Interesting question. My impulse is to say no, since I prefer legislation only be passed in response to actual measurable problems, rather than to calm fears.
And on further reflection… still no, but there would probably be enough voter support to pressure legislatures to pass it anyway. If I were an executive I doubt I would veto and if I were a justice I doubt I’d overturn.
I have to admit, the entire “assault weapon” thing baffles me. It’s like people assume criminals in real life use weapons like criminals in the movies, and since the movies love full-auto and flamethrowers…
Personally, I think you should legalize drugs and maybe way down the road consider tightening up gun laws if necessary, and it probably won’t be.
It’s really easy. Assault weapons look scary. Hunters dont often use them, meaning assault weapons can be banned without angering a large segment.
In other words, they looks scary and dont have a lot of support. Easy ‘fix’.
Yes, assault weapon bans dont really do anything to control violent crime.
But after a school mass shooting, the public demands for their lawmakers to “DO SOMETHING” and thus the ban. Many bad and useless laws have made it onto the books after the Politicos have acceded to demands to “do something”.
Do you really need cites for these propositions?
He certainly seems willing to expand gun rights along at least SOME vectors (permitting firearms in national parks) and he has repeatedly said that he would like to reduce gun violence.
The notion that he would be willing to make a compromise that would expand gun rights (nationally consistent concealed carry rules and the repeal of most other gun regulation) in exchange for something that he thinks would reduce gun violence (like licensing and registration) seems like something he would be willing to consider.
I grew up in NYC but I grew up around guns because my extended family had small businesses that handled a lot of cash. I had a lot of friends that did not grow up around guns and they thought guns were the domain of cops and criminals because in NYC, this was largely true. Owning a gun probably meant you were in law enforcement or you were a criminal. Their attitude towards guns was very different than mine. They had an instinctive aversion to guns that I did not.
Similarly Obama, who was largely raised in places like Hawaii where guns are not prevalent.
Perhaps in the same way that the Trump presidency has caused the recent uptick in racism and antisemetism.
Not binary, no. Things that are unacceptable are those that have a detrimental impact to the rights of law abiding folks. Craft a law that accomplishes some acceptable goal without negatively impacting the rights of law abiding folks and it would be perfectly acceptable.
Except that such a law would not be acceptable, as it would be viewed by the pro-gun side as a slippery slope towards making unacceptable laws.
You yourself have on many occasions said that you wouldn’t be against a registry, but that you would be against a registry, because it would be the first step towards confiscation.
So, can you give us any example of any law that could effectively reduce gun violence by that you would find to be acceptable?
I don’t think I’ve ever said I’d be okay with a registry. I can’t think of a realistic scenario that I would think that. I can think of unrealistic scenarios maybe.
Make drugs legal.
I would have also been fine with the Coburn universal background check plan, though I’m not sure it would have reduced gun crime. I say gun crime because suicide is often grouped with gun violence and that issue should be approached completely different than the approach to crime.
After three decades or so of devoting my time and money to defending firearms rights, my opinion is that the people who propose gun laws generally consider negative impact on gun ownership in general to be a feature rather than a bug.
Sorry, I thought that you had said that you would be fine with it in theory, if it didn’t lead to confiscation, which it would, but I may be mixing you up with another poster, or it may have been background checks you were speaking of.
I don’t entirely disagree there, as the blackmarket selling, and the illicit use of drugs does contribute to more violent crime than if they were not illegal, but, three things there.
One, does little to stop fun times like school shootings, or other incidents where people decide to start killing people for generally antisocial reasons, though I suppose it is also possible that someone may decide to smoke a doobie rather than shoot up their workplace, were such a thing to be legal.
Two, it is the party who is ideologically opposed to gun control that is also ideologically opposed to legalizing drugs, so it is your own allies that you need to convince on that one, not me, and not those who are attempting to find reasonable measures to implement to reduce gun violence.
Last, while I am fine with the legalization of drugs, that does need to come with it some level of public health spending (which should be saved by ending the war on drugs) treatment to be available to those addicted.
I can see flaws in the coburn plan, but they are mostly technical in nature. As much as people complained about the ACA site not working when it was rolled out, I would think that it would be likely that the background check site would have similar issues (as nearly any new service, even in the private sector does) and any failure of the site would be regarded as an intentional attempt to prevent you from buying guns.
