It’s funny – over at Armed Liberal when I used to write about issues around gun regulation, I pointed out that I’m a moderate who would probably be willing to talk about some regulation around the ownership of guns, as an abstract public policy discussion. If only it weren’t my belief that those who want to regulate guns really see regulation as a step-by-step process leading to absolute bans.
Many commenters suggested that I was nuts, or spun by second-amendment absolutists (take a look at Guy Cabot’s comment on this post).
(12-16) 00:15 PST SAN FRANCISCO (AP) —
San Francisco supervisors want voters to approve a sweeping handgun ban that would prohibit almost everyone except law enforcement officers, security guards and military members from possessing firearms in the city.
The measure, which will appear on the municipal ballot next year, would bar residents from keeping guns in their homes or businesses, Bill Barnes, an aide to Supervisor Chris Daly, said Wednesday. It would also prohibit the sale, manufacturing and distribution of handguns and ammunition in San Francisco, as well as the transfer of gun licenses.
I can’t begin to suggest how incredibly stupid this is – in so many dimensions. As policy, if this worked, Washington D.C., Chicago, and New York City would be the safest places in the country. They’re not? And as politics, it maneuvers the Democratic Party here in California out onto a thin branch and starts sawing.
I listened to Fabian Nunez, Speaker of the State Assembly on the radio today, and he confidently asserted that California is and will always be a ‘blue state’.
Hmmm. Bush lost by 9%, we have a Republican governor, and one of the two likely Democratic candidates (Rob Reiner) against him in ’06 just backed out because his people doesn’t think he could win.
And for the millions of moderate gun-owners like me, I wind up taking another step over toward the no-compromise absolutist side of the room. Nice work, fellas.
just look at huge increases of home invasions in uk and australia since gun and self defense bans
The fact that San Franciscoans are being given the opportunity to vote on a total ban does not prove very much.
I’m pretty sure (based on no evidence whatsoever) that most Americans want some level of regulation but also generally support the right to owns guns. But, as with most issues, the people who care the most tend to have the least moderate positions.
(Then again, I live in Georgia. Slightly different over here.)
Jack hawkins: “just look at huge increases of home invasions in uk and australia since gun and self defense bans”
I have every sympathy for shooters, and once voted accordingly (in 1988, to get rid of the cardigan killer Barrie Unsworth). What Howard has done on guns I think is wrong, wrong, wrong.
But at least in New South Wales, home invasions haven’t emerged as an opportunistic response to disarmament, rather they are a preferred tactic of ethnic Asian crime gangs with deep tentacles in specific “communities” and areas. Smash the gangs and assimilate (blend out of separate existence) the cultures that let them flourish and you solve the problem, or don’t and you don’t.
(In my opinion, a negative turning point was the assassination of crime-busting parliamentarian Frank Newman. For this work you need fearless men who aren’t racially prejudiced and who are absolutely determined to beat down crime and gangsters – and they have to live to win.)
It may be a similar story in America.
I am all for the shooters. In America they even have the Constitution on their side, and that should be that.
But are Washington D.C., Chicago, and New York City not the safest places in your country only because of gun restrictions? Or is your real problem there one that nobody wants to look straight in the eye: unassimilated/separately developing subcultures that form a good matrix for crime, often involving drugs and serious violence?
Smash the gangs, do what you can to dissolve and assimilate the dangerous subcultures, and you can solve your problem. Or keep yourself safe, politically and physically, by looking away, and of course don’t solve your problem. (Maybe blind luck and random social developments can come to your rescue.)
Back to the point of Armed Liberal’s post for the moment: I agree that the aim of gun control advocates is suppression, not regulation in the interests of everyone including shooters. But I think this is less from a vision of a gun free nation (a positive aim) than from a sentiment of hostility. When John Howard wore a bulletproof vest while addressing shooters, that photo sent a powerful, emotional signal. Imagine if American politicians addressed shooters only from behind bulletproof glass, with photos of police snipers scanning the seated audiences for gun-nut would be assassins. There’s a potent statement there on who’s on what side of the all-important friend-or-foe line.
The short and on-topic version: I think “gun control” is driven by hostility, so you need to be numerous and pushy enough that politicians can’t afford to put you on the wrong side of the emotional friend-or-foe line. It is wise to resist regulations that may reduce the number of gun-owners, regardless of the rationale. Crime has little to do with this.
