Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: Here is the problem [View all]DanTex
(20,709 posts)46. That depends on your definition of "ordinary".
If you told people that the limit was 10 rounds, I would guess almost all of the "yes" responses would think "why does anyone need more than 10 rounds".
There is some truth to that, but probably less than you'd think. If you run the numbers, about half of gun owners reporting party affiliation are Dems and indies. Dems are the fastest growing subset of gun owners according to Gallup. Most are nonhunters. Among nonhunters, black rifles, full-sized pistols, and CCW pistols are the most popular guns.
You are assuming that all or even most gun owners are highly, umm, enthusiastic and would get really upset over an AWB. I would contend that this is a minority. A lot of people might think of it as a nuisance, but not some cataclysmic loss of freedom. Some might even think of it as a reasonable tradeoff for public safety. In the same way that not all people who own dividend-paying stocks are opposed to taxing dividends as ordinary income.
For example, here is a poll (I think taken after Tucson) where over 50% of gun households responded in favor of banning high-capacity magazines. So that means that either 50% of gun owners aren't paying enough attention to know what high-capacity means in the political context, or they do and don't care. But either way, they aren't people who would be up in arms about an AWB. And, incidentally, only 17% of gun owners were "strongly opposed".
http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/Bloompoll.pdf
BTW, if you have been in General Discussion lately, imagine how the rhetoric about owners of nonhunting guns sounds to us. Or how the "allow guns for hunters and 'sportsmen' only" thing sounds if you're not among the small minority who hunt. If you own any full-sized 9mm pistol designed in the last 90 years, or any of the 30+ million rifles that would be affected, or a Ruger 10/22 or Remington 597 or 1100, and you see such discussion...or the new NY law with politicians and activists wanting to take it nationwide...you realize that you may have to make a very difficult choice between surrendering your prized possessions to fearmongers, or living for the rest of your life in fear of going to jail. That is deeply unsettling, and drives people to support legislators who won't present them with that Hobson's choice.
Having to replace a 15-round magazine with a 10-round magazine is not "surrendering your prized possessions to fearmongers". Neither is having to register your AR-15. Or even, like in Australia, having it bought back by the government. Your rhetoric is way over the top -- you're acting like the government is stealing property.
Ms. Feinstein's favored approach for the last few years has been to push for confiscation from the family upon the death of the owner, via prohibiting transfers, and I've seen a push in this direction in the last month. And I believe New York's just-passed law is "get rid of them, emigrate, or go to prison if we catch you."
New York requires registration of existing banned guns. I don't know what Obama is proposing, but I'm pretty sure it's not going to be a mandatory buyback. The death of the owner seems like a small detail, but I'd imagine that if the transfer is prohibited, then the estate will get financial reimbursement. None of this is "draconian".
Honestly, I don't think licensing and registration wouldn't be all that controversial if gun control advocates weren't trying to outlaw popular guns and make ownership much more difficult. Look what NY and Illinois gun owners have gotten for accepting licensure: demonization in the press, near-annual threats of de-licensure/confiscation, and on the whole less gun rights.
Another thing I don't get is the constant fear of gun control advocates and the looming gun confiscation. Gun rights are not under any legitimate threat at all. Even with NY's new law, it's not really a big deal. So you can't own certain rifles, and your magazines can only hold seven rounds. So?
I'm pretty sure the NRA would oppose licensing and registration under any circumstances. They even opposes things like universal background checks, or funding of gun violence research.
(gun control versus temperance/prohibition)
Yeah, I don't find the analogy very compelling. Guns and alcohol are different in many essential ways. Besides, we're not actually talking about an outright ban. Or anything even close to that. Over 0.5% means basically any alcoholic beverage. An beverage with less than 0.5% alcohol is like a muzzle-loading rifle.
If I were a gun owner and I had the choice between buying a legal gun from a gun store, or buying a similar gun from an illegal gun trafficker that had a few extra features on it, I'd go with the legal gun every time. I'm not sure where you got the Australia numbers from, but from what I gather the buyback is generally considered to have been successful.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
99 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Sandy Hook Elementary, Taft High School, Stevens Institute, Hazard Community College,
Squinch
Jan 2013
#59
For that matter, why not just go ahead an legalize owning Howitzers and Tactical Nukes?
apocalypsehow
Jan 2013
#62
I didn't know that, actually. Interesting. Even though we're on different sides of this issue,
apocalypsehow
Jan 2013
#70
Cool video. Gun issue aside, glad someone is keeping vintage pieces like this in service
apocalypsehow
Jan 2013
#72
The spoons! The Ryder trucks! The guppies! The pool noodles! They ALL kill people!
Squinch
Jan 2013
#14
If you think the above is a "logical fallacy" then you don't understand what a logical fallacy
apocalypsehow
Jan 2013
#63
LOL! Hadn't though of that play in years! Spot-on description, too. Exactly right.
apocalypsehow
Jan 2013
#68
I think this article is telling as to what kicking a hornets nest looks like...
Elmergantry
Jan 2013
#25
Oh! So elections have something to do with the quality of candidate? Cause if I'm not mistaken,
Squinch
Jan 2013
#26
That's nice dear. Choose the pro-gun candidate. But didn't this start with you saying
Squinch
Jan 2013
#34
The draw of many moderates to Democrats was because of the budget, and the easing of Democratic
iiibbb
Jan 2013
#36
Didn't you just say you were going to vote for someone because they were pro gun? Is that a multiple
Squinch
Jan 2013
#37
you sound like the Republicans I argue with when I say the same thing about gay and abortion rights
iiibbb
Jan 2013
#31
What makes you think it's going to cost the presidency? Have you seen the polls?
DanTex
Jan 2013
#24
As far as I can tell, the polls simply use the terms "assault weapon" and "high-capacity magazine".
DanTex
Jan 2013
#42
Hey! Have you heard?? New York dropped from #1 in gun deaths in 2006 to not even in the top 5!
Squinch
Jan 2013
#67
Yet, New York has fallen faster than the others, going from the largest number of deaths to
Squinch
Jan 2013
#93