10 ms·

Not to get too political, but as a progressive who generally supports gun control, can someone explain to me why an "assault weapons" ban keeps coming back? Bas

by Cushman 14y ago

Not to get too political, but as a progressive who generally supports gun control, can someone explain to me why an "assault weapons" ban keeps coming back? Based on the metric of political capital:lives saved, it seems like terrible policy.

rdl 14y ago
I think it's natural to say "oh, big high profile event involved people getting shot with a scary looking gun, so let's solve the problem by banning those scary-looking guns". Add to that that almost none of the legislators or members of their staff have any actual experience with or knowledge of weapons, and it becomes easy to push bad policy. I actually think this is a brilliant plan by President Obama. Push a bunch of things (some of which no reasonable person could oppose, like the efficiency improvements in the EOs), and some things which the Republicans in the House will probably not let get out of committee or to a vote on the floor (AWB and magazine capacity limits). That way, the President gets to accomplish some things (and some of those things which have costs are things a lot of gun owners, myself included, support -- 100% NCIC checks on all transfers). The Republicans who block AWB get painted as obstructionists for blocking part of that, which hurts them from the center/left. Some Tea Party/etc. people push even wackier candidates in 2014 if the Republicans compromise on any issues at all, thus helping the Democrats in 2014, too.
- anigbrowl 14y ago
  An astute analysis - I disaagree only insofar as I think the magazine limits will prevail in some form. The AWB rpobably won't and is a political sacrifice as you say, but I think the manufacturers o such weapons are on the cusp of a long-term decline - this ad by Bushmaster [1] exemplifies what many people find repellent about gun culture/ Although gun sales are high right now and will surely rocket higher in the short term in response to these proposals, I think opposition to more regulation will decline over the longer term in the same way as opposition to gay marriage - because the sky never does get around to falling, and people get used to the idea and accept it. Incidentally, I was surprised to be reminded by the President's speech that the BATF hasn't had a full-time director the last 6 years. 1. http://cdn03.cdnwp.thefrisky.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/17/bushmaster-ad1-600x450.jpg http://cdn03.cdnwp.thefrisky.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/...
  - rdl 14y ago
    AP ammo possession is the most likely to pass; no one really cares about that. Mag limits are less likely than AP ammo. I honestly have no idea how likely or not they are to pass. I'm pretty well hedged :) AWB seems hopeless, both because it's clearly cosmetic and ineffectual and because it would have a higher cost to implement. Also, I agree the long-term trend is anti-firearms, mainly due to immigration and urbanization. However, the trend within firearms is from shotgun/lever/revolver toward "America's Rifle" (AR-15), military style accessories, tactical training, etc. I also think if you took a direct 100% popular vote right now (or especially the day after Sandy Hook), 50+% of people would vote for banning all guns. A majority of people would also support confiscating the assets of the richest 1%, etc., though.
    - MartinCron 14y ago
      I also think if you took a direct 100% popular vote right now (or especially the day after Sandy Hook), 50+% of people would vote for banning all guns. A majority of people would also support confiscating the assets of the richest 1%, etc., though. What a relief that nobody is talking about either banning all guns or confiscating assets.
    - hga 14y ago
      Mag limits would also have a terrific political cost. Not noticed by many outside the community is that most handguns for self-defense, and many if not most that are used for concealed carry, have standard magazine capacities of > 10 rounds (and almost all > 7 rounds). De jure or de facto shall issue concealed carry regimes are now in place in 42 states, and scholar Clayton Cramer and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) independently estimated this summer that there are between 7.5 and 8 million licenses outstanding (and more every day, especially as the US population ages). Screwing with these people, who tend to vote (older demographic, after all) ... is not wise. Just threatening them, as is being done now, will have costs in the coming elections.
      - rdl 14y ago
        A 10rd magazine limit basically becomes the "1911 as national handgun act of 2013". It might finally push Glock into making single-stack 9mm, .40s&w, and larger-than-36 .45acp weapons, though.
- Cushman 14y ago
  I suppose it makes sense as a bargaining chip which will be left on the table, but there's a risk it will actually pass, right? My impression has been that the 1994 AWB did real harm to the image of gun control. If I'm a Republican legislator, can't I actually threaten to vote for it?
jlgreco 14y ago
At the very least I hope they at least define it in terms of things that actually matter, not cosmetics. Most of the criticism I hear about "assault weapon" bans, aside from the standard criticism of gun laws in general, are that the things used to define "assault weapon" are largely irrelevant to functionality and that the definition amounts to "guns that look frightening". It seems to me this is a valid criticism that should be taken seriously by both sides of the aisle.
- jack-r-abbit 14y ago
  One of the conditions in the original ban was being able to attach a bayonet. Which just seems ridiculous. So you have an otherwise legal rifle... but holy crap you mounted a knife on it... bad bad bad. WTF?
  - MartinCron 14y ago
