Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-05-2019, 04:13 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 38,672
Too radical of a stance on Gun control makes for a loser at the national level

Ok, taken from this thread here, where we got into a bit of a hijack :
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...=868131&page=4

I think that any Presidential candidate with a gun control stance too radical can't win President.

A few facts and figures:

Most Americans are in favor of some sort of mild gun control- unspecified.

Most Americans are against banning large swaths of common firearms, such as handguns.

as Posted by septimus
According to a recent Gallup poll, 72% of voters said that Gun policy would be extremely/very important to their choice of candidate for Congress. This was a higher percentage than for Taxes or Income/Wealth Distribution, and way ahead of Trade Policy and Climate Change.
... In March 2018 ... a whopping 13% of Americans said "Guns/Gun Control" was "the most important problem facing the country today."


And as I have said- altho the "gun nut" vote is solid GOP, there are many Americans who just own a gun or three for hunting or self defense* and still vote Democrat.

So, in my opinion, if you want to ban all hand guns or all semi-automatics, you can't win the Oval Office.

And conversely, if you want to allow howitzers, machineguns and hand grenades, you're also gonna lose. I mean, look at Trump, thought to be a friend to gun owners, but who has been (he vacillates) in favor of some gun laws.

Please lets not turn this into yet another gun control debate over whether guns are good or bad, or how Denmark or Switzerland do XXX and still manage.

If candidate wants to become President, can they espouse a radical view on this pressing issue?








* the Gun nuts call them "the Fudds"
  #2  
Old 01-05-2019, 04:33 PM
scr4 scr4 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Alabama
Posts: 15,229
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
as Posted by septimus
[I]According to a recent Gallup poll, 72% of voters said that Gun policy would be extremely/very important to their choice of candidate for Congress. This was a higher percentage than for Taxes or Income/Wealth Distribution..
But it's lower than healthcare (80%) or the economy (78%).

Also it doesn't say those 72% are pro-gun. I myself consider gun policy to be a very important factor - I'm very much in favor of stricter gun control.

(Quote edited to restore hyperlink that was in septimus' original post)

Last edited by scr4; 01-05-2019 at 04:35 PM.
  #3  
Old 01-05-2019, 04:38 PM
scr4 scr4 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Alabama
Posts: 15,229
p.s. If you scroll further down in that link, it turns out more Democrats (76%) than Republicans (68%) consider gun policy to be an important issue. Which would suggest that a pro-gun-control track record is an advantage in the general election.

Last edited by scr4; 01-05-2019 at 04:39 PM.
  #4  
Old 01-05-2019, 04:53 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 38,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by scr4 View Post
p.s. If you scroll further down in that link, it turns out more Democrats (76%) than Republicans (68%) consider gun policy to be an important issue. Which would suggest that a pro-gun-control track record is an advantage in the general election.
Yes, I agree, a mild gun control stance will not hurt.
  #5  
Old 01-05-2019, 05:11 PM
XT's Avatar
XT XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 34,299
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Ok, taken from this thread here, where we got into a bit of a hijack :
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...=868131&page=4

I think that any Presidential candidate with a gun control stance too radical can't win President.

A few facts and figures:

Most Americans are in favor of some sort of mild gun control- unspecified.

Most Americans are against banning large swaths of common firearms, such as handguns.

as Posted by septimus
According to a recent Gallup poll, 72% of voters said that Gun policy would be extremely/very important to their choice of candidate for Congress. This was a higher percentage than for Taxes or Income/Wealth Distribution, and way ahead of Trade Policy and Climate Change.
... In March 2018 ... a whopping 13% of Americans said "Guns/Gun Control" was "the most important problem facing the country today."


And as I have said- altho the "gun nut" vote is solid GOP, there are many Americans who just own a gun or three for hunting or self defense* and still vote Democrat.

So, in my opinion, if you want to ban all hand guns or all semi-automatics, you can't win the Oval Office.

And conversely, if you want to allow howitzers, machineguns and hand grenades, you're also gonna lose. I mean, look at Trump, thought to be a friend to gun owners, but who has been (he vacillates) in favor of some gun laws.

Please lets not turn this into yet another gun control debate over whether guns are good or bad, or how Denmark or Switzerland do XXX and still manage.

If candidate wants to become President, can they espouse a radical view on this pressing issue?








* the Gun nuts call them "the Fudds"
I would say this is resolved, even on this board. Only the fringe posters, IMHO, want either a total ban or a total open have any weapon you want type stance. Almost all others fall somewhere in-between those extremes, though obviously the devil is in the details wrt where on that sliding scale folks fall. I think most people on this board would consider me a pro-gun poster, but I have no issue with some gun control measures. I have issues with obvious slippery slope measures or the just plain stupid ones often advocated by folks who don't know much, if anything about actual guns, but measures that actually make sense and aren't intended as a path to total bans? I'm good with those. Hell, I'm good with total bans too, IF the proper procedure is followed and the steps are taken, within our system, to do it. I get extremely annoyed with those who wish to bypass those steps because they think they know what's best for everyone and simply want to wave aside our system, in this one instance only, to be sure () to protect us all from ourselves.

Anyway, this is an issue that splits the Dems the most, since their more radical element does want full bans (without going through all that tiresome process stuff), while I think the majority of Dems simply want common sense controls, not outright bans. I actually think that a lot of Republicans would be ok with common sense controls as well, as I think this crosses party lines. The real issue is that the extremes on both sides, as seems to be often the case, try and drive out the middle to achieve their more radical (and fluffy headed) goals. JMHO of course.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #6  
Old 01-05-2019, 06:25 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,276
Yup let us actually look at that Gallup poll.

Gun control is the forth most important issue for Demand D-leaners, behind healthcare, how women are treated, and income/wealth inequality.

It is lower for GOP/leaners, fifth, behind the economy, immigration, taxes, and healthcare.

The poll would have been more useful if they broke it out by urban v suburban v rural or by leaners or independents only. I'd be most interested in knowing how many R leaners (those who never or no longer are calling themselves R but have previously voted that way) rate gun control.

Overall it seems that this data suggests that being against moderate gun control measures will hurt in a general more than help.

One thing is clear though: a D who is not for some degree of gun control will piss off more D/leaners than win anyone over who is against some control.

By definition of course "too radical" is too much but how much is too radical? Any control position will be painted by the NRA as "too radical" and most who are swingable I think are going to discount what the NRA says.

Reality of course is that gun rights are secure no matter how radical a president's position. Congress can pass some mild control maybe, if a president uses the office as a bully pulpit effectively and has D control of both Houses, but even that is a non-issue without control of both sides.

Detailed polls that matter the most are swing voters in PA, MI, and WI. What voters in Alabama or California think about this matter little.
  #7  
Old 01-05-2019, 08:32 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 38,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Yup let us actually look at that Gallup poll.


By definition of course "too radical" is too much but how much is too radical? Any control position will be painted by the NRA as "too radical" and most who are swingable I think are going to discount what the NRA says.

Reality of course is that gun rights are secure no matter how radical a president's position. Congress can pass some mild control maybe, if a president uses the office as a bully pulpit effectively and has D control of both Houses, but even that is a non-issue without control of both sides.

Detailed polls that matter the most are swing voters in PA, MI, and WI. What voters in Alabama or California think about this matter little.
You make some good points.

Well, the NRA at one time said it was Ok with a ban on Bump stocks. But that's about the most they will go nowadays. I think a Dem could easily support the Assault weapons ban back, without losing any support. Going as far as banning all handguns would be a disaster, even having once supported that viewpoint would haunt you.

A reactionary GOP prez could likely push thru a CWP nationwide rule. Maybe even bring back fully auto with the limits there used to be, but....

Well, a President could pack SCOTUS with justices that go along with his viewpoints, but that would take some work. The moderates dont like going back on a earlier decision, so you'd have to get 4 judges in there, at least, maybe 5.

Yes, it's more important what the swing states say.
  #8  
Old 01-05-2019, 08:50 PM
XT's Avatar
XT XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 34,299
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
You make some good points.

