The problem is that they create legal categories (e.g., assault weapon) that do not align with reality. Does the gun look like something from a video game? Must be an assault weapon. Is it wood and looks like you could hunt with it? Not an assault weapon.
Gun control is the only culture war issue on par with the sorts of things that make up 90% of Republican politicking. No real knowledge of the issue, just a strong cultural aversion bordering on disgust that becomes its own raison d'etre
You could craft a gun control bill with tiered licensure, mandatory background checks, waiting periods, and storage requirements that would satisfy all but the most lunatic gun nuts and dramatically reduce gun deaths. But then you'd have to understand guns on some level, which dems refuse to do.
do this in exchange for fixing the NFA and gun nuts would love it, even
This is absolutely correct, and if you want to see how the current Democratic policy would go, just take a look at Canada, where our gun control laws are non-sensical.
The basic classification system for firearms in Canada is logically consistent (mostly). The problem you run into is that a firearm you can use for hunting or sport usually also works against people. And whenever there's a high-profile incident of this, the electorate demands *something* be done.
So, in Canada, rifles and shotguns are defined according to cartridge and barrel length and a few other things. As long as it's not automatic, it's unrestricted and fairly easy to acquire. That is, unless it's based on an AR or AK platform, or another type that was reclassified for whatever reason.
Do y'all have mass shootings like we do, or are the laws working mostly as desired? Also, how many guns used in Canadian crimes are sourced back to the US? See, it still sounds like an upgrade to me.
Yes, but not anywhere near as many. Many, but certainly not all. I'm not arguing the US shouldn't do anything about the epidemic of gun violence, just the opposite. I'm just saying the Canadian approach is not one to be admired. Canada does regulate guns based on appearance, which is non-sensical.
Fair.
Absofuckinglutely you could not craft such laws. You cannot craft ANY law in the USA to limit people's ability to buy and use basically ANY kind of firearm. If gun control advocates misidentify guns that's a tiny part of the problem, not THE problem.
I think this is more a case of “Do Something” We’ve been trying to heavily restrict handguns since the original NFA (that’s why there’s the whole thing about SBR’s) all the way up to Heller but for various reasons we can’t get that done So we end up with non solutions
The AWB gets a lot of shade but the magazine restrictions were meaningful. Existing ones got pretty expensive. And once it was gone you see mass shootings getting worse
This is obviously and indisputably false. The gun lobby has made it absolutely clear that they'll accept almost no restrictions on guns. Biden's gun violence bill was pretty weak tea and the NRA still opposed it. Also, no chance that two conservatives on SCOTUS would accept any of that.
I don't think this is going to blow your mind, but the sort of person who lobbies for the NRA is exactly the sort of "lunatic gun nut" who I suggested would never be satisfied
Right, but that also describes ~99% of congressional Republicans. This story from Maine has it all: mainemorningstar.com/2025/04/15/g...
Yes, we are extremely aware that 99% of modern Congressional Rebpublicans are batshit crazy extremists. That's what their party has been filtering for for twenty years.
Yes, and I've known many gun owners in my life who hold their nose and vote Republican because they won't write any more dumb gun laws, even if they otherwise dislike them. I think this is a selfish and short-sighted thing to do, but it's very real.
Yep. It's incredibly frustrating, but I can't entirely blame them when a lot of the Dem establishment modeled their views on Feinstein, and will push blatantly unconstitutional gun bills just to stick it to their ideological opponents, knowing it will be ineffective and stricken by the courts.