And yet ANOTHER mass shooting... (San Bernardino)

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by tarcone

I disagree that more will result in less.
Using your drivers liscense analogy, how many unliscensed or uninsured drivers are on the road? Probably a lot more then you think. I dont think those laws prevent someone from driving.

If the penalties included substantial time in jail, there would be a lot less people driving without a license. The problem is the laws have no teeth.

[Coffee Warlord]

Originally Posted by Kodos

If the penalties included substantial time in jail, there would be a lot less people driving without a license. The problem is the laws have no teeth.

And it's very nearly impossible to catch someone driving without a license unless they happen to do something stupid in the vicinity of a cop (who is also paying attention). Very low risk.

Considering our ridiculous incarceration rate for non-violent crimes as it is, throwing people in jail for driving without a license is certainly not the answer. There's really not much you can realistically do about this one.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The rifles they used are illegal in California.

Purchased from a CA gun shop though. At least what the news is saying. I'm guessing they were guns that were grandfathered in from the 1989 ban and were able to be owner transferred?

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by wustin

Crime and murder rate in general has risen in eastern european countries with strict gun laws. I think it's the same for Australia too but I'd have to double check that.

Most gun deaths in the US are via suicide (I think they account for over 50%). Sure less guns will give you less gun related deaths (it makes sense logically and there're studies to prove this) but it wouldn't do anything about the people with suicidal tendencies. So you have to look at other potential consequences than just "More guns = more gun deaths, less guns = less gun deaths" in the US because the country leads the world in rate of people with mental disorders and is top 5 in substance abuse.

There have been studies done that many suicidal people go through a crisis period where if they have a means to kill themselves, they will use it, but if there is no option to kill themselves in that window of time, many of them will not attempt to kill themselves later.

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

And it's very nearly impossible to catch someone driving without a license unless they happen to do something stupid in the vicinity of a cop (who is also paying attention). Very low risk.

Considering our ridiculous incarceration rate for non-violent crimes as it is, throwing people in jail for driving without a license is certainly not the answer. There's really not much you can realistically do about this one.

If they're driving without a license because they lost it due to a DUI, then they are a danger to other drivers and absolutely should see significant jail time. Not just a slap on the wrist.

And let's face it, if you've lost your license, you probably do stupid things while driving on a regular basis.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Purchased from a CA gun shop though. At leeast what the news is saying. I'm guessing they were guns that were grandfathered in from the 1989 ban and were able to be owner transferred?

I'm not picking on you in particular here, as this whole line of discussion seems to be a frequent one, but I do find it a little silly when both sides make their "gotchas" over whether a particular firearm is/was legal in a particular locale. In this country in this age, any firearm that's legal anywhere in the United States can be acquired fairly easily if someone wants it badly enough. A particular locale's laws are merely inconveniences.

[Kodos]

CU - Thanks for the breakdown. I described the type of gun I wanted to limit because I knew that I didn't know the specific names and types of guns that are out there. My main premise is I want a shooter to have to have to manually pull the trigger in a slow process instead being able to go in Rambo-style with guns blaring. I want them to have to reload after a small number of shots, or switch to a different gun. Give people around them a chance to escape or tackle the shooter down to the ground.

I want people to be able to hunt. I'll never hunt personally, because I couldn't ever bring myself to kill an animal for sport. I'll kill a fish to eat it, but I feel bad if a catch-and-release fish dies on me. I understand that it's necessary to thin the herds for deer and whatnot. Shoot all the squirrels and pigeons you like. No problem with me.

Unfortunately, our country brews a lot of crazy individuals, and we need to find ways to limit the damage they do. I'm sorry if that desire puts me at odds with people who want to hunt or protect their family. My proposals aren't meant to inconvenience people who want to use guns responsibly. I want to slow down the crazies. I realize they can never truly be stopped. But we have to at least try to slow them down and make things more difficult for them.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by TroyF

I guess the moron part of your statement just means I'm too stupid to understand what I have read.

You said it here better than I would have.

I'm for the laws you have proposed so far.

Aside from the wanting specific proof as to how those laws would reduce gun violence going forward in the future before you even want to begin implementing them. Yeeeeahh... Is that really being for those laws, or is that saying you are for them and looking for an excuse not to pass them so you can straddle both sides?

[Bobble]

Once you guys figure out gun control, don't these assholes just use a bomb? Seems like we're not addressing the problem -- which is that someone actually wants to kill a bunch of people.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Bobble

Once you guys figure out gun control, don't these assholes just use a bomb? Seems like we're not addressing the problem -- which is that someone actually wants to kill a bunch of people.

