The actual reason that we lost on gun control.

[DanTex]

There seem to be a lot of posts about why we failed on gun control. But the actual reason we lost is very simple. The GOP is an extremist party that represents the far-right wing, and they have enough seats in congress to block anything they want. And that's what they have been doing, and will continue to do, not just on gun control, but across the board.

The tea party has managed to primary any moderate Republican, so the Republicans in office right now represent the right-most 10% or 20% of the country. There are a few factors that facilitate this. First, the senate overrepresents voters in red states. Second, redistricting in the house. Also, there are many well-funded special interests and think-tanks on the far right. And, in many cases, the GOP just plays politics more ruthlessly than Dems, being more willing to sacrifice the well-being of the country for political gains.

If we're going to get anything accomplished, on guns or on any other issue, we are going to have to deal with this. I don't know what the answer is. Obviously, we need to win elections, and I also think we need to replace right-wing Dems with progressives.

But let's not pretend the problem is being too disrespectful of gun nuts, or nor presenting enough statistical evidence, or not explaining enough times that universal background checks are not the same thing as gun confiscation. It has nothing to do with that.

[supernaut]

1. I'm sure it has nothing to do with

actual Senators representing the will of their constituents, and voting to that effect.

[DanTex]

4. Evidently not, since 90% of the constituents supported background checks...

[supernaut]

8. Whos constituents, where?

[Moses2SandyKoufax]

9. Generally speaking,

if an issue is favored by 90% of people nationwide, it will have a majority favored in every state.

[supernaut]

10. Yeah, but in this situation

it isn't favored by 90% of people nationwide, only 4%.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/161813/few-guns-immigration-nation-top-problems.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=syndication&utm_content=morelink&utm_term=All%20Gallup%20Headlines%20-%20Politics

[Moses2SandyKoufax]

11. That's not even the same thing, and you damn well know it.

People in other threads have linked to polls showing 90% national approval for Toomey/Manchin.

Enjoy your brief stay, you disingenuous tool.

[supernaut]

13. Oh, well if people in other threads have spoken

Feel free to link to those polls.. as far as I'm aware there's only one poll from February surveying 1,772 people that supports that figure. This is a more recent poll.

[Moses2SandyKoufax]

14. They were linked in replies to YOU.

The gallup poll you linked to is not gaging support for the issue, but order of importance.

And FYI, 1,772 people is sufficient for a national poll. This has also been explained to you.

[supernaut]

19. ...

No, they weren't. I've read every reply to all of my posts and no one has posted any.

And FYI, no, 1,772 people is NOT sufficient for a *national* poll, particularly in a country where opinions can vary widely based on region. These weren't even 1,772 people selected randomly throughout the country, they used only a handful of states. 1,772 is 0.00060% of 300 million.

[Travis_0004]

35. Does it really matter?

We elect senators, to vote on laws how they see fit. They are welcome to listen to public opinion, or they are free to ignore it if they disagree. It we don't like the job they are doing, then we can vote them out next election.

[SpartanDem]

41. Yes it is, it's called statistics

It's matter far more than the sample be representative of population, in fact population is almost irrelevant for all but the smallest population size. Look at any major poll and they generally poll 600-1000 people. The rate of confidence in slows big time beyond 1,000. Around 1000 it's around +/- 3% in order to get to 1% you'd have to poll close to 10,000, it's simply not worth the additional cost in most case to poll that many people.

[Progressive dog]

15. You've already seen them

[billh58]

27. This one is most likely

a resurrected zombie and has probably been shown the door before. It's only a matter of time.

[Squinch]

59. Yep.

[billh58]

71. As predicted

this gun nut has been shown the door...

[Squinch]

72. Drinks on me!

You called it!

[Hoyt]

31. To think folks like you covet and likely carry guns.

[supernaut]

33. "folks like you"

You mean.. people with the ability to count?

