Effective gun control means something like no private pistol ownership and tightly limited ownership of long guns with small internal magazines.
I mean, this is a political non goal, not nearly enough people agree with it, but let's not pretend that rules about pistol grips on rifles mean anything.
It would still be quite interesting to have a referendum on a constitutional amendment that provided clear legal powers for such restrictions. Not because I particularly think it would succeed, just to see the numbers.
Heh. No really... what would you give up? Compromise means you have to provide something to the other side. I hope you looked at the link I posted.
Suggestion: fixing gun rights to be like driving rights, recognized in every state, so that driving from New Hampshire to Texas with a gun isn't a felony. (imagine if you needed a separate driver's license for each state)
Suggestion: allow mufflers on firearms to help prevent hearing loss. We allow mufflers on cars.
Suggestion: where carry is allowed, it may be concealed, and non-concealed is never worse than a fine.
Got any ideas? Remember, it has to be something the gun owners would actually like. Without giving something up, you aren't making a compromise. You're just taking more of the cake.
No where is it written that the path forward must be compromise.
My argument is that a healthy society would choose to let people have a tictac rather than arguing about cake. The taking away the cake is just a rhetorical framing device to make the argument about taking something away rather than about what is reasonable for society as it exists today.
You say I hope you looked at the link I posted. but apparently didn't pay much attention to where I conceded that it is not politically plausible to move to a strict gun control regime in the US (and I readily concede that steps less than a strict gun control regime will not be especially effective in reducing gun violence). I think the first step towards a better situation with guns in the US is to convince people to stop owning them using means other than the law. Then I don't have to compromise with them anymore to get stronger laws.
It's not just that this is about taking something away. It's that, rather than give-and-take, it's all take. Gun owners see a ratchet effect. For a very long time, things only went one way. Gun owners lost rights again and again and again. Changes would never go the other way.
A lesson has been learned, and now nobody will give an inch. With today's gun owners putting up a fight, not much happens. They seldom win or lose; we are held to the status quo even though both sides might benefit from a bit of horse trading.
The trust isn't there. Consider registration: Gun owners would support registration except for the fact that history shows that registration is typically the first step toward confiscation, and this was even seen as recently as during the aftermath of hurricane Katrina. The cops lost in court, but the guns were already taken and destroyed. With events like that, and with gun opposition often having the stated goal of ultimately having a ban, the paranoia is justified.
Ownership went way up under Obama. The more people thought he or Clinton might restrict guns, the more guns people bought. There was also the matter of BLM and other riots, and a bit of terrorism here and there, and immigration. People buy guns when they don't feel safe.
Speaking of rhetorical framing devices, what is this "gun violence"? People can be violent, crazy, and evil. Guns are no more violent than knives, baseball bats, pit bulls, 5 irons, cars, hammers, and heroin. You're trying to put the focus on an inanimate object instead of on the guilty.
I've stated above that I think a strict gun control regime would be necessary to effect real change in the US and that I don't think it is feasible.
What are you trying to argue with?
Also, people that bought guns because they are afraid of Black Lives Matter (not a riot, that's a gross mischaracterization), riots, terrorism and immigration aren't very good at risk analysis.
The long term trend over the last 200 years is gun advocates are slowly losing. As someone that enjoys shooting that does bother me, but don't expect public gun ownership to be a thing in 200 years without some fundamental changes.
Personally, I would focus on winnable fights. But, politically having red flag issues tend to get out the voters.
Technology has changed too much to make any sort of reasonable comparison of gun politics today with those of two hundred years ago. Certainly the national mood has shifted toward fewer restrictions on guns over the last generation.
If you want recent comparison then while gun technology has changed little, there has been a 10+% drop in private gun ownership from 1961 to now. Though there is some very high error bars on those statistics. Hunting has also become significantly less popular.
These really are significant shifts is public behavior. And eventually public attitudes really do influence politics.
IMO, advocating for the rights of gun owners is a losing strategy, you need to promote gun ownership.
Effective gun control means something like no private pistol ownership and tightly limited ownership of long guns with small internal magazines.
I mean, this is a political non goal, not nearly enough people agree with it, but let's not pretend that rules about pistol grips on rifles mean anything.
It would still be quite interesting to have a referendum on a constitutional amendment that provided clear legal powers for such restrictions. Not because I particularly think it would succeed, just to see the numbers.