# Handicapping Federal gun control legislation **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [January 16, 2013, 6:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handicapping-federal-gun-control-legislation/647366 "2013-01-16T06:42:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2013, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handicapping-federal-gun-control-legislation/647366/41 "2013-01-16T19:36:21Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > As you said, the list of executive orders doesn’t mention assault weapons, so the focus of the effort is fairly broad as regards gun violence. Why are you almost pathologically focused on assault weapons? That’s the question for you to answer. Obama mentioned them a dozen times in his speech prefacing his executive order rollout. If he wasn’t truly after them, why are they such a focal point to him? Besides which, he’s trying to get assault weapon ban legislation pushed through, he just can’t do it by fiat. So again, democrats are making a spectacularly useless gesture - instead of offering a good-faith offer genuinely intendedto address gun crime, they go after scary looking weapons that are used in a miniscule number of crimes. > [@](#): > > And yes, for some reason you do not get what the effect of Sandy Hook was. The “now is not the day to talk about this problem” was a mechanism for empowering the NRA/Republicans. Avoiding the issue is not a way to take control of it. Sandy Hook was so powerfully jarring, it changed the landscape entirely. So instead of actually trying to come up with comprehensive, meaningful gun reforms, we’re just going to try to make a token action towards the flavor of the month? Even if we somehow magically stopped all spree shooters, we’d be stopping well under 1% of all gun murders. The story is emotional, not statistically significant. But even that’s ridiculous - banning AR-15s isn’t going to stop spree shooters, it’s just going to turn them on to equally effective guns. > [@](#): > > This idea of the NRA as superpowerful seems about as legitimate now as the “Karl Rove is a political supergenius” story does. The NRA is a stumble-fuck organization whose every step in the past month has been a head-scratching joke. Have you seen their new commercial yet? I don’t care about the NRA. I’m saying you will get more backlash from people over this issue - people, not lobbyists - than you did over the ACA or even gay rights. People are fucking serious about gun rights. To raise their ire over such bullshit window dressing is politically stupid. I don’t think you understand that I’m not coming from the perspective of a butthurt gun owner. I’m actually more concerned about the easy victory that the democrats are handing to the republicans. If they regain power in their current form, they will enact some real fucking potential country-ruining shit, shit that’s what more important than this bullshit scary looking guns window dressing. ---
**Author:** ![Simplicio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c37758/32.png) [@Simplicio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simplicio)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2013, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handicapping-federal-gun-control-legislation/647366/42 "2013-01-16T19:44:22Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > That’s the question for you to answer. Obama mentioned them a dozen times in his speech prefacing his executive order rollout. If he wasn’t truly after them, why are they such a focal point to him? [Here’s the talk](http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/obama-gun-proposal-press-conference-full-transcript). He uses the phrase five times, and I disagree it was the focus of his speech. > [@](#): > > So instead of actually trying to come up with comprehensive, meaningful gun reforms, we’re just going to try to make a token action towards the flavor of the month? What would you include in “comprehensive, meaningful gun reforms”? > [@](#): > > Even if we somehow magically stopped all spree shooters, we’d be stopping well under 1% of all gun murders. The story is emotional, not statistically significant. But even that’s ridiculous - banning AR-15s isn’t going to stop spree shooters, it’s just going to turn them on to equally effective guns. I’d argue 1% is statistically signifigent. But again, the AWB is a small part of the proposal. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2013, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handicapping-federal-gun-control-legislation/647366/43 "2013-01-16T19:52:39Z")
> [@Simplicio](#): > > [Here’s the talk](http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/obama-gun-proposal-press-conference-full-transcript). He uses the phrase five times, and I disagree it was the focus of his speech. It comes up more than any other particular point. > [@](#): > > What would you include in “comprehensive, meaningful gun reforms”? Well, I certainly don’t think it would focus on making sure that no guns had a pistol grip or a bayonette lug, as the assault weapons ban does. See, to me, it lacks integrity to support any bit of nonsense just because it happens to originate from someone on your side and ostensibly serve your goals. Honest, good-faith people who were interested in preventing gun violence would think this was a joke, not just blindly support anything designed to piss off gun owners. You should all be yelling “why are we focusing on these guns that are no more deadly than any others, that are used in a vanishly small amount of crimes while handguns kill 20x more people?” > [@](#): > > I’d argue 1% is statistically signifigent. But again, the AWB is a small part of the proposal. It’s well under 1%. I’m not sure of the exact amount, so “well under 1%” is specific enough. And I don’t think you know what “statistically significant” means, or you’re misapplying it here. If you truly wanted to hamper gun violence, you wouldn’t be burning a bunch of political capital on the guns that not only are responsible by a miniscule amount of crime, but could be replaced in the few crimes they create by equally capable guns that look somewhat less scary. ---