[JaneyVee]

36. You're misconstruing how polling works. 4% felt gun control is important to them, but..

90% of those polled agree with universal background checks. Kind of like if you said 53% of the Nation are Democrats, but out of that 53% 80% of them are Liberals (hypothetically speaking).

[supernaut]

37. .

Those are two separate polls, conducted with different samples at different times asking different questions.

[JaneyVee]

60. Asking whether people feel gun control is important is different from asking if they support

universal background checks. You think only 4% think universal background checks for guns are important?

[defacto7]

39. You don't even read your own links.

"What do you think is the most important problem facing this country today?"

4% said gun control.

That has nothing to do with whether people are FOR gun control.

Now for you second link........

[Jenoch]

55. "...if an issue is favored by 90% of people nationwide,

it will have a majority favored in every state."

That statement cannot be supported by statistics. It depends on how the national poll was conducted. I would trust polls state by state to get results more than a national poll. For instance, a small population state that is very pro RKBA will not likely have 90% support as you indicate but because of its population (Wyoming for example) it will not effect the polls numbers to a great degree.

[Zoeisright]

17. Oh my GOD.

Read a fucking newspaper. Google it. Are you really that unaware?

[supernaut]

34. Unaware of what?

You do realize that I'm the one actually posting links to back the things that I say up. No one here has posted any recent polls supporting this 90% number or any data at all showing that "90% of constituents support background checks."

That said, the burden of proof isn't on me. The only survey that reflects that number is this one:

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes--centers/polling-institute/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=1847

And it only surveyed 1,772 people from a few states.. in February.

I understand you and many other people want to paint this as some cut and dry issue, but that isn't the case and constantly repeating "90%" over and over again isn't going to make it any more valid. It works for the people that don't bother to actually fact check anything they're told, though, and that's the intended purpose.

[defacto7]

40. second link...

Your link states 92% agree with background checks.

On gun-control, there is overwhelming 92 - 7 percent support for background checks for all gun buyers, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University poll finds. Support for universal background checks is 91 - 8 percent among voters in a household with a gun.

1772 is considered a pretty large survey. The margin of error is low enough to be reasonable.... at worst 8% at most 2%. That makes the poll quite a reasonable estimate.

[Skittles]

28. intelligent people, EVERYWHERE

[NickB79]

20. Too bad other politicians shit in the well, so to speak

If they'd introduced a bill that ONLY discussed background checks from the git-go, and STUCK TO IT, then maybe it would have passed since it was generally popular.

Unfortunately, some Democrats tried to add far less popular measures, such as a new assault weapons ban, a new magazine ban, registration requirements, etc that were polling at best a slight national majority.

Ultimately, these measures were stripped as it became apparent they were not popular enough to pass, but by then it was too late, and the damage had been done.

[Fumesucker]

5. Exactly, a bunch of my neighbors thought Newtown was the greatest thing ever

Indeed, a lot of them rushed out to buy their own copy of the weapon that was used to slaughter those first graders.

[We People]

12. Wow, what a thing to find out about your neighbors...

I don't imagine that makes you feel very safe at all! That they even entertain such thoughts is bad enough, let alone that they'd feel inspired to emulate the killer is chilling.

[Progressive dog]

16. Gun sSales did go up like after every gun massacre

Don't know that the Newtown weapon did specifically and I'm sure that has "technical" importance to the gun lobby.

[jmg257]

18. It is typical to want to surround yourself with loved ones after such a tragedy.

Gun nuts wanted to get theirs while they could. Including lotf of ARS and XMs like Lanza had.

[galileoreloaded]

2. you basically just said

gun control was killed because we are a defacto minority and have no control.

maybe.

or, your assessment of the issue is deeply flawed. whats the old saying....when everyone around you is an asshole it might be you?

[mokawanis]

3. Thank you

There's no argument strong enough to convince gun nuts that controls need to be enacted. They've made up their minds and are resolute and uncompromising.

