# 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:** 5
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2013, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handicapping-federal-gun-control-legislation/647366/81 "2013-01-17T03:35:24Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > Back to the political calculus of it all - > > It seems most here agree that opinions on gun regulation do not divide completely cleanly across party lines. > > Among moderate/swing voters which position do you think will appeal more (not what actually makes sense, what will appeal?)? Do nothing in response to the latest mass murders (except propose what most perceive as silly proposals like armed guards at every school) or a do what Obama is proposing? > > And of the group that will solidly react more positively to the former, how many are not in districts that a Democrat already had no chance in? I think the people that will be upset about Obama’s legislative push mostly already weren’t voting for him, and I think the ones who would have been mad if he had done nothing probably would have voted for him anyway. I think the moderates on the gun control issue don’t rank it as an important enough issue to determine how they’ll vote for the next President or how they’ll vote in the next midterms. Basically I think this will galvanize NRA opposition and they’re derail much if not all of the legislation, but it’ll have no lasting effect on the political battle lines currently. Gun control most likely starts to be implemented because the Republicans lose ground on other issues, and once the Democrats control all government the small part of the Democratic base that is lusting after gun control will easily convince the rest who don’t care so much to go along with it. ---
**Author:** ![jasg](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f0a364/32.png) [@jasg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jasg)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2013, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handicapping-federal-gun-control-legislation/647366/82 "2013-01-17T03:39:36Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > Further note, most gun laws that actually matter in this country are State laws and will mostly continue to be so for many more years (also the whole State/Federal issue is something I didn’t mention in my earlier response about why it’s much harder for an emotional tragedy like Dunblane or Port Arthur to have a similar legislative impact here), and at the State level the NRA is supremely powerful. State legislators regularly are cowed into submission by the NRA. I am aware of the difference in government. My point is not how gun control can or cannot happen but that at some point a terrible event can result in a tipping point when society starts to change. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2013, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handicapping-federal-gun-control-legislation/647366/83 "2013-01-17T03:48:00Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > If you confiscationists believe that all guns will go away some day and people will look back on them as barbarism I find it highly unlikely. Please point to one line I’ve ever written on this board that indicates that I want to confiscate guns or would approve if it happens. Ever. Or you could think long and hard about these lines. Not hard to find. They’re right on this page. > [@](#): > > Gun rights advocates have overplayed their hand by claiming that any attempt at any control is the start of a federal gun grab. The majority of people have never believed this - quite rightly, because it’s insane - but a passionate minority always wins over an indifferent majority. That’s right. I bashed turning tiny steps into confiscation as a losing and utterly false argument in the _current thread_ - and still you were utterly helpless from venting it anyway. Amazing. Purely amazing. This attitude will destroy your side in the long run. I will cheer when that happens, should I live so long. But there still won’t be confiscation at that point, because confiscation is insane. But I suppose I really should encourage you to keep saying this, over and over and over, because anybody who mentions it in a gun conversation instantly and totally loses all credibility no matter what else is said. That’s the position you just put yourself in. And there’s no way out. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2013, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handicapping-federal-gun-control-legislation/647366/84 "2013-01-17T04:35:16Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > Please point to one line I’ve ever written on this board that indicates that I want to confiscate guns or would approve if it happens. Ever. I meant to reply to **BobLibDem** , and quoted you by accident. His post above yours in which he was comparing gun owners to slaveholders prompted me to consider him in the extreme “confiscationist” camp. Sorry for the confusion. ---
**Author:** ![Merneith](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/57b2e6/32.png) [@Merneith](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merneith)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2013, 7:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handicapping-federal-gun-control-legislation/647366/85 "2013-01-17T07:16:47Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > Back to the political calculus of it all - > > It seems most here agree that opinions on gun regulation do not divide completely cleanly across party lines. > > Among moderate/swing voters which position do you think will appeal more (not what actually makes sense, what will appeal?)