Why gun control push fizzled?

[Dr. Keith]

I don't think we can discount the influence of the NRA.. However, I'm on a number of gun-oriented forums and "NRA" doesn't get tossed around too much. Rather, for the more extreme folks, it's the old "they're coming for our guns" fears.
However, just as influential would be the opinion (which I share) that the proposed efforts and legislation simply would not produce the expected results.
Adding layers of difficulty to weapons ownership and use by ordinary citizens.... And providing little impediment to the criminal.

I agree.

Everyone talked a lot about "keeping guns out of the hands of crazy people", but no one provided a practical notion as to how this laudable goal might be achieved.

I think what frustrates me about this is that in every other industry when a problem comes to light the industry takes the lead in finding solutions. The vast majority of regulation in the USA is drafted by industry lawyers to address whatever issues exist while at the same time allowing the industry to prosper. I am having a hard time coming up with exceptions to this rule, other than gun control.

Here, the gun lobby has taken the position that additional regulation, by either industry standards or regulation, is not needed and therefore they will simply attack any attempts to do so. This leaves the people who are least informed about the industry to write the rules for the industry. That is just never going to work.

It has the ring of a spoiled child picking up their marbles and leaving because the rest of the kids think there should be rules to the game of marbles.

 

[DGM]

If the proposed legislation had previously been in effect for the last 10 years, it wouldn't have prevented any of the high-profile shootings. So just what was it's purpose?

Feel good votes.

 

[newyorkguy]

What I personally would like to see is a reduction in the two-hundred-thousand guns stolen every year from private owners...

Nice strawman.

I don't remember reading in the new legislation where this was addressed, could you link it?

I don't remember saying it was. Could you link it?

Better yet, why not harass somebody else for a while?

 

[DGM]

I don't remember saying it was. Could you link it?

Better yet, why not harass somebody else for a while?

Who's harassing?

You want to make it illegal to break into my house and steal my guns, News flash, it already is.

Or do you want me to be responsible if someone does this illegal act? Would this apply to my kitchen knives also?

 

[Sabretooth]

You'd be surprised. You're in the NYC area correct? Well over here by Lake Erie the most liberal people I know are highly suspicious of gun control efforts probably because most of them know TONS of people who own guns, aren't violent, and have never, ever had an incident, or are gun owners themselves. Yes, many of them are for better gun control and regulation methods so when they see what they consider lip service and bad legislation, they feel betrayed. It ruffles feathers and turns many of the off to the push entirely. All they see are more politicians pandering to anti-gun nuts, and then of course the gun nuts (for them the very unpopular NRA). Fitting into neither end, they give up and focus on other things. Perhaps if there were more gun violence locally they wouldn't. But there isn't so they do.

I live about 50 miles from tyr_13 and I completely concur with this post.

 

[DavidJames]

If the proposed legislation had previously been in effect for the last 10 years, it wouldn't have prevented any of the high-profile shootings. So just what was it's purpose?

Evidence?

 

[DavidJames]

Perhaps if there were more gun violence locally they wouldn't. But there isn't so they do.

That is an incredibly fascinating comment and one which I think is very valid.

It boils down to ones ability to see the benefits of "something" to society even though it may appear to not directly benefit themselves. It's a form of empathy. A trait missing from way to many people. Libertarians and many Republicans come to mind

 

[Sabretooth]

That is an incredibly fascinating comment and one which I think is very valid.

It boils down to ones ability to see the benefits of "something" to society even though it may appear to not directly benefit themselves. It's a form of empathy. A trait missing from way to many people. Libertarians and many Republicans come to mind

I'm not going to disagree with you...but I believe every single career politician out their is so completely disconnected from blue-collar America that they cant even see straight, let alone empathize. Regardless of party affiliation.

 

[Nessie]

Both sides introduced legislation and then voted the other sides out, so nothing happened. That lack of compromise and inability to come together and discuss what should be done is IMO the real problem.

 

[dudalb]

This is so phenomenally wrong (in thread context) that it boggles the mind. According to numerous polls, public support for the legislation was in the 80-90% range.

But not enough to get out and actively support it.And that is what counts,not poll numbers.

 

[Ranb]

This is so phenomenally wrong (in thread context) that it boggles the mind. According to numerous polls, public support for the legislation was in the 80-90% range.

I'm not aware of a single poll that showed support for the actual background check bill. I am aware of a poll that showed 90% of people wanted universal background checks. The bill was much more than a background check bill.

Got a link to support your claim?

Ranb

 

[Ranb]

If the proposed legislation had previously been in effect for the last 10 years, it wouldn't have prevented any of the high-profile shootings. So just what was it's purpose?

Evidence?