I think we have to keep pushing for universal background checks. Just accomplishing that one thing would make a difference and save some lives.

[hack89]

6. A big majority of gun owners supported universal background checks. nt

[Hoyt]

42. But most cheered when it was defeated. . . . and likely hugged their guns.

[hack89]

44. So you are saying the 90% figure was bogus?

that there really is not widespread support for universal background checks? Interesting.

[Hoyt]

47. Nope, I'm saying a bunch of gun owners said they are for background checks, because only an idiot,

callous jerk would be against it. But, they were none-the-less thrilled when it failed. Why, because gun lovers are scared to death of losing their access to guns. They know it's needed, but glad when the can gets kicked down the road -- thus, cheering.

[hack89]

48. So that 90% support does not reflect actual support for background checks?

ok.

[Hoyt]

49. OK, Hack, you win - I described gun nuts in the previous post.

Just a bunch of callous losers that need friggin guns to feel good.

[hack89]

50. Either that 90% figure is valid (ie reflects reality) or it is not.

You seem to want to have it both ways. You say 90% of Americans want background checks so Congress should pass them. Then after the laws are not passed you turn around and say that many of that 90% don't really mean it. If they don't really mean it then why keep talking about there being strong support?

[rhett o rick]

7. The reason we lost on gun control was not because of the Republicans.

We know where the Republicans stand but dont you ever think it strange that when big issues like this come up we always seem to have just enough turn-coat Dems to squash it?

[Lordquinton]

21. I believe that it passed

Tea partiers just used their standby of saying "filibuster" and that killed it, like it kills anything else that anyone but them tries to get done. The point in the OP is that there is a minority that has enough power to hold the scales off balance, and once they get their toe holding the scale just a little on their side, they have an unbeatable weapon that we gave to them, and the person in charge refuses to take it away so things can actually get done.

[rhett o rick]

22. I am not sure what the hell you are talking about but the bill extending background checks

failed. http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251301470

[Lordquinton]

24. I was under the impression that it passed

50 something but got killed by the passive filibuster, like everything else. Re reading I do see that I was a bit over the top, should edit that so I look more sane...

[rhett o rick]

26. Do you think editing will help? Sanity is overrated anywayz.

[Lordquinton]

30. Upon reflection

I didn't even have to edit it, the vote did pass

"Last Wednesday, Toomey's amendment, crafted with Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), fell short of the 60-vote threshold needed to pass the Senate with a final vote of 54 to 46."

That's a passing vote you see there, the "60 vote threshold" is to overcome a filibuster, so what I said s true It did pass.

We're falling into the trap of the GOP and letting them control the spin.

[rhett o rick]

61. Ok if you want to get technical, the bill never got voted on. The bill was filibustered

and there were not enough votes to defeat the filibuster. 54 - 46 is not a winning vote to over come the filibuster. So technically the bill didnt fail and didnt pass it just wont get voted on.

How about this: the effort to get enhanced background checks thru the Senate failed do to a filibuster by the Republicans. It failed because the Democrats didnt change the filibuster rule when they had the chance. We dont know how many Democrats would have voted for the bill if there was a chance for it to pass. It's easy to vote for a bill you know is going to fail. Both parties share the responsibility for no enhanced gun control in spite of the fact that 80% of Americans want it. We live in a democratic looking oligarchy.

[Lordquinton]

64. This is an important point

the background check issue is a symptom of a much greater problem. The filibuster is the main problem, nothing is getting done, regardless, be it background checks or a budget, nothing is getting done. They can tout this as a great victory for gun advocates, but it's not.

We need to get that message out, the gun bill wasn't voted down, by all accounts it should have passed. We need to force Reid to tear down the filibuster.

[cui bono]

58. And the filibuster killed it in the senate.

We had more than 50 votes. It should have passed.

[alcibiades_mystery]

23. It is amusing seeing all the gunners provide their "advice"

Needless to say, they have one message, for all their words: give up! Give up!