Well, the NRA at one time said it was Ok with a ban on Bump stocks. But that's about the most they will go nowadays. I think a Dem could easily support the Assault weapons ban back, without losing any support. Going as far as banning all handguns would be a disaster, even having once supported that viewpoint would haunt you.

A reactionary GOP prez could likely push thru a CWP nationwide rule. Maybe even bring back fully auto with the limits there used to be, but....

Well, a President could pack SCOTUS with justices that go along with his viewpoints, but that would take some work. The moderates dont like going back on a earlier decision, so you'd have to get 4 judges in there, at least, maybe 5.

Yes, it's more important what the swing states say.
Since 'assault weapon' is pretty much a meaningless and made up term that is only vaguely defined as 'scary looking semi-automatic rifle', I'd say it will depend on who the Dem is as to whether they would lost support or not. This is one of those slippery slope things, and the anti-gun folks (those with a clue anyway) know it. Now, if you instead said that a Dem pushing for a national background check measure for purchases, I think THAT could be an issue that is either neutral or even a positive for a Dem to pursue. There are other gun control measures that would pass the smell test a lot easier than an 'assault weapon' ban, which I think wouldn't except in those states where the Dems already have such a lock as to make it meaningless.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #9  
Old 01-05-2019, 10:34 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 38,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
Since 'assault weapon' is pretty much a meaningless and made up term that is only vaguely defined as 'scary looking semi-automatic rifle', I'd say it will depend on who the Dem is as to whether they would lost support or not. This is one of those slippery slope things, and the anti-gun folks (those with a clue anyway) know it. Now, if you instead said that a Dem pushing for a national background check measure for purchases, I think THAT could be an issue that is either neutral or even a positive for a Dem to pursue. There are other gun control measures that would pass the smell test a lot easier than an 'assault weapon' ban, which I think wouldn't except in those states where the Dems already have such a lock as to make it meaningless.
Yes, that would work. However, there'd have to be some exceptions, like inherited guns. That's the issue with the law in CA, (for example) a wife of a policeman killed in the line of duty is forced to sell his guns at a large discount to a gun dealer or pay high sums to get them transferred, if any are willing.
  #10  
Old 01-05-2019, 10:42 PM
scr4 scr4 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Alabama
Posts: 15,229
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Going as far as banning all handguns would be a disaster, even having once supported that viewpoint would haunt you.
There you go with the same strawman. Nobody is advocating for a nationwide handgun ban.
  #11  
Old 01-06-2019, 10:40 AM
crowmanyclouds's Avatar
crowmanyclouds crowmanyclouds is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: ... hiding in my room ...
Posts: 4,455
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
{...} That's the issue with the law in CA, (for example) a wife of a policeman killed in the line of duty is forced to sell his guns at a large discount to a gun dealer {...}
Why am I certain that 'sell his guns at a large discount to a gun dealer' means 'get paid fair market value for a used firearm by a gun dealer'?

CMC fnord!
  #12  
Old 01-06-2019, 11:31 AM
kayaker's Avatar
kayaker kayaker is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Western Pennsylvania
Posts: 30,467
Quote:
Originally Posted by crowmanyclouds View Post
Why am I certain that 'sell his guns at a large discount to a gun dealer' means 'get paid fair market value for a used firearm by a gun dealer'?

CMC fnord!
A dealer is going to purchase in order to later sell for a profit, so is going to offer less than "fair market value".
  #13  
Old 01-06-2019, 12:37 PM
JXJohns's Avatar
JXJohns JXJohns is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Middle of the Midwest
Posts: 2,378
Quote:
Originally Posted by crowmanyclouds View Post
Why am I certain that 'sell his guns at a large discount to a gun dealer' means 'get paid fair market value for a used firearm by a gun dealer'?

CMC fnord!
Please describe any other business that will pay market values for items they plan to sell later for a profit. They don't exist... or don't exist for long.

Last edited by JXJohns; 01-06-2019 at 12:38 PM.
  #14  
Old 01-06-2019, 12:50 PM
Quartz's Avatar
Quartz Quartz is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Home of the haggis
Posts: 30,136
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
If candidate wants to become President, can they espouse a radical view on this pressing issue?
Given that you've thoroughly poisoned the well why not just be open and ask about greater gun control?

It's thoroughly deceptive stuff like your OP that helped Clinton lose. From this side of the Atlantic, American politicians, particularly Democrats, need openness and honesty on policy issues.
  #15  
Old 01-06-2019, 01:39 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 9,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Yes, I agree, a mild gun control stance will not hurt.
Well, it will, as we have seen in other threads. We have posters that insist that any gun control is just the first step on a slippery slope, that they will refuse to compromise on anything at all, as long as there is a single person in the entire country who advocates for any kind of gun ban.

Then we have posters that insist that there there are no gun control policies that would have any effect whatsoever, and they insist that what it is that we really want is to ban all guns, and make law abiding gun owners into criminals, and to lock up hundreds of thousands and to kill thousands of gun owners in a confiscation effort.

So, in order to avoid any of all that, what is your idea of a mild gun control stance?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Yes, that would work. However, there'd have to be some exceptions, like inherited guns. That's the issue with the law in CA, (for example) a wife of a policeman killed in the line of duty is forced to sell his guns at a large discount to a gun dealer or pay high sums to get them transferred, if any are willing.
I've looked into it, and I don't think that that is right. From what I have seen, transfers to immediate family do not require them to be transferred through an FFL.


Quote:
California law as it now stands makes the transfer between members of the same immediate family by gift, bequest, intestate succession, or other means exempt from the requirement firearm transaction be conducted through a firearms dealer. If the person acquired ownership of the firearm from an immediate family member by bequest or intestate succession, existing law makes the importation of a firearm into the state exempt from the requirement that the firearm first be delivered to a firearms dealer in this state.
The only thing that I see as an issue whatsoever is if they don't have a valid firearm safety certificate, and if they don't have one, then they really shouldn't be owning guns, even as a collection, as part of that certificate is about the safe storage of guns.

In some cases, you may need to fill out a Report of Operation of Law or Intra-Familial Firearm Transaction form, in which case, there is a $19.00 fee for filing. Not per gun, but for as many guns are transferred are covered for that $19.00 fee.

Having dealt with helping my sister to register the car that she inherited when our grandfather died, it seems as though transferring guns is actually much simpler, straightforward, and cheaper than car transfer.

You've trotted out this poor widow story a few times now, is it actually based on anything that you could cite, is it an anecdote, or is it an apocryphal parable?

The main thrust of my personal stance on gun control is specifically to decrease the number of guns that go into the hands of the criminal or the negligent. By requiring some level of accountability towards gun owners in the safe storage and disposition of their guns, we can lower the availability of guns on the black market substantially. If we can just get guns on the black market to be more expensive than buying a gun in a store or from a legitimate FFL at a show, that would make a great dent in criminal use of guns. By also requiring that people who own guns demonstrate that they are able and willing to use, store, and dispose of them responsibly, we can also cut down not only on the criminal use, but negligent accidents.

As far as suicide goes, I do not believe that a specific gun policy would address taht, as it is hard to screen someone for such tendencies, but I do think that decreasing the pervasiveness of gun culture will decrease the need for people to have a gun, therefore, reducing the likelihood of a gun being available at a time when someone is temporarily despondent.

For instance, due specifically to the pervasiveness of guns, I personally am on the edge of buying one. I feel that there is a non dismissable chance that I will find myself in a situation where the fact that a criminal has a gun and I don't will put me at a disadvantage. I am not worried about melee weapons or fisticuffs as much, I can run from those, I can't run from bullets. However, I also don't entirely trust myself. I went through some shit some time back that had I had a really easy way out, I don't know that I wouldn't have taken it. I get that many gun advocates like to talk about the suicide stat and claim that we only include it to pad the numbers, even though it has been explained many times that that is not why we include it in the number of lives we believe could be saved with a smart gun control policy, and while they may disagree with the possible causes and effects of guns and suicide, the repeated accusation taht we use that stat in bad faith proves that they are treating the entire debate in bad faith.

