Posted on 11/08/2017 10:47:08 AM PST by Kaslin
Among the many problems with the Great Gun Debate these days is that the pro-gun crowd wants to make it a culture-war battle and the anti-gun crowd wants to pretend that it isn't.
On public policy grounds, the pro-gun people have the better arguments. Firearm homicides have declined since the 1990s despite the loosening of gun laws.
Almost none of the remedies proposed in the wake of mass shootings would have actually prevented those crimes (though had so-called bump stocks been banned -- as they should be -- fewer would have died in the Las Vegas shooting last month).
Indeed, it's common in the aftermath of shootings to hear pundits and politicians call for the passage of laws that already exist. I've lost count of the number of times people have insisted that "machine guns" be banned -- they essentially already are. Others talk about banning "assault weapons" as if such a designation describes a specific kind of weapon. It doesn't. Nor would banning assault weapons, however defined, put much of a dent in the problem. Rifles of all kinds account for just 3 percent of the murder rate.
The slaughter at a Texas church on Sunday fits the pattern. Calls went out for background checks. But the shooter passed his; he just lied on the application. Some argued that people convicted of spousal abuse -- like the shooter -- should be barred from getting a gun. That's already federal law. (To be sure, such laws should be enforced better than the Trump administration seems inclined to do.)
More broadly, President Trump and a GOP-controlled Congress will not do anything significant to restrict gun rights in America. And the experience under President Obama, particularly in the wake of the Sandy Hook shooting, demonstrates that even some Democrats don't want to move against their electoral self-interest.
Indeed, the main reason for inaction isn't the "stranglehold" of the National Rifle Association -- a relative piker when it comes to political spending -- but the fact that millions of gun owners are likely to vote on the gun issue, while millions of gun-control supporters are not. Also, a supermajority of Americans (76 percent to 23 percent, according to Gallup) do not want a ban on private gun ownership.
These facts probably help explain why the NRA has taken a dark turn of late, releasing ads that have virtually nothing to do with gun laws and everything to do with fueling cultural resentment. It's hard for a public policy lobbying outfit to keep membership dues flowing when they've already won.
Meanwhile, anti-gun campaigners cling to the belief that they are a cadre of dedicated pragmatists who merely seek sensible gun-control laws. No doubt there are some who fit this description. But given how the most vocal advocates of gun control tend to get basic facts wrong and have a history of praising countries such as Australia, which all but banned guns outright for normal citizens, it's easy to see why gun-rights supporters are suspicious about what their real goal is.
In 2015, the New York Times ran its first front-page editorial in 95 years to call for, in part, the confiscation of millions of guns. Last month, columnist Bret Stephens called for outright repeal of the Second Amendment.
The simple fact is that many elites in places such as New York and Los Angeles, regardless of ideology (Stephens is a conservative), just don't like guns or the culture of people who do. One can see this in the suddenly pervasive fad -- common in the pages of the New York Times and on Twitter -- of mocking people who offer "thoughts and prayers" for the victims of mass shootings if they don't also subscribe to sweeping new gun-control measures.
It's a useful thought experiment to ask what America would look like if the gun controllers started to rack up policy victories, confiscating guns from law-abiding gun owners. Aside from the massive financial windfall for the NRA, millions of Americans would have their darkest suspicions confirmed, and the deep resentment already felt in much of "red state" America would intensify beyond anything we've experienced lately.
Perhaps there would be fewer mass murders and other gun deaths -- though I'm skeptical. I'm sure our politics would be far uglier than they already are.
Who cares about gun laws? They don’t do anything.
And if you think you are going to confiscate our guns, you had best be prepared for the consequence of that folly.
Jonah seems to think that CONFISCATION would lead to fewer firearms related deaths.
Personally I think ATTEMPTED CONFISCATION would most probably lead to a tremendous surge in firearms related deaths.
As always to any grabbie, FU - you cannot have our guns.
“it’s easy to see why gun-rights supporters are suspicious about what their real goal is.”
That’s a mild way of putting it. I’ll just state flat out that anyone who says they want “common sense gun control” is lying and acting in bad faith. Period. Yes, they do want to take your guns away, no matter how much they say they don’t.
I’m not inclined to give away my constitutional rights at the behest of people who hold affectionate views of Mao and Che Guevara.
No, Jonah.
I just don’t feel persuaded by your hyperbole, sophistry, straw men or false facts.
Sorry. (not)
It is really easy, Jonah.
Democrats buy guns to kill and rob and want gun control to disarm their victims or to stop them before they kill again. (It is kinda hard to tell which...)
Republicans buy guns to protect themselves from Democrats.
Hah! We have the Constitution on our side. We have the Truth on our side.
The gun-control-freaks have lies, fabrications, and innuendoes. A plague on them.
Totalitarian leftists sure do like their "final solutions".
especially domestic....
Jonah, we know you are an ignorant fool.
There is no need to prove it in every article you write.
Agreed. The idea is to present it in a very believable form - then add your point.
Compliance with the NY SAFE act is about 4%.
“...And remember: it was gun control, via confiscation, that sparked the American Revolutionary War overthrowing the well-established government of the time.”
Not really the case.
British attempts to confiscate stores of arms accumulated by the Colonists merely provided the spark that set off the explosion, in spring 1775, of the hot phase of the American War of Independence.
Disagreements, disputes, and grievances had been piling up since British victory in the Seven Years War (North American portion was termed the French & Indian War). After generations of leaving the Colonies pretty much alone, the home government of the UK decided to make the Colonists pay for their own defense, by upping taxes; and to head off disputes with the American Indian natives and the Spanish, they restricted Colonial expansion westward.
Used to a light burden of taxation and official indifference when it came to expanding westward, the Colonists objected. The British government refused to back down. The Colonists dug in their heels; serious collision became pretty much inevitable.
And it is completely untrue that the fledgling American nation overthrew the British government. Americans barely succeeded in convincing the British to give up and let them go - by adroit diplomacy and some unscrupulous moves to ensnare the French, then the Spanish, and later the Netherlands in what became another worldwide war; concerns about the American Colonies rapidly receded in the overall collection of British concerns.
After the AWI was over (from the American viewpoint), the British Empire won great victories; its home government emerged from the crisis stronger than ever, and Imperial Britain remained the foremost world power for another century and more. Loss of its American colonies was pretty much the only setback until the World Wars of the 20th century.
flr
The right to bear arms, is actually the right of self-defense, which requires the means of self-defense. Without that, dependent upon the State for defense, you are vulnerable to situations where the police either aren’t there to protect you, or aren’t interested (for example, police behavior during urban rioting).
“(though had so-called bump stocks been banned — as they should be — fewer would have died in the Las Vegas shooting last month).”
Growing up, my buddies had semi-auto .22 rifles. I had a single shot. They ended up making me toss the can out down the hill - and I still hit it first - every time.
Not one of them has been an NRA member!
Hey, Jonah, I didn’t even read the whole argument and have as solid a response to your stupid comment on bump stocks as any you could ever need to never say something so stupid again.
Sorry, Jonah, but really, the “recipe” for bump stocks and other ways to do incredible acts of evil are found on the Internet and in books like the one pictured above.
Anyone who claims they want to ban guns or bump stocks or any other tool of weapons is a moron. Simply put, they would have to clean every corner of the web that has any methods of building anything, after the millions they would have to kill to search every house and grab every gun.
What morons.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.