Their laughable threads here would be disgraceful if they weren't so hilarious. It's like listening to low level mafia wiseguys advise us on how to stop the mafia.

[Skittles]

29. they are absolute fucking cowards

they are SKEERED

[NickB79]

32. Who exactly has said to give up?

Most threads I've seen here on DU, where the well-known pro-gun posters speak up, say to focus on things that are reasonably winnable, like universal background checks, more funding to the ATF to enforce existing laws, and better mental health services. Those are all popular measures that have a good chance of passing AND would actually work to lower gun violence.

It would be just as accurate for me to paraphrase you and say "It is amusing seeing all the anti-gunners provide their "advice". Needless to say, they have one message, for all their words: ban all guns! Ban all guns!"

[Hoyt]

43. Most gungeoneers loath the ATF.

[Honeycombe8]

25. Right wing Dems? They're from conservative districts.

They can't be replaced with progressives. The choice is....a Blue Dog Dem or a Republican. Maybe a Libertarian, but I doubt it.

[aikoaiko]

38. At least you understand the relation of primary elections to the gun control vote

It appears too many gun-restrictionists stop at the 90% support of gun control statistic and are puzzled with the vote.

Those elections are as important to blue dog, pro-rkba, or just-left-of-center Democrats, too.

[krispos42]

45. Part of the problem was that the legislation proposed...

...was the same oft-tried and oft-rejected idea. The gun-control side has been trying to get these same ideas implemented since the original federal laws were expiring in 2004.

Of course, the inconvenient fact is that Connecticut had an AWB in place that mirrored the now-expired federal one when Fuckwad's mom bought the rifle, and it was still in place when the slaughter occurred. The rifle used at Newtown was not an "assault weapon".

The general public may not be aware of this... I had a long conversation with my neighbor on Thursday, and she was not aware of this. And she's smart and politically involved. When I told her the definition of "assault weapon", her jaw dropped in surprise. And for the record, I used the definition, without prejudice, of the 1993 AWB.

For example, she did not know that an "assault weapon" could be a rifle, OR a shotgun, OR a pistol.


Universal background checks, if done properly, are an excellent idea. But waging a war on protruding pistol grips and magazine size under the auspices of preventing future spree killings... it's weak tea in the real world, however much a victory it would represent inside the Beltway.


The Republican Party is a far-right extremest party that has plentiful propaganda to convince people that the population is far more rightward than it actually is. Like you, I don't have an answer, but there are a few ideas that I think will break up the media and corporate machine so that the deafening chorus is defeated.

However, gun control is not one of them. It will not break up the big banks, it will not re-impose Glass-Stegall, it will not motivate the DoJ to start throwing bankers and traders in prison. It will not break up corporate monopolies. It will not break up media empires. It will not diminish the plutocrats and their hold on elections. It will not usher in instant-runoff voting or publicly financed elections. It will not rid us of black-box voting.

All of these issues are ones that the most strident pro-gun-control voices have failed to accomplish. Likely because of the reward of going along with the perceived inevitable-ness of the continued drift towards corporatism compared to the wrath of having millions of dollars being spend against you in a primary or a general election.

Facing ongoing disgust from the liberal base over these issues, they seem to have latched onto the gun issue for the 2014 campaign issue, and are vilifying the NRA with all the gusto that I wished would be focused on the big banks.

Even if, tomorrow, assault weapons were re-defined and re-banned and universal background checks were put into place, we would still have tens of millions of people in economic desperation, millions of children being failed by schools, millions in prison or on probation because of prison-industrial relationship with government, tens of thousands dying unnecessarily because of a broken health-care system.

And no statistically significant reduction in violent crime.

[DanTex]

46. I agree with you about Glass-Steagal, banks, plutocrats, IRV, etc.

My point is that the reason Dems lose on gun control is the same reason they lose on those other issues.