Do you think that suicide pills should be sold at the corner drug store? How about an alarm clock with a high voltage line next to the snooze button? Would you condone a promotion, buy a lottery ticket, and get a suicide bag along with it?

I'm all for people having the right to end their lives if they truly feel as though their life actually causes them more misery than a human should have to accept. That doesn't mean that we should make it so easy and convenient that it is done on a whim.
  #16  
Old 01-06-2019, 03:12 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 38,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by scr4 View Post
There you go with the same strawman. Nobody is advocating for a nationwide handgun ban.
In three cities they tried it. And as been pointed out here numerous times (but gin control advocates), a city wide gun ban is useless, any such gun ban needs to be expanded nationwide.

And yes, posters on this board have suggested it, or a ban on all semi-automatics.

So, there's no strawman. It has been suggested and is currently supported.


Senator Dianne Feinstein "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an out right ban, picking up every one of them....Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in. I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."

Jan Schakowsky, U.S. Representative from Illinois

“I believe…..this is my final word……I believe that I’m supporting the Constitution of the United States which does not give the right for any individual to own a handgun….”

Pete Stark, U.S. Representative from California

If a bill to ban handguns came to the house floor, I would vote for it.”

William Clay, U.S. Representative from Missouri

” …we need much stricter gun control, and eventually should bar the ownership of handguns”

John Chafee, Former U.S. Senator from Rhode Island

“I shortly will introduce legislation banning the sale, manufacture or possession of handguns (with exceptions for law enforcement and licensed target clubs)… . It is time to act. We cannot go on like this. Ban them!

Bobby Rush, U.S. Representative from Illinois

“My staff and I right now are working on a comprehensive gun-control bill. We don’t have all the details, but for instance, regulating the sale and purchase of bullets. Ultimately, I would like to see the manufacture and possession of handguns banned except for military and police use. But that’s the endgame. And in the meantime, there are some specific things that we can do with legislation
  #17  
Old 01-06-2019, 03:18 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 38,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by JXJohns View Post
Please describe any other business that will pay market values for items they plan to sell later for a profit. They don't exist... or don't exist for long.
Right. But here's the point, let's assume you want to sell a used collectable, that Hummel figure you have. And you see it is selling for $150,

Now you can sell it on craigslist, on ebay, at a yard sale, on a collectors board, to a friend, a swap meet, a collectors convention- or take it to a dealer.

The dealer will give you less. That's the free market, they need a profit margin.

But with guns in CA, you can only take to a dealer. Period. You can't sell it any other way. And the dealer knows this. They have you over a barrel. Take what they offer or turn it in to the police. And if you decide to keep an inherited gun, you must take it to a dealer, who is free to charge you whatever they wish to transfer it.

So, there's no free market.
  #18  
Old 01-06-2019, 03:20 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 38,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz View Post
Given that you've thoroughly poisoned the well why not just be open and ask about greater gun control?

It's thoroughly deceptive stuff like your OP that helped Clinton lose. From this side of the Atlantic, American politicians, particularly Democrats, need openness and honesty on policy issues.

Poisoned the well? Deceptive? I am saying that the USA voter considers gun control a important issue and radical views on it are not palatable to the voters. That's true for many things. I even pointed out that a radical pro gun policy would backfire also.
  #19  
Old 01-06-2019, 03:21 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,276
Data.

In the midterms
Quote:
Six in 10 who went to the polls this election favored stricter gun control measures, according to CBS News national exit polling, but gun policy was not a top priority for most voters. It was outranked by health care, immigration and the economy. Just one in 10 voters said it was the most important issue.

And gun policy was more of a priority for gun control supporters than for opponents.
More specific to certain voters that matter more.
Quote:
Now that voters have cast their ballots, we have much more meaningful data: The outcome of close races in which groups on both sides of the issue were significant players. And what those results tell us is that Democrats’ and gun control groups’ aggressiveness on the issue did not boomerang into overwhelming turnout by pro-gun voters.

Democrats earning F ratings from the NRA for their views on gun laws prevailed not only in increasingly bluish swing states such as Virginia, Nevada, Wisconsin, and Colorado, but also in conservative strongholds like South Carolina and Kansas. Despite a stinging loss for the Parkland activists in the Florida governor’s race, Democrats picked up seven governorships and six state legislative chambers. In Washington state, voters embraced a ballot initiative that will enact strict regulations for assault-style rifles and gun storage.
The recent evidence is that being strong on gun control will strongly help in a Democratic primary, and help moderately in the general. The NRA's wrath has no teeth now.

Going against gun control will hurt a candidate.
  #20  
Old 01-06-2019, 03:29 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 38,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
Well, it will, as we have seen in other threads. We have posters that insist that any gun control is just the first step on a slippery slope, that they will refuse to compromise on anything at all, as long as there is a single person in the entire country who advocates for any kind of gun ban.

Then we have posters that insist that there there are no gun control policies that would have any effect whatsoever, and they insist that what it is that we really want is to ban all guns, and make law abiding gun owners into criminals, and to lock up hundreds of thousands and to kill thousands of gun owners in a confiscation effort.

So, in order to avoid any of all that, what is your idea of a mild gun control stance?



I've looked into it, and I don't think that that is right. From what I have seen, transfers to immediate family do not require them to be transferred through an FFL.

Do you think that suicide pills should be sold at the corner drug store? ...
I'm all for people having the right to end their lives if they truly feel as though their life actually causes them more misery than a human should have to accept. That doesn't mean that we should make it so easy and convenient that it is done on a whim.
Yes, the pro gun people insist that no gun control can work, since guns can flow easily from other jurisdictions. Thus, gun controls must be nationwide.

Assault weapon bans can be mild gun control. I am not in favor of them, as there's no clear cut definition of what is a "Assault weapon".

Bump stock bans are Ok, and I am in favor.

More and better background checks are mild. The devil in in the details, of course.

Prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill- again details matter.

Laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings.

Laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

Laws against fully automatic weapons.

all of these are mild.

Yes, there can be exceptions if the widow wants to keep the gun, but if she decides to sell it?

Interesting idea, and perhaps yes, but I would insist you go thru counseling first before being able to buy such pills.
  #21  
Old 01-06-2019, 04:29 PM
JXJohns's Avatar
JXJohns JXJohns is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Middle of the Midwest
Posts: 2,378
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Right. But here's the point, let's assume you want to sell a used collectable, that Hummel figure you have. And you see it is selling for $150,

Now you can sell it on craigslist, on ebay, at a yard sale, on a collectors board, to a friend, a swap meet, a collectors convention- or take it to a dealer.

The dealer will give you less. That's the free market, they need a profit margin.

But with guns in CA, you can only take to a dealer. Period. You can't sell it any other way. And the dealer knows this. They have you over a barrel. Take what they offer or turn it in to the police. And if you decide to keep an inherited gun, you must take it to a dealer, who is free to charge you whatever they wish to transfer it.

So, there's no free market.
I get it. I was replying to a poster who erroneously thinks gun dealers pay fair market value for firearms.
  #22  
Old 01-06-2019, 05:11 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 9,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
In three cities they tried it. And as been pointed out here numerous times (but gin control advocates), a city wide gun ban is useless, any such gun ban needs to be expanded nationwide.
A city wide ban is not useless. It is just less useful when there is no national controls to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

Having a city wide ban on carrying in public is far from useless, and having a city wide ban on owning at least makes sure that people try to keep them well hidden, and therefore, more secure.
Quote:
And yes, posters on this board have suggested it, or a ban on all semi-automatics.

So, there's no strawman. It has been suggested and is currently supported.
Because some guy over there is advocating a position does not mean that you can impart that position onto the person you are speaking to.

If you are going to lump any gun control advocate in with the most extreme, then you need to be lumped in with the most extrme on your side as well.

Keep in mind, the most extreme on my side are overzealous and maybe ignorant on technical gun knowledge. The most extreme on your side are mass shooters.

If we are making this a "sides" thing, I'll be happy to take the side of Feinstein, rather than the side of say, Stephen Paddock, as you have chosen to take up.
Quote:

Senator Dianne Feinstein "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an out right ban, picking up every one of them....Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in. I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."

