To hear the diehards on this and other sites, the Obama administration with be far too busy with more important things than gun control.
“It’s a losing issue”
“The Congress may try to send something to him, but he nor his administration will promote it…”
Really?
Is it wise policy to enact laws in the US that were proven for 10 years (1994-2004) to be ineffective, with the hope of stemming gun violence in Mexico? Or is this more “common sense” measures wrapped up in a different bow?
Hmmm, do you have cites for the assertion that posters here thought that the Obama administration wouldn’t be advocating any gun-control measures?
Because his statement of support for reinstating the Assault Weapons Ban, AFAICT, has always been right there on his campaign website:
If you really do have evidence that “diehards” thought Obama wouldn’t follow up that statement, then indeed, those diehards should admit they were wrong. But I’m not sure why they would have thought that in the first place; he seems to have been pretty candid about his intentions.
You realize that Obama was a constitutional law professor? The least you could do is convince us that you understand his argument.
Personally, I dunno. Law enforcement officials don’t seem to think the assault weapons ban was ineffective, though:
Since the OP didn’t say that I suspect it’s going to be hard to cite, but two of the threads I remember that were full of “He’s got better things to do” type of posts are here and here although I don’t think anyone said BO wouldn’t advocate any gun-contol measures.
More along the lines of:
“If I were convinced Pres. Obama was going to do something about the gun laws, I probably would have reconsidered voting for him. But I think the economy and war will keep him plenty busy”
“I’m not too worried. The Dems know that gun control is a loser issue.”
“If, in the face of all the problems we have right now, Obama chooses to make gun control a priority, he’s a fool plain and simple.”
“Gun control is a bit of a stale issue right now. Plenty of lawmakers still remember what happened around 1994. The dems thought they had a winning issue and they got killed at the polls.”
“All the hysteria now is the NRA nutballs exercising their paranoia muscles.”
“I think people who own guns really overestimate how much people who don’t own guns care about guns.”
“I don’t see any fear of significant gun control being realistic. Gun ownership is a constitutional issue and that means any new attempts at gun control have to get past the Roberts court - which effectively means no new gun control laws.”
and on and on and onandon
The single statistic quoted ignores the fact that high-capacity “assault weapons” were already a nearly negligible component of crime statistics in the first place. When you talk about violence committed using firearms, you are overwhelmingly speaking of dirt cheap revolvers and small, low-power, low-capacity pistols.
This quote alone is sufficient to discredit that source. Anybody who seriously thinks that an AR-15 or an AK-pattern rifle is designed to be “fired from the hip” is completely and totally ignorant on the subject of firearms.
This is just more of the same old “scary black plastic guns designed to be spray-fired from the hip” fearmongering. Further, it’s a repetition of the same tactic employed by the gun-grabbers in years past: they like to feed on public confusion about semiautomatic weapons vs. already heavily regulated fully automatic weapons by using terms such as “spray fire” and focusing on the cosmetic similarities between certain styles of ordinary rifles and their select-fire military counterparts.
These people are either cynical liars and manipulators, or else in the fantasy land inside their heads things like pistol grips, collapsible stocks, and barrel shrouds (a.k.a. “shoulder things that go up”) really are “military features” that “increase the lethality” of a firearm. :dubious:
Seriously, though, while I’m not entirely surprised by Obama’s movement in this direction, I am disappointed. If he really does pursue this course of action, it’s going to cost him a lot of the moderates who helped put him in office last year.
ETA: As a side note, it looks like it’s finally time for me to get over my personal distaste for the NRA and join up.
Which argument? This one:
The AW ban didn’t take a single gun off of the “street”. It simply forced manufacturers to change the cosmetic appearances of their products to meet the standards of the new law. As such, there will not be fewer guns making a run for the border. It doesn’t work that way.
This argument:
The AW ban does not apply to automatic weapons OR grenades.
This one:
More BS, there are no special loopholes that allow federal firearm laws to be disregarded just because people go to a gun show. The same laws apply in or out of a show.
Or this gem:
What the fuck is a cop killer bullet? Anything that will penetrate a bullet proof vest? Or in other words, any bullet used in a centerfire hunting rifle?
I understand the arguments just fine. Do you?
No, no, it’s not wise. But he’ll probably get it, because the Republicans are busy fighting the wrong battle. Such is life.
Me, I wouldn’t know. Argue with Police Chief Joseph M. Polisar, President of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, who is the guy who made the statements you’re objecting to.
But this is what gets me, as a non-gun-owner who is in general sympathetic to gun owners’ desires to own guns: When it comes to gun safety issues, how come you anti-gun-control folks and law enforcement professionals can’t get on the same page?
If it’s a matter of arguing for a right to own a certain type of gun irrespective of public safety concerns, that’s different. I may not share your position, but I won’t be concerned about the fact that the police chiefs don’t share it. It’s true that there are trade-offs between freedom and safety, and I expect the law enforcement types to be more focused on safety, but I don’t think that excuses me from the obligation to consider the other side of the argument from the perspective of what gun owners want.
But when the argument is actually about safety issues, why shouldn’t I listen to the law enforcement types rather than you? You’re standing there telling me that a police chief is “completely and totally ignorant on the subject of firearms”, and either a “cynical liar and manipulator” or else living in a “fantasy land inside his head”. 
This makes no sense to me. Let’s face it, in the real world the cops are doing lots more work and running lots more risks for the immediate preservation of my safety than, say, any gun-enthusiast militia types or other gun-rights activists are. The cops deal with firearms, their own and those used by criminals, all the time. Why should I take your word for it that the cops don’t know what they’re talking about?
