Okay, my manifesto-argument is super long, but here's the draft, divided with roman numerals into subtopics to focus any discussion once I post it:
---
I thought I would post my main objection to the initial list separately, since it is long. #4 is a complete nonstarter for a number of reasons, each independently sufficient. I didn't see any real counterarguments to my points about the basic ineffectiveness and infeasibility of a ban on semiautomatic rifles of any kind, let alone the political impossibility of including semiautomatic handguns. We need to take an evidence-based approach, but few suggestions even referred to easily-available UCR data, let alone the CDC data that gives victim demographics. That is precisely how emotionally-driven, politically-alienating, ineffective policy is developed. If we care about reducing gun deaths, we must leave behind our attachments to old, failed policy suggestions. I'll list my objections to #4, and I'd be happy to politely debate any of these; I have some policy suggestions at the end, and how to make them feasible as one part of a comprehensive package, for anyone in a TL;DR mindset who would just like to discuss that. Anyway, for those interested, or those prepared for spirited discussion, buckle up:
(I) An AWB like the one currently proposed by Sen. Feinstein (D-CA), as well as the obsessive focus on large mass shootings and the weapons used in them, are evidence of a significant amount of subconscious racial bias in much of the gun control movement and news coverage of gun violence. Mass shootings committed with semiautomatic rifles of any kind are only a small part (1-2%) of annual gun homicides, but have a hugely disproportionate number of white victims compared to the total victim group. The obsessive multi-decade focus on these large mass shootings, the weapons used in them, and preventing such attacks at the expense of other legislation represents a shameful abandonment of the vast majority of firearm murder victims, a considerable majority of whom are black (well over 50%), and nearly all of whom were killed by handguns (90%), usually in single-murder shootings. These types of killings would be completely unaffected by even a successful total confiscation scheme aimed at all rifles, semiautomatic or otherwise; this remains true for other policy proposals focused on large mass shootings, such as magazine bans. This is based on FBI UCR homicide data, CDC victim demographic data, and a simple analysis of all victims of large mass shootings (9 or more victims killed) from the beginning of 2015 to the killings at Parkland, FL in 2018.
(II) As worded, #4 makes even less sense than the legislatively-fabricated term "assault weapon": among others, you've created "semiautomatic assault pistols" as a category, which is patently absurd: that isn't a thing. If someone thinks it is, I defy them to define it in terms of mechanical function rather than using cosmetic traits or specific models. Essentially, what you've proposed is banning the sale or transfer of all semiautomatic weapons to include the most popular rifles in the US and nearly all handguns - the most common and popular type of firearm overall in the United States. This destroys the economic value of a huge amount of private property, unless you're really fine with permitting a legal market of perhaps 70-100 million grandfathered weapons (which I doubt, for some reason). My quick back-of-envelope math puts the lower end of that destroyed economic value at $40 billion, likely much, much higher, and affecting countless jobs and industries,
many of which are dedicated entirely to firearm safety. Consider the political effect, too. My frustration on this issue is not just ignored victims, but also at Democrats winning sufficient seats in Congress in 2018 to work with any reasonable Republicans to protect and repair our government, especially if the Mueller investigation turns up anything damaging and actionable (which seems likely). In terms of how politically toxic a ban of handguns would be, consider that as of today, after EVERYTHING, Trump's approval rating is 40%; a ban on handguns garnered just 28% support in an October 2017 Gallup poll.
(III) The focus on high-capacity magazines is misplaced and, again, reflects both an obsession with major mass shootings (which are rare) and an absence of firearm knowledge that undercuts many gun control proposals. At moderate speed, enunciate the word RELOAD: that's about how long it takes to reload any size magazine for most handguns and rifles, achievable by many novices with perhaps 15 minutes of practice. A magazine ban would make almost no difference in how a major mass shooting plays out, and wouldn't affect the bulk of gun homicides. Not only are the vast majority of gun homicides committed with handguns, many of the most-commonly used handguns can only hold 5-9 rounds due to their small, slim design. The vast majority of gun homicides in the US are single killer-single victim, and these killings usually involve no more than 3 shots fired, often just 1.