Here is a line of reasoning that would support the above claim. Let's say that the AWB of 2013 as originally proposed (includes registration of assault weapons iaw NFA of 1934) went into effect in 2003. I'm not sure when Mrs. Lanza bought her AR-15 and other firearms but she would most likely have been able to registered them when the bill passed as long as they were possessed prior to passage of the bill. So she is able to continue her firearm activities as she had in the past.

If she had bought her semi-auto rifles after the ban then she could have bought something like the Ruger Mini-14. Even with a ten round magazine it fires fast and would have still allowed a determined freak like the Sandy Hook shooter to kill those people.

Since the bill did not require confiscation of registered firearms, it would have only affected those whose owners were unable to obtain their CLEO signature (assuming they didn't use a trust or corp to own them) or refused to pay the $200 on each one.

So how does the AWB of 1994, Brady bill or the proposed one in 2013 prevent crime? There has been much noise made about the thousands of people turned away when failing the NICS checks. But when law enforcement doesn't enforce the law (the one about lying on the 4473) what good does it really do?

Ranb

 

[Cain]

What the media consistently fails to report is how these laws will adversely impact people who like to play with guns. Because guns are fun. Next let's outlaw sports cars and red hot cheetos and swimming pools.

 

[Sabretooth]

What the media consistently fails to report is how these laws will adversely impact people who like to play with guns. Because guns are fun. Next let's outlaw sports cars and red hot cheetos and swimming pools.

This a Poe? I can't even tell anymore...

 

[casebro]

My statement "
Originally Posted by casebro View Post
Cut to the chase: Democracy in action. MOST Americans like the idea of armed Americans....)

This is so phenomenally wrong (in thread context) that it boggles the mind. According to numerous polls, public support for the legislation was in the 80-90% range.

No, the the polls showed "90% of people like gun control". I do too. And we do have gun control.

You seem to have leapt from "want gun control" to "want to ban guns". That was not the point of any discussions or polls. Also not constitutionally possible without buying them up for fair market value.

But did you take my statement a bit out of context? I said it was our representative democracy at work that defeated the DiFi bill. It was. 15 democratic senators were afraid of what their constituents would do to them come re-election time.

If 90% of American want to ban guns, show me some laws doing so, that were passed by direct vote. Even in California with it's Proposition system, the direct vote to ban hand guns has been shot down by HUGE margins, like 85%? and 68%?

Was the Sullivan Act a direct vote? Chicago's handgun ban?

 

[Twiggett]

Where I live in the Northeast I doubt that's true. I think the real problem is, most people (like me and my wife) seldom give guns or gun control a thought.

However, as you can see by the previous responses, it's not happening. Too many people are opposed to it.

Don't discount the NRA. Getting reelected takes money. Campaign financing has lots to do with who gets on the ballot in the primaries.

What I personally would like to see is a reduction in the two-hundred-thousand guns stolen every year from private owners, and better controls over gun manufacturers who, when subject to ATF inspections are usually unable to account for thousand of gun --especially handguns -- they manufactured.

Not saying the bolded isn't true but I'd definitely be interested in seeing a source on this. I've done some searching and the only thing I'm coming up with are stories about gun shops and the ATF themselves with missing guns.

 

[Cain]

My statement "
Originally Posted by casebro View Post
Cut to the chase: Democracy in action. MOST Americans like the idea of armed Americans....)


No, the the polls showed "90% of people like gun control". I do too. And we do have gun control.

You seem to have leapt from "want gun control" to "want to ban guns".

I think you leaped to that conclusion. None of the proposed legislation came to close to "banning guns."

But did you take my statement a bit out of context? I said it was our representative democracy at work that defeated the DiFi bill. It was. 15 democratic senators were afraid of what their constituents would do to them come re-election time.

It's funny how our so-called representative democracy works considering the Senate ain't representative...

The way our system works is that small, but intensely motivated, groups rule the roost. You can see it in these threads. I'd guess a majority of posters here support stronger gun control laws, but they're not scouring threads, rehashing the same debates as the pro-gun zombies.

 

[Noztradamus]

People who support expanded gun legislation usually have other issues they are interested in, people who are anti-gun control do not. This is their bottom line. This is their 'must-have' position.

It's the "sacred ground" the pro-choicers defend against the pro-lifers

 

[varwoche]

You seem to have leapt from "want gun control" to "want to ban guns".

Ban? I have no idea where you got this from.

I'll be back in a day or two to follow up on our original point of contention.

 

[Noztradamus]

Is that true or was public support for some sort of some form of background checks that are not currently required by law for gun sales. Isn't there a difference between that and what was in the bill?

1. The people support some gun control
2, This legislation is SOME gun control
3. The people support this legislation

Simples!