How do we reduce mass-shootings?

[JoeMorgue]

Again since we have one side of the discussion in reality and the other side making stuff up, some facts.

1. Most Americas support more gun restrictions.
2. Most Americans don't like having a mass shooting everyday.
3. Most Americans don't like parents having to ID their dead children via dental records because they have no face.
4. We already tried an assault weapon ban and it worked and wasn't unconstitutional.
5. Every other country has figured this out. There's no honest "But will it work?" to put on the table.

[BrettM]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

Tax the **** out of bullets beyond the first single clip. ...

I think that would lead to a black market for bullets. Something else for the police to clamp down on!

[JoeMorgue]

The Republicans favored gun control in the 60s when the Black Panthers were arming themselves and funny how that didn't lead to a civil war.

[BrettM]

Originally Posted by Thermal

Well yeah, that's what we are talking about.

All the guns in the world aren't mass killing. You need a mess of bullets. There's your control point. And it could be implemented in matter of hours. The biggest problem is funding an existing bullet buyback, which isn't insurmountable. Then make possession of more than say 10 rounds total of any ammunition a major felony, equivalent to terrorism. Introduce a simple purchasing card to regulate future sales. Bullets would still be available at secure gun ranges at normal prices, but you must present your spent shells before leaving.

Not a perfect system,and there would be exceptions made and of course the occasional system gamer who abuses it. But the Nicolas Cruz and other disorganized mass shooters would be stopped pretty much dead in their tracks. Legit owners would still have their home defense comfort bullets, barring a Mad Max fantasy mass shootout scenario. It's a legit approach that has teeth.

You would have to make possession of spent cartridges a felony as well. Somebody could buy spent cartridges, go to a shooting range, hand in the spent cartridges, and go home with the cartridges he just bought at normal prices.

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Again since we have one side of the discussion in reality and the other side making stuff up, some facts.

1. Most Americas support more gun restrictions.
2. Most Americans don't like having a mass shooting everyday.
3. Most Americans don't like parents having to ID their dead children via dental records because they have no face.
4. We already tried an assault weapon ban and it worked and wasn't unconstitutional.
5. Every other country has figured this out. There's no honest "But will it work?" to put on the table.

We never actually had a nationwide assault weapons ban. Currently owned guns were not regulated, and you could still buy assault weapons as long as they only had one so-called AW feature. You could also still buy high capacity magazines as long as they were manufactured before the date of the law. Basically it was a non-existent ******** ban.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by BrettM

You would have to make possession of spent cartridges a felony as well. Somebody could buy spent cartridges, go to a shooting range, hand in the spent cartridges, and go home with the cartridges he just bought at normal prices.

Absolutely. Any spent casing or live found you can't account for on your handy dandy 10 round card is felony terroristic possession. Like I said, some people will be able to game the system early on, when metric **** tons of bullets are out there. But if Nicholas Cruz and the impoverished gangsters can't readily get their hands on metric **** tons of bullets at the corner store, 99% of our criminal problem vanishes.

[crescent]

Originally Posted by William Parcher

There is the idea that mass shooters will talk about this desire to authorities before they get a gun. I don't know how well that would hold up in reality.

You might be surprised by how many spree shooters did seek out mental health help before the shooting. The Aurora theater shooter, for example. Others are known by their friends or relatives to have severe issues (Boulder King Soopers shooter as an example), red flag laws can help with that.

But it is always hard. Colorado passed a red flag law. The first report made under the law turned out to fraudulent - a woman claimed that her husband (a cop) was having severe mental health issues and should be stripped of his guns. The problem being that the man she was reporting was not her husband nor boyfriend or anything of the sort. He was the cop who had previously shot and killed the woman's son and she was seeking some version of revenge on the guy.

That got enormous coverage here at the time. Due process worked, the man's guns were never removed from his house. But damage was done, that was enough for many local sheriff's and small town police to declare that they felt the law to be unconstitutional because of the (falsely perceived) lack of due process.

It's hard. I've been focused on gun control for a long time, with renewed effort since an old friend of mine was murdered a decade ago. These big spree shootings are a tiny part of overall gun violence in the U.S. - but they are a sort of shooting where the victims often don't know and have no association with the shooter. This makes them unlike most violent crime in the U.S., where most victims know the perpetrators. That randomness is more frightening, it could be anybody.

