“After Newtown, nothing changed, so don’t expect anything to change after Las Vegas.”
How often have you heard that said? Yet it’s not true. The five years since a gunman killed 26 at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, have seen one of the most intense bursts of gun legislation in U.S. history—almost all of it intended to ensure that more guns can be carried into more places.
October 3, 2017
Mass Shootings Don’t Lead to Inaction—They Lead to Loosening Gun Restrictions
[Gee… I wonder why that is? Could it be that people realized that having the ability to protect yourself is a good idea?
One would think this is the obvious answer. But Frum is apparently immune to such thoughts:
This may explain why gun advocates insist that the immediate aftermath of a spectacular massacre is “too soon” for the gun discussion. They want the pain and grief and fear to ebb. They want ordinary citizens to look away. Then, when things are quiet, the gun advocates will go to work, to bring more guns to places where alcohol is served, where children are cared for, where students are taught, where God is worshipped. More killings bring more guns. More guns do more killing. It’s a cycle the nation has endured for a long time, and there is little reason to hope that the atrocity in Las Vegas will check or reverse it.
The mind of an anti-gun person is broken. Some can be repaired but for the most part we need to point them out to those who haven’t yet drank the Kool-Aid and let reality sink it. It’s generally a better use of our time.
But if you look at the psychology of the these type of people there is a way to win them over. You remove social support for their position and/or you give them unequivocal disconfirmation of their beliefs.—Joe]
“Nothing will change after Vegas” – All things being equal. But all things are not equal. The NRA is not running the same playbook after Vegas as they did after Newtown. After Newtown, Wayne looked the American people in the eye and said that magazines were not to blame. That they did not have to be banned nor did he say that they should be regulated by the NFA. Now, after Vegas he has said that anti-gunners are right. That bump stocks belong on the NFA.
What is he going to say when they pivot to their next talking point… those 100 rd Sure Fire mags that the killer used?
Running the same play every time isn’t necessarily a good thing. The NRA message was very carefully worded:
Asking that the ATF review them gives us a lot more time for things to cool down. The ATF will, almost for certain, say the law current allows bump stocks and legislative action is required to subject them to additional regulation.
Any such legislation will include nationwide reciprocity and removal of suppressors from the NFA registry. The anti-gun people will be in a tough spot. They have the opportunity to get what they claim they desperately need (regulation of bump fire stocks) and everyone knows is not that big of a deal to us.
If the anti-gun people go for it we get something far more valuable to us than the loss of easy access to bump fire stocks. And besides, in the time it takes for legislation to pass and go into effect everyone that wants a bump fire stock will have purchased one and there will be 3-D printer versions of them available for anyone that wants one in the future.
If the anti-gun people reject the legislation they are admitting bump fire stocks aren’t all that important and they are not interested in compromise–they are ant-gun extremists.
Yep, ATF will say that there needs to be a law to ban them. How is that a win?
It gives us time for the public emotion to cool while appearing to be “reasonable”. It’s a game. They are emotional. This is both their strength and their weakness. We appease the emotions with a fake gesture to get the time to play the longer game with legislation and court cases which box them out of the game.
Each time, more people come to realize that when (fractions of) seconds count, the police are (at best) minutes away.
Come to think of it, the Leftists treat street crime as normal people treat meteor strikes on people — there’s really no way to prevent them. Self-defense advocates recognize that the mass anonymous murders are like meteor strikes. The real issue is which view is more realistic and contributes more to overall public safety.
Considering that the body count in Las Vegas was equivalent of a slow weekend in Chicago (where they have virtually every reasonable gun control (not elimination or confiscation, now) ever proposed, I think the view of the self defense camp is more realistic.
I’m not sure what you mean by “every reasonable gun control”. I view that as a null set.
I view that as an oxymoron, accent on the last part of the word.
Wayne LaPierre has outlived his usefulness as the spokesmouth of the NRA. I’ve never seen the numbers, but I suspect that the GOA’s view of this proposed rifle parts ban is FAR closer to the wishes of NRA members than ANY sort of “give-ground” NRA strategy would be.
