Hi, just found your blog and thought this was an interesting post!
However, I'm not sure how to fit this with the partisan divide and the political realities of Congress, as well as the Supreme Court. More specifically- I think that we're seeing the exact phenomenon you talk about, but only for Democrats. In a Gallup post where they post that chart, it shows that Republicans are overwhelmingly satisfied with gun laws: 69% said they were Very/Somewhat satisfied, compared with a paltry 22% of Democrats (https://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/dm1e_luomewwookywbu5ow.png). Republican legislators are then incredibly resistant to gun control, and there aren't 10 of them willing to compromise to overcome the filibuster for much of any bill. I mean, look at how much trouble Chris Murphy is having getting enough votes for any gun control measure!
Even then, according to the same Gallup statistic, of the 56% that are dissatisfied, apparently 8% want them to be even looser, and 7% are dissatisfied but want them to remain the same (which doesn't make much sense to me, but let's just go with the numbers), which really means that only 41% of the country wants stricter gun laws (https://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/_dk1id2wpuyiw8nqqa5jig.png). And there's just no way to build a stable electoral majority around that, even if we got Senators who were willing to abolish the filibuster and enact gun control.
Finally, while I know this was just talking about the chances of gun control 'passing', I have a hard time imagining it standing up to the Supreme Court right now and becoming an enduring law. The Court has so far been surprisingly hesitant to speak on gun laws since Heller, but it seems to me that any proposal strong enough to actually materially affect gun crime rates would be enough to convince 5 of them to react.
Obviously, different proposals have different levels of support and could have much better chances of passing (background checks consistently poll well, I think, even if I've seen questions over whether they're actually all that effective). I'm just speaking in similarly general terms in this response as in the post. But, if anything, the escalating gun violence rates seem likely to play into the exact cycle you described, where more people are convinced that the only response to rising violence is to be 'the good guy with the gun' (for instance, this NYT article that talks about how even liberals are buying more guns https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/27/us/guns-2020-election.html). So the odds that a new consensus for gun control suddenly springs up seem pretty low, to me.
I guess I think (hope?) that someday there'll be a sustainable majority in favor of a wide variety of stricter gun control regulations that can really combat gun crime, but it just doesn't seem to me like that day is soon at all.
If you see this, I'm wondering how you think about this?
John, Nice article but clearly very one sided in favor of making all guns illegal. You miss some very obvious issues on gun control, that is, there are lots and lots of laws on the books regarding gun control in every State in our country but yet they don't do anything about gun violence. What makes you think passing some kind of legislation will do anything to alleviate criminals having guns to harm people? Gun violence is committed by violent people. They commit crime regardless of what the law says. What is the percentage of murders committed in this country by people that legally own and carry firearms? I'm positive the number is in the very low single digits. As far as limiting the number of rounds held in a pistol or rifle magazine, ludicrous on its face. Anyone with little training can swap out a magazine in two or three seconds at most. Does anyone with rational thinking believe that small amount of time is going to make a difference if an active shooter is chasing you through a building? Laws stating if you are on some kind of watch you can't own a firearm are just as ridiculous. Who is the person that puts you on the list? A nameless faceless bureaucrat with the ability to restrict you second amendment right? What other amendments does this person have the ability to curtail because they can? The most glaring issue you don't address why Congress does not address gun legislation is there is a Constitutional right to bear arms. Don't fall for the shallow " a well regulated militia" argument pushed by the left. Our founding fathers were very clear on the population having the ability to be armed in order to overthrow a tyrannical government. Keep in mind militias are formed by people from the local population who bring their own weapons. The writers of the Constitution knew and accepted this. The founding fathers did believe in some form of gun control in that they specifically and intentionally said people can "bear" arms which means to carry. This clearly does not permit people to own a canon or heavy machine gun which requires something more than an individual to move from place to place. Gun control is a very slippery slope. I fear anyone that claims you can change our Constitution by passing a couple of laws without the entire country voting on it. If you can change one of our "rights" this way you can change all the others as well in the exact same way.
FYI. I'm not a gun nut that believes some crazed lunatic can own a gun like the Sandy Hook psycho but taking someone's rights away from them must be done in a very careful and deliberate manner.
> 244 people on the FBI terrorist watch list went through a background check when they attempted to buy a new gun.
Even the ACLU has more respect for people's rights than you, apparently, because they took issue with your kind trying to deny people constitutional rights based on secret lists you can't even find out you're on, let alone get off of.
And if you think violence is bad now, just wait until you mess around and find out.
