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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.