I get it. I was replying to a poster who erroneously thinks gun dealers pay fair market value for firearms.
A city wide ban is not useless. It is just less useful when there is no national controls to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.
Having a city wide ban on carrying in public is far from useless, and having a city wide ban on owning at least makes sure that people try to keep them well hidden, and therefore, more secure.
Because some guy over there is advocating a position does not mean that you can impart that position onto the person you are speaking to.
If you are going to lump any gun control advocate in with the most extreme, then you need to be lumped in with the most extrme on your side as well.
Keep in mind, the most extreme on my side are overzealous and maybe ignorant on technical gun knowledge. The most extreme on your side are mass shooters.
If we are making this a “sides” thing, I’ll be happy to take the side of Feinstein, rather than the side of say, Stephen Paddock, as you have chosen to take up.
And when you insist that anyone that wants any sort of gun control cannot do so, because these other people over there said something else, then you end up driving away any moderates.
Hey, look, quotes from your side:
Do you really want me to broad brush your arguments with that? Do you really think that your arguments should not stand on their own, and should instead be overshadowed by what someone else on your side said?
Then I’d be perfectly fine with setting up a standard flat fee for gun transfers between parties, or even allow people to be pre-cleared with background checks, and therefore, be able to purchase a gun without going through an FFL.
But, you are against that, for… reasons, so we will have to continue to use the more inefficient way of having to go through an FFL, with all the problems that you pretend to complain about.
And that is just a state law, not a federal one. So, were I criminal, I would just go to the state next door that doesn’t have that law, and buy up my guns there.
Unlike national borders, there are no customs inspections, or really any sort of expectation that you would be searched going form state to state, so it is very easy to import guns into a state illegally.
Having a national law that helped to curb sales to criminals, along with at the very least, some method of requiring that gun owners take some responsibility for their guns, would reduce the guns in the black market, and therefore, the guns going into cities that don’t want them.
Right, that’s what I said, the pro gun people use that as an excuse. An effective gun control policy must be nationwide, but a nationwide gun control policy is not the same thing as a ban, which is what you keep conflating it with.
Okay, well I asked what you were in favor of, not excuses as to why you are not in favor of other things.
But, the reason that there is no definition is because it is intentionally made into a bit of an ambiguous concept by the gun people, and it is why I think that it would be very useful if the pro-gun people would work with the people who want to decrease gun violence in order to come up with effective controls.
Low hanging fruit, brave of you. Even the NRA was for that, for about 2 minutes before they corrected their PR person and said that they weren’t.
I don’t know what good that does. All legitimate transfers that use an FFL get a background check by the FBI. What would be better, and what would be more?
If you are saying “more”, as in, you should have to have a background check before you may receive a gun from anyone, and that anyone giving you a gun without performing a background check is breaking the law, I’d agree, but I don’t think that is where you’re going.
If you are saying “better” as in, deeper screening, maybe even an evaluation and psychological assessment, then I’d agree, but once again, I don’t think that these details would be considered mild to you.
You say the devil is in the details, but don’t give any details.
I’m actually kind of against half of this. If someone has committed a crime, but has paid their debt to society, and been released from probation or parole, then they should be able to participate in society as though they were never a felon. A rehabilitated ex-felon should have the same rights to a gun as someone who has not been convicted of a crime.
Mentally ill, similar thing. If they are actually capable of, or at least have episodes of, not being able to tell reality from delusion, then sure, they shouldn’t have a gun. Just being diagnosed with ADHD or autism or anxiety should not mean that you don’t get the same rights as those around you, though.
Also, places of business that don’t want guns in them? Is that something that you think that gun owners should respect?
As well as non-commercial sales, and I’m in.
This is probably one of the biggest head scratchers for me. People talk about how little rifles are used for crime, it seems to me that your “mini-gun” or other high rate of fire gun is even less likely to be used for crime, if nothing else, what kind of criminal could afford to buy it, much less supply it with ammo?
I’m actually for opening the machine gun registry to well qualified gun fans.
Well, that’s a different matter entirely, you were indicating before that the guns had to be either transferred or sold at an FFL or turned in to the police, you left out the fact that she can keep them herself, so you add to your story with a new twist.
What happens if the widow decides she wants to sell her husband’s car? Should there be exceptions to transfer fees there too?
