Is more stringent gun control inevitable?[W:1622]

[radcen]

Is more stringent gun control inevitable?

For good or for bad, the more senseless high-profile shootings occur, and with seemingly ever increasing frequency, it's going to be harder and harder for the general public to resist.

Just stating what I see as the obvious. Not taking a position.

 

[soot]

Re: Is more stringent gun control inevitable?

If we get a Democrat controlled Congress and a Democrat President at the same time I think it's reasonable to expect something like a redux of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, but maybe with more teeth.

I could see them going for national may issue licensure with stringent mental health provisions.

I doubt we'll see anything that would retroactively go after weapons that are already out in the public.

Even if they did I think it would be more "ask" than "tell", and when they asked they find that a whole lot of Americans accidentally lost their firearms in freak boating accidents.

 

[Lutherf]

Re: Is more stringent gun control inevitable?

If we get a Democrat controlled Congress and a Democrat President at the same time I think it's reasonable to expect something like a redux of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, but maybe with more teeth.

I doubt we'll see anything that would retroactively go after weapons that are already out in the public.

Really? That kind of thing has already been proposed at the state level. NJ passed (nearly 20 years ago) a law requiring that ONLY smart guns be sold in the state once they became available anywhere in the US.

CA SB293 was passed in committee (but put on hold in appropriations). That bill would have made any handgun in California that didn't have a biometric identification mechanism "unsafe" and, therefore, illegal to possess.
Bill Text - SB-293 Firearms: owner-authorized handguns.

The intent to ban private ownership of firearms undeniably exists. It may be couched in "feel good" language but the intent is definitely there.

 

[Fiddytree]

Re: Is more stringent gun control inevitable?

It's possible that the tides will change, however, it has become rather obvious that the political will to revisit previous gun control solutions (or even thinking up new methods) nation-wide (or specifically at the federal level) does not exist. Furthermore, while advocates for gun control have stated that the overwhelming majority of the American public is in favor of smaller gun control legislation packages, there has not been much evidence that it has translated to substantive lobbying efforts, nor is there any mass protest movement about. I think people are satisfied using gun control as a talking point to bring up during high profile shootings or mass shootings, but are not motivated to do much else. Only the gun rights movement (I tend to prefer calling them gun proliferation advocates) have any true interest and ability to move legislation forward.

 

[jaeger19]

Re: Is more stringent gun control inevitable?

I don't think so. In fact I think the recent increases in gun control in Oregon and Washington among others is going to make the public increasingly unhappy with it. All the proposed gun control measures are ineffective and irrational.

there may be a resurgence for a short time if a republican president and democrat congress occur... but I think the dems may have learned their lesson when it comes to gun control,,, if they get blamed it costs them.. as it cost Gore.. and could soon cost Hillary..

 

[soot]

Re: Is more stringent gun control inevitable?

Really?

Ummm.... yeah, really.

That kind of thing has already been proposed at the state level. NJ passed (nearly 20 years ago) a law requiring that ONLY smart guns be sold in the state once they became available anywhere in the US.

CA SB293 was passed in committee (but put on hold in appropriations). That bill would have made any handgun in California that didn't have a biometric identification mechanism "unsafe" and, therefore, illegal to possess.

The intent to ban private ownership of firearms undeniably exists. It may be couched in "feel good" language but the intent is definitely there.

Be that as it may, I still don't see the federal government making any effort any time soon to come after firearms that are already out in the public.

When the first state, heck, when the first municipality sends the first SWAT team to raid the first home on the first list then I'll say, "Hmmm... maybe this'll gain some traction", but not until then.

I wouldn't put it past Democrat government to do anything and everything in its power to push right up to that point to prevent any more guns from getting in to the hands of the public, but I don't think we'll see it cross that line any time in the foreseeable future (at least not in my lifetime).

 

[Captain Adverse]

Re: Is more stringent gun control inevitable?

Is more stringent gun control inevitable?

For good or for bad, the more senseless high-profile shootings occur, and with seemingly ever increasing frequency, it's going to be harder and harder for the general public to resist.

Just stating what I see as the obvious. Not taking a position.

I doubt the efforts will ever stop.

As long as the Second Amendment remains understood as protecting an individual's basic right to own and bear arms for purposes of self defense against anyone who threatens individual liberty, whether it be foreign or domestic, I won't feel the need to buy a gun myself.

However, the moment I see that change, I will begin arming myself for the revolution.

 

[Goshin]

Re: Is more stringent gun control inevitable?

Is more stringent gun control inevitable?

