[QUOTE=Raycetpfl;2920466]Hold the seller legally responsible and make the buyer pay a transfer fee just like online sales.[/QUOTE]Right but how do you enforce compliance?
[QUOTE=BKR;2920467]Ya think?
http://freebeacon.com/issues/2016-gun-sales-record/
http://freebeacon.com/issues/all-time-gun-sales-records-set-in-2015/
http://fortune.com/2015/10/08/gun-sales-record-high/
https://bearingarms.com/jenn-j/2016/11/29/despite-predictions-black-friday-produced-record-breaking-gun-sales/[/QUOTE]
Gun sales are not gun owners. The same people keep buying. There are fewer gun owners coming of age than those dying.
The Gallup numbers are relatively rosy, showing the percentage of gun owners as flat over the past decade and a half, but that’s down 10% from the early 90s. Scroll down a bit.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx
The GSS shows ownership has declined from 49% to 32% from the early 70s to present.
http://www.norc.org/PDFs/GSS%20Reports/GSS_Trends%20in%20Gun%20Ownership_US_1972-2014.pdf
Only 30% or so have skin in this game.
[QUOTE=ermghoti;2920473]Gun sales are not gun owners. The same people keep buying. There are fewer gun owners coming of age than those dying.
The Gallup numbers are relatively rosy, showing the percentage of gun owners as flat over the past decade and a half, but that’s down 10% from the early 90s. Scroll down a bit.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx
The GSS shows ownership has declined from 49% to 32% from the early 70s to present.
http://www.norc.org/PDFs/GSS%20Reports/GSS_Trends%20in%20Gun%20Ownership_US_1972-2014.pdf
Only 30% or so have skin in this game.[/QUOTE]I think a major issue with the pro 2a community is that it is so closely associated with all things right wing. We let too many issues bleed over. And progressive fun police use that to slowly choke off our air supply aka getting youths from non “gun” families involved in shooting sports. We struggle and end up puking all over ourselves (LaPierre’s rhetoric) instead of escaping.
That said, I think a lot of gun control laws are going to take a beating with the upcoming Supreme Court changes.
[QUOTE=ermghoti;2920473]Gun sales are not gun owners. The same people keep buying. There are fewer gun owners coming of age than those dying.
The Gallup numbers are relatively rosy, showing the percentage of gun owners as flat over the past decade and a half, but that’s down 10% from the early 90s. Scroll down a bit.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx
The GSS shows ownership has declined from 49% to 32% from the early 70s to present.
http://www.norc.org/PDFs/GSS%20Reports/GSS_Trends%20in%20Gun%20Ownership_US_1972-2014.pdf
Only 30% or so have skin in this game.[/QUOTE]
Well, you also should consider that the number of gun owners is not necessarily equivalent to the number of people who support the 2nd amendment. Most conservatives support the 2nd amendment whether they own guns or not.
[QUOTE=ermghoti;2920473]Gun sales are not gun owners. The same people keep buying. There are fewer gun owners coming of age than those dying.
The Gallup numbers are relatively rosy, showing the percentage of gun owners as flat over the past decade and a half, but that’s down 10% from the early 90s. Scroll down a bit.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx
The GSS shows ownership has declined from 49% to 32% from the early 70s to present.
http://www.norc.org/PDFs/GSS%20Reports/GSS_Trends%20in%20Gun%20Ownership_US_1972-2014.pdf
Only 30% or so have skin in this game.[/QUOTE]
Depends on where you live, a lot…
[QUOTE=Devil;2920479]Well, you also should consider that the number of gun owners is not necessarily equivalent to the number of people who support the 2nd amendment. Most conservatives support the 2nd amendment whether they own guns or not.[/QUOTE]That’s an excellent point.
[QUOTE=Devil;2920479]Well, you also should consider that the number of gun owners is not necessarily equivalent to the number of people who support the 2nd amendment. Most conservatives support the 2nd amendment whether they own guns or not.[/QUOTE]
True, but the margins are razor thin now. Peeling off a few one-issue pro-gun voters (by pestering them into giving up ownership) or just waiting for attrition to occur could make for an indomitable voting bloc.
[QUOTE=Cassius;2920476]I think a major issue with the pro 2a community is that it is so closely associated with all things right wing. We let too many issues bleed over. And progressive fun police use that to slowly choke off our air supply aka getting youths from non “gun” families involved in shooting sports. We struggle and end up puking all over ourselves (LaPierre’s rhetoric) instead of escaping.
[/QUOTE]
This point is so obvious and so important I am frustrated that virtually every 2a advocate doesn’t see it this way. If they really cared about protecting the 2a in the future they should be trying all the time to get “liberals” to have a good time shooting.