Hi, just found your blog and thought this was an interesting post!
However, I'm not sure how to fit this with the partisan divide and the political realities of Congress, as well as the Supreme Court. More specifically- I think that we're seeing the exact phenomenon you talk about, but only for Democrats. In a Gallup post where they post that chart, it shows that Republicans are overwhelmingly satisfied with gun laws: 69% said they were Very/Somewhat satisfied, compared with a paltry 22% of Democrats (https://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/dm1e_luomewwookywbu5ow.png). Republican legislators are then incredibly resistant to gun control, and there aren't 10 of them willing to compromise to overcome the filibuster for much of any bill. I mean, look at how much trouble Chris Murphy is having getting enough votes for any gun control measure!
Even then, according to the same Gallup statistic, of the 56% that are dissatisfied, apparently 8% want them to be even looser, and 7% are dissatisfied but want them to remain the same (which doesn't make much sense to me, but let's just go with the numbers), which really means that only 41% of the country wants stricter gun laws (https://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/_dk1id2wpuyiw8nqqa5jig.png). And there's just no way to build a stable electoral majority around that, even if we got Senators who were willing to abolish the filibuster and enact gun control.
Finally, while I know this was just talking about the chances of gun control 'passing', I have a hard time imagining it standing up to the Supreme Court right now and becoming an enduring law. The Court has so far been surprisingly hesitant to speak on gun laws since Heller, but it seems to me that any proposal strong enough to actually materially affect gun crime rates would be enough to convince 5 of them to react.
Obviously, different proposals have different levels of support and could have much better chances of passing (background checks consistently poll well, I think, even if I've seen questions over whether they're actually all that effective). I'm just speaking in similarly general terms in this response as in the post. But, if anything, the escalating gun violence rates seem likely to play into the exact cycle you described, where more people are convinced that the only response to rising violence is to be 'the good guy with the gun' (for instance, this NYT article that talks about how even liberals are buying more guns https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/27/us/guns-2020-election.html). So the odds that a new consensus for gun control suddenly springs up seem pretty low, to me.
I guess I think (hope?) that someday there'll be a sustainable majority in favor of a wide variety of stricter gun control regulations that can really combat gun crime, but it just doesn't seem to me like that day is soon at all.
If you see this, I'm wondering how you think about this?
John, Nice article but clearly very one sided in favor of making all guns illegal. You miss some very obvious issues on gun control, that is, there are lots and lots of laws on the books regarding gun control in every State in our country but yet they don't do anything about gun violence. What makes you think passing some kind of legislation will do anything to alleviate criminals having guns to harm people? Gun violence is committed by violent people. They commit crime regardless of what the law says. What is the percentage of murders committed in this country by people that legally own and carry firearms? I'm positive the number is in the very low single digits. As far as limiting the number of rounds held in a pistol or rifle magazine, ludicrous on its face. Anyone with little training can swap out a magazine in two or three seconds at most. Does anyone with rational thinking believe that small amount of time is going to make a difference if an active shooter is chasing you through a building? Laws stating if you are on some kind of watch you can't own a firearm are just as ridiculous. Who is the person that puts you on the list? A nameless faceless bureaucrat with the ability to restrict you second amendment right? What other amendments does this person have the ability to curtail because they can? The most glaring issue you don't address why Congress does not address gun legislation is there is a Constitutional right to bear arms. Don't fall for the shallow " a well regulated militia" argument pushed by the left. Our founding fathers were very clear on the population having the ability to be armed in order to overthrow a tyrannical government. Keep in mind militias are formed by people from the local population who bring their own weapons. The writers of the Constitution knew and accepted this. The founding fathers did believe in some form of gun control in that they specifically and intentionally said people can "bear" arms which means to carry. This clearly does not permit people to own a canon or heavy machine gun which requires something more than an individual to move from place to place. Gun control is a very slippery slope. I fear anyone that claims you can change our Constitution by passing a couple of laws without the entire country voting on it. If you can change one of our "rights" this way you can change all the others as well in the exact same way.
FYI. I'm not a gun nut that believes some crazed lunatic can own a gun like the Sandy Hook psycho but taking someone's rights away from them must be done in a very careful and deliberate manner.
> 244 people on the FBI terrorist watch list went through a background check when they attempted to buy a new gun.
Even the ACLU has more respect for people's rights than you, apparently, because they took issue with your kind trying to deny people constitutional rights based on secret lists you can't even find out you're on, let alone get off of.
And if you think violence is bad now, just wait until you mess around and find out.