    Here's an illustration I saw in my local newspaper. Other than the collapsible stock (which makes the weapon easier to conceal) and the (separately regulated) high capacity magazine, pretty much everything is purely cosmetic. http://seattletimes.com/ABPub/2013/01/08/2020087609.jpg http://seattletimes.com/ABPub/2013/01/08/2020087609.jpg
    - jack-r-abbit 14y ago
      Exactly. And even the collapsible stock is partially cosmetic and partially functional... but only for ease of use. It does nothing to make that weapon any more deadly than any other.
      - MartinCron 14y ago
        I can kind of see the collapsible stock as a functional thing, as it makes a rifle (more powerful and accurate than a handgun) easier to carry in a concealed way, but if that's the case, you could regulate collapsible stocks separately, as well.
nthj 14y ago
because proposing a handgun ban would be political suicide. It's a purely political move: makes it look like you're "doing something" without doing the something that would be impossible or at the very least, cost a lot more political capital.
MartinCron 14y ago
I think that "assault weapons" are basically just offensive to many people's aesthetic sensibilities. What makes an assault rifle different from any other rifle is that it looks bad-ass. I think that they should (with the smaller magazine capacity) be permitted as a 1st amendment thing instead of a 2nd amendment thing.
- Cushman 14y ago
  That's... really interesting, actually. Has that argument been heard in any court, do you know?
  - MartinCron 14y ago
    I really don't think so. I've definitely never heard of it, but I'm just a casual observer.
  - hga 14y ago
    Well, something akin was tried when the Massachusetts "assault weapons" ban prohibited the use of targets in the likeness of people. So someone printed up targets with Adolph Hitler's image; the Supreme Court denied the request to take the case (http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/lawsuits.html http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/lawsuits.html).
scarmig 14y ago
Partially it's a sop. From what I hear, gun control groups are more pushing for the background checks, and the assault weapon ban is more of a cherry on top that can be given away during negotiations.
- gyardley 14y ago
  It's not the President's to give away - in this country, Congress makes the laws, not the President.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
nateabele 14y ago
(1) We need to do something. (2) This is something. (3) We should do this.
staunch 14y ago
Again, avoiding the political angle for the most part, is anyone else absolutely astounded that someone as intelligent as The President would say something like "If even one child’s life can be saved, then we need to act."? Using that logic could lead you could justify almost anything. There are literally thousands of things we could ban that would certainly save at least one child's life.
- Cushman 14y ago
  He said that for emotional effect, he obviously doesn't actually believe it. Since somehow "This is killing hundreds of children every year, we need to act" doesn't connect with people, I give it a pass.
  - staunch 14y ago
    If it was an off-the-cuff remark once I might think the same, but he's written it in his plan multiple times and said it a dozen times publicly. He may not believe this in general, but he's quite obviously serious about using this argument for his proposed legislation.
    - Cushman 14y ago
      I'm not saying it wasn't a planned remark — nothing that man says is off-the-cuff — just that it was planned for emotional effect, not as a real basis for policy. If he seemed to be actually applying that standard, I'd worry. Otherwise it just seems like he cares a lot about children, which, man, I just can't be mad at someone for that.
      - staunch 14y ago
        Well, based on your response to it, I guess it at least it has the desired effect. I find it absolutely flabbergasting that someone so smart would take the oldest political trope, "think of the children", to such an illogical extreme.
- strlen 14y ago
defilade 14y ago
Here's the calculus from the legislator's perspective: regardless of what you pass, no one will know for years if it worked. In that case you might as well do something dramatic that provides you with a big victory lap and a resume item for your next election. Gun violence is a complex problem with many variables and to really fix it would require a lot of research and carefully structured legislation. Much of it probably wouldn't work the first time either, so there would have to be some experimentation. That's not appealing to most politicians.
gyardley 14y ago
The President knows his proposal will never pass the House - hell, I doubt it's even going to come up for a vote - and he knows it sounds good to his base, who has no idea what an assault weapon is and doesn't get that actual 'assault weapons' (as opposed to scary-looking things they don't understand) haven't been legal for civilian purchase since 1986. This is just political theatre, an attempt to look like he's doing something while actually doing nothing.
- Cushman 14y ago
  Again, I generally support gun control, and I'm not looking for a political discussion about that. My question is why progressives continue to list such an absurdly poor idea next to more reasonable and effective proposals.
  - gyardley 14y ago
    And I posited that they would rather do something that looks good to the base than something reasonable and effective.
hga 14y ago