? Do nothing in response to the latest mass murders (except propose what most perceive as silly proposals like armed guards at every school) or a do what Obama is proposing? > > And of the group that will solidly react more positively to the former, how many are not in districts that a Democrat already had no chance in? > [@artemis](#): > > This, 1000%. There are lots of Democratic voters who would stop voting Democratic if very restrictive gun control legislation becomes a part of the Democratic Party platform. They wouldn’t all vote Republican (some might vote for various third parties, others might just not vote at all), but they would NOT vote Democratic. And given the Republican stand on many social issues, that would be a disaster (at least from my perspective). > > Obama’s executive orders look pretty mild, and I don’t think they will pose a problem - but if the Democratic Party decides to try to pass Feinstein’s Assault Weapon Ban, I think things will be different. > [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > I think the people that will be upset about Obama’s legislative push mostly already weren’t voting for him, and I think the ones who would have been mad if he had done nothing probably would have voted for him anyway. > > I think the moderates on the gun control issue don’t rank it as an important enough issue to determine how they’ll vote for the next President or how they’ll vote in the next midterms. > > Basically I think this will galvanize NRA opposition and they’re derail much if not all of the legislation, but it’ll have no lasting effect on the political battle lines currently. > > Gun control most likely starts to be implemented because the Republicans lose ground on other issues, and once the Democrats control all government the small part of the Democratic base that is lusting after gun control will easily convince the rest who don’t care so much to go along with it. Looking at the political situation - here’s how I see it. Opposition to increased gun control measures is probably a bi-partisan issue, but, like everything in this country, probably less bi-partisan than it used to be. Regardless, because of the extremely partisan nature of congress, when it comes to discussing Obama’s efforts, it’s going to break down purely along party lines. The Republicans on the show will oppose it uniformly, therefore, the producers will be inviting Democrats to support the measure, because it’s better television. As it happens, the current crop of Republicans are absolutely awful at appearing sympathetic and thoughtful. If there’s one thing we learned in the last election, it’s that prolonged public exposure is bad for their brand. The last few weeks where we’re seeing people come unhinged and threatening to go on a rampage - it won’t take a lot of that before the opposition side becomes absolutely toxic to the public perception. Look at this short list culled from the HuffPo - 1. Tennessee state lege wants to ban enforcement of federal gun control measures and make it a misdemeanor to try an enforce them. This is necessary for the state residents “to defend themselves against tyranny”. [Joe Carr, Tennessee Legislator, Proposes Gun Control Law Ban | HuffPost Latest News](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/16/joe-carr-tennessee-gun-control-_n_2491028.html) 2. Mississippi gov is going to propose legislation that guns manufactured in Miss are not subject to federal laws [http://www.clarionledger.com/article/20130116/NEWS/301160042/Mississippi-Gov-Phil-Bryant-wants-to-block-Obama-s-federal-gun-actions?nclick\_check=1](http://www.clarionledger.com/article/20130116/NEWS/301160042/Mississippi-Gov-Phil-Bryant-wants-to-block-Obama-s-federal-gun-actions?nclick_check=1) 3. Texas congressman considering impeachment on the table because Obama is ruling by Czars and by fiat [http://shark-tank.net/2013/01/16/congressman-radel-on-possible-presidential-impeachment-all-options-should-be-on-the-table/](http://shark-tank.net/2013/01/16/congressman-radel-on-possible-presidential-impeachment-all-options-should-be-on-the-table/) 4. Wyoming wants to make it a felony to enforce the federal laws about assault weapons or high capacity magazine bans. This bit of legislation would hit federal agents with a fine of 50k and up to five years in jail for trying to enforce the law. [Wyoming Ban On Federal Gun Bans Proposed By State Lawmaker | HuffPost Latest News](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/10/wyoming-gun-control_n_2451438.html) 5. Rand Paul wants to introduce a bill to nullify Obama’s executive orders, because he thinks Obama’s acting Monarchial in issuing them. [Rand Paul To Challenge Obama's Gun Control Executive Actions | HuffPost Latest News](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/16/rand-paul-obama-gun-actions_n_2491823.html) I wasn’t enthused at Obama’s use of executive orders either but if it’s going to make his opponents come unglued, then I’m starting to think it’s inspired. If he can fill