A friend forwarded me this article this morning:
The basic gist of the article is that White male gun owners tend to view increased firearms regulations as threats to their masculinity. This is more true if they are experiencing economic problems.
This stands to reason. The researchers found, unsurprisingly, that gun owners tend to be conservative. This is unsurprising because other studies have found a serious correlation between conservativism and how threatening people find the world. That's why Republican campaigning is all about threats. "They're coming for your ____________ !" Build a wall, keep them out of your country, keep them out of your bathrooms, you get the idea. Who buys guns for protection? People who feel threatened. (Some may be right, depending on where they live.)
But this post is not about the article, it's about one sentence in the article.
So what's the sentence? This is the germane part of it:
"about 90 percent of gun owners wanted expanded gun safety laws, the study found."
If about 90% of gun owners want expanded gun safety laws, why can't we get them, and why does the NRA generally oppose them?
Because the NRA membership is to the NRA as the general American population is to the United States Government. In both cases, it's major companies that call the shots, so to speak. (That didn't start out intentional.) The NRA has been taken over by firearm manufacturers.
I don't know how much longer American democracy will continue to deteriorate. Recent elections have held out some hope, and the Republican tax bill might piss off enough of the population to Do Something. It certainly should, but we've been disappointed before.
There is a discrepancy in the article I'm not sure how to answer, and that's how all these gun owners can view regulations as threats to their masculinity while 90% of them favor more regulations. If anyone can figure that one out, please comment about it. I assume I'm missing something.