I'm going to cut out some stuff here to try to improve readability. The full text is above:
14th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 4269
To regulate assault weapons, to ensure that the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited, and for other purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
December 16, 2015
Mr. Cicilline (for himself, (list of sponsors omitted); which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
A BILL
To regulate assault weapons, to ensure that the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the “Assault Weapons Ban of 2015”.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
(a) In General.—Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended—
(1) by inserting after paragraph (29) the following:
“(30) The term ‘semiautomatic pistol’ means any repeating pistol that (standard pistol definition)
“(36) The term ‘semiautomatic assault weapon’ means any of the following, regardless of country of manufacture or caliber of ammunition accepted:
“(A) A semiautomatic rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any 1 of the following:
“(i) A pistol grip.
“(ii) A forward grip.
“(iii) A folding, telescoping, or detachable stock.
“(iv) A grenade launcher or rocket launcher.
“(v) A barrel shroud.
“(vi) A threaded barrel.
“(B) A semiautomatic rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds, except for an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.
“(C) Any part, combination of parts, component, device, attachment, or accessory that is designed or functions to accelerate the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle but not convert the semiautomatic rifle into a machinegun.
“(D) A semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any 1 of the following:
“(i) A threaded barrel.
“(ii) A second pistol grip.
“(iii) A barrel shroud.
“(iv) The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip.
“(v) A semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm.
“(E) A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
“(F) A semiautomatic shotgun that has any 1 of the following:
“(i) A folding, telescoping, or detachable stock.
“(ii) A pistol grip.
“(iii) A fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 5 rounds.
“(iv) The ability to accept a detachable magazine.
“(v) A forward grip.
“(vi) A grenade launcher or rocket launcher.
“(G) Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder.
“(H) All of the following rifles, copies, duplicates, variants, or altered facsimiles with the capability of any such weapon thereof:
“(i) All AK types, including the following (omitted long list of AK pattern variants):
“(ii) All AR types, including the following (omitted long list of AR pattern variants):
“(iii) Barrett M107A1.
“(iv) Barrett M82A1.
“(v) Beretta CX4 Storm.
“(vi) Calico Liberty Series.
“(vii) CETME Sporter.
“(viii) Daewoo K–1, K–2, Max 1, Max 2, AR 100, and AR 110C.
“(xix) All Thompson rifles, including the following (omitted list of Thompson pattern variants):
“(xx) UMAREX UZI Rifle.
“(xxi) UZI Mini Carbine, UZI Model A Carbine, and UZI Model B Carbine.
“(xxii) Valmet M62S, M71S, and M78.
“(xxiii) Vector Arms UZI Type.
“(xxiv) Weaver Arms Nighthawk.
“(xxv) Wilkinson Arms Linda Carbine.
“(I) All of the following pistols, copies, duplicates, variants, or altered facsimiles with the capability of any such weapon thereof:
“(i) All AK–47 types, including the following (omitted long list of AK Hellpup pistol variants):
“(ii) All AR–15 types, including the following(omitted long list of AR pistol variants)::
“(ix) The following MAC types:
“(I) MAC–10.
“(II) MAC–11.
“(III) Masterpiece Arms MPA A930 Mini Pistol, MPA460 Pistol, MPA Tactical Pistol, and MPA Mini Tactical Pistol.
“(IV) Military Armament Corp. Ingram M–11.
“(V) Velocity Arms VMAC.
“(x) Sig Sauer P556 pistol.
“(xi) Sites Spectre.
“(xii) All Thompson types, including the following:
“(I) Thompson TA510D.
“(II) Thompson TA5.
“(xiii) All UZI types, including Micro-UZI.
“(J) All of the following shotguns, copies, duplicates, variants, or altered facsimiles with the capability of any such weapon thereof:
“(i) Franchi LAW–12 and SPAS 12.
“(ii) All IZHMASH Saiga 12 types, including the following(omitted long list of Saiga variants)::
“(iii) Streetsweeper.
“(iv) Striker 12.
“(K) All belt-fed semiautomatic firearms, including TNW M2HB.
“(L) Any combination of parts from which a firearm described in subparagraphs (A) through (K) can be assembled.
“(M) The frame or receiver of a rifle or shotgun described in subparagraph (A), (B), (C), (F), (G), (H), (J), or (K).
“(37) The term ‘large capacity ammunition feeding device’—
“(A) means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device, including any such device joined or coupled with another in any manner, that has an overall capacity of, or that can be readily restored, changed, or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition; and
“(B) does not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.”.
(b) Related Definitions.—Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, as amended by this Act, is amended by adding at the end the following:
(I've omitted the definitions, if you're reading this you presumably know what a pistol grip and barrel shroud are)
SEC. 3. RESTRICTIONS ON ASSAULT WEAPONS AND LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICES.
(a) In General.—Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended—
(1) by inserting after subsection (u) the following:
“(v) (1) It shall be unlawful for a person to import, sell, manufacture, transfer, or possess, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, a semiautomatic assault weapon.
“(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession, sale, or transfer of any semiautomatic assault weapon otherwise lawfully possessed under Federal law on the date of enactment of the Assault Weapons Ban of 2015.
“(3) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any firearm that—
“(A) is manually operated by bolt, pump, lever, or slide action;
“(B) has been rendered permanently inoperable; or
“(C) is an antique firearm, as defined in section 921 of this title.
“(4) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to— (omitted some stuff you don't care about here)
“(6) The Attorney General shall establish and maintain, in a timely manner, a record of the make, model, and, if available, date of manufacture of any semiautomatic assault weapon which the Attorney General is made aware has been used in relation to a crime under Federal or State law, and the nature and circumstances of the crime involved, including the outcome of relevant criminal investigations and proceedings. The Attorney General shall annually submit a copy of the record established under this paragraph to the Congress and make the record available to the general public.
“(w) (1) It shall be unlawful for a person to import, sell, manufacture, transfer, or possess, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, a large capacity ammunition feeding device.
“(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession of any large capacity ammunition feeding device otherwise lawfully possessed on or before the date of enactment of the Assault Weapons Ban of 2015.
“(3) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to—
“(A) the importation for, manufacture for, sale to, transfer to, or possession by the United States or a department or agency of the United States or a State or a department, agency, or political subdivision of a State, or a sale or transfer to or possession by a qualified law enforcement officer employed by the United States or a department or agency of the United States or a State or a department, agency, or political subdivision of a State for purposes of law enforcement (whether on or off duty), or a sale or transfer to or possession by a campus law enforcement officer for purposes of law enforcement (whether on or off duty);
“(B) the importation for, or sale or transfer to a licensee under title I of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 for purposes of establishing and maintaining an on-site physical protection system and security organization required by Federal law, or possession by an employee or contractor of such licensee on-site for such purposes or off-site for purposes of licensee-authorized training or transportation of nuclear materials;
“(C) the possession, by an individual who is retired in good standing from service with a law enforcement agency and is not otherwise prohibited from receiving ammunition, of a large capacity ammunition feeding device—
“(i) sold or transferred to the individual by the agency upon such retirement; or
“(ii) that the individual purchased, or otherwise obtained, for official use before such retirement; or
“(D) the importation, sale, manufacture, transfer, or possession of any large capacity ammunition feeding device by a licensed manufacturer or licensed importer for the purposes of testing or experimentation authorized by the Attorney General.
“(4) For purposes of paragraph (3)(A), the term ‘campus law enforcement officer’ means an individual who is—
“(A) employed by a private institution of higher education that is eligible for funding under title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070 et seq.);
“(B) responsible for the prevention or investigation of crime involving injury to persons or property, including apprehension or detention of persons for such crimes;
“(C) authorized by Federal, State, or local law to carry a firearm, execute search warrants, and make arrests; and
“(D) recognized, commissioned, or certified by a government entity as a law enforcement officer.”; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
“(aa) Secure Storage Or Safety Device Requirement For Grandfathered Semiautomatic Assault Weapons.—It shall be unlawful for any person, other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer, to store or keep under the dominion or control of that person any grandfathered semiautomatic assault weapon that the person knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, will be accessible to an individual prohibited from receiving or possessing a firearm under subsection (g), (n), or (x), or any provision of State law, unless the grandfathered semiautomatic assault weapon is—
“(1) carried on the person, or within such close proximity that the person can readily retrieve and use the grandfathered semiautomatic assault weapon as if the grandfathered semiautomatic assault weapon were carried on the person; or
“(2) locked by a secure gun storage or safety device that the prohibited individual has no ability to access.”.
(b) Identification Markings For Semiautomatic Assault Weapons.—Section 923(i) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: “The serial number of any semiautomatic assault weapon manufactured after the date of enactment of the Assault Weapons Ban of 2015 shall clearly show the date on which the weapon was manufactured or made, legibly and conspicuously engraved or cast on the weapon, and such other identification as the Attorney General shall by regulations prescribe.”.
(c) Identification Markings For Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Devices.—Section 923(i) of title 18, United States Code, as amended by this Act, is amended by adding at the end the following: “A large capacity ammunition feeding device manufactured after the date of enactment of the Assault Weapons Ban of 2015 shall be identified by a serial number and the date on which the device was manufactured or made, legibly and conspicuously engraved or cast on the device, and such other identification as the Attorney General shall by regulations prescribe.”.
(d) Seizure And Forfeiture Of Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Devices.—Subsection (d) of section 924 of title 18, United States Code, is amended—
(1) in paragraph (1)—
(A) by inserting “or large capacity ammunition feeding device” after “firearm or ammunition” each time it appears;
(B) by inserting “or large capacity ammunition feeding device” after “firearms or ammunition” each time it appears; and
(C) by striking “or (k)” and inserting “(k), (r), (v), or (w)”;
(2) in paragraph (2)—
(A) in subparagraph (C), by inserting “or large capacity ammunition feeding devices” after “firearms or quantities of ammunition”; and
(3) in paragraph (3)—
(A) in subparagraph (E), by inserting “922(r), 922(v), 922(w),” after “922(n),”.
(e) Appendix A.—Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following... (snip)
I coulld have probably done more surgery on that, but you guys get the point. This looks very similar to the previous lapsed AWB that was a bad idea then and still is a bad idea now. I don't think this has anywhere near the votes to pass, but I guess they can say they're doing something.
Hordini wrote: I didn't even realize they were actually going to present another ban.
Don't worry, all it will do is drum up gun sales and enable price gouging, it won't actually pass.
Yeah, it's the Democrat's version of trying to repeal the ACA; everyone knows it doesn't stand a snowball's chance in Hell to pass, but they gotta do it because they gotta do something.
Ustrello wrote: I would say that or the right wingers who believe everyone is coming for their guns and their belief that they need to own a m60 to "fite da gummint"
Who thinks they need to own an M60? And where are you going to get one? You make it sound like it's a readily available item. And to be fair, there certainly have been plenty of politicians who would gladly come for the guns if they could.
Ustrello wrote: I would say that or the right wingers who believe everyone is coming for their guns and their belief that they need to own a m60 to "fite da gummint"
Who thinks they need to own an M60? And where are you going to get one? You make it sound like it's a readily available item. And to be fair, there certainly have been plenty of politicians who would gladly come for the guns if they could.
You would be really surprised. I had one neighbor get his house raided and they found a literal arsenal in his basement, and I had another person in my town get raided and what turns up? an RPG.
Alex C wrote: LOL @ Hi-Point Carbine being considered an "assault weapon".
Well it does assault the senses.
Bill goes nowhere. Its almost liken the pointless posturing the Republicans do.
I liked the recent California bill though on the mental illness based restraining orders on removing firearms from the house.
Ustrello wrote: I would say that or the right wingers who believe everyone is coming for their guns and their belief that they need to own a m60 to "fite da gummint"
Who thinks they need to own an M60? And where are you going to get one? You make it sound like it's a readily available item. And to be fair, there certainly have been plenty of politicians who would gladly come for the guns if they could.
You would be really surprised. I had one neighbor get his house raided and they found a literal arsenal in his basement, and I had another person in my town get raided and what turns up? an RPG.
Was this "arsenal" the type of "arsenal" we see on the news, where people have a handful of firearms and a couple thousand rounds of ammo? Because that's small time.
Was the RPG deactivated?
Frazzled wrote:
Alex C wrote: LOL @ Hi-Point Carbine being considered an "assault weapon".
Well it does assault the senses.
Bill goes nowhere. Its almost liken the pointless posturing the Republicans do.
I liked the recent California bill though on the mental illness based restraining orders on removing firearms from the house.
So if, for example, my wife went to the doctor for depression, I have to turn my guns in? No thanks.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ustrello wrote: Don't get me wrong, I think shooting guns is fun and they are a right to every american. But the gun fetish culture in america now is out of control
What's out of control is this PC culture that wants to curbstomp on people's rights for no good reason.
I better bow out early, I can feel my blood pressure rising already.
Ustrello wrote: I would say that or the right wingers who believe everyone is coming for their guns and their belief that they need to own a m60 to "fite da gummint"
Who thinks they need to own an M60? And where are you going to get one? You make it sound like it's a readily available item. And to be fair, there certainly have been plenty of politicians who would gladly come for the guns if they could.
You would be really surprised. I had one neighbor get his house raided and they found a literal arsenal in his basement, and I had another person in my town get raided and what turns up? an RPG.
Was this "arsenal" the type of "arsenal" we see on the news, where people have a handful of firearms and a couple thousand rounds of ammo? Because that's small time.
Was the RPG deactivated?
Frazzled wrote:
Alex C wrote: LOL @ Hi-Point Carbine being considered an "assault weapon".
Well it does assault the senses.
Bill goes nowhere. Its almost liken the pointless posturing the Republicans do.
I liked the recent California bill though on the mental illness based restraining orders on removing firearms from the house.
So if, for example, my wife went to the doctor for depression, I have to turn my guns in? No thanks.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ustrello wrote: Don't get me wrong, I think shooting guns is fun and they are a right to every american. But the gun fetish culture in america now is out of control
What's out of control is this PC culture that wants to curbstomp on people's rights for no good reason.