For good or for bad, the more senseless high-profile shootings occur, and with seemingly ever increasing frequency, it's going to be harder and harder for the general public to resist.

Just stating what I see as the obvious. Not taking a position.

Not in the foreseeable future, unless the Dems get solid control of both houses and the WH at the same time. Even then, maybe iffy.


More and more Americans are into concealed carry, fewer and fewer see gun control as a solution.


Ask me again in 40 years if I'm still around.

 

[Lutherf]

Re: Is more stringent gun control inevitable?

Ummm.... yeah, really.



Be that as it may, I still don't see the federal government making any effort any time soon to come after firearms that are already out in the public.

When the first state, heck, when the first municipality sends the first SWAT team to raid the first home on the first list then I'll say, "Hmmm... maybe this'll gain some traction", but not until then.

I wouldn't put it past Democrat government to do anything and everything in its power to push right up to that point to prevent any more guns from getting in to the hands of the public, but I don't think we'll see it cross that line any time in the foreseeable future (at least not in my lifetime).

Well there's a plan!! "Let's wait until they actually start sending out confiscation teams until we start taking notice."

That's kind of like waiting until you have cancer to stop smoking.

 

[jamesrage]

Re: Is more stringent gun control inevitable?

Is more stringent gun control inevitable?

For good or for bad, the more senseless high-profile shootings occur, and with seemingly ever increasing frequency, it's going to be harder and harder for the general public to resist.

Just stating what I see as the obvious. Not taking a position.

For the handful of anti-2nd amendment states like California, New York, Illinois and some others the answer is yes, unless the SCOTUS intervenes. For the country as a whole I say no. Maybe when there is a democrat majority in both houses and a democrat president but even then it would be doubtful because politicians love staying in office and not every democrat represents anti-2nd amendment states.

 

[LagerHead]

Re: Is more stringent gun control inevitable?

For the handful of anti-2nd amendment states like California, New York, Illinois and some others the answer is yes, unless the SCOTUS intervenes. For the country as a whole I say no. Maybe when there is a democrat majority in both houses and a democrat president but even then it would be doubtful because politicians love staying in office and not every democrat represents anti-2nd amendment states.

The Supreme Court has already intervened. Heller and McDonald made it clear that the individual right to keep and bear arms is a constitutionally protected one. The only way to change that is going to be a constitutional amendment, which is NOT going to happen.

 

[flogger]

Re: Is more stringent gun control inevitable?

The Supreme Court has already intervened. Heller and McDonald made it clear that the individual right to keep and bear arms is a constitutionally protected one. The only way to change that is going to be a constitutional amendment, which is NOT going to happen.

Indeed

As long as the guns are safe who cares what happens to the people :roll:

 

[jaeger19]

Re: Is more stringent gun control inevitable?

Indeed

As long as the guns are safe who cares what happens to the people :roll:

Freedom is important to our people. The ability to protect ourselves is important to our people.

 

[flogger]

Re: Is more stringent gun control inevitable?

Freedom is important to our people. The ability to protect ourselves is important to our people.

This has never had anything to do with freedom or protection as your annual death toll clearly illustrates

 

[Visbek]

Re: Is more stringent gun control inevitable?

Is more stringent gun control inevitable?

Nope.

Ultimately, the US will only have stricter gun control laws when enough people want it. It is not clear what it would take for Americans to get to that point, and there is little evidence that mass shootings -- even of children in a school -- change people's views on the topic.

Unsurprisingly, and as happens in many instances, people react differently to the abstraction (e.g. "gun control") than to the specific ("universal background checks"). So it's possible that certain specific policies might get passed, but they can also be defeated by powerful gun-rights lobbies and spin tactics.

We should also note that while mass shootings are dramatic and monopolize media attention, they really aren't a big part of the death toll of firearms in the US. E.g. in a typical year, firearm fatalities will be approximately:

500 - 600 people killed in mass shootings
1,000 people killed by police
11,000 homicides using firearms
18,000 suicides using firearms

More gun control -- either an increase in effectiveness, or more laws -- won't eliminate mass shootings. It might reduce them, but it might not; most mass shooters obtain guns legally, but it's not clear that stricter laws would prevent them from obtaining guns. In addition, since this is mostly a media-fueled phenomenon, even a 90% decrease in mass shootings will probably result in the same level of media coverage.

Finally, we don't really know why mass shootings are so common in the US, and uncommon elsewhere. Until we figure that out, it's not clear that we can devise effective policies to thwart them. And of course, the pro-gun lobbies throttle any such research projects and repeatedly dump on the rest, so we probably won't figure that out any time soon.

