Why gun control push fizzled?

[WildCat]

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

Of course it's a gun ban, just like Chicago's handgun ban was a gun ban. You may well argue that Prohibition wasn't an alcohol ban since it was still available for Communion wine and medical prescriptions.

Particularly since they can keep defining "assault weapon" in increasingly restrictive terms, today in California it's now every semi-auto firearm with a detachable magazine and in New York it's all firearms with a magazine capacity greater than 7 rounds.

Yes, as vehicle registration will make car confiscation (if that ever happened) much easier.

The purpose of vehicle registration is completely different. Nearly all vehicles are driven on public roads (and those that aren't don't usually need to be registered) and often stored on public roads. They are very often parked in illegal places, where they obstruct traffic or street cleaning equipment or take up spaces meant for others or for shoppers in shopping districts. They often need to be towed from said places, and owners must be notified. Registration doesn't make auto confiscation any easier, because an auto can't be hidden in a drawer in the bedroom or the back of a basement closet.

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.

No need, it was a ridiculous claim then and I'm pretty certain you haven't edited it to make your case any more convincing in the meantime. You may as well claim that vehicle registration doesn't make it any easier to figure out who is responsible for the car that skipped the toll or is illegally parked in a handicapped space.

 

[WildCat]

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?

It's already been done in my very city, which is within the borders of the USA. They required registration, and then required you to renew that registration every year (for a fee of course), and if you were one day late on your renewal it became unregisterable and you either had to surrender it to the police or show proof it was removed from Chicago.

I actually think the UK gun law is pretty sensible,

So much for the right to self defense, eh?

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

How is it that Texas has a lower homicide rate than California?

 

[WildCat]

My only response is: Rick Perry.

I feel your pain, brother.

Now that I can understand!

 

[WildCat]

Minor, off-topic nitpick.....That's not unique to LEO's. What's funny, is today I was shooting next to a police officer that shoots at my club, and challenged him to a friendly competition. I beat him by almost 10 seconds on the quick reaction range. 3 times. I won beers afterwards.

Chicago police are only required to shoot 50 rounds per year at a range. Hardly adequate to maintain a high level of skill.

 

[WildCat]

Apparently Maryland has just passed legislation under which "45 different types of assault rifles will be banned, as will sales of magazines that hold more than 10 bullets and handguns that only accept such larger magazines..."

So now the only handguns available to Maryland gun owners will be very small ones (because they aren't large enough to hold more ammo) that are inherently less accurate due to shorter barrels or ones which use a very large bullet like a .45 ACP which limits magazine capacity.

What sense does this make?

 

[newyorkguy]

<snip>

How is it that Texas has a lower homicide rate than California?

Some data I found shows in 2010 Texas actually had a higher homicide rate, 5.0 vs. 4.9. For gun murders California was higher, 3.4 vs. 3.2.

But let's be realistic. If Texas has a) less restrictive gun laws than California, and b) a slightly lower homicide rate, it doesn't necessarily follow that a produced b. It just doesn't. No matter how much we might want to believe that. You still need some data -- something -- to demonstrate the theory.

So now the only handguns available to Maryland gun owners will be very small ones (because they aren't large enough to hold more ammo) that are inherently less accurate due to shorter barrels or ones which use a very large bullet like a .45 ACP which limits magazine capacity.

What sense does this make?

I've asked about this, the self defense issue. How often are guns used for protection? For burglaries or home invasions they could obviously be very valuable. But how often are they used? Are there any figures showing the number of incidents? Are there any figures showing what model of handgun provides the best protection?

The problem is, this issue is not universally accepted as legitimate. There are other ways to protect your home.

I understand some of you find this line of discussion infuriating. To me that just proves this is a very emotional issue. What I'm suggesting is, if you're going to try and make home defense an important criteria for public policy than you have to be willing and able to demonstrate it's effective.

 

[Dr. Keith]

To get more on track with the topic, I believe it's because most of the knee jerk reactions have worn off, as has the sting of Newtown et al.

The sad thing is that we are likely to have another such event in the next 12 months or so. Maybe not so many dead, maybe not in a school, but it doesn't seem like we get much of a break.

And then those pushing for gun control will be accused of only doing it while passions are high.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Please cite the part of the Heller decision that leads you to this conclusion.

Why?

I wasn't basing my argument on Heller and neither was the post I was responding to. I was responding to his assertion, not case law.

Since you are familiar, do you think there is there something in Heller that could add to this conversation? If so, please quote it.

I am not afraid of where the SCOTUS stands on gun control, I think they are wrong in interpreting it as an individual right, but correct in saying that it is a right that can be regulated.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Of course it's a gun ban, just like Chicago's handgun ban was a gun ban. You may well argue that Prohibition wasn't an alcohol ban since it was still available for Communion wine and medical prescriptions.

