Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 05-10-2019, 11:31 AM
Lamoral's Avatar
Lamoral is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Fenario
Posts: 2,497
I'm skeptical of any polling data regarding the public's feelings about assault weapon bans, for the simple fact that the terminology is confusing to a lot of people and I suspect that many of the poll respondents think it means "machine gun."
  #52  
Old 05-10-2019, 12:18 PM
Wesley Clark is offline
2018 Midterm Prediction Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 21,685
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post

And again, I am on record as begging Democrats to pander to the racist gun nuts in states like Pennsylvania, Michigan and North Carolina. We can't get rid of Trump without their help, bless their stupid racist hearts. The U.S. "Greatest Generation" turned its attention to happier matters only when Nazi Germany and the Empire of Japan had been crushed. Anerca can becomne virtuous again ... after the GOP is crushed.
But what % of people are actual gun nuts? I'd wager its a very low %, and most of them are republican anyway. My point is that the guns are the symptom, not the cause. the root cause is white identity politics. People who feel whites, men, christians and the native born are better and more authentic than everyone else (brown people, women, muslims, atheists, immigrants, etc). The obsession with guns is to a large degree just an extension of this philosophy. And the democrats are the multicultural party while the GOP are the party of white identity politics. So a democrat saying "I won't take your guns away' is mostly meaningless because the guns are a proxy for being anti multiculturalism, and the democrats are pro-multiculturalism.

Also there are people we need to appeal to in the midwest, but Trump's base isn't it. I'm sure there are lots of blacks, latinos, white women, millennials, the disabled, etc who didn't bother to vote who we can register and get to the polls. Plus there are moderate republicans who can be swayed. We need to appeal to them. Trying to appeal to angry and resentful white people who hate multiculturalism and view guns as their sword and shield in the battle against a multicultural, multiracial society is probably a waste of time.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion

Last edited by Wesley Clark; 05-10-2019 at 12:20 PM.
  #53  
Old 05-10-2019, 12:41 PM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 38,915
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
Plus there are moderate republicans who can be swayed. We need to appeal to them.
I doubt that "we'll pander to you until we get elected, then your party will be crushed" has much appeal. YMMV.

Regards,
Shodan
  #54  
Old 05-10-2019, 12:56 PM
kaylasdad99 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 31,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaylasdad99 View Post
I had to look up the "Boyfriend Loophole." Apparently the Lautenberg amendment essentially restricts the Second Amendment rights of persons convicted of domestic violence. The loophole seems to be that the domestic violence conviction only applies when the conviction involved a spouse, former spouse, or co-parent. So, if you never married, cohabited with, or procreated with your GF, but you did get convicted of slapping her around, your right to buy a firearm and pop a cap in her is not impeded by the conviction.

...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iggy View Post
The Boyfriend Loophole is about lack of restrictions on purchasing firearms. There is no right to use a firearm to "pop a cap in her".

We can talk about proposals for gun control regulations without imagining the situation is different than it truly is.
Meh. I'm satisfied with my characterization.

In deference to your apparent sensibilities, however, I will send the offending phraseology to the rewrite desk:

Quote:
So, if you never married, cohabited with, or procreated with your GF, but you did get convicted of slapping her around, your right to buy a firearm (thereby supplying yourself with the means to pop a cap in her) is not impeded by the conviction.
Better?
  #55  
Old 05-10-2019, 01:03 PM
kaylasdad99 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 31,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
All I could find was this. Blacks are slightly more in favor of gun control, but not by much.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.8e141931914a

To reiterate, I'm not saying everyone opposed to gun control is a white supremacist. But racial resentment and opposition to gun control are connected issues, like it or not. And a lot of those people aren't going to vote democratic no matter what since the democrats are the cosmopolitan, multicultural party.
Huh I could SWEAR that Unca Cece once mentioned that the Soviet CP once used cosompolitanism as grounds for denouncing folks as traitors to the revolution.

So those people who won't vote for Democrats on account of them being cosmopolitan are a bunch of fucking commies, right?
  #56  
Old 05-10-2019, 01:51 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 49,256
Stalin used "cosmopolitan" to mean people who were just living in Russia, not really rooted there historically. You know, the Jews.
  #57  
Old 05-10-2019, 01:55 PM
Wesley Clark is offline
2018 Midterm Prediction Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 21,685
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaylasdad99 View Post
Huh I could SWEAR that Unca Cece once mentioned that the Soviet CP once used cosompolitanism as grounds for denouncing folks as traitors to the revolution.

So those people who won't vote for Democrats on account of them being cosmopolitan are a bunch of fucking commies, right?
A Cosmopolitan is a beverage made or vodka, cranberry juice and triple sec. Republicans are offended by this for obvious reasons.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #58  
Old 05-10-2019, 01:57 PM
Wesley Clark is offline
2018 Midterm Prediction Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 21,685
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
I doubt that "we'll pander to you until we get elected, then your party will be crushed" has much appeal. YMMV.

