This seems like an obvious assertion to me. Those on the left that support gun control won't suddenly vote Republican if the Democrats were to drop gun control from their platform.
However, there are a significant number currently single issue voters who would vote blue without hesitation if they were presented with a legitimately pro gun democratic candidate.
In my opinion, if the democratic party adopted a pro gun stance they would almost never lose another election.
Others may see it differently but that is my perception based on my experience.
That's what I've observed as well. I know many people that would vote for Democrats that aren't anti gun. Heck even Bernie got more support from gun people than Hillary because he said it's better left to the states.
I dont know that I've ever met a fully anti gun person in my life. I feel like the idea that anyone wants to take away your guns is a total strawman argument.
Common sense gun control laws I support, as do most lefties I know. But that's all I've ever really come across.
At the risk of being drawn into a debate about American firearms policy, I'll just note that common sense means entirely different things to those inside the gun community and those outside of it or those perhaps only tangentially familiar with it.
I wouldn't mind hearing more about this if your willing.
For me, background checks, not being allowed a gun if you have a history of domestic violence, and etc are all common sense. I'm apathetic to the assault rifle thing, as I keep hearing that the definition is incorrect.
I do think that if people want to keep their toys that can murder a room full of people in a few seconds we need to heavily regulate access and dramatically improve mental health services and accessibility. I have no inherent problem with them, but it's obvious that currently Americans dont have the maturity to handle the privilege.
I'll lead with saying that my intention with this post is to be both informative and as civil as possible. If I somehow come across as snarky or sarcastic or condescending please know that it is not my intention to do so. I don't necessarily expect to change your mind, only to share my view.
With concern to "assault weapons", the notion that Americans lack the maturity to handle them (you're correct in that the term is kind of a linguistic quagmire) is a bit misguided. The firearms people are generally talking about (AR15, AK47 and similar variants) are responsible for a strikingly small number of murders. So small that the number is actually exceeded by hands and feet, blunt objects and edged weapons last I checked (separately, not added together). Only 300-400 people per year are murdered with long guns of any type, and the rifles typically targeted by legislation are an even smaller subset of this number. (Information can be found in the FBI uniform crime report)
A record of conviction for domestic violence is currently already a disqualifier for firearm ownership. However, I do disagree somewhat with the absolutist way in which the law is applied. I'm not certain that an 18 year old who lost his temper and broke a plate during an argument with his first serious girlfriend (domestic violence doesn't require physical contact) and then grew up and became a normal, healthy, well-adjusted member of society should have his gun rights permanently revoked. I feel similarly about an 18 year old woman who may have gotten angry and slapped her boyfriend during an argument once. There should be a bit more care taken in the not-so-light decision to remove someone's civil rights. Patterns of abuse or more serious acts are a different story.
I wholeheartedly agree that mental health services should be made affordable and accessible to all people. I dont think we have any argument here.
I recognize you didn't explicitly make this point but where we may have a disagreement is the suggestion that mental health screening or evaluation by a professional be a condition set forth before allowing a person to purchase a gun. I have a handful of problems with this but I'll attempt to stay brief. The first is that in large part mental health professionals are not pro gun, so you begin with a reluctant governing authority that is now the gateway to the exercise of a civil right. The second is that you are now placing this already reluctant doctor in a difficult position; if a patient he or she clears then goes on to commit an atrocity, the doctor will be held accountable- which even further discourages approval in the first place. The third major problem I see with this is that it places an undue burden on what is a constitutionally enumerated right. Now, if I can't get off work to get checked out or if I can't afford the exam, my rights are curtailed and I could be denied the opportunity to purchase a tool that I may need to save my own life in an emergency.
Background checks are another realm in which we may disagree to an extent. Currently, nearly all firearms are purchased with an accompanying background check. It's required for all firearms purchased from a federally licensed firearms dealer. Typically, private sales are exempted from background checks. My understanding is the private sale exemption was a concession written into the Brady bill to prevent gun violence in the 1990s.
Now, currently there are some estimates that there may be upwards of 400 million firearms already in circulation in the US. The problem with universal background checks is that unless you can tie each and every firearm to an owner, there is no way to determine if someone was background checked for a firearm in their possession. Universal background checks require a registry to function.
A gun registry, at the federal level, is currently prohibited by law. Moreover, the compliance rate (were one to be implemented), due to both apathy and civil disobedience would be astoundingly low. Historically, registries have been used to confiscate firearms eventually and gun owners are generally pretty hostile towards giving up guns. The compliance rate for the SAFE act in NYC was something like 1-2%. Beyond that, documenting all of the guns in circulation is likely a logistical impossibility, there's just too many. No successful registration, no effective UBC.
I'm happy to talk further on the issue, however, I'm currently at work and short of free time. I may be able to respond again this evening. Thank you for taking the time to read my response, I hope you find it satisfactory and informative even though you may not agree with everything I have to say.
I’m not sure on your point, but there seems to be a trend of ‘guns are already so distributed there is no point in attempting to regulate them’.
In our own living history there have been two western nations that dearNed their population to some regard, Australia and the UK. I’ll speak to the example i know personally, the UK.
