Author Topic: The theory that Dems want to ban guns  (Read 46966 times)

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« on: January 11, 2016, 01:14:02 AM »
This has been a long-standing theory for people who oppose gun control, and in the wake of the San Bernardino mass shooting and Obama's executive action to do something about gun control, the conspiracy theory that Obama's long-game is to eventually disarm America is flying high among some. Here's a segment of an interview between Obama and Anderson Cooper about this so-called conspiracy theory:

http://therightscoop.com/obama-cites-american-revolution-as-example-of-americans-being-falsely-paranoid-about-govt-tyranny/

I'm making this post to see whether anyone here detects some of the things I think I detect in Obama's answers, but that I'm not entirely sure of. I'll list the items in question:

1) Toward the beginning, when Obama says that American suspicion of government goes all the way back to its founding, where he says "America was...born suspicious of...some distant authority." Am I crazy, or does his inflection on 'some distant authority' somehow make the idea of suspicion of that 'distant authority' sound silly and far-fetched, almost like being suspicious of England was a conspiracy theory too? Especially his use of the modifier "some"; not just 'a distant authority', but 'some distant authority', almost as if it didn't matter which one or that the cause for doubt was bred in the suspicious nature of the Americans rather than in hard reality. Is Obama sort of ridiculing the founding as the birthplace of American conspiracy theory? Comparing the founding to the mentality of conspiracy theory certainly can't shed it in a good light, since I know from hearing him speak about it many times that Obama has zero respect for even the idea of conspiracy theories.

2) When Anderson asks Obama whether believing the government wants to disarm America is really a conspiracy theory, or just a legitimate doubt of good intent, Obama doubles down by ridiculing the theory as a conspiracy theory, playing into a sort of meme Obama has already established over time of even the term "conspiracy theory" being a cause for automatic ridicule. He seems to be equivocating between the literal definition of the term, meaning people who covertly to try achieve some end, with the euphemistic way many people use it, which means a nutso theory about secret cabals and nefarious motives like as in the X-Files. So while the question was geared towards asking whether doubting the motives of the federal government should really be called a conspiracy theory in the usual sense, Obama insists it is one which seems to me to be saying simultaneously that not only isn't it true but that anyone who believes it is silly. Does anyone else see what he did there? Note that whether or not Obama actually has the agenda of disarming America, one would think that concern about the motive would be entirely justified and reasonable. But it seems like Obama doesn't even respect that concern.

3) Finally, when addressing the issue of the long-game motive of taking away everyone's guns, Obama says he has one year left in his Presidency so what can he really do? But isn't this comment a serious dodge, since if Hillary wins she'll literally continue exactly where he left off? I have no doubt her policy on this would mirror his identically. Whether or not I agree with his initiative, isn't it dishonest to claim that his policies aren't informed by future planning when Hillary has claimed time and again that her Presidency would simply follow the principles of Obama's in most respects? She might not win, obviously, but we can be pretty sure Obama has to bank on her winning when he sets plans in motion.

Overall...I don't know. It doesn't seem like Obama is taking this issue very seriously. In fact his agenda seems to be to insinuate that it shouldn't be taken seriously, which is a smokescreen of sorts. I honestly can't say whether I think there's any credence to the idea that the government wants to slowly disarm America, but since so many Americans pass around social media messages that are anti-gun and ridiculing of guns in America, I'm not sure it's appropriate to act as if there's no push for this at all from the left. It may not be what Obama personally wants (I don't know), but it's what many people want, and calling fear of this a stupid conspiracy theory doesn't sound that respectful. But maybe I'm reading too much into small details?

Mynnion

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« Reply #1 on: January 11, 2016, 08:26:24 AM »
I am sure there are those in both the government and the general public.  However when I consider the idea of conspiracy I have my own.  I would suggest that organizations such as the NRA purposely create, grossly overstate the risk, and circulate them.  This has a two-fold effect.  First it increases their membership and it also drastically increases gun and ammo sales.  Follow the money.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« Reply #2 on: January 11, 2016, 09:36:53 AM »
I think this relates to another topic that recently came up.  Obama may not have a plan mapped out or any expectation it would be possible to ban all guns.  However there are many people who expect he would WANT to ban all private firearm ownership.  And if you believe that's what he WANTS then it's easy to see every action related to guns as an incremental step towards that goal.

There is the crazy person belief:  "Obama is coming for our guns any day now!"
And the plausible belief:  "Obama and other liberals would like chip away at our right to own guns through legislation and social pressure until such a day that a ban will be possible."

So is it a crazy conspiracy theory?  Depends on the timeline really.  There ARE people conspiring to get guns out of the public.  The amount of power and time table you attribute to them determines how much of a nut you are.

Gaoics79

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« Reply #3 on: January 11, 2016, 09:55:42 AM »
I think Obama supports the 2nd amendment like he supported the traditional definition of marriage. He is an educated liberal, and he likely believes what others of his type believe. While a complete disarming (ie guns being illegal) may not be his end goal, something like what we have in Canada probably is, which is to say the marginalization of gun culture, particularly in urban areas, and rendering ownership of guns impractical at best outside a narrow hobbeyist millieu. If I were a gun enthusiast, I'd be suspicious too. Obama almost certainly does want to disarm America to a large extent.