As I’ve said before, I’m all for putting the onus on the buyer. Having the buyer be pre-qualified through a background check or the background check you have to get for a CCW. If she sells it to someone with a CCW or a pre-qualified background check, then she doesn’t have to use an FFL.
I’d much rather that than she just has a yard sale and lets them go to all comers.
Why, to talk you out of it? Suicide is never rational, and no counselor is ever going to say, “Yes, you’ve convinced me that suicide is the best option for you.” (Outside of terminal diseases, of course.) Is it just that you have to have a certain number of counseling hours first, or that the counselor actually has to sign off on you being sane and rational enough to make the decision to end your life?
Eh, at least in the former, it prevents it from being too convenient, and does give you a chance to vent out your frustrations and angers, and be given a perspective that may alter yours a bit, enough to change your outlook from despair to at least somewhat hopeful.
Would you be up for having a counselor before buying a gun?
WARNING: DARK POSSIBLY TRIGGERING THOUGHTS.
So, when I was going through some shit, I’m not sure what exactly is an unhealthy level of suicidal ideation, but I did have a gun store within easy walking distance of my house, and on several occasions, I thought about managing to scrape together enough money to buy a tool that would get the job done. I even considered just going in, renting a gun and a lane, and putting it to my head right then and there. It really was the most tempting way to do myself in. Everything else required much more work or was much less effective. They should probably have suicide counselors at the store.
Repeatedly, on this board, when it is pointed out that City wide gun bans did not reduce violent crime, the excuse is always made that the gun ban was not wide enough, that it needs to be national.
I was responding to** scr4 **
There you go with the same strawman. Nobody is advocating for a nationwide handgun ban. with proof that many politicians do indeed want some sort of nationwide handgun ban.
Oh come on now. Dylan Roof? A Mass murderer? You couldnt have found a NRA spokesperson or a pro gun politician? I could have quoted Hitler, but that’s not the point.
Who said i am against that? Like I said the devil in in the details.
I agree that there should be background checks before transfers, but they should be cheap and easy. Or at least require the private seller to make a photocopy of the buyers Drivers licence. There’s no reason why that couldn’t be a requirement. Let us say if you sell less than three guns a year, that’s all you have to do. More than that requires a check. Checks cost $15 and are available at any DMV?, police station or or dealer. Both sides walk in, the clerk asks if the buyer is Ok with a check, the payment is made, the check comes back pure yes/no, and then the sale is made or not.
I am OK with ex-felons getting their right to own guns back, but on a case by case basis. So, yes, broad bans on felons owning guns are OK, but sure, some sort of remediation would be nice.
Mental issues- if a there is a hearing and a judge rules you are mentally incapable of owning a gun, then fine. Running a check vs the Soc Sec disability database and banning anyone who has SocSec disability for mental issues is not. There must be *adequate due process *said the ACLU, and I agree.
But we were not talking about bans, we were talking about control, which is not necessarily a ban.
And yes, it is difficult to control what happens in a city when you don’t have any way of controlling what happens a few miles away across the border. Not sure why you keep calling this an excuse. It’s like saying that it is an excuse that it gets hot in the summer.
No, it’s not an excuse, it is a simple fact.
An excuse would be like complaining that it’s too hard to keep track of your guns, or that it’s too hard to keep them safely stored, or it’s too hard to check an ID before selling one, or that some poor widow somewhere may not get the full value for her dead husband’s guns.
I do think that a city should be completely allowed to disallow guns carried in public, whether open or concealed, and should be allowed to require that guns in the city be stored appropriately, even if in your home. I will agree that a city should not be allowed to completely ban guns from private residents, though.
Now, I can see having CCW’s on a case by case basis, based on occupation, and even a demonstrated need, but the city should also be allowed to set the standards for such liesnces.
As far as proper storage, I don’t think we need to have someone going around checking on all the guns, but if there is an incident, and it is determined that you were negligent in your storage of the gun, then you should be able to be held criminally liable.
Many now? You named a few that, in some particular speech or discussion said something that may be taken as a gun ban. I’m sure that we could sit all day, and find that people who talk for a living occasionally say something that you can use to simplify their position.
We were talking about presidential candidates, not just anyone at all. And further, we are also talking about the people participating in this discussion.
But, in any case, yes, there will be those who call for more extreme measures to take place, that will never change. If we solve the problem without those extreme measures, then they lose their voice. You can deal with the moderates on this, or you can drive the moderates out, and allow only the extremists to control the discussion.
