If you want to know how and why background checks are going to crash and burn with 90%+ of Americans approving of them, it has a lot to do with this cognitive dissonance:
A plurality of Americans believe the federal government could use information gleaned from expanded background checks to confiscate legally-owned firearms, according to a Quinnipiac survey released Thursday.
But the poll also showed support for background checks remains nearly universal.
According to the survey, 48 percent said they believed the government could use background check records to guns, while 38 said the government could not. Ninety-one percent favored background checks anyway, and only 8 percent are opposed.
“In every Quinnipiac University poll since the Newtown massacre, nationally and in six states, we find overwhelming support, including among gun owners, for universal background checks,” Quinnipiac University Polling Institute director Peter A. Brown said in a statement.
“American voters agree with the National Rifle Association, however, that these background checks could lead someday to confiscation of legally-owned guns.”
Half of Americans basically think background checks mean Obama will take their guns. So, yeah, they may like background checks, but they’re not exactly going to punish Republicans who block them either. The NRA can yell about the Second Amendment all day, and it’ll win this argument every single time because support for background checks is extremely broad but sure as hell isn’t deep enough to go through a bruising fight in Congress. They delay, the paranoia takes over, and the bill dies quietly.
The thousands of victims of firearm violence yearly, well, not so much.
Bort
So…if you don’t want background checks, you want criminals and mentally ill people to be able to go into gun stores and buy guns? Seriously, I don’t understand why this isn’t framed this way.
c u n d gulag
For a lot of victims of gun violence, T.S. Elliot was wrong.
Their world may start to end with a whimper, but it always ends with a BANG!!!
Knockabout
No, the correct answer is “Democrat cowards”.
maya
As any Scalia-Braille trained Constitution Texturist can tell you, this is exactly what our founding pops held in the firm jelly of their cerebellums when they designed the Second Amendment. Dig’em all up and autopsy them if you don’t believe it.
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
/Archimedes
Really, why do anything, anything at all, if the Could Lead Someday Monster hiding under the bed is going to come out at night and eat you?
Registering people by Social Security Number could lead someday to putting people in camps, after all. Collecting demographic data via the Census could lead someday to turning people into Soylent Green crackers. Allowing the Treasury Dept to confiscate and destroy worn out dollar bills and coinage could lead someday to the government confiscating all of our money and sending us to a new life in the off-world colonies.
It is amazing all the terrible things that the Could Lead Someday Monster can do to us. No wonder people are afraid to step out their front doors. Perhaps best to just put the plastic bags over our heads now and get it over with.
Land of the free and home of the
braveCould Lead Someday Monster.Carolinus
The weird part of this poll question is the “legally-owned”. If the government was confiscating registered firearms surely they’d have been deemed illegal first?
gogol's wife
But yay for Connecticut!
http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-gun-vote-connecticut-0404-20130403,0,5836110.story
We also repealed the death penalty recently, and we’ve had same-sex marriage for a while. I’m not going back home to Missouri any time soon.
Peppi
It’s not cognitive dissonance. It is an accurate perception that many Americans want to ban guns entirely, that politicians are craven, and that the only way to fight incremental erosion of the right to bear arms is to fight it at every step.
Look I favor universal background checks and other sensible regulation, but I understand why the NRA and others are fighting it. If they conceded background checks, the argument would be about assault weapons. Concede that and the argument is about semiautomatic weapons of all kinds, etc.
It’s already illegal to own a so called assault weapon in California… Unless you grandfathered in one you owned years ago. To suggest that gun control advocates do not want to ban ownership of firearms in general is just silly. There’s just not enough public opinion in their favor yet.
SatanicPanic
@Bort: They’re afraid they’ll be reclassified as thought criminals by our Kenyan Fascist Dear Leader and then won’t be able to buy guns to defend themselves against the FEMA squads.
feebog
I note that even though 48% expressed this “fear” 91% nevertheless supported background checks. Which begs the question, why ask the question about confiscation in the first place? If the goal is to gauge public support for background checks, why not just ask the one question?
The Snarxist Formerly Known as Kryptik
In other words, the NRA wins again, despite the public turning hard on them before. In a course of less than half a year, they’ve managed a total kibosh on anything and in fact have come out legislatively stronger than ever.
Fun.
SatanicPanic
@Peppi: Some people do want to ban guns. Others, myself included, want to treat them like cigarettes- something that makes users look foolish and/or uncool. Which is probably worse than a ban for some owners.
The Snarxist Formerly Known as Kryptik
@gogol’s wife:
The way things are going, I’m half expecting the courts to kill this simply because “GUNS ARE FREEDOM, BITCHES! WHY ARE YOU ALL SUCH GUN-GRABBING TRAITOOOOOOOOOOOORS?!”
The Snarxist Formerly Known as Kryptik
@SatanicPanic:
Some people want an outright ban on guns. Some people want to turn the US into a communist state.
Neither have had any serious amount of power or credibility within the Democratic party, forget in the political discourse as a whole. They’re just convenient boogeymen/strawmen to kibosh sensible legislation from the left by way of hippie punching.
Redshirt
Maybe we should take a page from the Republican’s page and attack this issue on the local/state level. Like the recently passed CT law.
State by state, town by town, win those battles. Eventually the tide will turn.
pluege
Obvious logic! (heaven forbid)
if over 90% of Americans think there should be universal background,
and
if most Americans believe background checks could lead to gun confiscation,
then
logic dictates that most Americans believe guns should be confiscated!
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
The article does point out that there was no question about whether the person believed the government should be allowed to take someones guns.
@Peppi: Yep, cause we got all porn banned by keeping it from being sold to minors. Slipper slope and all.
BobS
Characterizing that as you did (“Obama will take their guns”) is too simplistic. I’m a gun owner who supports not only background checks but also universal gun registration as well as training as a precondition for ownership (like cars and driver training), but I’m also part of that suspicious 48% (that clearly doesn’t include you) who is cognizant of the fact that any additional powers given the government and law enforcement have the tendency to be abused- in other words, government could use background checks to confiscate guns. Given that historically local, state, and federal government muscle in the US has been mostly used to suppress political dissent from the left, I would hope more than a few of those 48% are people who share my political views, which are more Chomsky than Obama.
burnspbesq
Now that the U.N. General Assembly has approved the final version of the Arms Trade Treaty, the bald-faced lying by the NRA and its stooges in Congress about what it does and doesn’t do can begin in earnest.
Somebody should ask Wayne LaPierre and Rand Paul why they are getting in bed with Iran and al-Qaeda.
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
@Peppi:
Given that at the present point of time our politicians are taking no action on a position that polls with 91% support, and that this is business as usual rather than some sort of dramatic break from the past, the craven part in this equation does not appear to be a very accurate perception, far from it.
In point of fact our politicians are not particularly craven on a very wide variety of issues which regularly poll well above 50%, and in any case our system of govt was deliberately designed to make change difficult and give a stubborn and determined minority opinion ample opportunity to slow down or even completely block something objectionable (see US Senate for details).
