General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: The actual reason that we lost on gun control. [View all]DanTex
(20,709 posts)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.
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.).