So sure:

Registration of guns. If we are looking at spree shootings, start with semi-auto long guns. If we are looking at everyday one-or-two at a time shootings, add in handguns. That has the added effect of reducing straw purchases, because people who are pressured to buy a gun for someone else (like an addict with no criminal record [yet] buying one for a dealer [who can't buy one due to criminal record] in exchange for drugs) are more likely to back out if there's lots of paperwork involved.

Registration could be gradual, with registration occurring at point of sale. This would leave tons of old guns unregistered. That's imperfect but okay, because most guns used in crimes are pretty new - guns enter the black market and either get used for crimes pretty quickly of never get used in crimes.

So register them as they change hands, maybe including those that go through inheritance. This will take time but would eventually get most guns into the system, and those not in the system would be the ones tucked away unused in basements for decades. If you really want to push, make controlled ranges be required to confirm registration for access.

Limits on number of guns purchased over a given time period: Not applied to licensed dealers. Add in waivers for some hobbyists and collectors if they do a more detailed background check with periodic refresher of the background check. This would reduce straw purchases, also reduce impulse driven buying. The straw purchase thing would reduce flow into the black market.

Waiting periods: Similar to limits on numbers per time period. Reduce impulse buying, reduce straw purchasing.

Safe storage: This one gets hard, because prosecuting people who violate this would often involve prosecuting people who just got victimized by theft or an accidental shooting. Screw them, honestly. The legal market is the source of the black market, if you can't be bothered to store your toys well enough (like in the unlocked glovebox of your car), then you are making things worse for everyone.

Mandated theft reportage: Similar to safe storage. Hard to implement if they didn't realize the gun was stolen right away. But most would notice. If your car window got smashed and you didn't think to look in the glove box or center console to see if your gun is still there, then you're an idiot who ought not to have guns.

Universal Background checks: Most states already have this. All commercial sales have this. Just go ahead and add in the remaining states that still allow peer-to-peer sales without background checks. Make sure it includes process for giving guns as gifts or lending guns for short term use (like lending a friend your shotgun during hunting season, or giving your son a cricket gun for his 16th B-day) without making instant criminals of everyone.

Magazine size limits. Do it right. As is, many magazine size limits don't limit the physical dimensions of the magazine. So a five or ten round magazine might be a 15 or 30 round magazine with a plastic block inserted into it, or with the metal crimped to allow fewer rounds. Remove the block, file down the crimp, it becomes a higher capacity mag yet was legal to sell as a smaller one. Some are even sold with the bigger spring needed to make it work with more rounds. So don't allow that - make the limit apply to the number of rounds it can carry and also limit the physical dimensions so that the 5-10, 10-30 and other convertible types of magazine are not kosher.

A practiced shooter can change out mags very fast. Who cares? More mags means more mags to carry in a way that allows quick access. More chances to fumble as you go to switch. That matters. Yes, there are Youtube videos of people changing mags really really fast. Again: who cares? Not everybody does it that fast or that successfully, especially if they're undergoing a massive adrenaline rush while their brain is buzzing with an overload of the intrusive thoughts that led them to do this in the first place.

And you know what: All of these are 2nd Amendment compliant.

But here's the truth: None of that will happen, at least not nationwide. Texas just had a big shooting. The state's response to that will probably be to reduce regulation of guns and do more to promote more gun ownership. They see this sort of mass shooting and they imagine that they'll be the hero to stops the next one, if only they could have a gun with themselves at all times everywhere.

It's a religion, and no amount of blood with sway Gundamentalism. Most gun owners are not Gundamentalists. But they still defer to the nuts and crazies. They still say that they'll support gun control, but then only vote for Gundamentalist politicians. They say they'll support some efforts to do this or that, but only if the laws are passed and implemented by the very people who make it clear that they will never ever ever pass or enforce such laws.

So it is down to state by state, county by county efforts. As those piecemeal efforts just don't work as well because it is too easy to go around them. So some states will see improvement in some states, but only with pretty limited effect due to movement of guns from adjoining areas.

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by Thermal

Absolutely. Any spent casing or live found you can't account for on your handy dandy 10 round card is felony terroristic possession..

"Felony terrorist possession"???

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

We never actually had a nationwide assault weapons ban. Currently owned guns were not regulated, and you could still buy assault weapons as long as they only had one so-called AW feature. You could also still buy high capacity magazines as long as they were manufactured before the date of the law. Basically it was a non-existent ******** ban.

"Okay but here's another excuse why school children getting shot in the face is just how it is..."

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

"Felony terrorist possession"???