So cognito, ergo dissonance does appear to be the case here.
The Other Chuck
For as long as I’ve lived, I’ve heard the gun fetishists scream and holler about how they need their guns to defend against tyranny. Only recently have I learned what, in their eyes, tyranny is:
Health Care.
To which I say: Wrong answer, you lose. Give up your guns, right now.
Honus
“The NRA can yell about the Second Amendment all day, and it’ll win this argument every single time because support for background checks is extremely broad but sure as hell isn’t deep enough to go through a bruising fight in Congress.”
That’s it in a nutshell. The gun voters are single-issue and united. They will follow the NRA’s direction to vote against anybody that votes for background checks, but not many republican or blue dog representatives will lose their seats because they failed to vote for background checks. Until this changes, the NRA will continue to get everything they want. To date this has included virtually unlimited concealed carry, statutory immunity from liability for gun sellers and makers, and completely hamstringing the BATF.
Redshirt
I’d also hazard a guess that if we had more solid numbers of Dems in the House and Senate we’d seen meaningful gun reforms. But with the House in CRAZYTOWN and the Senate with enough Repukes to poison the well, nothing will get done.
Cassidy
This whole thing is silly. The govt could confiscate weapons. The govt’t could also decide to build a Death Star. There are a whole lot of things that could vaguely be done.
JCR
Well of course background checks and registration COULD lead to confiscation. The question is, how likely is this to happen on a large scale? I think most people outside the gun nut world would say, “not very.”
The Moar You Know
I grew up with guns, in the sense that my family had them and we’d go shooting at the fishing pond about once a year. My grandfather kept a couple of .22s (with shotshells) and air rifles to shoot the occasional coppermouth or rattler that would get onto the property.
Basically, the family guns fell into the same category of “thing” as a rake or a lawnmower – it was a yard tool.
I don’t know when the Holy Gun got elevated into a totemistic object of worship, to be defended and fetishized in the same manner as a Bible or the Ark of the Covenant or the Quabba at Mecca.
Eric U.
I like guns, and I understand why people like guns. But the thing is, it’s too much work to cope with the danger that gun ownership poses, so I don’t have one. It seems like this simple fact eludes many gun owners. This is the real issue I have with easy gun ownership, the people that own them are too damn stupid to treat them with the respect they deserve.
I know an otherwise intelligent person who thinks that if everyone showed up at the state capitol with an AR-15 that would convince the lege not to pass any gun control laws. I informed him that’s exactly how California got their strict gun control laws.
Roger Moore
No. “Could be used” and “will be used” are not the same thing. I can accept that background checks theoretically could be used to take away people’s guns but not be particularly worried about them. I might reasonably believe that the government won’t abuse that power and will either avoid using that information to take away people’s guns or will restrict itself to taking guns away from people who deserve it because they fail their background check. No cognitive dissonance (or desire to see all guns rounded up) required.
Omnes Omnibus
@Peppi: Most of the time slippery slope arguments are bullshit. This one is not an exception.
The Moar You Know
@Peppi: If you believe the NRA, then yes, this would be true.
The reality of the situation is that most gun control advocates are gun owners already.
burnspbesq
And there’s this little bomb lurking on the Supreme Court’s docket.
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/kachalsky-v-cacace/
Recommend that you click through and read the Second Circuit opinion to get a more complete understanding of what’s at issue in this case. If the NRA and its stooges get their way in this case, the concealed-carry-permit system is toast.
kindness
OK, there seems to be a disconnect here.
Half of these folk think the Government is going to potentially come over and confiscate their guns.
Who exactly is peddling this nonsense? Republicans. Why isn’t the MSM stating the obvious that that won’t happen? Because the MSM LIKES Republicans running the show.
Guillotine yet? Yea I’m repeating myself. Sorry.
jrg
IIRC, about half the people here thought it was an awesome idea for that newspaper to publish the names and addresses of gun owners. Oh, but take our word for it, confiscation is a bridge too far. Right.
Omnes Omnibus
@jrg: IIRC it was concealed carry permit holders. And it was a fucking public record document.
cleek
if only… bully… leadership…
Villago Delenda Est
Here’s a scenario that the “could lead to” people don’t consider:
Letting any crazy motherfucker be able to buy a firearm and some ammo could lead to shit like Newtown.
Oh wait, it actually did.
My bad.
ranchandsyrup
Gun nutz and conservatives in general have an addition to the slippery slope fallacy. It is an easy way for them to reconcile the difference between what they believe from their bubble and reality.
jrg
@Omnes Omnibus: And I’m supposed to consider that a compelling argument for more extensive public records regarding gun ownership?
aimai
I believe the government “could use a registery to confiscate guns” and I approve of that fact–where’s my poll numbers? I also think the government could probably use zip codes and information on smoking and on Rush Limbaugh to arrest people if it wanted to–do these people know how much information the government in conjunction with data mining could have and could choose to use? I am sick and tired of gun owners hiding behind fears of confiscation to avoid registering and managing their own guns responsibly. People need their cars more than they need their guns to live and work in this country yet cars are registered and taxed, people get ticketed all the time for improper usage, and cars get repossessed under a variety of circumstances. The greater the potential liability the more scrutiny and control the substance deserves.
In addition even a strict reading of the second amendment says nothing about registering or liscencing guns or criminalizing their wrongful use (improper storage, storage in households with children or the mentally ill, failure to prevent theft, failure to report theft, straw purchases and pasage of guns to those who are not permitted to own them, etc…etc…etc… Who the fuck cares if people in general think that one thing could lead to another. A slippery slope argument is not a good reason not to legislate around gun ownership.
WereBear
After considerable study, I’ve concluded that the line between fact and fiction is barely noticeable for the average wingnut.
On the one hand, they have an inadequate imagination which makes them overly dependent on Other People’s Fantasies. For instance, science fiction and fantasy fans love their speculative universes so much they will continue them in fan fiction, while right wingers don’t seem to have the skills or inclination.
Then they will easily mistake fantasy (they will come in black helicopters to get our guns, and we can win!) for actual reality, because they don’t have any kind of grip on what reality is, what it does, and how it works.
This is what makes them the Ultimate Marks they are; a con artist’s dream, who will believe anything. Anything at all!
aimai
@jrg:
Needless to say the publication of the gun information was not government action.
Gindy51
@The Moar You Know: When Moses, aka Charlie Heston, got up and said some shit about guns and his dead hand.
DFH no.6
I’m always the contrarian amongst us hippies on this topic, but here’s the deal as I see it:
Most of the gun murders in our fair land, year after year, are committed in cities with guns purchased illegally in the vast American gun black market (which is also where most of the weapons used in the narco civil war in Mexico originate).
That vast illegal gun black market is supplied almost entirely out of our huge national arsenal that was (at first point of sale, anyway) sold legally, often (not always) with background checks. And that huge arsenal is made of machines that are so well-constructed that they are meant to (and often do) last for generations.
So the large and ready supply of guns available for the black market is not going away any time soon.