It's a reactive target of opportunity, so to speak. Josh Sugarmann, who seems to be the brain trust for the gun grabbers, had already worked up a campaign against civilian semi-auto assault rifles, based on their "scary" looks and deliberate conflation of them and real military selective fire assault rifles ("machine guns", although often it's just a 3 round burst for better control). And then the Stockton schoolyard massacre happened (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_School_massacre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_School_massacre) and off they went. (A couple of notes on things you won't get from that article: Purdy was able to legally buy his weapons with his SSI money because his crimes had always been plead down to misdemeanors; I'm also pretty sure he never passed the 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(4) criteria for a mental disbarment, so even if the NICS had existed then it wouldn't have stopped him. Great emphasis is placed on these weapons being "high powered" ... which by definition they are not. And being based on military designs the cheapest ammo is FMJ, which is also the least wounding (Hague Convention requirement to make war more "humane"). According to Martin Fackler this resulted in ER doctors excessively debreiding wounds from them, resulting in greater morbidity and mortality under the real word got out. I mention that because a lot of these efforts have very nasty unintended consequences, e.g. the whole "cop killer bullet" campaign about bullets that were never for sale to civilians did result in one thing: teaching a lot of criminals that a lot of cops wear concealable body armor....) Anyway, you're right: if you really want to save lives, and/or want to minimize damage to your political side/party/whatever, it's a terrible approach. Cost the Democrats the Congress in 1994, according to no less a political genius than Bill Clinton. Why does it keep coming back? I suppose it's viewed as low hanging fruit, easy to propagandize, and while you may "generally support gun control", a lot of gun grabbers are quite explicit about wanting to ban all guns and will take anything they can get (note, for example, how few of the current proposals would even in theory have changed the Newtown, Connecticut outcome; I mean, the police took at least 14 minutes to arrive after the first 911 call). So, again, a target of opportunity; rational policy by anyone's lights is simply not relevant.
- MartinCron 14y ago
  Friendly advice: You obviously know your stuff and you make really interesting points, but use of the incendiary and cartoonish term "gun grabbers" makes it hard to take you seriously.
AnthonyMouse 14y ago
The problem is that the politically viable alternatives are about as ineffective. Restricting the sale of things doesn't do anything about their installed base. Gun owners already own guns. They can currently do or obtain the thing you want to ban -- and every time you even mention banning something, the sales go through the roof. So, as a gun control advocate, you might want to stop doing that unless you're sufficiently positive both that you'll succeed and that your success will outweigh the instantaneous increase it causes in the installed base of the bad thing. Which is a hard calculus to accept, because of the installed base, which makes any dividends that come from a ban only accrue very slowly over a long period of time. You aren't causing certain classes of firearms to not exist anymore, or taking them away from the classes of people who already have them, you're only causing there not to be a single digit percentage more of them next year. Which is pretty weak consolation if the discussion of the ban caused there to be a large multiple of that increase this year, and most of the money that would have gone to the increase in future years just goes to the nearest analog or a purchase by proxy in the future years. Moreover, you can't identify any subset of guns that can be used to kill people and ban only those. You can kill someone just as dead just as fast with a revolver as with an AR15, and the differences between an AR15 and a hunting rifle are entirely cosmetic. And prohibiting high capacity magazines is only even theoretically productive if your sole concern is mass shootings, which are such a small percentage of gun violence that it's very hard to take seriously as a meaningful reform. The problem is that real gun control, i.e. going into peoples homes and taking away all their existing firearms, is comprehensively politically infeasible even regardless of the constitutionality. So we get half measures that are at best ineffective. Bans on guns that look scary. "Background checks" even though first time criminals won't be flagged and hardened criminals are more than willing to steal or pass a false ID or use an accomplice with a clean record. They're all just security theater to satisfy the need for something to be done. And though I am not a fan of guns, I find myself quite sympathetic to the argument that the proper solution is to go to the root cause and do what is necessary to reduce the number of people who come to find murder as an acceptable solution to their problems, rather than going out and trying to prohibit every dangerous thing an already-malicious actor could use to harm another living soul.
- rdl 14y ago
  AWB is less effective (and has a far higher cost to legitimate owners) than stuff specifically designed to keep guns out of the hands of felons. I was surprised, but most gun crimes are committed by a small subset of people, and most multi-offend. I expected them to get their weapons from theft, but there's a surprisingly large (I think majority) which come from private party out of state sales -- at least in LA, a lot come from accomplices buying in AZ and then reselling. (for handguns, which are the vast majority -- there are some more exotic automatic/smg weapons brought from mexico, while US handguns go down to mexico) There should be a way to catch the out of state buyers. A lot of the associates of criminals are themselves criminals, so NCIC on private party sales would actually push them toward more stolen weapons. If you could additionally increase the odds of catching these straw man purchasers and giving them felony convictions, you'd seriously hurt the supply. Combine that with safe storage and theft reporting, and you'd make a much bigger impact than the AWB, at a much lower cost to legitimate gun owners.