I also agree that AWB alone wouldn't make a big difference on violent crime rates. Universal background checks would help, but even that isn't far enough. What we really need, at the very least, is a national registry and serious NFA-style controls for all handguns and semi-automatic rifles. And even that wouldn't get us the whole way. To get our homicide rate in line with the rest of the developed world, we would probably need to go further, and restrict handgun ownership to a "may-issue" basis, like they have in a lot of other countries, where you need to have a reason to own a handgun.

I know, none of that is going to happen. But neither is Glass-Steagall, or instant-runoff voting, or publicly financed elections, or any of that other stuff. For many of the same reasons that we won't get any serious gun control. Right-wing special interests are better funded and better organized than the left.

[krispos42]

67. They lose on gun-control because those that know what they're taking about...

...and generally able to pick the proposals apart.

For example, defining "assault weapon" by secondary cosmetic features. The term as a marketing campaign is great, because you can just point the rhetorical "who needs an assault weapon?" at pretty much anything that looks scary. But then it's defined by pistol grips and telescoping stocks and such.

Everybody in the know, knows it is political pandering. The Connecticut Democrats looked those grieving Newtown parents in the eyes and told them that the problem would be solved by removing pistol grips from rifles and shotguns.


And we're not going to get our homicide rate in line with the rest of the civilized world because our non-gun homicide rate is as high as their total homicide rate. A big chunk of that is due to the harshness of our economy and our drug laws and our prison system and our school system.

And, of course, even if new handguns were banned for sale tomorrow, it would take generations to lower the numbers to the point where it was hard for criminals to get them. A lot can happen in generations, and it would be far faster to clean the air and water, educate our children properly, and fix the other problems I mentioned.

And there's the thing... people that own guns, that own real, material objects that they keep in their house and use on a regular basis, understand and react more, and in a more straightforward fashion than those that don't own them. Remember, people that don't own guns have to do literally nothing to keep doing so. In addition, guns are far more real and immediate than the cerebral concepts of banking laws and voting and monopolistic capitalism.



If you want Congress to pass your agenda, you have to have a Congress that will introduce and vote for that agenda. That's not very likely to happen if your side is perceived of passing useless, politically-motivated laws, if your side's goal is seen at deliberately and sharply lowering gun-ownership rates through onerous laws and restrictions, and that every law you want to pass is seen as merely a step towards that goal.

For example, I want to get a gun to keep handy for home defense. I have an 8-year-old, so while I would prefer a long gun, that is not something that is easy to keep discretely but instantly ready. So for my situation, a handgun in a quick-access safe is the better choice in a crisis. But you would make this "may-issue", which I presume would exclude most self-defense purposes. That how it seems to go when things become "may-issue". I believe that in Canada and Australia you need a legitimate reason to own a gun, and self-defense is not considered legitimate.

[DanTex]

68. By "those who know what they're talking about" you mean "right-wing Republicans".

Personally, I can't think of a single person who I respect intellectually who agrees with the GOP on guns. Can you name one? And I don't mean DUers, I mean politicians, pundits, social scientists, media figures, etc. Anyone? And these are the people you claim "know what they're talking about". Leaving aside that, on a factual basis, the NRA is demonstrably wrong about just about everything (even the "cosmetic features" bit is a lie: nobody can seriously think that a pistol grip or forward grip on a rifle are "cosmetic features", least of all gun enthusiasts who discuss their tactical advantages at length when not repeating NRA talking points), but just the fact that everyone one your side is a raving lunatic should clue you in that maybe it's time to take a step back.

But it's really odd that you don't recognize that the forces preventing sensible gun laws are exactly the same forces that are preventing all the other sensible laws that both of us are in favor of. Your advice: "If you want Congress to pass your agenda, you have to have a Congress that will introduce and vote for that agenda" has nothing to do with guns specifically, but is simply a truism that applies to any other policy area just as well.