Do you believe that the US just has more lunatics than any other country? Is it something in our food? GMOs mutate us into killers?

[Bobble]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Do you believe that the US just has more lunatics than any other country? Is it something in our food? GMOs mutate us into killers?

Do you believe that the only reason these people did this was that they found a gun and couldn't figure out anything else to do with it?

I don't think I'm understanding your point.

[MacroGuru]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Do you believe that the US just has more lunatics than any other country? Is it something in our food? GMOs mutate us into killers?

I said it earlier and I will say it again. We as a culture glorify violence. We push it upon people in all areas TV Shows, Video Games, Music, Books..etc and we are desensitized to it. When you can play a video game, walk up to someone pull the trigger, kill them, and walk away...where is the ability for a kid to understand that it is wrong. Or they get into a shootout in the game with cops, kill them and run away and then get away free? (Yes I know, I play these games)

Movies show the same thing and some of the music enforces it, so we as a culture are the root cause to this.

As a parent I noticed a big difference in my kids when I let them play their "violent" video games and the non violent ones to the point I actually traded in almost all my FPS for sports games. (I am a hypocritical father and like my HALO games)

I also feel the rest of the world respects guns as most countries have their people of age serve in the military. They learn to respect their weapon, they learn a lot about it and some of them have experienced the damage one can leave first hand.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Bobble

Do you believe that the only reason these people did this was that they found a gun and couldn't figure out anything else to do with it?

I don't think I'm understanding your point.

So is your argument actually is that the US has more lunatics than anywhere else. My point is that if you think these individuals would have resorted to bombs and killed people regardless of the easy of availability of weapons, then the US has more wackos than countries where guns are banned or heavily restricted and they don't have even close to this level of death and destruction.

My point is that ease of access to lethal weaponry makes it far easier for an angry person to actually kill people as opposed to having to deal with their rage in other ways because they can't find any readily available weapons. I'm sure we've all been so mad that we wanted to hurt someone else in our lives... some people go even farther than that... having a gun around makes it easier to enact that hurt upon others. Not having a gun around makes one resort to maybe starting a brawl or raging out somewhere else rather than killing someone.

It's like what was earlier stated upthread about crisis period for suicide - there is a certain period where if people can get their hands on something lethal, they will use it, but when that period goes away, they likely will not try again.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by MacroGuru

I said it earlier and I will say it again. We as a culture glorify violence. We push it upon people in all areas TV Shows, Video Games, Music, Books..etc and we are desensitized to it. When you can play a video game, walk up to someone pull the trigger, kill them, and walk away...where is the ability for a kid to understand that it is wrong. Or they get into a shootout in the game with cops, kill them and run away and then get away free? (Yes I know, I play these games)

Movies show the same thing and some of the music enforces it, so we as a culture are the root cause to this.

I hear this "explanation" and my mind boggles at it. So the UK doesn't watch the same movies, TV shows, have the same video games, listen to the same music? Australia? Heck, Canada?

So why is the problem here when the 'culture' is all over the place?

[Dutch]

So what is the plan for the 270 million guns once the government repeals the 2nd amendment?

[jeff061]

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/03/health...ile/index.html

Thought this was a cool article. I don't mean this to have anything to do with this gun debate, so don't read into it. Interesting to hear about medical doctors who are members of the SWAT team and trained for urban combat. In this case he got the call, suited up and went in before any other members of SWAT were onsite.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Dutch

So what is the plan for the 270 million guns once the government repeals the 2nd amendment?

Please stop

[Kodos]

Dutch: You keep coming back to that, but who here is saying we're going to repeal the 2nd amendment and come for the 270 million guns? (Maybe ISiddiqui?) You constantly retreat into claiming the gun control people in this thread are demanding something nobody (or at least almost nobody) is asking for to try to invalidate the gun control side.

WHY DO YOU WANT EVERYBODY TO DIE AT THE HANDS OF A GUN-WIELDING MANIAC?!?

See? We can do that too.

[Bobble]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

My point is that ease of access to lethal weaponry makes it far easier for an angry person to actually kill people as opposed to having to deal with their rage in other ways because they can't find any readily available weapons.

Ah, I think I understand.

My point is that I don't think it's possible to remove all sources for a person to harm themselves and others. The focus should be on WHY that person wants to harm people. Seems to me that there's too much focus on the symptoms (or in this case the means) and not the disease.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

You said it here better than I would have.