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« Reply #4 on: January 11, 2016, 10:12:12 AM »
Quote
There is the crazy person belief:  "Obama is coming for our guns any day now!"
And the plausible belief:  "Obama and other liberals would like chip away at our right to own guns through legislation and social pressure until such a day that a ban will be possible."
I disagree that there is some endgame that would take a generation (of DEMOCRATIC Presidents) to achieve.  Some people see every unwanted action as evidence of a slippery slope.  We're a conspiracy obsessed culture these days.
Quote
I think Obama supports the 2nd amendment like he supported the traditional definition of marriage.
...
Obama almost certainly does want to disarm America to a large extent.
Yes, it's a conspiracy. His motives are completely hidden but we know what's in his heart anyway.

What if -- just a what if -- he only wants to clarify and strengthen gun laws and lawful management of guns to reduce gun related violence.  Anybody think that might be possible? Maybe?

JoshCrow

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« Reply #5 on: January 11, 2016, 10:20:58 AM »
I'll echo what D.W. and jasonr said - it seems obvious that Obama is no fan of guns or the 2nd amendment but has essentially no chance of achieving a gun-free USA. As D.W. said, the idea of a "conspiracy" is basically a question of degree for the pro-gun team... anyone afraid of losing their guns tomorrow is probably a moron, but if it's merely the thought of some long-term cultural change occuring against guns, then it's not unreasonable as a fear.

Personally, I think this IS a cultural battle, not a legal one. The very idea of a "gun culture" is disturbed. I would view anyone in possession of more than a simple handgun for defense as basically being "psychologically suspect". The elevation of guns into a symbol beyond merely being a tool (for hunting, defense) is, in my opinion, a perverse fetishization and a symptom of unwellness. It is called a symbol of freedom, but Captain America said it best in the Winter Soldier film: "This isn't freedom. This is fear."

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« Reply #6 on: January 11, 2016, 10:48:17 AM »
Quote
What if -- just a what if -- he only wants to clarify and strengthen gun laws and lawful management of guns to reduce gun related violence.  Anybody think that might be possible? Maybe?
I use to.  But too many otherwise smart people come up with proposals so ridiculous, impractical, unenforceable, technologically impossible (for the moment), financially improbable or just based on shockingly bad misinformation, that I no longer do.

I find myself in the position of loosing respect for my President's intellect (and he is mine as I voted for him and overall support his leadership), OR admit that he's playing politics on the gun issue and knows full well the "stupid" suggestions will go nowhere, and the others won't actually do what he claims to want. 

I believe he is trying to act as a counter influence to gun culture by attempting to frame gun owners as irrational, reckless and/or mentally unhealthy.  I happen to disagree with that tactic as a means to make the average citizen safer. 

There are a lot of things that could be done to reduce gun violence.  There are few things he can do by himself.  If the majority of the pro gun control camp would quit behaving exactly as a gun grabbing conspirator WOULD act, the conspiracy theorists would have a lot less to talk about.

It is a cultural battle like Josh says.  If enough of your friends and family would all look at you like you are some crazy murderer waiting to happen for just owning a gun that may very well reduce gun ownership.  That could in turn reduce gun violence and will certainly reduce suicide by guns and accidental injuries and deaths with firearms.  To many making the gun owning public uncomfortable or pariahs is a small price to pay for ANY reduction to those numbers.  To them the question of if wide scale disarmament would have other implications is best not thought about.  Or at least, worth the trade...
« Last Edit: January 11, 2016, 10:57:12 AM by D.W. »

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« Reply #7 on: January 11, 2016, 11:03:31 AM »
Personally, I think this IS a cultural battle, not a legal one. The very idea of a "gun culture" is disturbed. I would view anyone in possession of more than a simple handgun for defense as basically being "psychologically suspect". The elevation of guns into a symbol beyond merely being a tool (for hunting, defense) is, in my opinion, a perverse fetishization and a symptom of unwellness. It is called a symbol of freedom, but Captain America said it best in the Winter Soldier film: "This isn't freedom. This is fear."
Don't neglect the geek side of gun culture. I'm hoping that most people with a plethora of guns collect them because they are well-engineered solutions to tricky problems.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« Reply #8 on: January 11, 2016, 11:09:09 AM »
If they're really concerned about the gun show "loop hole" why not just have an ATF booth at the shows that will run back ground checks for free for private sales.  Being given an all clear would appeal to a heck of lot of people who engage in permitted private sales.  And honestly, its already a violation of law for some to act as a dealer, even at a gun show, and not register.

On the main topic, I have no doubt that the President would impose bans if he could get away with it.  If Congress passed an assault rifle ban, he'd sign it tomorrow.  He'd sign whatever ban bill they put in front of him, unless he was sure it would get overridden by the courts (even then he might sign it and try to intimidate the courts again).

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« Reply #9 on: January 11, 2016, 11:31:58 AM »
Quote
If they're really concerned about the gun show "loop hole" why not just have an ATF booth at the shows that will run back ground checks for free for private sales.
You mean nanny people who are too distracted to follow the law?  If this idea catches on, perhaps Walmart can have Sales Tax collection booths in stores so cashiers don't have to waste time counting out change.

FWIW, my brother has dozens of guns and lives on a heavily wooded property.  He never goes out without a pistol for protection, even on his own land.  He (says he) once shot in the direction of someone (not at him) fishing on a pond on his property to let him know he was trespassing.  He says he agrees with me that gun nuts are a problem in our culture, but he's got things under control in his life.  He also thinks the UN is going to ban all guns, but he's got that under control, too.

