Why gun control push fizzled?

[tyr_13]

I'm not practicing gamesmanship.

The statement was made -- with no citation, source or reference -- that gun owners in California need to be able to buy reasonably priced ammunition so they can be proficient in hitting their target instead of an innocent bystander. I made a light-hearted response. My point was serious though: how often do gun owners get into a armed confrontation with an attacker? Is it often enough that it should be a major factor in taxing ammunition?

That's a switch though. You're taking taxing ammunition as de facto effective or worthwhile. You didn't cite any statistic or studies showing people will be safer with higher ammo prices. No source or reference.

As I said before, you didn't even knock over your original straw man as well. Rarity doesn't negate that when people do use a weapon for self defense that it is better they be proficient with that weapon.

Your response was to call it a straw man.

Your 'light hearted' comment was a straw man. It wasn't what Wildcat had argued. He did not claim there were a group of people constantly under attack by thugs who needed marksmanship. He claimed that excess ammo taxes will negatively effect people who want to practice marksmanship for many different reasons including self defense.

What you didn't do was say, 'Oh really? You think it doesn't happen?' And then cite some statistics or studies that prove resisting an armed attacker, in this case in California, does happen quite a bit. That it's a serious concern. (Not just say it is, but back it up with something tangible.)

You didn't cite anything in your criticism. I addressed the flaw in your reasoning, that flaw being that it wasn't what Wildcat claimed. That needs no stat. Besides that it doesn't have to happen 'quite a bit' for it to be a valid concern. A negative with no benefit isn't a positive even if the negative is rare.

I suspect you can't do that. So what option is left? Accuse me of introducing a straw man.

Because that's what you did. Your straw man didn't even fall over when you attacked it. You're setting requirements that no only did you fail to meet, you're requesting something that should be a given. Do you have any reason to suspect that one generally doesn't need to shot a lot to become good at shooting?

I could say the same thing to the person who, I just noticed, has posted the same type message while I'm typing this one.

Am I serious? Is practicing with a gun important in California so when someone has to shoot it out with an armed attacker they're an accurate shot? Are there any stats or studies on how often it happens?

Serious question. Most police officers go through their entire career without having to fire their gun at anyone. So who are these gun owners who are constantly getting into armed confrontations? I'd like to know.

There you go again. 'Constantly' and cherry picking out the defense angle, which is a valid if rare concern. You want stats and evidence that to become accurate at firing a fire one needs to practice a lot and keep practicing? That should be a given. You accuse others of gamesmanship while offering nothing to back up your own 'light hearted' comments.

It seems you don't believe self-defense is a valid reason to use a firearm or that accuracy isn't a concern for this rare event.

 

[newyorkguy]

Or perhaps the question should be:

how often do lawful gun owners misuse their gun relative to safe & lawful usage of that gun on the range? Is it relatively often enough that it should be a major factor in taxing ammunition?





Wow. Well, using your logic, presumably Police Officers shouldn't practice either. I mean, "Most police officers go through their entire career without having to fire their gun at anyone", right?

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

Instead of answering my serious question you answer it by saying I should've asked something else. Really?

Using my logic police officers shouldn't practice with their weapons? That's just plain ridiculous. Police officers have to be ready to confront armed assailants. That's part of their job. They're professionals. An amateur trains until they get it right. A professional trains until they can't get it wrong. (That's from a LEO site.)

I wasn't talking about practice firing. I'm sure you know that. I was asking -- and does everybody see how the anti-gun regulation crowd will not touch this question? -- how often in California do gun owners have to shoot it out with armed attackers.

The point being, does it happen frequently enough that it should drive public policy. And I'm not saying it doesn't. I'm asking if it does.

Hello?

 

[WildCat]

I didn't know that was in question. Yes, that makes sense.



I have no idea. Most of it is recreational, right? So if it's basically a hobby raising the costs might not reduce people's practice time. Look at the way golf course fees have skyrocketed in recent years. That hasn't reduced play.

Econ 101, when the cost of a good increases you get less demand for that good. How much less depends on the elasticity of the item in question.

I didn't purposefully ignore it. I agree with it.

Ok.