Aside from the wanting specific proof as to how those laws would reduce gun violence going forward in the future before you even want to begin implementing them. Yeeeeahh... Is that really being for those laws, or is that saying you are for them and looking for an excuse not to pass them so you can straddle both sides?

Ok, maybe I had too much to drink over the last few days and I am having some sort of a blackout because I think I have said about thirty times I am for passing the gun laws you are talking about.

Please, seriously, someone please show me where I have said, "We should not pass any laws until we do more research" I am being called evil by you, the least you (or anyone else) can do is show me where I have said that.


Here is the post that seems to have caused people to lose their fucking minds:

*****It is incredibly easy to spout the blood on their hands arguement, but if they had closed all the loopholes people wanted closed, there are zero indications this act would not have taken place.

Again, you are arguing with the wrong person. I want to see more laws passed. But my head is not in the sand pretending that legislation is going to fix this problem.


A graph at the top of this thread shows more than one a day. Ok, lets see the facts. How many of those guns were bought at gun shows? How many were purchased by people with known mental issues? What is the most common type of weapon used?

It is time to stop acting like we know it all. Lets get down to facts before we start talking about blood and blaming one party over the other. There were residents who said they saw strange things, but didntreport them because they didnt want to stereotype. Which party is responsible for that exactly? Hint. . . You should turn your head left. ********

My point in that is that I dont believe these laws are going to fix this problem. While we pass these laws that I think make perfect sense, why dont we also see how many of the past shootings they would have solved so we have an idea how how much they will help and what other things we need to do beyond those laws. Is this really that difficult of a concept to grasp? If we come to the conclusion itll stop 25% of the mass shootings in this country, that means we get a whopping one day off in four. (By the way, I think this is a very high number, my guess is well see a nominal reduction) Thats progress, but it doesnt solve the massive culture problem we have in this country.

I said earlier in the thread we had to do a lit of things beyond gun laws. This problem will not be fixed by only gun laws, by only better mental health, by only screaming at each other.

Outside of another shot at me, did you even bother to read the Harvard study i posted that showed your comments to be false? Or what about the other people who said they were wrong? Are they all stupid and evil?

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by Bobble

Ah, I think I understand.

My point is that I don't think it's possible to remove all sources for a person to harm themselves and others. The focus should be on WHY that person wants to harm people. Seems to me that there's too much focus on the symptoms (or in this case the means) and not the disease.

Why not attack from both angles? Why not use every tool in the shed?

We have some people who do things due to mental illness, some people who do things for religious reasons, some people who hate others based on their skin color or their gender or sexual preference or because they like to use birth control or want to get an abortion. People have all sorts of reasons for killing each other.

[lighthousekeeper]

Originally Posted by Kodos

Dutch: You keep coming back to that, but who here is saying we're going to repeal the 2nd amendment and come for the 270 million guns?

Well I for one would be in favor of abolishing the 2nd amendment and confiscating all guns. I'd also be in favor of waging war against any who resist.



*edit: mental note to self...delete this post before running for president...*

[Kodos]

Okay, well, there are exceptions.

I view that as not realistic, so I don't consider it to be an option. If I could magically make all the guns disappear with the wave of a wand, yes, I'd do it. But we don't live in a world where magical wands work. So we have to try to find practical solutions that might help in the real world. We have to try to meet in the middle somewhere between no guns for anyone and all guns for everyone.


Kang: Abortions for all. [crowd boos]
Kang: Very well, no abortions for anyone. [crowd boos]
Kang: Hmm... Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others.

[timmae]

ISid... I am not sure if I agree with you or not but I am 100% sure I am completely turned off by your responses the last few pages. Please review how your posts may be taken by others and you may start to have a 2 way discussion.

[MacroGuru]

Originally Posted by lighthousekeeper

Well I for one would be in favor of abolishing the 2nd amendment and confiscating all guns. I'd also be in favor of waging war against any who resist.



*edit: mental note to self...delete this post before running for president...*

A war would be had..and it would rival the Civil War and send this country into a complete tail spin more than it already is and I doubt you would be able to get most of the military to support it....

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by Kodos

I want people to be able to hunt. I'll never hunt personally, because I couldn't ever bring myself to kill an animal for sport. I'll kill a fish to eat it, but I feel bad if a catch-and-release fish dies on me. I understand that it's necessary to thin the herds for deer and whatnot. Shoot all the squirrels and pigeons you like. No problem with me.

