BulletMagnet wrote:This makes sense, but on a related note, what are your thoughts on the NRA-backed prohibition - itself accomplished through focused defunding - on the government conducting any studies aiming to find ways to reduce gun deaths?
The general argument is that the CDC was using studies funded by gun control advocates as an alternate way of enacting new laws. This moratorium started sometime in the mid-nineties when Clinton was still in office. Keep in mind that the AWB was only a few years old, the NICS system hadn't fully come online, and many people were pissed and figured more drastic steps were on the way. I could be mistaken, but I believe the CDC said "Fuck it." and walked away when a defunding was apparent (and eventually became reality).
Personally, I don't have a problem with funding the CDC. Every group on the political spectrum has already put out studies on how guns affect the general populace. With a few notable exceptions, you can generally guess the results based on who spent the money. Like most things, YMMV depending on political leaning. With the CDC, I expect the same thing.
BulletMagnet wrote:You mention in a subsequent paragraph that the Brady campaign's original focus was on handguns, which are most often used in crimes, but that they ended up veering off into other territory. A couple of questions: 1) If a renewed effort, in direct response to the statistic you site, to stifle the flow of handguns to criminals came about, would you be less dismissive of it than the assault weapons ban? 2) Though military-style guns aren't used often in "everyday" criminal acts, I would venture a guess that they do show up a good deal more often when it comes to mass shootings and terrorist action (after all, the whole idea of both those styles of weapon and expanded magazines, etc. is to kill lots of people at once, not sneak it into a bank, threaten a teller and sneak back out), which is what most of the discussion is centering around for the moment - do you think that there's no merit to limiting the availability of these weapons just because they only tend to come into play for the most awful acts, as opposed to their more widely utilitarian handheld counterparts?
1.) Less dismissive? Of course. Support it? Yes, but not if it's bullshit. If a previously convicted criminal has a gun, it's probably either stolen from a family member, on loan from a "friend", or purchased using a straw buyer. With that, stifling the flow starts with prosecuting offenders. Get the guys doing the straw purchases. Note: The ATF regularly does sting operations where they make it obvious that it's a straw purchase, and they loooove to pull licenses if you're caught. There is an inability in this country to actually go after the stuff that matters. We'll gladly lock up a guy with a joint, but actual violent offenders seem to get off easy. The thing is, no one wants to take a good hard look at high-crime areas. It's easy to trot out gun control. It's not so easy to actually spend money on education and economic opportunities in hard-hit areas. America is wonderful about briefly throwing money at problems then walking away. Why would someone consider anything other than dealing drugs/banging when the money is good and there are literally no other opportunities other than working at Burger King for minimum wage? Lord knows I would run meth if the alternative was $8/hour.
2.) The key word there is utilitarian. At one point not long ago, handguns were considered to have no practical purpose except to knock over a 7-11. Nowadays, concealed carry is so commonplace that handguns are once again practical. The same process is now happening with ARs. The AR15-pattern rifle is, right now, the most widely produced type of firearm by a large margin. They are now commonly used for varmint hunting, 3-gun matches, and home defense. Those who want to outlaw them are really behind the curve and playing major catch-up. Personally, I'm not worried about rifle use in crimes. They constitute such a small amount of actual crime that there's basically no point and there are far more efficient ways to spend money. That being said, no one cares about statistics until they are one.
BulletMagnet wrote:I was certainly privy to a good deal of discussion to this end during the Bush years, but I also can't help but note that most of the politicians and others who most intensely supported "cracking down" on terrorist activity, civil liberties be damned, are also unabashedly pro-gun - have any of these people been taken to task by the gun owners within their electorate, or the gun lobby, in any meaningful way? If not, why do you think that is?
Probably not. Politicians are generally never taken to task for how they vote. If they were, the Snowden docs would have led to a shit ton of people getting fired on both sides of the aisle. Instead, he's hiding out and the politicians that were involved in starting mass surveillance feign shock and horror and get re-elected. That being said, the populace as a whole is generally willing to waffle on civil liberties and freedoms in some circumstances.
As long as it doesn't apply to them. I don't pay much attention to the stuff the NRA sends out, but it seems like they ignore most everything not related to guns. Well, they
are a gun lobby.
