4 ms·

> Except when sensible restrictions on gun buying are propsed [sic], that same lobby loses their mind and immediately opposes it. My understanding is that they

> Except when sensible restrictions on gun buying are propsed [sic], that same lobby loses their mind and immediately opposes it. My understanding is that they don't think the sensible restrictions will stay sensible, but rather they'll be stepping stones to heavy restrictions or outright bans. That's not an unreasonable attitude given that ultimate goal of gun control advocates tend towards the latter.

dbt00 9y ago
You know what the best way is to make sure that happens? Equate the two for so long that when the gun control lobby eventually wins people fail to give credit to your arguments. My personal opinion -- the current constitutional regime is a historical oddity and unlikely to persist. Unrestricted access to purchase battlefield weapons like the AR-15, lack of centralized records of gun owner permits, prohibitions on digitizing gun ownership records for criminal investigations, and disallowing research into understanding outbreaks in gun violence are all morally indefensible policies. I don't trust an organization who conflates defense of those policies with fighting mass gun confiscation.
- Washuu 9y ago
  "battlefield weapons like the AR-15" The AR-15 is only popular among enthusiasts because it is basically a Lego set of the firearm world. Historically every style of weapon that gun owners have has been used extensively on the battlefield. If the AR-15 is banned then another rifle/pistol building platform will be popularized and replace it. Attempting to ban a weapon on certain visual features or other features that do not affect its firing operation are meaningless.
simonh 9y ago
If the sensible restrictions worked, nobody would be talking about heavy restrictions or bans. Wanting to solve the massive gun violence problem in America is not unreasonable.
- Chaebixi 9y ago
  > If the sensible restrictions worked, nobody would be talking about heavy restrictions or bans. I'm not so sure, since it really depends on how you define success. I'd wager strict gun control advocates would define it as something fairly extreme, like "an end to gun violence," which could only be achieved by extreme, not "sensible," restrictions. > Wanting to solve the massive gun violence problem in America is not unreasonable. True, but unfortunately we're also suffering from an extreme lack of trust. You're not going to see compromises unless that trust is rebuilt from both sides. Until then, the best you're going to get is opportunistic exploitation of temporary situational strength.
  - simonh 9y ago
    I’m a foreigner, ignore me at will, but personally I’d want to make a deal. You’re never going to eliminate all gun deaths, criminals will always find ways to get guns, so let’s set an achievable goal. 5 years to halve gun deaths in America, or all automatic and semi automatic weapons get banned. You can set whatever laws you like, it’s your problem, you fix it. If you think it’s a mental health issue, fine, you get whatever funding you need to address it. That would still be 50% more gun deaths per capita than the European countries with the loosest gun controls and highest levels of gun ownership. It’s 2.5x Israel and is higher than Nicaragua.

dbt00 9y ago

You know what the best way is to make sure that happens? Equate the two for so long that when the gun control lobby eventually wins people fail to give credit to your arguments. My personal opinion -- the current constitutional regime is a historical oddity and unlikely to persist. Unrestricted access to purchase battlefield weapons like the AR-15, lack of centralized records of gun owner permits, prohibitions on digitizing gun ownership records for criminal investigations, and disallowing research into understanding outbreaks in gun violence are all morally indefensible policies. I don't trust an organization who conflates defense of those policies with fighting mass gun confiscation.

Washuu 9y ago
"battlefield weapons like the AR-15" The AR-15 is only popular among enthusiasts because it is basically a Lego set of the firearm world. Historically every style of weapon that gun owners have has been used extensively on the battlefield. If the AR-15 is banned then another rifle/pistol building platform will be popularized and replace it. Attempting to ban a weapon on certain visual features or other features that do not affect its firing operation are meaningless.

simonh 9y ago

If the sensible restrictions worked, nobody would be talking about heavy restrictions or bans. Wanting to solve the massive gun violence problem in America is not unreasonable.

Chaebixi 9y ago
> If the sensible restrictions worked, nobody would be talking about heavy restrictions or bans. I'm not so sure, since it really depends on how you define success. I'd wager strict gun control advocates would define it as something fairly extreme, like "an end to gun violence," which could only be achieved by extreme, not "sensible," restrictions. > Wanting to solve the massive gun violence problem in America is not unreasonable. True, but unfortunately we're also suffering from an extreme lack of trust. You're not going to see compromises unless that trust is rebuilt from both sides. Until then, the best you're going to get is opportunistic exploitation of temporary situational strength.
- simonh 9y ago
  I’m a foreigner, ignore me at will, but personally I’d want to make a deal. You’re never going to eliminate all gun deaths, criminals will always find ways to get guns, so let’s set an achievable goal. 5 years to halve gun deaths in America, or all automatic and semi automatic weapons get banned. You can set whatever laws you like, it’s your problem, you fix it. If you think it’s a mental health issue, fine, you get whatever funding you need to address it. That would still be 50% more gun deaths per capita than the European countries with the loosest gun controls and highest levels of gun ownership. It’s 2.5x Israel and is higher than Nicaragua.