FWIW Every animal killed by me and my family*** is eaten either by us OR through a local Hunters for the Homeless program. Where you can donate animals and pay the processing fee to a number of local meat shops and they will clean and cut up the meat (into burger, sausage, chops, steaks for venison for example) and serve it at homeless shelters and actually provide it free of charge to people who just come by and say they are having trouble affording food to feed their family.


*** The lone exception is the aforementioned coyotes. Heck they are so rank the buzzards wont even eat them. We have begun to drag them to fire ant piles, as that's the only thing that will eat the nasty SOBs.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by timmae

ISid... I am not sure if I agree with you or not but I am 100% sure I am completely turned off by your responses the last few pages. Please review how your posts may be taken by others and you may start to have a 2 way discussion.

And I have gotten more than a few PM's thanking me for fighting the good fight. At some point, a la Network, "I'm mad as Hell and I'm not going to take it anymore".

And Troy, damn do you love your strawmen. First it was my contention that the right wing have blood on their hands meant I was saying that all gun owners had blood on their hands and now it's my calling you an accomplice to evil meaning I called you evil. I find it interesting. Do you normally strawman this much in other discussions? Because it's like a strawman a post here. (at the same token, I like how the Harvard study - which yes, I have read and there is tons and tons of more studies showing the exact opposite, btw, indicating I think the 2007 Harvard study to be an outlier... kind of like the studies that show that Climate Change doesn't exist - so much is pointed in the other direction that you have to question those - goes from doesn't correlate and you don't know of the bias to it shows your comments to be false. I find it to be an interesting phenomenon among some sides that something starts out with "well, this may be something" and by saying it over and over again becomes "this IS something" - and it isn't just you, but you seem to have totally done it plenty here)

[BillJasper]

If this is a mental health instead of a gun issue, then where is the money and legislation to deal with the problem?

I keep hearing this from conservatives but haven't seen them come forth with any solutions. If they want to keep a free flow of guns, it seems like they'd come up with ways to address the issue of mental health.

[lighthousekeeper]

Originally Posted by Kodos

Okay, well, there are exceptions.

I view that as not realistic, so I don't consider it to be an option.

A decade ago, if someone would have proposed that the US should implement a system whereby the federal government secretly records the electronic communications of all Americans, for the purpose of aiding in prosecution against said Americans, I would have said the same thing. "No way do they have the means, and absolutely no way the People are going to let that happen." The Patriot Act and its ilk have demonstrated that the Feds are a lot more capable (when they have the willpower) than we give them credit for, and that people are a lot more open to an authoritarian government than you would think.

[Ben E Lou]

Meanwhile....

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/04/us/san...ing/index.html

[jeff061]

By pledge allegiance, they mean they made a Facebook post. Any angry idiot can do that regardless of the motive, doesn't mean they were sponsored or trained.

Media and President are itching to link it to ISIS.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

If this is a mental health instead of a gun issue, then where is the money and legislation to deal with the problem?

I keep hearing this from conservatives but haven't seen them come forth with any solutions. If they want to keep a free flow of guns, it seems like they'd come up with ways to address the issue of mental health.

Here. Here. In addition, it seems to be that conservatives in this country appear to be saying that the US has more mentally ill than other countries. Or we've simply failed in mental health issues, which would stem all the way back to Ronald Reagan closing the mental hospitals. So the conservatives are kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place - either they claim we have more mentally ill people than anywhere else (interesting sell), or they claim that more government was a decent solution to the mental illness problem.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by lighthousekeeper

A decade ago, if someone would have proposed that the US should implement a system whereby the federal government secretly records the electronic communications of all Americans, for the purpose of aiding in prosecution against said Americans, I would have said the same thing. "No way do they have the means, and absolutely no way the People are going to let that happen." The Patriot Act and its ilk have demonstrated that the Feds are a lot more capable (when they have the willpower) than we give them credit for, and that people are a lot more open to an authoritarian government than you would think.

Here is the difference.
You can electronically record my conversations without ever interacting with me physically.

To physically confiscate real property takes an human interaction. This will be carried out by whom? Military?

Funny thing is most ex-military (and I think last time I saw the stats it was in excess of 95%) are gun owners. The ones who have seen the most fear the most. They arent coming for mine and your guns because they know theirs are gone as well.

I'm not being at all hyperbolic when I say this, "An executive order to disarm all private citizens would be the complete downfall and ending of the United States of America's existence as a sovereign entity".

[molson]

Just one co-workers opinion, but it's an interesting template from which to carry out terrorism in the U.S.