(IV) Almost none of these "ban" proposals address the 4th Amendment nightmare of enforcement, perhaps because doing so might acknowledge the incredible burden that would be imposed on tens of millions of totally lawful, responsible citizens whose firearms are neither misused nor stolen. The gun safe industry is large and competitive for a reason: many gun owners are safety extremists, and quite a few will happily chew out a total stranger on a gun range for even a marginal safety violation (I have). The burden imposed on those citizens and their safe exercise of a constitutional right is huge. When compared to the marginal benefits that even total enforcement could achieve, it's no surprise that many reasonable gun owners oppose such clumsy, burdensome laws, commonly written by people who don't value or understand gun rights or the citizens who exercise those rights.
(V) My main objection is really about how much bad policy and stifled debate flows from thinly-veiled raw hostility to any and all lawful, responsible gun owners (which clearly includes me, but also many of my liberal and conservative friends from my hometown, the military, and elsewhere). This hostility takes forms ranging from righteous but ineffective and overly-burdensome bans, all the way to the idea that maybe we just need to annihilate or cripple this troublesome right in lieu of regulating it safely and intelligently. This hostility is exactly why many of the 68 million (probably more) reasonable, non-NRA-member gun owners
also think that people are trying to take their guns: many "sensible" gun control ideas like the one I challenge above propose to do exactly that, disarm entirely or by degrees tens of millions of lawful citizens who have done (and will do) nothing wrong with their firearms. Other, more reasonable and effective proposals often contain poison pills that seem designed simply to punish gun ownership while making reasonable gun owners look intransigent - though their intransigence is usually based in a better understanding of the law's oversights, impotence, or absurdly draconian nature.
(VI) This hostility is, I think, why you probably haven't heard of the Czech Republic's quite successful gun laws. That country has reasonable shall-issue licensed ownership of semiautomatic weapons of many kinds, with many safety requirements. Their homicide rate is lower than Australia (considerably), lower than Germany, lower than the UK; gun crime is fairly uncommon. But there are no sweeping bans, and the country's strong gun culture was not extinguished. There are no magic solutions, but the Czech Republic is a great possible template. Again, though, most have never heard of it. If you haven't, ask yourself why.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_ ... h_Republic
(VII) I am not a policy expert and hope I have made no pretensions to that effect - almost all of this is from reading and analyzing simple, reliable data sources or doing Q-sorts of news articles. I graduated from law school almost 6 years ago but failed the bar, struggled to find good long-term work and ended up at a Whole Foods working with many very intelligent, very fine people for the last 3 years - most of us making close to minimum wage. I have studied the issue of gun violence intermittently for years, and very intensively after leaving my job recently (mainly to study this while finding better-paying work). We are talking about a constitutional right that is safely enjoyed and cherished by tens of millions of your fellow citizens, many of whom I'd bet you would like, if you just got to know them. This is about as upset as I can be in a focused discussion: I am an unemployed cheesemonger; you are lawyers. You need to do better than this.
(VIII) ...but I think we can do better together if we set our emotions aside (me too) and focus on effective policies that can be implemented. As one idea, I believe significant numbers of gun owners would be happy, even proud to get a reasonable shall-issue license: stratified by weapon type, with a mental health check/background check prior to issue, appropriate professional training (in self-defense law, general safety, and safe use), storage requirements, a trustworthy family/friend co-signature for the most dangerous fighting weapons, and some reasonable renewal period/mental health paperwork update (I have a few more ideas to make the license more secure and promote widespread adoption, even given the suspicions that many might initially have, though that's a big barrier). Using certain desired but uncommon weapons as a pilot program for the most rigorous, highest level of licensing might work (and get serious industry buy-in).
(IX) BEFORE that can happen, though, reasonable gun owners - myself included - need to have confidence that the licensing system won't be later used to forcibly disarm them in a moment of panic and fear after a mass murder or terrorist attack. That's the big barrier to cooperation, and why I focused on baseless hostility to responsible gun owners above. A heartfelt plea: lay down your hostility and the dream of disarmament - it was a bad, impossible dream, anyway. If that happens, I believe reasonable gun owners (not just loudmouthed me) would be happy to help craft a good, comprehensive proposal, and call up representatives about it - and we are familiar with the useless-but-burdensome parts of current law that can be deleted in a comprehensive bill to incentivize buy-in from many responsible gun owners and their reps. I hope the group will take this under advisement; I know many here are very busy but also passionately committed to finding solutions, so I hope this was worth your time.
---
I haven't been getting enough sleep lately, so it's long, but I think... it makes sense, right? In terms of trying to get a few people to break the fever dream, maybe?