The outspoken members of the privileged gun class want to have their guns and fire them, too.  It's nobody's business if they do, and nobody's right to tell them otherwise.

A second FWIW, in a few of our long ago gun threads several of us put forward actual proposals for how to reduce gun violence.  If you remember what you wanted done, we should revisit that discussion and see if we can make sense of it all.  Maybe Rafi will come back to laugh at us and remind us how many guns he's made lately with his 3D printer.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« Reply #10 on: January 11, 2016, 11:42:24 AM »
What on Earth are you going on about?  How is being helpful to private sellers and buyers at gun show nannying them?  You do understand that most people honestly want to follow the law, and would be happy to avail themselves of a safe harbor even if they didn't strictly need to do so?

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« Reply #11 on: January 11, 2016, 11:48:50 AM »
Now if gun control advocates want to come up with an IPhone app and magnetic strip scanner that ties into a drivers license or state ID magnetic strip initiative (some already are) and any private seller can wait a minute or two for approval?  Then sure. 

Though the anti-registry group would still wail.

The suggestion for an ATF booth isn't a bad one.  It's really that or ban gun shows or private transfer and make all transfers use a 3rd party license gun seller with the ability to process the check.  Make inheritance of a weapon or gifting of a weapon also require that process.  (back to anti-registry concerns again)

I personally have no problem with a gun registry but a lot of people do.  A lot of those likely because of their natural (or learned) distrust for politicians and the media regarding such information.


As for the 3D printing all you can really do is ban them all.  Treat them like a stolen gun with the serial numbers filed off I guess.  Or requires a federal license to possess one.  Even then, that's an additional charge after the fact if it's involved in a crime.  Or the off chance someone gets frisked and caught with one.  Fortunately (?) they are still unreliable enough or the medium is cost prohibitive enough that we aren't faced with it in any significant number.

SMART politicians would be trying to draft "common sense" laws that make an effort to stay ahead of technology.  You know, instead of yammering about solutions that rely on technology still ahead of us...  Or things we aren't willing to pay for.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2016, 11:56:09 AM by D.W. »

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« Reply #12 on: January 11, 2016, 12:01:39 PM »
I should have added this before, but everyone does understand that the dealers at gun shows in fact are registered and required to run background checks, it's just the private sellers (ie people selling from their own collection and not as part of a business) that are not registered?  Do you also understand that the ATF won't even accept a licensing request from such a seller?

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« Reply #13 on: January 11, 2016, 12:08:51 PM »
Quote
Do you also understand that the ATF won't even accept a licensing request from such a seller?
  Can you explain this part?  From the private or licensed seller?

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« Reply #14 on: January 11, 2016, 12:13:06 PM »
I should have added this before, but everyone does understand that the dealers at gun shows in fact are registered and required to run background checks, it's just the private sellers (ie people selling from their own collection and not as part of a business) that are not registered?  Do you also understand that the ATF won't even accept a licensing request from such a seller?

I didn't know that, thanks.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« Reply #15 on: January 11, 2016, 12:15:46 PM »
NM, re-read and it is clear you meant private sellers.

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« Reply #16 on: January 11, 2016, 12:16:57 PM »
Quote
The suggestion for an ATF booth isn't a bad one.  It's really that or ban gun shows or private transfer and make all transfers use a 3rd party license gun seller with the ability to process the check.  Make inheritance of a weapon or gifting of a weapon also require that process.  (back to anti-registry concerns again)
Do you really think the ATF has the manpower to staff gun shows?  As Pete pointed out in another thread, they aren't even instigating as many prosecutions as they did 10 years ago.  They don't have staff or budget due to Congressional cutbacks.
Quote
As for the 3D printing all you can really do is ban them all.  Treat them like a stolen gun with the serial numbers filed off I guess.  Or requires a federal license to possess one.
I like the idea of printing them with serial numbers, which would require the person to register as a gun manufacturer and acquire the serial numbers ahead of time.  That seems reasonable.  There are many other things you can't make without government approval.
Quote
I should have added this before, but everyone does understand that the dealers at gun shows in fact are registered and required to run background checks, it's just the private sellers (ie people selling from their own collection and not as part of a business) that are not registered?
Every state has different laws about background checks, how many guns can be purchased, how often and whether ex-felons can buy them.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« Reply #17 on: January 11, 2016, 12:17:38 PM »
This whole mess seems like the mirror of the abortion debate. Any sensible restriction or compromise is rejected due to the risk of a slippery slope. So a whole lot of insensible restrictions and compromises are attempted to either to do something, anything, or to provide the appearance of same. It's made worse by difficulties in gathering or believing evidence so it's harder for more disinterested parties to judge the sensibility of any proposed solutions.

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« Reply #18 on: January 11, 2016, 12:20:06 PM »
This whole mess seems like the mirror of the abortion debate. Any sensible restriction or compromise is rejected due to the risk of a slippery slope. So a whole lot of insensible restrictions and compromises are attempted to either to do something, anything, or to provide the appearance of same. It's made worse by difficulties in gathering or believing evidence so it's harder for more disinterested parties to judge the sensibility of any proposed solutions.
I agree. The conversation itself has to change.  That requires people who reject additional gun restrictions to recognize that there is a moderate and equally informed and well-meaning opposition with whom they must engage.  The silly swizzle we have now is due to the lack of a full complement of good faith gun advocates willing to entertain real change.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« Reply #19 on: January 11, 2016, 12:25:01 PM »
No I don't think they have the manpower at present.  The question would be (one of those we don't like asking) is if the cost for that staffing pays off in a reduction of gun violence, gun accidents or gun suicides.  (I believe the answer is NO, but I'm not a researcher.)