I better bow out early, I can feel my blood pressure rising already.
30 thousand rounds plus, an m60, vietnam war ar-15s etc, so yeah a literal arsenal. and no the RPG was not deactivated and he had two or three rounds in his house for it.
So basically every single semi auto is subject to the California "OMG if it has a pistol grip or adjustable stock" it is an assault weapon.
Love how we didnt even get a page into this before someone stereotypes gun owners as paranoid becaause no one wants to take their guns.
They just want to ban 90+% of them based on ergonomic/cosmetic features... totally different.
Now any handicapped or people with smaller hands/arms who use these features, I'm sure they just did it for the extra killing power that we all know these features add... much in the same way that wheelchair ramps increase a buildings deadliness by 400%, its only reasonable that we now make them submit to such well thought out laws that only experts on the subject were allowed to draft.
easysauce wrote: So basically every single semi auto is subject to the California "OMG if it has a pistol grip or adjustable stock" it is an assault weapon.
Love how we didnt even get a page into this before someone stereotypes gun owners as paranoid becaause no one wants to take their guns.
They just want to ban 90+% of them based on ergonomic/cosmetic features... totally different.
You are good at context aren't you? I was painting a stereotypical portrait to counter his to show how stupid it was.
Detachable front grip which can also be use as a weapon Bi-Pod......so if you slap a front grip to a .22 rifle its considered a Assault Rifle now? What about the ole school Bi-pods where you can slide it over a barrel eh
Edit
As for the M60 bit. Way to go there high speed. A M60 a crew serve weapon not an assault rifle
Seriously though who needs to milsim out a 9mm rifle.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: Detachable front grip which can also be use as a weapon Bi-Pod......so if you slap a front grip to a .22 rifle its considered a Assault Rifle now? What about the ole school Bi-pods where you can slide it over a barrel eh
Edit
As for the M60 bit. Way to go there high speed. A M60 a crew serve weapon not an assault rifle
It was a crew weapon? Man I better tell that to my uncle who carried one in vietnam, he would of been pissed that he was using it solo.
Ustrello wrote: Seriously though who needs to milsim out a 9mm rifle.
As you appear to be quite slow on the uptake, it has absolutely nothing to do with "need".
Ustrello wrote: It was a crew weapon? Man I better tell that to my uncle who carried one in vietnam, he would of been pissed that he was using it solo.
US Army designates it as a crew-served weapon. Did he have squadmates carrying ammo and barrels? Boom. Crew-served.
Ustrello wrote: Seriously though who needs to milsim out a 9mm rifle.
As you appear to be quite slow on the uptake, it has absolutely nothing to do with "need".
Ustrello wrote: It was a crew weapon? Man I better tell that to my uncle who carried one in vietnam, he would of been pissed that he was using it solo.
US Army designates it as a crew-served weapon. Did he have squadmates carrying ammo and barrels? Boom. Crew-served.
No I am just calling a person a tool and a sad person for feeling the need to play army when you can just go sign up for the real thing. But you can use it as a single person can you not?
More left-wing stupidity and total firearm ignorance. Focusing on weapons which cause no appreciable harm.
As for the M60, yes its crew served. It only takes one person to fire it, but it takes another person to carry all the ammo it will need. Just because one dude can operate it doesn't mean its not crew served.
Welllllll.... that's a bit far. Obviously you left some wiggle in there with "appreciable", but plenty of people have been shot dead with AR-15s domestically. I'm not saying that's a good enough reason to ban them, but let's not dance around what they are either.
To be clear, I think this ban is not a good idea; as it would cover 4 guns I own.
Welllllll.... that's a bit far. Obviously you left some wiggle in there with "appreciable", but plenty of people have been shot dead with AR-15s domestically. I'm not saying that's a good enough reason to ban them, but let's not dance around what they are either.
Look at hand guns vs any type of long gun. The FBI doesn't even track how many people get killed with specific types of long guns to even come close to saying that ARs are a major culprit, even among crimes done with just rifles. And rifles themselves are a tiny minority of gun crime, the vast chunk of which is pistols.
Yes, so called "assault weapons" and big scary looking rifles are minuscule and cause no appreciable harm. Statistically, they are about as close as you could get to causing no harm at all. Especially with gun violence, and violence in general, taking a nose dive.
And automatic weapons are literally not on the radar at all. I think the last time an automatic weapon was used in a crime was back in the 90s or something during a bank robbery.
Ouze wrote: Welllllll.... that's a bit far. Obviously you left some wiggle in there with "appreciable", but plenty of people have been shot dead with AR-15s domestically. I'm not saying that's a good enough reason to ban them, but let's not dance around what they are either.
To be clear, I think this ban is not a good idea; as it would cover 4 guns I own.
Total murders in 2014 involving a weapon- 11,961
Murders where a rifle was used in 2014 - 248
Murders where a knife was used in 2014 - 1,567
Murders where a blunt instrument was used in 2014 - 435
Murders where fists/hands/feet used in 2014 - 660
I think "appreciable" is an apt expression to use given those figures.
Deaths from rifles has declined from 367 in 2010, to 332 in 2011, 298 in 2012, 285 in 2013, and now 248 in 2014. 2015's figures have not yet been released by the FBI. This legislation is not fixing a problem and will have no discernible impact on crime.
That being said, a lot of you need to tone down the rudeness, including "No I am just calling a person a tool", "More left-wing stupidity", etc. Any more of that will see people having time off from the OT if they've been warned for rudeness before, and I can guarantee that a lot of you have...
Ouze wrote: Welllllll.... that's a bit far. Obviously you left some wiggle in there with "appreciable", but plenty of people have been shot dead with AR-15s domestically. I'm not saying that's a good enough reason to ban them, but let's not dance around what they are either.
To be clear, I think this ban is not a good idea; as it would cover 4 guns I own.
Total murders in 2014 involving a weapon- 11,961
Murders where a rifle was used in 2014 - 248
Murders where a knife was used in 2014 - 1,567
Murders where a blunt instrument was used in 2014 - 435
Murders where fists/hands/feet used in 2014 - 660
I think "appreciable" is an apt expression to use given those figures.
Well, "appreciable" is a pretty vague word. That being said you're mostly preaching to the choir. I do think we have a really high level of gun violence in the US, and I do think we need to do something. That being said, this isn't that "something". I'm not really sure what that something is, exactly, but I think it's a little intellectually dishonest to say that we need to ban AR-15s because they were used in the San Bernardino shootings without also mentioning that the AR-15s in question were already illegal in California (for example).
This does nothing at all whatsoever about violence with handguns, which is of course where the vast majority of firearm violence actually happens.
There is another measure, mentioned briefly on the previous page, that I am a little more OK with - in that you can petition a court that someone is unstable and there is a hearing to determine if there is probable cause to temporarily hold that person's firearms. I have a family member who is a paranoid schizophrenic who refuses to take his medication, and you not believe how fething hard it is to try to have someone like that assisted unless they are actively hurting themselves or someone else despite how clearly crazy they are. Financial "harm" doesn't count, which is why he's on the verge of homelessness and losing his car despite having a stable pension and income otherwise. That's probably another thread though.
Ouze wrote: Well, "appreciable" is a pretty vague word.
Meaning; "large or important enough to be noticed."
Ouze wrote: That being said you're mostly preaching to the choir. I do think we have a really high level of gun violence in the US, and I do think we need to do something. That being said, this isn't that "something". I'm not really sure what that something is, exactly, but I think it's a little intellectually dishonest to say that we need to ban AR-15s because they were used in the San Bernardino shootings without also mentioning that the AR-15s in question were already illegal in California (for example).
This does nothing at all whatsoever about violence with handguns, which is of course where the vast majority of firearm violence actually happens.
There is another measure, mentioned briefly on the previous page, that I am a little more OK with - in that you can petition a court that someone is unstable and there is a hearing to determine if there is probable cause to temporarily hold that person's firearms. I have a family member who is a paranoid schizophrenic who refuses to take his medication, and you not believe how fething hard it is to try to have someone like that assisted unless they are actively hurting themselves or someone else despite how clearly crazy they are. Financial "harm" doesn't count, which is why he's on the verge of homelessness and losing his car despite having a stable pension and income otherwise. That's probably another thread though.
Because I really don't feel like retyping it;
If we are a society want to do something about "gun violence" then we tackle the root cause of the violence. We can work on;
- better access to mental health care
- more investment in mental health
- reducing the stigma surrounding mental health and it's treatment
- end the War on Drugs which is diverting resources away from violent offenders
- end for profit prisons
- end the revolving door on violent criminals
- inner city deprivation
A ban on a category of firearm, which causes less harm to society than fists, based on the cosmetic features of the item is not the solution.
I'm not sure what point is being presented by the "if you arbitrarily eliminate most categories of gun violence, you somehow prove there isn't much gun violence" chart.
Also, some of it is factually incorrect. For example, 10,560 less 80% is not 1,712, which shows you have exhaustively researched the other "facts" are - like, for example, the 80% of homicides are gang violence is true... for Chicago, but not the rest of the country.
I have no argument with any of your suggestions and have advocated for most of them previously.
Ouze wrote: I'm not sure what point is being presented by the "if you arbitrarily eliminate most categories of gun violence, you somehow prove there isn't much gun violence" chart.
Because removing classes of death unrelated to violence to show a greater context for the figures is "arbitrarily" eliminating most categories.
Suicides should not be included in "gun violence" stats because it artificially inflates the numbers, and points to mental health issues. Therefore not a gun violence issue. Likewise with negligent discharges being counted as "gun violence"
But of you want to keep the other categories bar suicide in the discussion then that leaves 12,800 deaths from a population of 318,900,000. That is 0.04% And again, this is for all firearms - when we consider just rifles that number drops to 248, or 0.00007%. So no, there is no appreciable deaths caused by "assault rifles".
So what are the leading causes of death?
Firearms, much less deaths by rifles, are not even in the Top 10 causes of death in the United States.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: the 80% of homicides are gang violence is true... for Chicago, but not the rest of the country.
I have no problem ignoring the 80% gang related figure, or the other numbers you quoted in relation to the impact of gangs, as it really does not impact my argument one way or the other.
Threaded barrels are a big no-no in the list, has there ever been a rash of crimes with people using silenced semi automatic rifles? I don't understand how a threaded barrel makes an impact on a weapon becoming "assault" style.
Tompson weapons are cited, is this the roaring 20's? Do we seriously have lots of murders being committed with 90+ year old vintage Tommy guns? Can we also outlaw wearing pin stripes and fedoras?
Ustrello wrote: Seriously though who needs to milsim out a 9mm rifle.
As you appear to be quite slow on the uptake, it has absolutely nothing to do with "need".
Ustrello wrote: It was a crew weapon? Man I better tell that to my uncle who carried one in vietnam, he would of been pissed that he was using it solo.
US Army designates it as a crew-served weapon. Did he have squadmates carrying ammo and barrels? Boom. Crew-served.
No I am just calling a person a tool and a sad person for feeling the need to play army when you can just go sign up for the real thing. But you can use it as a single person can you not?
I'm taking this wasn't aim at me.
Clarify a bit more on the crew serve M60 that has been replaced by the M249 SAW and the M240B. Both of those weapons are also crew served.
One S/M will carry the weapon with like 400 rounds. (This weapon(s) is the life of the platoon) plus spare barrel (the M60 along with the 240B and M249 SAW also have bipods
One S/M will carry his own carbine/rifle (M4/M16) plus additional 400 rounds maybe more depending how hairy it is going out the Wire (not including his/her basic load of ammo for his/her assigned weapon). Also tripod and Traverse and elevation locks more likely another spare barrel.
Then you will have other individuals in the platoon carry link ammo the for 60 of either 100 to 400 rounds
If one person is operating the M60 by him/herself then the weapon is not being used to its full effect.
stanman wrote: Threaded barrels are a big no-no in the list, has there ever been a rash of crimes with people using silenced semi automatic rifles? I don't understand how a threaded barrel makes an impact on a weapon becoming "assault" style.
No, but don't let facts get in the way of scaremongering. Suppressors, flash hiders and compensators are apparently evil things only used by murderers to conceal their disgusting acts of mass violence. We must do something, right? Won't you think of all the straw men we could save by banning these unnecessary implements of death that nobody needs?
stanman wrote: Tompson weapons are cited, is this the roaring 20's? Do we seriously have lots of murders being committed with 90+ year old vintage Tommy guns? Can we also outlaw wearing pin stripes and fedoras?
Auto-Ordnance still manufactures semi-auto versions of the Thompson. The spirit of Al Capone is infused into each one through dark arts upon their creation and they must be banned for the good of mankind.
On its face it doesn't sound absolutely horrible. My concern is how many of these firearms will be "lost" by the police after their "temporary" confiscation. Like this.
I have 3 ruger 10/22s and they are considered assault rifles and would be banned according to this! It's absolute bogus and doesn't stand a chance in passing and the left wing nuts know it doesn't but then they can come back and say the NRA and republicans stopped them from passing a law that would make America a safer place that's all there trying to do
Ustrello wrote: Seriously though who needs to milsim out a 9mm rifle.
As you appear to be quite slow on the uptake, it has absolutely nothing to do with "need".
Ustrello wrote: It was a crew weapon? Man I better tell that to my uncle who carried one in vietnam, he would of been pissed that he was using it solo.
US Army designates it as a crew-served weapon. Did he have squadmates carrying ammo and barrels? Boom. Crew-served.
No I am just calling a person a tool and a sad person for feeling the need to play army when you can just go sign up for the real thing. But you can use it as a single person can you not?
I'm taking this wasn't aim at me.
Clarify a bit more on the crew serve M60 that has been replaced by the M249 SAW and the M240B. Both of those weapons are also crew served.
One S/M will carry the weapon with like 400 rounds. (This weapon(s) is the life of the platoon) plus spare barrel (the M60 along with the 240B and M249 SAW also have bipods
One S/M will carry his own carbine/rifle (M4/M16) plus additional 400 rounds maybe more depending how hairy it is going out the Wire (not including his/her basic load of ammo for his/her assigned weapon). Also tripod and Traverse and elevation locks more likely another spare barrel.
