Will gun owners make the "Obama gun grab" a self-fulfilling prophecy

Great Debates
1

There have been multiple mass shootings in the past month or so, the most recent being the one in Pittsburgh where 3 cops were killed by a man who friends say was obsessed with the idea that the Obama administration would take his guns away.

I worry that a lot of the overheated rhetoric on talk radio and from some in the gun lobby regarding the Obama administration may lead to more incidents like this, as less stable listeners violently “defend” themselves against imaginary encroachment of their gun rights.

Yet I figure that every mass shooting that happens increases the public support for more gun control. So it seems like the those most worried about a “gun grab” are the ones leading us down that path.

Thoughts?

2

I wonder how many people died directly or indirectly from alcohol in the same period. Will this cause a resurgence in the Prohibition movement…?

That said, I have no doubt that the anti-gun crowd here on the 'dope and throughout our merry land will indeed see this as the perfect chance to swoop in and (attempt) to swipe our guns (or at least to continue to try and chip away at gun ownership) to save us all from ourselves. Whether Obama et al acts on it (which, I think he WOULD do, if he didn’t have so much on his plate atm) is uncertain…but I think that others of an anti-gun bent will certainly take up the standard and try and push it forward.

Judging by a Pit thread on this topic I’d say that the foam is already flying.

So…what you are saying is that perhaps it was the 1st Amendment that factored into this shooting, as well as the 2nd? Well…perhaps we need to look at that seriously and Do Something™ about all that nasty freedom of the press stuff, ehe?

I have to agree, there has certainly been some overheated rhetoric concerning Obama et al grabbing the guns…however, I also have to point out that the past 3 decades have taught gun rights activists that there is more than a grain of truth in the assertion that the anti-gun crowd really DOES want to try and grab all the guns, and if they could get away with it they WOULD have done so by now. And they are constantly chipping away at one of the fundamental rights granted to citizens in the formation of our country, and doing so in a deliberate fashion, even knowing that the majority of citizens don’t agree with them (at least wrt a total ban).

Well…certainly the sensational nature of the events will make it more likely the public will worry about this to the unreasonable extent that the anti-gun folks crave. People are horrible about risk assessment, and this kind of sensationalism blows tragic events such as this all out of proportion to it’s actual risk. Tragically 3 cops were killed in this event…how many were killed unnoticed during the last year in things like car accidents or other non-gun related deaths? And yet we don’t really hear about that stuff…or if we do it doesn’t get on our radar.

I’d have to disagree with you…I don’t think it’s the folks worried about a ‘gun grab’ that are leading us down this path. These are pretty much lone nutballs…isolated individuals with a tenuous grasp of reality. It’s the folks who want to GRAB the guns, and have waged a back door, under the table and pretty dirty campaign to do so for the last few decades who are very deliberately leading us down this path. That a few whack jobs like the guy in the story in the OP fulfill the expectations of the anti-gun crowd tends to say more about THEM than it does about gun ownership in general. Rather like a few whack job fanatics blowing up a mall in Israel tends to paint all Palestinians with the same broad brush…but more so.

My thoughts are that the anti-gun folks will use this tragidy as an excuse to go back on the offensive and try to continue to chip away at the right. That anti-gun 'dopers will trot out all the tired arguments anew about guns and gun owners. That there will be a fresh offensive by the anti-gun crowd to Do Something™…and that Obama et al MIGHT jump on the bandwagon (certainly those jackasses in Congress will…at least some of them). And that in the end they will run up against the same brick wall…because no matter how the anti-gun folks try and skew things, no matter how they try and magnify and blow out of proportion such incidents, the fact is that the majority of American’s don’t want their right to bear arms taken from them.

So…we’ll probably get some additional ‘regulation’ out of this, which of course will be meaningless and probably stupid, but will satisfy the anti-gun crowd and quiet down the general public…until the next time.

Or, maybe another kid will get hit in the chest by a baseball and die of heart failure, and this will capture the American people and get them all fired up for the government to Do Something(all rights reserved)!! Or, perhaps our financial system will melt down and we’ll all go back to living in caves…in which case guns might just be fairly handy tools to have…and those without may be learning the joys inherent in their anti-gun stance while looking at the business end of someone who has a different view.