San Bernardino shooting suspect's sister, Saira Khan, breaks her silence - CBS News

Christian Nwadike was shocked when he learned the man accused of gunning down over a dozen people turned out to be the coworker he sat only feet from for nearly four years. He said Farook was different after he returned from Saudi Arabia.

"Do you believe that he was radicalized?" Begnaud asked him.

"Yes, by the wife, I think he married a terrorist," Nwadike said.

"He married a terrorist?"

"Yes, he was set up through that marriage," Nwadike responded.

[ISiddiqui]

The CNN link though is interesting as most people who knew them appear to be befuddled - the guy even spoke out against ISIS and radical Muslims.

[Sun Tzu]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

I'm not being at all hyperbolic when I say this, "An executive order to disarm all private citizens would be the complete downfall and ending of the United States of America's existence as a sovereign entity".

Ah, FOFC. I see you haven't changed.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

The CNN link though is interesting as most people who knew them appear to be befuddled - the guy even spoke out against ISIS and radical Muslims.

One report is saying that they are now going down the road that it seems very possible that she (the wife) is the one who radicalized him.

[stevew]

Is JihadiMingle a dating site?

[molson]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

And I have gotten more than a few PM's thanking me for fighting the good fight. At some point, a la Network, "I'm mad as Hell and I'm not going to take it anymore".

Again, what exactly are you doing in this "fight" except for insulting people and comparing yourself to Martin Luther King? You're not some huge patriot because you're willing to stand up and speak against a right you don't value anyway.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by lighthousekeeper

i love how you keep trying to bring us back to reality. hey we're trying to have an angry argument about gun control over here.

[lighthousekeeper]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Funny thing is most ex-military (and I think last time I saw the stats it was in excess of 95%) are gun owners. The ones who have seen the most fear the most. They arent coming for mine and your guns because they know theirs are gone as well.

maybe. though i'm unable to recollect an example of where someone has defied the US federal gov't and walked away the winner...especially soldiers.

regardless, i'm not arguing this is realistic. a more realistic scenario (thinking long term) may be that the gov't/darpa develops technology to aerially detect and track all firearms located within buildings/homes in real time. then use AI to automatically notify when the firearms are transported to an unusual location.

http://i.imgur.com/2clmyWb.jpg

[cartman]

Originally Posted by stevew

Is JihadiMingle a dating site?

You don't have to be lonely, at Fatwa Only dot com.

[Kodos]

Don't forget Infidel-ity.com

[Abe Sargent]

One of the issues I think with the gun control debate is that America is too big to have national laws that work everywhere. The gun culture in WV is a powerful, important part of its heritage and culture. Guys grow up learning how to hunt, how to respect and care for them, and everyone is trained with them. We also have among the lowest violent crime rates in the nation. So a national gun control law probably restricts WV too much.

There are places in America where gun violence is rampant, they are not respected except as tools of power, and they are used against other people way too much. Any given gun control law that pulls them off the street and reduces violence from guns is a very important tool.

So we're too big a nation. The culture of places like WV, Alaska, the mid-west, the UP of Michigan, and more are very different than the cultures pf Detroit or the east coast cities. And it's impossible to pass a law restricting weapons nationally that can help the places that need the help without reducing the rights of people in others that don't need it.

And that's naturally where a lot of debate on this issue happens. Some people think a Constitutional restriction for everyone when it's not needed is ultimately bad. Others think the need trumps the restriction. To my mind, at the end of the day, that's the source of a lot of debate on gun control, and that's healthy.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

it seems to be that conservatives in this country appear to be saying that the US has more mentally ill than other countries.

The election of Obama pretty much sealed that deal.

[nol]

Originally Posted by TroyF

That said. . . Please, show me the studies that show how much those solutions would drop gun violence. You mention mental health and I agree with those laws 250%. Just show me how many shootings that would have stopped. Sandy Hook? I think the mom bought the guns. James Holmes? probably, but that assumes it would have been reported.

This is rich because the argument for doing nothing is "we just need more good guys with guns in schools/hospitals/theaters/malls/etc. to save the day," which relies on nothing more than anecdotal evidence.

Edit: I'll add one more thing that I've said before. The reason it is black and white is because that's where the lobbyists on both sides take it. Neither side wants to get together to have a serious discussion. The far left wants guns banned. That ends the debate and makes the "slippery slope" argument have merit. I really, really, really want the laws being talked about to be passed and I think it is a travesty they haven't been. I can't state that enough. But I understand both mindsets and don't think people who disagree with me are covered in blood.