Who said anything about an ammo tax leading to fewer gun deaths? Is that one of the reasons they did it? Are you certain about that? My first reaction is, the effect on total gun deaths would be negligible.

So what's the purpose of the tax?

 

[newyorkguy]

<snip>


So what's the purpose of the tax?

You're asking me? You're against something without even knowing the purpose of it?

I thought you knew all about it?

Reportedly the purpose is to fund intervention programs to reduce violence.

This bill would require that revenues collected pursuant to these taxes be allocated to the School-Based Early Mental Health Intervention and Prevention Services Matching Grant Program.

Link

 

[Sabretooth]

The point being, does [being assaulted by an armed assailant] happen frequently enough that it should drive public policy. And I'm not saying it doesn't. I'm asking if it does.

Hello?

I hilighted my edit of your quote, as I believe this is the question you are raising, correct? If not, please correct me.

I'm not sure how to answer this. How often is enough?

There are wholly incomplete statistics on the subject (which has thrown a wrench into just about every debate we've had on the whole "using firearms defensively" subject). Some sources quote into the thousands, while others quote millions of instances. It's a number that hasn't been reliably quantified.

Keep in mind that firearms can be used defensively without pulling the trigger. Many times, if the assailant sees that his intended victim is armed, the situation often ends with said assailant aborting his intentions. Folks that attempted studies are usually stymied because a lot of these "brandishing" type defenses go unreported to the police, or the police took a statement, or don't keep track of the report, or simply do not file a report at all.

Regardless, the fact is that is does happen, and with enough frequency, that it could be a legitimate concern for people. If people wish to be prepared to protect themselves with a firearm, then it is, and should be, that person's right to do so.

Properly protecting yourself with a firearm also means that you need to properly train to become proficient with your firearm. Training becomes non-existent if the ammunition is priced unreasonably.

Does this answer your question?

 

[Sabretooth]

You're asking me? You're against something without even knowing the purpose of it?

I thought you knew all about it?

Reportedly the purpose is to fund intervention programs to reduce violence.

Link

You have a lot of faith in the "reasons" politicians give as to why they want to enact something, don't you?

Joe Politico: "We need to fund intervention programs! So we shall simply tax the ammunition!"

Let me tell you something...it's a big *********** lie. CA wants to tax ammo to discourage law-abiding folks from buying/using firearms, period. They are simply spinning it into "but we want to help people in need" so that John Q. Public keeps the questions to a minimum before heading back to watching Dancing With the Stars.

You think the state simply needs an income source for intervention groups? That's cute and all, but I think you're smarter than that. Why do you really think CA wants to tax ammunition? Don't link back to some politico mumbo-jumbo, I want your opinion.

 

[WildCat]

You're asking me? You're against something without even knowing the purpose of it?

I thought you knew all about it?

Reportedly the purpose is to fund intervention programs to reduce violence.

Link

So it's the people who buy lots of ammo that are responsible for the violence?

Why not tax absentee fathers? Parents who don't make their kids go to school? Single parents?

There's a far closer correlation for those actions than there is for gun owners who go through lots of ammunition.

 

[Giz]

Reportedly the purpose is to fund intervention programs to reduce violence.

It's precisely these kinds of maneuvers that make the debate so polarized. Can't you see that this has a massive impact on sport shooters/enthusiasts/hunters etc while having negligible impact on criminal activity? Why antagonize the people who aren't the problem while not addressing those that are? Is this magical thinking, or what?

 

[newyorkguy]

...
Why not tax absentee fathers? Parents who don't make their kids go to school? Single parents?

There's a far closer correlation for those actions than there is for gun owners who go through lots of ammunition.

It's about raising revenue. Fine, let's tax absentee fathers, parents who don't make their kids go to school -- are you talking about home schooling? -- and single parents.

How do you do it? What kind of tax? Does it depend on their income? Are you proposing a flat tax?

And the $64,000 question, do you think you can muster enough support to get it passed?

It's precisely these kinds of maneuvers that make the debate so polarized. Can't you see that this has a massive impact on sport shooters/enthusiasts/hunters etc while having negligible impact on criminal activity? Why antagonize the people who aren't the problem while not addressing those that are? Is this magical thinking, or what?

