4 ms·

In the abstract, yes, virtually everyone agrees with "wouldn't it be great if bad people couldn't get guns". The problem is the moment it becomes specific a lot

by s_m_t 7y ago

In the abstract, yes, virtually everyone agrees with "wouldn't it be great if bad people couldn't get guns". The problem is the moment it becomes specific a lot of the support is lost.

jacobolus 7y ago
People agree with the specifics too, until the media outlets they watch start pumping out misinformation about whatever the specific proposal says. After a few weeks of watching their favorite pundits bloviate, many people’s “personal preferences” change.
ajross 7y ago
Seems like exactly the opposite is true. Where specific bills have reached the floor, they've passed. The tactics of the opposition are to use procedural control and veto power to prevent these from becoming laws. The assault weapons ban of 1994 was a successful law, and would have removed access to almost all the weapons used in the recent attacks. It had a sunset provision, and expired in 2004. But it passed, and it worked. It's a common founding myth among gun rights people that "The American People" are pro-gun, but it's just not really true. It's a particular driving issue for a particular subset of the republican base, and beyond that opinions aren't as strong, but are broadly pro-gun-control.
- s_m_t 7y ago
  I was under the impression that the 1994 ban targeted specific models of firearm and silly features like pistol grips, flash suppressors, and bayonets (I might be confusing this with a california ban). The whole "Assault weapon" thing is considered something of a joke to a lot of firearm enthusiasts. For example, the ruger mini 14 wasn't legally considered an "Assault weapon" (but would be considered one if it had a collapsible stock? might be a myth idk this is what some people claim) despite it being a well regarded semi-automatic rifle which was also used in an infamous shootout with the fbi to devestating effect.
  - ajross 7y ago
    > might be a myth idk this is what some people claim It was a flawed list of too-specific rules that were self-contradictory or incomplete in a bunch of places, and indeed that became part of the mythology about it in gun circles. But it also directly outlawed clones of the Kalashnikov and AR-15 rifles that have been preferentially used (for fairly obvious reasons) in much of the recent violence. It worked, within its domain. No one likes the ACA either, but you can still buy insurance with a pre-existing condition. Same deal. The gun folks like to conflate "flawed law" with "useless law", but that's not how it works in practice.
- ufmace 7y ago
  That's total nonsense. The AWB accomplished nothing at all, and did not remove access to any weapons for anybody. It banned specific models of weapons and a few specific features that don't correlate to anything in particular. Manufacturers basically instantly made minor modifications and kept selling the exact same thing.
  - sk5t 7y ago
    Seconding your assertion that the AWB was ineffective. It barred certain cosmetic features--some malarkey about muzzle brakes and folding stocks or foregrips or whatnot. While doing nothing to diminish the availability of equally potent weapons. 100% toothless, feel-good legislation.
untog 7y ago
It's worth pointing out that the House passed the "Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019" back in February, and that Republican leadership in the Senate refuses to bring it to a vote. I have not heard of any House representatives facing enormous backlash at home over their vote. As it is, the House is more representative of the population of the US than the Senate, so it's fair to say the biggest barrier to increased gun control right now is the quirky nature of the US political system, not popular sentiment.
- s_m_t 7y ago
  I wasn't aware of that, thanks.
- tomschlick 7y ago
  > Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019 That bill would do nothing to combat these mass shooters. I can't think of any offhand that have bought their weapons through private sale. Most don't have a criminal record so they just buy them from random gun shops. So if it won't solve anything related to these incidents, what's the point?
  - untog 7y ago
    There are many types of gun crime in the US. Background checks would help with a lot of individual murders, particularly in domestic cases where one partner has already been arrested for domestic abuse. No, it wouldn't solve everything. But if we wait to pass a law that solves everything, we'll never pass anything.
    - tomschlick 7y ago
      I guess I would need to see numbers on how many murders use a gun that was bought by a prohibited person through private sale. I highly doubt its anything significant.
      - untog 7y ago
        So your presumption is that all the people calling for background checks and that have drafted and passed a complete background check law have not considered any of this, or looked at any data? And despite not actually knowing yourself you're comfortable dismissing it as something you "highly doubt"?