You didn't make the "eek" emoji at the children being shot.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

We never actually had a nationwide assault weapons ban. Currently owned guns were not regulated, and you could still buy assault weapons as long as they only had one so-called AW feature. You could also still buy high capacity magazines as long as they were manufactured before the date of the law. Basically it was a non-existent ******** ban.

The weapon is secondary if you don't have much to shoot out of it outside a range. Guys can jerk off surrounded by AR-15s and AKs all they want, just as long as they don't have the ammo to mass murder.

Sickos could still kill with a shotgun or .22 if they put their minds to it, just like happens very rarely in other countries. But the mass shooting a day thing largely vanishes if they don't have much to shoot outside of a range.

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

You didn't make the "eek" emoji at the children being shot.

Oh, you guys.

[Finster]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

We never actually had a nationwide assault weapons ban. Currently owned guns were not regulated, and you could still buy assault weapons as long as they only had one so-called AW feature. You could also still buy high capacity magazines as long as they were manufactured before the date of the law. Basically it was a non-existent ******** ban.

The answer to “The last law was poorly written and had loopholes” should be to write a better law, not to say “oh well, we tried, I guess we should give up.” And maybe next time don’t let those opposed to the law intentionally sabotage it.

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by Finster

The answer to “The last law was poorly written and had loopholes” should be to write a better law, not to say “oh well, we tried, I guess we should give up.” And maybe next time don’t let those opposed to the law intentionally sabotage it.

OK, try a REAL assault weapons ban. I don't think it will get the 60 votes needed to pass the Senate, but try anyways. Must ban all new sales, register all existing weapons with NFA, same with all high-capacity magazines. Or kill filibuster and pass with only 51 votes, but then when GOP regains Senate control they can pass some crazy gun rules like nationwide concealed carry reciprocity or even nationwide constitutional carry.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

OK, try a REAL assault weapons ban. I don't think it will get the 60 votes needed to pass the Senate, but try anyways. Must ban all new sales, register all existing weapons with NFA, same with all high-capacity magazines.

But then we'll start the... CIVIL WAR OMG PONIES!

*Jerk off motion*

You're always gonna have an excuse why anything that will stop children getting shot in the face won't work.

[Hercules56]

Delete

[JoeMorgue]

Again so yes it will be perfectly easy to engage sane control all as long as we don't listen to the excuses from people who don't want it to happen but are too much of a coward to admit it.

[theprestige]

Viral ads featuring deepfaked Wilford Brimley, telling kids these days that mass shootings are super cool and everyone should do them. That should dry up the enthusiasm real fast.

[bobdroege7]

Women of this country need to man up and **** the ***** out of all the incels.

That would put a slight dent in the rate.

Pass laws that you can only keep two guns at home, any excess to be stored in a locked facility, say at a gun range. Exceptions for competitive shooting, historical artifacts, and the like.

Second amendment says bear arms, so that's where the two comes from.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Viral ads featuring deepfaked Wilford Brimley, telling kids these days that mass shootings are super cool and everyone should do them. That should dry up the enthusiasm real fast.

Guns are a leading cause of diabeetus.

[BrettM]

Originally Posted by Norman Alexander

An easier solution, given that it is impossible for the USA to give up both its belligerent attitudes and even the smallest iota of its gun-rights, is to identify which children are suitable targets and the order in which they can be killed. That way the status quo can be maintained, and the rest of the population can rest easy knowing they will not be targets of random shootings. You will need a published list of about 30,000 kids. That's the going annual rate.

Not a bad idea at all. Make sure there are lots of politician's kids amongst the 30,000. The policy makers will soon see the error of their ways.

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by bobdroege7

Women of this country need to man up and **** the ***** out of all the incels.

That would put a slight dent in the rate.

Pass laws that you can only keep two guns at home, any excess to be stored in a locked facility, say at a gun range. Exceptions for competitive shooting, historical artifacts, and the like.

Second amendment says bear arms, so that's where the two comes from.

We could limit gun possession to just bears. I mean that's the actual intent of the 2A, right?

[Architect]

Originally Posted by Samson

NZ Aus banned all but pest control style guns that farmers need.

This is a refrain which we see in the USA whenever the UK, Australia, and NZ are shown as examples of the way forward. The inferrence is that only farmers and their ilk are permitted firearms.

The general position in these countries is that the person applying for a licence must be able to show that they are doing so for proper and lawful purposes. That includes recreational shooting (clays, for example), hunting, and pest control. Self-defence is not considered to be reasonable.

