But they seem to be reacting to high-profile events that trigger us into "moral crisis" mode rather than effective solutions.
The laws that seem to get pushed first and hardest are generally the least effective way possible to get positive change, but garner lots of attention. The thing is that gun owners, facing the direct impact of such laws, tend to mobilize and motivate themselves. People that don't own guns and never will really don't seem to care how expensive, unrealistic, or burdensome a law it because it doesn't affect them. "A million-dollar tax on a gun? Sure, why not? I never going to buy one!"
For example, the original ban on "assault weapons". If your rifle was semi-automatic and fed from a detachable magazine, it could have one, and only one, of the following features:
— Pistol grip
— Flash reducer
— Folding or telescoping buttstock
— Bayonet mount
— Attachment for firing rifle grenades
Not two... only one.
After the Sandy Hook massacre the Democrats pushed for a new Federal AWB that changed the number allowable from "one" to "zero".
5% of gun-related homicides are done with all types of rifles: semi-auto, bolt-action, pump, lever. 90% are done with handguns. And the "solution" is to outlaw accessories from being attached to the gun?
Basically, I could have had an AR-15 in my closet with only a pistol grip, and in the same closet had a flash reducer, bayonet mount, and telescoping buttstock on the shelf in the closet, and I would be totally legal.
Likewise with waiting periods. They don't really work for preventing homicides, and they have a pretty small effect on reducing suicides. Yet it is something that is touted as "reasonable" and "important". Even if I already own a gun, or a dozen guns, I have to wait X number of days to buy another one. How is that sane or reasonable? And yet...
Anyway, the fact is that the best way to reduce the crime rate is to deal with society in a progressive way: birth control, including abortion; clean air, water, and food; treating addiction as an illness rather than a crime; mental health care as well as physical (universal single-payer), etc., etc., etc. But we can't get there if we're not running things.
Most gun control is a tried-and-failed attempt to manage hardware to manage crime. It doesn't work, and people that work and vote AGAINST progressive candidates because of it. Which puts conservatives in power. Who take away birth control and abortion services, pollute the air, water, and food, stuff the private prisons full of convicts, and deny health services to those that can't afford it.
The massive drop in crime from 1990 to about 2002 was not due to gun-control laws. It was due to birth control and abortion becoming widespread and the removal of brain-damaging lead in gasoline. Both of these occurred a generation before the start of the crime drop, and combined they had the effect of making the pool of future criminals much smaller. Far fewer unwanted pregnancies, no more lead in the air, and thus far fewer kids brought up in life-of-crime patterns of behavior.
We're backsliding because conservatives in power are increasing poverty, increasing airborne and waterborne pollution levels, and taking away abortion and birth control options.
How many votes did Al Gore lose by in Florida? How many votes in a couple of critical states flipped them out of Clinton's column? Less than 600 in one state, and less than 80,000 in 4 states.
How many people voted for Dolt45 because he ran as a Republican, and Republicans are better for gun owners?
Enough to throw the EC to Dolt45?
For what? Tightened regulations on a small segment of guns used in a tiny percentage of homicides? You do know that we average about 370 people a year murdered with rifles, right? All kinds of rifles. And something on the order of 8,000 a year with handguns?
Well, it's late. Time for bed.