Apparently it IS the right time to talk about gun control

[hal]

It's NOT impossible...

Do you think that in 1900 ANYONE thought that banning alcohol was possible? No way, but social conditions converged to make it happen - social conditions and a large group of absolutely dedicated and prepared to work hard to see it through.

I always wondered how they did it - see Ken Burns' Prohibition and see the amazing story. It CAN happen to 2A too.

[samintx]

pdq wrote:
Politically impossible, I fear, Sam. Two thirds of Congress (IIRC), followed by three fourths of the states.

In today's political environment? Never gonna happen.

I know but there has to be some starting point something both sides can start with and agree. It will be interesting to see what 45 does.

[Pam]

This issues is all about money with a bunch of nut jobs at the helm of the NRA. It has nothing to do with constitutional rights or safety.

[SteveG]

pdq wrote:
While it is undeniably encouraging that the NRA apparently thinks they need to offer up a near-meaningless concession to defuse anger post-Vegas, I still want to know why any civilian needs an AR-15.

Indeed.

[SKYLANE]

Las Vegas Massacre Prompts Musician To Call For Gun Control: 'Enough Is Enough' - NPR

https://apple.news/A6E7M0-UJRA-vl57tZo75Qg

[SteveG]

Replaying the GOP's favorite song "By the time I got to Bumpstock"?

[JoeH]

There is a reason the NRA is speaking up at this point, they want the regulation of "bump" stocks to be done by the ATF. This many dead is apparently enough for some in Congress who have been dragging their feet on gun control to notice a change in the political winds. The NRA is concerned if a law does end up going ahead in Congress that even more controls might be included by the time it is passed. If they can get the ATF to ban the modification, then the political pressure is off, and the NRA thinks they can control the outcome.

(This of course is when the NRA is not blaming the lack of regulation of "bump" stocks on Pres. Obama. Came across mention of that also happening.)

[deckeda]

hal wrote:
Of course they support this - it doesn't curtail the sale of guns in any way whatsoever. As long as it doesn't harm their clients, they don't give a flying fuck...

I've been chatting online with some gun owner friends. At the end of the conversation I mentioned what the NRA said today. So long as it doesn't alter or reduce their ability to buy guns, they'll probably be OK with it.

I take that to mean that they would never be raising a stink that since 1986 it's been illegal to buy a new machine gun, since that's essentially what bump stock mods become.

I don't yet understand. If everyone has semi automatic weapons, then they (the "good guys") still do not necessarily have an advantage when the horde descends upon them.

pdq wrote:
... AR-15s are meant to kill people, and everyone knows that. ...

The efficiency of weapons for the task at hand was a core argument of mine today. Not so much "intent" because I was being shouted down about how people with bad intentions will use cars, bombs, knives and so on. I repeatedly stated how people use the best tools at their disposal. Nothing else compares. It's why military issues firearms. It's why my gun-loving friends own guns, and would not dream of trying to drive their car over an intruder, or smothering them with a T-shirt, even though those items can and do "kill."

There's a willingness to disbelieve any reductions in arms will mean it's harder for bad guys to obtain them. I swear, you could suggest refrigerators be banned tomorrow and they'd argue people would always find a way to posses refrigerators

They are convinced 2A gives them every right to own any gun that can be made. They are convinced their freedom to do so outweighs my safety, and I'm not a stranger to them. They are convinced they are safer with guns, because people will always come after them, even if they never have done so. They are convinced that terrorism is the same thing as what happened in Vegas, that people can't be controlled, so guns are necessary.

[gabester]

pdq wrote:
...do a world of good... making gun (or other weapon) manufacturers have to face civil liability to the victims of folks using their products, as they are intended to be used. If someone has a relative who gets stabbed by a kitchen knife, the manufacturer of that knife can reasonably and believably point to the predominant, intended use of their product in chopping vegetables in defense.

AR-15s are meant to kill people, and everyone knows that. Just make their manufacturer (and retailer) liable for it's intended use, and the market would drop by 90% in a year.

I like this idea, but it lacks the kind of "let the market decide" philosophy given lip service by so many elected representatives and their pundits. So I offer up an alternative...

Require "gun insurance" - modeled very similarly to the auto industry. When a weapon or ammunition is purchased the acquirer must at that time also secure insurance, just like with a car. That insurance must cover injury and liability. Ammunition must be insured until it is expended, with a system of verification and/or fines for failure to document its usage.

The insurance goes to pay out the health treatment for those injured by guns or the families deprived of life of their loved ones killed by guns. Have some obvious exclusions for criminal case outcomes of self defense, suicide, and intentional injury/death with intent to collect a payout (i.e. you can't buy a gun and shoot your father to collect your inheritance.)

Hopefully this will quickly price many gun users out of the market and they'll have to hand over their weapons or face severe penalties for unlawful possession and use. After all, while there may be a right to bear arms, there is no right to OWN those arms any more than there is to food or shelter - you have to work to own that property! Thanks to Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin for that paraphrase.

[deckeda]

2A advocates are stuck on the notion of possession being a right, not a privilege. So it's natural that any attempt to make ownership expensive will be interpreted as persecution. They already consider themselves victims being punished for what other people do.

(I'm pretty good at playing devil's advocate.)

Insurance would be fought because since "they" are responsible owners, *anything* they do would only be done ... well, responsibly. So they train to whatever extent, they practice, they don't go around town in the backs of trucks shooting into the air, they don't let kids play with guns, and they certainly do not commit mass murder, so there's "no reason" for them to (again) be punished by what "others" do. So, same argument as above.

I have already been hammered on this issue today by owners who feel put upon by "unchecked liberals" seeking "fruitless laws" that only hurt the "good guys."

Culture ... it's a real thing.