Jan Schakowsky, U.S. Representative from Illinois

“I believe…..this is my final word……I believe that I’m supporting the Constitution of the United States which does not give the right for any individual to own a handgun….”

Pete Stark, U.S. Representative from California

If a bill to ban handguns came to the house floor, I would vote for it.”

William Clay, U.S. Representative from Missouri

” …we need much stricter gun control, and eventually should bar the ownership of handguns”

John Chafee, Former U.S. Senator from Rhode Island

“I shortly will introduce legislation banning the sale, manufacture or possession of handguns (with exceptions for law enforcement and licensed target clubs)… . It is time to act. We cannot go on like this. Ban them!

Bobby Rush, U.S. Representative from Illinois

“My staff and I right now are working on a comprehensive gun-control bill. We don’t have all the details, but for instance, regulating the sale and purchase of bullets. Ultimately, I would like to see the manufacture and possession of handguns banned except for military and police use. But that’s the endgame. And in the meantime, there are some specific things that we can do with legislation
And when you insist that anyone that wants any sort of gun control cannot do so, because these other people over there said something else, then you end up driving away any moderates.

Hey, look, quotes from your side:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dylan Roof
“I had to do it because … somebody had to do something, because black people are killing white people everyday – on the streets.”

“What I did is still minuscule to what they’re doing to white people every day. I do consider myself a white supremacist.”
Do you really want me to broad brush your arguments with that? Do you really think that your arguments should not stand on their own, and should instead be overshadowed by what someone else on your side said?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Right. But here's the point, let's assume you want to sell a used collectable, that Hummel figure you have. And you see it is selling for $150,

Now you can sell it on craigslist, on ebay, at a yard sale, on a collectors board, to a friend, a swap meet, a collectors convention- or take it to a dealer.

The dealer will give you less. That's the free market, they need a profit margin.

But with guns in CA, you can only take to a dealer. Period. You can't sell it any other way. And the dealer knows this. They have you over a barrel. Take what they offer or turn it in to the police. And if you decide to keep an inherited gun, you must take it to a dealer, who is free to charge you whatever they wish to transfer it.

So, there's no free market.
Then I'd be perfectly fine with setting up a standard flat fee for gun transfers between parties, or even allow people to be pre-cleared with background checks, and therefore, be able to purchase a gun without going through an FFL.

But, you are against that, for... reasons, so we will have to continue to use the more inefficient way of having to go through an FFL, with all the problems that you pretend to complain about.

And that is just a state law, not a federal one. So, were I criminal, I would just go to the state next door that doesn't have that law, and buy up my guns there.

Unlike national borders, there are no customs inspections, or really any sort of expectation that you would be searched going form state to state, so it is very easy to import guns into a state illegally.

Having a national law that helped to curb sales to criminals, along with at the very least, some method of requiring that gun owners take some responsibility for their guns, would reduce the guns in the black market, and therefore, the guns going into cities that don't want them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Yes, the pro gun people insist that no gun control can work, since guns can flow easily from other jurisdictions. Thus, gun controls must be nationwide.
Right, that's what I said, the pro gun people use that as an excuse. An effective gun control policy must be nationwide, but a nationwide gun control policy is not the same thing as a ban, which is what you keep conflating it with.
Quote:
Assault weapon bans can be mild gun control. I am not in favor of them, as there's no clear cut definition of what is a "Assault weapon".
Okay, well I asked what you were in favor of, not excuses as to why you are not in favor of other things.

But, the reason that there is no definition is because it is intentionally made into a bit of an ambiguous concept by the gun people, and it is why I think that it would be very useful if the pro-gun people would work with the people who want to decrease gun violence in order to come up with effective controls.
Quote:
Bump stock bans are Ok, and I am in favor.
Low hanging fruit, brave of you. Even the NRA was for that, for about 2 minutes before they corrected their PR person and said that they weren't.
Quote:
More and better background checks are mild. The devil in in the details, of course.
I don't know what good that does. All legitimate transfers that use an FFL get a background check by the FBI. What would be better, and what would be more?

If you are saying "more", as in, you should have to have a background check before you may receive a gun from anyone, and that anyone giving you a gun without performing a background check is breaking the law, I'd agree, but I don't think that is where you're going.

If you are saying "better" as in, deeper screening, maybe even an evaluation and psychological assessment, then I'd agree, but once again, I don't think that these details would be considered mild to you.

You say the devil is in the details, but don't give any details.
Quote:
Prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill- again details matter.
I'm actually kind of against half of this. If someone has committed a crime, but has paid their debt to society, and been released from probation or parole, then they should be able to participate in society as though they were never a felon. A rehabilitated ex-felon should have the same rights to a gun as someone who has not been convicted of a crime.

Mentally ill, similar thing. If they are actually capable of, or at least have episodes of, not being able to tell reality from delusion, then sure, they shouldn't have a gun. Just being diagnosed with ADHD or autism or anxiety should not mean that you don't get the same rights as those around you, though.
Quote:
Laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings.
Also, places of business that don't want guns in them? Is that something that you think that gun owners should respect?
Quote:
Laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
As well as non-commercial sales, and I'm in.
Quote:
Laws against fully automatic weapons.
This is probably one of the biggest head scratchers for me. People talk about how little rifles are used for crime, it seems to me that your "mini-gun" or other high rate of fire gun is even less likely to be used for crime, if nothing else, what kind of criminal could afford to buy it, much less supply it with ammo?

I'm actually for opening the machine gun registry to well qualified gun fans.
Quote:
all of these are mild.

Yes, there can be exceptions if the widow wants to keep the gun, but if she decides to sell it?
Well, that's a different matter entirely, you were indicating before that the guns had to be either transferred or sold at an FFL or turned in to the police, you left out the fact that she can keep them herself, so you add to your story with a new twist.

What happens if the widow decides she wants to sell her husband's car? Should there be exceptions to transfer fees there too?

As I've said before, I'm all for putting the onus on the buyer. Having the buyer be pre-qualified through a background check or the background check you have to get for a CCW. If she sells it to someone with a CCW or a pre-qualified background check, then she doesn't have to use an FFL.

I'd much rather that than she just has a yard sale and lets them go to all comers.
Quote:
Interesting idea, and perhaps yes, but I would insist you go thru counseling first before being able to buy such pills.
Why, to talk you out of it? Suicide is never rational, and no counselor is ever going to say, "Yes, you've convinced me that suicide is the best option for you." (Outside of terminal diseases, of course.) Is it just that you have to have a certain number of counseling hours first, or that the counselor actually has to sign off on you being sane and rational enough to make the decision to end your life?

Eh, at least in the former, it prevents it from being too convenient, and does give you a chance to vent out your frustrations and angers, and be given a perspective that may alter yours a bit, enough to change your outlook from despair to at least somewhat hopeful.

Would you be up for having a counselor before buying a gun?


WARNING: DARK POSSIBLY TRIGGERING THOUGHTS.

So, when I was going through some shit, I'm not sure what exactly is an unhealthy level of suicidal ideation, but I did have a gun store within easy walking distance of my house, and on several occasions, I thought about managing to scrape together enough money to buy a tool that would get the job done. I even considered just going in, renting a gun and a lane, and putting it to my head right then and there. It really was the most tempting way to do myself in. Everything else required much more work or was much less effective. They should probably have suicide counselors at the store.

Last edited by k9bfriender; 01-06-2019 at 05:16 PM.
  #23  
Old 01-06-2019, 05:46 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 38,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
A city wide ban is not useless. It is just less useful when there is no national controls to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.
...
Because some guy over there is advocating a position does not mean that you can impart that position onto the person you are speaking to.

If you are going to lump any gun control advocate in with the most extreme, then you need to be lumped in with the most extrme on your side as well.

Keep in mind, the most extreme on my side are overzealous and maybe ignorant on technical gun knowledge. The most extreme on your side are mass shooters.

If we are making this a "sides" thing, I'll be happy to take the side of Feinstein, rather than the side of say, Stephen Paddock, as you have chosen to take up.


And when you insist that anyone that wants any sort of gun control cannot do so, because these other people over there said something else, then you end up driving away any moderates.