strlen 14y ago
In the same boat as you. It's undeniable that gun violence is a public health problem in the US. It's undeniable that while most legal gun owners are law abiding citizens, the sheer number of guns in private possession, many find their ways (theft, loss, straw sales, etc...) to illegal arms dealers and criminals. There's also no proof that gun ownership reduces crime or especially well armed spree shooting: if you think you would have stopped James Holmes with a snub-nosed .38 revolver before he already did too much damage, then that's a very good reason to deny you a conceal carry permit. It's undeniable that there's an individual right to own firearms, but it is equally undeniable that it can be restricted. The problem is that we have very little idea of what works, only what doesn't (Assault Weapon Bans being square in "what doesn't"). I'm in strong support of most of President Obama's gun policy (especially what he has achieved using execute orders), but in strong opposition to the Assault Weapon Ban. It is pushed by anti-gun groups (who have realized they're wasting their time advocating unpopular and legally infeasible positions), for the same reasons pro-lifers (pretty much in the same boat) have pushed "partial birth abortion" bans. This comparison is not original to me: http://townhall.com/columnists/jacobsullum/2003/10/24/what_partial-birth_abortions_and_assault_weapons_have_in_common/page/full/ http://townhall.com/columnists/jacobsullum/2003/10/24/what_p... To those unfamiliar with either, briefly: * "Partial birth abortion" ban targeted one procedure whereas other procedures that can be used to perform abortion equally as late into pregnancy are permitted. * Assault weapon bans go after firearms having things like pistol grips and flash hiders while allowing the same caliber, rate of fire, magazine capacity, etc... firearms to be sold freely. * Both are deliberate stated and marketed to look like something they actually aren't: "partial birth abortion" sounds like infanticide, "assault weapon" sounds like "assault rifle" when true assault rifles are fully-automatic and already strictly restricted (effectively banned) by the 1934 National Firearms Act. * Both seize on sense of visual disgust: a civilian semi-auto AR-15 looks like a military full-auto M4/M16; the actual procedures banned by the "partial birth" abortion law is very ghastly to watch (but I'd argue, so is a woman dying in childbirth or being forced to give birth after incest or rape, or a child being raised by drug addicted mother, etc...) * Both give leeway to politicians who want to look moderate (I think this is key here): someone unfamiliar with the specifics (most are not) can easily say "I support firearm ownership, but not for assault weapons" or "I support abortion, but not partial birth abortion * Both are advocated by groups that advocate what most consider extreme. Anti-gun groups in support of the Assault Weapon Ban have been on the record as advocating laws similar to Australia and UK (complete ban on semi-automatics, significant restrictions -- but not outright bans -- on other weapons). I'll challenge to find a single person/group who has originated a piece of "partial-birth abortion" ban legislator who did not favour overturning Roe v. Wade. * Both are in "plausibly permissible by case law" reading of the constitution. Supreme Court has used "immediate scrutiny" doctrine to uphold partial birth abortion bans. Supreme Court may overturn some provisions of Assault Weapon Ban bans but uphold others if they employ the same standard (or they may use "strict scrutiny" argument for second amendment since it's an enumerated right, IANAL so I can't tell). I'm generally liberal-to-moderate (moderate for a coastal Californian, unequivocally liberal elsewhere in the US), and am on the record as opposing both. Yet, extreme folks on either side as well as the moderates can acuse me of doing nothing to stop the murder of children. [Edit: few more thoughts -- Perhaps we are also thinking differently: we're coldly intellectualizing this argument, when most people just want something done. I don't mean to use this as a snide remark: easing popular fears does reduce the likelihood of actual violence or other accidents. This is akin to placebo effect of a gelatin capsule curing pain: pain has an undeniable emotional/stress component to it and if we allay that component (by making the recipient of medicine think they're being physiologically cured), there are positive effect to be had. If I was starting a country today, there would not be a "right to bear arms" any more than a "right to drive cars": citizens would be freely able to exercise both (protected as "unenumerated rights"), subject to certain regulation (training required to obtain a license, mandatory insurance, periodic re-testing, different prices for different firearms based on externalities they expose, etc..) that would be permissible for unenumerated rights ("can be restricted, but only if there when it serves a compelling interest") but not enumerated ones ("can only be restricted in case of clear and present danger"). Indeed, this policy would probably mean responsible gun owners, once licensed, would actually be less restricted than today: Czech Republic is an example of a country with similar laws, if someone wants to see an international example. Finland is another example (not as permissive Texas, Czech Republic, or even California, but less restrictive in practice than New York or Illinois). However, I am not starting a country today: if we start repealing or equivocating away chunks of the Bill of Rights, we're in a very dangerous land. This, by the way is a liberal argument, not a conservative one: generally it's the liberal or libertarian organizations that oppose tightening of fourth amendment restrictions after terrorists acts, supporting the right of neo-Nazis to march in Skokie, etc... ]

