The kind of "common-sense" point-of-sale gun contro I'm in favor of are restrictions on the number of guns people can buy within given periods of time - say, two a month - so as to cut-down on black market gun activity that end up in the ghetto.
But these kinds of proposals - though pushed by the more sober-minded gun-control advocates - dont' get a lot of coverage.
They don’t because, when they are proposed, and the “all guns must go” crowd hears about it, and complain, the proponents respond with, “well, it’s just a first step.” A first step being towards total gun control like Australia.
would that, in fact, lessen the number of guns winding up in the hands of gangstas? Serious question. In my largely rural part of the US, a lot of gun purchases are made at gun shows, and it’s not hard to imagine a collector wanting to buy more than two.
Anyone purchasing more than one handgun in a week leads to a report from the FFL to the ATF and local sheriff. I don't think anything comes from those reports as it is.
Could be; could be one that is being carried by someone lacking a required license. Could be one that is being carried by someone who has the required license, but that has been reported stolen. Imagine someone who has a driver's license but who also happens to be driving a stolen car.
In any case, "arrest[ing] people carrying illegal guns" makes sense, and can be interpreted as "arresting people carrying [any] guns illegally". But "crack[ing] down on the people selling them" makes less sense. We see in Matt Yglesias' post that "most of them ['illegal guns'] aren't even purchased legally". It is not immediately obvious what that means.
You could have e.g. a felon borrowing his friend's gun with the knowledge and permission of that friend. The friend would presumably be committing a crime here, but the gun wouldn't be illegally purchased.
You could have a felon buying a gun under the table from somebody who buys guns legally and then illegally resells them to criminals. Such a gun would look just like the borrowed gun when you found it; there would be a record of legal purchase by someone other than the guy you caught carrying it. But an investigation could persuade people that an illegal sale did take place at some point.
You could have someone who steals a handgun from a stranger, perhaps by breaking into their house. This gun would be purchased legally, but not by the guy who's carrying it. If the burglar then resells his stolen gun to someone who's more of a stickup artist, or a hit man... who knows? An investigation is unlikely to provide much evidence of a black market gun merchant, because the burglar's business is selling stuff that he finds, not selling guns to people who want guns.
You could have a 15-year-old "stealing" his dad's gun. Ordinarily this kind of behavior wouldn't be illegal on the part of the father or the son. There have been moves to criminalize it.
Stop and frisk in NYC worked because NYC had tough gun laws in the 90's. Those laws have overturned or rendered moot. Steve refuses to acknowledge this.
Slippery slope here. Illegal meaning a gun not expressly permitted to be Owned and registered. I oppose gun registrations because it gives the government a ready made list of people to track and confiscate their guns. Condoleeza Rice’s father had an unregistered gun ok the south he had protect his family from violent racists. It was a very powerful story for me as a former fun’s are bad, leta regulate them personal
I know you've written that you don't care if others steal your ideas or rhetorical flourishes and palm them off as their own, but isn't it galling to have this little toad do it?
It is a much better look though to point it out with calm elan than to imitate Freddie deBoer’s recent multipart meltdown that the NYTimes published an article on an issue he has been writing about for years.
One to three million defensive gun uses per year in the US according to Obama's own CDC vs 15,000 homicides by firearm, yet these people are determined to disarm us by any means neccessary. Are these people insane or just insanely evil?
1. Tipsy, or outright drunk when he posted these musings
2. The DC robbery vs his person affected him in a major way that he even he hasn't fully comprehended
3. Slowly but surely, the fact that he has been learning to like rifles and other "Hobbyist" types of guns is making a mark on his psyche.
Also, this kind of noticing on Matt's part is only one step away from actually naming the specific demographic that is overwhelmingly urban, young, and is the primary recipient of purchasing illegal handguns.
Go full on moderate Matt, and name the specific demographic who is most likely to carry and use these illegal handguns. Who are they? What do they look like?
Yglesias is the rare Democrat flak who knows that the party is in trouble, and that the reason is that their ideology has become demented and repellent to all but true believers. He lacks principles, and has only contempt for this who have them, so he’s trying to concoct a ‘message’ that will get his faction back in power. At which point they’ll do whatever they want.
so then...by this interpretation, the only people who have principles are the true believers, in this case, the Wokesters, DEI, LGBTFUHIJKLMNOP, BLM, and Greenextreme, to name a few.