Then you will have other individuals in the platoon carry link ammo the for 60 of either 100 to 400 rounds
If one person is operating the M60 by him/herself then the weapon is not being used to its full effect.
And anyone claiming such is most likely blowing smoke up your ass.
I wonder if anyone has pointed out to them that more people have died, and indeed more "mass shootings" (using the new politically correct definition of "3 or more casualties" or whatever it is) have occured as a result of handguns and "hunting/sport rifles" than "assault weapons".
Oh, but that would be inconvenient because those dont look scary enough.
ChrisRR wrote: I have 3 ruger 10/22s and they are considered assault rifles and would be banned according to this! It's absolute bogus and doesn't stand a chance in passing and the left wing nuts know it doesn't but then they can come back and say the NRA and republicans stopped them from passing a law that would make America a safer place that's all there trying to do
chaos0xomega wrote: I wonder if anyone has pointed out to them that more people have died, and indeed more "mass shootings" (using the new politically correct definition of "3 or more casualties" or whatever it is) have occured as a result of handguns and "hunting/sport rifles" than "assault weapons".
Oh, but that would be inconvenient because those dont look scary enough.
I think the point is that assault rifles are capable of killing far more people in less time than pistols. Basically, if there is a guy going nuts and deciding he wants to go out to a school and shoot some random kids, better he is armed with a pistol than with an assault rifle. Isn't that the reasoning behind banning assault rifles?
Yes, but despite the outsized media attention to those events, they really aren't significant numerically in the number of gun homicides. They're the equivalent of an occasional shot glass of water into a bucket, where there is a nonstop drip that fills the rest of it up over time.
chaos0xomega wrote: I wonder if anyone has pointed out to them that more people have died, and indeed more "mass shootings" (using the new politically correct definition of "3 or more casualties" or whatever it is) have occured as a result of handguns and "hunting/sport rifles" than "assault weapons".
Oh, but that would be inconvenient because those dont look scary enough.
I think the point is that assault rifles are capable of killing far more people in less time than pistols. Basically, if there is a guy going nuts and deciding he wants to go out to a school and shoot some random kids, better he is armed with a pistol than with an assault rifle. Isn't that the reasoning behind banning assault rifles?
Virginia Tech had 32 dead with pistols. As far as I'm tracking that is the "deadliest" school killing with a firearm.
Honestly, when you are working in enclosed spaces, the type of fire arm that you are using really have little impact on the matter. It is the amount of time that you have to carry out the shooting. Magazine sizes have no impact, because you can just carry more magazines, and anyone with any amount of time training on the weapon can swap a magazine out quickly enough that no one can make any real reaction.
As others have pointed out in here, "assault weapon" bans do nothing more then try to make the anti-gun crowd feel good about themselves. The AWB that we previously had showed no concrete affect on weapon violence, and some of the best studies out there say that further bans will do nothing more then "MAY lower violence".
Ouze wrote: Yes, but despite the outsized media attention to those events, they really aren't significant numerically in the number of gun homicides. They're the equivalent of an occasional shot glass of water into a bucket, where there is a nonstop drip that fills the rest of it up over time.
Rocket launchers, artillery guns and machine guns are all banned right? Yet they are not significant in the number of homicides at all? Than why ban them?
Because of their potential of causing harm, right? Than why should assault weapons not be included in this list?
Ouze wrote: Yes, but despite the outsized media attention to those events, they really aren't significant numerically in the number of gun homicides. They're the equivalent of an occasional shot glass of water into a bucket, where there is a nonstop drip that fills the rest of it up over time.
Rocket launchers, artillery guns and machine guns are all banned right? Yet they are not significant in the number of homicides at all? Than why ban them?
Because of their potential of causing harm, right? Than why should assault weapons not be included in this list?
Ouze wrote: Yes, but despite the outsized media attention to those events, they really aren't significant numerically in the number of gun homicides. They're the equivalent of an occasional shot glass of water into a bucket, where there is a nonstop drip that fills the rest of it up over time.
Rocket launchers, artillery guns and machine guns are all banned right? Yet they are not significant in the number of homicides at all? Than why ban them?
Because of their potential of causing harm, right? Than why should assault weapons not be included in this list?
Some, potentially all, of them can be owned depending on state and paperwork.
But yes, why ban them?
And so-called "assault weapons" (notice that the bill had to define the term, because currently it is just fearmonger-speak) should not be on "the list" because then in a few years we'll hear about psychopaths killing people with a musket and suddenly they become the next big evil inanimate object that needs banning and we're left with nothing.
Ouze wrote: Yes, but despite the outsized media attention to those events, they really aren't significant numerically in the number of gun homicides. They're the equivalent of an occasional shot glass of water into a bucket, where there is a nonstop drip that fills the rest of it up over time.
Rocket launchers, artillery guns and machine guns are all banned right? Yet they are not significant in the number of homicides at all? Than why ban them?
Because of their potential of causing harm, right? Than why should assault weapons not be included in this list?
Well, they aren't outright banned, just majorly restricted to the point of a de-facto ban. You need special permits, licensing, ect.
And the potential to cause harm is the point, but the question remains, whether there is adiquite risk to institute a ban. That's pretty much the main pro-gun/pro-gun-restrictions argument. Whether or not they are an adiquite risk to need a ban.
stanman wrote: Can we also outlaw wearing pin stripes and fedoras?
I would have no issue with banning fedoras
Alex C wrote: No, but don't let facts get in the way of scaremongering. Suppressors, flash hiders and compensators are apparently evil things only used by murderers to conceal their disgusting acts of mass violence. We must do something, right? Won't you think of all the straw men we could save by banning these unnecessary implements of death that nobody needs?
I skimmed some of the legislation but is the shoulder thingy that goes up now a prohibited feature?
Ouze wrote: I'm not sure what point is being presented by the "if you arbitrarily eliminate most categories of gun violence, you somehow prove there isn't much gun violence" chart.
It's not arbitrary. Preventing people from hurting other people is more important than preventing people from hurting themselves accidentally, and both are more important than preventing deliberate self-harm. If 60% of all firearms deaths are from people deliberately destroying themselves, that is unfortunate but it does not justify curtailing everyone else's rights in the name of rendering us incapable rather than merely unwilling to do the same. I mean, this is a hobby forum; would you really be okay with banning X-acto knives just because the government does not trust you to not want to slit your own throat?
I think a lot of it comes from the rifles posing a greater threat to law enforcement than the average citizen. Pistols are what typically work very well in mass shooting as they are easier to use in confined spaces and they can be concealed much easier, however if you are facing people in body armor like the cops then rifles have the extra ability to penetrate that armor.
Regardless of what laws are passed the average citizen is a sitting duck, completely unarmed and unarmored so it makes very little difference what weapons the criminals employ as handguns and shotguns will kill pretty much on par with semi auto rifles (and in some situations better rifles) but rifles scare law enforcement as it beats their tactic-cool gear.
When the two guys in LA robbed the banks with fully automatic AKs wearing body armor it wasn't to deal with unarmed bank employees or citizens, it was done so they could fend off the cops and ultimately that's what the government wants to maintain control over. They cite it being for the "protection of the people" but that's never going to happen effectively as criminals won't obey the laws or limit themselves on what firearms they use, because criminals have no regard for the laws. But the government want to put hurdles in place that help limit the average person's access so that they maintain the upper hand in the police out gunning the general population. It's not really about protecting the population but rather protecting the law enforcement officers.
The most effective mass murder weapon is bombs, they are popular with terrorist because they are so effective both in terms of lethality and the general inability to counter them.
While I get your point of view Stanman, protection for the police/military/etc should not at all enter the equation when discussing the 2nd Amendment.
The primary purpose the 2nd Amendment was put into the Constitution was to ensure that the populace had a means to combat those people should it come down to it.
When we allow the government to restrict that, we are just giving the government that much more power over us.
Iron_Captain wrote: Rocket launchers, artillery guns and machine guns are all banned right? Yet they are not significant in the number of homicides at all? Than why ban them?
Because of their potential of causing harm, right? Than why should assault weapons not be included in this list?
The difference is that an "assault weapon" is something that a civilian can reasonably expect to use safely, without endangering anyone else. Rocket launchers, artillery, etc, are things that an average civilian can't reasonably expect to use safely, and so we ban (or at least heavily restrict) them so we don't have a bunch of deaths from idiots misusing them.
Ouze wrote: Removing gang violence and homicide seems pretty damn arbitrary.
It's somewhat arbitrary, but there's a reasonable point behind the argument. If you aren't involved in a gang then your chances of being involved in gang violence go down significantly. So if you're talking about the risks that the average person is exposed to then it makes sense to discard most of the gang violence.
Ouze wrote: Removing gang violence and homicide seems pretty damn arbitrary.
Removing justifiable homicides is not arbitrary, because the lawful use of force to protect innocent people is not bad.
Removing gang violence is done because the anti-gun legislation being pushed is not about disarming known criminals - they're already banned from owning firearms, and aren't going to quit just because their possession of a firearm is now double illegal.
Pistols are probably in the lead because of portability and their relative ease of concealment. While a big rifle might be scarier, it is far harder to sneak into a crowded place without people noticing.
TheWaspinator wrote: Pistols are probably in the lead because of portability and their relative ease of concealment. While a big rifle might be scarier, it is far harder to sneak into a crowded place without people noticing.
Indeed, and cost is also a factor. A $400 glock will work fine for the purposes of most drug dealers/gang members/crazies/etc. A $900 AR is hard to justify, especially if they plan on dumping it after use
Without bothering to read through three pages of gun/PC arguments, does the proposed law ban semi-automatic pistols, or just semi-auto pistols that are tricked out with military type features like a threaded barrel for a silencer, etc?
I can see that it basically bans semi-automatic long guns.
Very interesting thread. People may or may not know that American history is a hobby of mine (hell, I watched Gettysburg for the 100th time last night ) and I've been reading up a lot about the history of the second amendment, it's a fascinating subject but there are some things that bugs me:
Guns have been around in the USA since day one, and although gun control measures have ebbed and flowed over the years, something has fundamentally changed in the USA, and not for the better in my opinion. These include
1) There seems to a nihilistic attitude prevalent in mass shootings these days - the me me me attitude, that was never there before.
2) Gun ownership and gun control is more politicised than ever before in American history? Why is this?
I think the change of direction in the 1970s by the NRA, when they made gun control a partisan issue, rather than something to defend for every American, be they democrat or Republican, played a big part.
Now, I'm not expecting an in depth reply (but I'll take one anyway )
but why have these changes occurred? Or maybe you think they haven't occurred.
Ustrello wrote: Seriously though who needs to milsim out a 9mm rifle.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: Detachable front grip which can also be use as a weapon Bi-Pod......so if you slap a front grip to a .22 rifle its considered a Assault Rifle now? What about the ole school Bi-pods where you can slide it over a barrel eh
Edit
As for the M60 bit. Way to go there high speed. A M60 a crew serve weapon not an assault rifle
It was a crew weapon? Man I better tell that to my uncle who carried one in vietnam, he would of been pissed that he was using it solo.
You really should because you're coming off looking poorly after this exchange.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
stanman wrote: Threaded barrels are a big no-no in the list, has there ever been a rash of crimes with people using silenced semi automatic rifles? I don't understand how a threaded barrel makes an impact on a weapon becoming "assault" style.
Tompson weapons are cited, is this the roaring 20's? Do we seriously have lots of murders being committed with 90+ year old vintage Tommy guns? Can we also outlaw wearing pin stripes and fedoras?
They would have to be really wealthy criminals too. Have you seen the going rate for a genuine Chicago Piano these days? More than my parent's house.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
djones520 wrote: So in an attempt to not create another thread on a similar topic.
On its face it doesn't sound absolutely horrible. My concern is how many of these firearms will be "lost" by the police after their "temporary" confiscation. Like this.
Kilkrazy wrote: Without bothering to read through three pages of gun/PC arguments, does the proposed law ban semi-automatic pistols, or just semi-auto pistols that are tricked out with military type features like a threaded barrel for a silencer, etc?
I can see that it basically bans semi-automatic long guns.
You can read the text of the law without having to go through pages of arguements. It lists the features that are considered "evil" not far from the top of the OP.
The weirdest part of the pistol section is that, depending on how you read it, it appears to ban pistols with rails (as they can technically accept a forward grip, even though that modification is already covered under NFA law) or any pistol that can accept a threaded barrel. This means that most modern compact/full-size pistols are potentially banned under this law, regardless of if they actually HAVE a forward grip or threaded barrel.
The language "has the capacity to accept" isn't clear to me if it is only covering the detachable magazine part or if it also covers the list of "evil" features.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Very interesting thread. People may or may not know that American history is a hobby of mine (hell, I watched Gettysburg for the 100th time last night ) and I've been reading up a lot about the history of the second amendment, it's a fascinating subject but there are some things that bugs me:
Guns have been around in the USA since day one, and although gun control measures have ebbed and flowed over the years, something has fundamentally changed in the USA, and not for the better in my opinion. These include
1) There seems to a nihilistic attitude prevalent in mass shootings these days - the me me me attitude, that was never there before.
2) Gun ownership and gun control is more politicised than ever before in American history? Why is this?
I think the change of direction in the 1970s by the NRA, when they made gun control a partisan issue, rather than something to defend for every American, be they democrat or Republican, played a big part.
Now, I'm not expecting an in depth reply (but I'll take one anyway )
but why have these changes occurred? Or maybe you think they haven't occurred.
There is hardly a "nihilistic" attitude towards mass shootings. They are horrible, and should be mourned my all. That does not mean though that they should be used as a tool to change one of the most fundamental aspects of our nation. Especially when put into context of the greater picture.
Let me try to lay out my viewpoint on the matter though. I am a member of the US Military. When I was 17 I took an oath, that I have re-affirmed twice in the last 14 years, and will be re-affirming (for the last time) in February.