And states (like Colorado and Connecticut) passing strict gun laws mean nothing. Which is why Chicago is such a gun-murder capital even though Illinois has had one of the strictest sets of gun laws for a long time.
Even federally-mandated background checks for all gun purchases (including closing the giant current loophole for gun shows) will, IMAO, do very little to curb most of the gun violence (i.e., urban murders) in America.
Personally, I wish America was more like Western Europe when it came to gun ownership and gun availability. The 2nd Amendment prevents that from happening, no matter what the public’s wide (but very shallow) opinion on background checks, assault rifles, and high-capacity magazines.
Rosalita
@The Snarxist Formerly Known as Kryptik:
But… STATE’S RIGHTS!!!
kindness
@Peppi:
Yes and no. Yes, I can’t go out and buy an Uzi or a Mac10 but I can go out and buy any number of civilian AK47 or M-16 knockoffs so…eh. To my credit Uzis & Mac10s kinda suck as a target shooting gun so I have no interest. I also don’t really want an AK47 or M16 knockoff for the same reason even though I know people who do own them and they are actually usable for target shooting or hunting even though they aren’t the best at doing either of those.
No, the folk buying those guns are doing it on ego. They believe they will be more powerful with those pieces than a good bolt action rifle. And that is where I disagree with them. Thankfully my ego running me around days ended some time ago. Is it sad when you become your parents? Yes and no.
Ben Franklin
According to the survey, 48 percent said they believed the government could use background check records to seize guns, while 38 said the government could not. Ninety-one percent favored background checks anyway, and only 8 percent are opposed.
Cognitive dissonance? Maybe. But I think it has to do with trust issues.
There is too much mucking around with nannyism.
Have a cigarette? A 17-oz soda pop? There is the fear that the gubmint goes too far to protect us from ourselves, as though we were children who must be babysat.
Then there’s dronz to go with gunz.
Omnes Omnibus
@jrg: Why does a background check need to be a public record? CCW permits should be public record as a rule – it is completely reasonable for me to want to know which of my neighbors are packing heat and any given moment. You are comparing apples to oranges.
jrg
@aimai: But the compilation of that information was, as was the decision to make it available as public record.
mikefromArlington
Why not start running statistics of killers that bought at gun shows.
Villago Delenda Est
@aimai:
Details, details.
One thing the intertubes makes much easier (and we’ve discussed this before) is access to records that are already public. It’s just that the access is much easier with a computer and the ability to access and display those records in new ways remotely. The time where you had to slog down to the county records office and sift through countless reams of documents to get the nuggets you were seeking is past…you can often do it in your pajamas from the comfort of your living room.
This changes the dynamic of a “public record” considerably. Before, it took great effort and analytic ability to do this. Now you’ve got a tool that eases and speeds up the process.
It means those records are much more “public” than they once were.
All that newspaper did was make those public records much easier to grok, by putting them on a map. Bingo! Look at the density of handgun permits in this neighborhood!
burnspbesq
@jrg:
Put yourself in the position of a house-hunter. A gun nut next door is worse than a termite infestation or a broken hot water heater; it’s a defect that makes the house you’re looking at more dangerous, but you can’t pay somebody to come in and fix it. Are you seriously suggesting that you wouldn’t want to know that?
Eric U.
I have a neighbor that is a moron. He’s angry too. I fully expect him to blow someone away before things are over. It would make me happy if the government took his guns, and they probably should. We had a prof. that dumped human excrement all over the bathroom to get back at the janitor. He has guns. It would make me happy if the government took his guns. Why should just anyone be able to put all of us in danger? If my neighbor goes nuts, there is no way to stop him from killing people. Same for the prof. The NRA and the gun fetishists want a system where the only rational defense is preemptive. It’s ridiculous.
SatanicPanic
@Ben Franklin: Society has an interest in limiting people doing stupid things. Are you suggesting that there is a shortage of people in our society doing stupid things?
Villago Delenda Est
@mikefromArlington:
I’m sure Congress will ban that sort of thing. Just as they’ve prohibited the public health agency from collecting and studying statistics on firearms injuries and death, for fear that they’ll show that amazingly, firearms are involved in a lot of injury and death.
Omnes Omnibus
@aimai:
Dead on.
jrg
@Omnes Omnibus: This thread starts out with:
Which immediately gets translated by the author of this post into:
…And the people on this thread act like it’s some loony conspiracy theory. You can call it apples and oranges if you want, but there I had go only go back a couple of months to find an example of why people don’t trust the government to keep this kind of record.
Ben Franklin
@kindness:
No, the folk buying those guns are doing it on ego
I live in CA and the l0-round mag is max. I was looking for a mag for my Mini-14 a few years back and the gunshop was OOS.
“But I’ve got a 20-mag that’s been modified to 10”
“Why?”
‘Looks cooler”
WereBear
And gun laws crash and burn because legislators think they don’t have to listen to the voter.
Change that, change everything.
Yutsano
Why not just get the actuaries involved? You can own any gun you want, but if it ain’t insured, your gun is confiscated.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
@DFH no.6: Citation, please, because I remember reading not too long ago that most gun related murders are committed by people who owned them legally.
Ben Franklin
@SatanicPanic:
If you want to masturbate to that line, feel free to do so.
Omnes Omnibus
@jrg: Too bad. The government, as people have been saying, could theoretically do many things, but, realistically, it isn’t going to do them.
Villago Delenda Est
@Omnes Omnibus:
Another thing that the gun fetishists do not understand: logistics.
jrg
@Omnes Omnibus: I’ll keep that in mind the next time drones or wiretapping comes up.
kindness
@Ben Franklin: The local gun store here in Central Cal (about an hour east of SF) sells banana clips still.
SatanicPanic
@Ben Franklin: So, you don’t have an actual response?
Eric U.
@Belafon (formerly anonevent): if you read KargoX’s listing of news reports about gun deaths/injuries, it’s clear that the bloodbath is coming from legally owned guns. Hell, if you could just stop people from negligently discharging their guns while cleaning them, deaths and injuries from guns would go down a measurable percentage.
Omnes Omnibus
@jrg: Yeah, because differentiating between issues has no value.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
@WereBear: Part of that may be: Which voters are they hearing from?
Ben Franklin
@SatanicPanic:
Yeah. Would you mind monitoring my eating habits? I eat junk food and that’s very intrusive on society, additional health issues, and all.
? Martin
@Omnes Omnibus:
It’s not even that bad. There is legislation that has been passed, repeatedly, that bans the federal government from using background check information to compile a gun database. If only these legally binding laws were legally binding…
There is no slippery slope here when you’ve got a wall constructed to prevent anyone from moving past that point. The NRA can fight on that point if anyone proposes tearing that wall down, but the NRA won’t even admit that the law exists because it undermines their goal of selling more guns.
Honus
@Eric U.:
That’s pretty much the way I feel about those idiots that carry their Ar15s into malls or grocery stores to demonstrate that they not a threat. By doing so, they demonstrate that they are not qualified to own, use or carry a firearm. I was taught from a young age that “making a point” or “showing off” was never a proper use of a weapon. You never brandish or expose a weapon unless the situation warrants its use. making a political statement is not such a situation.