Regards,
Shodan
It worked for all the women and minorities who voted for the gop to take their rights away.

Either way, there are moderate Republicans who believe in low deficits, competent government, democracy, etc who can hopefully be peeled away from the authoritarian white nationalists who have taken over the party.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #59  
Old 05-10-2019, 02:03 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,160
Quote:
Originally Posted by JXJohns View Post
The whole going to jail bit he spoke about raises the pucker factor a bit:



This represents a significant change in direction from the typical "ban assault weapons" trope. No longer a ban on sales or transfers, he wants the guns turned in.
Yeah, that means door to door searches and confiscation. Scary.
  #60  
Old 05-10-2019, 02:17 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,160
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
.....

@ DrDeth ó What do you think about these studies? Obviously you're not a racist or a white supremacist, but when your own little gun club votes on such matters, how does it make you feel to be voting on the same side as the Nazis or those shouting "Jews will not replace us!" ?
....
I dont have a gun club, nor am I a gun nut. I am a small l libertarian and a supporter of the Bill of Rights. Gun control in America has never had a significant effect on violent crime. It's a "feel good' thing that does nothing but hurt some hobbyists. For example the big push on banning assault rifles- the FBI has shown that ALL rifles, all together account for about 4% of murders in the USA. That's .22 rimfire rifles, lever action 30/30 rifles, 30-06 deer rifles and yes- assault rifles. So banning these scary weapons won't do a fucking thing as far as lowering the overall murder rate.


And sure, the far right are more into guns than the left, but so? Only about 50% (it varies a lot*) of the American public is in favor of gun control. So by your twisted little statistics, half of America is on the side of "the Nazis or those shouting "Jews will not replace us!". The Nazis are in favor of Motherhood also, how does it feel to be on the same side as the nazis?

As statistics show, Black people are just about in line with whites in their thoughts on gun control, as are Jewish- so about half of the Jews and Black in America are on the side of "the Nazis or those shouting "Jews will not replace us!"


* https://news.gallup.com/poll/243797/...-gun-laws.aspx
Support for stricter gun laws typically rises in the immediate aftermath of a mass shooting, only to fall again as the incident fades from the public's memory. For instance, after the December 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, support for stricter gun control jumped to 58%, though it fell to 49% less than a year later. Despite these occasional spikes and drops, support for tougher gun laws has generally risen since 2014.


And altho currently more Americans are in favor of SOME sort of gun control, very few are in favor of radical gun control:Americans Support Tougher Gun Control, but Not Handgun Ban
While a clear majority of Americans support tougher gun laws, the U.S. public is substantially less supportive of an outright ban on handguns. Fewer than three in 10 Americans, 28%, support a handgun ban, unchanged from last October. Americans' support for a handgun ban has been below 30% since 2008.
  #61  
Old 05-10-2019, 02:23 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,221
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Yeah, that means door to door searches and confiscation. Scary.
What does the phrase "door to door searches" mean to you? Because it sounds like you're suggesting that the ATF would methodically search every household in the nation looking for banned weapons. You can't possibly think that so I wonder what you really mean.
  #62  
Old 05-10-2019, 02:27 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,160
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
What does the phrase "door to door searches" mean to you? Because it sounds like you're suggesting that the ATF would methodically search every household in the nation looking for banned weapons. You can't possibly think that so I wonder what you really mean.
Searching the houses of anyone that might have a assault weapon. Form 4473. OTOH, since those guns could have been sold or stolen, maybe searching all homes would have to be the solution.

What do you think he meant?
  #63  
Old 05-10-2019, 03:06 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,221
I think he meant that if you're caught with a banned weapon then you would face criminal penalties. I think a door to door sweep isn't really likely, probably more likely is notification mailings.

If the order against the FBI investigations of medical marijuana was rescinded, do you think the FBI would conduct a door to door search of everyone who applied for medical marijuana? Maybe all households because the marijuana might have been lost or stolen?

Last edited by CarnalK; 05-10-2019 at 03:09 PM.
  #64  
Old 05-10-2019, 03:31 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,785
Absurdities aside, let us for the sake of discussion, presume that he stakes out an extreme position, one that proposes things that would never pass Congress, never pass SCOTUS review, and even hurt in the general.

It’s still not a bad ploy right now. D primary voters include many for whom this would sell very well. Many more than who would find it objectionable. Whether or not it would make a difference or pass is immaterial.
  #65  
Old 05-10-2019, 05:04 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,785
And since Lamoral questions the "assault weapons" question here's some more polling.