And since having principles is greatly admired, then the party should remain firmly committed to maintaining their principles. People such as Iggy, rather than being pragmatic and attempting to push the party more into the mainstream opinion are the true traitors--therefore they should be kicked out of the party. After all, tepidly defending the 2nd Amendment today, and questioning affirmative action, BLM, DEI, LGBTFUHIJKLMNOP agenda tomorrow. Therefore such people as Iglesias are the true threat to the party and must be dealt with appropriately, whatever that action may entail.
The commies in the twenties and thirties had principles, or a principle: That principle was gaining power and then turning that power on their subjects. That’s why communist parties were instructed to join the various popular front coalitions during the thirties, after they failed to gain traction with voters on their own. The successes of popular front governments in France, and especially in Spain were ruinous and showed their “principles” in action.
I think it's all three, hopefully. Same as has been noticed tends to happen to men who start working out...their political outlook shifts, palpably, to the right. Get lads shooting guns and bench pressing, and see how Great our western countries can indeed be. (Kill the soyboy inside the male, reveal the inner Man, and 90% of our political work is done)
Will Matt still promote this when the racial realities heave into view, as they inevitably will?
> "a crime problem that is overwhelmingly about [blacks with] small, easily concealed handguns, most of which aren’t even purchased legally. The kind of 'gun control' we actually need is to arrest [black] people carrying illegal guns, and to crack down on the [black] people selling them. I think we really need to bend over backwards to reassure law-abiding [non-black] people that this is not a slippery slope to gun confiscation, and that means not even nibbling around the edges of restricting [non-black] people’s Second Amendment rights."
The Giuliani/Bratton stop-and-frisk policy was essentially doing this in the 1990s/2000s NYC until liberals like Yglesias started noticing the racial pattern, then they all turned against it and drove the crime rate back up.
It's cute of Matt to pose now (very belatedly) as the patriotic defender of the 2A American order, but back when it mattered he was MIA. One suspects his newfound courage will fail as soon as it would require him to traduce a liberal taboo.
When I was a kid that is what all the gun control was about. I remember commercials about "Saturday night specials". We did such a good job fighting against that the libs switched it up. "Republicans sure love handguns. Maybe if we came out against military rifles that none of them need, we could make some headway. We'll keep calling them assault rifles because murder rifle is too on the nose and the military already calls them that...right? Could someone check?"
He's holding long-barreled shotguns at what appears to be a skeet range. Who shows up for skeet shooting dressed in black with a Punisher t-shirt? And where did he get those shoes--the Salvation Army?
Democrats need to admit that crime in big cities continues to be a major problem and to quit allowing Trump to take control of this issue. Make fighting criminals a major priority of the Democratic Party and especially Democratic mayors. Why are they always on their back foot on this issue? There is no political logic to being seen as soft on crime when most of the victims of crime are the very minorities that Democrats are supposed to champion. The single most important thing Democrats could do to save the lives of young black men would be to reinstitute the police policy of “stop and frisk” in black neighborhoods to stop the carrying of illegal guns. This would stem the tide of murders of blacks that fill the nightly news in every major city in America. These kids would quickly get the message and quit carrying illegally. Young black men (15-34) are just 2% of the population and yet commit about half of the nation’s homicides. A rate an astounding 50 times higher than the average American. They are also the primary victims of these murders. We need to save their lives in spite of all the ACLU bullshit niceties.
The notion itself isn’t new. In the 90s, Virginia passed laws making possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony a separate felony charge with a minimum mandatory sentence. I think the same might go for even misdemeanors. Basically, when a dumbass felon commits a crime when possessing a gun, he’s committed a bonus felony with 5+ years attached to it. There’s something similar with possessing a gun and controlled substances at the same time (cf. “non-violent drug offenders”).
I suspect that had a lot to do with Richmond’s turnaround starting in the late ‘00s.
You have to be an intellectual to think this stuff is complicated.
Pennsylvania added a 5 year penalty for use of a firearm in a crime in the 70s or 80s. It doesn’t matter because it is routinely dropped or ignored in plea agreements. Disparate impact, you know.
The kind of "common-sense" point-of-sale gun contro I'm in favor of are restrictions on the number of guns people can buy within given periods of time - say, two a month - so as to cut-down on black market gun activity that end up in the ghetto.
But these kinds of proposals - though pushed by the more sober-minded gun-control advocates - dont' get a lot of coverage.
They don’t because, when they are proposed, and the “all guns must go” crowd hears about it, and complain, the proponents respond with, “well, it’s just a first step.” A first step being towards total gun control like Australia.
would that, in fact, lessen the number of guns winding up in the hands of gangstas? Serious question. In my largely rural part of the US, a lot of gun purchases are made at gun shows, and it’s not hard to imagine a collector wanting to buy more than two.
