• ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    6 months ago

    Tbf, define “refuses.” Suppressors, SBS, SBR, 1932; Background Checks, 1968; Full auto ban, 1986; AWB, 1994-2004, expired, little to no measurable impact on crime.

    And yet they push and push to get the AWB back despite the fact that those guns make up less than .01% of our gun deaths, why would I think that rounding down that .01% would be “enough” and they wouldn’t then progress to handguns which are demonstrably the highest contributing type of arms? Frankly there has been those compromises in the past and yet they continue to push already, it wouldn’t make sense for them to stop pushing for the 99.99% once they get the .01%, they just know the “well handguns for protection I understand but those assault weapons are automagical murder machines” crowd won’t go for it yet.

    • Wogi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      6 months ago

      National firearm registry. Have all the guns you want, but be accountable for them.

      • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        Ehhh no thanks. States like NY and CA which publish a “steal guns from me” list with your name and address are not exactly privacy friendly. I mean, “what if the database got hacked,” but also what if CA and NY just publish them as public knowledge without the need to “hack,” because they do. Furthermore, there’s already 600,000,000 unregistered firearms in ~50% of the populations hands most of whom refuse to register, it’s not even effective enough to make a difference. And with that whole AWB thing, they can’t really take them all right now, but with a registry they could, and that’s why they push for it so hard. Those of us who see this writing on the wall are hesitant to give them the power they seek.