Skip to main content

View Diary: You just elected Paul Ryan POTUS in 2016 (240 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  No idea. But it's a wrong hunch. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gerrilea, FrankRose

    Ryan is the epitome of "climb the ladder then burn it behind me". Profoundly contemptible.

    I think it's early enough to avoid giving the elephants this issue on a silver platter. Because as I say, folks aren't anti gun, they are anti-idiot with gun. Anti loon with gun.

    •  Similarly (5+ / 0-)

      I'm "anti-idiotic gun".  Meaning, a semi-auto assault-style rifle with a 60 rd magazine is idiotic, and I'm against it.  

      But I'm not anti gun and I don't think banning guns like this really hurts democrats much.  The overwhelming majority of people who really believe they need shit like the above gun are passionately voting republican anyway because the NRA told them to.  

      In fact, if democrats could demonstrate that--despite lunatic NRA rhetoric--that it IS possible to ban ridiculous guns that only exist to kill people without hurting hunters, that would go a long way toward bringing a few sane, moderate gun owners back to the democrats.  

      Political compass: -8.75 / -4.72

      by Mark Mywurtz on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 07:41:23 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I appreciate your ability to (0+ / 0-)

        distinguish different people and attitudes within the broad community of gun owners.

        I have a couple of questions for you:

        Would tighter regulation on hi-cap or ultra-hi cap magazines and tactical or military-style carbines serve this purpose as effectively instead of outright ban?

        Do you see these types of firearms as being the principle focus in our national policy debate?  Are they used with more frequency than other types of firearms when correlated with gun violence.  

        The one permanent emotion of the inferior man is fear - fear of the unknown, the complex, the inexplicable. What he wants above everything else is safety. H.L. Mencken

        by ancblu on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 11:29:45 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The solution is simple (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Mark Mywurtz, Sandino

          Move anything that holds more than 6 rounds into the Class 3 category. Not the gun; just the clip.

          Offer a government funded buy-back; you can take your now highly regulated banana clips to any gun store and trade them in for legal clips. Gun makers get paid to make new clips, citizens get to comply with the law for very little hassle, real aficinados get to keep their stuff if they are willing to do the paperwork, hunters don't even notice, and the carnage level gradually declines.

          I would actually favor 6 rounds for pistols and 3 for long guns.

          •  Did you know that the two largest (0+ / 0-)

            contributers gun violence in the U.S. are 5 or 6 shot revolvers -- the .38 Special and the .357 and not even remotely the military style tactical rifles with hi cap or ultra hi capacity magazines.

            Rampage killings with multiple fatalities also account for only a small fraction of 1% of all gun homicides in this country; in contrast, the largest demographic of gun fatalities involve the urban, male, prior criminal records, young, under-educated, poor, and statistically way over-represented black and other minority populations.

            So ...  I do not see either the causative problems or effective solutions as simple, by any means.  The issues are clearly social in nature -- education, poverty, urban, associated drug or alcholol use ... and to a much lesser extent mental illness.  This does not suggest that we should do nothing, but I do think we should approach the issue with a clear and sober mind about the complex nature of the real crisis.

            The one permanent emotion of the inferior man is fear - fear of the unknown, the complex, the inexplicable. What he wants above everything else is safety. H.L. Mencken

            by ancblu on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 10:56:15 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  I'm not a policy expert here (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Sandino, ancblu

          so I guess I'm not sure where you would say tighter regulation would stop and an outright ban would start.  Obviously, a ban of hi-cap magazines would be harder to whittle away at and it would also provide a disincentive to manufacture these things in the first place that regulation--if too loose--might not.  The only reason to regulate them rather than ban them would be if there really was a legit use for them that needed to be protected.  I honestly can't think of a legit use that is infringed upon by banning hi-cap magazines--and whenever I have commented to this effect in the past, I rarely get any convincing replies to the contrary from the absolute gun rights crowd.

          Here's my take on your other question.  There is a certain tiny percentage of people in our country who may be moved to kill a bunch of strangers for whatever reason.  Firearms don't cause that, but they give them the ability to do that effectively.  What types of firearms do they choose and what types of firearms make for the most damage?  

          Firearms that are: fast, hold many rounds, and ammunition designed to do additional damage.

          I'd rather we talked about firearms in those terms than getting bogged down in specific designs or models.  If a gun can be repeatedly fired quickly and can hold more rounds than are reasonable (or often, legal) for hunting game, there really isn't a legit need for those designs and we should seriously question a need to manufacture and sell these things as they enable these mass shootings.  The same goes for ammunition designed to cause additional damage on impact.  In most cases, hunters avoid many of these precisely because they don't want damaged animals and lead fragments in their meat.

          Of course, all of this is complicated by past efforts of the gun lobby which has made sure that these guns had a market, so there are lots of them out there already.  So, at least initial efforts--such as restricting availability of certain ammunition and fees around licensing specific firearms--need to be MORE restrictive than ultimately desirable to create a disincentive for current owners of guns like this to maintaining them.

          It's a shame that so many of these ridiculous weapons that are far more lethal than any hunter would ever need have flooded the market for years and that we will have to pay for that for a long time.  Every one we can take out of circulation is a step in the right direction....you know, the theory of holes.  

          Political compass: -8.75 / -4.72

          by Mark Mywurtz on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 03:47:47 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site