"We want to deter gun violence, but because we live under the progressive tent, we’re wary of tough-on-crime policies." Excellent point. There’s a cognitive dissonance on the Left between wanting tougher gun laws and then seeing what actually enforcing those gun laws is going to look like.
The idea that owning guns is primarily for self defense is a relatively new one promoted by the NRA and gun loving politicians. For most of our history, guns were not a cultural battle zone.
Unfortunately, after working on gun control for 26 years, I see no possible change unless the Supreme Court turns left.
The real focus for the movement should be suicide by gun. Mass shootings grab headlines but the reality is they are few and far between and impact very few Americans (directly). Until the gun control movement moves to that focus, little will change.
The reality now is that there are so many guns in the U.S. that most people who ether doesn't care about (or don't consider) the consequences of committing a crime with a gun can easily acquire one, and will be undeterred by any law. This is especially true due to the ease of using a 3D printer to make gun parts (ala Luigi). This situation is similar to what militaries around the world must now face regarding drones: anyone with nominal technical ability can make a cheap fast moving drone that can destroy something much more valuable, thus completely upending conventional military doctrine. Technology and events have thus moved ahead of reasonable control. Considered with the reality of much of the public's opposition to gun control in general, gun control strategies should focus on implementing severe penalties for illegal end use. However, the only way even this would pass would be via an expanded SCOTUS, which BTW is a key to a lot of society's problems.
What about the law requiring guns be put on a safe, and how it decreased suicides by 14 points? That sounds like proof that despite more guns, regulation can still help.
"We want to deter gun violence, but because we live under the progressive tent, we’re wary of tough-on-crime policies." Excellent point. There’s a cognitive dissonance on the Left between wanting tougher gun laws and then seeing what actually enforcing those gun laws is going to look like.
The idea that owning guns is primarily for self defense is a relatively new one promoted by the NRA and gun loving politicians. For most of our history, guns were not a cultural battle zone.
Unfortunately, after working on gun control for 26 years, I see no possible change unless the Supreme Court turns left.
The real focus for the movement should be suicide by gun. Mass shootings grab headlines but the reality is they are few and far between and impact very few Americans (directly). Until the gun control movement moves to that focus, little will change.
The reality now is that there are so many guns in the U.S. that most people who ether doesn't care about (or don't consider) the consequences of committing a crime with a gun can easily acquire one, and will be undeterred by any law. This is especially true due to the ease of using a 3D printer to make gun parts (ala Luigi). This situation is similar to what militaries around the world must now face regarding drones: anyone with nominal technical ability can make a cheap fast moving drone that can destroy something much more valuable, thus completely upending conventional military doctrine. Technology and events have thus moved ahead of reasonable control. Considered with the reality of much of the public's opposition to gun control in general, gun control strategies should focus on implementing severe penalties for illegal end use. However, the only way even this would pass would be via an expanded SCOTUS, which BTW is a key to a lot of society's problems.
What about the law requiring guns be put on a safe, and how it decreased suicides by 14 points? That sounds like proof that despite more guns, regulation can still help.