**Author:** ![Merneith](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/57b2e6/32.png) [@Merneith](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merneith)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2013, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handicapping-federal-gun-control-legislation/647366/44 "2013-01-16T19:53:22Z")
Did you miss the poll cited in post 16? It shows that, in fact, there’s broad public support for strengthening our gun control laws. I’m sure that there are real people losing their shit about this … but I’m not sure those are the people who are going to prevail. And you know, after the last four years, also I’m not inclined to think there’s a huge overlap between people who won’t tolerate any sort of gun control strengthening and people who make up the political center whose votes the Democrats need. (I apologize for this atrocious sentence.) I agree that I think Obama probably should have just left this alone - but I would have said the same thing about gay marriage. I was surprised when that turned out to be a non-issue. Maybe this is a mistake. Maybe not. Maybe it’s a mistake but it’s not Obama who’s making it. In the short term, what this does is give Obama’s political opponents room to act lunatics and it’s in his best interest to make them look irrational. ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2013, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handicapping-federal-gun-control-legislation/647366/45 "2013-01-16T19:55:34Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > Doubtful. The pendulum has swung on gun control. Americans overwhelming support new laws restricting the sale and ownership of semi-automatic rifles and high capacity clips. Republicans are behind the curve on this issue yet again. That remains to be seen. ---
**Author:** ![Simplicio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c37758/32.png) [@Simplicio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simplicio)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2013, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handicapping-federal-gun-control-legislation/647366/46 "2013-01-16T20:02:08Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > It comes up more than any other particular point. He mentions background checks eight times. This is getting a little silly: Obama didn’t mention Assault weapons a dozen times, and it wasn’t mentioned more then any other point. Your factually wrong about what Obama said. You’re fixated on the AWB, Obama isn’t. > [@](#): > > Well, I certainly don’t think it would focus on making sure that no guns had a pistol grip or a bayonette lug, as the assault weapons ban does. That’s not really an answer. But, how about closing the gun-show loophole, providing for better background checks, increased enforcement of already existing laws, more cops, a ban on high capacity magazines and armour piercing rounds, increasing resources for people with mental health difficulties and increased research on gun violence? > [@](#): > > You should all be yelling “why are we focusing on these guns that are no more deadly than any others, that are used in a vanishly small amount of crimes while handguns kill 20x more people?” “We” aren’t. You are. > [@](#): > > If you truly wanted to hamper gun violence, you wouldn’t be burning a bunch of political capital on the guns that not only are responsible by a miniscule amount of crime So what would you do? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2013, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handicapping-federal-gun-control-legislation/647366/47 "2013-01-16T20:03:35Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > You should all be yelling “why are we focusing on these guns that are no more deadly than any others, that are used in a vanishly small amount of crimes while handguns kill 20x more people?” Answered already. Broader bans are not even remotely possible, and if the focus _isn’t_ explicit and narrow, people will accuse Obama and the Democrats of being anti-gun (not that they won’t anyway), and those weapons are not the only issue here anyway. ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2013, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handicapping-federal-gun-control-legislation/647366/48 "2013-01-16T20:22:55Z")
> [@Merneith](#): > > Did you miss the poll cited in post 16? It shows that, in fact, there’s broad public support for strengthening our gun control laws. It’s broad but how deep is it? Are pro-gun control people going to base their votes on that single issue? Because the opposition is deep and fervent. Being identified with gun control hurts the Democratic Party in Michigan and Pennsylvania at least. I would guess Virginia as well. Where does it help them? Sure they need to keep their supporters in blue states satisfied by doing _something_ but the Executive Orders go far enough, ISTM. I think **SenorBeef** has it exactly right. Going after “assault weapons” is dumb. It’s not going to happen and wouldn’t make a difference if it did. Even if it didn’t diminish the Democratic brand it’s still a waste of political capital. I think it would take more mass shootings to change the political calculation. That would deepen the support for gun control. Things like Sandy Hook really effect people. I can’t even read the positive stories about the survivors without starting to cry. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2013, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handicapping-federal-gun-control-legislation/647366/49 "2013-01-16T20:30:07Z")