I have been told that until every extremist on gun control has been obliterated, there is no room for compromise. That is something that will never happen, so requiring it as a condition is not acting in good faith.
I can take that same stance and say that, until every criminal and negligent gun user has been “obliterated”, then there is no room for compromise from full banning of all guns, but I recognize that that would not be a good faith argument, and would not be productive.
Oh, I could point out NRA spokespeople or pro gun politicians that use fear and hate in order to get people to vote for them, but I thought you would want to hear from one of the beneficiaries of lack of gun control.
There’s only one Hitler, unfortunately, there are many, many mass shooters.
Then give some details. The last time I brought up the idea of requiring that people need to be prequalified for a background check in order to buy a gun in private purchase, you seems much less accepting. You didn’t even like that they should have to check their ID to make sure that they were in the right state.
I agree with cheap and easy, as long as they are not so cheap and easy as to be ineffective.
My concern on this is that pro gun advocates may consider it to be too much like a registry, which they consider to be a slippery slope concern.
I feel that the case by case basis is that you have completed your parole or probation. I can see that, if you used a gun in a commision of a crime, then having a further restriction on gun ownership may be fitting for a time after, but, especially when it comes to non-violent crimes, I don’t see the benefit.
Having ex-felons not be allowed to have guns actually increases the demand, and therefore, the profitability, and therefore the viability of guns on the black market, as they will have as much, or often even greater need, to defend themselves as someone who can buy one legally. If they cannot do it legally, they will do it illegally, which makes it easier for someone who want s gun with which to commit crimes to get one.
I don’t have a problem with a first order screening being done on disability for mental issues. Most people who are on disability for mental issues have some pretty severe mental issues, and cannot be considered to be mentally competent to stand trial for any crimes they may commit. If you cannot be considered mentally competent to answer for your crimes, then you are not responsible enough to have a gun.
However, it should be something that is easy to appeal, and if you have the mental capacity to even initiate an appeal, then you probably have the mental capacity to have a gun.
Then there is the issue of people like the Parkland shooter. There should have been a process to remove him form his guns. Now I am seeing in the local news almost weekly where some stupid high school kid says something stupid about a shooting or other violent act, and rather than being given counseling, and maybe a home visit to make sure that he’s not a threat, he gets charged with a felony, which could potentially ruin his life. It should be a lower burden to take away someone’s guns than to lock them up, but with the strength of gun protections in place, it requires what I consider to be over reach of the justice system in order to do so.
True, it is. But when I point out that gun control in the USA has never significantly reduced violent crime, the excuse then is “it’s never been tried”. Then when I point out that three cities banned all handguns- the excuse is that guns can come in from outside the state. Which is true, but of course doing so is illegal. So the response is 'we need nationwide gun control". I suppose that f we did have such, but violent crime still didnt go down, the excuse would be the large stock of guns already existing, the ease of making your own, or the fact that they can come in over the nation borders… which last means I guess we have to invade mexico.
If you are forced to have your guns locked up so that they are not accessible to you when you need them, then you can’t own a gun for self defense. SCOTUS agrees.
There are laws that if you have kids, you have to have a trigger lock at least. That’s reasonable.
If you leave your keys in your car or just unlocked and it is stolen and someone dies0- should you be held criminally liable? No, that’s a very bad idea.
Well, it depends upon what “prequalified means”. But I have no issue with sellers being required to check IDs. “You didn’t even like that they should have to check their ID to make sure that they were in the right state.” At no time have i said that.
No, owning a gun is a Right, and only proper way to take away a Right is thru adequate due process. I concur with the ACLU.
There is. A hearing in front of a Judge. Just that (wiki) “In September 2016, three people—a sheriff’s deputy who worked as a resource officer at Stoneman Douglas, and two of the school’s counselors—stated that Cruz should be committed for mental evaluation.” it never happened. Cruz was not taken before a Judge for a hearing. The cops and the School and his parents were lazy and irresponsible.The Florida Mental Health Act of 1971 …commonly known as the “Baker Act,” allows the involuntary institutionalization and examination of an individual. But it never happened. There are already laws in place. Let us not pass new ones, ones that take away rights, until the old laws are actually used as intended.