"I, (state name of enlistee), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States. That is the central charge of all members of the US Military. That has been what my life has been devoted towards for the last 14 years. Our right to own fire arms, our right to bear fire arms, is a central tenent of that Constitution. To those who wrote it, it was such an important tenent that they included it 2nd in a list of 10 items that they considered so inviolate they had to specifically ensure protections for. To me, nothing is more grievous then attacking the Bill of Rights.
Unfortunately though, our 2nd Amendment is the only one that is ever under constant attack. Well, I'll back off on that a bit, because there does seem to have been a trend towards the suppression of free speech in the last decade, largely by those of the same political leaning as those who routinely attack our 2nd.
In the end though, I look at it like this. Loss of life is horrible. Loss of liberty is more horrible though. Especially since we've seen time and time again, the more liberty you tend to lose, the more likely those who take it away become more willing to take life as well.
Edit: I hope this makes some sense. I sometimes find it really hard to explain myself on this.
Kilkrazy wrote: Without bothering to read through three pages of gun/PC arguments, does the proposed law ban semi-automatic pistols, or just semi-auto pistols that are tricked out with military type features like a threaded barrel for a silencer, etc?
What do you mean by "military type" feature? Suppressors have many civilian applications
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: 1) There seems to a nihilistic attitude prevalent in mass shootings these days - the me me me attitude, that was never there before.
Because for many people it comes down to the fact that after mass shootings we hear the same old script trotted out again blaming an inanimate object for the actions of men, and use the event as a political tool to attack our enemies - see the initial reactions to San Bernardino before the identify of the shooters was confirmed. All the while we ignore the victims and go through the lives of the attackers and publish their manifestos so that in death we give them the audience and validation that they were not given in life. This way when the next socially isolated individual with a mental health condition has had enough of whatever perceived injustice he (and it is almost invariably a he) is suffering then he knows what it will take to have his grievances aired.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: 2) Gun ownership and gun control is more politicised than ever before in American history? Why is this?
I only moved here in 2012 so I cannot speak to that with any authority unfortunately, but with the debates on abortion and gay marriage largely settled this may be the next big battleground. Which is unusual as gun control has not been a winning political issues as it very definitely straddles both sides of the political debate.
Mr. Burning wrote: Forgive my ignorance but why is a threaded barrel important?
How does a threaded barrel turn a firearm into an umlawful merciless killing machine? (tongue in cheek people).
A threaded barrel allows the owner to fit a suppressor to the firearm (suppressors are heavily regulated and require permission from the ATF to own). Suppressors are not commonly used in crimes. The purpose of a suppressor is to suppress, reduce, the report of each shot. Contrary to Hollywood myth it does not make the firearm silent. Suppressors have a variety of civilian applications from hearing protection to hunting as reducing the report of each shot will not spook other animals or disturb people in the vicinity .
I just hope each and every sponsor of this bill faces an expensive primary challenge in the upcoming election cycle. The only way to stop this nonsense is to make the congress critters who attempt it pay for their actions.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I have a buddy who loves his suppressor for hog hunting. It allows him to take out several in the pack/herd. If you've seen what wild boar do to crops you would understand why farmers (including my buddy) like the capability a suppressor provides.
CptJake wrote: I just hope each and every sponsor of this bill faces an expensive primary challenge in the upcoming election cycle. The only way to stop this nonsense is to make the congress critters who attempt it pay for their actions.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I have a buddy who loves his suppressor for hog hunting. It allows him to take out several in the pack/herd. If you've seen what wild boar do to crops you would understand why farmers (including my buddy) like the capability a suppressor provides.
Yes, he has the required stamps for his.
I keep getting stationed in area's that don't really have hog problems. Makes me sad.
Its sponsors are in districts that are protected*. Indeed, its likely they would be primaried by even stronger anti-firearms fanatics. Looking at the list, its party line sponsorship-all D's with the plurality from California, New York, and Massachusetts.
Mr. Burning wrote: As an outsider to the gun control debate it does seem that most proposals hinge and breakdown on a dogmatic hold to certain minutiae.
Genuinely curious about how the parts and modifications listed in the act affect a firearms utility.
Mainly because the devil is in the details. An assault weapon has traditionally been defined as a man portable weapon firing an intermediate cartridge from a detachable magazine, and is capable of select fire. An AR 15 does not match this definition because it is not select fire - select fire would be a firearm capable of automatic or burst fire (2-3 rounds shot with each pull of the trigger). But politicians advocating for gun control and many journalists will describe an AR as an assault weapon to make it sound scary to those who do not understand firearms.
The definition of assault weapon being proposed goes further than the 1994 ban (expired) as now an "assault rifle" only needs a detachable magazine and the capacity to accept one of the following features; a pistol grip, a forward grip, a folding, telescoping, or detachable stock, a grenade launcher or rocket launcher ,a barrel shroud, a threaded barrel.
So what do these features do? A pistol grip lets you hold the rifle. It is not more or less dangerous than a rifle grip. A forward grip allows better control of a firearm when in use as it allows the operator more leverage on the rifle. A folding or telescoping stock allows the rifle's length to be somewhat shortened and is useful if you have people shooting the gun with each with their own stature (the father teaching his daughter to shoot can collapse the stock to allow the daughter to better grip the rifle and manipulate the controls). A grenade launcher or rocker launcher is a complete misnomer. These are considered destructive devices (as is the ammunition) and are highly regulated by the ATF, as well as prohibitively expensive. I am not aware that there is a crime wave involving the use of these weapons. A barrel shroud is a device that goes around the barrel to prevent the operator burning their hands on barrel when they shoot the rifle. A threaded barrel we have already covered.
Reading those list of features you will see that they do not add any additional lethality to a firearm. Instead making those features unlawful actually makes operating a firearm less safe.
So how does this impact owning a firearm? This is an AR15
It is a completely legal semi automatic firearm. If this new law were to pass it would be classed as an "assault rifle" because as well as having the detachable magazine it has;
- a collapsible stock
- a pistol grip
- a barrel shroud
Because it has a rail system it also has the capacity to accept a forward grip, and a grenade launcher or rocket launcher. Also the barrel may be fairly easily switched out or machined to incorporate a threaded barrel.
In short millions of legally held firearms will be made illegal not because they are more dangerous, but because they have certain cosmetic features. If you read the list of firearms that are explicitly named that is almost all of the most commonly owned rifles.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CptJake wrote: I just hope each and every sponsor of this bill faces an expensive primary challenge in the upcoming election cycle. The only way to stop this nonsense is to make the congress critters who attempt it pay for their actions.
Quite a few politicians suffered recall defeats over their attempts to degrade the Second Amendment. However the sponsors of this Bill seem to reside in "safe" areas so any punishment from the electorate is unlikely.
Frazzled wrote: Its sponsors are in districts that are protected*. Indeed, its likely they would be primaried by even stronger anti-firearms fanatics. Looking at the list, its party line sponsorship-all D's with the plurality from California, New York, and Massachusetts.
I say bring it to a full vote.
*To be fair, they all are at this point.
I'm sure most of the Ds who voted for the ACA and then lost their seats thought they were protected too.
In short millions of legally held firearms will be made illegal not because they are more dangerous, but because they have certain cosmetic features. If you read the list of firearms that are explicitly named that is almost all of the most commonly owned rifles.
Please show me one modern firearm without a barrel made form the frame (some .380 pistols) that couldn't have a replacement barrel put in that is threaded. THATS ALL FIREARMS.
If that were an issue wit would have been better to make suppressors illegal without special government approval. Oh wait, THATS WHAT WE HAVE NOW.
Frazzled wrote: Its sponsors are in districts that are protected*. Indeed, its likely they would be primaried by even stronger anti-firearms fanatics. Looking at the list, its party line sponsorship-all D's with the plurality from California, New York, and Massachusetts.
I say bring it to a full vote.
*To be fair, they all are at this point.
I'm sure most of the Ds who voted for the ACA and then lost their seats thought they were protected too.
Actualy turnover barely meets minimum statistical requirements at any time, but thats for the politics thread.
Now you point has more merit in local/state elections, as referencing the trouncing Colorado supporters took in recalls after their little law was put in place.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: A threaded barrel allows the owner to fit a suppressor to the firearm (suppressors are heavily regulated and require permission from the ATF to own). Suppressors are not commonly used in crimes. The purpose of a suppressor is to suppress, reduce, the report of each shot. Contrary to Hollywood myth it does not make the firearm silent. Suppressors have a variety of civilian applications from hearing protection to hunting as reducing the report of each shot will not spook other animals or disturb people in the vicinity .
It's pretty odd that suppressors are regulated at all, IMO. We have very much stricter gun laws here (getting a concealed carry permit is just about impossible for a civilian, for example) but just about anything you'd need to trick out a gun is legal. My .22 plinking rifle is a Sako with threaded barrel right from the factory and the suppressor was bought over the counter no questions asked (because it's a perfectly normal thing to have). Pistols tricked out like that are mostly for guys doing some sort of tacticool practical shooting, and if they ever decided to commit a crime their first choice of tool would probably not be a pistol valued at several thousand € for all the extra customization.
It is a completely legal semi automatic firearm. If this new law were to pass it would be classed as an "assault rifle" because as well as having the detachable magazine it has;
- a collapsible stock
- a pistol grip
- a barrel shroud
Because it has a rail system it also has the capacity to accept a forward grip, and a grenade launcher or rocket launcher. Also the barrel may be fairly easily switched out or machined to incorporate a threaded barrel.
Technically, it like virtually all AR-15s already has a threaded barrel; you just need to remove the muzzle device (which is trivial even for a non-gunsmith, you only need a wrench and a replacement crush washer which is less than a dollar). The only time the flash hider is pin welded is when it's needed to bring a 14.5" barrel to 16" (this is sort of uncommon).
Anyway, it's very frustrating when legislators waste time on garbage like this that they know won't pass. It's just as irritating as the dozen or whatever votes on repealing the ACA; we get it, we know. Do something useful instead.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Very interesting thread. People may or may not know that American history is a hobby of mine (hell, I watched Gettysburg for the 100th time last night ) and I've been reading up a lot about the history of the second amendment, it's a fascinating subject but there are some things that bugs me:
Guns have been around in the USA since day one, and although gun control measures have ebbed and flowed over the years, something has fundamentally changed in the USA, and not for the better in my opinion. These include
1) There seems to a nihilistic attitude prevalent in mass shootings these days - the me me me attitude, that was never there before.
2) Gun ownership and gun control is more politicised than ever before in American history? Why is this?
I think the change of direction in the 1970s by the NRA, when they made gun control a partisan issue, rather than something to defend for every American, be they democrat or Republican, played a big part.
Now, I'm not expecting an in depth reply (but I'll take one anyway )
but why have these changes occurred? Or maybe you think they haven't occurred.
There is hardly a "nihilistic" attitude towards mass shootings. They are horrible, and should be mourned my all. That does not mean though that they should be used as a tool to change one of the most fundamental aspects of our nation. Especially when put into context of the greater picture.
Let me try to lay out my viewpoint on the matter though. I am a member of the US Military. When I was 17 I took an oath, that I have re-affirmed twice in the last 14 years, and will be re-affirming (for the last time) in February.
"I, (state name of enlistee), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States. That is the central charge of all members of the US Military. That has been what my life has been devoted towards for the last 14 years. Our right to own fire arms, our right to bear fire arms, is a central tenent of that Constitution. To those who wrote it, it was such an important tenent that they included it 2nd in a list of 10 items that they considered so inviolate they had to specifically ensure protections for. To me, nothing is more grievous then attacking the Bill of Rights.
Unfortunately though, our 2nd Amendment is the only one that is ever under constant attack. Well, I'll back off on that a bit, because there does seem to have been a trend towards the suppression of free speech in the last decade, largely by those of the same political leaning as those who routinely attack our 2nd.
In the end though, I look at it like this. Loss of life is horrible. Loss of liberty is more horrible though. Especially since we've seen time and time again, the more liberty you tend to lose, the more likely those who take it away become more willing to take life as well.
Edit: I hope this makes some sense. I sometimes find it really hard to explain myself on this.
It makes sense, and I respect your viewpoint.
Before I make my next point, I will say, as a libertarian, I am sympathetic to the idea of law abiding citizens using guns to protect their homes and lives from criminals.
However, it should be said, that democracy is a living, breathing thing, and as a student of American history, I do respect the wisdom that your founders put into the constitution, including the 2/3 clause,
and the day may come when a 2 thirds majority of the American people might decide to scrap the 2nd once and for all...
Automatically Appended Next Post: On another note, is it just me, or did I notice the absence of the old German MP44 on that list?
Technically, it's not a AK variant - it's the daddy
Could be time for people to stock up on classic WW2 weapons.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Its sponsors are in districts that are protected*. Indeed, its likely they would be primaried by even stronger anti-firearms fanatics. Looking at the list, its party line sponsorship-all D's with the plurality from California, New York, and Massachusetts.
I say bring it to a full vote.
*To be fair, they all are at this point.
I may not agree with them, but I can respect a politicians who puts their money where their mouth is. Too many broken promises these days from politicians.
Don't get me started about Scotland and London's promises!
I'm a gun owner in Canada. I use my gun for hunting, target practice, and every fall we get together and blast vegetables for the giggles.
In Canada, our guns are licensed, either non-restricted, restricted, or prohibited. For example, a weapon with barrel length less than 18.5" would be restricted, including most if not all pistols. If you can't possess the license, you can't possess a firearm. Sound mental health is a requirement, in so much that if you require regular observation, you may not possess a license. "Mild" issues such as depression, anxiety, and the like are not grounds to lose your license. In essence, they take away your license in situations where you'd lose your driver's license, such as incarceration or forced medical confinement.
Acquisition of a license requires that a safety course be taken.