SatanicPanic
@Ben Franklin: I’m not going to do it personally, but to argue that there’s no societal benefit to someone doing it it ridiculous.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
@Honus: If some brown skinned person were to “make a point” that way, we would call it terrorism.
Honus
@Redshirt: Except West Virginia just passed a law prohibiting localities from regulating firearms. The NRA is out front on this strategy too.
Ben Franklin
@SatanicPanic:
but to argue that there’s no societal benefit to someone doing it it ridiculous.
Holy Shite. So you really think someone else should control what I eat? Kee-riced!
? Martin
@Honus: Honestly, these people are fucking cowards. Here’s their admitted reasoning:
1) They need guns to defend against government tyranny
2) What Obama is proposing is tyranny
Now, it’d be reasonable to assume given 1) and 2) that gun owners would indeed be organizing posses and going to DC fully armed to put down this government tyranny, but nobody is doing that. Either:
A) They don’t believe either 1) or 2)
B) They’re all fucking cowards
C) All of the above
I’m in camp C, myself. They don’t believe their propaganda, not really, and they don’t believe in the 2nd Amendment enough to die for the cause (though they are eager to argue others should).
aimai
@jrg:
Doesn’t matter–the compilation of any record about gun ownership by the government is not unconstitutional, no matter what second amendment people want to argue. Public reocrds are kept on a lot of things–hell, your political registraion is public. Medical records are private but it took an actual act of legislation to make that so.
aimai
@Ben Franklin:
Ah, people do “control what you eat” and drink–we’ve had laws on the books preventing (or attempting to prevent) the sale of spoiled/rotten/toxic foods since the Civil War.
gvg
I did not use to be someone who wanted to ban all guns. Now I’m thinking about it because the gun right screamers are scaring and annoying me. Really seriously annoying me, like refusing to allow any precautions after children are murdered AGAIN. I’d like to repeal the 2nd, not because I believe it actually means no restrictions on guns but because it’s been ruined irretrievably by insane fools to the point I don’t think we can get back to rationality while those word are given any authority. All the attacks on reasonable restrictions going on decades now by murder tolerating fools have inraged me.
If we could just make some progress on this I wouldn’t hate the guns so much. Weirdos with their gun love are sick. Peoples lives matter. stupid objects don’t.
I used to accept what I was taught about the founders beliefs on militia’s and armed citizens but now I think they were in fact mistaken on that issue. Well they were right on so much else that i was inclined to accept this one too. Now first I think that word militia meant something and it’s not not an individual gun collector can have anything. 2nd in todays modern weapons situation the individual guy with guns is not relavant. Progress changed things. It happens. I can’t imagine putting rushed draftees for a war in charge of nukes. We aren’t going back to no standing army and I don’t want to. Last I think the founders were wrong in the first place in the idea that having individual citizens armed guarded against tyranny. There have been other countries that removed guns and weren’t tyranical and countries with lots of gun ownership that are very repressive. The customs and laws are much more a determinant.
gun collecting is not as special as the gun fetishes like to think. It makes them feel good to imagine that they are guarding freedom while doing nothing more than indulge their own hobby of buying guns. Big whoop. They aren’t guarding us. Some of them are threatening us-all the ones who parade around political events of pro control nature should in fact be arrested and charged with making threats. If this was actually happening, (arrest for threats) I would not be so mad.
In practice I’ve long though their should be universal back ground checks for reasons of business fairness. It’s not fair to honest businesses to have loopholes that other businesses can get an unfair competative advantage. And also any with criminal intent will naturally go for the private sale or gun show sale while the loophole exist. Business in place pay taxes & has costs to do the background checks. “gun show” specialists don’t. That is not fair. For related reasons I also think we need sales tax on internet sales.
Federal rules on some things will be good but on guns I think there is a certain need for local guides too. It’s been obvious for a long time that people were talking past each other and part of it is the difference between country and city. In the country if you are often isolated you may need a gun for protection. could be people but there are also snakes, rabies, maybe even a bear. You can go out somewhere and safely practice no big deal. In the city you miss, you hit someone else. there are too many people around to accurately access threats so you’ll get surprised and practice spaces cost money. Better solution is…pay for more cops or something like that.
See I was just a little control for a long time and we have so many guns that removing them would be hair raising but the stupid bad faith never admit any little fault attitude is just getting on my nerves and I’m starting to get really mad. I like kids a lot better than gun lovers.
My views are my own. As far as I can tell very few gun control advocates agree with me YET. Keep defending stupid and that may change though.
Omnes Omnibus
@Ben Franklin:
To some extent, the government already does. Governing is a question of where to draw lines.
? Martin
@Ben Franklin:
You do realize that the federal government already does that, and has for a century? That’s why there’s no DDT in your Cheerios, and why McDonalds doesn’t serve rat burgers. We’ve been banning the sale of all manner of food for ages.
Don’t get too lost in your own delusions.
SatanicPanic
@Ben Franklin: Control? As in give you a diet plan and force you to follow it? No. But exert some influence on what you eat? Yes. It already does.
Petorado
I hate the fact that Republicans have not only made it a point of pride to be publicly insane, but also that dredging out the most absurd conspiracy theory from the darkest recesses of their id is somehow the definition of being a patriot (in their eyes.)
Mnemosyne
@Peppi:
Yes, yes, we know, you haz a sad because the gubbmint is coming to take away your Barbie Dream House:
Here’s a thought — if gun owners would stop doing fantasy play with deadly weapons and treated their toys as the deadly weapons they are, we wouldn’t even be having this conversation. But you refuse to treat guns with the seriousness they require, so now the adults are going to have to step in and make sure you act responsibly with your guns the same way you step in when your three-year-old starts trying to shove a Barbie down his younger brother’s throat.
Ben Franklin
@SatanicPanic:
Uh, that’s not what you said, but I understand the back-peddle. Feel free to narrow your blanket statements about trusting the govt. as the thread winds down.
The Hive’s survival holds sway over the individual.
Villago Delenda Est
@Belafon (formerly anonevent):
Which is EXACTLY how California got its highly restrictive open carry laws in the first place, in the late 60’s, signed into law by the sainted Ronaldus Magnus.
Brendan in NC
@Carolinus: It’s not weird at all. the “Legally-owned” mumbo jumbo is designed grandfather in all the “soon to be outlawed” guns that these idiots go on a buying frenzy for right before the law goes into effect.
Personally, I’d like to have seen Connecticut’s ban be retroactive on all purchases made after 12/14/12.
All those AR-15’s and monster clips need to be turned over to law enforcement, and no, you don’t get your money back, dipshit…
SatanicPanic
@Ben Franklin: Pfft. So society shouldn’t pay attention to what people are eating. Is that what you want to argue? Please, proceed.
DFH no.6
@Belafon (formerly anonevent):
I’ve read just the opposite numerous times recently.