3D printing with a serial number and forcing them to get a FFL is all well and good but it falls into the "unenforceable" laws.  It's not a BAD idea, but I am skeptical it will have any impact.  Beyond that, I'm not sure where it falls on a buyer's rights argument.  If it was for your own use, is it more like buying a weapon or is it worthy of the scrutiny a re-seller or gunsmith warrants?  I'm inclined to make them illegal, but we don't have a firm grasp on the ubiquitousness or reliability of 3D printed goods moving forward.

The opposition to research is the worst part in my eyes NH.  It's not like the NRA couldn't fund their own research if they feel the research of others is bogus/flawed.


"Good faith" must be earned.  To this day most people seem to think assault weapons = fully automatic machine guns without realizing those are already restricted to the point of de facto ban.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« Reply #20 on: January 11, 2016, 12:50:21 PM »
I agree. The conversation itself has to change.  That requires people who reject additional gun restrictions to recognize that there is a moderate and equally informed and well-meaning opposition with whom they must engage.  The silly swizzle we have now is due to the lack of a full complement of good faith gun advocates willing to entertain real change.

It sounds like when you say the conversation has to change you mean to say that the other side in the conversation has to change, but not your side. Isn't it possible that they won't change because some element on your side, which gives them cause for doubt, won't change either?

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« Reply #21 on: January 11, 2016, 12:56:31 PM »
Quote
3D printing with a serial number and forcing them to get a FFL is all well and good but it falls into the "unenforceable" laws.  It's not a BAD idea, but I am skeptical it will have any impact.  Beyond that, I'm not sure where it falls on a buyer's rights argument.  If it was for your own use, is it more like buying a weapon or is it worthy of the scrutiny a re-seller or gunsmith warrants?  I'm inclined to make them illegal, but we don't have a firm grasp on the ubiquitousness or reliability of 3D printed goods moving forward.
That's like saying that any law governing something you can do out of the watchful eye of government is unenforceable and therefore wasted effort.  I'm willing to acknowledge that criminals will find ways to work around laws, but doesn't mean we (aka the "good guys") stop finding ways to prevent them from doing that.

Quote
It sounds like when you say the conversation has to change you mean to say that the other side in the conversation has to change, but not your side. Isn't it possible that they won't change because some element on your side, which gives them cause for doubt, won't change either?
Be honest, if even Sandy Hook didn't sway "the other side", how far would "our side" have to change before they sat down in good faith?

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« Reply #22 on: January 11, 2016, 01:01:01 PM »
The idea of having an ATF booth to check registration is a good one, but it would HAVE to come from the Republican Congress.  First, because the cost would have to be approved by Congress, and second, because if it came from Democrats or (shudder) President Obama, it would be dead in the water.  After all, only Nixon could go to China. :)

I would see at a good faith effort to keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them.

Anyone know what the NRA's response to the idea is (or would be)? ;)

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« Reply #23 on: January 11, 2016, 01:07:29 PM »
This whole mess seems like the mirror of the abortion debate. Any sensible restriction or compromise is rejected due to the risk of a slippery slope.
Can you give examples.  I do think people are concerned about a slippery slope, and justifiably so, because they believe the end goal of the pro-regulation side is to enact bans.  Each new 'compromise' starts with the last compromise as a baseline from which there can be no retreat (even where a change is demonstrated to have been flawed and/or not had any of the promised effects).

But more, I think I dispute the concept of "sensible" or "common sense" restrictions.  That's marketing language to skip the debate on whether a restriction is justifiable by the "gains" versus the "costs."  So let's be specific.  What "sensible" restrictions are being rejected?

I see claims about a national registry being "sensible" and disagree.

I see claims about closing the "gun show loophole" being claimed as "common sense" when in reality there is no gun show loop hole, there's just a private transaction exemption.  Nothing's been put forward that would close that "loophole".

Smart guns?  Technically infeasible at the moment.

Limits on magazines?  Plausible but not as one sided as they appear to the pro-regulation side.

Maybe clarify what you think are "sensible" changes that are resisted.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« Reply #24 on: January 11, 2016, 01:08:53 PM »
Anyone know what the NRA's response to the idea is (or would be)? ;)
I don't know, but they did support that you could have a licensed dealer do exactly what I propose.  They will run a background check for a fee, the advantage here is that it would be free.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« Reply #25 on: January 11, 2016, 01:14:36 PM »
I'm all for a law requiring that a 3D printed gun be given a unique serial number then be registered.  Not that we live in the CSI world depicted on TV but you also can't apply the same expectations/rules on uncontrolled (unapproved?) manufacturing materials/processes. 

You could ban them outright, but again if 3D printing becomes some wave of the future, then you will then either have to play catch-up, or the "anti-gun" crowd would stall those measures as an end run on banning the new standard.  No clue how much of that is nonsense or the future...

I'm not saying we should do nothing but the easier something is to do behind closed doors the less effective it is to regulate.  That doesn't mean you shouldn't try, but you should lower your expectations. 

If someone ONLY wanted a handgun, that they expected to need to fire only a very limited amount of shots (1 or 2) to defend against home intrusion, how do you convince them that they should obey the law and NOT make a 3D gun if they couldn't afford a manufactured one?  Or convince someone who already is prohibited from owning a legal gun that it doesn't make sense to avoid the risk of buying a gun on the street?    If they are only going to use it in a life or death defensive situation, the risk of, "oh no, I'll get in trouble!" doesn't mean a lot.

