Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

krispos42

(49,445 posts)
41. If it's not a culture war, why are the guns most attacked the ones that cause the least harm?
Wed Mar 17, 2021, 09:28 PM
Mar 2021

Hmmm....

Moving on, I will cop to misreading your post slightly. I focused on "assault weapons", which are usually meant to be semiautomatic rifles of a certain configuration. I still appreciate that you don't try to weasel around with stupid and useless definitions regarding pistol grips and folding stocks.

There are several catagories of "gun violence" and not recognizing the differences between them is a critical error. The majority of firearm deaths are suicides, which would not be reduced at all by your ban. One shot, one suicide. That's about 18,000 people per year.

And the vast majority of firearm homicides are single-victim homicides. About 95% of homicide incidents only have one victim, and 4% are double-victim homicides. So nearly all of the time only a few shots are fired despite the ultimate magazine capacities of the guns involved.

So again, how many people are you saving? Let me put it another way: what will save more lives, Democrats passing Medicare for All, or passing Feinstein's ban on "assault weapons"?

And with your ban, we'd still have compensated confiscation of all semi-auto guns by the government. At least, that would bring get rid of the most guns in the shortest amound of time. An alternative is to grandfather in current guns but prohibit sales of new guns and sales of used guns to anybody but the government. This, however, will take get rid of the guns very slowly, not finishing up until about the year 2100 even if the policy goes untouched for the next 79 years.

And of course, with your ban or Feinstein's ban the market will of course respond. There are already pump-action AR-15s, for example. AR-15s with no gas mechanism that take every magazine and accessory that exists for regular AR-15s, but are pump-action and thus not "assault weapons". And revolvers remain a popular choice for handguns.

So why pick this hill to die on?

Universal background checks are a good idea, and will save far more lives. And will do this without stirring up the Republicans in 2022.

Democrats can address more than one issue at a time. TwilightZone Mar 2021 #1
As I mentioned in the post, there were 2 bills introduced on BGC krispos42 Mar 2021 #2
Yep empedocles Mar 2021 #4
*sigh* sarisataka Mar 2021 #3
Yet another bill based on "military" appearances MichMan Mar 2021 #5
Yeah, "they" are a real pain in the ass for you gun enthusiasts, aren't "they"? (nt) Paladin Mar 2021 #6
I'm not a gun enthusiast, but banning weapons based on appearances doesn't accomplish anything. MichMan Mar 2021 #7
Not true: it makes the self-righteous feel better, and gives the GOP a handy wedge issue friendly_iconoclast Mar 2021 #11
At least those left can be sure to pass the purity test discntnt_irny_srcsm Mar 2021 #12
These are neo-Puritans fighting what they regard as evil. Actual crime stats are almost irrelevant friendly_iconoclast Mar 2021 #13
To use a somewhat older meme: Got false consensus effect? friendly_iconoclast Mar 2021 #9
re: "This bill might save as many as 10 lives a year!" discntnt_irny_srcsm Mar 2021 #8
The gun-averse have "learned nothing, and forgotten nothing" friendly_iconoclast Mar 2021 #10
I really don't like the Nestle company discntnt_irny_srcsm Mar 2021 #15
This message was self-deleted by its author discntnt_irny_srcsm Mar 2021 #16
Very well put. krispos42 Mar 2021 #42
I'm glad you and your family etc. are all okay discntnt_irny_srcsm Mar 2021 #53
Gun supporters need to just get over themselves. AndyS Mar 2021 #14
Personally, I believe your 10% number may be off, yagotme Mar 2021 #17
Gun controllers are every bit as puritanical as some of the various subgroups in the GOP friendly_iconoclast Mar 2021 #19
The old: yagotme Mar 2021 #36
"No more compromise" I was waiting for the "no loaf is better than half a loaf" crowd to show up friendly_iconoclast Mar 2021 #18
You can't argue with gun controllers more than any other fanatic The Mouth Mar 2021 #20
I appreciate your position krispos42 Mar 2021 #21
Really? That's the best ya' got? AndyS Mar 2021 #22
So rather than have the government confiscate all handguns, you would have them confiscate "only" Dial H For Hero Mar 2021 #23
No, buy backs. nt AndyS Mar 2021 #25
A mandatory "buy back" is, by definition, confiscation. Dial H For Hero Mar 2021 #27
As is eminent domain. So what? You have a point or just more AndyS Mar 2021 #28
You're advocating that the government consficate about 200 million firearms from private hands. Dial H For Hero Mar 2021 #29
First, not nearly that many. Only semi auto with AndyS Mar 2021 #30
I would estimate that roughly 75% of privately owned handguns are semiautomatics, and of those Dial H For Hero Mar 2021 #31
It's not personal. It's about numbers and the exaggerated AndyS Mar 2021 #32
"Take part or sit back and let people like me do it for you." Forced teaming? Really? friendly_iconoclast Mar 2021 #33
"Take part or sit back and let people like me do it for you." There is a third alternative. Dial H For Hero Mar 2021 #34
Another high profile shooting in Atlanta today. AndyS Mar 2021 #35
Yes, committed supposedly with a revolver. yagotme Mar 2021 #37
So I guess those murders just don't count. Paladin Mar 2021 #38
People have been arguing that massive gun control is just around the corner for *decades*. Dial H For Hero Mar 2021 #39
"Talking points": The gun-control version of "Widespread voting fraud" friendly_iconoclast Mar 2021 #40
The government can't "buy back" what it never owned in the first place. krispos42 Mar 2021 #43
You know you've won the argument (debate?) when one side resorts to niggling AndyS Mar 2021 #44
Says the person claiming confiscation isn't confiscation krispos42 Mar 2021 #46
Imminent domain. AndyS Mar 2021 #47
"For public use" would seem to be the operative words there krispos42 Mar 2021 #48
Really? You're still stuck on that upsetting Republican voters thing?🤡 AndyS Mar 2021 #49
Yup. Because, you see there's this funny thing where the party in power gets to do shit krispos42 Mar 2021 #52
So, what "public use" are the firearms subject to? yagotme Mar 2021 #50
So he's thinking buy backs discntnt_irny_srcsm Mar 2021 #26
You've declared "No more compromise" and "take 'em all, and round up the people that don't comply".. friendly_iconoclast Mar 2021 #24
If it's not a culture war, why are the guns most attacked the ones that cause the least harm? krispos42 Mar 2021 #41
More deflection I see. That's obviously all you have. AndyS Mar 2021 #45
Need to brush up on firearm history: yagotme Mar 2021 #51
Reality is not deflection, sorry krispos42 Mar 2021 #54
I give up trying to have a cogent conversation with you. AndyS Mar 2021 #55
So you're okay with the other parts of my post? krispos42 Mar 2021 #57
You're as good at deflection as Kellyanne Conway. AndyS Mar 2021 #58
You're as good at deflection as Kellyanne Conway. AndyS Mar 2021 #59
From the land of post hoc ergo propter hoc discntnt_irny_srcsm Mar 2021 #56
"re-defining suicide as something other than gun violence" EX500rider Mar 2021 #61
Eh? Straw Man Mar 2021 #62
"about close to 40,000 deaths" with most those being suicides of course.. EX500rider Mar 2021 #60
One thing I'll never understand about these bills ... Straw Man Mar 2021 #63
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»"Senate Dems introduce 'a...»Reply #41