Go to http://gunvictimsaction.org (website for the gun control-advocacy group National Gun Victims Action Council; not exactly on the same side as the NRA) for instance.
Also, does believing that most of the murders in, say, Chicago are committed by people who own their guns legally even pass the smell test?
Cory Booker was on Bill Maher’s show recently (advocating gun control, mostly arguing with Sam Harris, whose outlook parallels mine) and Booker stated that all of the gun murders last year in Newark were committed with illegally-owned weapons.
Ben Franklin
. But you refuse to treat guns with the seriousness they require, so now the adults are going to have to step in and make sure you act responsibly with your guns the same way you step in when your three-year-old starts trying to shove a Barbie down his younger brother’s throat.
The adults…………because you know better, and the rest of us children lack responsibility.
This pov is apparently being picked up in the polling that ostensibly shows cognitive dissonance but is actually due to a potential threat to personal liberty.
Interesting that you miss that.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
@Ben Franklin: Looking at this chain, it’s obvious you are desperate to get away from the gun issue. But, society has regulated a number of things, some of them health related so that your junk food eating isn’t as bad as it could be. The restaurants have been required to change what they fry in, for one thing. So, yes, we have regulations. No, they haven’t stopped all behavior. As for guns, they have this nasty little side effect called “being able to kill other people in a very short period of time.” That’s why regulating them falls into a similar category as smoking, though, even if they banned all cigarettes, I wouldn’t support a ban on every gun.
Mnemosyne
@DFH no.6:
I think there might be a weird definitional problem here — IIRC, most murders are committed using guns that were purchased legally, but were not necessarily used by their legal owners. I know that Chicago in particular has had a huge problem with straw purchasers going to gun stores outside of city limits and buying a perfectly legal arsenal at their gangbanger friend or boyfriend’s direction.
Chris
@WereBear:
Yes.
Among other things, it explains their obsession with Hollywood and pop culture in general (as we just saw with BioShock). When you’re the kind of people who cite “24” in court as a defense of torture, pop fiction is serious bidness.
A lot of their upbringing goes into it to. Religious fundamentalism, if not religion in general, encourages the shit out of this by teaching mythology as solid fact – which is how you still have close to half the population demanding that creationism be taught in science class because facts be damned, they want it to be true. The same is true of their approach to history, with the founding fathers being regarded not as historical figures so much as heroes from Lord of the Rings.
“Facts are stupid things.” Ronald Reagan.
Mnemosyne
@Ben Franklin:
Man Cleaning Shotgun Accidentally Shoots and Kills 10-Year-Old Son, Police Say
Tragic: Man accidentally shoots his 10-month-old son to death
Sorry, what was that you were saying about how gun owners are all responsible adults who don’t need any stinkin’ government oversight? I couldn’t hear you over all of the gunfire.
Why does your personal liberty to own a gun trump my personal liberty to not be shot to death?
Honus
@jrg: Let’s see; a private newspaper publishing the names of (supposedly proud) gun owners (see the First Amendment to the Constitution) somehow equals government confiscation of guns. Almost seems like you consider owning a gun to be some kind of shameful fetish that should be kept private.
I guess newspapers should be also prohibited from publishing property records of homeowners that live in gated communities.
Ben Franklin
@Mnemosyne:
Control freaks are gonna haveta get busy. There’s a lot of control opportunities you are missing.
http://danger.mongabay.com/injury_death.htm
The Moar You Know
@Honus: Same here. Was told explicitly to never point a firearm at anyone that I did not have an immediate need to kill.
And in my state of California, was also made to understand (a lot of gun owners here don’t) that if you kill someone in self-defense you will be, at a minimum, cuffed, stuffed, charged with homicide and taken downtown for a few days of questions. Even in the conservative parts of CA. If the investigation shows you had any realistic alternative to shooting that person you’re probably going to prison for a long time.
Honus
@Ben Franklin: You make a good point. We should go back to the way it was in 1971 when I was in the hospital with pneumonia and my attending physician freely smoked in my hospital room. After all, I recovered just fine. I miss all the smoke in bars and restaurants these days.
Chris
@Eric U.:
This is why I at the very least support gun registration, with the identity of all gun owners made public. If one of my neighbor owns guns, I’d like to fucking know about it so that I know whether or not to start worrying when he snaps because his wife left him, his job fired him or his team lost the Super Bowl.
@Omnes Omnibus:
If they’re so freaked out about the government coming for their guns, good. They can push for strengthening Internal Affairs in police departments, MPs and military investigative services, congressional oversight of the black budget, etc. Of course they’re not going to do that, because every time you try (see also the last twelve years), they scream that you’re disarming our Jack Bauers and you can’t have THAT.
@Ben Franklin:
Holy Mary mother of God, OF COURSE I want the government to control what I eat. You may trust the companies in charge of such things to guarantee healthy (in the basic sense of “probably not gonna kill you if you eat it”) out of the pure goodness of their hearts. I beg to differ.
Mnemosyne
@Ben Franklin:
From the chart you linked to:
Given that we can cut the suicide and assault rates in half by controlling firearms, I’m fine with concentrating on that. You can focus on controlling lightning strikes instead if that floats your boat, but you won’t get nearly as far as you will by controlling firearms.
Ben Franklin
@Honus:
I know what you mean. Smokers are worse than child molesters.
Emperor of Ice Cream
@Ben Franklin: i know you are trying to be provocative, but you’re mainly being a jerk or a libertarian (but I repeat myself). The cult of the individual is one of the primary drivers of the insanity that is ruling our country and ruining the planet. Yes, you are a very special snowflake. Now melt.
Southern Beale
Not so fast:
Every Objection to Expanding Background Checks, Debunked
So apparently we already HAVE this provision, have had it for over 40 years, and no one has used it to create a national gun registry from which liberal tree hugging union thugs can take their guns.
Amazing.
Ben Franklin
@Mnemosyne:
I’m fine with concentrating on that
If you don’t form a Bathtub Slime Posse, we’ll be losing thousands.
Chris
@Ben Franklin:
Next you’ll be telling us that society should have cops going around enforcing regulations against people killing each other. How infantilizing! As if we weren’t all perfectly responsible adults who already know not to do such things.
Responsible, happy and self-regulating, yessirree, that’s the human race right there!
Mnemosyne
@Ben Franklin:
Also, too, according to your chart, 26 people were killed by dogs, and yet hundreds of cities and counties have passed regulations on what kind of dog you can have and how you have to license them.
But those 26,000+ suicides and assaults by guns? Nothing to see here, move along, let’s talk about how dangerous pit bulls are again.
What Have the Romans Ever Done for Us?
I don’t get it. Who gives a crapola about whether the government puts your name on a list, so long as you still have your gun? I mean, I thought the whole point was to use the gun to defend your rights, up to the point where you make them pry said gun from your cold, dead hands. So long as you have the gun, that can still happen, whether your name is on a list or not. Why are a bunch of macho gun owners afraid of an itty bitty wittle list?
Ben Franklin
@Chris:
I return to my original point; the apparent line of demarcation….