Hey, look, quotes from your side:

Then I'd be perfectly fine with setting up a standard flat fee for gun transfers between parties, or even allow people to be pre-cleared with background checks, and therefore, be able to purchase a gun without going through an FFL.

But, you are against that, for... reasons, so we will have to continue to use the more inefficient way of having to go through an FFL, with all the problems that you pretend to complain about.

And that is just a state law, not a federal one. So, were I criminal, I would just go to the state next door that doesn't have that law, and buy up my guns there.

Unlike national borders, there are no customs inspections, or really any sort of expectation that you would be searched going form state to state, so it is very easy to import guns into a state illegally.

Having a national law that helped to curb sales to criminals, along with at the very least, some method of requiring that gun owners take some responsibility for their guns, would reduce the guns in the black market, and therefore, the guns going into cities that don't want them.


Right, that's what I said, the pro gun people use that as an excuse. An effective gun control policy must be nationwide, but a nationwide gun control policy is not the same thing as a ban, which is what you keep conflating it with.

.....

...
I don't know what good that does. All legitimate transfers that use an FFL get a background check by the FBI. What would be better, and what would be more?

If you are saying "more", as in, you should have to have a background check before you may receive a gun from anyone, and that anyone giving you a gun without performing a background check is breaking the law, I'd agree, but I don't think that is where you're going.

...

I'm actually kind of against half of this. If someone has committed a crime, but has paid their debt to society, and been released from probation or parole, then they should be able to participate in society as though they were never a felon. A rehabilitated ex-felon should have the same rights to a gun as someone who has not been convicted of a crime.

Mentally ill, similar thing. If they are actually capable of, or at least have episodes of, not being able to tell reality from delusion, then sure, they shouldn't have a gun. Just being diagnosed with ADHD or autism or anxiety should not mean that you don't get the same rights as those around you, though.

...

Repeatedly, on this board, when it is pointed out that City wide gun bans did not reduce violent crime, the excuse is always made that the gun ban was not wide enough, that it needs to be national.

I was responding to scr4
There you go with the same strawman. Nobody is advocating for a nationwide handgun ban. with proof that many politicians do indeed want some sort of nationwide handgun ban.

Oh come on now. Dylan Roof? A Mass murderer? You couldnt have found a NRA spokesperson or a pro gun politician? I could have quoted Hitler, but that's not the point.

Who said i am against that? Like I said the devil in in the details.

I agree that there should be background checks before transfers, but they should be cheap and easy. Or at least require the private seller to make a photocopy of the buyers Drivers licence. There's no reason why that couldn't be a requirement. Let us say if you sell less than three guns a year, that's all you have to do. More than that requires a check. Checks cost $15 and are available at any DMV?, police station or or dealer. Both sides walk in, the clerk asks if the buyer is Ok with a check, the payment is made, the check comes back pure yes/no, and then the sale is made or not.

I am OK with ex-felons getting their right to own guns back, but on a case by case basis. So, yes, broad bans on felons owning guns are OK, but sure, some sort of remediation would be nice.

Mental issues- if a there is a hearing and a judge rules you are mentally incapable of owning a gun, then fine. Running a check vs the Soc Sec disability database and banning anyone who has SocSec disability for mental issues is not. There must be adequate due process said the ACLU, and I agree.

Last edited by DrDeth; 01-06-2019 at 05:47 PM.
  #24  
Old 01-06-2019, 08:22 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 9,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Repeatedly, on this board, when it is pointed out that City wide gun bans did not reduce violent crime, the excuse is always made that the gun ban was not wide enough, that it needs to be national.
But we were not talking about bans, we were talking about control, which is not necessarily a ban.

And yes, it is difficult to control what happens in a city when you don't have any way of controlling what happens a few miles away across the border. Not sure why you keep calling this an excuse. It's like saying that it is an excuse that it gets hot in the summer.

No, it's not an excuse, it is a simple fact.

An excuse would be like complaining that it's too hard to keep track of your guns, or that it's too hard to keep them safely stored, or it's too hard to check an ID before selling one, or that some poor widow somewhere may not get the full value for her dead husband's guns.

I do think that a city should be completely allowed to disallow guns carried in public, whether open or concealed, and should be allowed to require that guns in the city be stored appropriately, even if in your home. I will agree that a city should not be allowed to completely ban guns from private residents, though.

Now, I can see having CCW's on a case by case basis, based on occupation, and even a demonstrated need, but the city should also be allowed to set the standards for such liesnces.

As far as proper storage, I don't think we need to have someone going around checking on all the guns, but if there is an incident, and it is determined that you were negligent in your storage of the gun, then you should be able to be held criminally liable.
Quote:
I was responding to scr4
There you go with the same strawman. Nobody is advocating for a nationwide handgun ban. with proof that many politicians do indeed want some sort of nationwide handgun ban.
Many now? You named a few that, in some particular speech or discussion said something that may be taken as a gun ban. I'm sure that we could sit all day, and find that people who talk for a living occasionally say something that you can use to simplify their position.

We were talking about presidential candidates, not just anyone at all. And further, we are also talking about the people participating in this discussion.

But, in any case, yes, there will be those who call for more extreme measures to take place, that will never change. If we solve the problem without those extreme measures, then they lose their voice. You can deal with the moderates on this, or you can drive the moderates out, and allow only the extremists to control the discussion.

I have been told that until every extremist on gun control has been obliterated, there is no room for compromise. That is something that will never happen, so requiring it as a condition is not acting in good faith.

I can take that same stance and say that, until every criminal and negligent gun user has been "obliterated", then there is no room for compromise from full banning of all guns, but I recognize that that would not be a good faith argument, and would not be productive.
Quote:
Oh come on now. Dylan Roof? A Mass murderer? You couldnt have found a NRA spokesperson or a pro gun politician? I could have quoted Hitler, but that's not the point.
Oh, I could point out NRA spokespeople or pro gun politicians that use fear and hate in order to get people to vote for them, but I thought you would want to hear from one of the beneficiaries of lack of gun control.

There's only one Hitler, unfortunately, there are many, many mass shooters.


Quote:
Who said i am against that? Like I said the devil in in the details.
Then give some details. The last time I brought up the idea of requiring that people need to be prequalified for a background check in order to buy a gun in private purchase, you seems much less accepting. You didn't even like that they should have to check their ID to make sure that they were in the right state.
Quote:
I agree that there should be background checks before transfers, but they should be cheap and easy. Or at least require the private seller to make a photocopy of the buyers Drivers licence. There's no reason why that couldn't be a requirement. Let us say if you sell less than three guns a year, that's all you have to do. More than that requires a check. Checks cost $15 and are available at any DMV?, police station or or dealer. Both sides walk in, the clerk asks if the buyer is Ok with a check, the payment is made, the check comes back pure yes/no, and then the sale is made or not.
I agree with cheap and easy, as long as they are not so cheap and easy as to be ineffective.

My concern on this is that pro gun advocates may consider it to be too much like a registry, which they consider to be a slippery slope concern.
Quote:
I am OK with ex-felons getting their right to own guns back, but on a case by case basis. So, yes, broad bans on felons owning guns are OK, but sure, some sort of remediation would be nice.
I feel that the case by case basis is that you have completed your parole or probation. I can see that, if you used a gun in a commision of a crime, then having a further restriction on gun ownership may be fitting for a time after, but, especially when it comes to non-violent crimes, I don't see the benefit.

Having ex-felons not be allowed to have guns actually increases the demand, and therefore, the profitability, and therefore the viability of guns on the black market, as they will have as much, or often even greater need, to defend themselves as someone who can buy one legally. If they cannot do it legally, they will do it illegally, which makes it easier for someone who want s gun with which to commit crimes to get one.
Quote:
Mental issues- if a there is a hearing and a judge rules you are mentally incapable of owning a gun, then fine. Running a check vs the Soc Sec disability database and banning anyone who has SocSec disability for mental issues is not. There must be adequate due process said the ACLU, and I agree.
I don't have a problem with a first order screening being done on disability for mental issues. Most people who are on disability for mental issues have some pretty severe mental issues, and cannot be considered to be mentally competent to stand trial for any crimes they may commit. If you cannot be considered mentally competent to answer for your crimes, then you are not responsible enough to have a gun.