Anyone purchasing more than one handgun in a week leads to a report from the FFL to the ATF and local sheriff. I don't think anything comes from those reports as it is.
I take it an illegal handgun is one held by a felon.
Could be; could be one that is being carried by someone lacking a required license. Could be one that is being carried by someone who has the required license, but that has been reported stolen. Imagine someone who has a driver's license but who also happens to be driving a stolen car.
In any case, "arrest[ing] people carrying illegal guns" makes sense, and can be interpreted as "arresting people carrying [any] guns illegally". But "crack[ing] down on the people selling them" makes less sense. We see in Matt Yglesias' post that "most of them ['illegal guns'] aren't even purchased legally". It is not immediately obvious what that means.
You could have e.g. a felon borrowing his friend's gun with the knowledge and permission of that friend. The friend would presumably be committing a crime here, but the gun wouldn't be illegally purchased.
You could have a felon buying a gun under the table from somebody who buys guns legally and then illegally resells them to criminals. Such a gun would look just like the borrowed gun when you found it; there would be a record of legal purchase by someone other than the guy you caught carrying it. But an investigation could persuade people that an illegal sale did take place at some point.
You could have someone who steals a handgun from a stranger, perhaps by breaking into their house. This gun would be purchased legally, but not by the guy who's carrying it. If the burglar then resells his stolen gun to someone who's more of a stickup artist, or a hit man... who knows? An investigation is unlikely to provide much evidence of a black market gun merchant, because the burglar's business is selling stuff that he finds, not selling guns to people who want guns.
You could have a 15-year-old "stealing" his dad's gun. Ordinarily this kind of behavior wouldn't be illegal on the part of the father or the son. There have been moves to criminalize it.
Stop and frisk in NYC worked because NYC had tough gun laws in the 90's. Those laws have overturned or rendered moot. Steve refuses to acknowledge this.
Slippery slope here. Illegal meaning a gun not expressly permitted to be Owned and registered. I oppose gun registrations because it gives the government a ready made list of people to track and confiscate their guns. Condoleeza Rice’s father had an unregistered gun ok the south he had protect his family from violent racists. It was a very powerful story for me as a former fun’s are bad, leta regulate them personal
The Violence Policy Center (spit) says that there have been over 2800 non self-defense killings since 2007 involving concealed-carry holders.
This comports with my observation from local media that permit holders involved in sketchy shootings are overwhelmingly black.
We should institute a paper bag test for bearing arms.
29 states do not require ant license to conceal carry.
Maybe we should just make murder illegal; that would stop 'em!
I know you've written that you don't care if others steal your ideas or rhetorical flourishes and palm them off as their own, but isn't it galling to have this little toad do it?
It is a much better look though to point it out with calm elan than to imitate Freddie deBoer’s recent multipart meltdown that the NYTimes published an article on an issue he has been writing about for years.
One to three million defensive gun uses per year in the US according to Obama's own CDC vs 15,000 homicides by firearm, yet these people are determined to disarm us by any means neccessary. Are these people insane or just insanely evil?
"Sounds sensible, if I say so myself …"
Sounds too sensible, as if Matt was either:
1. Tipsy, or outright drunk when he posted these musings
2. The DC robbery vs his person affected him in a major way that he even he hasn't fully comprehended
3. Slowly but surely, the fact that he has been learning to like rifles and other "Hobbyist" types of guns is making a mark on his psyche.
Also, this kind of noticing on Matt's part is only one step away from actually naming the specific demographic that is overwhelmingly urban, young, and is the primary recipient of purchasing illegal handguns.
Go full on moderate Matt, and name the specific demographic who is most likely to carry and use these illegal handguns. Who are they? What do they look like?
Name them.
Yglesias is the rare Democrat flak who knows that the party is in trouble, and that the reason is that their ideology has become demented and repellent to all but true believers. He lacks principles, and has only contempt for this who have them, so he’s trying to concoct a ‘message’ that will get his faction back in power. At which point they’ll do whatever they want.
so then...by this interpretation, the only people who have principles are the true believers, in this case, the Wokesters, DEI, LGBTFUHIJKLMNOP, BLM, and Greenextreme, to name a few.
And since having principles is greatly admired, then the party should remain firmly committed to maintaining their principles. People such as Iggy, rather than being pragmatic and attempting to push the party more into the mainstream opinion are the true traitors--therefore they should be kicked out of the party. After all, tepidly defending the 2nd Amendment today, and questioning affirmative action, BLM, DEI, LGBTFUHIJKLMNOP agenda tomorrow. Therefore such people as Iglesias are the true threat to the party and must be dealt with appropriately, whatever that action may entail.
