Skip to main content

View Diary: On gun control, who decides? (37 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Do you know, or just feel? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    On the unending stream of gun violence, the federal assault wepon ban was in force from 1994 to 2004. Go to the FBI web page and look up stats for the number of homicides by the weapon types most affected by that ban from 1990 to 2010.

    If you wish to argue that the pro-gun side has ruled the country and the result has been an unending stream of gun violence, then do so from the framework of what that stream of violence looked like when the most profound national gun control legislation in decades was in force, before it was in force and after it expired.

    Don't assume what is in your power to confirm.

    •  Well (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      There are a lot of other things that went into the rise in violent crime in the 1990s including population demographics. But besides, the assault weapons ban did not go nearly far enough. The UK or Australia are much better comparisons. I reject the idea that we need millions of guns in the U.S.

      •  On the concept (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        I saw an interesting argument on this topic. Let's say you want to ban "assault weapons", whatever they might be defined as. For sake of argument, do it the other way. Define for yourself what firearms shall be allowed for civilian ownership, now and forever by Constitutional decree, and anything that exceeds that is forbidden. A lot of people who say they just want to ban assault weapons tend to hedge when asked what firearms they would never ban, which makes them look like the "ban abortion by slow degrees" conservatives in state houses across the country. This strikes me as a bit deceptive, regardless of the topic or who is using it.

        There are plenty of things that we do not need, but it seems that all too often the person deciding it is someone who does not see a need for it. Which is why a bunch of middle-aged men were sitting in front of a Republican-led committee on women. Their opinion of what women "need" is a lot different than that of...actual women.

        Everyone makes the argument "but X is different". Guns are different. Abortion is different. Drugs are different. The war on terror is different. Everyone wants a special exemption to let them push their particular "this is the way things should be" on someone else. Lives are at stake, therefore we do not need to listen to opposing views.

        If you are not a gun owner, odds are you have never felt a need for a gun. If you are going to be making decisions for people who do feel they need a gun, isn't it a exclude these people from the decision-making process?

        Are Democrats just going to borrow the Republican playbook for this topic? There are a lot of replies to my simple question that sound like exactly that.

        •  Well (0+ / 0-)

          Who's "Democrats"? If the question is what Congress is going to try to do, I don't think there is any question that the gun advocates are going to have a seat at the table if not possibly EVERY seat at the table the way they have for at least a decade now.

          That would not be my personal approach, but it isn't up to me. I'm advocating for myself. I put health and safety above somebody's hobby. I find it frankly sickening that a lot of people feel their hobby is more important than 20 dead six year olds not to mention thousands of others. But I'm not an elected representative so it doesn't matter what I think other than my votes and occasional donations.

          Don't worry. You are not going to lose your voice. There will be plenty of people who will make sure that doesn't happen.

          •  That's rather cynical (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Don't worry. You are not going to lose your voice. There will be plenty of people who will make sure that doesn't happen.
            Do you think I voted for any of them or think they would speak with my voice?

            And you say "for at least a decade now". Wasn't it around 2006 that both parts of Congress became majority Democratic? I think it a bit of hyperbole to assign gun advocates "every seat at the table" during a period when Democrats held majorities in the Senate and House.

            •  You're right (0+ / 0-)

              After tens of thousands of gun deaths occurring with no legislative action or really even a peep from the Democratic Party on this in years, I have become rather cynical. Keep in mind, it's not just Republicans who shut down debate on this issue. People like Howard Dean and Ben Nelson participated as well. (And I love me some Howard Dean, but I cannot agree with him on this.)

              But who knows. Maybe now a door is cracking open.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site