully it passes on. Disinterest from the population, is how they get away with all of the unpopular stuff.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

I don't know about that,

I don't think you are the poster child for all gun owners, LOL. It may be for you, but not for everybody. There are absolutely many gun owners for which guns are not the central focus of their lives or elections. Some gun owners will vote based on issues that they feel are more important than gun issues based on their own personal views.

 

[Chief TC]

Agreed.

The unstated assumption in the OP is that gun owners are single issue voters, and that they vote on the gun issue and on nothing else. For most people, it's a lot more complicated than that.

Definitely this. Hard to see how gun owners see politics and voting holistically. Some have given up on the corrupt political system and don't vote. Some are entrenched with whatever corrupt political party or politician they follow. I am a big 2nd amendment guy but my voting focus is on who is doing the least damage to the constitution overall.