Trust issues abound for some. Others? Not so much.
DFH no.6
@Mnemosyne:
That’s exactly the point I made in my original comment back at 43 (and the point Cory Booker and the National Gun Victims Action Council made).
From what I’ve read and what I’ve heard (from, say, Cory Booker) most gun murders in America are committed by people (call them criminals, call them thugs, call them gang-bangers, whatever) who are using a weapon that they did not themselves acquire legally (and may themselves not even be allowed to legally purchase and own a gun) .
Obviously, at least at the original point of sale, just about every one of these murder weapons was purchased legally by someone.
Then, by various routes, these well-made, long-lasting, and easily transported death-machines entered the black market and ended up in the hands of a murderer.
Which is why background checks will do fuck-all to stop most gun murders in America (like, for instance, the vast majority of the oft-mentioned 2500 or so who have been murdered with a gun since Sandy Hook).
Mnemosyne
@Ben Franklin:
Death by bathtub fall: 341
Death by assault with firearms: 10,801
Yes, clearly death by assault with firearms can be ignored in favor of the far more pressing problem of bathtub falls. Anyone who thinks otherwise is clearly a fool.
Mnemosyne
@What Have the Romans Ever Done for Us?:
One of my brothers is a handgun owner in Illinois, and he doesn’t just have his name on a list — he actually has a government-issued picture ID! They have all of his information and could track him down at any time! Any law enforcement official who sees him with a handgun can demand to see his license!
And yet somehow he doesn’t seem to feel he’s been completely emasculated by government nannyism. Go figure.
@DFH no.6:
It’s probably true that background checks alone won’t do much to stop gun murders. This is where I propose my simple three-step plan again:
1. Register all guns
2. License all gun owners
3. No magazines that hold more than 10 rounds
But my simple, sensible plan will never pass because OMG BLACK UN HELICOPTERS ARE COMING FOR MAH GUNZ!!
gogol's wife
@Mnemosyne:
Carolyn Maloney is getting death threats because she’s proposing a bill that gun owners have to have insurance — like car owners.
SatanicPanic
@Mnemosyne: Great, but I would add that we should require graphic photos of people’s brains blown out on all gun related packaging.
DFH no.6
@What Have the Romans Ever Done for Us?:
Have you seen Red Dawn (the original)?
That’s exactly what the macho gun-nuts I am surrounded by here in Sheriff Joe Arpaio County (and, by extension, gun-nuts throughout the land) believe about gun registration, except in their fevered imaginations it’s not Cuban and Russian military invaders, but jack-booted federal thugs who will use “the list” to find them and kill them all.
Just because I’m a self-confessed contrarian in liberal circles about the gun control debate doesn’t mean I don’t recognize the insanity (i.e., out of touch with reality) on the rightwing side (pretty much de rigueur for that bunch on just about everything).
bemused
@Eric U.:
Are there any extremist gun nuts that aren’t morons AND angry? How old are your neighbor and the prof?
I’ve noticed many of our local pro gun guys are in their 60’s, 70’s. They’re not that bright and they are angry but not angry enough to do anything crazy, I hope. They just think they are tough guys even though many of them have a lot of old age infirmities. They like to talk tough. One guy said he got a sales call to buy a security system. He tells the salesperson that he doesn’t need a security system, he’s got security and then proceeds to describe his gun. Another old guy who can’t walk very well and has health issues was leaning on a store counter saying a 70 year old man who was recently jumped in broad daylight by 4 young guys in a bank parking lot should have been carrying. When others there scoffed and asked how carrying would have helped in that situation, the old guy said he could have least gotten off a shot. Then he heaves himself off the counter and said he has to get to his doctor appointment.
These old guys are scared and riled up so I worry that they could overreact to something minor. Kind of scary considering they are not in the best shape physically and not using common sense thinking.
scav
@SatanicPanic: Oh, they all in favor of that providing information thing in other circs. Their instant pivot and soft-shoe will make Astair jealous.
Chris
@Ben Franklin:
You never drew a line of demarcation. Just a vague whine about how the government regulates too much and how if we’re worried about your ability to own a deadly weapon that could be turned against your neighbors the first time you have a fit of rage (by no means a rare occurrence – see stats), we’re treating you like children.
Face
I’m surprised Reader’s Digest didn’t throw a lobbying fit about this bill, with its restrictions on magazines and all that.
Chris
@DFH no.6:
Yes. SO chock full of right wing tropes it was pretty unwatchable. I feel like I missed out by not seeing it as a kid, it probably would’ve been great then.
Ben Franklin
@Chris:
You never drew a line of demarcation
What I said was that trust issues fog the polling issue. The line of Demarcation is those that implicitly trust government, and those who are highly suspicious of it.
Redshirt
@Chris: I saw it when it came out. It was funny then, but kinda cool. It’s just hilarious now.
Great cast.
Chris
@Ben Franklin:
If all you’re saying is that trust issues in the general public regarding government regulation make it hard to rally support for gun rules, then sure. That’s true.
But if you’re saying it’s in any way rational or sensible to feel infantilized by government regulations designed to protect customers and save lives (contrast the U.S. and the West with third world nations that don’t have a working FDA to go back to your food example), then I part ways.
DFH no.6
@Mnemosyne:
What you propose is sensible (though magazine capacity has little to do with most gun deaths in America; it’s primarily relevant to the rare – and they are, mercifully, rare – massacres like Virginia Tech and Aurora) in that it takes a few small steps towards making us more like Western Europe (which I am personally all for).
However, not only is it, as you note, a political non-starter (hell, background checks in the wake of Sandy Hook can’t even pass Congress) but my contrarianism on this topic is based on 3 very large things that I don’t see changing in any foreseeable future:
1. The goddamn 2nd Amendment
2. The basic (I think most fundamental of all) American value of “don’t tread on me”
3. The goddamn genie is out of the bottle (300 million+ weapons extant in America, only a small fraction of which is needed to feed the black market indefinitely)
Trollhattan
@Mnemosyne:
Bathtubz: Hundreds of millions of Americans scrubbed clean, weekly.
Gunz: Nuttin’.
Yup, they’re just alike.
jrg
@Honus: So, your response to my assertion that confiscation may be a possibility is to call gun owners fetishists? And I’m supposed to believe the possibility of confiscation is a whacko conspiracy theory?
Ben Franklin
@Chris:
If all you’re saying is that trust issues in the general public regarding government regulation make it hard to rally support for gun rules, then sure. That’s true.
Do you think the Public is represented on this issue here at BJ?
Maybe on a percentage basis in total, but not in this thread.
But if you’re saying it’s in any way rational or sensible to feel infantilized by government regulations designed to protect customers and save lives (contrast the U.S. and the West with third world nations that don’t have a working FDA to go back to your food example), then I part ways.
If that is the design. Therein lay the question wrt gunz.
Trollhattan
@jrg:
As the expression goes: “Asked and answered.”
Omnes Omnibus
@jrg:
Yes. Confiscation and/or banning of guns is a position held by a very small minority of people in the US – none of whom are in positions of power. The only people I have run into who think the government is going to take away their guns are gun fetishists and/or over the top libertarians. YMMV.