Semi-Automatic, Non-restricted rifles may have an ammunition capacity of 5 cartridges. Non-prohibited semi-auto pistols may have a capacity of up to 10 cartridges. Rifles that fire 0.22 ammo have no limit, other than that the ammo-storage device may not be able to be fitted to a pistol. If that is the case, the 10 cartridge limit applies. So hypothetically, one could have a drum of 100 rimfire cartridges for a rifle, and that would be ok.
In general, automatic weapons are prohibited.
There are exceptions, particularly in regards to requirements for lawful employment [Security, Law Enforcement, Military] and a category called "Protection of Life".
Two cases were Biker Gangs, either at war or internal killings. Two were cases of one family member killing other family members. One case was a man that killed 4 police officers and himself, so the "5" mark included a suicide. The only "Mass Shooting" we've had was at the Ecole Polytechnique Massacre, which bears a number of similarities to many of the Mass Shootings in the States.
A single white male goes to a school and starts killing women, more or less at random.
In 45 years, we've had that happen once. I guess Canada is slow, only participating in America's annual pastime only once. Bearing arms, designed only to kill PEOPLE may have been important at one time, in America, but holding onto that in light of the unimaginable loss of life that occurs on a regular basis? It hurts to watch.
In 45 years, we've had that happen once. I guess Canada is slow, only participating in America's annual pastime only once. Bearing arms, designed only to kill PEOPLE may have been important at one time, in America, but holding onto that in light of the unimaginable loss of life that occurs on a regular basis? It hurts to watch.
So our 'national pastime' is mass shootings?
Nice.
As pointed out repeatedly in this thread and others, plenty of other things/activities also lead to 'unimaginable loss of life', and many of them lead to that loss of life on a much larger scale than the items the bill being discussed would ban.
Well, I guess you shouldn't do anything about it, then. I mean, it's OTHER people being killed. Not us. So we'll just say that we don't have to do anything, because other stuff still kills you. It's just a fact of life that people need to have guns, so they can shoot each other. You're just saving them the hassle of living the rest of their natural lives.
Good on you. And it seems the mass shootings are about once a year, no?
greatbigtree wrote: Well, I guess you shouldn't do anything about it, then. I mean, it's OTHER people being killed. Not us. So we'll just say that we don't have to do anything, because other stuff still kills you. It's just a fact of life that people need to have guns, so they can shoot each other. You're just saving them the hassle of living the rest of their natural lives.
Good on you.
You're right. We should take over Canada. Your lack of firearms makes you weak and your maple reserves are just too tempting. Since your population is less than California and spread everywhere it will be doubly easy. I'll inform the girl scouts their time has finally come. As Saruman proclaimed while standing above the massed Uruk Hai - " TO WARRRR!"
Seriously though, its just that sort of preaching from the anti rights folk, especially foreign anti-rights folk, that does nothing but harden positions. I'm sure it felt good to type though.
Oh, the utter relief I felt at expressing myself was delicious! And when you can't make an argument to defend your position, I bet it feels like a pat of butter melting on your gonads, to dismiss the opinions of outsiders. Why listen to someone, when you can just believe in your own self righteousness?
It feels amazing. Let me tell you.
All I'm saying, is that if you'd like to improve one facet of lives, increasing the restrictions upon what and whom can own a firearm would probably be a good idea. It doesn't take away a person's ability to provide for their family. It doesn't even stop you from owning a pistol [see restricted firearms, above] if you're so inclined. It just tries to prevent people from getting tools designed specifically to kill people, at a range at which self defence would be all but impossible.
An over-under shotgun is not designed to kill people. It's designed to hunt small to medium game. It would be nearly impossible to achieve a mass killing with a weapon requiring a manual reload every two cartridges [well, shells in that case]. I don't know. I just can't understand fighting for a right to kill other people, quickly. It doesn't make sense to me.
Breotan wrote: So, by reading the first part of this bill, your 1911 is to be considered an Semiautomatic Assault Weapon?
Well, so much for "serious" gun control reform.
On the bright side they did eliminate the bayonet lug as a feature of an assault weapon, so historical firearms like certain muskets are no longer caught up in the madness
Automatically Appended Next Post:
greatbigtree wrote: I don't know. I just can't understand fighting for a right to kill other people, quickly. It doesn't make sense to me.
It's a wonderful thing then that no one is advocating for "a right to kill other people quickly"
greatbigtree wrote: I just can't understand fighting for a right to kill other people, quickly. It doesn't make sense to me.
And honestly, I can't understand willfully giving up ANY right I currently have, be they 1st, 2nd, 4th or whatever amendment protects them. It doesn't make sense to me to allow them to be taken by anyone.
And as has been pointed out repeatedly in this thread and others, NOTHING in the proposed bill would have anything close to a significant impact on the vast majority of gun violence in the US. So laws designed to infringe on my rights which have no chance of actually fixing the issue they are nominally written to fix are to be ridiculed, as are those who support infringing on my rights for little to no gain.
Ignorant, paranoid, left-wing anti-gun fearmongering has been a boon for the firearm industry. There are no better salesmen.
Same for NRA dues. If the left could go just 10 or 15 years without introducing a single anti-gun bill at the local, state or federal level, the NRA would starve to death.
It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the firearms/ammo industry and NRA are paying bribes to left-wing politicians to get them to keep proposing anti-gun measures that will never even make it out of committee.
greatbigtree wrote: I just can't understand fighting for a right to kill other people, quickly. It doesn't make sense to me.
And honestly, I can't understand willfully giving up ANY right I currently have, be they 1st, 2nd, 4th or whatever amendment protects them. It doesn't make sense to me to allow them to be taken by anyone.
And as has been pointed out repeatedly in this thread and others, NOTHING in the proposed bill would have anything close to a significant impact on the vast majority of gun violence in the US. So laws designed to infringe on my rights which have no chance of actually fixing the issue they are nominally written to fix are to be ridiculed, as are those who support infringing on my rights for little to no gain.
Last time I checked, murder is still illegal. Being able to possess guns vs being able to kill people with guns is not an Apples to Apples comparison.
greatbigtree wrote: I just can't understand fighting for a right to kill other people, quickly. It doesn't make sense to me.
And honestly, I can't understand willfully giving up ANY right I currently have, be they 1st, 2nd, 4th or whatever amendment protects them. It doesn't make sense to me to allow them to be taken by anyone..
They'll quarter the King's troops and horses in my house over my cold, dead body.
Breotan wrote: So, by reading the first part of this bill, your 1911 is to be considered an Semiautomatic Assault Weapon?
I think my 1911 is safe because I didn't get a tactical rail. The only weapons that would be banned are my shotgun (barrel shroud + pistol grip), my AK, my AR, and possibly my PMR-30 (pistol with a rail and 30 round magazine).
greatbigtree wrote: I just can't understand fighting for a right to kill other people, quickly. It doesn't make sense to me.
And honestly, I can't understand willfully giving up ANY right I currently have, be they 1st, 2nd, 4th or whatever amendment protects them. It doesn't make sense to me to allow them to be taken by anyone..
They'll quarter the King's troops and horses in my house over my cold, dead body.
Exactly. Where are the all of the Third Amendment advocacy groups? #AllAmendmentsMatter
Breotan wrote: So, by reading the first part of this bill, your 1911 is to be considered an Semiautomatic Assault Weapon?
I think my 1911 is safe because I didn't get a tactical rail. The only weapons that would be banned are my shotgun (barrel shroud + pistol grip), my AK, my AR, and possibly my PMR-30 (pistol with a rail and 30 round magazine).
Your 1911 doesn't have a threaded barrel? I didn't think smooth bore 1911s were really that common.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: 1) There seems to a nihilistic attitude prevalent in mass shootings these days - the me me me attitude, that was never there before.
I think it's hard to positively identify why mass shootings are on the rise. Possibly it's just a new outlet for something that's always been in society and had simply gone unnoticed (serial killers are a similar example).
2) Gun ownership and gun control is more politicised than ever before in American history? Why is this?
A number of reasons. Chief among them is that the NRA has become much more political. Prior to the late 70's, the gun debate was not a significant political issue, and the NRA was more of a 'national club of hunters' than an advocacy group. In the 60s for example the NRA supported proposed gun control laws (including bans) so long as they didn't infringe on hunters and a more general sense of gun ownership. In the late 70's and mid-80's though the NRA became more political, more powerful, and much larger as an organization and became an advocacy group. There's also a growing awareness of things like mass shootings, and of course the assassination of JFK and attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan, that has motivated a more hardened stance among some to control guns, and naturally a push back against that reaction. I wouldn't say the debate is more politicised. I'd say it's more partisan. The gun debate has always been political, but it wasn't quite the 'red v blue' debate that it is now until the mid 80's and that change came of increasing political awareness on different sides of politics who pushed and pushed back against one another.
I have no evidence for it, but I'd propose that the growth of the US military also plays a role in the growth of 'gun love' in American culture. Prior to WWII, gun ownership was significantly lower in the US. Afterwards, many Americans became much more familiar with guns and most certainly the growth of the Armed Forces did play a big role in expanding sports and recreational shooting in the US. I'd posit that the growth of weapons familiarity has produced a much larger population that feels a vested interest in their gun rights because more people than previously are actually exercising them.
possibly my PMR-30 (pistol with a rail and 30 round magazine).
Note that the proposed law covers any pistol with a detachable magazine, regardless of capacity. So yes, the PMR would have 2 "evil" features, but the capacity is not a factor, merely that the magazine is detachable.
Ignorant, paranoid, left-wing anti-gun fearmongering has been a boon for the firearm industry. There are no better salesmen.
Same for NRA dues. If the left could go just 10 or 15 years without introducing a single anti-gun bill at the local, state or federal level, the NRA would starve to death.
It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the firearms/ammo industry and NRA are paying bribes to left-wing politicians to get them to keep proposing anti-gun measures that will never even make it out of committee.
Are there any major or high profile gun control advocates distancing themselves from some of the more poorly thought out ideas or is it a case of one in all in?
Mr. Burning wrote: Are there any major or high profile gun control advocates distancing themselves from some of the more poorly thought out ideas or is it a case of one in all in?
The more high profile groups have been jumping on this bandwagon, if not pressing for it previously: Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (who also called for anyone with a gun to be SWATed), Moms Demand Action (funded by Michael Bloomberg), Everytown for Gun Safety (funded by Michael Bloomberg), Mayors Against Illegal Guns (funded by Michael Bloomberg), the Brady Campaign, and many others.
Just as a point of interest the NRA spent ~$2.7 million on lobbying. Michael Bloomberg (he of the Soda Limit fame) claims to have spent $50 million, $6.7 million of which was for Mayors Against Illegal Guns
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Just as a point of interest the NRA spent ~$2.7 million on lobbying. Michael Bloomberg (he of the Soda Limit fame) claims to have spent $50 million, $6.7 million of which was for Mayors Against Illegal Guns
According to the information D provided, the pro-gun lobby spent $8.4 million in 2015 while the anti-gun lobby spent $1.3 million.
CptJake wrote: The way I read those sites they only are accounting for $$$ spent on lobbying at the federal level and on candidates at the federal level.
So the relevant level when talking about the federal assault weapon ban bill?
CptJake wrote: The way I read those sites they only are accounting for $$$ spent on lobbying at the federal level and on candidates at the federal level.
So the relevant level when talking about the federal assault weapon ban bill?
Depends. If the $$$ are spent mobilizing local voting/lobbying at state and lower levels, local market ad buys, instead of lobbying congress critters than no, it is not a good/relevant level for measuring $$$ spent.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Another decent article on spending by both sides:
According to your non-sourced numbers, the 'gun-rights' side outspends the gun control side by a large margin ($57M compared to $9.5M), which is the same trend the Federal lobbying numbers show as well.
Kilkrazy wrote: Without bothering to read through three pages of gun/PC arguments, does the proposed law ban semi-automatic pistols, or just semi-auto pistols that are tricked out with military type features like a threaded barrel for a silencer, etc?
What do you mean by "military type" feature? Suppressors have many civilian applications
...
I mean military type features like a threaded barrel for a silencer, etc.
Kilkrazy wrote: Without bothering to read through three pages of gun/PC arguments, does the proposed law ban semi-automatic pistols, or just semi-auto pistols that are tricked out with military type features like a threaded barrel for a silencer, etc?
What do you mean by "military type" feature? Suppressors have many civilian applications
...
I mean military type features like a threaded barrel for a silencer, etc.
The relevant section is as follows:
“(D) A semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any 1 of the following:
“(i) A threaded barrel.
“(ii) A second pistol grip.
“(iii) A barrel shroud.
“(iv) The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip.
“(v) A semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm.
“(E) A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
I also must concur with the previous posters in that "military type features" is a meaningless phrase with regards to pistols. It's not a matter of pedantry, like complaining about when a magazine is called a clip; it simply doesn't mean anything so I'm not sure how to answer that.
What is the hardon for barrel shrouds, man?
I also just noticed, as a side note, that bump-fire stocks would be banned.
Kilkrazy wrote: I mean military type features like a threaded barrel for a silencer, etc.
A threaded barrel for a "silencer" is a legitimate civilian feature. It significantly reduces the noise and risk of hearing damage, prevents you from annoying your neighbors as much, etc. If anything we should be encouraging civilian gun owners to use suppressors on their weapons.
djones520 wrote: Unfortunately though, our 2nd Amendment is the only one that is ever under constant attack. Well, I'll back off on that a bit, because there does seem to have been a trend towards the suppression of free speech in the last decade, largely by those of the same political leaning as those who routinely attack our 2nd.
Sorry, this is so hilariously wrong that I have to go back a page and respond to it.
The second amendment is not the only one that is under attack. Are you at all familiar with efforts to undermine our protections against police abuse? You know, the ones that the police see as nothing more than an annoying obstacle that needs to be removed as quickly as possible? The current state of attack on them is somewhere around the point we'd be at if the second amendment had been "interpreted" to guarantee the right to own (but not carry in public) a pointy stick.
