Just as a thought experiment I’m curious how people think this would pan out. Let’s say some radical group using readily available legal firearms targeted the wealthy and powerful and successfully carried out several mass killings of politicians, millionaires and billionaires over the course of a few months. Let’s say a total of about 100 movers and shakers were killed, or the same number of people as are killed by homicides in NYC in about 3-4 months.
I your opinion would this targeted killing of the elite change anything will respect to US gun laws and access to guns?
Rather, I fear, it would lead to private militias, as rich people surrounded themselves with armed bodyguard cadres.
It might lead to laws limiting access to cheap and small handguns, specifically to keep them out of the hands of poor people. Gun shops might move upscale. “You simply must try Reynold’s for your grips, he embeds little emerald chips into the resin.”
When powerful and wealthy Americans feel threatened, the very constitutional freedoms that define our country are abandoned. It’s much bigger than mere laws.
Senator Giffords got shot in the face and not one law changed. So, no, there would be no changes to the laws, but the elite would surround themselves with bodyguards and start travelling in limousines that rival the President’s for armor. It’d look like the world in I Will Fear No Evil, in which Heinlein’s protagonist hires ex-convicts as personal security because he knows they’ll open fire on anybody who crosses their sights. Not a pleasant world.
Well, it’s tangential for many reasons, but the murders of Sharon Tate, Jay Sebring and Abigail Folger - all very prominent, wealthy people, and pretty ones, too - sparked the biggest wave of gun acquisition California had seen in decades. I’m not sure it would have been any different had the killings been exclusively gun-based.
I’m pretty sure that a successful campaign to shoot the rich and powerful would only create a grass roots groundswell of support for guns amongst the less fortunate. It would get massive, constant publicity and people would be frightened out of their wits that the country is out of control. “If the police can’t protect the rich and powerful, what chance is there that they are going to protect me and my family? I need to take my protection into my own hands.”
If we go back 48 years, there is this law that was passed in California, possibly directed partly against armed groups like the Black Panthers, and signed by Ronald Reagan.
I think it would depend critically on timing. If the assaults happened all at once and then stopped, there wouldn’t be time for a change. If they went on for a long time, the elite would withdraw and restrict access to the the areas they wanted. If it went on long enough for the elite to call their congresspeople and demand change, then maybe. Certainly as strong as the NRA is, they would be no match for a cross-section of the elite in the US. Note that it would have to be a cross-section, Bloomburg certainly qualifies as an elite and his $ can’t make an impression on gun laws in the US.
I think the premise of the OP isn’t so far off from what the actual situation is. In recent years, almost all of the noise made about gun control has been in response to mass-shootings even though they’re a fairly minor component of the overall gun violence rate. I think the major difference is that most gun violence disproportionately affects poor people by a wide margin, whereas the mass-shootings seem to be fairly equal opportunity and often happen in affluent suburbs.
Granted, part of it is that the overall crime rate has gone down, making things like inner-city gun violence a seemingly less immediate issue than it was 20-30 years ago when a lot of the gun control discussion was about those things, but I think the economic issues with regards to the victims of the two types of crimes is still a big factor.
Something caused Sarah Brady and Nancy Reagan to throw their weight behind gun control. Maybe they both read the same bit in the back of the Washington Post about some poor Black kid getting shot.
What you’re describing isn’t an escalation of violent gun crime at all, it’s nothing short of a civil insurrection / socialist revolution and would be way out of the scope of gun control. It would likely require intervention by the FBI and/or military, at least temporarily. And in the end, something like this would only strengthen the resolve & desire and legal case for individual citizens to own guns…
Lots of wealthy and powerful people have been shot and killed in the U.S. over the years (the anarchist movement around the turn of the 20th century accounted for some, and I recall some guy named Versace was murdered not that long ago), and it didn’t spark a movement by the Rich and Powerful to eliminate or drastically restrict private gun ownership.
If an anarchist or similar perceived left-wing movement started taking out the Power Elite on masse and it responded by proposing major gun controls, it’d be interesting to see if gun ownership suddenly started being perceived by the Left as a fundamental right of the downtrodden.