the airwaves with Republicans howling at the moon, then he takes away their ability to control the message on other issues, such as the looming debt problems. Interesting times. ---
**Author:** ![Sleel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/73ab20/32.png) [@Sleel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sleel)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2013, 9:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handicapping-federal-gun-control-legislation/647366/86 "2013-01-17T09:17:05Z")
> [@Merneith](#): > > Oh, here we go with the Executive Orders: > > [http://news.yahoo.com/obamas-23-executive-orders-gun-violence-171540897.html…](http://news.yahoo.com/obamas-23-executive-orders-gun-violence-171540897.html%E2%80%A6) I’m a strong supporter of private firearm ownership, and I don’t see anything particularly objectionable in this list of executive orders. They look like reasonable responses, focusing on more effective enforcement of existing firearms laws, and addressing mental health care. The proposed legislation, on the other hand, is crap. I think that all sides know that most of it will go nowhere, because it deserves to go nowhere. I agree with **Airman Doors** , that simple proposals to streamline and tighten up background checks, and provide better mental health care and screening would probably pass. And I’d even agree that those measures are where efforts should be directed. Bans are stupid. They’re ineffective, nearly impossible to enforce and, on top of that, politically divisive. ---
**Author:** ![Stealth\_Potato](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d78d45/32.png) [@Stealth\_Potato](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stealth_Potato)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2013, 10:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handicapping-federal-gun-control-legislation/647366/87 "2013-01-17T10:28:30Z")
> [@Jas09](#): > > I have a very hard time seeing how this set of outcomes hurts Obama or the Democrats. The Dems that will vote for an AWB in the Senate come from states that overwhelmingly support gun control. There just aren’t enough red-state Democrats in either chamber for it to matter anymore - the only person I can see being conflicted is Manchin from WV. I’m a blue state liberal. Voted for Obama twice. Any of my senators or representatives vote for an assault weapon ban, I’m voting against them even if their opposition is the demon spawn of Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, and I’m letting them know in writing. I also just joined the NRA yesterday, something I never thought I’d do. Maybe there aren’t an overwhelming number of people like me, but we exist, and we’re a lot more motivated by the issue than most of our opponents are. I don’t think it’s a factor that can be entirely discounted yet. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2013, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handicapping-federal-gun-control-legislation/647366/88 "2013-01-17T13:40:10Z")
> [@Merneith](#): > > I wasn’t enthused at Obama’s use of executive orders either but if it’s going to make his opponents come unglued, then I’m starting to think it’s inspired. If he can fill the airwaves with Republicans howling at the moon, then he takes away their ability to control the message on other issues, such as the looming debt problems. > > Interesting times. The problem with this analysis is it ignores the gun nuts have acted like this since the mid-90s, certainly by Columbine they were already this crazy. It didn’t derail them throughout most of the Clinton or Bush Presidencies. Further, the GOP desire to use the debt ceiling as leverage is already deeply unpopular. But it’s a decision being made by Republicans in the House, and they’re only accountable to their constituents, not the country at large. Because of how polarized America has come, a lot of the GOP hardliners are in districts that are extremely Republican, so they have little to fear from the backlash you are talking about and thus nothing to fear in terms of national perception. ---
**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 17, 2013, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handicapping-federal-gun-control-legislation/647366/89 "2013-01-17T14:03:46Z")
> [@Stealth\_Potato](#): > > I’m a blue state liberal. Voted for Obama twice. Any of my senators or representatives vote for an assault weapon ban, I’m voting against them even if their opposition is the demon spawn of Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, and I’m letting them know in writing. I also just joined the NRA yesterday, something I never thought I’d do. > > Maybe there aren’t an overwhelming number of people like me, but we exist, and we’re a lot more motivated by the issue than most of our opponents are. I don’t think it’s a factor that can be entirely discounted yet. Offhand, I’d say the number of Republican/conservative single-issue pro-gun voters greatly outnumber the number of Democratic/liberal single issue pro-gun voters. Your switching sides is hardly going to make a difference. Looking at the polling, I believe you’re in the minority on assault weapons. Given the NRA’s anemic record supporting candidates in 2012, I don’t think your joining the NRA has any Dems quaking in their boots. I’m curious as to why you want to cling so ferociously to the assault weapons. Just why do you think you need them? Who would you shoot, under what circumstances? And why join an organization that flatly opposes legislation that a majority of its own membership supports? ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2013, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handicapping-federal-gun-control-legislation/647366/90 "2013-01-17T14:08:08Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > Your switching sides is hardly going to make a difference. If voting would change anything, they wouldn’t let us do it. ---