Attacks on the first amendment are not limited to the anti-gun side. In fact, most of the attacks are coming from the right, the same people who proudly declare that the second amendment is second only to the bible in importance. It isn't the liberals who are trying to enforce school prayers, Christian displays on government property, etc. And most of the left-wing "attacks" on free speech aren't constitutional issues. The first amendment protects you from censorship by the government. It does not, and was not intended to, protect you from having your speech criticized by your fellow citizens.
As every year more and more states successfully grind away at abortion - a right protected by the 14th amendment - I find it pretty hard to swallow that it's only ever the second amendment that's under attack.
Ouze wrote: As every year more and more states successfully grind away at abortion - a right protected by the 14th amendment - I find it pretty hard to swallow that it's only ever the second amendment that's under attack.
Even the 1st amendment has been under attack... Remember a few years back where they made it illegal to hold up signs and heckle the president or anybody else under SS protection. Didn't get much press but it was an attack on the 1st amendment
Kilkrazy wrote: Without bothering to read through three pages of gun/PC arguments, does the proposed law ban semi-automatic pistols, or just semi-auto pistols that are tricked out with military type features like a threaded barrel for a silencer, etc?
What do you mean by "military type" feature? Suppressors have many civilian applications
I mean military type features like a threaded barrel for a silencer, etc.
What makes that a military as opposed to a civilian feature?
Ouze wrote: What is the hardon for barrel shrouds, man?
Well clearly if people are able to not burn their hands on a firearm then the terrorists win
I'd argue that unless you are a licensed hunter or whatever, then a firearm should be a military feature.
But that is my different POV, and it is very, very different.
That said, the ban list here is... odd. I won't complain on gun restrictions, but why this list specifically? It doesn't make sense in either direction.
Ouze wrote: I'm not sure what point is being presented by the "if you arbitrarily eliminate most categories of gun violence, you somehow prove there isn't much gun violence" chart.
Because most of those categories have zero business being classified together, and especially not to be used as figures claiming that there is a gun problem. Suicides and accidents should not be lumped in with murders just for starters. Suicides are a mental health issue, not a problem with guns. Unless we suggest that bridges and businesses which sell rope are a problem, along with people just being stupid.
Gang Violence as well is its own category. The issue here isn't guns, its what causes Gang violence. Take these people's guns away and they'll switch to another weapon(and lots of gang violence doesn't use firearms, there are plenty of stabbings and beatings)
Ashiraya wrote: I'd argue that unless you are a licensed hunter or whatever, then a firearm should be a military feature.
But that is my different POV, and it is very, very different.
That said, the ban list here is... odd. I won't complain on gun restrictions, but why this list specifically? It doesn't make sense in either direction.
That's a big part of the issue. Even for the people that really don't like guns, these bans are just...odd, yet they're the standard pattern for such legislation that doesn't seem to really attack anything except how something looks, or that bans specific guns by name but not others of the same design that go by a different name. As I think someone else noted, it's very similar to the repeated efforts to repeal the ACA where they don't really accomplish anything or offer any meaningful alternative solution to the issue.
djones520 wrote: While I get your point of view Stanman, protection for the police/military/etc should not at all enter the equation when discussing the 2nd Amendment.
The primary purpose the 2nd Amendment was put into the Constitution was to ensure that the populace had a means to combat those people should it come down to it.
When we allow the government to restrict that, we are just giving the government that much more power over us.
Do you really think this 2nd amendment will make any difference in the case of civil war or revolution in the US? There have been plenty of peoples who brought down their governments without a right to bear arms. The key in such a situation is military support. If the rebels can get a significant part of the military on their side, they have a good chance of succes. We see this in Ukraine, Syria and Lybia, where the core of the rebel forces are defected military. Civilians simply are no match for an organised military force, those light weapons won't help you. To fight a government requires heavy weapons: tanks, aircraft, artillery and such. The 2nd amendment comes from a time when the heaviest weapons were muskets and 12lb cannons. It is meaningless in the modern era.
Ashiraya wrote: That said, the ban list here is... odd. I won't complain on gun restrictions, but why this list specifically? It doesn't make sense in either direction.
Do you mean why are we going to criminalize millions of law abiding Americans because of less than 300 deaths a year (and steadily declining)? Moral panic and the need to be seen to be doing something.
“(D) A semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any 1 of the following:
“(iii) A barrel shroud.
Isn't the pistol's slide essentially a shroud?
Ashiraya wrote: That said, the ban list here is... odd. I won't complain on gun restrictions, but why this list specifically? It doesn't make sense in either direction.
djones520 wrote: While I get your point of view Stanman, protection for the police/military/etc should not at all enter the equation when discussing the 2nd Amendment.
The primary purpose the 2nd Amendment was put into the Constitution was to ensure that the populace had a means to combat those people should it come down to it.
When we allow the government to restrict that, we are just giving the government that much more power over us.
Do you really think this 2nd amendment will make any difference in the case of civil war or revolution in the US? There have been plenty of peoples who brought down their governments without a right to bear arms. The key in such a situation is military support. If the rebels can get a significant part of the military on their side, they have a good chance of succes. We see this in Ukraine, Syria and Lybia, where the core of the rebel forces are defected military. Civilians simply are no match for an organised military force, those light weapons won't help you. To fight a government requires heavy weapons: tanks, aircraft, artillery and such. The 2nd amendment comes from a time when the heaviest weapons were muskets and 12lb cannons. It is meaningless in the modern era.
Well, the 2nd amendment was assuming there wouldn't be a disparity in armament. So technically we should be allowed to have any weaponry we want, up to and including armed aircraft and tanks.
Of course, those weapons are not necessary at all to fight an occupier. Look at how well this technological superiority serves us against insurgents, not very well at all. Tanks and artillery are only useful against entrenched positions and conventional opponents. They become liabilities if you are fighting someone hiding among the populace, and you can't just indiscriminately shell your civilians.
To say it wouldn't help is completely wrong. An armed civilian population is a significant threat. Hence why most dictatorships don't like their subjects having weaponry of any kind.
motyak wrote: So I just read that Obama may be executive ordering something for background checks? Does anyone have anything that isn't a clickbait site for this?
It's been on the radar for weeks. He met with Bloomberg (who spent $50 million on gun control) before he went to Hawaii. Current guesses are that;
- redefine who is in the business of selling firearms, and therefore who has to complete a background check
- closing of the so called "gunshow loophole" (it is a vilified provision that allows private parties not in the business of selling firearms to do so without submitting a 4473)
- closing the so called "internet sale loophole" (does not exist - all internet sales require the firearm to go to a licensed dealer who will perform a background check. Something even the FBI Director was ignorant of)
- closing the so called "Charlestown loophole". Previously the FBI has 3 days to approve or decline a sale through the NICS. If it was not done the seller had the discretion to carry out the sale anyway. It was designed to prevent de facto bans on purchasing firearms. Even if the sale did go through because the FBI made no determination the check would still be completed and if the person who bought the gun was a prohibited person then the ATF would be dispatched to arrest the suspect.
- closing the "No Fly Loophole". That citizens should be stripped of their rights without due process or an effective means of appeal should be abhorrent to all.
d-usa wrote: The "gun show loophole" is a real thing and I'm always amazed at how many people are willing to pretend it isn't.
What is your understanding of the term "gunshow loophole"?
The way it works at all the gun shows I have been to in Oklahoma is like this:
- the gun show sets up the show
- anybody can rent space
- anyone can bring their large "collection" of guns and sell their large inventory
- no background checks are needed from these "private" sellers because they are not a business selling guns, they are just private collectors buying and selling
So for all practical purposes the gun show functions as a giant store where you can buy whatever you want without any background check. And here in Oklahoma City we always have Oklahoma City PD running around undercover because folks who can't own guns know that and use these shows to buy weapons.
It's such an easy fix that it's stupid to deny it exists.
Grey Templar wrote: Well, the 2nd amendment was assuming there wouldn't be a disparity in armament.
*Citation needed*
I see where Grey going. I can see the same thing to. The Founders though were highly educated of their time. I cannot believe they did not see weapon advancement of their time going into our time to be a factor being how our government works with 2nd Amendment. Better yet how the government would evolve over time evolving with the 2nd Amendment. Yet those who support NRA are ridiculed and blame yet it has the support of the people who are concern with that aspect of the 2nd Amendment.
Yet no one here can give a clear concise answer in regards on why I myself, a law abiding citizen who owns military style weapons of WWII and current generation of rifles use by the military, along with pistols, who own 30 rounds mags and high capacity magazines for a assortment of weapons should not be allowed to own my weapons. Including others like myself
That's a problem with enforcement of existing statutes then, because if they're showing up with huge, well stocked collections with a wide variety of arms, they clearly are in the business of selling and should thus be operating as an FFL, and that's something for the ATF to investigate and prosecute.
Most gun shows that I've been to don't have anything like that, they've got a couple guys selling a handful of stuff, usually vastly overpriced, some dude with a bajillion mosin-nagants, random Nazi stuff, tons of Beef Jerky, and lots of Knives. They're really generally rather depressing and unimpressive affairs in my experience.
Vaktathi wrote: That's a problem with enforcement of existing statutes then, because if they're showing up with huge, well stocked collections with a wide variety of arms, they clearly are in the business of selling and should thus be operating as an FFL, and that's something for the ATF to investigate and prosecute.
Most gun shows that I've been to don't have anything like that, they've got a couple guys selling a handful of stuff, usually vastly overpriced, some dude with a bajillion mosin-nagants, random Nazi stuff, tons of Beef Jerky, and lots of Knives. They're really generally rather depressing and unimpressive affairs in my experience.
What's the statute of "# of guns owned" or "# of guns sold and purchased" that makes you a dealer?
Jihadin wrote: I see where Grey going. I can see the same thing to. The Founders though were highly educated of their time. I cannot believe they did not see weapon advancement of their time going into our time to be a factor being how our government works with 2nd Amendment. Better yet how the government would evolve over time evolving with the 2nd Amendment. Yet those who support NRA are ridiculed and blame yet it has the support of the people who are concern with that aspect of the 2nd Amendment.
Even someone who was very educated for their time would have struggled to have anything remotely resembling an accurate prediction of just how destructive weapons have become 200+ years later.
d-usa wrote: The way it works at all the gun shows I have been to in Oklahoma is like this:
- the gun show sets up the show
- anybody can rent space
- anyone can bring their large "collection" of guns and sell their large inventory
- no background checks are needed from these "private" sellers because they are not a business selling guns, they are just private collectors buying and selling
So for all practical purposes the gun show functions as a giant store where you can buy whatever you want without any background check. And here in Oklahoma City we always have Oklahoma City PD running around undercover because folks who can't own guns know that and use these shows to buy weapons.
It's such an easy fix that it's stupid to deny it exists.
For starters that is not a loophole. It is a feature of the law to enable private sellers not ordinarily engaged in the business of selling firearms to do so without being obliged to complete a Form 4473. Whether or not these private sellers who are not in the business of selling firearms choose to sell their firearm through a private ad, a gun auction website, or at a gunshow this does not mean that they are exploiting a loophole in the law any more than driving 30mph in a 30mph zone is exploiting a loophole to avoid a ticket.
The number of number of private individuals not ordinarily involved in the business of selling guns in close proximity under one roof does not negate the ability of these individuals to sell firearms without conducting a background check.
Any FFL or other individual involved in the business of selling firearms must complete a 4473, and conduct a background check.
d-usa wrote: The way it works at all the gun shows I have been to in Oklahoma is like this: (Can't speak about Oklahoma but I can about Washington State.)
- the gun show sets up the show (Okay.)
- anybody can rent space (Only gun show members can rent space. Membership requires a background check identical to the one you get when you want to purchase a firearm from a FFL.)
- anyone can bring their large "collection" of guns and sell their large inventory (Again, membership is required and you cannot sell to a non-member. If you're caught selling off-book to anyone your membership will be revoked.)
- no background checks are needed from these "private" sellers because they are not a business selling guns, they are just private collectors buying and selling (Background check has already been done on both the seller and buyer before they even meet.)
So for all practical purposes the gun show functions as a giant store where you can buy whatever you want without any background check. (Not in Washington State.) And here in Oklahoma City we always have Oklahoma City PD running around undercover because folks who can't own guns know that and use these shows to buy weapons. (Not very effective if you know about him. Also, I'm more interested in the arrest and conviction rate of this "undercover officer" than the fact that he is there.)
It's such an easy fix that it's stupid to deny it exists. (Because it doesn't?)
I see mostly pawn shop types at gun shows. Occasionally, one of our actual FFL types will set up a booth and bring his more popular stuff but like other people have said, a lot of stuff is overpriced or cheap trinkets like you find in cigarette shops and knife catalogs.
Vaktathi wrote: That's a problem with enforcement of existing statutes then, because if they're showing up with huge, well stocked collections with a wide variety of arms, they clearly are in the business of selling and should thus be operating as an FFL, and that's something for the ATF to investigate and prosecute.
Most gun shows that I've been to don't have anything like that, they've got a couple guys selling a handful of stuff, usually vastly overpriced, some dude with a bajillion mosin-nagants, random Nazi stuff, tons of Beef Jerky, and lots of Knives. They're really generally rather depressing and unimpressive affairs in my experience.
What's the statute of "# of guns owned" or "# of guns sold and purchased" that makes you a dealer?
"Currently, the term “dealer” is defined at 18 U.S.C. §
921(a)(11)(A) to include any person “engaged in the
business” of selling firearms at wholesale or retail.
According to the ATF:
The term “engaged in the business,” as applicable to
a firearms dealer, is defined as a person who devotes
time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a
regular course of trade or business with the principal
objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive
purchase and resale of firearms, but such term
shall not include a person who makes occasional
sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the
enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby,
or who sells all or part of his personal collection of
firearms. 27 CFR 478.11"
Vaktathi wrote: That's a problem with enforcement of existing statutes then, because if they're showing up with huge, well stocked collections with a wide variety of arms, they clearly are in the business of selling and should thus be operating as an FFL, and that's something for the ATF to investigate and prosecute.