-XT

3

Crazy people obsess over all kinds of things. Crazy people are also right once in a while, even when we’re talking about the objects of their obsession.
Obama’s own website indicated he is in favor of increased gun control.
The vice-president has bragged that he was the author of the Clinton-era ban.
Two of his high ranking appointed officials have spoken out recently calling for increased gun control.
The evidence does point toward our present leaders favoring increased gun control and only an unwillingness to expend political capital on it prevents them from enacting such.
All that aside, crazy people are crazy. Fulminating whackjobs will find something to fulminate over. If it wasn’t gun control, it’d be abortion, or fluoride in the drinking water, or Jews, or animal rights, or something.
Consider this whackjob. One of our worst mass-murderers_ever_and didn’t use a gun. Money, especially taxes, was his obsession. Would his victims be any less dead if he’d obsessed over racial purity or the sinister significance of pancakes?

4

Not guns ,ever. The guy who killed 14 people would have killed them with a knife if he did not find it very easy to get a gun.

5

I would agree with this statement 100%. But these “lone nuts” incidents make it easier politically to enact gun control.

6

Considering the panic from some gun owners without Obama doing anything of note yet, how will they react when the meaningless and stupid additional regulations are passed? It’ll be confirmation of their worst fears, right? I’d expect the rhetoric to become even crazier, and for even more “lone nuts” to come out of the woodwork. Worst case scenario, we’d end up in a feedback loop leading to greater violence and greater regulation.

7

I’ll just add, I’m not a gun owner, but I have no problem with people owning guns. I grew up in a house with guns, I’ve learned how to handle guns, guns don’t bother me.

I don’t have a problem with regulations like gun registration. Waiting periods, eh, they don’t bother me, and I wouldn’t think it was a big deal if they didn’t exist.

I think the 2nd Amendment prohibits gun bans, and any serious gun control effort would have to be through a constiutional amendment to rescind the 2nd Amendment.

I’ll admit that I don’t think about gun control enough to confidently debate these positions.

8

Gods know…probably not well. They will see this as a resumption of the attack by the anti-gun crowd that has been ongoing for the past few decades, and this will pretty much meet their own expectations…just as events like this trigger the same kind of smug ‘See? I knew I was right!’ reaction from the anti-gun crowd when this kind of low probability event is sensationalized by the press.

Of course. But…so what? The vast majority of them are fairly stable. As to the nut balls…who knows what will or won’t set them off? They are NUTS…anything could trigger them into this kind of thing.

Hell, skimming the story it seems it’s possible the economy had a factor in setting him off as well. Also, the mere fact that Obama is president seems to have been a factor. Maybe it was the color blue or what he had for breakfast…or maybe he got a speeding ticket once and just really hated cops. The point though is that ANYTHING could set off such a person…they are, by definition, unstable.

Ok. How many such nutballs came out of the wood work because Bush invaded Iraq? I mean, a LOT of them…but how many were unstable enough to do something crazy? Not many. Same with abortion…any time the whack jobs on either side of that issue think things are changing they get all hot and bothered. But…only a very few actually go off the deep end and do something spectacular.

I doubt it. Guess we’ll see. Myself, I think that short of ACTUALLY trying to grab the guns the vast majority of people are just going to rant and rave. The number of nutters out there is pretty small…as are the potential triggers that can send one of them around the bend.

-XT

9

xtisme you have several times referred to the curtailing of gun rights over the past 3 decades.

I’m curious, what guns did you own three decades ago that you have had to give up? What guns would you want to own that you cannot because of gun control laws?

I’m just trying to get the measure of the loss of rights over the past 3 decades you have been going on about here.

10

I said that the anti-gun crowd has TRIED to curtail rights for the past 3 (or so) decades. They have not been universally successful, though they have had some success, especially with hand guns and with the so called AWB legislature. They have tried numerous OTHER initiatives during that period however, some without as much success.

Well, a couple of things here Hentor. First off, I don’t actually own a gun…haven’t since my kids were born in fact. And I have no desire TOO own one at this time either. My desire is that I have the RIGHT to own one, if I so choose.

Bit of a subtle difference there. Sort of like my purely academic desire for freedom of religion…being an agnostic and all it’s not exactly a burning personal question but more of a philosophic one.

As to what guns actual gun owners may want that they can’t get, I’d point at things like the AWB and at some of the complete or partial bans of all guns (or hand guns) in places like DC. If I were a gun advocate who wanted a gun in, say, DC (as an example) then my answer would be ‘how about ANY guns?’.