Mnemosyne
@jrg:
Uh, yeah. Because only a whacko would get so upset about being called a “fetishist” that he would oppose any and all sensible gun legislation because his fee-fees were hurt.
You know how you get people to stop treating you like a whacko fetishist who thinks his deadly chunk of metal is more important that other people’s lives? Stop acting like one.
Ben Franklin
@Omnes Omnibus:
Considering the subject of the Post, how do you reconcile so many in the poll who are dubious about GC legislation? What are their reasons?
jrg
@Omnes Omnibus: The post that started this thread includes: “American voters agree with the National Rifle Association, however, that these background checks could lead someday to confiscation of legally-owned guns.”
So, half the population consists of “gun fetishists and/or over the top libertarians”?
Does anyone here get the point I’m making? If you honestly don’t want people to believe confiscation is a possibility, stop giving them reasons to believe it is.
Redshirt
All I ask for is a gun is treated in the same way as a car: Training, testing, license, registration, taxes, insurance. Doesn’t seem like too much to ask for, given the word “REGULATED” in the 2nd.
scav
@DFH no.6: Funny how those (or similar) major major obstacles don’t always work in the same manner for other issues. Fully half the nation is sporting uteri (with more appearing daily) and, while many have a fear of being trod upon and are rather fond of certain amendments, it’s not as efforts to haul those freedom lovers into obedience to their worst fears are regarded as unpossible and unthinkable. Is legislation and law enforcement practice so instantly complient to the historically well-founded (and updated-daily) fears of of the melanin-enhanced?
SatanicPanic
@DFH no.6: If magazine size if only relevant to mass killings, that’s a pretty strong argument that we don’t need large magazines.
Sure, there are 300 million guns but how many of those aren’t now and never will end up on the black market? How much do black market guns cost? If we cut off a big part of the supply chain, i.e. legal guns, I would guess that’s going to raise the price to where only organized crime can afford them. Which would still be an improvement. As it is, if Mexican gangs have to go through straw purchasers at AZ shops, that’s already a big hurdle.
Ben Franklin
@Redshirt:
I think the wording is WELL regulated.
Lots of wiggle room for weasel words.
Li
@DFH no.6: Precisely. A far more effective tactic for actually reducing gun violence would be to track gun store inventories (which we currently don’t do) and come down like a ton of bricks on people who are smuggling guns out of the white market, and into the black market. People buying guns out of the back of a van aren’t going to be registered or background checked or have ‘gun insurance’ no matter how many laws we pass.
Redshirt
@Ben Franklin: Even better. And like cars, you have to comply with certain hardware standards. This would cover things like magazine types, silencers, full auto, etc.
gogol's wife
@Redshirt:
I think he thinks “well” = “not”
Ben Franklin
@gogol’s wife:
Well, as in completely….deep wells of thought here.
aimai
@Ben Franklin:
But gun owners, to the extent they overlap with White Red State Republicans, are not at all overly suspicious of government” since they vote regularly for massive government intrusion into other people’s sex lives, into women’s health, etc… They are pro “big government” when it is an authoritarian gargantua that will repress poor, non whites, and women (see e.g. the massive governmental intrusion necessary to repress the votes of non whites and democrats) but anti government when they imagine that their own personal interest is at stake. That’s not particularly canny or meritorious.
Omnes Omnibus
@jrg: “could lead someday” =/= is going to. If I think there is a 1% possibility of it happening someday, I would need to answer that a “could lead someday” question with a yes. It doesn’t mean I think it is going to happen.
How is advocating for registering and regulating guns giving people reason to believe that confiscation is a going to happen? Unless one buys into the slippery slope fallacy. Look, I would be perfectly happy to register the three guns I own, just like I am perfectly happy to register the other really dangerous hunk of metal I own – my car. I am not worried that registering either thing is the first step in someone coming to take it away.
SatanicPanic
@scav: Those people don’t count. And sacred rights are limited to shooting guns and stuffing one’s face with rat-dropping seasoned hotdogs.
Redshirt
In this current environment, any Federal attempts at gun regulation are for show. But it’s an important show, and the pressure needs to be maintained, and ramped up. Make this an issue that the Left can win.
Trollhattan
@Omnes Omnibus:
Don’t forgot to add the New Black Panther Party. They’ve been accumulating hordes and piles of weapons and getting ready. I’m pretty sure that’s what Fox News told me.
GregB
I think it is incumbent upon us all to not hurt the delicate feelings of the brave gun-toting warriors who will fight off Al Qaeda, the Soviet Union, Communist China and Barack Hussein X.
They have emotions too and might not step up to defend us if we call them bad names.
aimai
@jrg:
That’s a misreading of the poll. Sure, lots of people believe that the government at some later date could do something like confiscate guns–I believe it myself. But that doesn’t mean I’m against legislating guns right now. I’m not. Like the rest of the population I’m actually for stricter gun legislation right now. The statement “people believe the government might someday confiscate guns” and the statement “therefore people are opposed to gun control legislation now” are not related and the second one doesn’t follow from the first.
Sure, some of the people who answer “yes the government may come and take people’s guns” are probably just paranoid fox news watching assholes who couldn’t learn something new and true if they were trepanned with a fucking dictionary. But the rest of us who might, hypoethically, answer yes to that question are merely ordinary people who acknowledge that no current congress can tie the hands of the next congress, that laws are written and overturned many times over the course of a century or more and not having the brain power of a mayfly we accept that as a fact. That doesn’t mean that we are opposed to it. I’m sure not. I welcome the day that “law abiding gun owners” have to answer a series of hard hitting questions and undergo rigorous twice yearly tests to determine whether they are still mentally and physically capable of controlling their weapons. And I’d like strict liability for gun owners–I’d like to see execution for adults who “accidentally” shoot other people, even their own children. We’d see a little more RESPECT FOR YOUR FUCKING TOOLS if these moron accidental killers were held accountable for the totally forseeable deaths they cause.
scav
Clearly, filing your taxes is the first step toward the inevitable confiscation of all your money by Obama for his personal retirement fund just before he leaves office in 2024.
And yes, @GregB, every minute fear of the self -professed bravest among us must instantly be catered to.
Omnes Omnibus
@GregB:
It is a chance I am willing to take.
GregB
@Omnes Omnibus:
Perhaps some of these gunstores can start offering free fainting couches with the purchase of an assault rifle.
Mnemosyne
@jrg:
Gun owners are at the point where even the most mild of regulations, background checks, are considered proof positive that the government is coming for their guns.
You’re basically demanding that we do absolutely nothing because doing anything at all, even a useless fig leaf, gives paranoid people reasons to believe that their worst fears are coming true.
Sorry, but I am no longer willing to cater to the mentally ill by pretending their favorite toys are not dangerous. You may need to step outside of the circle of gun owners to see how your fellow Americans actually regard you (hint: it’s not as a brave patriot defending us all from the evil government).