It's not magical thinking at all. You just don't like it.

Does it have a massive impact on sportsmen? I don't know. I'm not a recreational shooter and I don't live in California. How much is it going to cost the average sportsman per year?

Are you seriously saying that the government isn't addressing the crime problem? America prosecutes and jails more people per capita than just about any other nation. Crimes rates have declined dramatically.

 

[Sabretooth]

It's about raising revenue. Fine, let's tax absentee fathers, parents who don't make their kids go to school -- are you talking about home schooling? -- and single parents.

It's not about raising revenue. It's about handcuffing law-abiding firearm owners. Do try and keep up.

It's not magical thinking at all. You just don't like it.

Ah, the old "I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I" response? Really?

Does it have a massive impact on sportsmen? I don't know. I'm not a recreational shooter and I don't live in California. How much is it going to cost the average sportsman per year?

You know what? Nevermind. You missed the entire point of this subject.

Are you seriously saying that the government isn't addressing the crime problem? America prosecutes and jails more people per capita than just about any other nation. Crimes rates have declined dramatically.

Yet, you sound like you're perfectly willing to enact firearm restrictions that will only hinder law-abiding citizens and benefit the criminals.

 

[Dr. Keith]

I suppose. But that's not why it was written into the BOR.

Yes, but if we follow that inent to its logical conclusion then we have civilian ownership of all military grade tech, and that is just silly. Protecting hunters and sportsmen protects all the freedom fighting gear we are willing to let civilians own.

You make it sound like that's an easy thing to do in a blue state absolutely dominated by the five county area of a little place called NYC.

No, I was merely pointing out that even though he did it to gain support, he actually lost support for doing it.

I was not pointing out that it was easy, I was pointing out that it was already done.

 

[Dr. Keith]

The one that is most popular is Feinstein, and yes, she was specifically referring to assault weapons. In this specific case. Though I do suspect that she would LOVE to have a complete repeal of the 2nd, based on some of the comments I have seen. I also think (I could be mistaken, but it would be a first ) That Gov. Cuomo out of NY has said similar things about confiscation of guns.

Yes, I'm sure they have fantasies of Obama in a pool of jello, but lets look at what they are willing to actually say in public.

Feinstein only talked about confiscating assault weapons, which is horrible policy on many levels, but is not a gun ban.

Cuomo clarified that he wouldn't do anything that impacted hunters or sportsmen, so it is hard to tell what he was talking about, but he got bit in the polls for it and has since been quiet.

They're not all that fringe, but I see your point.

If your "they" is referring to those who would like to see a gun ban in the US then I disagree. So far there has been no really visibile politician who has come up to a mic to call for such a ban. Pretty fringe when you consider that we have national politicians who think the earth is less than 10,000 years old.

Both of those would make removal (if that ever happened) much easier.

Yes, as vehicle registration will make car confiscation (if that ever happened) much easier. And really, I think gas guzzler confiscation may be more likely than a broad gun ban.

I already wrote a long post on the likelihood of any ban and how registration will have little impact on that. respond to that post if you really want to discuss this.

It's a road I'd rather not go down personally.

Don't worry, you aren't alone! I'll hold your hand.

 

[Dr. Keith]

It was in reference to what happened in Australia and Canada when certain classes of weapons were banned.

While those actions each had varying levels of support at the time they were passed, it is important to note that there has been little public outcry to overthrow those actions.

Do you think the US would be similar?

I actually think the UK gun law is pretty sensible, but I don't think it would ever work here. Nope, never.

Maybe my location makes me more confident in the power of gun owners in this country.

 

[Dr. Keith]

I'm fully aware, thank you. My point was, and it's my fault I wasn't clear, I thought it was clear, is that even if congress has the support of the majority of Americans (even for something as simple as expanded background checks) congress doesn't always listen to the will of the people. Congress rarely does....

Pointing out that congress often acts in concert with industry hardly makes it more likely that guns will be banned. Quite the opposite, really.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Well, in California, they just passed a pigouvian tax on ammunition purchases. that might be applied across all future states.