I offer to take non gun owners out shooting all the time. I give them free lessons on safety and fundamentals of marksmanship. Many times they don’t accept the offer but sometimes they do and I make sure they have a good time.
[QUOTE=Devil;2920479]Well, you also should consider that the number of gun owners is not necessarily equivalent to the number of people who support the 2nd amendment. Most conservatives support the 2nd amendment whether they own guns or not.[/QUOTE]
Correction: most conservatives support the 2nd amendment whether they fully understand what the NRA does against their interests, or not.
Cassius just pointed out the 800 lb. gorilla, which is the NRA is NOT about growing America’s culture of pride in gun ownership, but with electing politicians.
If the NRA was successful at preserving American gun ownership tradition, they wouldn’t be sucking taint at it. Instead, they’re focusing on funneling money to politicians and trying to keep up with their fiery speeches.
Talk about collateral damage…putting idiots in charge of the government just because they support your 2A rights. OMFG.
Unfortunately there is no better option for the NRA. I don’t like it or support it, but inciting the base is America’s thing right now. I know it’s nice to pretend that DNC feel good ideas for “gun safety” will do something other than fuck over law abiding gun owners for the added benefit of making crime more illegaler, or that they’re not coming for your guns, but that doesn’t appear to be the case right now. I wish we could keep guns away from bad guys too, but removing the patient’s head to get rid of her thyroid cancer is a bit extreme. Compromising with the DNC has mostly not worked out for 2A proponents, so they are doing the other thing. And the DNC is experiencing it’s own Tea Party Rebellion right now, so don’t look for them to back down anytime soon.
What will pull us out of this political death spiral? I don’t know, maybe Martians invading.
I don’t think working with the DNC is the right thing to do. As far as I can tell old guard people like Diane Feinstein, having accidentally stuck her finger in Harvey Milk’s exit wound following his assassination, are pretty much going to be pathologically anti-gun forever (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscone–Milk_assassinations ). I think getting as many liberals as possible positive growth experiences from shooting is the only way to reduce the extremism of the DNC in the future. Focus on young people, who already don’t really like the old guard of the DNC.
Part of the reason the DNC stuff on guns is so loopy is basically because those guys don’t know what they’re talking about. If people in general became more savvy about guns, a lot of the really stupid stuff would simply stop being proposed.
To put it another way, Wayne LaPierre’s bullshit helps to ensure that anyone who doesn’t already shoot won’t want to, so that the ignorance will remain, and stupid proposals will continue to be floated, until such time as shooter demographics dwindle to the point when said proposals can be passed.
[QUOTE=Wounded Ronin;2920508]I don’t think working with the DNC is the right thing to do. As far as I can tell old guard people like Diane Feinstein, having accidentally stuck her finger in Harvey Milk’s exit wound following his assassination, are pretty much going to be pathologically anti-gun forever (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscone–Milk_assassinations ). I think getting as many liberals as possible positive growth experiences from shooting is the only way to reduce the extremism of the DNC in the future. Focus on young people, who already don’t really like the old guard of the DNC.
Part of the reason the DNC stuff on guns is so loopy is basically because those guys don’t know what they’re talking about. If people in general became more savvy about guns, a lot of the really stupid stuff would simply stop being proposed.
To put it another way, Wayne LaPierre’s bullshit helps to ensure that anyone who doesn’t already shoot won’t want to, so that the ignorance will remain, and stupid proposals will continue to be floated, until such time as shooter demographics dwindle to the point when said proposals can be passed.[/QUOTE]
The only thing that throws gasoline onto LaPierre’s fire are the shootings that could have been prevented with gun control, the ones that the NRA really takes advantage of. The ones that couldn’t be will always be used politically, but it’s the inaction on smart reform that gives people like Feinstein teeth with voters. To this day, nothing has been done by the NRA to address the recent strings of gun accidents or violence (many of which are SAFETY ISSUES) in America. To them it’s a political football they kick off whenever a bunch of people are shot up, no matter what the context. Remember what Adam Lanza did to that class of little kids, and his mental issues, and the fact that his mom practically gave a fucking lunatic kid an arsenal to play with? Where’s the safety and control tech a lobby like the NRA should be working towards, instead of just vying for influence so they can tell the anti-gun crowd “from my cold dead…”
Yeah, we have both mental health AND gun safety issues in the US. Nobody’s really doing shit about either one, and most people are either they’re scared of guns, or they won’t allow any sort of control and the NRA feeds on that. They NRA wants us to believe we need them because Democrats and liberals want to take away our guns because people are getting shot all the time, and it seems to be getting worse. I think hoping for fewer shootings is wishful thinking, so what probably needs to happen is conservatives need to put forward serious, rational compromises, and they don’t. They just don’t do shit, ever, but yell fire in the theater, everybody grab your guns.