by Cushman 14y ago

rdl 14y ago

I think it's natural to say "oh, big high profile event involved people getting shot with a scary looking gun, so let's solve the problem by banning those scary-looking guns". Add to that that almost none of the legislators or members of their staff have any actual experience with or knowledge of weapons, and it becomes easy to push bad policy. I actually think this is a brilliant plan by President Obama. Push a bunch of things (some of which no reasonable person could oppose, like the efficiency improvements in the EOs), and some things which the Republicans in the House will probably not let get out of committee or to a vote on the floor (AWB and magazine capacity limits). That way, the President gets to accomplish some things (and some of those things which have costs are things a lot of gun owners, myself included, support -- 100% NCIC checks on all transfers). The Republicans who block AWB get painted as obstructionists for blocking part of that, which hurts them from the center/left. Some Tea Party/etc. people push even wackier candidates in 2014 if the Republicans compromise on any issues at all, thus helping the Democrats in 2014, too.

anigbrowl 14y ago
An astute analysis - I disaagree only insofar as I think the magazine limits will prevail in some form. The AWB rpobably won't and is a political sacrifice as you say, but I think the manufacturers o such weapons are on the cusp of a long-term decline - this ad by Bushmaster [1] exemplifies what many people find repellent about gun culture/ Although gun sales are high right now and will surely rocket higher in the short term in response to these proposals, I think opposition to more regulation will decline over the longer term in the same way as opposition to gay marriage - because the sky never does get around to falling, and people get used to the idea and accept it. Incidentally, I was surprised to be reminded by the President's speech that the BATF hasn't had a full-time director the last 6 years. 1. http://cdn03.cdnwp.thefrisky.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/17/bushmaster-ad1-600x450.jpg http://cdn03.cdnwp.thefrisky.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/...
- rdl 14y ago
  AP ammo possession is the most likely to pass; no one really cares about that. Mag limits are less likely than AP ammo. I honestly have no idea how likely or not they are to pass. I'm pretty well hedged :) AWB seems hopeless, both because it's clearly cosmetic and ineffectual and because it would have a higher cost to implement. Also, I agree the long-term trend is anti-firearms, mainly due to immigration and urbanization. However, the trend within firearms is from shotgun/lever/revolver toward "America's Rifle" (AR-15), military style accessories, tactical training, etc. I also think if you took a direct 100% popular vote right now (or especially the day after Sandy Hook), 50+% of people would vote for banning all guns. A majority of people would also support confiscating the assets of the richest 1%, etc., though.
  - MartinCron 14y ago
    I also think if you took a direct 100% popular vote right now (or especially the day after Sandy Hook), 50+% of people would vote for banning all guns. A majority of people would also support confiscating the assets of the richest 1%, etc., though. What a relief that nobody is talking about either banning all guns or confiscating assets.
  - hga 14y ago
    Mag limits would also have a terrific political cost. Not noticed by many outside the community is that most handguns for self-defense, and many if not most that are used for concealed carry, have standard magazine capacities of > 10 rounds (and almost all > 7 rounds). De jure or de facto shall issue concealed carry regimes are now in place in 42 states, and scholar Clayton Cramer and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) independently estimated this summer that there are between 7.5 and 8 million licenses outstanding (and more every day, especially as the US population ages). Screwing with these people, who tend to vote (older demographic, after all) ... is not wise. Just threatening them, as is being done now, will have costs in the coming elections.
    - rdl 14y ago
      A 10rd magazine limit basically becomes the "1911 as national handgun act of 2013". It might finally push Glock into making single-stack 9mm, .40s&w, and larger-than-36 .45acp weapons, though.
Cushman 14y ago
I suppose it makes sense as a bargaining chip which will be left on the table, but there's a risk it will actually pass, right? My impression has been that the 1994 AWB did real harm to the image of gun control. If I'm a Republican legislator, can't I actually threaten to vote for it?

jlgreco 14y ago

At the very least I hope they at least define it in terms of things that actually matter, not cosmetics. Most of the criticism I hear about "assault weapon" bans, aside from the standard criticism of gun laws in general, are that the things used to define "assault weapon" are largely irrelevant to functionality and that the definition amounts to "guns that look frightening". It seems to me this is a valid criticism that should be taken seriously by both sides of the aisle.

