Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Bmc00 t1_jebd71s wrote

What steps do you think the country would need to take to make a difference in lowering gun violence? Also, what steps would the country be willing to take?


washingtonpost OP t1_jebg1y7 wrote

From Ashley Parker:

I cover national politics, and from a political standpoint, one thing that could make a difference is what always makes a difference — voters actually voting on this issue. The reason why some Republicans are reluctant to support even slightly modest measures that would restrict gun rights are because they believe — often correctly — that the Republican base will punish theme in a Republican primary. But in my conversations with Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) — who obviously represents the state where Sandy Hook occurred — he has become increasingly bullish on the idea that Democrats can now run on the issue of gun restrictions… and win. He says in the wake of the Parkland shooting, he sees a real movement, led by young people, where politicians may now expect to pay a price for NOT supporting what he would term common sense gun reform. But of course, before it can become a real general election issue, it has to stop being a toxic Republican primary issue.


DrJawn t1_jebnvhe wrote

> he has become increasingly bullish on the idea that Democrats can now run on the issue of gun restrictions… and win.

This is all either party cares about. Pulling on your heart strings to secure and maintain power.


GeorgeCrossPineTree t1_jebp5pr wrote

Not really. The Democrats have been consistently pro-gun control for decades but have often had to bury those positions since they weren't what the electorate wanted. Now, however, they feel that they can promote these long held beliefs without paying a price politically.


DrJawn t1_jebq6cb wrote

> Now, however, they feel that they can promote these long held beliefs without paying a price politically.

It's easy to push an agenda as a minority because you can push anything and when the majority rejects it, you can claim you tried. Last time they put their balls on the table was 1994 and they....banned assault weapons


ChairmanMatt t1_jec7gvl wrote

Here's some democratic platforms

>"It is time to shut down the weapons bazaars in our cities. We support a reasonable waiting period to permit background checks for purchases of handguns, as well as assault weapons controls to ban the possession, sale, importation and manufacture of the most deadly assault weapons."

-1992 Democratic Platform

>"We will protect Americans' Second Amendment right to own firearms, and we will keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists by fighting gun crime, reauthorizing the assault weapons ban, and closing the gun show loophole, as President Bush proposed and failed to do."

-2004 Democratic Platform

>"We can work together to enact and enforce commonsense laws and improvements – like closing the gun show loophole, improving our background check system, and reinstating the assault weapons ban, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals."

-2008 Democratic Platform

>"We can focus on effective enforcement of existing laws, especially strengthening our background check system, and we can work together to enact commonsense improvements - like reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole - so that guns do not fall into the hands of those irresponsible, law-breaking few."

-2012 Democratic Platform

>"To build on the success of the lifesaving Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, we will expand and strengthen background checks and close dangerous loopholes in our current laws; repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) to revoke the dangerous legal immunity protections gun makers and sellers now enjoy; and keep weapons of war—such as assault weapons and large capacity ammunition magazines (LCAM's)—off our streets."

-2016 Democratic Platform

>"Democrats will ban the manufacture and sale of assault weapons and high capacity magazines"

-2020 Democratic Platform

Notice how every platform since 1992 has called for an assault weapons ban (1996 and 2000 omitted because the 1994 AWB was in place). Yes people are coming for our guns and some are very blunt about it


DrJawn t1_jec7seu wrote

What legislation has followed those platforms?


DarkLink1065 t1_jecjpht wrote

A significant amount of state legislation in CA, NY, etc. After the disaster of the post 1994 AWB midterms, Dems have avoided spending political capitol on federal legislation, though they do regularly introduce things like new AWB bills. I think Pelosi has introduced an updated version of the 94 AWB every year since it expired in 2004.


DrJawn t1_jecrjao wrote

Yeah it's easy to introduce bills when you know they won't pass. Like how Ted Cruz jerks himself off with his term limit bill every few years. He looks good, it doesn't pass, he runs again.

CA has lots of laws and magazine limits and it still happens there.

We need healthcare, including mental, for all. We need before school programs, after school programs, day care, we need to fill the role model vacuum with good people and start from the bottom up. If you raise good kids, they become good adults. If you diagnose mental trauma and illness at a young age, you can save more lives than one


ChairmanMatt t1_jec94cr wrote

The first thing on the list is literally 1992.