Another thing I would like to see stats on: How many members does NRA have who are ONLY in the org because their gun clubs require NRA membership? I think that this is far more widespread than most people think. The NRA went on a two-decade campaign to foment this non-choice over forty years ago, salted that goldmine with a tiny amount of grant money for clubs. I’m not a lawyer, but having been a Union Executive Officer once, when the Union was into local politics, I got to know the Tort of “Illegal secondary boycott”, and believe that the NRA locking up members as hostages for gun-club memberships might qualify to be litigated under that tort claim. If GOA were to do that successfully, NRA would probably lose at least a third of their members, maybe more than half, and GOA would get a lot of them, immediately becoming the premier pro-2A voice (it is now, but lacks the $$$ to say much).
The NRA was founded as a marksmanship training, range development and shooting match promoter. In terms of man hours spent at least, I believe those remain it’s primary functions today, in spite of all the pseudo/quasi political hype.
Lyle is correct. The NRA does more to keep the shooting sports alive than multiples of all of the other groups put together.
The GOA does nothing to train instructors for Concealed Carry Classes. They don’t train range safety officers. They do not offer insurance. They have no grass roots game to keep the sport alive.
We have just opened a new range complex at our club, an $800,000 investment. Without the NRA range services this would never have happened. Without the NRA, our club would never have been able to afford insurance to keep the club alive. We have been sued quite a few times. The NRA has come through for us every time. When the GOA can do all that get back to me.
To be fair, the GOA does perform a useful role, And in some ways the NRA could be better.
But it is the NRA that provides the tools to keep the culture alive. If you lose the culture, you lose the war. Unless you’ve been involved in law suits targeting your club, or in zoning fights on range expansions, you have no idea how much the NRA does to keep the lights on.
I want this question posed to any staunch anti;
“So if the bump fire stock is illegal, will criminals not be able to use it illegally, same as they murder illegally or trade in illegal drugs?”
The point is, NO ONE actually believes that outlawing a simple pice of hardware will keep it out of the hands of criminals. To the contrary, it grants a monopoly on that product for criminals only.
The motivation for the antis is therefore different entirely. It is purely emotional. They hate Americans, especially American gun owners, and want nothing more than to harass them.
Also, no one, not the NRA, not any Congresswhore, no one, has the right to trade away any piece of my rights for any reason, no matter how clever they may believe it is. My rights are not yours, and so you may not use them as bargaining chips.
Get serious and defend human rights like a real man, not a soft-handed little bitch with mascara and hairspray, or get the fuck out. There is no room, no excuse, and no rationale for the appeaser, or for the notion that compromise is a virtue.
Anyone who merely suggests that a ban on any object or substance will prevent “gun crime” (or any crime) is an automatic target for destruction. This bullshit will never stop unless the anti rights, anti-American, criminal class is afraid to open their mouths against any human right. We need to finish the Civil War of the 1860s and clean the Democrat Party and it’s anti-rights, “central planning”, coercive state ideology from the country. They operate only as much and for as long as we tolerate them.
Every time this jerk opens his mouth, I thank God that Bush is no longer President. Also note that Frum has been associated with Guiliani, National Review and the American Enterprise Institute, and No Labels (sic).
Yes, we want to bring guns into places where they were previously forbidden, like houses of worship, schools, bars, and so on. Places where evil still lurks and is unopposed in these Gun Free Zones.
Houses of worship? Those are private property and subject to private rules. Even in California there are some (orthodox synagogues, for example) where gun owners are welcome, for reasons that should be obvious to all.
Yes, you are right they are private property. It is just that there is legislation in some states where houses of worship are listed as gun free zones, regardless, for the general public. What a quick search revealed to refresh my memory was Nebraska and Louisiana.
Curious. Clearly though, the churches/etc. in question could make such a restriction void for members. And if they do, it would be beneficial for them to post that fact at the doors, to deter criminals who like to prey on defenseless victims.