However, it should be something that is easy to appeal, and if you have the mental capacity to even initiate an appeal, then you probably have the mental capacity to have a gun.

Then there is the issue of people like the Parkland shooter. There should have been a process to remove him form his guns. Now I am seeing in the local news almost weekly where some stupid high school kid says something stupid about a shooting or other violent act, and rather than being given counseling, and maybe a home visit to make sure that he's not a threat, he gets charged with a felony, which could potentially ruin his life. It should be a lower burden to take away someone's guns than to lock them up, but with the strength of gun protections in place, it requires what I consider to be over reach of the justice system in order to do so.
  #25  
Old 01-06-2019, 09:29 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 38,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
But we were not talking about bans, we were talking about control, which is not necessarily a ban.

And yes, it is difficult to control what happens in a city when you don't have any way of controlling what happens a few miles away across the border. Not sure why you keep calling this an excuse. It's like saying that it is an excuse that it gets hot in the summer.

No, it's not an excuse, it is a simple fact. ...

I do think that a city should be completely allowed to disallow guns carried in public, whether open or concealed, and should be allowed to require that guns in the city be stored appropriately, even if in your home. I will agree that a city should not be allowed to completely ban guns from private residents, though....
As far as proper storage, I don't think we need to have someone going around checking on all the guns, but if there is an incident, and it is determined that you were negligent in your storage of the gun, then you should be able to be held criminally liable.
....
We were talking about presidential candidates, not just anyone at all. And further, we are also talking about the people participating in this discussion......

Then give some details. The last time I brought up the idea of requiring that people need to be prequalified for a background check in order to buy a gun in private purchase, you seems much less accepting. You didn't even like that they should have to check their ID to make sure that they were in the right state.

.
.....

I don't have a problem with a first order screening being done on disability for mental issues. Most people who are on disability for mental issues have some pretty severe mental issues, and cannot be considered to be mentally competent to stand trial for any crimes they may commit. If you cannot be considered mentally competent to answer for your crimes, then you are not responsible enough to have a gun.

However, it should be something that is easy to appeal, and if you have the mental capacity to even initiate an appeal, then you probably have the mental capacity to have a gun.

Then there is the issue of people like the Parkland shooter. There should have been a process to remove him form his guns. ...
True, it is. But when I point out that gun control in the USA has never significantly reduced violent crime, the excuse then is "it's never been tried". Then when I point out that three cities banned all handguns- the excuse is that guns can come in from outside the state. Which is true, but of course doing so is illegal. So the response is 'we need nationwide gun control". I suppose that f we did have such, but violent crime still didnt go down, the excuse would be the large stock of guns already existing, the ease of making your own, or the fact that they can come in over the nation borders... which last means I guess we have to invade mexico.

If you are forced to have your guns locked up so that they are not accessible to you when you need them, then you can't own a gun for self defense. SCOTUS agrees.

There are laws that if you have kids, you have to have a trigger lock at least. That's reasonable.

If you leave your keys in your car or just unlocked and it is stolen and someone dies0- should you be held criminally liable? No, that's a very bad idea.

Well, it depends upon what "prequalified means". But I have no issue with sellers being required to check IDs. "You didn't even like that they should have to check their ID to make sure that they were in the right state." At no time have i said that.

No, owning a gun is a Right, and only proper way to take away a Right is thru adequate due process. I concur with the ACLU.

There is. A hearing in front of a Judge. Just that (wiki) "In September 2016, three people—a sheriff's deputy who worked as a resource officer at Stoneman Douglas, and two of the school's counselors—stated that Cruz should be committed for mental evaluation." it never happened. Cruz was not taken before a Judge for a hearing. The cops and the School and his parents were lazy and irresponsible.The Florida Mental Health Act of 1971 ...commonly known as the "Baker Act," allows the involuntary institutionalization and examination of an individual. But it never happened. There are already laws in place. Let us not pass new ones, ones that take away rights, until the old laws are actually used as intended.

Last edited by DrDeth; 01-06-2019 at 09:29 PM.
  #26  
Old 01-06-2019, 09:56 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,276
Please let the rest of us know whether or not this is to be another gun policy debate thread, or one focused on the actual op. I imagine that there are several others like me who are tired of the gun debate threads and will check out here if that's what this is, rather than discussing the premise of the op.
  #27  
Old 01-06-2019, 10:30 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 38,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Please let the rest of us know whether or not this is to be another gun policy debate thread, or one focused on the actual op. I imagine that there are several others like me who are tired of the gun debate threads and will check out here if that's what this is, rather than discussing the premise of the op.
Good point.

Ok. let's get back to my OP. Can a candidate who is too radical on gun control win?

I say, that for instance, Harris's stance to ban all handguns will not play in Peoria. She has two choice- admit it, and go for that stance- and lose.

Or say she changed her mind- which can be seen as wishy washy.
  #28  
Old 01-07-2019, 07:27 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,276
Again "too radical" is, by definition, too radical. What position would be that? What position would lose more votes, and/or increase turnout against you, vs the opposite, is the question.

Not interested in debating whether of not Harris indeed ever promoted nationally banning all handguns, or if that is a false narrative.An actual position taken on the trail is what matter.

Like many presidential cycles one position will sell better in the primaries and some tacking to the middle would sell better in the general. A ban gun control position will sell better in the D primary and be a disadvantage in the general.

I don't think anyone will position themselves with a ban all handguns position. That includes Harris. I do not believe that will come off as wishy washy. She'll still be for regulation within the scope of what SCOTUS has made clear is allowable. That will suffice for the D nom side. Those more to the center on that will be at a relative disadvantage in the D nom process. It won't be the top issue even on the D side though, in the top three sure.

I also do not think it will be even a major issue in the general election. It just is not a top three issue for most Rs and R-leaners and those for whom it is are already in that 30 to 35% hard base who would already be decided by issues like immigration policy and healthcare.
  #29  
Old 01-07-2019, 03:39 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 38,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Again "too radical" is, by definition, too radical. What position would be that? What position would lose more votes, and/or increase turnout against you, vs the opposite, is the question.

Not interested in debating whether of not Harris indeed ever promoted nationally banning all handguns, or if that is a false narrative.An actual position taken on the trail is what matter.

Like many presidential cycles one position will sell better in the primaries and some tacking to the middle would sell better in the general. A ban gun control position will sell better in the D primary and be a disadvantage in the general.....
Of course, positions taken before you hit the trail come back to haunt you, that's common. So,not just the positions you have taken since announcing matter.
  #30  
Old 01-07-2019, 05:30 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,276
To address in the general case, to some degree, but most candidates also have had positions change over many years. Facts change so positions do.

To address in a slightly less specific case, positions staked out during the primary debate season will be more the ones that candidates will be held to than ones from years past.

To address in a specific to Harris case, she has never had a stated position create a national law to ban all handguns. She may indeed be held to a position that she had, prior to pertinent SCOTUS decisions, supported Proposition H, which had passed in 2005, and was struck down before implementation in 2006. No this was not supporting a national ban and you can surmise all you want what you think she believed or thought but it was a case that tested the limits of localities to regulate guns. It lost as a matter of the state's constitution and never made it to a federal level. Heller then further codified those limits in 2008 at a Federal level. The Heller ruling was considered a change of interpretation from previous court rulings and believing that cities had the right to regulate was not crazy before it came down. After Heller Washington DC and Chicago had to back down.

It is easy for a candidate to state that, thoughts about the interpretation of the constitution before Heller acknowledged, Heller is now established law, and as such it limits gun control policy. Outright bans, even within localities like high crime urban areas, are not allowed. Outright bans are not going to happen. And that Heller and its limits still does allow for other gun regulations that can improve safety and reduce the magnitude of harms. Cue up specific proposals.

Proposing regulations as strict as Heller would allow, while clearly stating that Heller is the settled law of the land, would sell well in the D primary and likely even in the general.

