General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: The actual reason that we lost on gun control. [View all]krispos42
(49,445 posts)...and generally able to pick the proposals apart.
For example, defining "assault weapon" by secondary cosmetic features. The term as a marketing campaign is great, because you can just point the rhetorical "who needs an assault weapon?" at pretty much anything that looks scary. But then it's defined by pistol grips and telescoping stocks and such.
Everybody in the know, knows it is political pandering. The Connecticut Democrats looked those grieving Newtown parents in the eyes and told them that the problem would be solved by removing pistol grips from rifles and shotguns.
And we're not going to get our homicide rate in line with the rest of the civilized world because our non-gun homicide rate is as high as their total homicide rate. A big chunk of that is due to the harshness of our economy and our drug laws and our prison system and our school system.
And, of course, even if new handguns were banned for sale tomorrow, it would take generations to lower the numbers to the point where it was hard for criminals to get them. A lot can happen in generations, and it would be far faster to clean the air and water, educate our children properly, and fix the other problems I mentioned.
And there's the thing... people that own guns, that own real, material objects that they keep in their house and use on a regular basis, understand and react more, and in a more straightforward fashion than those that don't own them. Remember, people that don't own guns have to do literally nothing to keep doing so. In addition, guns are far more real and immediate than the cerebral concepts of banking laws and voting and monopolistic capitalism.
If you want Congress to pass your agenda, you have to have a Congress that will introduce and vote for that agenda. That's not very likely to happen if your side is perceived of passing useless, politically-motivated laws, if your side's goal is seen at deliberately and sharply lowering gun-ownership rates through onerous laws and restrictions, and that every law you want to pass is seen as merely a step towards that goal.
For example, I want to get a gun to keep handy for home defense. I have an 8-year-old, so while I would prefer a long gun, that is not something that is easy to keep discretely but instantly ready. So for my situation, a handgun in a quick-access safe is the better choice in a crisis. But you would make this "may-issue", which I presume would exclude most self-defense purposes. That how it seems to go when things become "may-issue". I believe that in Canada and Australia you need a legitimate reason to own a gun, and self-defense is not considered legitimate.