jack-r-abbit 14y ago
One of the conditions in the original ban was being able to attach a bayonet. Which just seems ridiculous. So you have an otherwise legal rifle... but holy crap you mounted a knife on it... bad bad bad. WTF?
- MartinCron 14y ago
  Here's an illustration I saw in my local newspaper. Other than the collapsible stock (which makes the weapon easier to conceal) and the (separately regulated) high capacity magazine, pretty much everything is purely cosmetic. http://seattletimes.com/ABPub/2013/01/08/2020087609.jpg http://seattletimes.com/ABPub/2013/01/08/2020087609.jpg
  - jack-r-abbit 14y ago
    Exactly. And even the collapsible stock is partially cosmetic and partially functional... but only for ease of use. It does nothing to make that weapon any more deadly than any other.
    - MartinCron 14y ago
      I can kind of see the collapsible stock as a functional thing, as it makes a rifle (more powerful and accurate than a handgun) easier to carry in a concealed way, but if that's the case, you could regulate collapsible stocks separately, as well.

nthj 14y ago

because proposing a handgun ban would be political suicide. It's a purely political move: makes it look like you're "doing something" without doing the something that would be impossible or at the very least, cost a lot more political capital.

MartinCron 14y ago

I think that "assault weapons" are basically just offensive to many people's aesthetic sensibilities. What makes an assault rifle different from any other rifle is that it looks bad-ass. I think that they should (with the smaller magazine capacity) be permitted as a 1st amendment thing instead of a 2nd amendment thing.

Cushman 14y ago
That's... really interesting, actually. Has that argument been heard in any court, do you know?
- MartinCron 14y ago
  I really don't think so. I've definitely never heard of it, but I'm just a casual observer.
- hga 14y ago
  Well, something akin was tried when the Massachusetts "assault weapons" ban prohibited the use of targets in the likeness of people. So someone printed up targets with Adolph Hitler's image; the Supreme Court denied the request to take the case (http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/lawsuits.html http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/lawsuits.html).

scarmig 14y ago

Partially it's a sop. From what I hear, gun control groups are more pushing for the background checks, and the assault weapon ban is more of a cherry on top that can be given away during negotiations.

gyardley 14y ago
It's not the President's to give away - in this country, Congress makes the laws, not the President.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

nateabele 14y ago

(1) We need to do something. (2) This is something. (3) We should do this.

staunch 14y ago

Again, avoiding the political angle for the most part, is anyone else absolutely astounded that someone as intelligent as The President would say something like "If even one child’s life can be saved, then we need to act."? Using that logic could lead you could justify almost anything. There are literally thousands of things we could ban that would certainly save at least one child's life.

Cushman 14y ago
He said that for emotional effect, he obviously doesn't actually believe it. Since somehow "This is killing hundreds of children every year, we need to act" doesn't connect with people, I give it a pass.
- staunch 14y ago
  If it was an off-the-cuff remark once I might think the same, but he's written it in his plan multiple times and said it a dozen times publicly. He may not believe this in general, but he's quite obviously serious about using this argument for his proposed legislation.
  - Cushman 14y ago
    I'm not saying it wasn't a planned remark — nothing that man says is off-the-cuff — just that it was planned for emotional effect, not as a real basis for policy. If he seemed to be actually applying that standard, I'd worry. Otherwise it just seems like he cares a lot about children, which, man, I just can't be mad at someone for that.
    - staunch 14y ago
      Well, based on your response to it, I guess it at least it has the desired effect. I find it absolutely flabbergasting that someone so smart would take the oldest political trope, "think of the children", to such an illogical extreme.
strlen 14y ago

defilade 14y ago

Here's the calculus from the legislator's perspective: regardless of what you pass, no one will know for years if it worked. In that case you might as well do something dramatic that provides you with a big victory lap and a resume item for your next election. Gun violence is a complex problem with many variables and to really fix it would require a lot of research and carefully structured legislation. Much of it probably wouldn't work the first time either, so there would have to be some experimentation. That's not appealing to most politicians.

gyardley 14y ago

The President knows his proposal will never pass the House - hell, I doubt it's even going to come up for a vote - and he knows it sounds good to his base, who has no idea what an assault weapon is and doesn't get that actual 'assault weapons' (as opposed to scary-looking things they don't understand) haven't been legal for civilian purchase since 1986. This is just political theatre, an attempt to look like he's doing something while actually doing nothing.