 

[jaeger19]

Re: Is more stringent gun control inevitable?

This has never had anything to do with freedom or protection as your annual death toll clearly illustrates

This has always been about freedom and protection as our history clearly illustrates.

Don't be mad at us that you lost your freedom for no good reason.

 

[jaeger19]

Re: Is more stringent gun control inevitable?

Nope.

Ultimately, the US will only have stricter gun control laws when enough people want it. It is not clear what it would take for Americans to get to that point, and there is little evidence that mass shootings -- even of children in a school -- change people's views on the topic.

Unsurprisingly, and as happens in many instances, people react differently to the abstraction (e.g. "gun control") than to the specific ("universal background checks"). So it's possible that certain specific policies might get passed, but they can also be defeated by powerful gun-rights lobbies and spin tactics.

We should also note that while mass shootings are dramatic and monopolize media attention, they really aren't a big part of the death toll of firearms in the US. E.g. in a typical year, firearm fatalities will be approximately:

500 - 600 people killed in mass shootings
1,000 people killed by police
11,000 homicides using firearms
18,000 suicides using firearms

More gun control -- either an increase in effectiveness, or more laws -- won't eliminate mass shootings. It might reduce them, but it might not; most mass shooters obtain guns legally, but it's not clear that stricter laws would prevent them from obtaining guns. In addition, since this is mostly a media-fueled phenomenon, even a 90% decrease in mass shootings will probably result in the same level of media coverage.

Finally, we don't really know why mass shootings are so common in the US, and uncommon elsewhere. Until we figure that out, it's not clear that we can devise effective policies to thwart them. And of course, the pro-gun lobbies throttle any such research projects and repeatedly dump on the rest, so we probably won't figure that out any time soon.

The pro gun lobby dies not throttle any such research projects. nor does it repeatedly dump on the rest.

The pro gun lobby is against starting with a foregone conclusion and working backwards to try and find support for it.

 

[justabubba]

Re: Is more stringent gun control inevitable?



a couple of decades ago australia was a wild west gun show like the USA

then tragedy caused that nation to re-think its gun policies

that will happen here, too. it's only a matter of time

 

[BmanMcfly]

Re: Is more stringent gun control inevitable?

View attachment 67189121

a couple of decades ago australia was a wild west gun show like the USA

then tragedy caused that nation to re-think its gun policies

that will happen here, too. it's only a matter of time

Yes, but now add in the stats for stabbings, etc, tell me if it paints the same picture.

People will kill people, even if they have to pick up a rock off the street.

 

[Riveroaks]

Re: Is more stringent gun control inevitable?

Is more stringent gun control inevitable?

For good or for bad, the more senseless high-profile shootings occur, and with seemingly ever increasing frequency, it's going to be harder and harder for the general public to resist.

Just stating what I see as the obvious. Not taking a position.

The NRA will never permit it.

Neither should you or anyone else.

A gun is freedom. And safety.

 

[flogger]

Re: Is more stringent gun control inevitable?

The NRA will never permit it.

Neither should you or anyone else.

A gun is freedom. And safety.

A gun is violence and death. Thankfully the rest of the developed world understood this a while ago as will the relatives of the 80 plus people who will die violently from them in the US today .......and tomorrow

 

[Riveroaks]

Re: Is more stringent gun control inevitable?

A gun is violence and death. Thankfully the rest of the developed world understood this a while ago as will the relatives of the 80 plus people who will die violently from them in the US today .......and tomorrow

The rest of the developed world are slaves.

Americans are free because there is a gun behind every blade of grass here.

 

[flogger]

Re: Is more stringent gun control inevitable?

The rest of the developed world are slaves.

Just out of curiosity have you ever been anywhere other than North America that has brought you to that conclusion ?

Americans are free because there is a gun behind every blade of grass here.

Really ? And do you dodge marauding enslavers like that ?

 

[Juanita]

Re: Is more stringent gun control inevitable?

The NRA will never permit it.

Neither should you or anyone else.

A gun is freedom. And safety.

Look, I am as pro gun/2nd amendment as anybody. I have never registered a firearm and never will and will never give them up, but am sick to death of the argument that guns don't kill, people do! People with guns kill! We need universal background checks and some sort of registry of mentally unstable people.l

 

[Riveroaks]

Re: Is more stringent gun control inevitable?

Look, I am as pro gun/2nd amendment as anybody. I have never registered a firearm and never will and will never give them up, but am sick to death of the argument that guns don't kill, people do! People with guns kill! We need universal background checks and some sort of registry of mentally unstable people.l

Background checks so far have not done any good at all. Great politics. Poor results.