I am fairly confident about the UK position, insofar as I do shoot clay pigeons and have taken part in small local competitions, as have a number of my friends. I also know people who regularly shoot grouse, and a slightly smaller number who enjoy stalking (of the legal variety).

As I understand, the situation is broadly similar in NZ. My knowledge of the various Australian state laws is poorer but an ex-UK policeman friend of mine based there now tells me it's much as here.

What this means in practice is, as others have aluded to, none of these countries allow (for example) blanket automatic and most semi-automatic weapons, pistols, and their ilk within private ownership.

I have heard what people have said here and on other forums about the use of what we in the UK would broadly categorise as assault weapons for hunting and pest control purposes. I'm not quite sure how someone thinks that an AK-47 or its ilk is going to get the deer from a sensible distance in contrast to, say, a Merkel K3. As for clays, or driven grouse, I've found a 12-bore perfectly adequate. I can also rest assured that anybody prowling the streets of Edinburgh, Merkel in hand, is going to be able to do only limited damage before the firearms officers arrive and curtail matters in contrast to (say) being able to take out a sizeable number of people in a supermarket in the space of a just few minutes.

[Hercules56]

One way to help the situation is everyone post on their Facebook or Twitter feed:

"Another mass shooting in a state with weak gun laws. This is what happens when you value your guns more than your children".

[bobdroege7]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

We could limit gun possession to just bears. I mean that's the actual intent of the 2A, right?

Bear arms, arm bears, what's the dif?

[TurkeysGhost]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

4. We already tried an assault weapon ban and it worked and wasn't unconstitutional.

Have to say I can't agree with you here. The assault weapon ban worked in the sense that the law wasn't successfully challenged, but I don't see how it actually accomplished anything meaningful when it comes to preventing gun violence.

The AWB banned cosmetic features. AWB compliant rifles quickly came to market and were just as useful for gunning down masses of victims as their banned predecessors. Not to mention that there was no confiscation element to the law, so the many pre-ban rifles remained in circulation and for sale for only somewhat inflated prices to those that decided having a flash hider or bayonet lug was worth the extra scratch.

Quote:

5. Every other country has figured this out. There's no honest "But will it work?" to put on the table.

I'd say the AWB is in pretty stark relief to what other peer nations did that actually worked. They banned owning guns for the purposes of self defense, especially pistols and sometimes semi-auto, centerfire rifles. Frequently you can buy certain guns for sporting or work purposes, but purchasing a pistol simply to keep or even carry for self defense was completely out of the question.

The inherent problem with the AWB is that Congress seems to have believed it was possible to ban bad "assault weapons" while not interfering with the good guns that many Americans wanted to own for self defense, like pistols. The guns that are good for self defense are also the guns that are good for committing criminal acts of violence, and there's really no way to ban the bad without also banning the good guns.


The problem has only become far worse over the years since the original AWB sunset. There are way, way more AR-15 rifles now than before, and an AWB without confiscation of existing weapons would be even more pointless now than ever.

States that maintained their own AWB are steadily tacitly admitting they were pointless. They are further expanding the definition of what counts as an assault weapon, and honestly we should just save ourselves a bloody, iterative process and just accept that semi-auto, mag fed rifles and pistols, if not repeaters of all kinds, will always have potential to be used for gun massacres so long as they are generally available to the public.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by TurkeysGhost

Have to say I can't agree with you here. The assault weapon ban worked in the sense that the law wasn't successfully challenged, but I don't see how it actually accomplished anything meaningful when it comes to preventing gun violence.

The AWB banned cosmetic features. AWB compliant rifles quickly came to market and were just as useful for gunning down masses of victims as their banned predecessors. Not to mention that there was no confiscation element to the law, so the many pre-ban rifles remained in circulation and for sale for only somewhat inflated prices to those that decided having a flash hider or bayonet lug was worth the extra scratch.



I'd say the AWB is in pretty stark relief to what other peer nations did that actually worked. They banned owning guns for the purposes of self defense, especially pistols and sometimes semi-auto, centerfire rifles. Frequently you can buy certain guns for sporting or work purposes, but purchasing a pistol simply to keep or even carry for self defense was completely out of the question.

The inherent problem with the AWB is that Congress seems to have believed it was possible to ban bad "assault weapons" while not interfering with the good guns that many Americans wanted to own for self defense, like pistols. The guns that are good for self defense are also the guns that are good for committing criminal acts of violence, and there's really no way to ban the bad without also banning the good guns.