Cushman 14y ago
Again, I generally support gun control, and I'm not looking for a political discussion about that. My question is why progressives continue to list such an absurdly poor idea next to more reasonable and effective proposals.
- gyardley 14y ago
  And I posited that they would rather do something that looks good to the base than something reasonable and effective.

hga 14y ago

It's a reactive target of opportunity, so to speak. Josh Sugarmann, who seems to be the brain trust for the gun grabbers, had already worked up a campaign against civilian semi-auto assault rifles, based on their "scary" looks and deliberate conflation of them and real military selective fire assault rifles ("machine guns", although often it's just a 3 round burst for better control). And then the Stockton schoolyard massacre happened (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_School_massacre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_School_massacre) and off they went. (A couple of notes on things you won't get from that article: Purdy was able to legally buy his weapons with his SSI money because his crimes had always been plead down to misdemeanors; I'm also pretty sure he never passed the 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(4) criteria for a mental disbarment, so even if the NICS had existed then it wouldn't have stopped him. Great emphasis is placed on these weapons being "high powered" ... which by definition they are not. And being based on military designs the cheapest ammo is FMJ, which is also the least wounding (Hague Convention requirement to make war more "humane"). According to Martin Fackler this resulted in ER doctors excessively debreiding wounds from them, resulting in greater morbidity and mortality under the real word got out. I mention that because a lot of these efforts have very nasty unintended consequences, e.g. the whole "cop killer bullet" campaign about bullets that were never for sale to civilians did result in one thing: teaching a lot of criminals that a lot of cops wear concealable body armor....) Anyway, you're right: if you really want to save lives, and/or want to minimize damage to your political side/party/whatever, it's a terrible approach. Cost the Democrats the Congress in 1994, according to no less a political genius than Bill Clinton. Why does it keep coming back? I suppose it's viewed as low hanging fruit, easy to propagandize, and while you may "generally support gun control", a lot of gun grabbers are quite explicit about wanting to ban all guns and will take anything they can get (note, for example, how few of the current proposals would even in theory have changed the Newtown, Connecticut outcome; I mean, the police took at least 14 minutes to arrive after the first 911 call). So, again, a target of opportunity; rational policy by anyone's lights is simply not relevant.

MartinCron 14y ago
Friendly advice: You obviously know your stuff and you make really interesting points, but use of the incendiary and cartoonish term "gun grabbers" makes it hard to take you seriously.

AnthonyMouse 14y ago

The problem is that the politically viable alternatives are about as ineffective. Restricting the sale of things doesn't do anything about their installed base. Gun owners already own guns. They can currently do or obtain the thing you want to ban -- and every time you even mention banning something, the sales go through the roof. So, as a gun control advocate, you might want to stop doing that unless you're sufficiently positive both that you'll succeed and that your success will outweigh the instantaneous increase it causes in the installed base of the bad thing. Which is a hard calculus to accept, because of the installed base, which makes any dividends that come from a ban only accrue very slowly over a long period of time. You aren't causing certain classes of firearms to not exist anymore, or taking them away from the classes of people who already have them, you're only causing there not to be a single digit percentage more of them next year. Which is pretty weak consolation if the discussion of the ban caused there to be a large multiple of that increase this year, and most of the money that would have gone to the increase in future years just goes to the nearest analog or a purchase by proxy in the future years. Moreover, you can't identify any subset of guns that can be used to kill people and ban only those. You can kill someone just as dead just as fast with a revolver as with an AR15, and the differences between an AR15 and a hunting rifle are entirely cosmetic. And prohibiting high capacity magazines is only even theoretically productive if your sole concern is mass shootings, which are such a small percentage of gun violence that it's very hard to take seriously as a meaningful reform. The problem is that real gun control, i.e. going into peoples homes and taking away all their existing firearms, is comprehensively politically infeasible even regardless of the constitutionality. So we get half measures that are at best ineffective. Bans on guns that look scary. "Background checks" even though first time criminals won't be flagged and hardened criminals are more than willing to steal or pass a false ID or use an accomplice with a clean record. They're all just security theater to satisfy the need for something to be done. And though I am not a fan of guns, I find myself quite sympathetic to the argument that the proper solution is to go to the root cause and do what is necessary to reduce the number of people who come to find murder as an acceptable solution to their problems, rather than going out and trying to prohibit every dangerous thing an already-malicious actor could use to harm another living soul.

rdl 14y ago
AWB is less effective (and has a far higher cost to legitimate owners) than stuff specifically designed to keep guns out of the hands of felons. I was surprised, but most gun crimes are committed by a small subset of people, and most multi-offend. I expected them to get their weapons from theft, but there's a surprisingly large (I think majority) which come from private party out of state sales -- at least in LA, a lot come from accomplices buying in AZ and then reselling. (for handguns, which are the vast majority -- there are some more exotic automatic/smg weapons brought from mexico, while US handguns go down to mexico) There should be a way to catch the out of state buyers. A lot of the associates of criminals are themselves criminals, so NCIC on private party sales would actually push them toward more stolen weapons. If you could additionally increase the odds of catching these straw man purchasers and giving them felony convictions, you'd seriously hurt the supply. Combine that with safe storage and theft reporting, and you'd make a much bigger impact than the AWB, at a much lower cost to legitimate gun owners.

