I 100% agree if the Democrats ask for more than better background checks, it will cost us votes.

[Logical]

Any talk of banning gun sales or collecting guns or limiting ammo will lose us votes. This country has decided it needs guns and wants them available for sale. Insult me all you want but we don't need to give the GOP more votes fighting something that is not going to change. Guns are here to stay. And the NRA LOVES this type of talk.

Making background check for all sales, even private, will not change much. Most guns in mass shootings are legally obtained.

There is no fixing this issue in this country at this point. And trying to will cost us votes.

Focus on background checks and mental health issues. Not on banning guns or collecting guns.

In a poll this week:

A whopping 80% of Americans want tougher gun laws, a New York Daily News/Rasmussen Reports poll released Thursday showed.

That overwhelming majority of citizens said more steps need to be taken to prevent potential mass shooters from getting their hands on firearms, the survey showed.

When respondents were asked for what they thought was the most effective way to accomplish that, 33% chose more background checks. Another 22% said they supported "more rigorous testing for the mentally ill" and 16% said they wanted mandatory jail sentences for the "criminal use of a gun."

Another 10% said they supported longer waiting periods during the purchase process.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/vast-majority-americans-tougher-gun-laws-poll-article-1.2454131

[LiberalArkie]

1. I think The U.S. is ready, it is just that our politicians are not as brave as those in Australia

and the gun owners are not as patriotic as those in Australia.

[Chan790]

3. There is a tack we haven't yet tried and taken.

If you love your gun more than the public welfare then you must hate America. Let's posit consistently that being an RKBA-preaching gun-nut is unpatriotic. Wanting to own lots of guns is Un-American.

[Chan790]

2. I'd rather lose votes and effect positive permanent change.

Given a choice between action and pragmatic expediency...I'm never choosing the second as I view it as a a sellout and betrayal of the values we put lawmakers into office for. Any lawmaker who makes decisions primarily for purpose of self-preservation rather than the interests of the public good deserves to lose their seat.

[NickB79]

5. But we won't get permanent change. That's the point.

The House and Senate are already too conservative to pass anything beyond simple increases in background checks, like Logical stated. At this point, it is impossible to get anything beyond that to the President's desk.

And pushing for even greater measures, such as a renewal of the Assault Weapons Ban, will lose us even more votes that even those paltry gains may be overturned at a later date if the House and Senate have the votes to do so.

You will lose votes for nothing substantial, and the country will be worse off for it.

[Chan790]

9. Well, we clearly need to do something...

and "improved background checks" isn't going to cut it. :/

[Logical]

12. Serious question, what would you propose that would reduce gun violence? nt

[Vinca]

4. I'm still confused about the brouhaha over the "no fly list."

I can't think of any instance that would require an emergency purchase of a firearm. The deer will wait. The target will wait. If you're in fear for your safety the police should be protecting you. I can think of an emergency reason to travel overseas. A relative is dying. A son or daughter is missing. All sorts of things. I'd rather find out I was on a "no fly list" at a gun store rather than at the airport when I needed to travel. Ted Kennedy was on the "no fly list" and he got himself off. A person who is denied a firearm should be grateful they now know their status and go about clearing their name. Then they can buy all the guns they want. I would ask any politician who voted against the bill, what if your child is shot by a person later found to be on the "no fly list?" You could have prevented the loss of your child's life, but you didn't. Shame on you.

[NickB79]

6. The no-fly list is a paranoid relic of the Bush admin. and the Patriot Act

There is no evidence it has done anything to make us safer, and even the ACLU wants it gone:

https://www.aclu.org/infographic/grounded-life-no-fly-list

https://www.aclu.org/news/court-rules-no-fly-list-process-unconstitutional-and-must-be-reformed

It is an affront to anyone who cares about their civil liberties, and the fact that it is still defended to this day by some DU'ers is shameful.

[LiberalArkie]

7. They are afraid that if anyone starts writing any law concerning guns that an attempt

will be made to, dare I say it "control who can purchase a gun". They do not want anyone to restrict how many and what kinds of weapons a wealthy person might own. A wealthy person might own fully automatic weapons "for self defense" for use by their employees.

Kind of like the tax law, they don't care about the middle class getting a break as long as the top 1% gets an even better break. They don't care that the country goes to hell as long as they have their private security company well armed.

[Bluenorthwest]

8. Not so sure about that. If you want, I can show you lots of DU posts saying 'if Obama supports

marriage equality before the election he will not win, he can't do it now' running up to the day he supported marriage equality, which was swiftly followed by his second victory.

[Logical]

11. Gay Marriage was GIVING people more rights, not taking ones they already had away. That is what....

gun control is doing. People don't like that.

[HereSince1628]

10. We will get more lists, which will be of little significance, so, it's doable

The doable may get attempted, even if in the end the doable doesn't get the job done.

And mostly the doable will address things that have a chance at bipartisan agreement. Which means things which aren't going to actually address the broadest occurrences of -social- gun violence, by which I mean the stories that garner attention and fear. Particularly the type that manifests as random shootings in places that usually are not free-fire zones.

We will make more and tighter lists because the lists are doable.

We might hear arguments to crack down by making sure that gun sales get compared to those lists, but those comparisons might not happen because, well mostly because, of the ideological purity of person-to-person commerce that doesn't involve sales-taxes and registries of socially significant property transfers.

We might hear arguments that research into gun risks and gun safety should take place, but that likely won't take place because the government will be shut down over "no new taxes". If we want gun safety research we will have to take that money from medicaid support of the ACA for poor people.

I expect a lot of playing of the clock. For decades the game promoted by the weapons industry has been stalling. Stall long enough and the public will move on to something else...like another war in Asia Minor.

I hold little hope that in the end we will do anything that addresses the circumstances/conditions that drive America's exceptionally high rates of social gun violence.