The problem has only become far worse over the years since the original AWB sunset. There are way, way more AR-15 rifles now than before, and an AWB without confiscation of existing weapons would be even more pointless now than ever.

States that maintained their own AWB are steadily tacitly admitting they were pointless. They are further expanding the definition of what counts as an assault weapon, and honestly we should just save ourselves a bloody, iterative process and just accept that semi-auto, mag fed rifles and pistols, if not repeaters of all kinds, will always have potential to be used for gun massacres so long as they are generally available to the public.

No other country has a mass shooting daily. This is exactly zero percent complicated and I am so ******* tired of having to step over more and more dead children to explain it.

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by TurkeysGhost

Have to say I can't agree with you here. The assault weapon ban worked in the sense that the law wasn't successfully challenged, but I don't see how it actually accomplished anything meaningful when it comes to preventing gun violence.

The AWB banned cosmetic features. AWB compliant rifles quickly came to market and were just as useful for gunning down masses of victims as their banned predecessors. Not to mention that there was no confiscation element to the law, so the many pre-ban rifles remained in circulation and for sale for only somewhat inflated prices to those that decided having a flash hider or bayonet lug was worth the extra scratch.



I'd say the AWB is in pretty stark relief to what other peer nations did that actually worked. They banned owning guns for the purposes of self defense, especially pistols and sometimes semi-auto, centerfire rifles. Frequently you can buy certain guns for sporting or work purposes, but purchasing a pistol simply to keep or even carry for self defense was completely out of the question.

The inherent problem with the AWB is that Congress seems to have believed it was possible to ban bad "assault weapons" while not interfering with the good guns that many Americans wanted to own for self defense, like pistols. The guns that are good for self defense are also the guns that are good for committing criminal acts of violence, and there's really no way to ban the bad without also banning the good guns.


The problem has only become far worse over the years since the original AWB sunset. There are way, way more AR-15 rifles now than before, and an AWB without confiscation of existing weapons would be even more pointless now than ever.

States that maintained their own AWB are steadily tacitly admitting they were pointless. They are further expanding the definition of what counts as an assault weapon, and honestly we should just save ourselves a bloody, iterative process and just accept that semi-auto, mag fed rifles and pistols, if not repeaters of all kinds, will always have potential to be used for gun massacres so long as they are generally available to the public.

The 1994-2004 so-called "Assault Weapons Ban" was a total joke.

It only banned the sale of AWs with 2 or more features, meaning many AWs were still legal to buy or easily modifiable to become legal.

Currently owned AWs were not regulated. Neither were currently owned high-capacity magazines. Plus you could still buy high-capacity magazines that were made before 1994.

Using the 1994 AWB as a symbol of "we can pass strong gun laws!!!", is a myth and a joke.

[TurkeysGhost]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

No other country has a mass shooting daily. This is exactly zero percent complicated and I am so ******* tired of having to step over more and more dead children to explain it.

I agree it's not particularly complicated, but the AWB isn't the solution. The AWB is a uniquely American approach to the problem that didn't help.

My point is that countries that seem to have more success with this problem didn't adopt AWB type legislation, they passed far more meaningful bans. They didn't try to split the baby, they actually faced the problem directly and honestly.

Political capital spent on a new AWB is wasted. It's wishful thinking that you're not going to have to sell to the public that ready access to guns for self defense has to go.

Honestly the steady drumbeat of mass shooting at schoolhouses and the like, I'm not sure it's too much of a lift to get the public on the side of sweeping bans, but any hopes of a simple legislative victory died with RGB. Liberals are going to have to contend with the mess of the SCOTUS before even dreaming of passing gun legislation (or pretty much any other centerpiece liberal legislation).

[Armitage72]

Originally Posted by Thermal

All the guns in the world aren't mass killing. You need a mess of bullets. There's your control point. And it could be implemented in matter of hours.

Something could be set up based on the established frameworks for other restricted materials.
Tapping into my own experience, there are currently systems in place, albeit at a state level, to track the sale and use of restricted use pesticides, products that can only be sold to and used by specially trained and certified applicators due to their greater hazards.
They can only be sold by registered dealers. Dealers have to report what they sold, how much they sold, when they sold it, and to whom they sold it, including recording the buyer's license information. Users have to report what they used, how much they used, where they used it, and when they used it. Failure to report can result in fines and/or loss of license.

[slyjoe]

Delete.

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by TurkeysGhost

I agree it's not particularly complicated, but the AWB isn't the solution. The AWB is a uniquely American approach to the problem that didn't help.