I think that would work better if prohibition only outlawed a certain type of alcohol. The AWB seems a bit like outlawing absinthe while the handgun ban is more like outlawing all malt liquor. The rich and famous are unaffected, but the poor and the avid collector are put through the ringer.

Either way, I agree that it is bad policy to outlaw small arms by type, even if I don't see it as a total ban.


On registration . . .

I'm not really an advocate of registering guns, my understanding is that it would be nearly impossible to implement effectively. I think licensing owners would be more effective. So, while I still think the slippery slope argument is completely silly I'm not going to put myself in the position of advocating for bad policy.

 

[Dr. Keith]

It's already been done in my very city, which is within the borders of the USA. They required registration, and then required you to renew that registration every year (for a fee of course), and if you were one day late on your renewal it became unregisterable and you either had to surrender it to the police or show proof it was removed from Chicago.

OK, you find me a good job in Chicago and I'll try to hook you up with something here in Dallas. No reason for both of us to live in so much angst.

 

[newyorkguy]

...

I did discuss the issue. You contented blame go to gun advocates. I disagreed and content there is blame to go around. Again, sorry you feel attacked by this. Try to get past your hurt feelings and look at the arguments.

Don't forget your feeling of feeling attacked though. Keep that in mind while reading the responses of others who may very well feel attacked for their hobbies.

Believe me when I said I regretted responding it wasn't because my feelings were hurt. It was because I don't happen to feel this is a productive discussion with you.

Example: I "contented blame go to gun advocates." Blame for what? Seriously, with all due respect, I don't know what you're talking about half the time. You kept going on about "straw man." But you don't explain what exactly you're referring to or why you believe it's a straw man.

The one point you made that I found interesting, and that is the only reason I'm responding, is when you wrote,

Don't forget your feeling of feeling attacked though. Keep that in mind while reading the responses of others who may very well feel attacked for their hobbies.

Is that what this is about? Is that why you seem so emotionally invested in this? I realize that gun advocates get made fun of a lot. Being a gun advocate in 2013 is not considered cool by a vast majority of the public. Maybe people are too rough. Maybe people should be more respectful of gun owners. That's a valid point. That explains a lot actually.

I remember Johnny Carson coming out with the plaid hunter's cap on, playing the dopey guy. A lot of comedians treat "gun advocates" as though they were clowns and that's got to be hurtful. That's probably not too cool. On this forum I think everyone has been respectful of gun advocates. We disagree but we maintain respect.

Is that what you're referring to? As a gun advocate -- and I'm presuming you are although I'm not sure you've ever come out and written that (maybe you aren't?) -- when you hear politicians or newscasters talk negatively "about all the guns in this country," do you take that personally? When there's a Columbine or Newtown do you feel guilty? Or defensive? Like when commentators say, after Newtown, "We have to reduce the number of guns in this country," do you feel you're somehow being assigned some of the blame for these mass shootings? Because you're a 'gun nut?'

 

[tyr_13]

Believe me when I said I regretted responding it wasn't because my feelings were hurt. It was because I don't happen to feel this is a productive discussion with you.

Example: I "contented blame go to gun advocates." Blame for what? Seriously, with all due respect, I don't know what you're talking about half the time. You kept going on about "straw man." But you don't explain what exactly you're referring to or why you believe it's a straw man.

I explained both already. I've gone into detail on the straw man you created. Perhaps you see it only as hyperbole. Please go back and read my posts or I can quote the relevant sections of them.

The entirety of one of my posts was a quick statement of part of what you've blamed gun advocates for. Quickly again, the lack of good laws and things like the AWB are because gun advocates (which you seem to equate with the NRA? They've both in the same set, but not equal to each other.) stay out of the conversation except to take pot shots. I don't think either claim is true. I explained twice that I see it as more of a generalized failure of which groups like the NRA and other gun advocates are only part.

The one point you made that I found interesting, and that is the only reason I'm responding, is when you wrote,


Is that what this is about? Is that why you seem so emotionally invested in this? I realize that gun advocates get made fun of a lot. Being a gun advocate in 2013 is not considered cool by a vast majority of the public. Maybe people are too rough. Maybe people should be more respectful of gun owners. That's a valid point. That explains a lot actually.

I remember Johnny Carson coming out with the plaid hunter's cap on, playing the dopey guy. A lot of comedians treat "gun advocates" as though they were clowns and that's got to be hurtful. That's probably not too cool. On this forum I think everyone has been respectful of gun advocates. We disagree but we maintain respect.