**Author:** ![Jas09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@Jas09](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jas09)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2013, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handicapping-federal-gun-control-legislation/647366/91 "2013-01-17T14:45:24Z")
> [@Stealth\_Potato](#): > > I’m a blue state liberal. Voted for Obama twice. Any of my senators or representatives vote for an assault weapon ban, I’m voting against them even if their opposition is the demon spawn of Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, and I’m letting them know in writing. I also just joined the NRA yesterday, something I never thought I’d do. > > Maybe there aren’t an overwhelming number of people like me, but we exist, and we’re a lot more motivated by the issue than most of our opponents are. I don’t think it’s a factor that can be entirely discounted yet. There aren’t, IMO. There just aren’t very many single-issue gun voters on the Democratic side (which is a good thing - single-issue voters are a pain in the ass no matter what the issue). But it’s not gonna matter. I’m gonna revise my prediction a little based on some remarks I heard on NPR from Reid’s office (or reports about Reid’s thinking). An AWB is not gonna even get voted on in the Senate. No Democrat in the Senate is going to have to vote on one, which means nobody in the House will either (Boehner has said he won’t bring up anything unless the Senate passes it first). Instead I think you’ll see something pass the Senate that includes broadening and toughening background checks (but not universal ones, probably just mandatory for all sales to an unknown party) and _maybe_ something about high-capacity magazines and armor-piercing rounds (although even that seems unlikely now). The NRA will piss and moan, but hopefully even members like you, **Stealth Potato** , will decide they are being unreasonable by opposing such obvious measures. I kind of hope the Democrats do decide to take a stand on this, because if anything I think it will only widen the demographic isolation of the GOP (white men are by far the strongest proponents of gun rights). ---
**Author:** ![Merneith](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/57b2e6/32.png) [@Merneith](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merneith)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2013, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handicapping-federal-gun-control-legislation/647366/92 "2013-01-17T15:01:29Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > The problem with this analysis is it ignores the gun nuts have acted like this since the mid-90s, certainly by Columbine they were already this crazy. It didn’t derail them throughout most of the Clinton or Bush Presidencies. You could be right. OTOH, as I said, I suspect that this issue will fall more sharply along partisan lines than it would have twenty or even ten years ago. > [@](#): > > Further, the GOP desire to use the debt ceiling as leverage is already deeply unpopular. But it’s a decision being made by Republicans in the House, and they’re only accountable to their constituents, not the country at large. Because of how polarized America has come, a lot of the GOP hardliners are in districts that are extremely Republican, so they have little to fear from the backlash you are talking about and thus nothing to fear in terms of national perception. I’m not talking about a backlash against the GOP hardliners - I’m suggesting a _lack_ of a backlash against Democrats who oppose the GOP hardliners. I think if Obama can sell the public on the idea that it’s impossible to work with the GOP, that the GOP is both intransigent and nuts, then Democrats in general will have an easier time with voters justifying whatever they come up with. The Dems in congress can go back and say, “Look, we tried to work with them, but it’s hopeless, so we just did the best we could.” And I think the GOP seems to be doing everything in its power to live up to that characterization. But we’ll see. I don’t mean to say it’s all a done deal. ---
**Author:** ![artemis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/91b2a8/32.png) [@artemis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/artemis)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2013, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handicapping-federal-gun-control-legislation/647366/93 "2013-01-17T15:53:28Z")
> [@Jas09](#): > > There aren’t, IMO. There just aren’t very many single-issue gun voters on the Democratic side (which is a good thing - single-issue voters are a pain in the ass no matter what the issue). But the ones who are are often concentrated in several bluish-purple states, like Iowa