3/1-4/19:
Do you support or oppose stricter gun laws in the United States? Percent support, oppose, don't know in order.

Overall 60 35 5

Republicans 33 62 5

Democrats 87 11 2

Independents 61 33 5

And here's a good question from April 10-13, 2018: Would you definitely vote for or definitely vote against a candidate for Congress who receives campaign contributions from the National Rifle Association, that is, the NRA?

Their support is a big strike against. Overall a slim majority "definitely against" with the balance being 51 to 36 against/for, and among Independents the balance being 50/36. Run away from NRA support if you are smart!

And in terms of the importance the issue has? From last November -

14% of those who voted D felt it was very important. Only 7% of those who voted R did. And while they were a minority 30% of those who voted for an R for Congress want stricter gun control.

SCOTUS has made it clear that there can be no handgun ban and stricter gun control does not mean that, even if proposed, could not result in that.
  #66  
Old 05-11-2019, 12:12 AM
Try2B Comprehensive's Avatar
Try2B Comprehensive is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 6,383
I have some overlap with DrDeth I guess. A (legal) gun control measure that actually reduced violence would get my support. But I have no interest in pushing something designed to stick it to the other guys. So yeah, no "feel good" restrictions- solve a problem or don't do it.

But what is that exactly? I have never been clear on that and so never had a strong gun position.

DrDeth- you brought up the impossibility of microstamping again. In the last thread, the evidence seemed to be trending toward CA microstamping being possible. Why is it impossible again?

You also mentioned that law enforcement doesn't want it. The things I read suggest otherwise. Why do you say that?

Not saying microstamping is a good policy even if you're wrong about those things, but they seem like questions that can at least be nailed down.
  #67  
Old 05-11-2019, 12:19 AM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,160
Quote:
Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive View Post
...
DrDeth- you brought up the impossibility of microstamping again. In the last thread, the evidence seemed to be trending toward CA microstamping being possible. Why is it impossible again?

You also mentioned that law enforcement doesn't want it. The things I read suggest otherwise. Why do you say that?

Not saying microstamping is a good policy even if you're wrong about those things, but they seem like questions that can at least be nailed down.

Here's what I said here: "
Require handgun microstamping: does not work, has no useful Law enforcement value and can by bypassed in minutes. In CA this ended the sale of all new model handguns, including those with advanced safety features. "


In CA the two stamp style is currently technologically impossible. Just plain microstamping as Booker seems to want is certainly possible, just mostly useless.

Some Law Enforcement officials may want it, since it is, as evidenced in CA, a excellent way of restricting gun sales. And sure, like I said, one agent did say "well, it almost never would bring in a solid case, but on the off hand chance it did....". So may have a tiny bit of LE benefit, but the FBI, wasnt pushing for it last time I checked.

Let's make two things clear: There are 300 million non-microstamped guns in this nation. And- criminals do not buy their guns from legit gun dealers. So, how woudl it be useful?
  #68  
Old 05-11-2019, 12:28 AM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,160
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
And since Lamoral questions the "assault weapons" question here's some more polling.

3/1-4/19:
Do you support or oppose stricter gun laws in the United States? Percent support, oppose, don't know in order.

Overall 60 35 5

Republicans 33 62 5

Democrats 87 11 2

Independents 61 33 5

And here's a good question from April 10-13, 2018: Would you definitely vote for or definitely vote against a candidate for Congress who receives campaign contributions from the National Rifle Association, that is, the NRA?

Their support is a big strike against. Overall a slim majority "definitely against" with the balance being 51 to 36 against/for, and among Independents the balance being 50/36. Run away from NRA support if you are smart!

And in terms of the importance the issue has? From last November -

14% of those who voted D felt it was very important. Only 7% of those who voted R did. And while they were a minority 30% of those who voted for an R for Congress want stricter gun control.

SCOTUS has made it clear that there can be no handgun ban and stricter gun control does not mean that, even if proposed, could not result in that.
Certainly, currently, due to the last mass shootings , the swing is towards some sort of gun control. Even the pollsters agree on that.

