General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Michael Moore's FB comment on the UCSB shootings, [View all]LAGC
(5,330 posts)But the problem is, when you start talking about wanting to ban an entire class of firearms, it only gives credence to the NRA's talking point of "where will it end?" When you claim you are only for "reasonable restrictions" like universal background checks, it rings hollow when you were just a few years earlier talking about wanting total bans on certain firearms.
The biggest disconnect here is that rifles ("assault weapons" or not) only account for a very small percentage of the total gun violence out there. The biggest killers, by far, are HANDGUNS, which the gun control lobby USED to be all about wanting to ban, before HCI (Handgun Control, Inc.) realized it was a futile cause, and changed their name to the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence instead to try to soften their image. But again, we're back to these groups calling for "reasonable restrictions" now, when just a few years earlier they were talking about outright bans. People just aren't buying it.
The bottom-line though is that the gun lobby just has way more passion (and money) behind their side of the argument than the gun control folks do. And the political reality is that there's no way to win back control of the House without rural support. So getting into a big pissing match with the NRA is always going to result in lopsided results, unless the political calculus ever changes at the national level. I just don't see that happening any time soon.
Don't get me wrong -- I sympathize with much of MM's argument in your OP, but its pretty clear that even he realizes that pursuing stricter gun control has become a fool's errand. I mean, not to sound callous, but if 20 dead first graders couldn't get even universal background checks passed in this country, what on Earth do you think will? And how does it bode for any stricter gun controls beyond?
Edit history
![](du4img/smicon-reply-new.gif)