Most gun shows that I've been to don't have anything like that, they've got a couple guys selling a handful of stuff, usually vastly overpriced, some dude with a bajillion mosin-nagants, random Nazi stuff, tons of Beef Jerky, and lots of Knives. They're really generally rather depressing and unimpressive affairs in my experience.
What's the statue of "# of guns owned" or "# of guns sold and purchased" that makes you a dealer?
There isn't any particular hard or fast limit, it's at the judgement and discretion of the ATF. Generally, if someone is holding and maintaining an inventory of firearms for the purposes of sale & trade, and is routinely engaged in the sale and trade of that inventory, then they would require an FFL, and if they're operating without one, and if the ATF becomes aware of it, they'll come down like a ton of bricks.
However, ultimately there are existing mechanisms, laws, and enforcement for such purposes, it's an issue for the ATF to pursue if such is occurring.
The big issue with the background checks is that for people engaged in small scale trading or personal sales, they simply don't have access to the background check system, and would have to go to an FFL (on a day they're open and during business hours), pay both the FFL for doing the check and the state (since the state charges a fee each time), in order to conduct a transaction, which, in many places, can be both very time consuming and expensive. If you're Yokel Farmer Bob and want to sell your old .22 to your neighbor Jimbo to give to his son Billy-Bob, having to drive two counties over to the nearest gun store for an $80 transaction, pay the state $10 and the FFL their cut (usually something like $25), that gets...well...quite irritating. Likewise, if you're at the gun show buying an old Mosin or a K-98 from the WW2 collectibles booth and the guy sells like 12 guns a year, the firearms are really a side niche in view of the larger gig the guy is engaged in. That's why the "loophole" was specifically written into the law in the first place, it was intentional, for stuff like that.
It's a loophole because it allow people who cannot legally purchase firearms from walking into a single place, pick from an inventory of hundreds of weapons, and purchase them without a background check.
And it's an easy fix, that's why it's stupid not to address it.
A loophole is something unintended, there was a very intended reason for the requirement only applying to FFL's and inter-state transfers.
As far as it allowing people who cannot legally purchase firearms to do so, well, closing that "loophole" isn't going to change much for them, they're probably going to meet the same people in the same alley to buy the same guns they were before, they'll just be breaking one *more* law in the process to add on post-facto to the other felonies they're already committing.
Vaktathi wrote: The big issue with the background checks is that for people engaged in small scale trading or personal sales, they simply don't have access to the background check system, and would have to go to an FFL (on a day they're open and during business hours), pay both the FFL for doing the check and the state (since the state charges a fee each time), in order to conduct a transaction, which, in many places, can be both very time consuming and expensive. If you're Yokel Farmer Bob and want to sell your old .22 to your neighbor Jimbo to give to his son Billy-Bob, having to drive two counties over to the nearest gun store for an $80 transaction, pay the state $10 and the FFL their cut (usually something like $25), that gets...well...quite irritating. Likewise, if you're at the gun show buying an old Mosin or a K-98 from the WW2 collectibles booth and the guy sells like 12 guns a year, the firearms are really a side niche in view of the larger gig the guy is engaged in. That's why the "loophole" was specifically written into the law in the first place, it was intentional, for stuff like that.
So fix the background check system. It's 2015 and the whole thing is just an online yes/no check anyway. Make a public site where a person can, for free, request a "permission to buy" code that they can give to the seller (who can then verify its legitimacy through the same site). That gets rid of the "personal sale to a friend" excuse and removes any reason for it to be legal to sell a gun without going through the background check process.
d-usa wrote: It's a loophole because it allow people who cannot legally purchase firearms from walking into a single place, pick from an inventory of hundreds of weapons, and purchase them without a background check.
Okay, let's set aside facts and examine your statement as truth. Even if people who cannot legally own a firearm could just walk into a gun show and buy one anyway, show me one time where a "mass shooting" has been committed with firearms obtained via this loophole.
d-usa wrote: It's a loophole because it allow people who cannot legally purchase firearms from walking into a single place, pick from an inventory of hundreds of weapons, and purchase them without a background check.
And it's an easy fix, that's why it's stupid not to address it.
It is not a loophole by any objective definition. It is a provision that allows private sellers to sell their property without the burden of government regulation. Continually claiming that it is a loophole does not make it so.
Out of curiosity what is the difference between a prohibited person attempting to purchase a firearm at a gunshow v a prohibited person attempting to buy a firearm through the classifieds. Both involve private sellers and a large range of firearms to choose from.
motyak wrote: So I just read that Obama may be executive ordering something for background checks? Does anyone have anything that isn't a clickbait site for this?
No, I read the same story in the same place. No real detail, but this is the time to do it for him - there won't be the votes to overturn an EO, and if somehow things go horribly wrong in 2016 and the votes materialize, it will no longer be as urgent as (whatever is going on in January 2017).
Vaktathi wrote: As far as it allowing people who cannot legally purchase firearms to do so, well, closing that "loophole" isn't going to change much for them, they're probably going to meet the same people in the same alley to buy the same guns they were before, they'll just be breaking one *more* law in the process to add on post-facto to the other felonies they're already committing.
From the buyer's point of view there's no difference. There's a significant difference from the seller's point of view. I'd be willing to bet that there are a lot more people willing to do legal no-check sales at a gun show than people willing to do an illegal "meet in the alley behind the show" sale where the mere fact that they sold a gun without a background check is enough to send them to prison.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Out of curiosity what is the difference between a prohibited person attempting to purchase a firearm at a gunshow v a prohibited person attempting to buy a firearm through the classifieds. Both involve private sellers and a large range of firearms to choose from.
There isn't much difference. Both should require background checks.
d-usa wrote: It's a loophole because it allow people who cannot legally purchase firearms from walking into a single place, pick from an inventory of hundreds of weapons, and purchase them without a background check.
Okay, let's set aside facts and examine your statement as truth. Even if people who cannot legally own a firearm could just walk into a gun show and buy one anyway, show me one time where a "mass shooting" has been committed with firearms obtained via this loophole.
Peregrine wrote: So fix the background check system. It's 2015 and the whole thing is just an online yes/no check anyway. Make a public site where a person can, for free, request a "permission to buy" code that they can give to the seller (who can then verify its legitimacy through the same site). That gets rid of the "personal sale to a friend" excuse and removes any reason for it to be legal to sell a gun without going through the background check process.
And will there be a fee every time for private individuals?
What if I just loan a firearm to a friend?
If I do not perform this background check how will I be caught?
Do I have to document each sale?
d-usa wrote: It's a loophole because it allow people who cannot legally purchase firearms from walking into a single place, pick from an inventory of hundreds of weapons, and purchase them without a background check.
Okay, let's set aside facts and examine your statement as truth. Even if people who cannot legally own a firearm could just walk into a gun show and buy one anyway, show me one time where a "mass shooting" has been committed with firearms obtained via this loophole.
Are we going to come up with a new random and stupid criteria if I do?
d-usa wrote: It's a loophole because it allow people who cannot legally purchase firearms from walking into a single place, pick from an inventory of hundreds of weapons, and purchase them without a background check.
Okay, let's set aside facts and examine your statement as truth. Even if people who cannot legally own a firearm could just walk into a gun show and buy one anyway, show me one time where a "mass shooting" has been committed with firearms obtained via this loophole.
So, we're talking about gun show "loophole" purchases and instead you bring in an example of an illegal purchase made with no gun show involvement. That's not even apples to oranges, that's more like apples to Nike shoes.
d-usa wrote: It's a loophole because it allow people who cannot legally purchase firearms from walking into a single place, pick from an inventory of hundreds of weapons, and purchase them without a background check.
And it's an easy fix, that's why it's stupid not to address it.
It is not a loophole by any objective definition. It is a provision that allows private sellers to sell their property without the burden of government regulation. Continually claiming that it is a loophole does not make it so.
Out of curiosity what is the difference between a prohibited person attempting to purchase a firearm at a gunshow v a prohibited person attempting to buy a firearm through the classifieds. Both involve private sellers and a large range of firearms to choose from.
I don't know, the fact that someone can walk into a building and walk back out 5 minutes later with a illegally owned gun rather than having to spend multiple days trying to set up a purchase?
Why does ANYONE purchase ANYTHING at a gun show rather than the classifieds? It's a miracle that such an unsustainable business model even exists anymore...
d-usa wrote: It's a loophole because it allow people who cannot legally purchase firearms from walking into a single place, pick from an inventory of hundreds of weapons, and purchase them without a background check.
Okay, let's set aside facts and examine your statement as truth. Even if people who cannot legally own a firearm could just walk into a gun show and buy one anyway, show me one time where a "mass shooting" has been committed with firearms obtained via this loophole.
So, we're talking about gun show "loophole" purchases and instead you bring in an example of an illegal purchase made with no gun show involvement. That's not even apples to oranges, that's more like apples to Nike shoes.
So we are taking about apples, then you bring up oranges, and get upset when another mentions kiwis? That's rich.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: And will there be a fee every time for private individuals?
I don't know. But if there is a token fee then at least you're free of the burden of driving to a store, paying the store a fee, etc. The fee should certainly not be high enough that it is used as a means of discouraging poor people from owning guns.
What if I just loan a firearm to a friend?
A loan is not a sale.
If I do not perform this background check how will I be caught?
How are people currently caught doing illegal sales?
Do I have to document each sale?
The same system that handles the background check should be able to do any required documentation.
Ouze wrote: I found one, so we'll know imminently.
Nope. I said to show me a mass shooting done with a firearm purchased via the gun show loophole. Your example had nothing to do with gun shows.
Mass shootings have been done with legally obtained firearms. They've been done with stoles firearms. They've even been done with firearms obtained via straw purchases. None have had a connection to a gun show.
d-usa wrote: So we are taking about apples, then you bring up oranges, and get upset when another mentions kiwis? That's rich.
That was the literal definition of what the "gun show loophole" is, as discussed in this thread. If you wish to move the goalposts, feel free to do so.
Ouze wrote: That was the literal definition of what the "gun show loophole" is, as discussed in this thread.
The "gun show loophole" requires a gun show. If you want to consider each and every private sale a "gun show loophole" then you need to stop calling it that and start calling it the "private sale loophole". In any event, private sales to someone who cannot legally purchase a firearm is illegal already. So are straw purchases.
Ouze wrote: If you wish to move the goalposts, feel free to do so.
Goalposts? I'd just like it if you guys would stop changing meanings of things mid-discussion.
Seriously? Your example is a jack-arse who loaded a shotgun at a gun show? This is a better example of why gun shows in Washington State don't allow people to load any weapons on the premises. Liability can be a bastich.
That wasn't my example of anything, I just thought it was amusing. When googling "mass shooting gun show loophole" I found a surprising amount of shootings at gun shows.
djones520 wrote: While I get your point of view Stanman, protection for the police/military/etc should not at all enter the equation when discussing the 2nd Amendment.
The primary purpose the 2nd Amendment was put into the Constitution was to ensure that the populace had a means to combat those people should it come down to it.
When we allow the government to restrict that, we are just giving the government that much more power over us.
Do you really think this 2nd amendment will make any difference in the case of civil war or revolution in the US? There have been plenty of peoples who brought down their governments without a right to bear arms. The key in such a situation is military support. If the rebels can get a significant part of the military on their side, they have a good chance of succes. We see this in Ukraine, Syria and Lybia, where the core of the rebel forces are defected military. Civilians simply are no match for an organised military force, those light weapons won't help you. To fight a government requires heavy weapons: tanks, aircraft, artillery and such. The 2nd amendment comes from a time when the heaviest weapons were muskets and 12lb cannons. It is meaningless in the modern era.
Well, the 2nd amendment was assuming there wouldn't be a disparity in armament. So technically we should be allowed to have any weaponry we want, up to and including armed aircraft and tanks.
Than why is owning tanks, warplanes and other heavy weaponry not allowed in the US? Clearly that is a violation of the Constitution than? And if it is okay to ban heavy weapons, why shouldn't it also be okay to ban assault weapons?
Grey Templar wrote: To say it wouldn't help is completely wrong. An armed civilian population is a significant threat. Hence why most dictatorships don't like their subjects having weaponry of any kind.
Almost no state, Western democracies as well as dictatorships, likes people having weaponry of any kind (Switzerland and the US being exceptions). Outside of the US, it is widely believed that violence, and therefore weapons, should be the monopoly of the state. As for dictatorships, they fear opposing ideas much more than weapons. Ideas are more powerful than guns. Free speech and thought are the most important things seperating democracy from dictatorship, not a right to bear arms.
Ouze wrote: That was the literal definition of what the "gun show loophole" is, as discussed in this thread. If you wish to move the goalposts, feel free to do so.
Which definition of "mass shooting" are you using here? The most commonly accepted is 4 or more killed per the FBI. That was clearly not the case here as 3 people were injured and no one killed
Ouze wrote: That wasn't my example of anything, I just thought it was amusing. When googling "mass shooting gun show loophole" I found a surprising amount of shootings at gun shows.
Shootings, or negligent discharges? For most people a shooting involves at least some intention to harm another person
Peregrine wrote: I don't know. But if there is a token fee then at least you're free of the burden of driving to a store, paying the store a fee, etc. The fee should certainly not be high enough that it is used as a means of discouraging poor people from owning guns.
So what other rights are you happy to see a poll tax on?
Good, you aren't thinking of using the Washington State law which required a background check for all transfers
Peregrine wrote: How are people currently caught doing illegal sales?
Don't dodge the question. The whole point of a new legislative regime should be that it is an improvement over the old one. If I do not perform this background check how will I be caught?
Peregrine wrote: The same system that handles the background check should be able to do any required documentation.
But FFL dealers are required to hold the forms for a number of years, and allow the ATF to inspect them, even though all the information is already entered. Will those not involved in the business of selling firearms be obliged to keep similar records?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: I don't know, the fact that someone can walk into a building and walk back out 5 minutes later with a illegally owned gun rather than having to spend multiple days trying to set up a purchase?