Want reform of drug laws? You need Congress to vote for it. Want a stronger social safety net? You need Congress to vote for that. Want cleaner air and water? You need Congress to vote for it. Want a better education system? You need Congress to vote for it. I'm not sure why our "pro-gun progressives" think this is some kind of profound observation. I get it, we have a right-wing congress that opposes common sense across the board, it's just that, lucky you, you happen to agree with Michelle Bachmann and Rick Perry on gun policy. If only you were as fond of poverty and pollution as you are of gun violence, you'd be in business!

Finally, with regards to Canada and Australia, it takes about three seconds of looking at crime statistics to see that they are doing a far better job than we are dealing with gun violence. Yes, it's harder to get a handgun for self-defense in those countries, but the net result is that people there are safer than we are. An analogy. I would prefer not to pay any taxes. That would be great. But if nobody paid any taxes, then society would collapse. So everyone has to chip in a little. Similarly with guns, even though you personally might feel safer with a handgun, as a society, we are all more safe with less handguns around.

Actually, the analogy is imperfect, because whereas paying taxes definitely harms me, statistically, there is no safety benefit whatsoever associated with keeping a gun for self-defense -- in fact, the opposite is true. It's like homeopathic medicine laced with poison. So really, what's going on is that everyone in society has to suffer just to allow some people to feel safer even though they are actually putting themselves at greater risk.

[krispos42]

69. Actually, it's also people like you.

You yourself admitted a couple of posts ago that an AWB would be essentially useless, because of the definitions in play about what an assault weapon is. Newtown would have been just as deadly, and just as horrific, if shitstain's rifle DIDN'T have protruding pistol grip.

Your side, I believe, wants it done to spur action, drive the grass roots, claim a political victory, and built momentum for future action and activism. But we both know that taking away protruding pistol grips is not going to change anything in and of itself.

I don't have to be (and am not) a believer in "we need guns to keep the government in line" train of thought to say "I want the right to own a gun for tactical reasons". There are a lot of very civilized countries with very representative democratic governments with far more political party options than the USA who manage to keep their governments in check and very responsive without idiots running around in the woods with rifles "training" and stocking GoldLine coins and toilet paper.

I don't have to be a militia member to admit that a protruding pistol grip is a better overall system for gripping a semiautomatic or pump rifle or shotgun than a traditional grip. I like traditional grips myself, but that's besides the point. The issue is that while it works "better" (more ergonomic) than a traditional straight grip, it has zero affect on the mechanical operation of the gun. And since we can generally agree that the better the shooter keeps a grip on his rifle, the safer everybody is, the question becomes why are you against them?

Please understand that there is very little that is actually "new" in the gun world, so when people spend a lot of time discussing the merits of, say, a pistol grip versus a straight grip, it's really arguing about relatively minor refinements as a hobby. Yeah, a Mini-14 with a pistol grip will handle somewhat better than one with a straight grip, all things being equal, but the difference is at most modest and probably better described as "minor".

What makes a real difference is training and practice. As usual for pretty much any acquired skill. The skilled guy with the deer rifle versus the newbie with the latest tricked-out AR-15? My money's on the guy with the bolt-action.



What is killing gun laws, is, partially, the ongoing crisis with filibuster reform. I've said on here for years that the filibuster needs to either go away, or the people that are filibustering need to stay on the Senate floor and actually talk, bringing the Senate to a halt ONLY as long as they have the will and the numbers.

The Republicans have been outrageously bad on this issue, and I am disgusted by the voters that keep rewarding them for such bad-government advocacy. Especially since those voters are in welfare states, states that suck money out of blue states (like Connecticut) and, instead of using that money to HELP THEIR CITIZENS, they then use that money to offer tax breaks to the companies IN CONNECTICUT if they'll move. So, they're making the wealthy states subsidize their own economic suicide.

This pissed me off to no end because the red states show ZERO appreciation, or even awareness, of their massive subsidy from the blue states.

