Help Me Better Understand Gun Control Opposition

Great Debates
1

So just to preface my question, while I have most recently (last 3 elections) voted Democratic, I am a lifelong gun owner (several in fact) who believes in the second amendment. Living out in the country I believe gun ownership is very important for home security (as well as a little recreation :D). I would also tell you that i live in MO where it is now legal to CnC but that is another matter for another time.

However for the life of me I cannot understand the vitriol and rage that is induced if I even utter the words gun control. All of the sudden my fellow gun toting (and mostly GOP) friends start in with something close to the comical chant of “they can’t take our guns”… and if i really thought that the government wanted to or even could take legal arms away from lawful citizens then I might even join them.

However when you see the wonton death and pain that is caused largely by those who acquired firearms in non or only semi-lawful ways (loopholes like gun shows or taking someone elses non secure gun like in Sandy Hook), why would responsible gun owners lke myself and my friends not see that some limits THAT DO NOT IMPACT US in any meaningful way would save lives of countless people, especially children.

Why are NRA card carriers (and the GOP at large) so against:

  1. background checks

  2. waiting periods

  3. bans on assault rifles… this one really boggles my mind as the only thing you hunt with an assault rifle is another human.

  4. Even safety measures like fingerprint trigger locks (that would have likely prevented Sandy Hook) are nearly 100 percent opposed by gun owners.

It seems that the murderers, criminals and gangtas :cool: of the world are backed by the NRA membership… but why?

My guess is - and i hate to call some of my friends gullible or dense - that the NRA has brainwashed its members into thinking that democrats REALLY want to and CAN take all the guns. But does any intelligent impartial person SERIOUSLY think that could ever happen? I believe there is about as much chance of the second amendment being repealed as Trump being a honest, caring businessman.

So it is brainwashing and GOP team ball or is there a truly legimate reason that I am completely missing where some gun control laws would adversely impact me as a lawful gun owner and enthusiast?

2

I’m not sure you’re going to get a GQ answer to this, but I’ll take a quick shot:

Those opposed are fearful of incremental government infringement on what they see as a constitutional right. The “slippery slope” argument. For example, first they start with background checks (which they would say constitutes the government “approving” who gets to own a gun, which, as they say, is constitutionally guaranteed); then registration. Once all guns are registered, the government can confiscate them easily, which is at the bottom of said slippery slope.

I hope I gave a neutral-enough answer for GQ.

3

I am in favor of most forms of gun control, but I can provide an answer to why people are opposed to part 3.
There is no clear definition of an assault rifle. It is used as a political scare term, not a technical name for a type of gun. To ban assault rifles, you would first have to clearly define what they are. Right now, it seems very arbitrary what counts as an assault rifle or not.

4

I think any control legislation is viewed as a precedent; it is believed that once the foot is in the door, more harsh legislation will follow.

5

As I understand it:

  1. Slippery slope concerns
  2. Practical considerations with the actual recommendations. “Assault rifle”, for example, if I recall previous conversations correctly, is basically a meaningless term. A hunting rifle, painted black, will be called an “assault rifle” by the media, congress will write a law tailored so narrowly that it bans that specific make of hunting rifle that looks “militaryish”, just so that they can say that they’ve banned “assault rifles” (again), and the whole thing was just a waste of taxpayer money. I believe that I have read previous conversations on fingerprint readers and the technology is too flaky still, and maybe there were some other issues. Overall, there seemed to be support for reasonable changes, just a lot of changes are stupid and that’s now become the default expectation for any new laws.
6

As an example of the “assault rifle” thing, you can have two guns, identical in every way except that one of them has a wooden stock and the other has a plastic stock, and the one with the plastic stock would legally be considered an “assault rifle”, while the wooden one would not. Regardless of what you think of the intentions of the law, the implementation is terrible.

Of course, it’s made more difficult by the fact that the features which make a gun well-suited for hunting people are, by and large, the same features which make it well-suited for hunting deer.

7

To be cynical, the NRA isn’t really a lobby for gun owners. It’s a lobby for gun sellers. So it’s seeking to create an atmosphere where people will buy more guns.

Principles that work towards gun sales:

  1. Make the sale of guns and ammunition as easy as possible.
  2. Make sure criminals have access to guns so non-criminals buy guns to defend themselves from armed criminals.
  3. Convince people that gun seizures are imminent to encourage hoarding.
8

Since we are in GQ, let’s get some basic facts straight. An assault rifle is a select fire weapon. That means that or is capable is semi automatic fire AND fully automatic fire. While it is possible to buy and own a fly automatic weapon it is not available to everyone. In order to own one you must have a Class 3 license which requires an in depth background check. If you pass that be sure you have between $12k to $250k to purchase one.