The commies in the twenties and thirties had principles, or a principle: That principle was gaining power and then turning that power on their subjects. That’s why communist parties were instructed to join the various popular front coalitions during the thirties, after they failed to gain traction with voters on their own. The successes of popular front governments in France, and especially in Spain were ruinous and showed their “principles” in action.
I think it's all three, hopefully. Same as has been noticed tends to happen to men who start working out...their political outlook shifts, palpably, to the right. Get lads shooting guns and bench pressing, and see how Great our western countries can indeed be. (Kill the soyboy inside the male, reveal the inner Man, and 90% of our political work is done)
Will Matt still promote this when the racial realities heave into view, as they inevitably will?
> "a crime problem that is overwhelmingly about [blacks with] small, easily concealed handguns, most of which aren’t even purchased legally. The kind of 'gun control' we actually need is to arrest [black] people carrying illegal guns, and to crack down on the [black] people selling them. I think we really need to bend over backwards to reassure law-abiding [non-black] people that this is not a slippery slope to gun confiscation, and that means not even nibbling around the edges of restricting [non-black] people’s Second Amendment rights."
The Giuliani/Bratton stop-and-frisk policy was essentially doing this in the 1990s/2000s NYC until liberals like Yglesias started noticing the racial pattern, then they all turned against it and drove the crime rate back up.
It's cute of Matt to pose now (very belatedly) as the patriotic defender of the 2A American order, but back when it mattered he was MIA. One suspects his newfound courage will fail as soon as it would require him to traduce a liberal taboo.
"If all the non-Whites somehow vanished from the United States tomorrow, that would do an enormous amount to bring down the murder rate."
Fixed it for him without infringing on the 2nd Amendment.
When I was a kid that is what all the gun control was about. I remember commercials about "Saturday night specials". We did such a good job fighting against that the libs switched it up. "Republicans sure love handguns. Maybe if we came out against military rifles that none of them need, we could make some headway. We'll keep calling them assault rifles because murder rifle is too on the nose and the military already calls them that...right? Could someone check?"
Conservatives aren't the only ones who like beef. Here's Matthew Yglesias chowing down a 4x4 at In-And-Out. And Matty is doing it animal style!
Sensible shmensible. It identifies crime with blacks. It is unthinkable.
We need to put race and gender aside, and focus on the specific problem, without distractions.
If you injure or kill someone with any kind of gun, excluding self defense - you get the book thrown at you.
If you use a gun while committing a crime - you get mandatory, significant, jail time, without parole.
If you are a convicted violent felon, and are caught in possession of a gun - you go to jail for at least a year.
If you threaten or intimidate someone with a gun, aside from self defense or trespassing - you go to jail.
Escalating punishment for repeat offenders. Death penalty for murder, or even manslaughter, if by gun.
Regardless of age. Keep it simple. We used to know how to do this.
He's holding long-barreled shotguns at what appears to be a skeet range. Who shows up for skeet shooting dressed in black with a Punisher t-shirt? And where did he get those shoes--the Salvation Army?
Democrats need to admit that crime in big cities continues to be a major problem and to quit allowing Trump to take control of this issue. Make fighting criminals a major priority of the Democratic Party and especially Democratic mayors. Why are they always on their back foot on this issue? There is no political logic to being seen as soft on crime when most of the victims of crime are the very minorities that Democrats are supposed to champion. The single most important thing Democrats could do to save the lives of young black men would be to reinstitute the police policy of “stop and frisk” in black neighborhoods to stop the carrying of illegal guns. This would stem the tide of murders of blacks that fill the nightly news in every major city in America. These kids would quickly get the message and quit carrying illegally. Young black men (15-34) are just 2% of the population and yet commit about half of the nation’s homicides. A rate an astounding 50 times higher than the average American. They are also the primary victims of these murders. We need to save their lives in spite of all the ACLU bullshit niceties.
The notion itself isn’t new. In the 90s, Virginia passed laws making possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony a separate felony charge with a minimum mandatory sentence. I think the same might go for even misdemeanors. Basically, when a dumbass felon commits a crime when possessing a gun, he’s committed a bonus felony with 5+ years attached to it. There’s something similar with possessing a gun and controlled substances at the same time (cf. “non-violent drug offenders”).
I suspect that had a lot to do with Richmond’s turnaround starting in the late ‘00s.
You have to be an intellectual to think this stuff is complicated.
Pennsylvania added a 5 year penalty for use of a firearm in a crime in the 70s or 80s. It doesn’t matter because it is routinely dropped or ignored in plea agreements. Disparate impact, you know.