California is a large market and many of their regulations do eventually impact other consumers. To wit: "This product contains a substance known to the State of California to cause cancer."

That being said, their tax policy is rarely copied outside of the state unless it has been proven to be very successful. Even then it would have to be called an Idaho policy before the state of Texas even considered it.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Doubtful.

They'll just stop selling semi-automatics in California. You have to have a box magazine for nearly all rifle calibers, those bullets can't be used in tube magazines because the recoil can push the pointy end of one bullet into the primer of the one in front of it with enough force to ignite the primer. And bullets firing inside a magazine is not good...

More gun laws passed by idiot politicians who know nothing at all about guns.

Agree completely.

 

[Dr. Keith]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...t-during-soccer-game-20130618,0,3097410.story

So they drop several of the charges - including possessing a gun with a defaced serial number - and gets just one year. He may be out already if he had been jailed while awaiting trial. So now this admitted gangbanger will soon be once again roaming the streets of my neighborhood, I guess they'll wait until he kills somebody (if he hasn't already) before getting serious with him.

And note he wasn't even charged at all with violating Chicago's firearms ordinance, they rarely are. That ordinance exists solely to make life difficult for the law-abiding gun owner.

That is complete ********.

(Tri, please note that the above sentence ended in a single word. It's not hard. )

 

[Sabretooth]

Yes, but if we follow that inent to its logical conclusion then we have civilian ownership of all military grade tech, and that is just silly. Protecting hunters and sportsmen protects all the freedom fighting gear we are willing to let civilians own.

But it's a silly premise. How many times have we discussed the evil looking, baby-killing, black assault rifle? That's what NY, CA, and other states are going after...yet, those are exactly the guns that have absolute minimal impact on gun violence numbers. For example, in NY for the year 2011, there were 5 murders with "long guns"...out of a total of 514. Long guns could be defined as rifles, shotguns, and the baby-killing AW's. These politicians trying to go after AW's and labeling them as the problem are barking up the wrong tree...and giving gun owners the "we respect hunters and sportsmen" rhetoric is just a big slap in the face to their intelligence.

We know what the real problem is, so if politicos truly and honestly want to fix the problem, they'd stop with the AW bullcrap and actually find meaningful solutions instead of lowering mag limits and banning guns that have nothing to do with the problem.

No, I was merely pointing out that even though he did it to gain support, he actually lost support for doing it.

I was not pointing out that it was easy, I was pointing out that it was already done.

I hear you...but his "lost support" isn't enough to hang my hat on. His approval rating is still around 58%, so not enough people are pissed as of yet. Dismal, yes, but I'm not convinced. Plus, with elections still 1.5 years away, I can only hope that people don't forget the last six months.

 

[Dr. Keith]

But it's a silly premise. How many times have we discussed the evil looking, baby-killing, black assault rifle? That's what NY, CA, and other states are going after...yet, those are exactly the guns that have absolute minimal impact on gun violence numbers. For example, in NY for the year 2011, there were 5 murders with "long guns"...out of a total of 514. Long guns could be defined as rifles, shotguns, and the baby-killing AW's. These politicians trying to go after AW's and labeling them as the problem are barking up the wrong tree...and giving gun owners the "we respect hunters and sportsmen" rhetoric is just a big slap in the face to their intelligence.

We know what the real problem is, so if politicos truly and honestly want to fix the problem, they'd stop with the AW bullcrap and actually find meaningful solutions instead of lowering mag limits and banning guns that have nothing to do with the problem.

I agree completely.

There are many threads here laying out how completely stupid an assault weapon ban is and while I was once sympathetic, I am now intolerant of such bans. The mere mention of them makes me mad. That's got to be a win for the JREF gun lovers.

I hear you...but his "lost support" isn't enough to hang my hat on. His approval rating is still around 58%, so not enough people are pissed as of yet. Dismal, yes, but I'm not convinced. Plus, with elections still 1.5 years away, I can only hope that people don't forget the last six months.

My only response is: Rick Perry.

I feel your pain, brother.

 

[tyr_13]

My only response is: Rick Perry.

I feel your pain, brother.

Keep in mind the last person the governor of NY ran against...