My point is that countries that seem to have more success with this problem didn't adopt AWB type legislation, they passed far more meaningful bans.

Political capital spent on a new AWB is wasted. It's wishful thinking that you're not going to have to sell to the public that ready access to guns for self defense has to go.

And when half of the USA has already determined that not only do you have the right to protect your home with a gun but you have a right to openly carry a gun in public without ANY special permit or training, there is NO way we will be banning guns anytime within the next 50 years.

[slyjoe]

Originally Posted by crescent

...

Respectfully snipped for length. I agree with these measures, and this post was well thought out.

My fear is that anything, and I mean ANYTHING, that the right wing feels is a gun law has a hard time passing.

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by slyjoe

Respectfully snipped for length. I agree with these measures, and this post was well thought out.

My fear is that anything, and I mean ANYTHING, that the right wing feels is a gun law has a hard time passing.

Many right-wingers in theory support things like universal background checks, waiting periods, even permits for AWs, but their greater fear that outweighs all of this is the concept of incrementalism. No matter how common sense the gun law is, its all just part of a slippery slope to registration & confiscation. At least that's what they say.

[JoeMorgue]

So we're back at "I'm totally not for the evil, wrong side of our society to get it's way, I'm just saying that's how it's gonna be and there's no point in fighting it."

[TurkeysGhost]

Originally Posted by slyjoe

Respectfully snipped for length. I agree with these measures, and this post was well thought out.

My fear is that anything, and I mean ANYTHING, that the right wing feels is a gun law has a hard time passing.

Several states have passed some rather modest gun laws in very recent history, and I suspect the only reason SCOTUS hasn't rolled them (and others) back is that they have other priorities at the moment. Gotta gut the administrative state and make it illegal for Democrats to win elections, gun control will have to wait.

They only take so many cases a year, but I would bet money that even our meagre gun control laws are significantly kneecapped in the next 5ish years. Probably sooner if states keep pushing the issue.

Liberals totally **** the bed when it came to controlling the SCOTUS, their political project is dead in the water until this problem is dealt with. Given how clueless the Democratic party leadership seems, I am not optimistic.

[TurkeysGhost]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

So we're back at "I'm totally not for the evil, wrong side of our society to get it's way, I'm just saying that's how it's gonna be and there's no point in fighting it."

I'm not saying it's impossible, but the first step to political success would be correctly identifying the goal and fully understanding the impediments.

I don't think the current Democratic party has the guts for the task at hand with their cargo-cult of respectability politics, but I think liberals generally are pretty rapidly becoming appropriately agitated. The party will resist this grassroots energy as they always do, but I suppose it's possible to see a significant change in attitudes.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by TurkeysGhost

I'm not saying it's impossible, but the first step to political success would be correctly identifying the goal and fully understanding the impediments.

I don't think the current Democratic party has the guts for the task at hand with their cargo-cult of respectability politics, but I think liberals generally are pretty rapidly becoming appropriately agitated. The party will resist this energy as they always do, but I suppose it's possible to see a significant change in attitudes.

We know dude. Glad to have you back but your "I hope more children die so the Centrists Dems look bad enough so the Progressive revolution can finally start" angle is not needed here.

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by TurkeysGhost

I'm not saying it's impossible, but the first step to political success would be correctly identifying the goal and fully understanding the impediments.

I don't think the current Democratic party has the guts for the task at hand with their cargo-cult of respectability politics, but I think liberals generally are pretty rapidly becoming appropriately agitated. The party will resist this energy as they always do, but I suppose it's possible to see a significant change in attitudes.

Current batch of Dems are waaay too focused on trans & immigration politics to once again actually fight for new gun laws. And they know they can't do it without killing the filibuster, let alone winning back the House next year.

And then there is the Supreme Court, which will likely strike down all AWBs next term or the one after.

#Sad

[TurkeysGhost]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

We know dude. Glad to have you back but your "I hope more children die so the Centrists Dems look bad enough so the Progressive revolution can finally start" angle is not needed here.

I have no illusions that centrist dems will do anything about the problem, regardless of how many children get mowed down.

Do-Nothingism is their bread and butter, though it's probably going to become more of a PR problem with even the mainstream lib base that gets increasingly frustrated with their ineffectiveness. Gun control isn't some radical progressive agenda after all, it's pretty mainstream liberalism. The fact that centrist dems can't get it done speaks more to their failed tactics than any ideological disagreements.