The other part is that what could be considered "reasonable" is tied to other, unreasonable, laws. Universal background checks, good. Tying to to an "assault weapons" ban? Bad.

Hell, I even came up with a system for universal background checks that I think would work well... did you happen to see it? I don't remember if I mentioned it to you specifically or not, but I think it's pretty good because it also includes purchasing/selling limits.



Your advice: "If you want Congress to pass your agenda, you have to have a Congress that will introduce and vote for that agenda" has nothing to do with guns specifically, but is simply a truism that applies to any other policy area just as well.

Gun-control laws only directly affect people that own, or want to own, guns, in the same way that opposite-sex-only marriage laws only affect people that want to same-sex marry. The people that don't own guns but want stricter gun laws passed are not particularly motivated to do so against the nebulous background thread of gun-related violence, but the people that are affected by the laws in a negative way become particularly motivated because they feel the effects directly and unambiguously.

I am a case in point. I own a "large capacity magazine" for my .22 rifle. Connecticut just passed a law saying that I have a year to register it. So now I have to go fill out a form and be put on a list because some idiot in Hartford thinks this will accomplish something. The non-gun owners that cheered the idiot on won't have to do anything, though; they're immune to the effects of the laws they advocate for. Yay, they're all done.

It's a minor, illustrative point, but I think you can see how it can be scaled up.

I have to go take care of the kid, but I'll be back later. Thanks for the discussion.

[DanTex]

70. Why thank you!

Re: Assault Weapons
I agree that AWB won't accomplish very much. To really make a difference it would have to ban all semi-autos with detachable magazines. That would make Sandy Hook type shootings more rare, particularly if coupled with a capacity limit to fixed magazines. Still, the big problem in everyday gun violence is handguns.

However, I will reiterate that the rationale for banning pistol grips and forward grips is not purely cosmetic. It does improve the "tactical" handling of a gun, it does make it easier to control the muzzle from lifting up if you fire a lot of shots in a row, and it does make it easier to switch magazines on a rifle more quickly. At least, that's what the same gun enthusiasts who claim that those are "cosmetic features" say about those same features when not discussing the AWB.

Gun-control laws only directly affect people that own, or want to own, guns, in the same way that opposite-sex-only marriage laws only affect people that want to same-sex marry. The people that don't own guns but want stricter gun laws passed are not particularly motivated to do so against the nebulous background thread of gun-related violence, but the people that are affected by the laws in a negative way become particularly motivated because they feel the effects directly and unambiguously.

This is the way it is with special interest politics. Wall Street banks dislike being regulated more than the rest of us want them to be regulated. If we taxed carbon or capped CO2 emissions, the oil companies would get hit pretty hard immediately, whereas the benefits to the rest of us would be diffuse and not visible for decades. Hedge fund managers want their tax loopholes more than the rest of us want them closed. Etc.


The bottom line on gun policy for me is that it would be pretty easy to come up with laws that actually do have an effect on gun violence, and still allow for about 99% of self-defense and hunting uses of guns. As an extreme example, take my suggestion, where handgun ownership becomes "may issue." This has almost no effect on hunting, and there are very few home defense scenarios where a handgun will work but a long gun won't. Yes, I know it's theoretically possible, but let's be honest. And, since handguns are more accident prone than long guns (and easier to commit suicide with), this would save lives of gun owners as well as reducing the overall level of gun violence.

But even short of that, what if there was a limit to one handgun per person, all handguns were registered, you had to pass a proficiency and safety test, you had to report lost or stolen guns, and all handgun owners were fingerprinted. That would have a huge impact, and yet everyone who wanted a handgun for self-defense could have one. Problem solved.

Of course, all of these ideas are unthinkable in the current political environment, because the cost-benefit calculus used by the GOP and the gun lobby refuses to allow the slightest inconvenience to gun owners no matter how many thousands of lives might be saved by it. And I think that, at the end of the day, that is the reason that, you find very few people of sound mind that side with the GOP on guns (again, not talking about DUers, but politicians, pundits, journalists, social scientists, etc.).