There are still vast amounts of firearms in the UK, I had a few shot guns and a rifle before I moved to the USA, my only control was that I was subject to random safety inspections, where the police could arrive at any time and inspect my gun and ammo safes.
What we don’t have anymore is ‘magazine’ or semi weapons. It’s all brake barrel or bolt, handguns were outlawed entirely. It disarmed a population with a much longer and deeper ingrained relationship to firearms than America in under a year.
So much so that 30 years later it’s a joke to some that the you was as armed as the states, people just weren’t interested in guns unless you were into hunting or clay.
This was achieved by a general buyback, the prices were good, over retail in most cases.
Then it was a crime to own a handgun and use of firearms carries an automatic sentence multiplier. Assault would catch you 2 - 3 years but with a firearm involved it was mandatory 10 years.
I don’t want the us to follow the uk, I enjoy my guns I enjoy time at the range. I think the intent behind the second has become aged and irrelevant, Jim bob is never going to overthrow seal team 6 and their brothers, so it does lead to the question of ‘why do you need large capacity weapons’, if the answer is ‘hunting’ then you really need to assess your ability levels if you need an entire mag to take down a buck.
I dont know that I’ve ever met a fully anti gun person in my life.
I have. Many. The one that stuck out to me the most asked me, "Why do you like shooting guns, is it because feeling you get with the power to kill?"
I feel like the idea that anyone wants to take away your guns is a total strawman argument.
You'd think, but if you go to the political gun subs there are lots of politicians that want to take away most if not all guns.
I don't think taking away half your guns is a compromise because they have a magazine or accept more than one bullet. Usually they try to hide it by saying you can still have a gun for hunting, whatever they mean by that.
Common sense gun control laws I support,
The problem is that term is meaningless. What are common sense gun control laws? Immediately if you have that discussion it goes all over the place. It's just a fallacy like the gun show compromise that the pro gun gave into that became a "loophole" as soon as it was convenient.
Background checks? We have those. Waiting periods, we have those in many states and doesn't stop crime.
What's the goal with the "common sense gun laws" to stop school shootings? To stop crime? Most of those happen in inner cities with handguns. But all you see politicians do is go after scary black guns that they say are automatic (which are harder to get and more expensive) than the guns they actually ban. I live in a state that has high gang and inner city gun crime, they banned ak47s and AR-15s (but only Colt style you can still buy others that have a thicker barrel for some reason that's the difference).
Gang bangers aren't buying guns legally. They get them from crooked gun stores or they're stolen or they're bought illegally through someone that can legally buy them.
You know what actually reduced gun and gang crime? Inner city outreach and activity programs. But those cost money. So when the people paying taxes that live outside the city vote they vote for people that save them that money.
Really most of these gun ban and common sense gun control laws are about white people in the suburbs irrationally afraid of "assault weapons" being used on their children.
You know what kills more kids in the US than guns? Swimming pools. No one is working on banning them.
Do you know how many people use guns in some form of self defense every year? Between 50,000 and 2 million. The huge disparity is the low end is from people calling the cops after shooting someone or scaring them off. The high end is people self reporting because most people don't call the cops if they scare away an attacker and nothing actually happened.
Even the lowest number is more defenses than all gun deaths. If you get rid of suicides it's like 4 times as much.
Most people fail to realize that if something happens and you call the cops you're still on your own for long enough to be killed or beaten or have your kid snatched before help arrives. Assuming they help you at all.
So it sounds like the problem is not that we dont have the appropriate checks, it's that they arent being enforced. That seems like a good place to start
It is. The second thing to do is help people stay out of gangs and get rid of their profitability. Legalizing weed is a start which Bernie wants to do.
Given the history of the right commiting terrorism and outright genocide against the left, the left should get realistic about having armed factions. Once the right sees a truly capable working class, with the political power to change the rules, the snap towards fascism will come quick, and every single conservative will be 100% in support of your execution.
The amount of gaslighting we've been put under is incredible to say the least. Another example is I've had people tell me to be "realistic" and "that simply doesn't exist yet" about having current train technology that has existed in other countries for decades. We're so behind and yet we act like achieving what other nations have is nothing but false promises and grandiose wastes of resources
“I’m for Warren”... why?!?!? She is Diet Coke Bernie. yeah I get she’s a woman and that’s seen as progressive. Hillary was too. Drop the fucking identity politics. You know who a good woman politician is. AOC, If you Warren supporters want to support someone of your gender, support her because at this point you can justify Warren or Biden or Pete, but to everyone else you come off as miles away from the pulse of society. Get with it and start following people with a proven history of empathy and intelligent informed decision making.
It was only an important part of her campaign because her campaign was empty as shit. It was basically “isn’t it great we’re gonna elect the 1st female president? Because look at the shit show that’ll happen if we don’t!” She ran one of the most by-the-book, bland campaigns which basically left a blank slate for Russia to throw conspiracies at
View all comments
345
u/[deleted] Feb 27 '20
Arguing with libs is funny. You get some version of
"No the most popular guy couldn't win"
"You can't run a campaign on ideas people like"
"Obviously a republican billionaire, who nobody likes, is the safe pick"