Sunday, September 15, 2013

"The Death of Gun Control: Why the recall of two Colorado legislators is a major setback for gun-safety advocates nationally."

"Matt Bennett, a veteran gun-policy strategist and researcher now with the center-left think tank Third Way, pointed me to a poll that showed that even recall supporters still favored gun background checks; it was Colorado's ban on high-capacity magazines they revolted against."
One more reason to continue fighting magazine bans with smuggling and civil disobedience.

8 comments:

MamaLiberty said...

Really hard to understand why anyone thinks the "background checks" have anything to do with safety. None of the apologists for this insanity has ever successfully explained just how BG checks could actually prevent anyone who wants to harm people from obtaining a gun. Or, if they really think this is so effective, why only guns are involved, since murder and mayhem is committed with every other weapon, including bare hands.

If I can get people to really think about this, and accept the facts instead of the "for the children" emotional nonsense, most are astonished to discover that the BG check is basically meaningless except to the government that wants to use it for tracking and confiscation.

Maybe we all need to ask the question more often. Just how does the BG check prevent anyone from harming others - or even contribute to that goal?

And, of course, that's all tied up with who is responsible for one's life and safety.

I Grok Spock said...

Mama:

"Background checks" are a bargaining chip and nothing more. I think support for it, as a throw away in lieu of something worse, will quickly fail now that we have several major victories against national gun confiscation.

Rather than attack those in favor if it, we need to encourage them to drop it as an obsolete counter-offer lest it come true. And none of us want it anyway!

Dean Weingarten said...

It is aimed at people who do *not* think about it. The easiest way I have found to reach these people is to tell them that this was backdoor registration aimed at eventual confiscation.

When the Senate was offered universal background checks, without a path to registration or confiscation, the anti-second amendment types voted it down.


Those two things together, the "path to confiscation" and the fact that they turned down background checks without it, does some good.

Ned said...

People support "background checks" because on its face, without the details, it sounds good.

Any poll can obtain the expected results by crafty wording.

I doubt that "most people" would support "background checks" if they had a basic background of the facts.

HSR47 said...

"People support "background checks" because on its face, without the details, it sounds good.

Any poll can obtain the expected results by crafty wording.

I doubt that "most people" would support "background checks" if they had a basic background of the facts."

This.

The way you ask the question will determine your result.

"Do you support background checks to keep guns out of the hands of criminals?"

"Do you believe that loaning a hunting rifle should require driving to a gun store and running a papered transfer with background check?"


The two questions above both relate to "universal" background checks, and would likely have wildly different results among certain demographics.

Anonymous said...

90% of the American people have never, to the best of my knowledge, agreed on anything of substance. We're simply not that kind of people. So when anyone comes out and says "90% of the American people agree....." call them on it!

Ed said...

Background checks ignore the much easier to acquire channels of supply offered by the black market. The background checks merely reflect a knee-jerk reaction to the clamor for government to "do something" to reduce the threat of violence. Background checks are "doing something", but are not reducing the threat of violence because weapons possessions alone is not the root cause of the violence and weapons possession does not rely on someone passing a background check.

I can recall that forty years ago in Boston, the black market offered a fully loaded revolver for $50 cash. The current black market price of a fully loaded revolver at $75 or a fully loaded pistol at $100 (a shift in consumer preferences and hence a shift in supply) is at a lower cost to the black market customer when adjusted for inflation, despite a more restrictive white market. The black market has become more efficient at meeting demand.

The charge of unlawful possession of a firearm (essentially, one acquired by a "prohibited person" without benefit of passing a government controlled background check) does not reduce the crime rate, but does offer a charge that can be applied after a crime has occurred. A quick responding Fire Department skilled at extinguishing fires is never confused with better fire prevention.

Paul X said...

From the article: "Future lawmakers facing similar votes aren't going to care about the particulars; they're going to look at John Morse and Angela Giron and think, That's going to be me. No thanks."

Very astute article. The author expressed perfectly the motivations of politicians.

"The easiest way I have found to reach these people is to tell them that this was backdoor registration aimed at eventual confiscation."

I believe that is a winning tactic. Many people may not be up to speed on the details of gun control legislation, but I think almost everyone understands government mission creep.