There are also a very limited number of fully automatic weapons available. A law was passed in 1986 that makes it illegal possess an automatic weapon that was made after 1986. That means that there is a finite number of automatic weapons available, so it effectively puts ownership out of reach to the majority of citizens.

9

In a nutshell.

10

I understand the “slippery slope” line of reasoning, but the thing I can’t figure out is why it only ever seems to be applied to the Second Amendment. You don’t seem to hear the same outrage over asset forfeiture laws being a violation of the Fourth Amendment, for example.

11

The NRA is clear on whyit opposes expanded background checks (not background checks in general, expanding them to every transfer).

Regards,
Shodan

12

The government bans convicted felons from owning guns and we have seen many minor non-violent crimes labeled as felonies. People see this kind of abuse of a well intended law and say no more trusting politicians to do the right thing. Most people agree that crazy people would not have access to guns, but who defines crazy? Is it crazy to abuse your spouse or to have a problem with alcohol?

It’s definitely the slippery slope fear that keeps the NRA going.

13

I think the crux of the matter, and your misunderstanding, is best encapsulated in this line from your OP:

More laws will only affect those who care to obey the laws - not the people whose actions bring about every call for gun control, who have not obeyed the laws that are there already. All the new laws would do is provide an additional burden (more paperwork, more fees) on those who weren’t part of the problem in the first place. Of course they’ll be opposed to it.

More so, if those responsible for enforcing the existing gun acquisition laws failed to prevent such things from happening, why should anyone believe they’ll do any better with more such laws?

14

Other posts have summarized two factual (as in ‘what are the politial facts?’) reasons. If all you believe you can enact for now is ‘what everyone should think is reasonable’, hence make your opponents look unreasonable why, logically, not start with that? That doesn’t actually make your opponents unreasonable for distrusting whether you just want a camel’s nose under their tent, which IME the vast majority of strongly anti-gun people admit is the case when arguing freely, as opposed to carefully crafted public political statements.

And also has been suggested, the smallness of the measures doesn’t cut entirely in their favor either. For example on ‘assault rifles’ even besides the perennial definition debate*, as well as ‘safe guns’, it makes a huge difference in effect whether the laws relate to new sales or make previously legally purchased things illegal. That latter is simply not going to happen, no way nationally. But on a grand fathered basis measures like that have much smaller effect. So again the opposing ‘reasonable and factual’ question is why are people pushing such small agenda items? Is that really all they are after, and/or do they really have a reasonable view of cost and benefit? ‘Well if we could stop one incident it would be worth whatever it costs’. Actually not, in many other peoples’ reasonable opinion: they believe it importantly depends what it costs, in all respects (freedom of innocent gun owners being one) not just money, v. what it accomplishes.

So why do people oppose stuff they see with arguably some justification as camel’s noses, and/or wouldn’t accomplish very much and/or arguably ambiguous and even contradictory (‘assault gun’ bans) or technically questionable (the real practicality of ‘safe’ guns)? Because, that’s the opinionated conclusion they have reached considering all aspects; as contrasted to the differing opinionated conclusion OP reached before ‘asking’ this ‘question’. :slight_smile:

*in NJ, manufacturers can and do offer AR-15 clones which pass muster as ‘not assault rifles’ in NJ, no different in any serious way from ones which aren’t allowed, new, any AR-15 type bought before the law was passed is still legal. But the M1 carbine of WWII, which isn’t made in modified clone versions getting around the law AFAIK, is an ‘assault rifle’ in NJ. That’s straight up ridiculous.

15

Fingerprint trigger locks is one of those fine ideas in theory but when you consider the MSRP for one of those is $300 I really don’t see how anyone would use that for anything but a single small gun they would use for home defense (hence I don’t think it would have prevented Sandy Hook), even if prices because 10X cheaper it’s still more economical to just get a single safe and put all your guns in there, or just buy a bunch of cheap $5 locks.

The reason why people oppose “Smart gun” technology is because in most states that pass such laws promoting them they’re basing it on technology that still really hasn’t left the prototype stage yet assuming full scale production of them will happen within 3 years, and this was 2 years ago when a lot of these laws were being considered.

16

Gun control laws in America do not have any significant effect on violent crime.

Next indeed, some "gun grabbers’ have tried to use “reasonable” gun control laws to effectively ban guns. Like make a law requiring a class, but the class is not available.

  1. The NRA is in favor of these and even supported a bill that would make them faster, cheaper and easier.

  2. They do what?

  3. Define “assault rifle” - the real definition is a long gun that shoots both semi and full auto. These are already banned. But many so called “assault weapons” are just normal hunting weapons tricked out a bit. Adding a bayonet lug is useless but makes many guns into “assault weapons”.

  4. They dont work. If they did work, the Police would use them, as getting shot with their own gun happens more than you think.

17

I see and get the slippery slope point on assault rifles… but for my question I was specifically speaking to automatic or control burst automatic (3 rounds per pull) as my definition of assault. Perhaps just saying automatic would have provided better clarity.

