CATO Institute stabs gun owners in the back

[pudly]

In a recently published policy report, the "libertarian" CATO Institute does an excellent job detailing reasons that Democrat-driven gun controls fail, but recommends that we do them anyway. CATO is defining compromise as Democrats always do: give them at least some of what they want.

Gun Control: Grounds for Compromise? | Cato Institute

CATO Institute: Pro-semi-auto weapon bans, pro-magazine limits, pro-expanded background checks, anti-Contitution. But you can feel okay about those new restrictions because:

It’s doubtful that new gun controls — imposed mostly on persons who are not part of the problem — will be effective. Accordingly, they should expire automatically after a reasonable test period.

 

[Leadeye]

Since the 60s I've seen this idea that taking guns away from the law abiding will somehow solve problems with the non law abiding. It never works and yet it keeps showing up, my conclusion is that it comes from either laziness or self interest. Rather than address the problem they take the easy way and go after the easy target, sort of like the drunk looking for his keys under the light post where it's easier to see rather than where he lost them in the alley. The other more disturbing idea is that there is another motive that is in their self interest.

 

[vitamink]

The Cato institute hires idiots to vomit their opinions on everyone while trying to convince them they are facts. Their data manipulation knows no bounds. They're anti 2a?... not surprised

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Didn't read it, don't care, but must comment on this:

It’s doubtful that new gun controls — imposed mostly on persons who are not part of the problem — will be effective. Accordingly, they should expire automatically after a reasonable test period.

That's an experiment that's already been done. Clinton AWB.

 

[pudly]

Every restriction CATO suggests has been done before. That is the point. The article actually did a great job listing anti-gun control points. The bizarreness is simply that they suggest these controls anyway. Logic has no bearing on their position.

 

[GIJEW]

Didn't read it, don't care, but must comment on this:



That's an experiment that's already been done. Clinton AWB.

That, and gun bans; gun rationing; registration; "May issue" LTCH; "Shall issue" LTCH; "smart" guns; ammo rationing; guns that make identifying marks on fired cases. I probably missed something in that list.

Here's a couple new ideas:
In any justifiable defensive shooting,
a)Create a fund to help pay for legal fees for intended victims, taken from the estates of criminals--in the event they own anything that isn't stolen.
b)award the intended victims firearm training at the PD academy as an "atta boy" for reducing the PD's work load.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

the "libertarian" CATO Institute

They are not PURE and HOLY libertarians!

 

[rhino]

I throw their newsletter away when it arrives.

Their libertarian ideas seem to be restricted to economics.

 

[OakRiver]

Didn't read it, don't care, but must comment on this:

That's an experiment that's already been done. Clinton AWB.

I was just coming here to say that. And to add that if anyone proposes universal background checks we tried that in Indiana and it was so effective and such a good use of taxpayer money that we got rid of it.