No one is going to propose something that is now, since Heller, clearly understood to be unconstitutional.
  #31  
Old 01-07-2019, 05:44 PM
Damuri Ajashi Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,251
Quote:
Originally Posted by scr4 View Post
p.s. If you scroll further down in that link, it turns out more Democrats (76%) than Republicans (68%) consider gun policy to be an important issue. Which would suggest that a pro-gun-control track record is an advantage in the general election.
I don't think this is correct. There are almost NO single issue pro-gun control voters. There are in fact a small but not insignificant number of pro-gun rights voters. If the Democratic candidate was pro-gun rights, there are not a whole lot of voters that would otherwise vote for the Democratic nominee that would say "fuck that" and stay home. They just couldn't get through the PRIMARY without being in favor of gun control.

There are in fact a bunch of single issue pro-gun rights voters who would switch parties if the Democrats ever put up a candidate that was better than the Republican. Once again, such a Republican candidate can't get through the primary.

In the general election, here are plenty of pro-gun rights voters who don't like trump but will not vote for a rabid pro-gun control candidate to get rid of him.
  #32  
Old 01-08-2019, 08:59 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,276
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
I don't think this is correct. ...
Nice to have things you think. Do you have anything to back up those thoughts other than that is what you think?

I would be interested in hearing who these voters are that vote will Trump only because of the Democratic candidate's position on gun control and if not for that would be voting D.



Meanwhile the data, such as it is, contradicts some of your thoughts. I call attention specifically to question #63:
Quote:
63. If you agreed with a political candidate on other issues, but not on the issue of gun laws, could you still vote for that candidate, or not?
47% of Democrats said "no" (only 42% yes), more "no"s than I or Rs had (33 and 21% respectively). And Is support stricter gun laws by a 69 to 27% margin.

Specifically only 39% of Black voters said "yes" that they could vote for someone they otherwise agree with if they differ on gun control. If a Democratic candidate wants to maximize this demographic's turnout being too soft on an issue of that much importance to them would be a bit foolish.



But just like "too radical", "rabid" is an undefined variable. Assuming that a candidate proposes something that is not clearly something current SCOTUS would say is unconstitutional (as clarified by Heller and the subsequent cases), what, in your mind, would be that "rabid" position that would cause these responses? Which ones of these proposals are "rabid" or "too radical" such that it would negatively impact electoral outcomes for someone supporting them?

A federal mandatory waiting period on all gun purchases (including those sold at gun shows)?

A longer waiting period and tighter controls on new ownership of assault weapons (defined in some rational and specific manner)?

A nationwide ban on the sale of assault weapons (defined in some rational and specific manner)?

Ownership denied if a felony conviction, a domestic violence conviction, or if recent serious mental illness such as requiring hospitalization?

Raising the age for handgun purchases to 21 years old?

Requiring safe storage?

Fast track the ability to petition the court to temporarily disarm someone who’s shown signs of danger toward themselves or others?

Other?

Last edited by DSeid; 01-08-2019 at 09:00 AM.
  #33  
Old 01-08-2019, 11:24 AM
scr4 scr4 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Alabama
Posts: 15,229
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
There are almost NO single issue pro-gun control voters. There are in fact a small but not insignificant number of pro-gun rights voters. ...

There are in fact a bunch of single issue pro-gun rights voters who would switch parties if the Democrats ever put up a candidate that was better than the Republican. Once again, such a Republican candidate can't get through the primary.
I don't doubt that there are those who think of themselves as single-issue pro-gun rights voters. But if any Democrat tried to court pro-gun voters, I suspect they will lose more liberal voters than gain pro-gun voters.

A Democratic nominee will also be labeled as anti-gun just by association. There's no chance the NRA will endorse a Democratic nominee over a Republican nominee, because they are as much a right-wing political organization as a pro-gun organization.
  #34  
Old 01-08-2019, 11:30 AM
XT's Avatar
XT XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 34,299
Quote:
Originally Posted by scr4 View Post
I don't doubt that there are those who think of themselves as single-issue pro-gun rights voters. But if any Democrat tried to court pro-gun voters, I suspect they will lose more liberal voters than gain pro-gun voters.

A Democratic nominee will also be labeled as anti-gun just by association. There's no chance the NRA will endorse a Democratic nominee over a Republican nominee, because they are as much a right-wing political organization as a pro-gun organization.
Interesting. I hadn't thought about it (I'm not an NRA member no have I ever been), so I looked it up. Looks like the watershed for the NRA started with the Assault Weapons Ban. Before that they supported Democratic candidates about about 38% and it dropped to under 20% after that. Looks like they still supported some candidates into the 2000's, but it has steadily dropped since then. From here (https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/24/polit...can/index.html):

Quote:
The NRA's backing of some Democrats (and the Democratic Party's willingness to reach out to the NRA) was reflective of the electorate's breakdown. Back in 2006, the Pew Research Center asked midterm voters whether they were supporters of the NRA. In that year, 27% of Americans who said they would vote for the Democratic candidate for Congress also said they were NRA supporters. It was higher among Republicans, at 54%. So while NRA supporters were more likely to be Republicans, it wasn't a blowout by any stretch.

The bottom, however, fell out for Democrats after many moderate Blue Dog Democrats were defeated in the 2010 cycle. Democrats accounted for only 10% of House candidates who received NRA donations in 2012 and just 2% in 2016. In raw numbers, the NRA gave to 115 Democratic House candidates in 1992, to 65 in 2010 and to only four in 2016.

As in 2006, the NRA's actions in 2016 were reflective of the electorate and how Democratic candidates felt about the NRA. Unlike the Democrats' friendly posture in 2006, presidential nominee Hillary Clinton attacked the NRA and called for gun control many times. And according to Pew, just 8% of Clinton supporters said that being called a supporter of the NRA described them well. On the other hand, 69% of Trump supporters said that being a supporter of the NRA described them well. The 61 percentage point gap in NRA support in the 2016 campaign was more than double the 27 percentage point gap in 2006.

Clearly, the NRA has no place in the Democratic Party anymore. The party is far more liberal overall and more liberal on guns in particular.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #35  
Old 01-08-2019, 08:47 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 38,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by scr4 View Post
I don't doubt that there are those who think of themselves as single-issue pro-gun rights voters. But if any Democrat tried to court pro-gun voters, I suspect they will lose more liberal voters than gain pro-gun voters.

A Democratic nominee will also be labeled as anti-gun just by association. There's no chance the NRA will endorse a Democratic nominee over a Republican nominee, because they are as much a right-wing political organization as a pro-gun organization.
Yes, I agree. But what the Dems have to do is not risk offending the 95 Million American who are NOT NRA members but still own guns. Or, as the "gun nuts" call them- the Fudds.

That's 95 Million adults. Likely all registered voters. Only about 130 Million Americans voted last election.
  #36  
Old 01-09-2019, 06:54 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,276
Which of the policy suggestions I listed do you think would offend them?

Because all I can find says that for the most part the majority of gun owners are in support of many of the same policies that a majority of non-gun owners are and are not so dead set against many of those that they differ on. Banning high capacity magazines and assault-style weapons gets the support of 44 and 48% of gun owners respectively, filter out the NRA MAGA gun owners and I'd suspect its a majority.

So short of banning all handguns, something that we all know won't happen without a Constitutional amendment after Heller, what is "too radical" or "rabid" that will offend those voters?

Maybe being against any gun control?
  #37  
Old 01-09-2019, 12:53 PM
scr4 scr4 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Alabama
Posts: 15,229
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Yes, I agree. But what the Dems have to do is not risk offending the 95 Million American who are NOT NRA members but still own guns. Or, as the "gun nuts" call them- the Fudds.
You are ignoring the fact that a lot of Americans do want more strict gun control, as indicated by your own cite. If the Dems manage to motivate more anti-gun liberals to vote than lose pro-gun votes, they come out ahead.
  #38  
Old 01-09-2019, 01:12 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 38,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Which of the policy suggestions I listed do you think would offend them?