> [@2sense](#): > > I think it would take more mass shootings to change the political calculation. There have been plenty of them. At times it surprises me that a mass shooting of children made any difference at all. Mass shootings of teens and adults weren’t changing a thing. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2013, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handicapping-federal-gun-control-legislation/647366/50 "2013-01-16T20:35:00Z")
“It’s for the children!!!” generally makes for poor public policy. It’s weird to me that 10,000 dead a year is no big deal, but 20 kids is. You’d almost think if given the choice between doubling the general “background” gun homicide rate but eliminating big publicity getting mass shootings would sit well with the public, if they had a choice. In any case, looking at this politically, Obama could’ve come out with all his changes about information sharing and background checks and all that, and I doubt it would’ve raised that much ire. Then he could say he’s being proactive in response to public demands, but it wouldn’t have to be a legislative fight to the death. So why is the assault weapons ban stuff even needed on top of that? You gain so much opposition, and lose so much political capital, for almost no political or public safety game. It’s poor from both a political strategy perspective and a public health perspective. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2013, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handicapping-federal-gun-control-legislation/647366/51 "2013-01-16T20:43:35Z")
> [@Simplicio](#): > > He mentions background checks eight times. This is getting a little silly: Obama didn’t mention Assault weapons a dozen times, and it wasn’t mentioned more then any other point. Your factually wrong about what Obama said. You’re fixated on the AWB, Obama isn’t. Fair enough. I consider the AWB thing to be a high priority because all of these other changes are mostly administrative. They’re relatively mild changes with relatively mild effects. The AWB is an actual ban on guns, and on utterly flimsy and ridiculous grounds as we’ve discussed on the boards before. > [@](#): > > That’s not really an answer. But, how about closing the gun-show loophole, providing for better background checks, increased enforcement of already existing laws, more cops, a ban on high capacity magazines and armour piercing rounds, increasing resources for people with mental health difficulties and increased research on gun violence? Those are all worthy of their own debate, and that’s fine. “Armor piercing bullet” bans are almost certainly going to be a sham based on the public misunderstanding of the issue at hand just like assault weapons bans. The “gun show loophole” doesn’t exist, so if you want to ban private sales just call it that. I don’t think more cops has any specific bearing on this issue. Background checks shouldn’t become a de-facto registration, but other than that, I’m fine with making them work as effectively as possible. I have no objection to increased mental health options. > [@](#): > > “We” aren’t. You are. But that’s my point. You are the ones proposing the laws, you should be concerned about the effects they actually have. You shouldn’t blindly support anything that “your side” puts forth even if you know it to be ineffective or just generally a bad idea. > [@](#): > > So what would you do? Me? I’d keep thing about as they are. Gun crime has been going down for a long time despite gun ownership going up. A huge portion of gun crime is gang violence, which is only tragic when they take out someone innocent. I’d be fine with greater punishments for people who actually did bad shit with guns. I’m willing to accept that shit happens. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2013, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handicapping-federal-gun-control-legislation/647366/52 "2013-01-16T20:44:16Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > It’s weird to me that 10,000 dead a year is no big deal, but 20 kids is. I agree, but I think we’re saying it for different reasons. > [@](#): > > You’d almost think if given the choice between doubling the general “background” gun homicide rate but eliminating big publicity getting mass shootings would sit well with the public, if they had a choice. Would you? I wouldn’t think that. It never occurred to me. > [@](#): > > So why is the assault weapons ban stuff even needed on top of that? I don’t know the particulars of the AWB bill that will be introduced and I’ve agreed in the past that at least some of the criteria and types of guns affected were frivolous, but I don’t think think there’s anything wrong with the public deciding to limit the availability of some types of guns because they pose an unacceptable amount of risk. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2013, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handicapping-federal-gun-control-legislation/647366/53 "2013-01-16T20:46:58Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > “It’s for the children!!!” generally makes for poor public policy. It’s weird to me that 10,000 dead a year is no big deal, but 20 kids is. You’d almost think if given the choice between doubling the general “background” gun homicide rate but eliminating big publicity getting mass shootings would sit well with the public, if they had a choice. > > In any case, looking at this politically, Obama could’ve come out with all his changes about information sharing and background checks and all that, and I doubt it would’ve raised that much ire. Then he could say he’s being proactive in response to public demands, but it wouldn’t have to be a legislative fight to the death. > > So why is the assault weapons ban stuff even needed on top of that? You gain so much opposition, and lose so much political capital, for almost no political or public safety game. It’s poor from both a political strategy perspective and a public health perspective. 10000 a year dead would be the topic if not for the poisoning of discourse by the likes of the NRA. Ideally, we’d have gotten legislation passed to deal with the 10000, instead of having to rely on the finicky moods of public outrage for a school shooting. Irresponsible gun usage has been an issue for a long time and only now is there any semblance of political will to do something rational about it I think you underestimate the insanity of many gun owners, who feel that anything less than total gun ownership is fascist, or communist, I forget the current talking point. Whatever Obama came up with would have been hailed by the right as a precursor to an evil tyrannical authoritarianism. This point is really not up for debate, its been proven over the past 4 years Assault weapons are the easiest and most visible of the many threatening forms that guns take. It may represent a low bar, but like I said, I’m not confident in significant wins in this area and picking at low-hanging fruit seems to be as good as we can get in this environment. If something is done, as opposed to nothing, even if its small, I’ll be pleased that some progress has been made. What I won’t accept is no progress. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2013, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handicapping-federal-gun-control-legislation/647366/54 "2013-01-16T20:56:12Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Would you? I wouldn’t think that. It never occurred to me. People don’t understand statistics, they understand stories. A few gang shootings a day, a few robberies gone wrong, a few husbands that get drunk and go crazy and do a murder/suicide with their cheating wives - these are all small stories that add up to the 10,000 a year number that get lost in the background noise, off the radar of public perception. It’s only when big dramatic events like a mass shooting happen that the public takes notice. Suddenly, they think that guns are a problem that needs to be solved. I suspect that if you took a poll the day after a mass shooting and asked the public if gun crime was geting worse or better over the last 20 years, 95% would say worse - because, as I said, it’s narratives that drive their understanding of the world, not data. In reality, gun homicides have been on a steady decline. But the public isn’t interested in that. Which is why I say that if the opposite were to happen - if gun homicides were to consistently rise for the last 20 years, but for some reason we never had a big shooting to catch the public’s attention, the public would also have the opposite reaction and think that gun crime was getting better or was a non-issue. > [@](#): > > I don’t know the particulars of the AWB bill that will be introduced and I’ve agreed in the past that at least some of the criteria and types of guns affected were frivolous, but I don’t think think there’s anything wrong with the public deciding to limit the availability of some types of guns because they pose an unacceptable amount of risk. The only guns that are available now that have a substantially greater effect on crime and public safety are handguns. By a huge margin, orders of magnitude. The idea that semi-automatic rifles that look scary are a disproportionate danger is a ridiculous farce and I suspect you know it. Conceilability, not a fucking bayonette lug, is the main factor that makes guns suitable for criminal use. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2013, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handicapping-federal-gun-control-legislation/647366/55 "2013-01-16T21:18:11Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > People don’t understand statistics, they understand stories. Exactly. That’s also why a single big tragedy can crystallize an issue in a way a constant drumbeat of unconnected events can’t. But I don’t think anybody wants to trade one for the other. They do perhaps see the individualized shootings as unpreventable and the big ones as preventable - which may have some truth to it but it’s not fully true. > [@](#): > > I suspect that if you took a poll the day after a mass shooting and asked the public if gun crime was geting worse or better over the last 20 years, 95% would say worse - because, as I said, it’s narratives that drive their understanding of the world, not data. In reality, gun homicides have been on a steady decline. But the public isn’t interested in that. You could do that any day - doesn’t have to be right after a mass shooting - and you’d see the same kind of thing. The news doesn’t convey this information very well and politicians are often flat-out dishonest about it. > [@](#): > > The only guns that are available now that have a substantially greater effect on crime and public safety are handguns. And there is no way those will be banned. There’s not a single group involved in this process - politicians, the public, anybody - who would support a ban on handguns. And if it were proposed, I suspect a lot of people would say it was stupid to ban handguns when more powerful guns were available and leave people with rifles when robbers have Glocks (and when we could do other things like track handguns better and better monitor their sale). So where does that leave us? ---