Christ, these people are embarassing. I wish they would get it into their fat heads that the reason they’re able to sleep at night is because there are good people with guns to protect them from bad people with guns. Though maybe “Christ” is the wrong epithet in this context;). It’s a classic case of thinking in terms of abstract ideology, instead of thinking in terms of people. Well, this is a test for Gavin Newsom.
Though once again I take objection to your “this is why we’re losing” theme. Nutty right-wingers in Congress and in other parts of the country do all sorts of nutty things and they get away with it. It wasn’t necessary for President Bush to repudiate Alabama racists to get your vote. And he didn’t. All he had to do was convince you that you, your family, your community & your country would be better if he had the keys to the car.
Roublen,
A.L. is right to point out that this is a problem for the Democrats. If you’re hostile to gun ownership, you’re going to deal yourself out of many states in heartland America. Even Kerry, whose anti-gun positions are a matter of public record, had to do those ridiculous hunting photo ops to try and ease that perception (clue: try not to be pictured with weapons that you proposed to ban).
Republican have stands that cost them in certain regions, too. The question is the size of the political cost, and whether the disadvantage created is survivable, given the party’s current standing.
As things stand now, gun ownership is an important wedge issue for Republicans. The more “regulation” is seen to mean “abolition,” the bigger the penalty paid by the Democrats as even the middle ground shifts away from them on a visceral issue. Which is why pro-gun Democrats are so important, and so annoyed by moves like this.
Given the status of gun ownership in the U.S. Constitution, and given a Supreme Court whose balance is going to make judicial re-writes a non-starter, these moves amount to political suicide for gains they couldn’t maintain anyway. And THAT is truly monumental stupidity.
But, you know, these measures give the activist metro base a warm and fuzzy feeling inside, so how can that be bad?
If it feels good, do it.
Roublen,
The point isn’t that dems do things that offend certain constituencies; of course they have to, or else they wouldn’t be dems. I don’t agree with any party 100%, but I still need to vote for one.
The point is that this is merely more proof, if proof were needed, of the bad faith of the left on the gun control issue. And bad faith a far more powerful motivator than mere disagreement. I can tolerate people who think we’d be better off with more gun control; some of them are good personal friends of mine. I can’t stand people who call me paranoid because I know their real intentions.
I’ll give $100 to the first pro-assault-weapons-ban politician to say to Tim Russert “Well, guns with folding stocks are fine by me, but a folding stock and a bayonet lug? Tim, that’s just too deadly for our streets.”
How is this “bad faith” by the left? “Bad faith” would be politicians passing a law that looks like a regulation but actually turns out ban guns.
This is a straightforward proposal to ban gans which is being put to a direct vote.
Bad idea? Yes. Bad faith? No.
Oberon,
This proposal itself is, I must admit, admirably frank.
But the bad faith is from all the people who say “we aren’t trying to ban guns, just impose reasonable restrictions.” If they’ll step up to the plate and denounce this proposal as “unreasonable” and undesirable, then I’ll concede their good faith.
But they won’t (they haven’t in DC or Chicago), so I won’t.
(Oh, and CA’s “assault weapons” ban was a regulation which, thanks to some weird legal monkey business I didn’t understand, wound up forcing some, but not all, people to turn in some guns).
David Blue, it’s all very well to talk about “smashing gangs and assimilate subcultures”.
That’s almost impossible to do, at least in the short term. And while the short term drags on, unarmed people are killed by thugs.
Far better to arm the citizens so that they can kill the damn thugs — then the “smashing” and “assimilation” becomes a whole lot easier.
Hi David Blue–
I have to totally agree with Kim! Tribalism is part of our nature, you can’t eradicate it. But with guns you can definitely lower the reproductive fitness of the deleterious tribe. 🙂
Rob’s got it right. Some pro-regulation-but-not-pro-ban Democrats (or even Republicans) can (and maybe will) garner a lot more respect from moderates by stepping up in opposition to this ban and proposing a moderate alternative.
If they don’t, the moderates will find it hard to believe the ‘not-pro-ban’ part.
There’s a lot of parallels to the abortion debate.
