Including the fact that you brought her up, and use her as the poster child for gun control measures, nothing you have said about her is consistent with not having visceral negative emotional reaction to her very being.
But it had to be stopped, lest the evil Feinstein get any of her way on anything, right? :rolleyes: That’s pretty much what you’re saying.
Did you forget claiming to be in favor of restricting criminals and the mentally ill from gun ownership? You could scroll up and refresh yourself.
So no, you don’t understand why you have a credibility issue here. A little thought would help you substantially.
Especially considering that those with direct personal experience of the consequences of virtually-unlimited gun availability in fact understand *more *about the subject than those to whom the deaths of others are abstractions, or even “insignificant”.
I acknowledge that California, Chicago, New York, New Jersey, and other places are significantly more liberal than the rest of the country with respect to gun laws.
There’s still a significant portion of the country’s population that lives in these areas - including me. What’s the point? It’s okay because it only affects the 30 million people in CA, and the whatever other million people that live in the other areas? It’s real here. You can’t hand wave it away by dismissing the largest state in the union (by population) and all the other ones as well. In addition, places like CA and the restrictive laws here are often used as examples of the types of laws and control measures that gun control advocates favor.
Consider DC. After Heller, DC attempted to comply with the ruling by allowing purchase of some handguns. You know what they did? They copied the California law on “not unsafe handguns” and implemented it. Of course, the pistol that Dick Heller wanted to purchase and was the basis for that lawsuit, was not on the list and was still banned.
I’m not arguing that it isn’t real. I’m arguing that it’s obvious the rest of the country isn’t going to adopt the kind of gun laws they have in California or New York or DC because the country at large is more conservative politically, and on gun issues, than California or New York or DC.
So where does that leave all the people that live in these areas that are dominated by gun control advocates? They, and I still have a place to push back against these ideas and laws. And you know, it’s not enough to rely on the current political makeup of other areas. Things change over time and constant vigilance is needed.
The thing is, I and many like me consider gun rights to be a civil right. More broadly, the right to arms for self defense is a civil right. You wouldn’t acquiesce to same sex marriage being banned only in some states because other states have legalized it. So while I don’t think TX is going to ban guns any time soon, that doesn’t mean that the fight for gun rights isn’t real in many many other places.
According to one source mentioned in this article, the amount of money available for gun violence research is about a quarter of what it used to be.
I’m not familiar enough with the average grant size in this field and how many researchers it would support, but my gut feeling is that a $4 grant over two years would not actually go that far. For comparison, my former PI in computational biology brought in grants in the $200,000-$11 million range, with most of them lasting about 5 years.
When CDC funding was cut, it had only spent $2.6 million on firearms research the previous year (same citation as above). But, the CDC’s total budget request for 2015 was $6.6 billion, including $194 for injury prevention and control. So, that gives you a sense of the relative scale of the money that the CDC could potentially direct towards this problem.
For what it’s worth, it’s not just the lack of funding, but the funding uncertainty that drives people away. Academic researchers need to be reasonably sure that they can keep bringing in funding to support their research and their students, and to be attractive job candidates. If they can’t do that in a particular field, they are likely to leave for greener pastures just for the sake of their own job prospects.
In other words, you cannot simultaneously push back against local laws you don’t like and support much more moderate federal provisions? I thought you were saying this was a really well organized group.
Conversely, would you condemn the laws in these liberal areas as too far on the spectrum? But yes, if there were something I thought had merit I would support it.
I don’t think gun rights advocates are a monolithic group. The NRA only claims membership of a fraction of gun owners. If they were a monolithic group, they would wield even more political power. But as a civil right, the fight is at the federal level. We push in CA but argue in the 9th circuit. The aim is to get rulings at SCOTUS to apply nation wide. The local laws give an avenue to do that.
I don’t object to them but I don’t think they should be federal law.
You’ll pardon me if I struggle to believe this. You can see another typical anti-gun law tactic in this thread: water down a law until it’s useless, then reject it on the grounds that it wouldn’t do anything. If there are laws you would support, explain what they would look like.
They have enough power to swing Congressional races and kill any piece of federal legislation they want, and for at least a couple of elections they scared Democrats away from even touching the issue on a federal level. You can’t really get any more power than that. They don’t need or want more people.
Interesting take on it. I’m mildly curious what happens when home 3D printers become widely available and anyone can make a functional utilitarian very un-fancy gun which is good for only a few shots, for emergency home defense.
A law will probably be passed that will force manufacturers of said machines to hardwire them not to make guns, pretty much the same way copiers prevent you from printing up your own money. What I’m curious about is what lobbying groups will fight such measures.
Yes, the NRA is powerful because of their existing members. But it’s incorrect to say they don’t always want more. Getting people who support gun rights to join the NRA is a major focus of their mailings and publications. I can tell you this as a member.
Polls show that although there are only a few million NRA members, there are millions more who consider themselves members even though they aren’t active and don’t pay dues. The NRA would love to get these people signed up officially.
You can’t have it both ways. The original claim was that Eddie the Eagle was nothing more than a sort of PSA for kids, and liberals opposed it solely because it was an NRA thing. That study details all the ways it was more than that and opposes it on those grounds.
You’re right; of course they always want more money. I’ll put it another way: with whatever portion of gun owners they already have in their pocket, they control the debate and the politicians. Republicans are terrified of crossing them, and Democrats know it’s not worth their while. They would doubtless like the membership revenue, but as I’ve already repeatedly cited, they were able to kill a bill that 90% of the public supports. Perhaps they’ll eventually alienate people by being extremists, but they’re about as effective as they could be right now. So they don’t really need anybody else.
I’m not sure how to interpret this. On the one hand you state that CA and other places are outliers and people shouldn’t be concerned that those types of restrictions would be passed more broadly. But then you also don’t object to them, so presumably if they were proposed in other areas you would be okay with that.
How about:
[ul]
[li]Mandating NICS reporting both at the state level from health care providers (like we do with mandatory reporters for child abuse) and requiring states to submit to NICS.[/li][li]End the war on drugs. This alone would reduce violent crime more than anything else.[/li][li]Allow NICS checks to private parties. Not sure all the ramifications of this one, but on its face it seems like it could be okay.[/li][/ul] Or…this. Though I would update #1 to eliminate the waiting period.
I want them to be more powerful. I want an organization that will sue every violating locality into submission or bankrupt them for passing crap laws.
If you read through those claims they are ridiculous. In no way is Eddie Eagle to guns like Joe Camel is to cigarettes. It’s a preposterous claim that is silly on it’s face.
It’s clear from reading through their “case” that the Violence Policy Center (an anti-gun group) opposes the program because it’s done by the NRA. According to their worldview anything the NRA does is evil, even something as benign as a non political gun safety program for kids.