18

The right to bear arms is a fundamental right, an extension of the right to self defense. Most Americans view zealous defense of other rights in a positive right - a classic example is that the ACLU defends the rights of neo-nazis to march and share their speech. Thinking that people who zealously defend the right to self defense against infringement are somehow pro-crime or pro-violence is like thinking the ACLU is pro-hate.

To someone who believes that the right to bear arms is a fundamental right, your OP amounts to more or less “why do people support hate speech? it seems like restricting bad speech is obvious, and I’m willing to give that way, why are these zealous nuts fighting for this issue?”

And there’s no popular, well funded organizations out there formed with the purpose of banning free speech. For gun issues, there is, so the threat faced by those who advocate that right are much more insidious and deliberate.

To address your specific issues:

  1. Background checks. The NRA does support them, and they have been routinely part of buying a gun for over two decades.

  2. Waiting periods. These laws are inelegant - for instance, why make someone who owns a gun go through a waiting period to buy a second one? But more importantly - what if someone is buying a gun because they’re under an actual threat? A jilted lover threatens them, the police say there’s nothing they can do until he does something, and this person fears for their life and goes out to buy a gun only to be told that they have to wait two weeks.

  3. Assault rifles.

Your whole assumption that the only reason someone would own a gun is hunting is asinine. The primary and most important reason to own a gun is self defense, and so, the ability for guns to “kill humans” is rather important and not some sort of irrelevant aside or drawback.

The vast majority of guns used in crimes in the US are handguns. Outside of some niche big caliber revolvers, handguns are not used for hunting. Why is it that you have this particular interest in what you consider unsuitable for hunting assault rifles (which is not actually true - AR-15s are very commonly used as varmint rifles) when you don’t seem to care about handguns, even though handguns are responsible for the vast majority of crimes?

“Assault rifles” are already effectively banned in the US. In 1934, any rifle capable of fully automatic fire was heavily restricted. This gun control arguably was actually very effective, because millions of owners owned controlled and registered fully automatic weapons between 1934 and 1986, at which point they were banned (new production and importation) anyway, despite a perfect safety record, because the people who advocate for gun control are not doing it to enact the most effective policies. More on that.

So assault rifles are already effectively banned. What you’re ranting about is “assault weapons”, which are a class of weapons invented by gun control advocates to scare the public into thinking they’re “assault rifles” and need to be banned too. Because “assault weapons” are not functionally different from weapons the public traditionally supports, assault weapons bans focus on cosmetic features - essentially, they ban scary looking guns. More on that.

All forms of long guns - all rifles and shotguns - are involved in less than 7 percent of crime. “Assault weapons” are involved in only a small fraction of that. Overall, significantly under 2% of crimes involve “assault weapons” of any stripe. Why, then, is there such a focus on them in the media? Because they’re sensational, they’re scary, they make for a good story. And because gun control advocates know that they have no realistic chance of banning handguns in the US right now, so they chip away where they can - they think they can scare the public into conflating “assault weapons” with “assault rifles” and think they’re somehow super weapons disproportionately lethal.

If gun control advocates felt like they could get all guns manufactured on a Tuesday banned, they’d do that too. They’ll ban whatever they feel like they can dredge up public support for, not what would actually make sense if you were trying to craft laws to protect public safety. More on that.

The gun show loophole you mention is entirely a myth along the same lines. Nothing works any differently at a gun show than anywhere else.

  1. Fingerprint trigger locks. Guns are extremely reliable machines. We’ve been perfecting them for hundreds of years. A well-designed, well-maintained gun has over a 99.999% chance of working when you need it to. And your life may one day depend on it working when you need it to.

When you introduce something like an electronic fingerprint reader, you introduce many many more modes of failure. The batteries could fail. The electronics can fail. You could improperly use the fingerprint reader. Maybe your fingers are sweaty or dirty and it fails. Such a thing would increase the potential failure rate of the gun to fire by several orders of magnitude. And this would happen right when you needed it most, and when your life might depend on it.

19
  1. Cite? The NRA wants to stop criminals from getting guns.
20

It’s not being cynical, it’s being clearly inaccurate if the idea is that gun/ammo manufacturers drive the enormous political resistance to gun control in the US, of which the NRA is just one example. Another conceit of strongly anti-gun people which goes along with this is the idea ‘the NRA’ is the resistance itself. NRA members are a small % of the voters that won’t tolerate anti-gun politicians in too many states and Congressional districts for there to be strict (or even significantly stricter) federal gun control.

The political non viability of national gun control in the US comes from gun owners. The NRA is a manifestation of that. The benefit to the relatively (market cap, sales relative to actually large industries) minuscule gun/ammo industry just correlates with that, doesn’t cause it to any significant degree.