I rate this along with the gun safe legislation.  It's not a BAD idea, it's just not going to amount to much beyond an additional fine/time on top of other charges.

Quote
how far would "our side" have to change before they sat down in good faith?
Being well informed on the mechanics and logistics of weapons and their ownership as well as making proposals that would have significant impact on stated goals would be a good start.  Then comes the hard (impossible?) ones.  Acknowledging that someone has the right to defend their life with lethal force.  Acknowledging that firearm collection and range shooting is a hobby / sport to some.  Acknowledging that a one size fits all solution may not work when considering rural/wilderness residents compared to urban residents. 

Then you need to convince some that any concessions are well meaning and reasonable on their own and not just a "what we could get push through or trick the other side into accepting because we can't achieve a full ban... yet."  That is already impossible for SOME on the other side.  For others, the tactics used in the name of reason or responsibility that fall short is poisoning more against you.

« Last Edit: January 11, 2016, 01:16:43 PM by D.W. »

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« Reply #26 on: January 11, 2016, 01:19:33 PM »
Workshops where rather than rejecting a proposal the other side asks, "OK, we'll lets say you get exactly what you just asked for.  What result do you anticipate?"

Then have a discussion pointing out flaws if any in their expectations and go over why you oppose them as presented.

"Common sense", on a divisive issue in politics, is more often than not grounded in ignorance.

For example I find magazine size restrictions perplexing.  Take a group of legislators to a range.  Have an inexperienced non-gun user fire and do a magazine swap.  Have a moderately proficient user do it.  Have a practiced user do it.  Then ask them, if they still feel that a restriction of magazine size would save lives.

For those against assault weapons present them with a comparable hunting rifle and ask them if they feel the differences are significant enough to require special laws for this subset of firearms.

For laws which are reactive rather than proactive (such as gun safes) ask if they accept that people will break them and if the goal is to save children's lives when dealing with unsecured guns, what they are more likely to achieve is increasing punishment on a parent who is already dealing with an injured or lost child.  (Yes, IS an acceptable answer, but I feel the question should be asked.)
« Last Edit: January 11, 2016, 01:25:13 PM by D.W. »

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« Reply #27 on: January 11, 2016, 01:37:54 PM »
Can you give examples.  I do think people are concerned about a slippery slope, and justifiably so, because they believe the end goal of the pro-regulation side is to enact bans.  Each new 'compromise' starts with the last compromise as a baseline from which there can be no retreat (even where a change is demonstrated to have been flawed and/or not had any of the promised effects).

But more, I think I dispute the concept of "sensible" or "common sense" restrictions.  That's marketing language to skip the debate on whether a restriction is justifiable by the "gains" versus the "costs."  So let's be specific.  What "sensible" restrictions are being rejected?

I see claims about a national registry being "sensible" and disagree.

I see claims about closing the "gun show loophole" being claimed as "common sense" when in reality there is no gun show loop hole, there's just a private transaction exemption.  Nothing's been put forward that would close that "loophole".

Smart guns?  Technically infeasible at the moment.

Limits on magazines?  Plausible but not as one sided as they appear to the pro-regulation side.

Maybe clarify what you think are "sensible" changes that are resisted.
It's hard to come with proper examples of sensible changes because no one's suggested them on a national level in a while. All the make-work changes are taking up all the oxygen because no one wants to hand the Supreme Court the chance to further demolish the government's ability to implement gun control in a more reasonable future. That or the changes are about rolling back gun control which seems insensible to me. While not--strictly speaking--about gun control, there's the Docs versus Glocks thing down in Florida which is about restricting sensible activity by private individuals.

It's easier to see the insensible suggestions. Magazine restrictions are utter nonsense and a product of the discourse being driven by mass-shootings. Smart guns need a X-prize (and a market, for that matter) rather than regulation. Assault weapons bans are semantic shell game which seems to be based on the arbitrary application of the word "assault" to make certain guns sound more dangerous.

The gun control question also seems similar to alcohol and drunk driving. Prohibition doesn't work but clear and ubiquitous disapproval of the abuse of alcohol, especially drunk driving, seems to have been effective in mitigating the worst of the damage. On the other hand, given that one of the major consequences of poor gun safety is dead children, I'm not sure there's any hope of social disapproval convincing people to be more responsible.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« Reply #28 on: January 11, 2016, 01:44:02 PM »
That was my point on the gun safe.  If safeguarding your child from a gun related accident or death is not enough motivation, WTF good will a fine or extra year in jail do to motivate them?

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« Reply #29 on: January 11, 2016, 01:55:54 PM »
That was my point on the gun safe.  If safeguarding your child from a gun related accident or death is not enough motivation, WTF good will a fine or extra year in jail do to motivate them?
And the problem is there's no good way to detect improper storage before an accident. Random inspections are unconstitutional and a bad plan besides. Complaint driven inspections are slightly better but still not the kind of thing a free society should be using. An "in plain sight" rule wouldn't greatly expand the ability to detect unsafe storage and since the cops would already be in the house, I suspect there wouldn't be a measurable effect.

I suppose centralized storage would work but that wouldn't pass the current reading of the Second Amendment and would invalidate the purpose of home defense.