by s_m_t 7y ago

In the abstract, yes, virtually everyone agrees with "wouldn't it be great if bad people couldn't get guns". The problem is the moment it becomes specific a lot of the support is lost.

jacobolus 7y ago

People agree with the specifics too, until the media outlets they watch start pumping out misinformation about whatever the specific proposal says. After a few weeks of watching their favorite pundits bloviate, many people’s “personal preferences” change.

ajross 7y ago

Seems like exactly the opposite is true. Where specific bills have reached the floor, they've passed. The tactics of the opposition are to use procedural control and veto power to prevent these from becoming laws. The assault weapons ban of 1994 was a successful law, and would have removed access to almost all the weapons used in the recent attacks. It had a sunset provision, and expired in 2004. But it passed, and it worked. It's a common founding myth among gun rights people that "The American People" are pro-gun, but it's just not really true. It's a particular driving issue for a particular subset of the republican base, and beyond that opinions aren't as strong, but are broadly pro-gun-control.

s_m_t 7y ago
I was under the impression that the 1994 ban targeted specific models of firearm and silly features like pistol grips, flash suppressors, and bayonets (I might be confusing this with a california ban). The whole "Assault weapon" thing is considered something of a joke to a lot of firearm enthusiasts. For example, the ruger mini 14 wasn't legally considered an "Assault weapon" (but would be considered one if it had a collapsible stock? might be a myth idk this is what some people claim) despite it being a well regarded semi-automatic rifle which was also used in an infamous shootout with the fbi to devestating effect.
- ajross 7y ago
  > might be a myth idk this is what some people claim It was a flawed list of too-specific rules that were self-contradictory or incomplete in a bunch of places, and indeed that became part of the mythology about it in gun circles. But it also directly outlawed clones of the Kalashnikov and AR-15 rifles that have been preferentially used (for fairly obvious reasons) in much of the recent violence. It worked, within its domain. No one likes the ACA either, but you can still buy insurance with a pre-existing condition. Same deal. The gun folks like to conflate "flawed law" with "useless law", but that's not how it works in practice.
ufmace 7y ago
That's total nonsense. The AWB accomplished nothing at all, and did not remove access to any weapons for anybody. It banned specific models of weapons and a few specific features that don't correlate to anything in particular. Manufacturers basically instantly made minor modifications and kept selling the exact same thing.
- sk5t 7y ago
  Seconding your assertion that the AWB was ineffective. It barred certain cosmetic features--some malarkey about muzzle brakes and folding stocks or foregrips or whatnot. While doing nothing to diminish the availability of equally potent weapons. 100% toothless, feel-good legislation.

untog 7y ago

It's worth pointing out that the House passed the "Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019" back in February, and that Republican leadership in the Senate refuses to bring it to a vote. I have not heard of any House representatives facing enormous backlash at home over their vote. As it is, the House is more representative of the population of the US than the Senate, so it's fair to say the biggest barrier to increased gun control right now is the quirky nature of the US political system, not popular sentiment.

s_m_t 7y ago
I wasn't aware of that, thanks.
tomschlick 7y ago
> Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019 That bill would do nothing to combat these mass shooters. I can't think of any offhand that have bought their weapons through private sale. Most don't have a criminal record so they just buy them from random gun shops. So if it won't solve anything related to these incidents, what's the point?
- untog 7y ago
  There are many types of gun crime in the US. Background checks would help with a lot of individual murders, particularly in domestic cases where one partner has already been arrested for domestic abuse. No, it wouldn't solve everything. But if we wait to pass a law that solves everything, we'll never pass anything.
  - tomschlick 7y ago
    I guess I would need to see numbers on how many murders use a gun that was bought by a prohibited person through private sale. I highly doubt its anything significant.
    - untog 7y ago
      So your presumption is that all the people calling for background checks and that have drafted and passed a complete background check law have not considered any of this, or looked at any data? And despite not actually knowing yourself you're comfortable dismissing it as something you "highly doubt"?