DFH no.6
@Li:
In the (very) long run you would be correct.
Only by severely reducing the number of guns available for the black market, via strict control, registration, and tracking – with harsh and certain penalties – could we ever hope to significantly reduce the number of gun murders.
That’s the task of generations (if it ever happens at all).
How that would be done in our actual country with the three large and very real things I mentioned as the primary obstacles (2nd Amendment, bedrock American “don’t tread on me” societal value, and the 300+ million and counting genies already out of the bottle) I have no idea.
I am not sanguine we ever will (not till after global warming changes everything everywhere drastically, anyway, and probably not in good ways, either – survivors decades hence may react like Woody Harrelson in Zombieland when he found a pile of weapons in an abandoned Hummer: “thank God for rednecks!”).
And on that cheery note I bid you all adieu for now, and wish all the luck in the world for those like aimai who are fighting a good (but I sadly believe, doomed) fight for gun control in the we’re number one, fuck yeah! US of A.
Chris
@Mnemosyne:
QFT. (As if they wouldn’t find reasons to believe it anyway).
It’s the Second Amendment version of the general “It’s Obama’s fault that we’re all fucking nuts over here” thing the teabaggers have perfected.
Andrey
@jrg:
Uh, yeah. Welcome to America.
jrg
@Mnemosyne: I really shouldn’t bother arguing with you, but FYI – I have not fired a gun in 15 years.
Andrey
@jrg: A foot fetishist who hasn’t had sex in 15 years is, nonetheless, still a foot fetishist.
jrg
@Andrey: Louie Gohmert, is that you?
Andrey
@jrg: What?
Paul in KY
@Cassidy: Agree. Theoretically, I guess the background check info could be used to see that “at point of time ‘A’, Paul in KY had a background check done for purposes of buying gun ‘B'”.
I certainly understood this every time I had one completed. Hasn’t stopped me from being for univeral checks, registration, and now banning certain types of military weapons.
? Martin
@Paul in KY:
Actually, they can’t, by law, draw that connection. That might be stupid, etc. but by law, the Feds can’t do that. That firewall exists and almost certainly will exist well past the point the 2013 gun legislation is settled.
What they can do is subpoena the records of the gun shop where you bought the gun and see that you bought gun B. And that has fuckall to do with background checks or anything else as it applies equally to tampons and radial tires.
Paul in KY
@? Martin: Thank you for your clarification.
Calouste
@DFH no.6:
If you offer $200 per gun on average to buy back guns, 300 million guns would come to $60 billion. Which is approximately the cost of building and running a single aircraft carrier for 20 years.
NonyNony
@Ben Franklin:
Dude, 91% favored gun control legislation. That is not “dubious about gun control” by any stretch of the imagination – that is in rock solid “give us some gun control regulation, please”.
The folks who are on the pro-gun side here seem to be misreading the poll. What these questions actually suggest is two things:
* 48% of respondents think that if we allow the government to do background checks, the government could someday use that information to confiscate guns.
* 91% of respondents think that the government should be regulating guns.
Being generous and assuming that all 8% of respondents who don’t think the government should be regulating guns are in that first 48%, that means that 40% of the respondents thought that the government could use that information to confiscate guns but they don’t fucking care because they think we need some more regulation on this stat.
That’s the takeaway here. There isn’t anything “dubious” about those responses. This is a clearly coming down in the camp of “given a choice between the government possibly using background check information to take away guns and not having more regulation, an overwhelming majority favor more regulation.” Period. If you’re reading more into those poll numbers than that, you’re projecting your own doubts onto the respondents instead of just looking at what the numbers are saying.
charluckles
I am a gun owner. I support what would probably be considered by most people in this country to be extreme restrictions on gun ownership, including full registration.
The reality of the modern military makes swiss cheese of the arguement that your home defense weapon is some kind of defense against tyranny.
The events at Sandy Hook showed me that even having someone in your city or neighborhood who has one of these arsenals puts you in danger. I fail to see why citizens don’t have a right to know when someone in their neighborhood has acquired enough firepower to start a small army.
jefft452
@Ben Franklin: “According to the survey, 48 percent said they believed the government could use background check records to seize guns, while 38 said the government could not. Ninety-one percent favored background checks anyway, and only 8 percent are opposed”
“There is the fear that the gubmint goes too far to protect us from ourselves, as though we were children who must be babysat”
“Ninety-one percent favored background checks anyway, and only 8 percent are opposed”
8% fear mommy will make you eat vegetables, 91% know that the 8% are in fact children and do need a sitter
jefft452
@NonyNony: “that means that 40% of the respondents thought that the government could use that information to confiscate guns but they don’t fucking care because they think we need some more regulation on this stat.”
Agreed, also this:
“use that information to confiscate guns”,
Confiscate all guns?
Or confiscate guns from the guy who got arrested for putting his wife in the hospital, or the guy who sends death threats to his ex-wife’s divorce lawyer?
Even if they have no desire at all to reduce overall gun ownership, most people know that some people just shouldn’t have them
The 8% that oppose background checks are mostly those who, if it was up to their neighbors, who know them best, would fall into the “that nut shouldn’t have a gun” category
jefft452
@aimai: “we’ve had laws on the books preventing (or attempting to prevent) the sale of spoiled/rotten/toxic foods since the Civil War.”
There was a time when Uncle Sam had a war with Spain
Many boys in bonnie blue were in the struggle slain
Not all were killed by bullets,No not by any means
The greater part by far were killed by Armour’s Pork & Beans
slightly_peeved
@NonyNony:
an alternative reading: people think the government could use these controls to take yer guns, but since they actually trust their government, they think this is unlikely.
slightly_peeved
@NonyNony:
an alternative reading: people think the government could use these controls to take yer guns, but since they actually trust their government, they think this is unlikely.
I mean I could have a heart attack tomorrow, that’s indisputable. but I’m still going to eat this cake.
jefft452
“I could have a heart attack tomorrow, that’s indisputable. but I’m still going to eat this cake”
cake or death?
OzoneR
If only Obama used the bully pulpit.
Redshirt
The only answer is for everyone to have their own armies. Huge stores of weapons/ammunition. Secret fortresses around the world. Sexy super spies. Etc.
What Have the Romans Ever Done for Us?
@DFH no.6: I saw Red Dawn (the original) when it first came out on video when I was in high school. I can’t remember any lists being compiled but that was a while ago.
How does your fantasy of running for the hills and forcing the gubmint to pry your gun from your cold, dead hands happen, though, if they don’t make that list?
I’m only acquainted with one gun nut via facebook – he’s a high school “friend” who I haven’t seen since graduation, who posts about 20 times a day about various fake government conspiracies that he actually thinks are happening.
He posts frequently about 2nd amendment rights. He even posted a post telling everyone to “keep silent” by not posting pictures of their guns, unironically! Like the government needs pictures to figure out that he’s got guns. and there’s NO WAY the government could use his facebook posts to put him on some kind of list. These guys are too stupid to keep quiet anyway, so the government doesn’t really need a list to track them down.