The Threat is Real, very real.

[Klem]

There is no need to give anti-gunners anything. We have compromised enough. They have to stop trotting out the same old song and dance every time and offer something else as a possible solution. They won't because that isn't the game. They run out the gun control nonsense and then blame the right when the ridiculous ideas don't go anywhere. Their end game is continued fundraising and time in office. If they get lucky and succeed in disarming the opposition, then so much the better.

The point that seems lost on so many of us is that it is not just the Ds that do this. The Rs play along in return for the same on other issues. And they wouldn't mind seeing us disarmed, either. You have only to look at what is going on in Catalonia to see where this can lead.

Throwing away bump stocks changes the narrative back to the idea that guns are somehow part of the problem. We have been winning by making obvious the facts and that guns are not the problem. That should be the course. I really hope NRA isn't shooting themselves in the foot with this thing. The great influx of membership and money may not come if they side with anti-gunners.

I really think Gun Owner of America has taken the correct approach. Point out that guns are not the issue and that much more effective weapons are used in the absence of firearms. Practically everyone at that concert was missed by the shooter. If he had used more effective means they would not have been.

Well, it's all about the risk we all take living in a democracy where a small portion of gun owners want to misuse their guns. As a gun owner, do you want to live with the risk that someone will misuse a bump-stock to maximise carnage for continued access to them? I love my guns but don't particularly care about bump stocks. So, if it makes society a tiny bit more safe then sure, let's ban them. We've all got to live together and I also want live in a safe place.

As for encouraging the narrative that guns are the problem, well to be honest they are part of the problem. Obviously it is the nut behind the bolt that does the killing but you cannot deny that restricting civilian gun ownership lessens the likelihood of firearm misuse. But, this logic only holds true if the restrictions are across the board and cannot be circumvented. There are of course other issues at play here;

1. The definition of freedom in a country that valorises gun ownership.
   
2. The potential the guy will simply use a different means to kill others.
   
3. The likelihood that restriction will only target law-abiding citizens in a country where the authorities remain largely unaware of who has what.
   

and probably a bunch of other cogent arguments that with a little effort we can think of.

My argument is that gun restriction is a politically convenient and clumsy way of mitigating the problem. If it works then let democracy in a population decide the extent of restriction, but we all know it doesn't really work.