Part of that is because some of what was conservative 50 years ago (mostly economic stuff) is now considered to be left wing. The modern left ranges from far left communists and anarchists to social liberal third way politics (think Blair and the Clintons), while the right is mostly social authoritarians and free market capitalists. There is less for the right to disagree on, basically.
Even without that there is still the problem of sectarianism in the traditional left. Just how many Trotskyist parties are there in the UK? I can think of at least six which are active. Monty Python didn’t create the Peoples Front of Judea from nothing.
The military, last I checked. Given that it’s their job description to be able to kill the other guy’s men as quickly as possible with as little risk to themselves. Whether or not you agree with that job description or think that it’s necessary is a discussion for another time, but given that ostensibly they have elaborate rules–i.e. their much vaunted Terms of Engagement–on when to use said weapons, I feel slightly better about that than their washouts being able to get access to the same weapons with less oversight.
That’s an interesting way to paint your activity here “trying to restrict access”. Before I commented, the posts on this thread said nothing on that subject and did certainly nothing about gun control but were rather about politicians. I come in an and say something about the mixed and muddy terminology and your contribution was snark followed by piling on that I was derailing the conversation by pointing out the different types of arms and how if we are to discuss the topic we may as well have some idea of what’s being discussed.
Here’s the thing, we can’t limit access to “these kinds of weapons” unless we have some idea what we think “these kinds of weapons” are. Let’s take the current assault weapons ban which was introduced as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 as an example . Under this law, semi automatic weapons are assault weapons if it has threads capable of mounting a flash suppressor and you add something like a comfortable grip. Now that same gun is not an assault rifle under the law if you don’t add the grip but you can add on the flash supressor. So the law as it stands allows the same gun with the same rate of fire and killing capacity as long as you don’t add a comfortable grip. The weapon without the grip is not an assault rifle under current law.
You may ask yourself how that can be. You may wonder how we passed a gun control law that bans assault rifles but defines what it bans in such a silly way. In my view the answer is simple. People, including lawmakers and us dopes in the public, are largely uninformed on the subject. The lobbyists at the NRA however don’t suffer from such self imposed ignorance (and by reading this thread I see that it is self imposed) and they were able to make a gun control law a mostly meaningless one. They rely on your ignorance. Meanwhile, people wanting to end or reduce gun deaths cheered their “victory” of banning assault weapons. So good job so far. Your strategy of ignorance is really helping out the NRA.
You may recall I began by saying any “reasonable definition” in reference to assault rifles? Now why would I say that? I say that because choosing ignorance is not going to win this fight. Now, if all you want to do is circle jerk and kumbaya your days away, then by all means, attack anyone who wants to elevate the discussion to one of utility rather than mental masturbation. The problem is that tactic has been doing pretty bad lately so maybe you might want to consider either educating yourself on the subject you claim to be passionate about (gun control), or perhaps you may want to stop attacking people who share such information. Otherwise, you can expect many more losses in the battle over firearm legislation.
I am against owning guns. Many other civilized nations do just fine without them. That being said, I understand the 2nd amendment is the law of the land, and that there are more guns in the US than people. So its basically impossible to eliminate guns in the US.
I would strongly support requiring 2 things for people wanting to own guns:
1.) you must have a license issued by the federal government after a thorough background check.
2.) you must carry private insurance that covers the owner to pay out $1MM to the victim or their family should that gun be involved in a crime that ended with a conviction of criminal negligence. This should include theft of your weapon if its used in a crime to hurt or threaten someone. Failure to carry insurance would be a crime punishable by loss of the weapon, a fine, and / or time in jail.
Now, I’m sure there’s a bunch of "whatta’bout"s out there, but my point is that we require licenses and insurance for driving and owning a car. I am sure we can do the same thing with guns, without restricting the second amendment.
So then a ban on AR-15s is that what we are after?
Or is this what you want to ban? Well if so, you need to make some decisions. A revolver can kill 6-8 people in a single shooting. A bolt action rifle with a large clip can kill dozens in a single shooting. So are we to ban bolt action rifles? Large magazines? What?
You see, your ignorance on the subject has lead you down a road where nothing gets done because what you want is arbitrary and meaningless. If only there were people who are on your side and want meaningful gun control who knew something about the subject. Maybe then you could come up with a less “magic happens here” position and then you could have one that addresses actual change instead of happy feely bullshit. Maybe then your position might have a chance of being taken seriously by serious people. Unfortunately you have decided to attack those who would help you. So, your desire to ban “A gun that can easily take down dozens of people in a single shooting” will be an ultimately fruitless waste of effort because you can’t agree and don’t even really know what you want to ban.
The Ask Cokie segment on NPR got it right. Cokie said that the NRA is organized and that gun control lobby needs to do the same. We need to have anti-gun lobbyists who have the same kind of financial backing. Otherwise, the NRA will keep winning.
This only makes sense if I buy into the idea that I am ever going to come up with an ideal solution myself.
If we accept that “You don’t know what you are talking about and therefore your concerns are invalid” is a valid response then of course nothing is ever going to get done. Either citizens come out and protest and are dismissed for not having an ideal solution or they go back to their rooms and study and study and still never come up with anything perfect. Either way everything is dismissed and nothing happens. The solution isn’t to try to know more about guns than the NRA does. The solution is to refuse to be silent, even is someone else looks down on you for not knowing an AR from an AK.
Very reasonable. I’d add bans on certain types and calibres of ammo and mandatory firearms owner’s insurance (with discounts for proof of proper training, safe storage, etc.). These things are doable even within the context of America’s NRA-driven insanity.
