It's a starting point. The assault weapon ban didn't do much last time. But again, we haven't been trying anything.
But that's not the standard for implementing a policy or policies.
People fall for the politician's syllogisms all the time because they want to solve a disturbing problem.
I, too, want to solve the problem. I promise you I don't care any less about it than you do. But that doesn't mean that we should just try random things and hope they work. There needs to be a basis for these policies.
You admit the Assault Weapons Ban was a failure. I believe most fair-minded people are willing to concede that. Let me ask you a question, do you think a new Assault Weapons Ban is going to suddenly become effective? What do you do about the tens of millions of rifles that would be banned under such legislation? Do you take them from their owners by force?
The magazine capacity ban seems to be focused solely on mass shootings and making sure law-abiding civilians can never match the firepower of the state. Will such a ban impact gun suicides? Seems incredibly unlikely, right? And that's the bulk of gun deaths each year. Will it have an impact on most gun homicides? Again, quite unlikely.
And what to do with the tens of millions of magazines already in circulation that have a capacity of over 10 rounds? I've got at least 40-50 of those. Are you willing to make me a felon because I want to be able to protect my family from criminals who don't care about breaking our laws? 3-D printing such a magazine is already possible. Criminals and mass-shooters can easily use some of the parts from a standard magazine and simply print a higher capacity magazine.
I, on the other hand, as a law-abiding citizen, would be forced to pick between becoming a felon one day or preserving my ability to protect myself and my family against criminals or mass-shooters. I'm one of millions of Americans who'd be in a similar position. You'd be decreasing our safety and ability to defend ourselves or making us criminals. Instead of focusing on the mass-shooters themselves, it's instead focusing on millions of us that follow the law. That doesn't seem like a well-thought out proposal.
To be quite honest, and I bet Kory is thinking the same thing, that list seems like the standard claptrap that Mom's Demand, Giffords, and Brady always push anytime they sense an opportunity. Very little on that list would do anything to reduce the number of gun homicides and suicides each year. If anything, almost every single item on that list seems like it is targeted towards gun enthusiasts.
Mass shooters and criminals don't care if suppressors are on the NFA. They can make one with an oil filter in just a few minutes or hours. Know who cares? Gun enthusiasts who have to wait six months to a year to receive a stamp for a suppressor that protects their hearing. There's no such thing as a silencer. The dB reduction offered nt a suppressor simply reduces hearing damage or makes indoor ranges slightly less horrid to use. A gunshot still sounds like a gunshot.
Criminals and mass shooters don't care if mag capacity is limited. They'll buy larger ones on the black market or make their own as I mentioned earlier. Laws on the 3-D printing of firearm parts will not affect them either. They're criminals or mass shooters with nothing to lose. Law-abiding citizens, particularly enthusiasts, are the ones that will be impacted.
And trying to limit CCW laws? There are reams of research on this issue. No criminal or mass shooter cares about having a CCW. But law-abiding citizens do. CCW holders are much less likely to commit a crime. Even less likely than the average police officer. Again, how is that meant to deter suicides, gum homicides, or stop a mass shooting? It's not. It's targeted at law-abiding citizens and gun enthusiasts.
I could provide a similar critique of almost every item on that list. Please don't fall for the typical syllogism used by politicians and gun control groups that want to end the 2nd amendment. They claim that's not their goal. So why is it that their policies do little to reduce gun crime or suicides or prevent mass shootings? Why is that list almost exclusively tailored to criminalizing gun enthusiasts?
You know what else that list is meant to do? It's meant to let politicians off the hook. Such restrictive gun control will be strongly opposed by most gun owners and supporters of the 2nd amendment. It has no chance to become law. What it is designed to do is let politicians stand up and claim "we tried, but the evil NRA and those stone-hearted gun nuts don't want to save your children."
It's a very difficult problem to address, and politicians have neither the time nor the backbone to actually figure out the best solutions. The public wants a quick and easy fix, so they propose one knowing it will fail. The end result is that some of those politicians and gun control groups will then fundraise and campaign off of the very legislation they knew had zero chance of passing or impacting the problem itself. I'm not just being cynical. I've watched that cycle happen multiple times. Some of those people are probably sincere and just supremely ignorant or uninformed. Isn't that telling enough? That the most charitable interpretation of their strategy is that they're either ignorant or don't know why they're talking about?
Gun owners are parents, spouses, and sons/daughters just like everyone else. We care just as much about mass shootings as everyone else. We disagree, however, with the policies that some groups or pols are selling as a quick and easy fix to the mass shootings plaguing our country.
The El Paso shooter was targeting Hispanics. He killed young kids. As a parent with young kids that happen to be Hispanic, don't you think I of all people would support something if I thought it would work?
I think a number of people would be willing to give up their firearms if the politicians and groups supporting such legislation could make an ironclad guarantee that their policies would prevent the vast majority of mass shootings and reduce gun homicides and suicides to a small fraction of their current level. But they can't make that guarantee can they? They can't guarantee the safety and security of me and my family or even come close. In our country, the police don't even have a legal responsibility or Constitutional duty to intervene to save me or my family if someone is trying to harm us.
Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone
I'm on your side, believe it or not. I'm serious about addressing this problem. We simply disagree about what potential solutions exist to combat this issue.