and Colorado. States which matter in a Presidential campaign. And while the Dems don’t have many constituents who are single-issue voters in the sense that they’ll reflexively vote against ANY gun control laws, however minor, they do have more voters than you’d suspect who WILL vote against laws they consider odious infringements on Second Amendment rights. “Blue collar Democrats” are still a significant element in the party. > [@](#): > > I’m gonna revise my prediction a little based on some remarks I heard on NPR from Reid’s office (or reports about Reid’s thinking). An AWB is not gonna even get voted on in the Senate. No Democrat in the Senate is going to have to vote on one, which means nobody in the House will either (Boehner has said he won’t bring up anything unless the Senate passes it first). > > Instead I think you’ll see something pass the Senate that includes broadening and toughening background checks (but not universal ones, probably just mandatory for all sales to an unknown party) and _maybe_ something about high-capacity magazines and armor-piercing rounds (although even that seems unlikely now). That would be clever politicking, and unlikely to result in a significant backlash (at least in my opinion - which is probably worth what you paid for it). > [@](#): > > I kind of hope the Democrats do decide to take a stand on this, because if anything I think it will only widen the demographic isolation of the GOP (white men are by far the strongest proponents of gun rights). But interest in gun rights is growing faster than you’d expect among women and minority groups - both groups who are now reliably voting Democratic. I’d hate to see that change merely to score some transient political points and pass ineffective laws. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2013, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handicapping-federal-gun-control-legislation/647366/94 "2013-01-17T16:05:09Z")
> [@Merneith](#): > > I suspect that this issue will fall more sharply along partisan lines than it would have twenty or even ten years ago. More to the point, that makes it along majority/minority lines. That isn’t a coincidence, either - that’s the party of “God, guns, and gays” reaping the whirlwind. > [@Simplicio](#): > > Presumable hypocrisy? Is that anything like not being a hypocrite? It’s another way to say “imagined hypocrisy”. Or, “here’s another damned straw man to interfere with actual discussion”. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2013, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handicapping-federal-gun-control-legislation/647366/95 "2013-01-17T16:47:40Z")
90% of gun owners, and 93% of people generally, now favor background checks. The NRA still strongly opposes them. This is an organization drifting away from reality. A reasonable person joining them now is like a teenage girl dating a guy she doesn’t really like just because it makes her parents get upset. It’s a spiteful act of juvenile rebellion. ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2013, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handicapping-federal-gun-control-legislation/647366/96 "2013-01-17T16:49:28Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > A reasonable person joining them now is like a teenage girl dating a guy she doesn’t really like just because it makes her parents get upset. It’s a spiteful act of juvenile rebellion. I believe they just fear that any change in gun laws sets a precedent for more. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2013, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handicapping-federal-gun-control-legislation/647366/97 "2013-01-17T16:55:42Z")
Pretty much all laws do that, don’t they? If we overturn laws saying you can’t sell beer on Sunday because Jesus, we are taking a step to the slippery slope towards enforced atheism. Or not. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2013, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handicapping-federal-gun-control-legislation/647366/98 "2013-01-17T17:17:42Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > Why stop there? Surely gun ownership is [at least as bad as slavery.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=15897500&postcount=33) Actually, yes. [The Second Amendment was created](http://truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery)to protect the volunteer slave patrols in the southern states, and keep them in the Union. ---
**Author:** ![CJJ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecc23a/32.png) [@CJJ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CJJ)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2013, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handicapping-federal-gun-control-legislation/647366/99 "2013-01-17T17:22:01Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > 90% of gun owners, and 93% of people generally, now favor background checks. > > The NRA still strongly opposes them. > > This is an organization drifting away from reality. Seems like the NRA may have figured out that [this position is a loser](http://news.yahoo.com/nra-chief-says-group-accepts-background-checks-122514606--politics.html)… > [@](#): > > The head of the National Rifle Association says the organization has no problem with tighter background checks of gun purchasers. > > But association president David Keene