**Author:** ![Simplicio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c37758/32.png) [@Simplicio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simplicio)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2013, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handicapping-federal-gun-control-legislation/647366/56 "2013-01-16T21:18:15Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > Fair enough. I consider the AWB thing to be a high priority because all of these other changes are mostly administrative. They’re relatively mild changes with relatively mild effects. I disagree. I think the other proposed legislative changes are more substantitive. Plus, unlike the AWB, they may actually make it into law. In any case, Obama seems more focused on them (not only in this latest speech, but during the last few weeks as well). > [@](#): > > The AWB is an actual ban on guns, and on utterly flimsy and ridiculous grounds as we’ve discussed on the boards before. I agree. I don’t think the AWB will have much effect on gun-crime. But it won’t be a law either, so I’m more interested in the other parts of the proposal. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2013, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handicapping-federal-gun-control-legislation/647366/57 "2013-01-16T21:42:39Z")
> [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](#): > > The real fallout will come in the mid-term elections. Any Republican that votes for an Assault Weapons Ban is looking at losing his seat, and the Democrats will face some serious challenges. This will be 1994 redux. The Republicans will make gains in the House and will have a serious shot at the Senate no matter how it turns out. If it all somehow passes they’ll take both chambers with ease. At least one prominent Republican [thinks quite differently:](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/16/joe-scarborough-gun-control-republicans_n_2489342.html) > [@](#): > > He laid out what he saw as the GOP’s two choices in the House of Representatives. “They can either pass a comprehensive gun control package right now and shape it under Speaker Boehner, or they can wait two years when they lose the majority and have Nancy Pelosi write that bill,” Scarborough said. “There are no other choices.” > > He went on to hammer Republicans for living in an “echo chamber” for the past year. Scarborough issued the same warning to his party immediately after the Newtown shooting. In December, he said “we will lose” if Republicans continued to defend Glocks and Bushmasters. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2013, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handicapping-federal-gun-control-legislation/647366/58 "2013-01-16T21:49:45Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > There’s not a single group involved in this process - politicians, the public, anybody - who would support a ban on handguns. There’ve been a lot of things that finally happened after too many years of people saying they never could. All it’s taken is some sea-change event to change public attitudes. The surest way to fail is to decide it can’t be done, even before you start. Which is what you’re doing, despite all the polling evidence that undermines your premise. Which in turn makes you part of the problem. **SenorBeef** , thanks for acknowledging where the biggest problem really lies. That fact does need much more publicity than it has received, from a media and public that has been as helplessly resigned as **Marley23**. But that too just may get swept up in the same sea-change, hmm? ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2013, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handicapping-federal-gun-control-legislation/647366/59 "2013-01-16T21:58:58Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > **SenorBeef** , thanks for acknowledging where the biggest problem really lies. That fact does need much more publicity than it has received, from a media and public that has been as helplessly resigned as **Marley23**. But that too just may get swept up in the same sea-change, hmm? Ah yes, another “I sure hope this ban leads to further bans down the road. Oh, btw, don’t argue slippery slope, that’s ridiculous you paranoid gun nut!” contradictory poster. Join the club. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2013, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handicapping-federal-gun-control-legislation/647366/60 "2013-01-16T22:08:14Z")
What problem are you attempting to offer solutions for, friend - _any_? If it’s preventing deaths, then the facts you have presented to us indicate where to focus our efforts. If it’s something else, then what is it? Or do you offer simple handwringing instead? It’s long past time for emotional responses when addressing factual problems, and it’s no wonder that it’s difficult for those persons doing both simultaneously. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handicapping-federal-gun-control-legislation/647366.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handicapping-federal-gun-control-legislation/647366.md?page=4)