Discussion in 'Activism Discussion and Planning' started by hso, Aug 4, 2019.
Some useful information in this piece from Politico
It's interesting but IMHO most of it does not apply to me personally. I do value my guns for hunting but the article underplayed the enjoyment of shooting (E.G. target shooting). I personally am a long time martial artist and I view my handguns in particular as part of my weapons collection, similar to swords, that I want to train and be proficient with.
It looks like a 'shot in the dark' by a survey wonk that themselves do not understand gun ownership.
I do however, agree with the gist of the article that both sides do not understand one another and also I do not see any avenue of compromise with the other side on this topic and that this stems, in part, from a lack of trust. The other part of that is that I think we have already gone too far with respect to firearms related regulation (E.G. suppressors, national reciprocity, etc).
Politico itself is a source I would not trust.
I think this portion of the article shows the influence of the mainstream media:
repeated later in the survey:
further in we get to this:
And then we have some definitions that are left out of this otherwise excruciatingly detailed survey:
However, other sources show doubt on what can be defined as mentally ill with respect to gun ownership:
With regard to the no-fly list, that is an administrative process which is under the executive branch. If that will be used to restrict 2A rights then IMHO it must be a judicial process.
And back to the OP:
Well I'm surprised, but the author essentially has me pegged. I sometimes, in my weakness, think that some form of gun control would be good, but because I don't trust the government and politicians, I would never suggest it out loud, nor would I ever support it. I've no use for bump stocks, but I opposed their ban simply because liberals will take advantage of this precedent and exploit the chink in the armor.
I do understand the other side. These folks implicitly trust the government and disguise their real goal which is total civilian disarmament for the sake of absolute governmental control of the populous.
Well according to Gallup consistently 1% of Americans think that guns are the most important problem.
The way Gallup does their polling that 1% is probably rounded up.
This is why the dems lost in 2016 and will probably lose again in 2020. The dems focus on stuff near the bottom of that list from like 2010 to 2016, trump tacked the top of the list.
If you watched the debates the dems are promising to go right back to the bottom of the list for most things, aside from immigration and healthcare. which they all promised open boarders aside from biden. That's a non wining strategy because it appears that at least 3/4 of Americans are not in favor of open boarders.
And on healthcare they promise universal health care that most people don't want or don't want to pay for.
Got plety of gun control. Enforce the laws we have now before making more.
Yeppers, I understand them too I comment on their predecessors in my signature line.
Was that the full article, or is there a link?
Hilariously, even the authors (whose hearts are largely in the right place) lump "semi-automatic weapons" in with the stuff that is the acceptable, this-far-no-further step. It's amazing how pervasive the misunderstanding is on this point. I reckon 85% of the public, and probably at least half of the people who publish stuff about gun control, have no idea that every cop carries a semi-automatic gun in his/her holster. That semi-automatic pistols have been ubiquitous since the turn of the last century. That semi-auto rifles and shotguns didn't follow far behind in terms of popular adoption.
But the authors are onto something about the role of guns in gun-people's lives. One of the best parts of my life is shooting USPSA matches with my friends. That activity has connected me with many, many people of nearly every age, ethnicity, education and socioeconomic level, sexual orientation, etc. It has supplied the greatest influx of diversity to my social connections of anything since I left the public schools.
When people say they want to take away semi-automatic guns, they are telling me they want to take away a lot of my friendships. I do not like that.
Semiautomatic rifles with removable large-capacity magazines are in a category by themselves. Such guns are as effective (arguably, more effective) as machine guns. Let's be honest about this. But my personal view is that their effectiveness is the very reason civilians should have them. This puts the population on an equal footing with the authorities -- which is the reason why we have the 2nd Amendment in the first place. The possibility that such guns can be misused is a price we pay for freedom. The great fallacy is that life can be lived 100% free from danger.
Alex', I don't think there is any reason to think that homicide rates would budge an inch if we banned semi-auto rifles. I don't think we must, much less should, concede that there is some tradeoff between the particular freedom of owning a "military style" semi-auto rifle and actual safety. There are simply too many substitute goods (arson, truck attacks to name two relatively recent examples in other countries) if the intent is simply to kill a lot of people indiscriminately and without concern for escaping detection/apprehension/conviction.
Let me assure you that we'd lose 85/15 among the general populace if the question were posed about whether the existence or number of mass murders were worth trading off for some additional civilian capacity to resist a tyrannical government. You may think that trade is worth making, but the VAST majority of people don't. It's a good thing we don't need to win that argument because, as I said above, it's silly to think we could move the needle on number of homicides by banning a subset of guns. We could perhaps change some of the deaths from death-by-penetrative-trauma to death-by-immolation or death-by-crushing-trauma.
The FBI Uniform Crime Report shows that if you banned all rifles that the homicide rate would NOT "budge an inch" because rifles are used in fewer homicides than hands and feet or clubs or knives.
Right, and there are plenty of good substitutes.
I agree completely that murder rates would not budge if we banned semiauto rifles. Heck, they wouldn't budge if we banned all guns. The reason is that banning something is not the same as actually removing it from society. There are just too many guns in the U.S. to effectively ban. There will always be more than enough to satisfy all the criminal needs. The criminals won't even have to go to the alternate means you suggest.
On the other hand, the crime rate in general would go up if we attempted to ban guns. That's because millions of hitherto law-abiding people would be instantly turned into felons, and some percentage of these newly-minted felons might just decide that if they're to be labeled felons, they might as well act like felons. That's exactly why the crime rate increased under Prohibition.
So we don't pose the question in that way. It's the unspoken truth, however. Liberty trumps safety, or you end up in the concentration camps.
How hard would it be for a minivan to be loaded up with several 5-gallon cans of gasoline as well as several 20 lb. bottles of propane? When crashed into whatever, sparks ignite the gasoline which then ignites the propane.
Separate names with a comma.