Why do people oppose parental-notification laws? They’re fairly reasonable (as I’ve seen posted elsewhere, parents have to file paperwork to give a nurse permission to give their kids a Tylenol, so it’s not like there’s no precedent). The answer is that the people pushing for parental-notification laws, by and large, are not supporters of abortion. They’d like to see it banned altogether, and in an environment where a ban is impossible, they’d like to make it as difficult a process as possible to discourage people from doing it. The camel-nose analogy is fitting. Even if the specific proposal is reasonable, the rhetoric used by its supporters indicates that they are NOT satisfied with the compromise and intend it as a wedge to introduce a regulatory regime with the goal of a total ban.
Guns are the same story with the sides switched. However, there’s an additional complicating factor – the specter of confiscation. Gun owners do not want to be faced with the prospect of having police officers arrive at their house and demand that they turn over their guns (and, presumably, be arrested if they refuse.) This means that any proposal that involves registration is unacceptable to gun owners; even if it’s otherwise a good idea, if the government has a record of your ownership of a gun, and it decides to ban that gun, it -WILL- compel you to turn it over, even if it does not actually have the constitutional power to enact that ban.
For example, if the guns of San Francisco gun owners were registered, and this law passed, police could and almost certainly would begin collecting guns immediately. What do you do when the police is at your door, demanding your guns? Compliance will result in the destruction of your weapons, so that when the ban is found to be, well, constitutional poppycock, your guns will certainly not be returned (and good luck getting money out of the city, the police department, or the officers in question.) If you refuse to yield them, you’ll be arrested, and then they will search your house and seize your guns and destroy them anyway. I suspect that Kim du Toit would advise expending a few rounds of ammunition into the officers involved – if you view the second amendment as guaranteeing your right to bear arms, as you’re GOING to as a gun owner, than a police officer demanding your weapons is as much of a criminal as a police officer demanding your daughter – but then you’re a cop killer and the government would be VERY unhappy with you.
I suspect that in many states you’d run out of cops way before you ran out of guns (and frankly, many police officers would be loath to enforce any such law anyway… “Hello sir, any guns here? No? Thanks, and I suggest you use this brand of ammunition…”
And so, registration (which isn’t of itself a terrible idea, actually) will never happen, because it’s a direct threat against a gun owner – if at any point the government decides they want to come take your guns, you’re faced with either immediate compliance or being branded a criminal for behavior that is -expressly- not criminal. In an environment where people weren’t calling for things like gun bans, it might be different, but that is not this environment…
re gangs i worked with a group in our community to combat gang influence locally—we had a number of social workers elected officials police and citizens who worked towards a consensus to make progress with a 3 pronged approach ; community education; wholesome activities for children in the early grades through high school. and graffiti eradication. we held monthly meetings where anyone could come to get information and referrals in a neutral setting. we had lukewarm support of the local paper and some local officials—–no public figure is likely to go on record admitting that there is a gang problem locally–it is more effective to work quietly one on one with community leaders to convince them without witnesses. i had a local police chief demand that i not show my own slides of gang graffiti that i had taken locally in a meeting of our group—i did not back down i donot intimidate where it is important. he retired and a more enlightened chief took his place who furnished a meeting place for our group. i had a nose to nose with a now former deputy sherriff who had been give the assignment to intimidate me [[[he said you– meaning me probably know more about gangs that i do meaning him]] i could not be effective in the mission of the organization if i were easily intimidated. we managed to get most of the general public as well as the movers and shakers in the community informed so that many of our goals were realized through actions of others. i still work with business owners where they need encouragement to do the right thing–several activity oppourtunities for youth have been established by people of means in the community. i took precautions as a retailer[ putting a halon fire protection system[ for extingiushing fire bombs] for example. much of the gang activity is driven by prison gangs pushing the drug trade— it reaches into the smallest rural communities. there is an immense amout of material available even before the net access became available. it would appear that ethnic criminal activity can be a complicating factor[ as mentioned in a previous post from down under—-check resources in minneapolis-st. paul much of california and chicago. prof i spergel has lots of info u of chicago. i personally support youth actities devoting an average of one day a week for the last 10 years. it is worth it
AvatarADV, you say _registration (which isn’t of itself a terrible idea, actually)_
Why do you think so? Who benefits? What behavior changes when government/police/everyone thinks all guns are somehow “known”?
Since I got my tank the gang members up the street haven’t messed with me once.
For the record, Kerry beat Bush in California by ten percent not nine.