Epistemic status: gun policy fiction based on that embarrassingly awful 97% zoom call yesterday
But you would have been tackled 30 seconds in and dragged out by security (probably armed with guns.)
And the answer is? No! They do not wish, nor have they ever wished, to negotiate in good faith. In the minds of a hoplophobe, guns are EVIL and must be done away with (except for the police, the military and their armed private security).
Best piece of short fact-based fiction I've read this month. :-)
If they actually had 97% support they wouldn't need a website.
Nothing that has 97% support needs a website. Not that there's anything that enjoys 97% support. Hell, you probably couldn't get 97% concurrence that Santa Claus is a nice guy, let alone anything as contentious as firearms.
"The time for good faith was a decade ago, and you pissed that away."
It's not about safety. It's about this:
https://degraw.substack.com/p/heads-up-major-report-on-civilian Key takeaways:
48 million Americans are presently classified as “Combat Capable,”
Approximately 30 million Americans own semi-automatic rifles, such as AR-15s.
14 million Americans are presently classified as “Combat Ready,” which means they consistently take part in tactical training courses, or do similar training, and demonstrate physical fitness and proficiency in handling firearms.
I don't know why they bother, the train left the station years ago.
I also suffered through the WHOLE THING despite knowing we were in for an afternoon of bullshit after Moulton started talking about shooting at deer with AR-15s. What a joke. The vast majority of their panel either just voted for an AWB or worked for a politician, like Schumer, who openly pushes for it. Despite not being surprised I'm still really disappointed. What a bunch of bad faith ass holes. Poor Dr. Seigel.
Where is the video?!?!?! This is EPIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Great writing. This is exactly what I expect from that group based on the Twitter conversations. One member acting in decent/good faith and everyone else that says "we can have 'common-sense' gun regulation without infringing" is a grifter.
"fat children on a trampoline" - Naw, no writer here! Thanks for a solid reality check that will likely never happen. There once was a time where having a gun wasn't particularly unusual. A shotgun in a wall rack was common. Somehow a gun became some sort of religious symbol akin to the devil.
It would have been glorious. Fictional you should probably watch out for the torches and pitchforks.
Love it. Where's that "chef's kiss" emoticon...
I suspect the anti-gun lobby is a lot like BLM - it's just a scam to funnel money into their pockets. They continue to spout their nonsense and people send them money. The big question is whether they can deliver votes come election time. Talking with them might be entertaining, but it's a waste of time.
Don't know how I missed this in November, but enjoyed it very much. Thanks.
Yeah, I keep wondering, if the 1/6 crowd was armed and sure their cause was righteous, why there wasn't any gunfire. Wonder if it would have been different if Trump had managed to get down there.
I read your piece when it came out and have been thinking about it ever since. I enjoyed your Amusingly written fantasy. I'm far from an expert in these matters, but the last section about state permits made a lot of sense to me.
On the other hand ,There were a number of things that I questioned. First, you say that gun violence was flat for a decade. You didn’t mention that it’s gone up Significantly in the last two years. And really, is flat good enough for you?
The idea that 12% of the population would be “immediate felons” seemed unnecessarily alarming. In the unlikely event that assault rifles were banned, there would certainly be options for people to avoid being felons.
I Looked closely at your first chart and couldn't find any substantiation that of your claim that 97% of gun owners oppose universal registration. Looks like A slight edge for those who support it, with the majority feeling that they didn’t have enough information to have an opinion. Am I missing something?
RE: banning assault weapons. 32% of US population is against banning them. 51% are in favor. So yes, you are winning, but not because you are supported by the majority.
To talk about this, I feel we need to put mass shootings in a separate category. They contribute to the national level of fear and grief, because innocent people have been gunned down despite being uninvolved with the perpetrator, unless their being the object of his hatred counts as being involved. I just saw a list of 14 mass shootings, all of them well known, committed with AR-15s. Where is the benefit in allowing them? Seems to me if you were determined to shoot an individual, which is this your stated goal I believe, a pistol should do it. I guess the exception would be if one were attempting to overthrow the government. Is this also where the opposition to a national registry is derived? I could be wrong, if so enlighten me.
Your contention that there's no evidence to support the efficacy of an assault weapon ban can be solved by research. My understanding, however, is that the CDC is not allowed to do that type of research because they're not allowed to look at gun deaths as a public health issue. Perhaps your people could do it.
Your take about young black men and boys his absolutely correct. They fight. But if the number one indicator of future violence is a violent past, then It seems attention is warranted. The age-adjusted rate of homicide as much higher among Blacks than other races. There are other ways of detection than stop and frisk. Violence prevention programs work, as seen in the uptick of violence during the pandemic when those programs were not able to function.
Please excuse random capitalizations. It's necessary for me to use voice recognition, and it's a bit inaccurate at times. Thanks for the opportunity to examine this issue and hear other viewpoints.