Personally, I think that if you have a ccw, then you shouldn’t need a background check for buying guns from either a ffl or a private dealer, but lacking the CCW, then a background check should be performed before any weapon transfer. If I see you on the street, and say, “Nice gun, give you $2000 for it”, what keeps me from purchasing that gun, even if I am a fugitive from justice for a triple homicide?
If by negative impact, you mean keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and those who are mentally unstable, then your opinion is correct.
If not the sole purpose.
I think I am probably the biggest pro-gun proponent of licensing and registration on this site. But it would be hard to confuse me and bone. I’m better looking.
Wouldn’t there be shit tons of savings from stopping the war on drugs? The savings in incarceration alone should more than pay for those things and give us a peace dividend.
The level of restriction you would have to engage in to reduce these extremely rare and random acts of violence would make this country unrecognizable to you. The vast vast VAST majority of gun murders are not committed by the Sandy hook shooters of the world.
My ideological allies on guns used to be on BOTH sides of the aisle. But then guns became a wedge issue.
Around here, the private gun sale market almost requires the possession of a CCW.
No, I think he means keeping guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. because who knows when they are going to snap.
No. That was not the context at all. The context was someone saying it didn’t sound like an assault. That is what has to be agreed upon.
I would argue that an assault must actually be a big thing, and to make any sense, must be bigger than what has happened in other presidencies.
I would also argue that Trump is just feeding a feeling and not facts with this situation. People felt like gun rights were being trampled, and that’s all he’s talking about, because Trump does not deal in facts.
Gun rights are basically the same or better than they’ve always been.
That said, the question was clearly from the POV of those who agreed with Trump. So, even if we argue against what they believe, it doesn’t change the answer. So you can give an answer even if it will be argued. Because, no matter what you do, it will be argued. That’s what this forum is for.
JUDGE: Mr. Luciano, I see here you’re charged with assault. How do you plead?
LUCKY LUCIANO: Not guilty, Judge.
PROSECUTOR: Your Honor, Mr. Luciano accosted his victim on the sidewalk outside his club and beat him severely in front of dozens of witnesses. The man was in the hospital overnight!
LUCIANO: Yeah, but Judge, that’s not the first time I done that. Why, last week I put a guy in the hospital for TWO WEEKS! And my pal Vito Genovese, last year he put a guy in the hospital for a month!
JUDGE: You’re not helping yourself, Mr Luciano.
LUCIANO: Sure I am, Judge. See, to be assault, it must be bigger than what has happened before by other gangsters
JUDGE: I forgot that rule. He’s got us. Case dismissed.
Probably not you, then, the perso I am thinking of specifically would be for reigstration, except that that would lead to confiscation.
This is not a drugs thread, so I don’t want to go into it too much, but yes, I agree with that statement. I am just saying that some of those savings do need to be used to treat the health crisis that is drug addiction, rather than using those funds to simply give tax cuts or other giveaways to those who already have enough.
There are mass shootings nearly every day. These are not perpetuated by stable individuals. There are people killed individually every day, once again, not by stable individuals.
Just removing the “gun show loophole” would cut these down fairly dramatically.
Asking people to report their stolen guns would be a great help as well, many of these crimes take place with “stolen” guns.
This may be true, but I would think that the side with the “cold dead hands” motto is driving the wedge much more deeply then the “can we see if there is a way to reduce the number of shooting deaths?” side.
And in any case, regardless of the historical reasons, it is simply the case that the side that advocates for fewer restrictions and wider ownership of guns is also the ideological side that pushes for the war on drugs.
If democrats were in power, you may see some slight restrictions on guns, but much greater latitude on drugs, but with republicans in power, you may see removal of the very slight restrictions of guns, but draconian enforcement of drug laws.
So, I don’t know where around here is, but you are saying that it would be illegal for you to sell me that gun on your hip, right here, right now? (Assuming that I am also where you are.)
Yep, 'cause everyone’s a good guy with a gun, until they are a bad guy with a gun.
Why not just say that everybody is a good guy until they are a bad guy? Nobody can be trusted at all. Ever.
Cite?
Because there is no way to tell if someone is a danger to those around them until they start killing.
Actually, you should read the whole article, it contains quite a bit of information that it seems you do not think exists.
It must be hellish to live in your world.