Interesting read
http://amp.kansascity.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/syndicated-columnists/article177035411.html
I read that yesterday. Very interesting take.
I read that article a couple days ago. It's not very surprising, or satisfying. I don't have any reason to question the numbers. But there's just something very unsatisfying about the "you know, statistically speaking...." sort of argument in the wake of horrific murders. I don't like that argument regarding terrorism, either. For me it comes down to whether we can take meaningful action to stop it.
I don't particularly like guns and don't own any, but I completely understand why they are so popular. They are an integral part of American culture since before our founding. Americans, because of our heritage and history, have always been more resistant than other cultures to oppression and obedience to a powerful government. For millions of people, owning guns is synonymous with freedom and self-reliance.
I don't think the NRA is the sinister boogeyman that MIR and other liberals hyperventilate about, Koch-style. The reason the NRA is so powerful is their
millions of members. It isn't the NRA that stopped Democrats from passing any new gun control measures when they had
complete, filibuster-proof control of the federal government less than ten years ago (remember that?). And it isn't the NRA that is currently causing red state Senate Democrats like Manchin (WV), McCasklll (MO), and Heitkamp (ND) to keep mum on new gun control measures. They understand that a huge number of Americans in a majority of states don't want knee jerk restrictions on a core Constitutional right. The Dems need at least a few such red state Dems to avoid being completely irrelevant. The NRA simply helps mobilize and give effect to the preferences of those millions of people, like unions (which liberals love). Unlike most unions, membership in the NRA is voluntary.
I'm good with heavily regulating automatic weapons (we already do). I'm good with banning certain gun accessories designed to provide automatic or other war zone functionality (I think we already do that, too?). I'm good with requiring dealers to perform background checks (we already do). I'd be good with looking at possibly expanding the scope of those background checks.
Non-starters for me: a national firearm registry (I don't think it would be accurate, and I think putting every gun owner on a list is a step too close to government confiscation and oppression), requiring gun owners to be treated like dealers and perform background checks every time they want to sell or gift a gun in a private sale (too burdensome with too little benefit), or allowing people to be unilaterally put on "no buy" lists, for mental health or other reasons, without due process of law.