I think you confuse attempts to educate with telling someone their concern is invalid. Telling people they need to have a cogent and realistic approach to address their concerns is not the same as telling people their concern is not a valid one. Without a cogent and realistic approach to the gun control issue, your concerns will not be addressed.
I’m advocating seeking out knowledge and incorporating that knowledge into your expression of concern and in your strategies to seek mitigation for those concerns. Failing that, I advocate making use of experts to formulate realistic plans to move forward.
That approach as been tried and is exactly what gave us the meaningless assault weapon ban we now have. People shouted, remained ignorant, failed to employ the money and experts like the NRA did and we ended up with a meaningless law.
I saw a post on tumblr in regards to the mass shootings that I feel perfectly encapsulated this thread:
Why do the gun people get so defensive when they score a big win like this? The gun worked! It killed a huge amount of people in a very short period of time! Don’t be so afraid to give yourselves a pat on the back for a job well done.
I’m with you on your overall goal of finding a solution which results in reducing gun deaths. The exact nature of said solution is where we have failed in the past. This is a problem that should be approached with specificity though a single approach is likely an unwise choice.
I feel we should begin with reasonable and easily attainable goals. Most Americans agree with universal background checks, waiting periods for all gun purchases, and the removal of the private transfer loopholes. We can make progress on that front now. The general political will exists to make this change today. But that need not be the only front this battle should be fought.
You seem more interested in banning a category of firearms. That’s a much more complex strategy and a very difficult road to travel. Ultimately, I feel the 2nd is going to be the biggest stumbling block. It’s very difficult to ban a particular class of weapon if it’s most common use is target sports or hunting. As I pointed out earlier, an old fashioned bolt action rifle can allow you to shoot dozens of people without reloading. That’s not a semi-automatic or assault weapon by any definition. So, if we want a ban on weapons capable of killing multiple people, we are going to have to approach it with great specificity otherwise the 2nd is going to kill any chances of such a law being passed.
Another approach I favor is pressuring your state government to call for a constitutional convention to either eliminate or modify the 2nd amendment - though eliminating it is probably impossible given the general lack of political will to do so. Focusing on altering the 2nd may be the best choice for that particular fight.
If you define “assault rifle” to specifically exclude semi-automatic weapons, this is true.
Then there are two obvious questions you can ask:
is that the only reasonable definition for the term “assault rifle”?
is this definition of “assault rifle” being insisted upon for rhetorical reasons?
The answers are respectively “no” and “yes.” One might usefully define “assault rifle” as one designed for use in warfare (as opposed to hunting or self defense). The AR-15, modeled as it is after the M16, would certainly qualify as an “assault rifle” under that definition.
The only reason you don’t accept that definition as perfectly legitimate is that it is politically inconvenient for your pet cause. But the universe doesn’t care about your politics – the AR-15 is what it is, and it is a weapon designed for warfare, not for the common civilian uses of a firearm. Screeching “it’s not an assault rifle!” doesn’t actually change anything.
Wrong. I really don’t care about HOW a gun works, I care about what it can DO. AR-15s can be used to kill a whole lot of people in a very short amount of time, and they frequently are. That’s enough for me to be convinced that it’s one of the kinds of weapons that needs to be regulated more effectively.
One analogy is smog regulation. The most important thing to consider isn’t whether the vehicle being tested is two-stroke or four-stroke or hybrid electric or inline or v-twin or rotary engine. The important thing is “how much pollution is this thing putting out?”
First off - you likely do not have a clue what any of my “pet causes” might be. Secondly, the distinction is important because the firepower capabilities of a weapon are part of the valid discussion. The AR-15 is no more capable a weapon than the hunting guns many tens of millions of Americans have in their closets.
And a lot of these people vote. And a lot of them vote for every fracking Republican on the ticket because of one and only one issue - they are convinced the Democrats are coming after their guns. And that is why lots of Republican nutjobs are elected.
So, don’t get all high and mighty to me about “pet causes” - because it just might be that one of YOURS is needlessly and stupidly getting Republicans elected. OK? THAT is why accuracy in this discussion is important.
I don’t understand your argument here. When I say “You seem more interested in banning a category of firearms.” I am referring to the category you created of “can be used to kill a whole lot of people in a very short amount of time”. I paraphrased to be sure but my intention was to clarify what your goals are. I don’t know for sure but your knee jerk “wrong” reaction makes it seem like perhaps your goal is to simply play the contrarian here.
As I said, that’s a much more complex strategy. That approach requires you define what “kill a whole lot of people in a very short amount of time” and then we would have to determine what arms are capable of meeting your definition. I’ve seen shooters with single action pistols (must pull back the hammer and then must pull the trigger) who can accurately hit 6 targets in 0.98 seconds. That’s a fast rate of fire so old fashioned single action revolvers fit your criteria and that’s one of the slowest gun designs around. Perhaps you want to ban anything that isn’t single load single shot. That’s fine but you should know there is almost zero political will to make that kind of move. As such, some other definition for your category of “can be used to kill a whole lot of people in a very short amount of time” needs to be used because rate of fire isn’t going to work. Magazine capacity or how many shots before reloading could be a metric. Obviously there could be other metrics but you should think about what those might be. Otherwise you leave the metric making to others and the NRA can hire some pretty well suited others.
BTw, your analogy… the engine type does matter. We banned two stroke engines from the road entirely and as for how much pollution does it put out, we are still arguing what pollution is and how much is too much so definite metrics should be used.