strlen 14y ago

In the same boat as you. It's undeniable that gun violence is a public health problem in the US. It's undeniable that while most legal gun owners are law abiding citizens, the sheer number of guns in private possession, many find their ways (theft, loss, straw sales, etc...) to illegal arms dealers and criminals. There's also no proof that gun ownership reduces crime or especially well armed spree shooting: if you think you would have stopped James Holmes with a snub-nosed .38 revolver before he already did too much damage, then that's a very good reason to deny you a conceal carry permit. It's undeniable that there's an individual right to own firearms, but it is equally undeniable that it can be restricted. The problem is that we have very little idea of what works, only what doesn't (Assault Weapon Bans being square in "what doesn't"). I'm in strong support of most of President Obama's gun policy (especially what he has achieved using execute orders), but in strong opposition to the Assault Weapon Ban. It is pushed by anti-gun groups (who have realized they're wasting their time advocating unpopular and legally infeasible positions), for the same reasons pro-lifers (pretty much in the same boat) have pushed "partial birth abortion" bans. This comparison is not original to me: http://townhall.com/columnists/jacobsullum/2003/10/24/what_partial-birth_abortions_and_assault_weapons_have_in_common/page/full/ http://townhall.com/columnists/jacobsullum/2003/10/24/what_p... To those unfamiliar with either, briefly: * "Partial birth abortion" ban targeted one procedure whereas other procedures that can be used to perform abortion equally as late into pregnancy are permitted. * Assault weapon bans go after firearms having things like pistol grips and flash hiders while allowing the same caliber, rate of fire, magazine capacity, etc... firearms to be sold freely. * Both are deliberate stated and marketed to look like something they actually aren't: "partial birth abortion" sounds like infanticide, "assault weapon" sounds like "assault rifle" when true assault rifles are fully-automatic and already strictly restricted (effectively banned) by the 1934 National Firearms Act. * Both seize on sense of visual disgust: a civilian semi-auto AR-15 looks like a military full-auto M4/M16; the actual procedures banned by the "partial birth" abortion law is very ghastly to watch (but I'd argue, so is a woman dying in childbirth or being forced to give birth after incest or rape, or a child being raised by drug addicted mother, etc...) * Both give leeway to politicians who want to look moderate (I think this is key here): someone unfamiliar with the specifics (most are not) can easily say "I support firearm ownership, but not for assault weapons" or "I support abortion, but not partial birth abortion * Both are advocated by groups that advocate what most consider extreme. Anti-gun groups in support of the Assault Weapon Ban have been on the record as advocating laws similar to Australia and UK (complete ban on semi-automatics, significant restrictions -- but not outright bans -- on other weapons). I'll challenge to find a single person/group who has originated a piece of "partial-birth abortion" ban legislator who did not favour overturning Roe v. Wade. * Both are in "plausibly permissible by case law" reading of the constitution. Supreme Court has used "immediate scrutiny" doctrine to uphold partial birth abortion bans. Supreme Court may overturn some provisions of Assault Weapon Ban bans but uphold others if they employ the same standard (or they may use "strict scrutiny" argument for second amendment since it's an enumerated right, IANAL so I can't tell). I'm generally liberal-to-moderate (moderate for a coastal Californian, unequivocally liberal elsewhere in the US), and am on the record as opposing both. Yet, extreme folks on either side as well as the moderates can acuse me of doing nothing to stop the murder of children. [Edit: few more thoughts -- Perhaps we are also thinking differently: we're coldly intellectualizing this argument, when most people just want something done. I don't mean to use this as a snide remark: easing popular fears does reduce the likelihood of actual violence or other accidents. This is akin to placebo effect of a gelatin capsule curing pain: pain has an undeniable emotional/stress component to it and if we allay that component (by making the recipient of medicine think they're being physiologically cured), there are positive effect to be had. If I was starting a country today, there would not be a "right to bear arms" any more than a "right to drive cars": citizens would be freely able to exercise both (protected as "unenumerated rights"), subject to certain regulation (training required to obtain a license, mandatory insurance, periodic re-testing, different prices for different firearms based on externalities they expose, etc..) that would be permissible for unenumerated rights ("can be restricted, but only if there when it serves a compelling interest") but not enumerated ones ("can only be restricted in case of clear and present danger"). Indeed, this policy would probably mean responsible gun owners, once licensed, would actually be less restricted than today: Czech Republic is an example of a country with similar laws, if someone wants to see an international example. Finland is another example (not as permissive Texas, Czech Republic, or even California, but less restrictive in practice than New York or Illinois). However, I am not starting a country today: if we start repealing or equivocating away chunks of the Bill of Rights, we're in a very dangerous land. This, by the way is a liberal argument, not a conservative one: generally it's the liberal or libertarian organizations that oppose tightening of fourth amendment restrictions after terrorists acts, supporting the right of neo-Nazis to march in Skokie, etc... ]