This is what gets you called mealy-mouthed and accused of setting up strawmen. What is the name of this "ban all guns" lobby? I need something specific so whenever a politician says that we need to try to do something to prevent mass shootings, I can say "Liar! You're just in the pocket of _________!"

I'm aware of the Brady Campaign, for example, but that's definitely not trying to ban all guns. Here's a link stating that the Brady Campaign spent just under $6,000 on campaign contributions during the 2012 election cycle compared to over $24 million by the NRA. So there must be some shadowy gun-banning Super PAC out there making up the difference and shifting the conversation away from more sensible gun laws.

[bob]

Re: Mental health

I tend to lean right on fiscal issues, but unless we as a country reduce defense spending drastically (and I'm not really sure if that's the best idea), we are going to have to raise taxes. Too many things and people are falling through the cracks.

One issue seems to be that it is a lot harder to force someone into mental care until they have done something. And there is no way to force someone to take their medication. I don't know how / if you can solve this issue.

Re: Gun control, etc

I don't feel like there are any easy answers to this. I'm surprised there isn't at least a federal gun registry already given things like vehicles and (soon) drones are registered. And I do understand the perspective of those that thing any attempt to curtail gun rights as a slippery slope. Pro-choice people say that same thing when any restriction is made there as well. But there has something that can be done.

Dumb question - if a gun legally belonging to person A is used by person B in a crime, is person A at all responsible? I ask because if my dog bites someone, I can be held responsible. Just curious about this.

Re: This specific incident

I don't believe this one will result in anything happening. Too many factors mixed together (terrorism, guns, mental health, workplace violence, etc) for it to be used as a rallying point for the nation for any sort of change.

In short, I'm sad and depressed.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by bob

Dumb question - if a gun legally belonging to person A is used by person B in a crime, is person A at all responsible? I ask because if my dog bites someone, I can be held responsible.

Can you be held responsible for your dog if I show up at your house & take your dog without permission?

{point being that isn't really an absolute scenario}

[stevew]

Originally Posted by cartman

You don't have to be lonely, at Fatwa Only dot com.

PlentyOfHouri.com

[molson]

Originally Posted by nol

What is the name of this "ban all guns" lobby?

Whether you want to ban guns, restrict their ownership severely, or just impose more moderate additional restrictions, your immediate political aim is still going to be the same - to take one more step. It would make no sense to have a "ban all guns" lobby when you have to get to step 1 before you can get to step 3.

So you have a lot of distrust about what the real motives are. So there's resistance to any step in either direction. Some people are truly "one more step is enough", but obviously plenty would love to go much further.

But there are ways to tell the difference though and bridge those gaps of distrust. Just basic Jimmy Carter style-negotiation, Getting to Yes kind of stuff. Like Clinton did in the 90s. The way to convince people that you sincerely care about crime, and you're not just motivated by a general opportunistic hate of guns, gun owners, and conservatives or rural people generally, is to back that up with proposals that address crime in other ways in addition to the gun restrictions. Clinton got an assault gun ban by funding more police and more prisons, getting harsher drug laws, and restricting habeas relief with AEDPA (and the idea there was to also speed up executions, of course that part hasn't worked out, but AEDPA has still effectively eliminated habeas relief except in the most extraordinary circumstances).

Of course today the issue isn't crime generally, crime is in a free-fall, it's instead a narrow, rare, but impactful TYPE of gun crime, but the general idea is the same.

Today's congress is probably tougher to deal with than it was in the 90's, but that blueprint is much more effective than whatever the hell Dems are attempting now that has resulted in massive increases of gun sales. But I want to see that kind of legislation in gun control and other areas, which is why I'm pro-Clinton and anti-tea party and anti-Sanders. Congress is a mess now, but just like with gun control, it has to be a one-step-at-time deal.

Edit: I think there is potential room for agreement between a moderate president and a more moderate legislature. Obama hit on one potential area - he was talking about how people on no-fly lists can legally buy guns. I think plenty of gun-owning conservatives would be OK with restricting gun ownership for people on no-fly lists and more general terrorist watch lists. Especially if you combine it with other national security stuff. Of course, that's not foolproof either, there's innocent people on those lists, but like everyone is saying here, just because something isn't guaranteed to work perfectly, that doesn't mean nothing should be attempted. That goes for legislation and the makeup of congress too....Another area where there's room for agreement is harsher penalties for gun crimes and illegal weapon ownership, and more aggressive policing regarding those things.. There are SO MANY illegal weapons out there right now, and prosecution in those areas is mostly an afterthought. A huge crack down there would take a ton of weapons off the street and put a ton of illegal gun owners in prison.