JoshCrow

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« Reply #30 on: January 11, 2016, 02:14:52 PM »
And the problem is there's no good way to detect improper storage before an accident. Random inspections are unconstitutional and a bad plan besides. Complaint driven inspections are slightly better but still not the kind of thing a free society should be using. An "in plain sight" rule wouldn't greatly expand the ability to detect unsafe storage and since the cops would already be in the house, I suspect there wouldn't be a measurable effect.

I suppose centralized storage would work but that wouldn't pass the current reading of the Second Amendment and would invalidate the purpose of home defense.

Mandatory smart gun technology (e.g. gun will only fire if within arm's length of a coded wristwatch) is a plausible answer that would drastically reduce the suicide/accidental death rate. The tech is actually commercially available but has faced opposition getting to market (from guess who).

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« Reply #31 on: January 11, 2016, 02:21:20 PM »
Quote
The tech is actually commercially available but has faced opposition getting to market (from guess who).
By anyone who wants a gun for self defense or for law enforcement or military work.  Or even from any non gun user who has forgotten to plug in their phone overnight and realizes that going without calls is probably less serious than drawing a weapon when a deadly situation occurs and having nothing happen...

Also, the delicate components tend to not work so well beyond say a .22 cal.  Though I haven't researched actual studies on electronic component durability.  That was just something I read in a few places without citation.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2016, 02:24:50 PM by D.W. »

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« Reply #32 on: January 11, 2016, 02:23:56 PM »
Now selling a gun like that (when reliable) where the safe is the charging station...  You may have a market there.  That said, the cost becomes an issue.  Is the "right to self defense" (or however you want to state it) something only those of a certain economic level are entitled to?  Could we / should we subsidize this technology?  Tax credits?  /shrug 

High bar:  Get police to adopt this.
Lower bar:  Get federal law enforcement officers to adopt this.
Executive decision?:  Get your secret service detail to adopt this.

I'd accept any of these and then would adopt it myself if affordable.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2016, 02:34:14 PM by D.W. »

JoshCrow

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« Reply #33 on: January 11, 2016, 02:40:33 PM »
Now selling a gun like that (when reliable) where the safe is the charging station...  You may have a market there.  That said, the cost becomes an issue.  Is the "right to self defense" (or however you want to state it) something only those of a certain economic level are entitled to?  Could we / should we subsidize this technology?  Tax credits?  /shrug 

Charging station? If they were designed properly they would last as long as a digital wristwatch. This isn't a smartphone - it's a dumb short-range transmitter. And you'd be surprised how robust embedded electronics can be if properly designed - I don't see a lot of serious technological barriers here. I'm speaking as a professor of electrical engineering here (which I rarely get to do on this forum).

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« Reply #34 on: January 11, 2016, 02:48:53 PM »
How do you envision this working?  This requires some actuator to work.  Unless you are going full electronic firing (which is also already existing tech though never used to my knowledge in a handgun) 

Now maybe someone has plans for a kinetic powered or watch battery system but this is going to require some juice the way I see it.  Also, it would want (IMO) a visual indicator that it was functioning / paired. 

I always envisioned this as unique RFID short range detector.  Probably grip activated.  Then on detection of the paired watch/ring/implant it would disengage the (mechanical) safety. 

An electric firing system would make the electric safety easier to implement but I know little about the power required to ignite a charge or the cost per round of ammunition built for such a system.

You've got me interested again and maybe I'll look up the latest innovations in this regard.  The last time I did so (a couple of years ago) they were pipe dreams or prone to failure.  Also worth noting, law enforcement also rejected the concept and demand to be exempted to any legislation regarding its requirement.

I'm glad at least you are focusing on the most realistic approach to smart guns over say the biometric scanning / fingerprint reader options.  (Though a magnetic ring; fully mechanical may have merit.  But more easy to defeat/spoof) 
« Last Edit: January 11, 2016, 02:52:51 PM by D.W. »

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« Reply #35 on: January 11, 2016, 02:53:53 PM »
I think police/military adoptation would actually be easier from a technical point of view. With organizations, the manufacturer can provide preventive maintenance instructions and expect them to be followed. Assuming they're fired regularly for training, the majority of failures would be non-critical.*

With private users, the gun could sit forgotten for years and then need to work for the first shot. In that scenario, almost all failures would be critical.

*A critical failure defined as an inability to fire when the bearer's life is in danger.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« Reply #36 on: January 11, 2016, 03:00:15 PM »
That's why I like a plug in safe which is also a charging station.  It would meet that criteria. 

Actually I think "smart guns" is a "dumb idea".  But if you were set on it, I think this would be the way to go about it.

The one that teases my brain is what happens when we get the technology to have our blaster/phaser/sound emitting device able to "set for stun"?  Once that tech is reliable and affordable how does the debate turn?

Then rather than lethal defense we are talking about the threat of death as a deterring effect on aggression.  We must decide if the benefits of saved lives even in self defense is worth the risk such an invention would be to those who would use it to facilitate theft/kidnapping/rape?  I suppose tazers already brought a lot of that to reality... 
« Last Edit: January 11, 2016, 03:06:16 PM by D.W. »

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« Reply #37 on: January 11, 2016, 03:15:09 PM »
Plug in safe would also have more components with correspondingly higher risk of latent failures. People who get guns purely for home defense are sufficiently irrational that for smart guns to be a viable solution, they need to be as reliable as dumb guns.