Is that what you're referring to? As a gun advocate -- and I'm presuming you are although you I'm not sure you've ever come out and written that (maybe you aren't?) -- when you hear politicians or newscasters talk negatively "about all the guns in this country," do you take that personally? When there's a Columbine or Newtown do you feel guilty? Or defensive? Like when commentators say, after Newtown, "We have to reduce the number of guns in this country," do you feel you're somehow being assigned some of the blame for these mass shootings? Because you're a 'gun nut?'

No that's not what this is all about. My calling out of your straw man was because it was so blatant. My criticizing bad gun policies and laws is because I believe we can do more to keep guns out of the hands of the unfit while not overly burdening the common owner. Yes it's hurtful and annoying that people equate gun ownership and use to violent murdering psychopaths. People have and do assign blame for Newtown to gun owners in general. They talk about blood on gun owners hands, and the deaths of children. Of course many gun owners are going to just turn off to any suggestions of more restrictions at that point. They've already been called child murderers without moderate gun control advocates calling out such rhetoric as wrong. I'm not one of them though as you should know. Seriously, are you reading my posts or just skimming for things to argue against? I've argued for more or better controls in posts you've quoted from me.

If you truly believe people on these boards have been respectful of gun owners then you have not been reading the threads very closely at all. While most have been there is a sizable and vocal minority who are not.

 

[AlBell]

I'm not practicing gamesmanship.

Oh?

... snippity snip...


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.

I've not seen anyone suggesting armed confrontation on an on-going basis is a problem, rather that if such a confrontation were to occur they'd prefer to also be armed, as I would too.

You just want to ensure they can't fight back effectively against an armed mugger/robber/carjacker/etc.

 

[newyorkguy]

...
Cuomo could have gone after something that might actually help, get less opposition, and get political credit. For example, reduce restrictions on certain elements currently controlled to get some support from certain sectors of gun users and implement a generalized permit/certification system. Change the current county by county, county sheriff permission system of CCW and hunter safety courses to a state wide shall issue system to identify criminals and crazies while letting the lawful have a clearer picture on what is and is not legal. It would be a simplified system that helps all involved besides criminals, although obviously I'm leaving a lot of details out.

...

Yes, you're leaving so many details out that I for one have little idea what you mean.

 

[newyorkguy]

Oh?


There you go again.

I've not seen anyone suggesting armed confrontation on an on-going basis is a problem, rather that if such a confrontation were to occur they'd prefer to also be armed, as I would too.

You just want to ensure they can't fight back effectively against an armed mugger/robber/carjacker/etc.

How is asking a question about how often do gun owners fight back effectively against a mugger/robber/carjacker saying I don't want them to be able to fight back effectively? Are they any stats to show this is a valid point? That's all I'm asking.

I was robbed at gun point. About thirty years ago when I drove a cab in New York City at night. I stopped to get something to eat. The guys waited for me to come back. They know cab drivers have cash on them. As soon as I unlocked the car one got in the back seat and one slid in the front. The cab didn't have a partition. The guy in the back grabbed me around the neck. The guy in the front stuck a gun in my face. If I had tried to get a gun out I probably would've been shot.

They were pros. I'll give them that. They're not going to give people a chance to go for a gun. They're aware of that possibility. They're ready to shoot.

I'm sure you know most police officers do not advocate people trying to resist an armed assailant. I know a lot of cops. I dispatched cabs in a company where we had a lot of off-duty police officers moonlighting as cab drivers. I've heard them say countless times, it's safer to just hand over the money or your phone or whatever. It's not worth your life.

 

[WildCat]

Some data I found shows in 2010 Texas actually had a higher homicide rate, 5.0 vs. 4.9. For gun murders California was higher, 3.4 vs. 3.2.

But let's be realistic. If Texas has a) less restrictive gun laws than California, and b) a slightly lower homicide rate, it doesn't necessarily follow that a produced b. It just doesn't. No matter how much we might want to believe that. You still need some data -- something -- to demonstrate the theory.

2011 stats Texas 4.4/100,000, California 4.8/100,000. Both are large states (#1 and #2 by population in the US) with similar demographics which contain several large urban areas and both border Mexico.

Wildly different gun laws, yet very similar homicide rates. One might conclude that California's restrictions do nothing but violate the rights of law abiding gun owners.

I've asked about this, the self defense issue. How often are guns used for protection? For burglaries or home invasions they could obviously be very valuable. But how often are they used? Are there any figures showing the number of incidents? Are there any figures showing what model of handgun provides the best protection?

Guns are valuable for protection because they are an equalizer, even a frail old woman can defend herself against a young fit male if she's skilled with a firearm. The model of handgun that provides the best protection is the one you have on hand with which you are most proficient. It will vary from person to person, again you don't seem to now anything at all about firearms.

The problem is, this issue is not universally accepted as legitimate. There are other ways to protect your home.

Yes there are, but no single way protects against all threats. And there are certainly times where nothing but a handgun will do.