Because all I can find says that for the most part the majority of gun owners are in support of many of the same policies that a majority of non-gun owners are and are not so dead set against many of those that they differ on. Banning high capacity magazines and assault-style weapons gets the support of 44 and 48% of gun owners respectively, filter out the NRA MAGA gun owners and I'd suspect its a majority.

So short of banning all handguns, something that we all know won't happen without a Constitutional amendment after Heller, what is "too radical" or "rabid" that will offend those voters?

Maybe being against any gun control?
Here's your list: federal mandatory waiting period on all gun purchases (including those sold at gun shows)? Waiting periods are useless.

...

A nationwide ban on the sale of assault weapons (defined in some rational and specific manner)?
The devil is in the details.

Ownership denied if a felony conviction, a domestic violence conviction, or if recent serious mental illness such as requiring hospitalization? Already law.

Raising the age for handgun purchases to 21 years old?
Likely be Ok.
Requiring safe storage? Not if you require guns to be locked up so that cant be used for home defense.

Fast track the ability to petition the court to temporarily disarm someone who’s shown signs of danger toward themselves or others? As long as due process is kept, sure.

Remember, the NRA only represents 5% of gun owners. So, we're talking a very slim majority if any.

Personally, if I was a dem candidate, I'd just say "I support the 2nd Amendment, just like I support the rest of the Bill of Rights" and leave it at that.
  #39  
Old 01-09-2019, 01:56 PM
Scumpup Scumpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 13,848
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
Keep in mind, the most extreme on my side are overzealous and maybe ignorant on technical gun knowledge. The most extreme on your side are mass shooters.
Not true, you knew it, but posted it anyway.
  #40  
Old 01-09-2019, 04:01 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,276
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Here's your list: federal mandatory waiting period on all gun purchases (including those sold at gun shows)? Waiting periods are useless.

...

A nationwide ban on the sale of assault weapons (defined in some rational and specific manner)?
The devil is in the details.

Ownership denied if a felony conviction, a domestic violence conviction, or if recent serious mental illness such as requiring hospitalization? Already law.

Raising the age for handgun purchases to 21 years old?
Likely be Ok.
Requiring safe storage? Not if you require guns to be locked up so that cant be used for home defense.

Fast track the ability to petition the court to temporarily disarm someone who’s shown signs of danger toward themselves or others? As long as due process is kept, sure.

Remember, the NRA only represents 5% of gun owners. So, we're talking a very slim majority if any.

Personally, if I was a dem candidate, I'd just say "I support the 2nd Amendment, just like I support the rest of the Bill of Rights" and leave it at that.
Seems to me like you are stating what your preferred positions are but not answering the question.

The vast majority of Democrats want something done about gun violence and see stricter gun control as the way to address it. Discounting to MAGAs and Trump no matter what gun owners (not all of whom belong to the NRA but do include them) minimally a slight majority of gun owners want most if not all of that list.

A Democrat saying "I support the 2nd Amendment, just like I support the rest of the Bill of Rights" and leaving it at that would be a not good idea. They need to support those proposals, force the GOP candidate to be vocal against them, and state that Heller is established precedence that eliminates any fear of a slippery slope.
  #41  
Old 01-10-2019, 10:52 AM
Damuri Ajashi Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,251
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Nice to have things you think. Do you have anything to back up those thoughts other than that is what you think?

I would be interested in hearing who these voters are that vote will Trump only because of the Democratic candidate's position on gun control and if not for that would be voting D.
That's a good point. These are mostly people that would otherwise be sitting at home. Its mostly voter turnout differentials.

An pointless regulation will have negative repercussions, some more than others.

Quote:
A federal mandatory waiting period on all gun purchases (including those sold at gun shows)?
It depends on how long. Right now you can wait up to three days for a NICS background check, the vast majority of them take minutes, I'm OK with waiting for a NICS check and I think almost everyone is. The biggest problem with a waiting period is that you have to go back to pick up our gun days or weeks later.

Quote:
A longer waiting period and tighter controls on new ownership of assault weapons (defined in some rational and specific manner)?

A nationwide ban on the sale of assault weapons (defined in some rational and specific manner)?
I think assault weapons bans would hurt elections. I also think you'd have to specify the rational and specific definition of assault weapon, man have tried and noone has produced a rational one yet. What is the rationale for these waiting periods beyond what is required for a background check?

Quote:
Ownership denied if a felony conviction, a domestic violence conviction, or if recent serious mental illness such as requiring hospitalization?
Don't we already have that?

Quote:
Raising the age for handgun purchases to 21 years old?
I think that's already the law for FFL under federal law. I wouldn't be opposed to extending this to private sales

Quote:
Requiring safe storage?
see Heller.

Quote:
Fast track the ability to petition the court to temporarily disarm someone who’s shown signs of danger toward themselves or others?
what do you mean by that?

Quote:
Other?
Licensing and registration. People would flip a lid but if you ever have the political capital to get this done, this might be the only idea that would make a difference in the long term. You will probably have to give up a lot of the stupid laws (see assault weapons bans) to get this one smart law but it would be worth it if your objective is to minimize gun crime.
  #42  
Old 01-10-2019, 12:57 PM
Damuri Ajashi Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,251
Quote:
Originally Posted by scr4 View Post
I don't doubt that there are those who think of themselves as single-issue pro-gun rights voters. But if any Democrat tried to court pro-gun voters, I suspect they will lose more liberal voters than gain pro-gun voters.
During a primary. definitely.

during a general? I'm not so sure

Quote:
A Democratic nominee will also be labeled as anti-gun just by association. There's no chance the NRA will endorse a Democratic nominee over a Republican nominee, because they are as much a right-wing political organization as a pro-gun organization.
Like I said above, I should have said that its more a matter of turnout than flipping a vote.
  #43  
Old 01-10-2019, 12:58 PM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 48,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Right now you can wait up to three days for a NICS background check, the vast majority of them take minutes, I'm OK with waiting for a NICS check and I think almost everyone is. The biggest problem with a waiting period is that you have to go back to pick up our gun days or weeks later.
"Five days? But I'm angry NOW!"

- Homer Simpson
  #44  
Old 01-10-2019, 01:03 PM
Damuri Ajashi Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,251
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Which of the policy suggestions I listed do you think would offend them?

Because all I can find says that for the most part the majority of gun owners are in support of many of the same policies that a majority of non-gun owners are and are not so dead set against many of those that they differ on. Banning high capacity magazines and assault-style weapons gets the support of 44 and 48% of gun owners respectively, filter out the NRA MAGA gun owners and I'd suspect its a majority.

So short of banning all handguns, something that we all know won't happen without a Constitutional amendment after Heller, what is "too radical" or "rabid" that will offend those voters?

Maybe being against any gun control?
Here's one by Gallup that shows that only a minority supports an assault weapons ban.
  #45  
Old 01-11-2019, 06:00 PM
Scumpup Scumpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 13,848
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
"Five days? But I'm angry NOW!"

- Homer Simpson
Gosh, there's nothing like a reference to a show that stopped being funny a decade or two ago to really cement your point. C'mon big guy, fess up. You're on the NRA payroll, aren't you?
  #46  
Old 01-11-2019, 08:28 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,276
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Here's one by Gallup that shows that only a minority supports an assault weapons ban.
You forgot to include the link to your cite.

But easy to search for so no problem. And a reasonable cite it is. Per that cite it does seem that a proposal to ban assault weapons would be a turnout issue with opinions on it "sharply polarized".

So squaring the circle - Gallup also reports that a solid majority of Americans do want stricter gun control. Among Independents 61% and among all gun owners 38% (again some solid fraction of the rest solidly R and definite voters, the rocky core).

Defining "too radical" as possibly less positive voter impact than negative impact yeah proposing an assault weapons ban might be best avoided (and again Heller has taken even the possibility of a handgun ban out of something to be afraid of).

AND a GOP candidate being against control measures short of that would also be, by that definition "too radical"

I can see many Democratic candidates proposing stricter control that does not include any assault weapon ban and not being "too radical" on the issue. I cannot see GOP candidates managing to not be against those other stricter gun control measures and thus being "too radical" for guns by the general voting population standards.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:57 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017