also says too much emphasis has been placed on banning certain firearms. > \<…\> > He said the NRA has been “generally supportive” of stronger background checks. In the past, the NRA has claimed to be “supportive” of the idea of background checks, but seemed to [always](http://politicalcorrection.org/blog/201106070005) find a [problem](http://www.nraila.org/legislation/state-legislation/2010/2/gun-shows-in-minnesota-under-attack!.aspx) with particular pieces of legislation increasing the background check requirement, and has [supported](http://news.yahoo.com/nra-supports-colorado-bill-repealing-state-background-checks-003500218.html) legislative attempts to repeal them at the state level. Still, because this statement comes on the heels of Obama’s call yesterday to close the gun-show loophole, I’m slightly optimistic that this signals a modest shift in the NRA’s position. ---
**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 17, 2013, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handicapping-federal-gun-control-legislation/647366/100 "2013-01-17T18:23:37Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > 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. > > 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. It’s a bad way to create public policy - to see how hard you can get the public to knee jerk after one incident. Good policy comes fron reasoned evaluation of the whole picture and accurate projections of what policy changes will do - not rushing to Do Something after a big emotional reaction. > [@](#): > > 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? That position would be inherently ridiculous. Long guns make up less than 10% of gun crimes, with “assault weapons” less than 1% of gun crimes total. So the person saying “look at handguns if you want to impact gun deaths” would have more factual backing than a person who said “look at assault weapons if you want to gun deaths”. > [@Simplicio](#): > > 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). > > 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. This is why I don’t understand why he’s got a hardon for the AWB. If he just came out and said these are my reforms - various administrative fixes to improve background checks, studying the issue, funding for enforcement, etc. I think it would both satisfy his base that something was being done, and not worry the gun rights crowd as much because they’re the ones that actually call for greater enforcement of current laws as a solution anyway. But his support of the AWB shits all over that point. > [@elucidator](#): > > I see. So the whole push for gun regulation and control, that’s really a lot like Bush and the war on Iraq. I dunno if that’s a worse analogy than the “slavery” thing that has you so upset. But I betcha that if somebody were to point it out every time they post, as if it were a telling insight, it would get on your nerves. Pretty darn quick, I’m thinking. There’ve been groups in our government who wanted to enact spying on our own citizens, indefinite detention, torture, and an invasion of Iraq before 9/11 happened. When 9/11 happened, they could now use the public hysteria to push their agenda because people just wanted to Do Something. In a similar way, people who favor gun control are always sitting there waiting on an agenda that they know wouldn’t get passed through during sane times, waits for public hysteria, and then tries to get their laws pushed through. > [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > Are you saying that rational reactions create change? If that were true than stopping additional global warming would be our overwhelming number one priority. But what changed that conversation was Sandy hitting New York. Weather happens every day. Storms, hurricanes, tornadoes, blizzards. But rational people screaming about the situation for years didn’t make a dent. Sandy made people hysterical and hysterical people demand change. Ironic, to me, that the main impediment to fighting global warming right now isn’t the right’s refusal to acknowledge its existance, but rather the left’s refusal to allow the most practical solution - nuclear power. But in any case, I haven’t really seen an uptick in support for global warming solutions after Sandy, so I’m not sure this actually holds up. I mean, I get your point, but as I said upthread, policy decisions are best made with a calm, rational analysis, not knee jerk reactionism. > [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > 90% of gun owners, and 93% of people generally, now favor background checks. > > The NRA still strongly opposes them. > > This is an organization drifting away from reality. > > A reasonable person joining them now is like a teenage girl dating a guy she doesn’t really like just because it makes her parents get upset. It’s a spiteful act of juvenile rebellion. I honestly haven’t kept up with the NRA at all in about 10 years or so, so maybe they’ve become radicalized, but I recall that one of the few measures in the Brady Bill they actually supported wa the background checks. Are you sure that the NRA flat out opposes their existance now? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handicapping-federal-gun-control-legislation/647366.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handicapping-federal-gun-control-legislation/647366.md?page=6)