I think real stunners in the high science fiction style are immeasurably better than guns for personel self-defense. That they'd be misused doesn't outweigh the advantages. Cops would likely want both since a lethal weapon can deter a group since no one wants to be the one who gets killed in the process of taking a gun away. Against a stunner, people are a lot less worried about being shot(credit Lois McMaster Bujold).

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« Reply #38 on: January 11, 2016, 03:19:28 PM »
But if a "stunner" could drop a perpetrator reliably and as or more swiftly than a barbaric slug thrower would we want our cops to have both?  I mean, why allow anyone the option of ending a life outside of the courts if we still had the death penalty? 

Apologies if this is a distraction from the main topic.  :P

Granted you couldn't do all the nifty TV and movie (and occasional reality) tricks like shooting off locks or door hinges for breech entries with a stunner...

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« Reply #39 on: January 11, 2016, 03:28:46 PM »
A stunner just doesn't have enough authority for crowd control. Going up against a crowd with only non-lethal weapons greatly increases the chance of them being taken away and the cop getting beaten to death (assuming the weapon can only stun one or two people at a time and the 21 ft rule still holds). I think it's fairly safe to say people who wouldn't charge a drawn gun would be much more likely to charge a stunner.

Hey look, a topical article: http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2016/01/smart_gun_safety_technology_explained.html

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« Reply #40 on: January 11, 2016, 03:46:48 PM »
I'm totally unfamiliar with "shape memory alloy-based components" or how they apply to the topic.
DGR sounds interesting in concept. 

Quote
Power is clearly a concern here, too. But advances in microprocessor technology and battery storage that have been driven by smartphones and portable electronics remove this issue as a showstopper. Motion detection and wake-up software can reduce battery drain during storage. Integrating the power supply to the ammunition clip and even charging by mechanical cycling are all ways to address power loss as a mode of failure.
Not a fan of this handwaving statement.  Some numbers (in hours or days between recharge) would be useful / more convincing.

The electronics failure being lower than mechanical failure is good to know.  Though that I assume falls to quality and cost of components.

Quote
The recognition rates for fingerprint detectors have been claimed to be as high as 99.99 percent (1 in 10,000 failure rate).
If this is possible, why the sweet *censored* is this tech NEVER USED ANYWHERE?  My failure rate on any device I've used is more like 10-20%.  :(

Thanks for the link

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« Reply #41 on: January 11, 2016, 04:05:51 PM »
OK, S.M.A. is pretty cool stuff.  Not sure if it's the answer to this puzzle but glad I looked it up.  :)

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« Reply #42 on: January 11, 2016, 04:22:53 PM »
Mandatory smart gun technology (e.g. gun will only fire if within arm's length of a coded wristwatch) is a plausible answer that would drastically reduce the suicide/accidental death rate. The tech is actually commercially available but has faced opposition getting to market (from guess who).
I don't think this is a reasonable answer as a mandatory solution, though it would work for a lot of circumstances.  I think people would avoid it for the same reason the police did, risk of malfunction and risk of being jammed.  Guns that won't fire because a criminal carries a stronger wristwatch transmitter are useless for home defense, and completely useless for protection against government abuse when they will have wide capacity jammers. 

Gun safes are great for personal collections, sport and hunting weapons, but far less useful in many home defense contexts.

Stunners are a good option, but not a full replacement.  We're no where near the point of producing them with sufficient range, accuracy and repeated firing capability that they could match a gun.  Nor with the kind of control that makes them equally effective against a 150 pound man and a 350 pound man.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« Reply #43 on: January 11, 2016, 04:49:12 PM »
What about the point in the video where Obama could be interpreted as mocking suspicion of government? "Some distant authority." Might it not be hard for both sides of this to see eye to eye when the spokesperson for one side (Obama for gun control) seems to be casting an aspersion on people who fear that government tends to encroach on their rights?

Another question I'd like to pose relates to something mentioned here and that comes up a lot in gun debates, which is the suicide rate. I understand that guns make suicide easier and removes difficulties where, in the process of overcoming them, someone might change their mind. However, I'm still not quite sure why gun control for the purposes of curbing suicide is a real discussion. Is the argument seriously that since suicide is 'illegal' it's about preventing crime? Or is it about saving lives? But in this case it's not saving innocent lives from aggressors, it's 'saving lives' in the sense of forcing someone to stay alive who wants to die. This is obviously not a cut-and-dry matter because someone might want to die one day and live the next, and things can improve for a person, and so forth. But what I'm addressing is the "we need to stop these people!" attitude which makes sense when related to criminals or people with intent to harm others, but is stopping people committing suicide really high up on the agenda when it comes to gun safety? After all, suicide isn't necessarily a public safety issue, it's the weapon being used 'as intended', just not in a circumstance onlookers like to see (or encourage). Imagine if guns were taken away from depressed people (apparently a possible reality soon in California!) and they still wanted to kill themselves. Now they'd have to take pills (ineffective much of the time), or jump off a building or something. In both cases the public fallout from the attempt is worse than with a gun suicide, since in the former case the person has to be hospitalized much of the same and drag others through a healing process, while in the case of jumping off a bridge or building I feel like there's a much greater public danger (impacts, collateral damage, scaring people) than there would be for a suicide at home.

I guess I can see a case for not wanting unstable people to have guns to protect them, but is "we have to stop them killing themselves" really applicable to the general agenda of making Americans feel safer?

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« Reply #44 on: January 11, 2016, 05:08:29 PM »
I don't think so, but it is a very high percentage of gun related deaths that get trotted out.  I think it's MOST deaths actually. 