BulletMagnet wrote:Restraining orders already disqualify someone from purchasing a firearm. About once a year someone will come into our shop and be denied because they recently went through a divorce and a (most times unintentional) restraining order was not lifted when the divorce was finalized.
I'd have to hunt it down, but I recall reading that there's a way around this...forgive me for not having it on hand, though.
That I don't know. I suppose if the cops don't get around to logging it?
BulletMagnet wrote:Want to guess what happened when firearm makers were limited to 10 rounds? They built smaller pistols. Concealed carry really wasn't a mainstream thing because pistols were generally large automatics or, at best, snubbie revolvers. Then concealed carry took off in the early 2000's and by then there were tons of options.
I recall a similar back-and-forth with someone on a related issue (probably a ways back in this thread), namely gun manufacturers managing to find ways to make assault weapons that didn't technically qualify as such under the law, and also intentionally releasing product that's very easy to modify and circumvent existing law even further; chances are you're probably more disposed to leave the market to its devices than I am as it is, which is neither here nor there (at the very least I'm glad not to have seen the "well, the victims could have defended themselves if they'd all been packing heat" non-answer pop up), but especially when you make something which can wreak such havoc when used improperly or with ill intent, can gun companies really be allowed to invoke the "our only job is to move product and make money, we can't worry about anything else" catch-all justification in situations like this?
They can, and they will. They offer a legal product. Lawmakers tried writing a de facto ban without saying so and failed miserably. I see California compliant rifles as a giant middle finger to the state since, remember, California keeps a limited roster of handguns that can be sold in the state, and could very well create a long gun roster if they wanted.
The issue is that the people writing the laws don't know dick about guns. During the AWB you could have a detachable magazine and two other features on the list. Most manufacturers chose to make their stocks fixed and kept the pistol grips. Often, the bayonet lug, grenade launcher mount (lol), and flash suppressors were taken off. Bayonet lugs are useless, rifle grenades were already restricted and mounts were not common, and flash suppressors, despite what the politicians thought, don't make gunfire invisible.
Currently, in California and New York they banned pistol grips and the rifle models by name. Guess what? Companies produced NY/C compliant rifles and renamed them. The crux of the issue is that they tried banning guns based on what they looked like.
An actual ban on semi-automatic rifles is what every gun control group wants but no one can muster. The problem is that would include way too many other firearms not even close to the mythical "Assault Rifle".
BulletMagnet wrote:The black market is everyone, and, as noted before, it's trivial to build your own guns.
This summation of the gun-owning public, along with your characterization of them "having short memories", would seem to fly in the face of the NRA's constant insistence that the vast majority of gun owners are responsible and law-abiding (granted, you never claimed to be speaking for the NRA, though it claims to speak for you); one would hope that if someone was looking to obtain a gun illegally he'd have to at least look significantly harder, do so significantly more quietly and pay significantly more than he would than just going to the store or a neighbor, especially if additional controls were on the books. I'm not a gun owner, but I don't think too many of them would appreciate being told that so many of them are degenerates that no law could ever contain them; at the very least, they'd object to the weight that would give to the fringe anti-gun activists they claim to fear so much.
Nah, that's not what I meant. At this point, getting a gun is relatively simple if you're allowed to have them, and the penalties are very harsh if you have one and aren't. The ATF takes a dim view of felons possessing firearms, and an equally dim view of those who knowingly sell to felons. The "having short memories" quip is a reference to the stupidity of the 90's laws and how many seemed to forget about them once the sunset provision kicked in.
The vast majority of gun owners are law-abiding, as it goes without saying that legal gun owners are law-abiding. With my understanding of violent crime patterns, most offenders are repeat offenders rather than one-and-done. The black market statement references the fact that it is legal for anyone to build their own firearms and with the advent of 3D and 3D metal printing things will only get easier. If all semi-autos were banned today, hell, if all firearms were banned and confiscated today, anyone could still make them quite easily with off-the-shelf products. Ever seen the automatic firearms confiscated from Britain, South America, and Europe? Quite ingenious and sometimes better than factory quality. I don't see this becoming a big thing in America, but Europe will definitely see it. I believe Australia has just codified laws that forbid the possession of CAD files pertaining to firearms.