In fact, there’s now a sizeable gun nut conspiracy crowd with NRA ties that has grown up around Sandy Hook, trying to convince people it was somehow faked in order to take guns. Good god, how can the NRA support that kind of shit and try to lecture me on responsible gun ownership…
Because of Trump’s NRA influences, people on Social Security Disability who have representative payees can now get guns again. That was a check put in place to make sure people over 65 with dementia weren’t buying guns.
Old people with dementia are dangerous enough with their cars. You want them to be able to buy semi-automatics? Another argument for gun safety tech.
[QUOTE=Pship Destroyer;2920515]The only thing that throws gasoline onto LaPierre’s fire are the shootings that could have been prevented with gun control, the ones that the NRA really takes advantage of. The ones that couldn’t be will always be used politically, but it’s the inaction on smart reform that gives people like Feinstein teeth with voters. To this day, nothing has been done by the NRA to address the recent strings of gun accidents or violence (many of which are SAFETY ISSUES) in America. To them it’s a political football they kick off whenever a bunch of people are shot up, no matter what the context. Remember what Adam Lanza did to that class of little kids, and his mental issues, and the fact that his mom practically gave a fucking lunatic kid an arsenal to play with? Where’s the safety and control tech a lobby like the NRA should be working towards, instead of just vying for influence so they can tell the anti-gun crowd “from my cold dead…”
Yeah, we have both mental health AND gun safety issues in the US. Nobody’s really doing shit about either one, and most people are either they’re scared of guns, or they won’t allow any sort of control and the NRA feeds on that. They NRA wants us to believe we need them because Democrats and liberals want to take away our guns because people are getting shot all the time, and it seems to be getting worse. I think hoping for fewer shootings is wishful thinking, so what probably needs to happen is conservatives need to put forward serious, rational compromises, and they don’t. They just don’t do shit, ever, but yell fire in the theater, everybody grab your guns.
In fact, there’s now a sizeable gun nut conspiracy crowd with NRA ties that has grown up around Sandy Hook, trying to convince people it was somehow faked in order to take guns. Good god, how can the NRA support that kind of shit and try to lecture me on responsible gun ownership…
Because of Trump’s NRA influences, people on Social Security Disability who have representative payees can now get guns again. That was a check put in place to make sure people over 65 with dementia weren’t buying guns.
Old people with dementia are dangerous enough with their cars. You want them to be able to buy semi-automatics? Another argument for gun safety tech.[/QUOTE]
The problem is largely not with the intent of gun safety laws. It is how they are implemented and what they actually do. For instance, what you stated you think that “check” was doing and what it was actually doing are not the same thing. In fact, we had a thread about it already. The above recommendation for requiring firearms background checks is another example. We have discussed this one before as well. Great intent. Does not do anything except inconvenience law abiding citizens and make strawman purchases, crimes committed by the purchaser, and purchases by prohibited persons more criminaler. Maryland requires this yet it has not positively affected our “gun crime” rates at all.
So by all means, let’s talk common sense gun safety. But two caveats:
1.) There is a thread for that. I am being lax about it of late because the discourse in here has all been very civil and mature. Productive even. But if that is primarily what you wish to discuss, please do it there.
2.) You need to understand the difference between common sense and face validity. The NRA is acting like assholes of late, but that does necessarily not make them wrong. Wounded Ronin’s main point is that they are choking off future support with their antics to incite their current base. It is a great point about the long term deleterious effects of their messaging. The points you are bringing up in this thread seem valid if you are looking at the issue from a completely zoomed out view, but they turn into feel good rhetoric that the left is using to incite its base the minute you start trying to implement them.
Are people saying support for gun rights is becoming less popular?
Just the opposite is true:
More people also think guns make them safer:
Violent crime is also at a multi-decades low point.
All the bullshit and fear mongering surrounding this issue is quite stupid and tedious
What happened in 1999-2000?
[QUOTE=Cassius;2920505]Unfortunately there is no better option for the NRA. I don’t like it or support it, but inciting the base is America’s thing right now. I know it’s nice to pretend that DNC feel good ideas for “gun safety” will do something other than fuck over law abiding gun owners for the added benefit of making crime more illegaler, or that they’re not coming for your guns, but that doesn’t appear to be the case right now. I wish we could keep guns away from bad guys too, but removing the patient’s head to get rid of her thyroid cancer is a bit extreme. Compromising with the DNC has mostly not worked out for 2A proponents, so they are doing the other thing. And the DNC is experiencing it’s own Tea Party Rebellion right now, so don’t look for them to back down anytime soon.