And of course, one could indeed have several gun control measures that would be fair- and constitutional. I have suggested one- define "gun dealer" . See, there's no real definition of "gun dealer" someone who has to do a background check on every sale. So we have a few guys who buy lost of guns and resell them- often to criminals and other people who either cant own a gun legally or want no trail. I understand why they might want no trail, but let's define 'gun dealer" as anyone who sells more that say- six- guns a year. or 12. Some solid and not too large yet not small number. That would put a big hurt on "strawman sales" which is one of the places crooks get their guns. This would close the "gunshow loophole" 90% of the way, and leave a small place for people to give the 18yo a gun or their wife or leave a couple in their will. Reasonable. Fair, and would cut back on criminals getting hold of guns.

and Heller leaves open other restrictions: 2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment
or state analogues. The Courtís opinion should not be taken to cast
doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by
felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or
laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of
arms. Millerís holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those
ďin common use at the timeĒ finds support in the historical tradition
of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
Pp. 54Ė56.


https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
  #69  
Old 05-11-2019, 07:47 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 82,666
Quote:
Quoth DrDeth:

Gun control in America has never had a significant effect on violent crime.
Because America has never had significant gun control. Everywhere that has had it, it's worked.
  #70  
Old 05-11-2019, 07:51 AM
Paul in Qatar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Dammam, Saudi Arabia
Posts: 12,591
Hardly matters. It is not going to happen. Any form of gun control that would really help reduce gun-crime would involve taken millions of weapons out of the hands of voters. Even if we thought that was a good idea, we would have to agree it is a fantasy.


There are things that can and should be done. But they are all at the edges of the problem.
__________________
800-237-5055
Shrine Hospitals for Children (North America)
Never any fee
Do you know a child in need?
  #71  
Old 05-11-2019, 11:48 AM
Lamoral's Avatar
Lamoral is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Fenario
Posts: 2,497
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
And since Lamoral questions the "assault weapons" question here's some more polling.
I see the polls; my point is that the term "assault weapon" might be misunderstood by a lot of people responding to the poll. I would guess that many of them think it's referring to a machine gun, and so they're more likely to support banning that, than banning a semi-auto rifle with a detachable magazine and a pistol grip.

Between that, and the fact that many people I have encountered seem to not know what "semi-automatic" actually means - I've had numerous people think it means that "you can switch between shooting all the bullets by holding down the trigger, or shooting one at a time", or simply that it means "machine gun" - there may be significant numbers of people answering that they would support banning certain weapons without actually knowing what those weapons are.
  #72  
Old 05-11-2019, 11:50 AM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,160
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
Because America has never had significant gun control. Everywhere that has had it, it's worked.
DC & Chicago banned all handguns, CA has the toughest gun laws in the nation, but still has plenty of murders, etc.
  #73  
Old 05-11-2019, 11:59 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,221
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
DC & Chicago banned all handguns, CA has the toughest gun laws in the nation, but still has plenty of murders, etc.
Maybe it would help prevent gun deaths in DC and Chicago if they beefed up border security. A wall perhaps?
  #74  
Old 05-11-2019, 12:15 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 82,666
Exactly, DrDeth. Even as weak as the gun control laws are in California, in all other states they're even weaker.
  #75  
Old 05-11-2019, 02:22 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,785
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lamoral View Post
I see the polls; my point is that the term "assault weapon" might be misunderstood by a lot of people responding to the poll. ...
And the point is that the polls are pretty broad in their support for stricter control and very few, especially among Independents and Democrats, who are all that fearful that stricter gun control will lead to handgun bans or infringe upon them at all.

As to what "assault weapon" means I think few know exactly what it means and hear not "machine gun" but "a gun capable of killing lots of people quickly" maybe even adding in "designed for that use" ... details beyond that are lost on most of us, true.
  #76  
Old 05-11-2019, 09:27 PM
Moriarty's Avatar
Moriarty is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Posts: 2,614
Iím not a gun enthusiast, but I think any discussion of meaningful gun control in America is basically futile.

So Iíd rather have America go all-in. I think kids should get gun safety training in schools. I think that there should be a national open carry (isnít the rhetoric that a bad guy with a gun would be dissuaded by the sight of a bunch of good guys with gun? Letís put it to the test! I want to see the guns my fellow Americans are carrying).

Now, it would also be my preference to get rid of rifles -limit civilian use to handguns, but Iíve seen how freaked out gun owners tend to get at the suggestion, so Iíve given up on it.

And, in exchange for the national open carry, Iíd like to abolish concealed carry except for law enforcement. So, I say, letís encourage a society where yaíll strap your ARís when you stroll through the store.

Do I think it would solve the gun issue? Hell no! But I imagine it would provide some more clarity to the discussion about societyís tolerance for personal weapons.
  #77  
Old 05-12-2019, 12:42 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moriarty View Post
... And, in exchange for the national open carry, Iíd like to abolish concealed carry except for law enforcement. So, I say, letís encourage a society where yaíll strap your ARís when you stroll through the store.

Do I think it would solve the gun issue? Hell no! But I imagine it would provide some more clarity to the discussion about societyís tolerance for personal weapons.
Although there would be cons as well as pros, I think this is an interesting suggestion. For starters, it might curtail the predations of cowards like George Zimmerman.

Are there already states where open-carry is allowed but concealed-carry permits hard to obtain?
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 03:50 AM.

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