I understand some of you find this line of discussion infuriating. To me that just proves this is a very emotional issue. What I'm suggesting is, if you're going to try and make home defense an important criteria for public policy than you have to be willing and able to demonstrate it's effective.

There are countless instances of handguns being effective in personal defense. Perhaps you noticed even police carry them for that purpose?

 

[tyr_13]

Yes, you're leaving so many details out that I for one have little idea what you mean.

By a permit/certificate system? Do you know how the current CCW system in New York works? I'm just trying to get a handle on how much I have to explain.

Basically expanding that to all firearms, but also making it less restrictive and more more universal. I don't know what agency would be ultimately responsible, but if plausible it would be nice to take it out of the hands of county sheriffs who currently differ wildly on when they grant them and into the hands of the State Police with clear criteria for when to deny them. Back off the AWB stuff like foregrips and angle of the handle, but make guns only transferable to those with a valid certificate. Suspend or rescind the certificate when certain fairly clear criteria are met along with clear steps to get it, and the guns, back. This seems a fair tradeoff to me. Get as many of the moderates as possible on board and the gun clubs themselves. Make having a certificate and having everyone in good standing a point of pride.

That alone would help, but to be truly effective enforcement priority would have to change to target illegal weapons and weapon violations and DAs would have to pursue the charges.

 

[Xulld]

I'm not practicing gamesmanship.

If not then you are struggling with rationality, or are missing a lot in the reading.

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.

It is called a reasoned argument, or a logical argument. I have found that almost all of the forum members here struggle with identifying a logical argument vs a statistical argument.

Your response was to call it a straw man.

It most certainly was, either that or it illuminated your inability to understand . . .

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.)

This is called shifting the goal posts. That it the event in question occurs makes it a rational logical argument, the degree to which it happens was not in question until you "shifted the goal posts". Get it?

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

There was no need to do that to support the logical argument until you moved the goal posts.

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.

It only matters now from your new position with the goal posts moved to consider the rate vs the logic of the argument. See how you are equivocating a logical argument with a statistical argument, and the point being raised vs the impact?

Again, any individual impacted is important for that individual. If you want to change the argument from a reasoned argument about what can impact individuals to a risk/benefit analysis by all means, but don't equivocate the two.

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.

Wow. Awfully audacious to shift the goal posts from a logical argument to a statistical one complaining that statistics where not presented, but it reaches whole new levels when you then counter the logical argument with a statistical argument and never cite any statistics.
WOW WOW.

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

Really irrelevant given the incredible sloppy reasoning, and inability to identify and follow the arguments presented.

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.

Another WOW. The context of the conversation is, and has always been legislation to reduce the incidence of violence.

Any legislation proposed should be considered from that context? No?

I am starting to think the honesty rating I gave you was in error.

 

[newyorkguy]

2011 stats Texas 4.4/100,000, California 4.8/100,000. Both are large states (#1 and #2 by population in the US) with similar demographics which contain several large urban areas and both border Mexico.

Wildly different gun laws, yet very similar homicide rates. One might conclude that California's restrictions do nothing but violate the rights of law abiding gun owners.


Guns are valuable for protection because they are an equalizer, even a frail old woman can defend herself against a young fit male if she's skilled with a firearm. The model of handgun that provides the best protection is the one you have on hand with which you are most proficient. It will vary from person to person, again you don't seem to now anything at all about firearms.


Yes there are, but no single way protects against all threats. And there are certainly times where nothing but a handgun will do.


There are countless instances of handguns being effective in personal defense. Perhaps you noticed even police carry them for that purpose?

I understand what you're saying except you're just making a series of statements. I know you believe it but is there any direct evidence that gun owners suffer less crime? You're not providing anything to back it up. If you want to influence public opinion you have to have compelling evidence. Not just compelling talking points.

Is there any direct evidence that gun owners suffer less crime?

You can make a snarky reply -- I'll make it for you, Let's see, I'm wearing a gun and you're not. Who do you suppose the criminal is going to attack? -- but that's not proving anything. It just suggests you don't have anything to back up what you're stating.

 

[Dr. Keith]

2011 stats Texas 4.4/100,000, California 4.8/100,000. Both are large states (#1 and #2 by population in the US) with similar demographics which contain several large urban areas and both border Mexico.

I think this is similar to your comparisons between Chicago and Houston, it looks like cherry picking.

Not to mention that the states you have chosen to compare, while superficially similar, are in fact very different. I've spent a lot of time in both and in some ways they are like different countries.

Wildly different gun laws, yet very similar homicide rates.

Is that in line with your original claim on this issue?

One might conclude that California's restrictions do nothing but violate the rights of law abiding gun owners.

One might conclude that the winds off the pacific negate the impact of the restrictions, as well. Neither conclusion has much support from the presented data.