That is a "problem" worth looking into.  I would like to say it should be divorced from the subject of gun control but if you were of the opinion that "saving lives" is the goal, it would be silly to ignore suicide by guns.

Focusing entirely on gun crime and crime prevention and self defense and accident prevention would be my preference.  When someone wants to check out I think our primary concern is eliminating or minimizing harm they do to others in the process. 

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« Reply #45 on: January 11, 2016, 05:25:17 PM »
What about the point in the video where Obama could be interpreted as mocking suspicion of government? "Some distant authority."
I always find it interesting that the idea of some distant authority violating our rights is a "conspiracy theory" to the same people that support Black Lives matter and deride police abuse and the shoot first mentality that they seem to have.  It's literally to me a situation that needs one of those cartoon lightbulbs going off over their heads to correct.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« Reply #46 on: January 11, 2016, 06:30:41 PM »
Kinda like that uncomfortable feeling you get when you see how peaceful everything is and how respectful an open carry protest or "occupation" is compared to how some of the unarmed ones go...

Ya, it's likely built upon mutual fear of the crap hitting the fan but... it seems to insure good behavior on both sides. 
Accept when it doesn't...

JoshCrow

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« Reply #47 on: January 11, 2016, 07:10:16 PM »
What about the point in the video where Obama could be interpreted as mocking suspicion of government? "Some distant authority." Might it not be hard for both sides of this to see eye to eye when the spokesperson for one side (Obama for gun control) seems to be casting an aspersion on people who fear that government tends to encroach on their rights?

It's not that I don't see the interpretation you're referring to, but I feel like your decision to scrutinize it so closely is part of what contributes to the overall requirement for politicians to speak blandly and say nothing. If we're going to parse between "some" and "a" as an object of interest in a president's ad libbed speech (in a live interview, I would add), I think we're actively encouraging them to say nothing at all lest they betray a thought unfavorable to some.

Quote
I guess I can see a case for not wanting unstable people to have guns to protect them, but is "we have to stop them killing themselves" really applicable to the general agenda of making Americans feel safer?

I am a strong supporter of euthanasia yet I feel like preventing people (particularly young people) from ending themselves during what is likely a temporarily bad spot in their lives is indeed a public service of value. Suicide attempts with guns are, to put it bluntly, too effective compared to other means, and thus do not often function as a "cry for help" to alert people to a serious problem in someone's life like an unsuccessful attempt. I'm sure if you spoke to people who have recovered from their suicidal tendencies, they would agree that they should not have been given an easier means to self-terminate.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« Reply #48 on: January 11, 2016, 09:14:51 PM »
That is a "problem" worth looking into.  I would like to say it should be divorced from the subject of gun control but if you were of the opinion that "saving lives" is the goal, it would be silly to ignore suicide by guns.

Focusing entirely on gun crime and crime prevention and self defense and accident prevention would be my preference.  When someone wants to check out I think our primary concern is eliminating or minimizing harm they do to others in the process.

This is more or less my thought on the subject too.

It's not that I don't see the interpretation you're referring to, but I feel like your decision to scrutinize it so closely is part of what contributes to the overall requirement for politicians to speak blandly and say nothing. If we're going to parse between "some" and "a" as an object of interest in a president's ad libbed speech (in a live interview, I would add), I think we're actively encouraging them to say nothing at all lest they betray a thought unfavorable to some.

Actually I don't think Obama was speaking blandly or saying nothing here. In fact, he seemed to be saying more than he was saying, not less. On the surface his comments were meant to sound like a reasonable guy talking off the cuff, but in reality I wonder whether the content wasn't really dog whistles to people who think gun nuts are looney. Incidentally, I very much doubt any of it was off the cuff, as I've learned over the past while that Anderson Cooper is a premiere alley-oop persona who is brought in frequently to set the stage for narratives to be laid. He's a storyteller, if you will, and in this instance I believe his question to Obama about "are you really sure it should be called a conspiracy theory" wasn't actually him challenging Obama's position (although it was meant to appear that way) but rather was setting Obama up for an alley-oop to slam dunk the question with a combo of humor and ridicule. In short, I think the exchange was pre-scripted within certain parameters. How's that for a conspiracy theory  :D

But my main point isn't about a nefarious agenda or Obama winking at the camera, but rather that if a prominent leader of the gun control movement such as Obama is calling the other side crazy then what hope is there for real dialogue? It will just continue in the vein of each side trying to sneak changes past the other side with no understanding or agreement.

The part about me wondering whether Obama was mocking the founding is in a sense related to this because whereas America was united in opposing the 'distant authority' of England, I think that now many partisans seem to almost look back on that unity and revolutionary spirit as being some kind of fairy tale that no one takes seriously any more - almost worthy of contempt, even. It's this jaded, self-important opposition to the 'bad guys' on the other side that prevents serious work on gun control, because there is a real lack of trust. It's not stupidity - the mistrust is rooted in reality, I think.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« Reply #49 on: January 11, 2016, 09:23:05 PM »
Obama's reply about one year left to his term was obviously an intent to deceive, bamboozle, mislead, feint, dupe the public out of their rights.  But this sort of despicable dishonesty is typical of people with power.  Look, you obtuse suit, we didn't ask if you were trying to eradicate gun rights during your term. We asked if your intent was to eradicate gun rights. If you are too much of a pussycat to answer the question just say no comment. Don't insult our intelligence.