Please let the rest of us know whether or not this is to be another gun policy debate thread, or one focused on the actual op. I imagine that there are several others like me who are tired of the gun debate threads and will check out here if that’s what this is, rather than discussing the premise of the op.
Good point.
Ok. let’s get back to my OP. Can a candidate who is too radical on gun control win?
I say, that for instance, Harris’s stance to ban all handguns will not play in Peoria. She has two choice- admit it, and go for that stance- and lose.
Or say she changed her mind- which can be seen as wishy washy.
Again “too radical” is, by definition, too radical. What position would be that? What position would lose more votes, and/or increase turnout against you, vs the opposite, is the question.
Not interested in debating whether of not Harris indeed ever promoted nationally banning all handguns, or if that is a false narrative.An actual position taken on the trail is what matter.
Like many presidential cycles one position will sell better in the primaries and some tacking to the middle would sell better in the general. A ban gun control position will sell better in the D primary and be a disadvantage in the general.
I don’t think anyone will position themselves with a ban all handguns position. That includes Harris. I do not believe that will come off as wishy washy. She’ll still be for regulation within the scope of what SCOTUS has made clear is allowable. That will suffice for the D nom side. Those more to the center on that will be at a relative disadvantage in the D nom process. It won’t be the top issue even on the D side though, in the top three sure.
I also do not think it will be even a major issue in the general election. It just is not a top three issue for most Rs and R-leaners and those for whom it is are already in that 30 to 35% hard base who would already be decided by issues like immigration policy and healthcare.
Of course, positions taken before you hit the trail come back to haunt you, that’s common. So,not just the positions you have taken since announcing matter.
To address in the general case, to some degree, but most candidates also have had positions change over many years. Facts change so positions do.
To address in a slightly less specific case, positions staked out during the primary debate season will be more the ones that candidates will be held to than ones from years past.
To address in a specific to Harris case, she has never had a stated position create a national law to ban all handguns. She may indeed be held to a position that she had, prior to pertinent SCOTUS decisions, supported Proposition H, which had passed in 2005, and was struck down before implementation in 2006. No this was not supporting a national ban and you can surmise all you want what you think she believed or thought but it was a case that tested the limits of localities to regulate guns. It lost as a matter of the state’s constitution and never made it to a federal level. Heller then further codified those limits in 2008 at a Federal level. The Heller ruling was considered a change of interpretation from previous court rulings and believing that cities had the right to regulate was not crazy before it came down. After Heller Washington DC and Chicago had to back down.
It is easy for a candidate to state that, thoughts about the interpretation of the constitution before Heller acknowledged, Heller is now established law, and as such it limits gun control policy. Outright bans, even within localities like high crime urban areas, are not allowed. Outright bans are not going to happen. And that Heller and its limits still does allow for other gun regulations that can improve safety and reduce the magnitude of harms. Cue up specific proposals.
Proposing regulations as strict as Heller would allow, while clearly stating that Heller is the settled law of the land, would sell well in the D primary and likely even in the general.
No one is going to propose something that is now, since Heller, clearly understood to be unconstitutional.
I don’t think this is correct. There are almost NO single issue pro-gun control voters. There are in fact a small but not insignificant number of pro-gun rights voters. If the Democratic candidate was pro-gun rights, there are not a whole lot of voters that would otherwise vote for the Democratic nominee that would say “fuck that” and stay home. They just couldn’t get through the PRIMARY without being in favor of gun control.
There are in fact a bunch of single issue pro-gun rights voters who would switch parties if the Democrats ever put up a candidate that was better than the Republican. Once again, such a Republican candidate can’t get through the primary.
In the general election, here are plenty of pro-gun rights voters who don’t like trump but will not vote for a rabid pro-gun control candidate to get rid of him.
Nice to have things you think. Do you have anything to back up those thoughts other than that is what you think?
I would be interested in hearing who these voters are that vote will Trump only because of the Democratic candidate’s position on gun control and if not for that would be voting D.
Meanwhile the data, such as it is, contradicts some of your thoughts. I call attention specifically to question #63:
47% of Democrats said “no” (only 42% yes), more "no"s than I or Rs had (33 and 21% respectively). And Is support stricter gun laws by a 69 to 27% margin.
Specifically only 39% of Black voters said “yes” that they could vote for someone they otherwise agree with if they differ on gun control. If a Democratic candidate wants to maximize this demographic’s turnout being too soft on an issue of that much importance to them would be a bit foolish.