What will pull us out of this political death spiral? I don’t know, maybe Martians invading.[/QUOTE]
Exactly. There is no better option and being loud, obnoxious and inflammatory gets better results than being humble and correct. That’s just the way it is in politics.
[QUOTE=Cassius;2920524]The problem is largely not with the intent of gun safety laws. It is how they are implemented and what they actually do. For instance, what you stated you think that “check” was doing and what it was actually doing are not the same thing. In fact, we had a thread about it already. The above recommendation for requiring firearms background checks is another example. We have discussed this one before as well. Great intent. Does not do anything except inconvenience law abiding citizens and make strawman purchases, crimes committed by the purchaser, and purchases by prohibited persons more criminaler. Maryland requires this yet it has not positively affected our “gun crime” rates at all.
So by all means, let’s talk common sense gun safety. But two caveats:
1.) There is a thread for that. I am being lax about it of late because the discourse in here has all been very civil and mature. Productive even. But if that is primarily what you wish to discuss, please do it there.
2.) You need to understand the difference between common sense and face validity. The NRA is acting like assholes of late, but that does necessarily not make them wrong. Wounded Ronin’s main point is that they are choking off future support with their antics to incite their current base. It is a great point about the long term deleterious effects of their messaging. The points you are bringing up in this thread seem valid if you are looking at the issue from a completely zoomed out view, but they turn into feel good rhetoric that the left is using to incite its base the minute you start trying to implement them.[/QUOTE]
In an ideal world, the people at the NRA would also use their realistic knowledge of firearms to propose something that could prevent mass shootings. I suspect that mass shootings and the subsequent news coverage is one of the big drivers of the gun control impulse. The problem, of course, is that I don’t think it’s possible to prevent mass shootings, given how rare and statistically out of the ordinary they are. Even with a good faith effort. Guns can now be 3D printed and/or manufactured in a machine shop so if someone really wants to get one to misuse it’s not possible to prevent this. I mean for a cartridge based repeating firearm we’re talking about a design that’s over 100 years old.
If there were a way to prevent these things it wouldn’t be on the “gun control” side. Maybe you could rig up schools with reinforced doors that could be closed remotely, so that it would be possible to lock a shooter into a room or certain segment of hallway once he entered the school. If he’s locked in an empty room he’s effectively neutralized.
[QUOTE=Wounded Ronin;2920560]In an ideal world, the people at the NRA would also use their realistic knowledge of firearms to propose something that could prevent mass shootings. I suspect that mass shootings and the subsequent news coverage is one of the big drivers of the gun control impulse. The problem, of course, is that I don’t think it’s possible to prevent mass shootings, given how rare and statistically out of the ordinary they are. Even with a good faith effort. Guns can now be 3D printed and/or manufactured in a machine shop so if someone really wants to get one to misuse it’s not possible to prevent this. I mean for a cartridge based repeating firearm we’re talking about a design that’s over 100 years old.
If there were a way to prevent these things it wouldn’t be on the “gun control” side. Maybe you could rig up schools with reinforced doors that could be closed remotely, so that it would be possible to lock a shooter into a room or certain segment of hallway once he entered the school. If he’s locked in an empty room he’s effectively neutralized.[/QUOTE]
And here comes the fear mongering, as if on cue.
[QUOTE=DCS;2920537]What happened in 1999-2000?[/QUOTE]
Just numbers probably.
Looking at that line it flattens pretty well.
The Columbine killings were in 1999.
Federal assault weapons ban was a few years prior.
[QUOTE=Wounded Ronin;2920560]In an ideal world, the people at the NRA would also use their realistic knowledge of firearms to propose something that could prevent mass shootings. I suspect that mass shootings and the subsequent news coverage is one of the big drivers of the gun control impulse. The problem, of course, is that I don’t think it’s possible to prevent mass shootings, given how rare and statistically out of the ordinary they are. Even with a good faith effort. Guns can now be 3D printed and/or manufactured in a machine shop so if someone really wants to get one to misuse it’s not possible to prevent this. I mean for a cartridge based repeating firearm we’re talking about a design that’s over 100 years old.
If there were a way to prevent these things it wouldn’t be on the “gun control” side. Maybe you could rig up schools with reinforced doors that could be closed remotely, so that it would be possible to lock a shooter into a room or certain segment of hallway once he entered the school. If he’s locked in an empty room he’s effectively neutralized.[/QUOTE]
How about this, in the real world, burden of proof does not rest with the status quo.