What happened in the 1994 midterm election, and what happened in between?

What happened in 1990 in New Jersey and what happened in the 1992 state elections (and 93 for governor because NJ does gov elections the year after presidential cycle for some reason)

What happens basically only in blue states (lone exception being VT with a R governor but D legislature in 2018)

And various executive orders in between and weaponization of the ATF, etc


DrJawn t1_jec9mwx wrote

It is physically impossible to come for guns. There are 500 million in the US, mostly unregistered.

It would be like prohibition.


ChairmanMatt t1_jecailk wrote

So the question is no longer litigation, but enforcement. Nice shift.

And that's the best case scenario, look up Vicki Weaver for something worse.


DrJawn t1_jecshdc wrote

Dude. I own lots of guns and I'm so far leftist anarchist I barely believe in private property anymore. I own guns because I don't want the only people with guns to be cops, because they're all bastards and 40% of them beat their wives

No one is physically ever gonna take all the guns. You can bury a gun in your yard. Put it in the drywall. The sheer amount of illegal guns in our already wide open system exemplifies this.

They don't even want the guns. They love when chaos reigns in voters. Empty promises and fully loaded wallets.

My only point is every one gets upset when some white kid kills some white kids but there's piles of black bodies in Philly every year and no one gives a fuck. No one in Philly is murdering people with rifles.


ChairmanMatt t1_jecxojv wrote

you sound exactly like the attorney representing NJ in court in a suit against their additional restrictions on carry a month or two ago.

> the laws shouldn't be overturned because they won't be enforced anyway

so then don't pass the damn laws.

This is all immaterial anyway. Bruen means the days of practically all gun control is numbered.


DrJawn t1_jed4jka wrote

NJ has super strict gun laws and they didn't save Camden, Newark, or Trenton but people think they're a win because no one cares when people get shot in the projects


dogsledonice t1_jecbr7v wrote

And, miraculously, gun deaths went down, until they were unbanned.


telionn t1_jeclgd6 wrote

Kind of? It wasn't until COVID that gun deaths actually went back up to the 1993 level. Adjusting for population I think it is still lower than before.


dogsledonice t1_jecmlex wrote


DrJawn t1_jecrz9r wrote

Does it count as a mass shooting if the shooter and victims are all black and poor?

Or are we only protecting white kids?


dogsledonice t1_jed58ek wrote


You have a point of some sort?


DrJawn t1_jeelgrw wrote

I want to know where the outrage is when kids are killing kids in poor neighborhoods in Detroit, Philly, St Louis, Chicago etc

No one cares because it doesnt fit on a bumper sticker and it's not suburban


dogsledonice t1_jeelpyy wrote

I agree. And common-sense gun reform would float all boats.


washingtonpost OP t1_jebi5r6 wrote

From Todd Frankel:

We wrote about one potential way to reduce gun violence: Banning large-capacity magazines.

It’s a pretty simple and very controversial idea – the more often a shooter needs to stop and reload, the fewer people that are killed. The standard magazine on AR-15s today holds 30 rounds. That’s usually considered a large-capacity magazine. A handful of states ban magazines that hold more than 10 rounds or 15 rounds or 17 rounds. The basic idea is the same. Cutting down on the number of bullets that can be fired quickly.

Some experts call the period when a shooter stops to reload “the critical pause.” The shooting has stopped, maybe it’s only for 10 to 15 seconds. But that’s enough time for people to escape or for people to rush the gunman.

For example, a gunman wielding an AR-15-style rifle burst into a synagogue in Poway, Calif., in 2019. He killed one person and injured three others while emptying a 10-round magazine. California bans magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. And while he tried to reload with another 10-round magazine, people confronted him and chased him away. The shooting stopped.

A magazine ban wouldn’t prevent mass shootings from occurring. But researchers and experts say that studies show the ban reduces the death toll. It gives victims a chance to survive.


diaperchili t1_jedebw6 wrote

has anyone considered just banning gun violence instead


csamsh t1_jefnw7q wrote

Those "experts" have obviously never handled firearms or watched a good shooter reload