[Hoyt]

51. "The rifle used at Newtown was not an 'assault weapon'." Damn sure was, that's why it's coveted.

Here's a bushmaster ad designed just for the losers in their target market.

[Duckhunter935]

53. per the law it was not

both under Connecticut and the expired AWB. This is based on cosmetic features and since it did not have a bayonet lug or adjustable stock it was perfectly legal semi-automatic rifle. Operates the same as this hunting rifle, just looks scarier.

http://www.remington.com/products/firearms/centerfire/model-r-15/model-r-15.aspx

[Hoyt]

56. That's why we need to make it simple, ban all semi-autos. Gunnys don't understand spirit-of-law.

Survey -- did you buy your lethal weapons for reasons/needs illustrated in bushmaster ad?

[krispos42]

62. It was 100 percent legal to own in Connecticut...

...which had an assault weapons ban in effect when it was bought from a licensed gun dealer.

Despite your attempts to obfuscate the issue, it was not an assault weapon.

It does however show how arbitrary the definition is. Your side can make it simple and foolproof. all you have to do is ban all semi automatic long guns.

Yet despite the publicity and momentum your side has after Newtown you still trotted out the same old stuff... pistol grips and adjustable stocks.

: shrug:

[Hoyt]

63. Per usual, Krispos, you are blinded by your love of guns.

I don't care about grips, etc. I'm for banning all semi-autos. Although it would be nice if the gun lovers would abide by the spirit-of-the-law, but they won't.

Most are callous people when it comes to guns.

A bushmaster is most definitely an assault weapon, and that's why you guys are attracted to the damn things.

And why, gun manufacturers advertise to losers like this:

[krispos42]

65. Okay, then, at least you've become consistent.

And you don't have to tell me about advertising and marketing. Let's face it, pretty much all of it is bullshit. I have an 8-year-old, so you don't have to tell me about the stupid bullshit that permeates our modern living. Especially in the time between Thanksgiving and Christmas.



The "spirit" of the law? Yeah, it was to make Clinton look tough on crime. Any attempt to explain away the AWB as a crime-fighting measure fails on a massive level.

Your goal, and correct me if I'm wrong, seems to be to limit available guns for purchase and ownership by private citizens to those only suitable for traditional hunting and sport shooting. Since any gun optimized for self-defense can also be used effectively for spree shootings, you simply want to declare self-defense an illegitimate reason to own a gun, and then outlaw any gun optimized for that illegitimate reason.


And I'll correct you... a Bushmaster MAY be an assault weapon, depending on the definition used. A Bushmaster IS sold either as a tactical rifle or a hunting rifle. And what concerns you, I think, is that there is very little difference between a tactical AR-15 and a hunting AR-15.

[Iggo]

52. Shitloads of people on our side didn't want it.

[orpupilofnature57]

54. Fascism, we need safety more than our cousins,,,

Corporations, they have Blackwater, proximity, and wealth to protect them . Unfortunately they can only manipulate Time & Space so much, Hence another problem that isn't our fault, but that gets to be our problem .

[cui bono]

57. Yes, but that wouldn't have mattered if Reid had dealt with the filibuster.

The filibuster is ultimately why it didn't pass the senate. It had a majority vote.

[madville]

66. I thought the proposed bill still exempted most private sales?

That was my understanding. It required background checks for private sales specifically at gun shows (many states already do) and required Internet sales to go through a licensed dealer (which they were all mostly already required to with present laws).

My impression of the defeated bill is it was mainly a PR stunt that didn't really change much whether it passed or not. I've talked with several people in the last few weeks that wish it would have passed yet couldn't identify any specific aspects of the bill. I personally believe it's a watered down waste of time and would be ineffective.

If anyone was serious about limiting gun violence we would be talking about ending the war on drugs and handgun restrictions.