But just like “too radical”, “rabid” is an undefined variable. Assuming that a candidate proposes something that is not clearly something current SCOTUS would say is unconstitutional (as clarified by Heller and the subsequent cases), what, in your mind, would be that “rabid” position that would cause these responses? Which ones of these proposals are “rabid” or “too radical” such that it would negatively impact electoral outcomes for someone supporting them?
A federal mandatory waiting period on all gun purchases (including those sold at gun shows)?
A longer waiting period and tighter controls on new ownership of assault weapons (defined in some rational and specific manner)?
A nationwide ban on the sale of assault weapons (defined in some rational and specific manner)?
Ownership denied if a felony conviction, a domestic violence conviction, or if recent serious mental illness such as requiring hospitalization?
Raising the age for handgun purchases to 21 years old?
Requiring safe storage?
Fast track the ability to petition the court to temporarily disarm someone who’s shown signs of danger toward themselves or others?
Other?
I don’t doubt that there are those who think of themselves as single-issue pro-gun rights voters. But if any Democrat tried to court pro-gun voters, I suspect they will lose more liberal voters than gain pro-gun voters.
A Democratic nominee will also be labeled as anti-gun just by association. There’s no chance the NRA will endorse a Democratic nominee over a Republican nominee, because they are as much a right-wing political organization as a pro-gun organization.
Interesting. I hadn’t thought about it (I’m not an NRA member no have I ever been), so I looked it up. Looks like the watershed for the NRA started with the Assault Weapons Ban. Before that they supported Democratic candidates about about 38% and it dropped to under 20% after that. Looks like they still supported some candidates into the 2000’s, but it has steadily dropped since then. From here (https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/24/politics/nra-partisan-bipartisan-republican/index.html):
Yes, I agree. But what the Dems have to do is not risk offending the 95 Million American who are NOT NRA members but still own guns. Or, as the “gun nuts” call them- the Fudds.
That’s 95 Million *adults. * Likely all registered voters. Only about 130 Million Americans voted last election.
Which of the policy suggestions I listed do you think would offend them?
Because all I can find says that for the most part the majority of gun owners are in support of many of the same policies that a majority of non-gun owners are and are not so dead set against many of those that they differ on. Banning high capacity magazines and assault-style weapons gets the support of 44 and 48% of gun owners respectively, filter out the NRA MAGA gun owners and I’d suspect its a majority.
So short of banning all handguns, something that we all know won’t happen without a Constitutional amendment after Heller, what is “too radical” or “rabid” that will offend those voters?
Maybe being against any gun control?
You are ignoring the fact that a lot of Americans do want more strict gun control, as indicated by your own cite. If the Dems manage to motivate more anti-gun liberals to vote than lose pro-gun votes, they come out ahead.
Here’s your list: * federal mandatory waiting period on all gun purchases (including those sold at gun shows)?* Waiting periods are useless.
…
*
A nationwide ban on the sale of assault weapons (defined in some rational and specific manner)?* The devil is in the details.
Ownership denied if a felony conviction, a domestic violence conviction, or if recent serious mental illness such as requiring hospitalization? Already law.
*Raising the age for handgun purchases to 21 years old?
- Likely be Ok.
Requiring safe storage? Not if you require guns to be locked up so that cant be used for home defense.
Fast track the ability to petition the court to temporarily disarm someone who’s shown signs of danger toward themselves or others? As long as due process is kept, sure.
Remember, the NRA only represents 5% of gun owners. So, we’re talking a very slim majority if any.
Personally, if I was a dem candidate, I’d just say “I support the 2nd Amendment, just like I support the rest of the Bill of Rights” and leave it at that.
Not true, you knew it, but posted it anyway.
Seems to me like you are stating what your preferred positions are but not answering the question.
The vast majority of Democrats want something done about gun violence and see stricter gun control as the way to address it. Discounting to MAGAs and Trump no matter what gun owners (not all of whom belong to the NRA but do include them) minimally a slight majority of gun owners want most if not all of that list.
A Democrat saying “I support the 2nd Amendment, just like I support the rest of the Bill of Rights” and leaving it at that would be a not good idea. They need to support those proposals, force the GOP candidate to be vocal against them, and state that Heller is established precedence that eliminates any fear of a slippery slope.