I’m not being insulting here, but really I’m not sure you can understand the point of view of the gun owners on this one. There have certainly been a loss of potential gun types (and even classes depending on where you live) over that time period…but it’s been the constant low grade, back door, sneaky and often underhanded erosion by the anti-gun crowd that has had the effect I’m talking about. To put it into context, it’s sort of like the folks who have tried to get abortion outlawed and have been wearing away at the issue for decades…except that the anti-gun group is a lot bigger and better organized (and funded). Or like the people who are constantly trying to get Creationism or ID into the school system by hook or by crook. It’s a constant, wearing struggle against this kind of thing, and even if the victories by the side of evil (just kidding…though I really think the folks trying to push through Creationism and ID ARE pretty much evil bastards) are small, they set precedence that worry the folks fighting against them.

-XT

11

See, what I think is going on is that you are spouting rhetoric about the constant erosion of gun rights, but you are unable to enumerate anything specific. I don’t think you have a clue as to the actual changes in gun rights in this country over the past 30 years, but because one side of the argument claims that there has been such, you have bought it and have chosen to repeat it.

12

It’s funny when you think that when he mentioned specifics.
Why, do you think, you’ve ignored the specifics in order to claim that he’s just spouting mindless propaganda?

13

I seriously doubt the casualties would have been as high if the guy used a knife.

14

Who are you trying to fool here exactly? See, what I think is that you are playing games. I of course DID point out several (general) examples…you know, such as the Assault Weapons Ban (did you miss it?). If you want specifics I’m sure that I could dig them up if I really wanted to…and had you asked in a way that showed you were actually curious about the answer and were actually engaged in the debate I probably would be willing to do so. Since you are neither of those things however I think I’ll let you carry on carrying on.

-XT

15

Where was he specific? You mean, when he said he’d point to the AWB? That’s specific?

Or when he pointed out community decisions about guns, like in DC? I didn’t know he lived in DC, or that DC’s decisions reflected federal gun grabs.

There have been no specifics offered as to which weapons he would want but cannot have because of the 3 decades of erosions.

Do you have some examples reflecting this constant 3 decades of erosions?

16

You’ve been attempting to portray a period of 30 years of constant erosion in the rights of gun owners, but all you can do is point to one thing during that time period, and you cannot even describe any particular way that that act affected your rights or the rights of a gun owner in general.

If that’s all you’ve got, you don’t have 30 years of constant erosions. Be specific, or quit spreading persecution nonsense.

ETA: I am quite serious in wanting to know what you cannot own now that you could own in 1979, and why I should be concerned that that is some fundamental abrogation of your rights.

17

Maybe I can help:
Just Federal stuff, state and local laws will vary:

1968 Gun Control Act- made it illegal to buy guns mail order. Added additional groups of people to the list of those prohibited from owning firearms.

1972- BATF created. The Treasury Department’s division formerly in charge of collecting certain taxes doubled in size and began its troubled history of firearms law enforcement. This agency gets to interpret such ambiguities as “legitimate sporting purpose.”

1986 - Firearms Owners Protection Act. Closed the machinegun registry.

1989- Bush I executive order bans 43 diferent semiautomatic weapons from importation

1990 Crime Control Act- gave us “gun free” school zones. “Drug free” one too. Also outlawed the assembly of illegal (as determined by BATF) semiautomatic rifles or shotguns from legally imported parts.

1994 Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act - 5 day waiting period and background check. Superseded by NICS.

1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act- the infamous Assault Weapons Ban.

1998- Clinton issues executive order banning the importation of 50 different semiautomatic guns.

18

A specific piece of legislation that applied to a specific set of guns with specific results and methods of enforcement?
Naw, totally general.
Same with DC’s unconstitutional gun ban.

Put down the goalposts and back away slowly.
He doesn’t have to live in DC to note that its ban was wrong. He was also referring to the DC ban as another in a long line of attempting to limit gun rights. Which is 100% correct.

:rolleyes:
Come on, play straight.
Why not look at the AWB, and then figure out all the very specific guns which were very specifically outlawed and you could not get due to their scary cosmetic features?

19

Please tell me which weapon is banned that you wanted to have. Why is it’s ban particularly troubling as an infringement upon your rights?

Why is this so hard to achieve? Can’t you tell me straight out, without derailing into snarky remarks?

20

Gun owners per se won’t; psychos with guns might. Seriously, WTF has been going on the past 30 days or so? We’ve gone from one notorious gun spree every couple of years to a recent average of one a week. Random statistical blip? The economy?