If you really have a persuasive argument to make in favor of the needlessness of banning assault weapons, I have to say I’d find it a lot more convincing if you could manage to persuade law enforcement organizations to agree with you first. From my current naive perspective, I know of absolutely no reason why I should trust you rather than law enforcement professionals on issues of crime, firearms and public safety.
Police chiefs are politicians with axes to grind. Re-read my post above regarding the Justice Department, both the Clinton and Bush departments.
Ask your local cop what he thinks and you will hear a completely different opinion. I can’t cite it of course so take it for what it’s worth.
I don’t like guns, I don’t own a gun, and I probably never will own a gun.
That being said, there are 3 things I’d like to say on the topic:
I did. And even if I take its not-particularly-unbiased presentation (“Firearm Facts Refute Hollow Rhetoric of Anti-Gun Activists” :dubious: ) as entirely accurate, all it says is that the studies didn’t show much one way or the other, mostly because assault weapons were always a small percentage of the weapons used in crime.
A wiki article on the AWB that provides cites to the actual study documents claims:
Well, the Fraternal Order of Police also supports the assault weapons ban, and they’re not just police chiefs, but ordinary officers.
So as far as I can tell, the statistical studies are at best inconclusive. The cops in general (at least, according to all the organizations that officially represent them, AFAICT) are in favor of the assault weapons ban. Your response is to declare that the cops are (a) being politically manipulative, and/or (b) not in agreement with the organizations that represent them.
IME, cops do not tend to be bleeding-heart liberals, ideologically opposed to gun ownership by responsible and law-abiding individuals, or ignorant of the realities of urban crime. If the assault-weapons policies that you support truly pose no increased risk to public safety, I just don’t see why you can’t get the cops to agree with you.
This is dissapointing. I was sincerely hoping Obama would put what was right and practical over ideology.
It’s an appeal to authority, which isn’t an argument in itself.
Police chiefs are more politicians than police - the spokesman for a police chief organization is probably a full rung even further towards politician. Officers who are closer to actual police work, when polled, respond much more favorably to gun rights than police chiefs do.
There are varying opinions on the issue of gun control among police officers. You’ll find some that advocate a total ban, and some who want machine guns made more accesible. You can’t find one who supports your belief and then say “See, the police feel this way” as if you were talking about a monolithic entity.
and… 4) He’s full of shit. He’s using the same deliberately misleading language that other gun control advocates do in order to prey on the ignorance of the public about the differences between civilian and military weapons. Saying things like that the weapons are designed to be “sprayed from the hip” are complete nonsense and he knows it.
Again, organizations say one thing, and individuals say yet another. I can direct you to several websites that are full of active and retired cops and you will see a completely different opinion. Because those sites are pro gun in nature, you will most likely dismiss them. I can’t help that. Pro gun cops hang out in pro gun websites. Go figure.
I am sure that you have read the countless threads on the assault weapon ban here. Simply put, it was a ban on the production of guns with specific cosmetic features. It was bad legislation that I call ineffective, you and the Justice Department(s) call inconclusive, yet the the police chiefs are touting it as a hallmark of safety measures. See the problem?
Now the AG and POTUS want to enact it again to help Mexico fight its gangs? The AG goes on to make claims that the gangs are using weapons that are not even available to the average joe US citizen, nor covered by the AW legislation, and he spices it up with words like loophole and cop killer.
Politics as usual, and I am truly disappointed.
Sure. But if I just take your word for the accuracy of the opposing position because you assert that you know what you’re talking about, that’s an appeal to authority too.
Not being knowledgeable about guns myself, I have no effective alternative to ultimately trusting somebody’s appeal to authority. And I don’t understand why the groups of people that I would naively consider worth trusting on this issue—namely, responsible gun owners, and law enforcement officials—can’t seem to agree on it.
Again, as I noted above, we’re not just talking one police officer here. We’re talking, AFAICT, about every major organization that represents police officers.
Do you have evidence that the official pro-AWB position of these organizations seriously belies the views of most law enforcement officials? Not just that cops in general tend to be somewhat less pro-AWB than police chiefs, but that most cops in fact aren’t pro-AWB at all?
[shrug] I wouldn’t know. Again, I don’t know of a reason why I should regard your bare assertions as more authoritative than his bare assertions.
The word “any” is too broad and get’s you off too easily. But here are some posts from just one single thread:
What fools these mortals be!:smack:
:dubious: Thanks for the expression of confidence in my intellectual integrity and good faith, pal. Anyway, what bothers me about that recommendation is not the pro-gun nature of the sources per se, but the apparent lack of quantitative evidence showing that these pro-gun cops who oppose the AWB are in fact representative of most cops.
If the majority of cops really are against the AWB, then why are all the organizations that represent cops officially supporting the AWB? I know that organizations don’t reflect the views of all their members equally, but if there’s really such a glaring, misleading disconnect here, I’d like to see some evidence and explanation of it.
Nice words, but did I read them wrong or did you just dismiss the sites I spoke of?
The orgs represent their members, not all cops. Also, some members are members, not for the political stances that the orgs take but perhaps for the benefits, luncheons, free donuts at the club meetings, discounts at the bowling alley, who knows? My brother is a union plumber. His union endorsed Obama. He chose otherwise. When asked, he told me that the benies that he got from the union were worth putting up with the political BS. It happens.