Just throwing this out there - I think Beto's "Hell yes we're taking your AR's and AK's" statement is going to hurt the Democrats. It may rally some younger pro-gun control people, but for people on the other side, it's going to generate even more energy and enthusiasm as it's finally a direct quote for what pro gun people have been saying all along about guns being taken and from a guy who was trying to make a name for himself but who is certainly not going to win. It's just a huge rallying sound bite for people who are pro-guns even if it's not as big of an issue for them.
I agree with Beto on substance here (those weapons should be confiscated), but I agree with Mayor Pete and others who disagree with the strategy. As you point out, it's a loser in many spots, especially in some swing states. And it gives the NRA and others ammunition (no pun intended) when they are back on their heels. I mean, the NRA is seriously back on its heels, and now Beto gives them this gift?? Ugh! There's such a thing as too much too soon.
Win the general. Nothing else matters.
(and I really really hope there is not a Bernie Sanders sex scandal)
The thing is, I can totally see this from the conservative side as being against gun control measures like this is one of the few conservative issues I still strongly identify with. In fact, interestingly enough, I read an article somewhere that said that opinions on gun control is the best predictor of political affiliation - greater than religion, position on abortion, whatever. It helps increasing cringes inside me (per previous conversations on internal strife for voting Democrat) to consider voting for a Democrat when he says that and Warren (as I believe happened) seems to agree with him. Either way, I know many conservatives and others who don't really care (or at least talk a lot) about politics but are very wary of Democrats taking guns. Now, there's a statement made not intellectually like Pete would have done it but passionately and meandering enough (I think even saying assault weapons would have been better than the AR's, AK's, ... it just felt like something where he wanted to go on and on) to make people think that they're seriously going to confiscate guns. Now, I don't really think Beto would be able to accomplish it, but I can definitely say that if I was strongly on the Democrat side, I would be very frustrated with Beto - a guy who's pretty much irrelevant who in fighting for relevance proposes a very extreme position for American politics on one of if not the hot button issue of our present time in a way that will make its way into ads, IMO, during election season even if he has nothing to do with the election at all.
I think if conservatives would come to the table in actual good faith to talk about the issue of gun violence — instead of being completely driven by the NRA to absolutely oppose anything other than complete freedom to own any gun for any reason because freedumb — then perhaps we would not have gotten to the point where literally one fringe candidate on the left is so fucking fed up with the lack of any attempt at movement that he finally says, fuck it, this is complete and utter bullshit.
News flash: Beto’s position is not the extreme one here.
I have a theory that we could regulate the semi automatic weapons through mandatory licensing and insurance. The idea is to shift the risk of loss from the victims of gun violence to the gun owners. We would also need an uninsured incidents rider so that if there was an injury or death from an uninsured AR-15, the victim compensation would be funded by the class of legit AR-15 owners. In practice, the insurers would set rates based on the inherent danger of each weapon, which would in turn make semi automatic weapons enormously expensive to insure. Ordinary market forces would limit the number of people able and willing to bear that cost burden just to own an AR-15. Another alternative would be to set up a victims compensation fund which is funded by an ammo tax. Then you could own your AR-15, but it would be very expensive to shoot it.
In theory, sure. In practice, suggesting this approach belies that you have zero factual understanding of guns in general, and what types are, and are not, used in homicides. It is not possible to discuss in good faith with people who don't know what the hell they're talking about regulating.
How do you rate 'inherent danger' of a gun? If you do it based on how often a type of gun is used in a crime, then AR 15s will be one of the cheapest guns to insure out there. By this logic, knives will need to be insured at a rate 4 times higher than AR-15s. (timeperiod: 2007-2017. 439 homocides/yr with assault rifles, 1,700/yr with knives. source: FBI Homocide statistics)
objectively, assault weapons are not a problem. not even close.
From a strictly objective point of view, we need hand/fist control more than we need to do anything about assault rifles. (696 vs 403).
But let's talk in 'good faith'. This is what I propose:
-50 state background checks on all firearms transfers (private, public, etc). I think what Oregon does is a reasonable model.
- if the instant background check system fails to return a result in 30 days, it is approved. (to keep some democrat from defunding it, resulting in exorbitant wait times that effectively
turn off the sales of guns.)
-Reg flag law. I don't like it, but I can see the utility in this. I'd want some limits to how long it takes for the owner to get a hearing, some minimum evidence standards, and massive penalties for someone found to be using the reg flag law maliciously. No-knock warrants expressly prohibited except when evidence exists of immediate hazard... and it better be good evidence. 10 year sunset provision, so we can look at whether this is doing any good, or being used against people too much, etc.
-50 state reciprocity on concealed carry licenses. Increase training standards to require some actual range time if you want to have a CHL. All localities are "shall issue," no more "may issue" language allowed in legislation on CC. I'd even support requiring a person to have a CHL to buy a handgun. I'd like to see it be allowed that teachers, if they so choose, can carry. No need to advertise the fact... and we can put some stipulations on what kind of training would be required to do this. This isn' a deal breaker for me, and I imagine there will be some knee jerk outrage at this suggestion.
-Entities who create gun-free zones are civilly liable for wrongful deaths if a shooting should happen within them. (95% of mass killings happen in gun free zones.)
-Require proof of safe storage means before allowing sale of firearms. (applies in places like sporting goods stores, etc.)
But I am very glad for Robert Francis O'Rourke's statement. He just said what us right wingers know if the ultimate goal of people like him: busting down doors, authoritarian style, to impose his worldview on those who he doesn't agree with. At least we can dispense with the pretense that "we don't want to take your guns." And also the pretense that he's anything but a sound bite phony who's views blow with the wind, and who will make up any story he has to to bolster his narrative.
They have all been crafted over many years by the NRA to shut the conversation down
I'm sorry that the objective evidence has a strong NRA bias on this issue. I mean, ultimately, there's some bullshit disingenuous argument for gun control.
Asking gun owners to be responsible with their weapons will probably just anger them. "I'm responsible with my weapons." Of course, if gun owners were truly responsible with their weapons we wouldn't be having this conversation to begin with . .
Elaborate? the vast majority of gun owners absolutely are responsible with their weapons. something like half the population of this country owns them! If they weren't there would be no survivors.
If you're talking about holding a gun owner responsible for what other people do with guns, IE requiring safe storage and then holding the owner liable if the gun is stolen and used in crime... I don't like it since I think it'll be used to create a chilling and hostile environment for gun ownership, which I believe is a societal benefit as a whole, but I suppose if people who made a good faith effort to safely store the gun are exempted from liability than we could probably find some middle ground there.