Does anyone actually want a gun ban?

Post Reply New Topic

I can still see it passing no matter what may happen in coming elections, as once it's through, it'll be so much harder to remove it (have a look at the NFA now. You're often seen as an "extremist" if you want to remove that).

I can see many not really caring about their careers if they can get it through either (not that their careers will be in jeopardy; sure, they might change jobs, but they'll still be there with hands in it all).

Big difference is this is the US, not Australia, where political gridlock is the rule not the exception. Evidence for that is all around us right now.. An AWB might pass in the Senate with Democrat support and Obama behind it, but I don't see it having a chance in the house, where opposition to an AWB is the rule not the exception among Republican representatives.

Tighter restrictions on back ground checks to register guns is likely, I think, with an outside potential of reducing the capacity of ammunition clips. I haven't seen any serious non-partisan political analyst giving Senator Feinstein's AWB bill a chance in passing the house. Her extreme measures in that bill likely paves the way to doom for any other gun control bill with a provision for an AWB.

Obama says he'll sign an AWB if passed in Congress, but has passed it off to Biden, who will likely come back with something that has a chance to pass. The GOP couldn't even pass their own compromise to avoid the fiscal cliff. However, if they block all attempts at reasonable expansions of restrictions on the process of registration of guns, they may be in some trouble when the mid-term election come around, if another "big" shooting occurs between now and then.

Gridlock is actually our safety system, designed to prevent rash legislation from being passed in the heat of an emotional moment. I think this is one of those moments.

I'm in agreement with Browning on this one as well, there are enough blue dogs in addition to the GOP that can't vote for gun control and survive electorally that Feinstein's bill is DOA, whether in the both chambers or just the House being the only real question. It's still aggravating though, and certainly enough to give me pause about any personal voting bipartisanship in the future unless the Dems junk their gun control plank once and for all, as this is clear evidence that it's been smoldering all these years despite public denials.

BTW, Feinstein is someone who is in favor of a total gun ban, as she famously remarked back in 94 that if she'd had the votes it would have been "Mr and Mrs America, turn them all in". This is a woman who possessed a California CCW (impossible for the non-connected to obtain) and carried a handgun for her own protection at the same time that she was trying to ban handguns in San Francisco, which is about par for the course for the anti-gun people in terms of personal integrity. Protection for me, but not for thee.

on the national level i agree with you and john browning,but states like massachusetts,connecticut,rhode island,new york etc....

states may approve more restrictive laws than could ever be passed in the senate or house and signed by obama.
there is some legal president for local jurisdictions having the right to restrict guns how they choose.for instance the city of boston itself has more restrictive gun laws then even mass as whole

Yeah, the states could be trouble; even my own state has introduced a spate of troubling legislation in recent days. On the other hand, the 2A has been on a bit of a hot-streak in the court system lately, and with any luck we can get recognition of 2A rights in the form of national preemption of certain laws, much like we have state preemption where I live that prevents city governments from creating their own legislative patchwork. The Constitution trumps the states on this, and we just need to get the courts to recognize that.

ultimately the consitution would win and for instance i believe washington d.c's hand gun ban was repealed but those types of litigation could take years.

That's true, as much as people worry about control of all types at the federal level, I can't see where the level of some of those concerns are justified, as states are finding ways to opt out of parts of health care reform; the only real change that has been effected by the Obama administration. The option to move somewhere else, where the rules are different is usually there, if someone can find a job and afford the move.

It will probably end up being like the situation in California when it comes to new legislation in the northeast: they pass all kinds of draconian laws, they go to court, they are struck down partially or entirely, and what's left is a bizarre patchwork of laws that literally take a flowchart to figure out- legal items are often indistinguishable from illegal items at a glance, and some, like flash suppressors, may require lab testing to determine if they count as an assault weapon feature.

You can cause a decent amount of casualties with explosives as well.

You may be shocked to learn that rocks, fire, spears, swords, clubs and knives still exist yet almost every other developed country bar none without universal legal gun ownership has significally less gun related violence... ...well significantly less violence in general, than the United States. That isn't a coincidence.

the violent crime rate in the US is 466 per 100,000

your right, it isn't a coincidence but I think it's the other way around

You would be right if it was an analogous comparison and if the USA werent such a vast, vast country. It would be more interesting to see the figures on a state by state basis rather than nationally.

Some American states will have a greater rate of violence than other American States. New York and California will have enormously greater violence than Arizona or New Mexico, because in the latter 2 states all there is is desert, cacti, armadilloes and a few rattlesnakes, rather than decaying ghettoes in close proximity to obscene excess and privilege. Much fewer opportunities and motives for gang banging and criminality.

here it is by state

http://www.census.gov/statab/ranks/rank21.html

Clearly you've never been thru Arizona or New Mexico.

Violent crime in the US is pretty much concentrated in the poor inner cities which also have the strictest gun control. DC, which has by far the strictest gun control in the country, has crime rates far and away higher than the rest of the rest of the country. Rural areas which have a much higher rate of gun ownership have much less crime.

Poverty and our drug laws are much more significant factors in crime in the US than access to guns. Private gun ownership for the purpose of self defense depresses the rate of crime rather than enhances it if anything.

Last edited by Jacoby on 31 Dec 2012, 4:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

criminal gang banging in city neiborhoods almost alway occurs with "illegal guns" anyway though.so you disproved your own point.
so can you still help us to understand how u.k style gun bans are going to help

Admittedly, no. I'm going largely from anecdotal sources about local attitudes, specifically from Americans that i've spoken to with nothing to gain from lying about it.

One told me that in New York, people would indifferently and routinely walk past bullet riddled corpses in the street without batting an eyelid because they had become conditioned to it. Even the roughest parts of the UK's meanest cities like Birmingham and London are not like that.

That is because in the rural areas, there is a far less pronunced gap between rich and poor. There are fewer motives for economically motivated crime.


To quote Eddie Izzard

"The NRA says guns dont kill people, people do... but i think... ... the gun helps.... ...standing next to someone and going BANG BANG BANG! Thats not going to kill too many people... ... not unless they have a dodgy ticker"

That source was from the daily mail; it doesn't include the caveat or the ability to comment to clarify that the US only counts aggravated assault in it's violent crime statistics. The most reliable factor of crime compared between countries is understood to be overall homicide rates.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_t ... comparison