You mean like instead of waiting months for a gunshow? Sellers can meet up pretty quickly depending on schedules.
d-usa wrote: Why does ANYONE purchase ANYTHING at a gun show rather than the classifieds? It's a miracle that such an unsustainable business model even exists anymore...
Maybe it is because of a non-existent loophole that people keep insisting is real.
We have gun shows at least monthly here, even though according to you nobody uses them because it's easier to use classifieds.
And I have explained the loophole to you, but I can't understand it for you. It exists, it is real, and refusing to admit it just makes all gun owners look stupid.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: So what other rights are you happy to see a poll tax on?
I never said there should be a fee, and specifically stated that there shouldn't be one that is intended to discourage people from buying guns rather than covering legitimate costs of the background check. The fact that, according to a previous example here, there currently is a fee for the check pretty strongly suggests that keeping the same kind of fee with a hypothetical new system would continue to be ok.
Don't dodge the question. The whole point of a new legislative regime should be that it is an improvement over the old one. If I do not perform this background check how will I be caught?
I'm not an expert in police investigations, so I can't answer it. But the fact that we currently have laws about illegal gun sales is clear evidence that it is possible to catch people selling illegally. And even if the police fail to catch most transactions making it illegal still cuts the number of people willing to do it and makes it harder for a criminal to find a seller.
But FFL dealers are required to hold the forms for a number of years, and allow the ATF to inspect them, even though all the information is already entered. Will those not involved in the business of selling firearms be obliged to keep similar records?
Honestly, this just sounds like a combination of pre-internet laws and paranoia about having the records in government hands. The more reasonable way to do it would be to have all of those dealer records also automatically stored by the government and remove the requirement for the dealer to keep them.
d-usa wrote: We have gun shows at least monthly here, even though according to you nobody uses them because it's easier to use classifieds.
I said that nobody uses them? Can you show me where exactly I said that, because I'd hate to think you're closing out 2015 with a strawman argument.
d-usa wrote: And I have explained the loophole to you, but I can't understand it for you. It exists, it is real, and refusing to admit it just makes all gun owners look stupid.
You have not explained it because it is;
1) Not a loophole. It is a feature of the law to protect private sellers not in the business of selling firearms
2) Not specific to gunshows as it is designed to protect private sellers not in the business of selling firearms. It is the same protection whether a seller is selling at a gunshow, online, through classifieds, or to a friend.
On the other hand it has been explained to you why your belief is wholly incorrect, but you refuse to accept it. But if you want to believe that by actually knowing the law and how it applies somehow makes an entire class of people look stupid then that is your prerogative to do so.
d-usa wrote: We have gun shows at least monthly here, even though according to you nobody uses them because it's easier to use classifieds.
Doesn't change the validity of the previous point.
Let's compare this to Games Workshop & other companies sci-fi stuff. People still buy 40k/whatever at full retail at conventions even though they can easily get the same thing cheaper at their LFGS and over the internet. There will always be people who pay more than you would for a given item just because it is there, or because it is new, or for some other reason. Doesn't change the fact that LFGS and internet sellers are easier and a better value, does it?
We can only speak about our individual experiences. It's easier for me to go into a gun shop or Box Mart store and buy ammo than it is to go to the local gun show and do the same. It's also easier and a LOT cheaper for me to order firearms over the internet and have them delivered to a local FFL so I can pick them up. Still, people do buy guns, ammo, and other stuff at gun shows despite it not being the best value for the money or the most convenient way to obtain whatever it is you're buying.
Peregrine wrote: I never said there should be a fee, and specifically stated that there shouldn't be one that is intended to discourage people from buying guns rather than covering legitimate costs of the background check. The fact that, according to a previous example here, there currently is a fee for the check pretty strongly suggests that keeping the same kind of fee with a hypothetical new system would continue to be ok.
So would you be open to a fee for voting?
Peregrine wrote: I'm not an expert in police investigations, so I can't answer it. But the fact that we currently have laws about illegal gun sales is clear evidence that it is possible to catch people selling illegally. And even if the police fail to catch most transactions making it illegal still cuts the number of people willing to do it and makes it harder for a criminal to find a seller.
So you are advocating for a proposal that you have no idea how to implement
Peregrine wrote: Honestly, this just sounds like a combination of pre-internet laws and paranoia about having the records in government hands. The more reasonable way to do it would be to have all of those dealer records also automatically stored by the government and remove the requirement for the dealer to keep them.
You have not answered the question; Will those not involved in the business of selling firearms be obliged to keep similar records?
Where is the government getting this brand new computer system and training?
No, and stop trying to assume that the two are equal. Voting fees are explicitly unconstitutional. Fees for mandatory gun sale background checks are apparently not, because that's what we have right now. Stop trying to turn my acknowledgement that a fee currently exists into some kind of "let's have a poll tax" straw man.
So you are advocating for a proposal that you have no idea how to implement
The fact that I don't know all of the details of how to implement it is irrelevant. It's possible for experts to figure out those details and make it work.
You have not answered the question; Will those not involved in the business of selling firearms be obliged to keep similar records?
I answered it: the question is not a very relevant one to me because the whole system should be updated anyway.
Where is the government getting this brand new computer system and training?
The same way they get any new computer system. The fact that computers and training cost money is not a reason to be stuck with 1990s technology forever.
Again, I'll type it slowly do maybe it's easier to understand.
It's the "gun show" loophole because it allows a buyer who cannot purchase firearms to walk into a single place, look at a large inventory of firearms, and walk back out minutes later without having to undergo any sort of background check.
It doesn't have much to do with sellers, although there are some private sellers who pretty much use buying/selling of private firearms as a side business under the label of "private sales" which is a separate issue, but with the buyers who use them to make purchases that would be flagged as illegal if background checks were ran.
The reason criminals use gun shows rather than classifieds is that it is quicker and more convenient, same as most other persons that use them. The other reason criminals use gun shows is because for them it had all the benefits of going to a regular gun store with none of the background checks. That's the loophole.
Seriously, the only thing dumber than most of the crap proposed by gun control advocates is the trash that gets repeated by gun advocates, including here on Dakka. Heck, just these past few weeks we have had "all .308 are alike, there is no high-power or low-power ammo" which was easily disproven by a single chart from a single manufacturer and which we all know wasn't true to begin with because we look at the damn box when we buy ammo to see what the load is, we have had "gun ownership is up and suicide rates are down" which was disproven by a simple look at actual facts, and now we have people pretending that the gun show loophole isn't s thing.
Want anti-gun folks to stop thinking of us gun owners as idiots? We could start by not repeating idiotic things.
An individual's rights need to be limited by the rights of others. My rights end where another's begin. It should not be a right, to possess a firearm capable of killing indiscriminately from long range, in rapid succession. There is no greater good served by allowing the general populace to possess such weaponry. Any more than it would be reasonable for the general populace to possess grenades, or dynamite.
Rapid fire, high capacity WEAPONS are intended, specifically, to kill lots of people in a short time. For war, in other words. They should be treated like grenades. You wouldn't use a grenade for anything other than killing people, in any reasonable sense. You wouldn't use an... I don't know... AK-47? for anything but killing people, either. You could use it for hunting, but that would be substantially overkill. If you don't get the kill in two shots, you've lost your opportunity when hunting.
Slower fire, low capacity FIREARMS are intended, specifically, for hunting game. For survival, in other words. They are less suitable for killing people, as the available ammunition is in shorter, less sustainable supply. I wouldn't take an over-under shotgun to war. I'd want an... again, not a big follower of assault weapons... AK-47? They seem to get the job done well enough.
A particular individual may not be a threat to society. They could safely possess what would be a "Prohibited Weapon" in Canada. Some do. But law is not concerned with the individual, it's concerned, hopefully, with the greatest good. One must realize that with access to weapons capable of causing rapid-succession loss of life, that at some point a person that is disrespectful of the right to live will gain access to those weapons.
The greatest good is not served by allowing widespread access to those weapons. What other purposes to firearms possess, other than killing humans? Killing for meat. Killing to be rid of pests. Really, that's the purpose that firearms serve. These purposes can be served by firearms with limited ammunitions.
"But it's my Right!" perhaps, but it shouldn't be. That right does not bring about the greatest good, and eventually removes the right of innocent persons to live, given a long enough time-span. It is eventual. Restricting such deadly arms limits that potential, and serves a greater good.
greatbigtree wrote: Slower fire, low capacity FIREARMS are intended, specifically, for hunting game. For survival, in other words.
No, they're all designed for killing people.
As Ouze said, machine guns are heavily regulated and almost impossible for private citizens in the USA to own legally. Nothing in the bill quoted in the OP affects this in any way. Also, ubiquitous firearm of the US Military is an AR-15 variant not a machine gun, so I don't really understand the point you are trying to raise.
The gun show part might not actually be a very big thing, but the way straw purchases can be made is IMO not good even if you think the 2nd Amendment is the next best thing after the Bible (or better). Over here I can pretty much buy any gun I want (kk, not full-auto) but the thing is firmly registered on me and if I'm selling it on the new owner needs to pass the same background checks.
I mean - your drugs come from Mexico but the illegal guns the Mexican drug cartels use, well, 70% of them are brought in from the USA.
Spetulhu wrote: I mean - your drugs come from Mexico but the illegal guns the Mexican drug cartels use, well, 70% of them are brought in from the USA.
That seems very, very unlikely. I will agree that most of the guns that the Mexican government submits for tracing show a US origin, but that's because.... surprise, they only produce the guns suspected to have originated in the US for tracing. All of the AK's with Romanian or Bulgarian manufacture marks are never submitted which really, really throws that figure off. If I recover a cache of guns that consist of 40 Kalashnikovs and 3 AR-15s with lowers from Spike's Tactical, and I ask the US to trace the 3 AR-15s, it's going to show 100%.
No one can definitively say what percentage of arms in Mexico originated in the US, but whenever you see one of those "drugs on the table" photo ops and you see stuff like M203 grenade launchers and hand grenades, you should be suspicious.
Common sense says given the choice between relatively expensive semiautomatic weapons purchased in the US and smuggled over the border and then slowly and laboriously converted to full auto, or just getting fully-automatic weapons from El Salvador or the Mexican Army for the price of a chicken each.... I'm going to presume the latter.
As a side note, I'm not sure that conflicts in a different country are a sound basis for curtailing our rights.
Spetulhu wrote: The gun show part might not actually be a very big thing, but the way straw purchases can be made is IMO not good even if you think the 2nd Amendment is the next best thing after the Bible (or better). Over here I can pretty much buy any gun I want (kk, not full-auto) but the thing is firmly registered on me and if I'm selling it on the new owner needs to pass the same background checks.
Here's the problem. How do you prove a straw purchase before the gun is used in a crime?
Breotan wrote: Here's the problem. How do you prove a straw purchase before the gun is used in a crime?
You can't, really, unless someone is stupid enough to brag about it in front of witnesses. But how many people are going to risk making a straw purchase if the gun they're buying is permanently registered in their name (with no "I sold it to a friend, no background check or paperwork required" excuse available) and will leave clear evidence of an illegal sale if it is used in a crime? The more you take away plausible deniability the less likely it is that people will be willing to participate in an illegal sale.
Breotan wrote: Here's the problem. How do you prove a straw purchase before the gun is used in a crime?
Right, there I must admit I have no idea. We actually have few of those straw purchases because a) it's laborious to secure a permit and b) illegal guns are somewhat easy to get anyway with Russia next door. If someone uses a legally purchased gun in a crime here it's either his own gun or it belongs to his daddy etc - and that is usually a long gun meant for hunting. Only bikers and drug dealers get pistols, and few of them do it the legal way.
A straw purchase here (just going with how people get other stuff they shouldn't have) is most likely a drunk being used, and he really shouldn't pass the process to begin with since he'll probably smell of alcohol when he comes to tell the police how he wants to buy a gun.
Vaktathi wrote: The big issue with the background checks is that for people engaged in small scale trading or personal sales, they simply don't have access to the background check system, and would have to go to an FFL (on a day they're open and during business hours), pay both the FFL for doing the check and the state (since the state charges a fee each time), in order to conduct a transaction, which, in many places, can be both very time consuming and expensive. If you're Yokel Farmer Bob and want to sell your old .22 to your neighbor Jimbo to give to his son Billy-Bob, having to drive two counties over to the nearest gun store for an $80 transaction, pay the state $10 and the FFL their cut (usually something like $25), that gets...well...quite irritating. Likewise, if you're at the gun show buying an old Mosin or a K-98 from the WW2 collectibles booth and the guy sells like 12 guns a year, the firearms are really a side niche in view of the larger gig the guy is engaged in. That's why the "loophole" was specifically written into the law in the first place, it was intentional, for stuff like that.
So fix the background check system. It's 2015 and the whole thing is just an online yes/no check anyway. Make a public site where a person can, for free, request a "permission to buy" code that they can give to the seller (who can then verify its legitimacy through the same site). That gets rid of the "personal sale to a friend" excuse and removes any reason for it to be legal to sell a gun without going through the background check process.
That's a very different route one would have to take, with a complete redesign of the existing infrastructure, both legal and IT. Possible, but a much larger problem. If such issues were solved, sure, that would make it far more convenient.
Not to move goalposts too far, but there's also the idea that the Federal Government shouldn't be involved in individual personal property matters, which also drives much of the allowance for personal sales to avoid background checks. There's some merit to that line of thinking as well. I don't have a firm position on that myself one way or the other, I don't intend to sell any of my firearms really and I don't generally buy firearms from individuals so I don't have a huge stake in the issue, but these are concerns that exist and that people vote on.
greatbigtree wrote: An individual's rights need to be limited by the rights of others. My rights end where another's begin. It should not be a right, to possess a firearm capable of killing indiscriminately from long range, in rapid succession. There is no greater good served by allowing the general populace to possess such weaponry.
The right to keep and bear arms is not predicated on any particular level of killing power, nor the capability of the United States Military. Ultimately, such weaponry absolutely serves a purpose in the national defense (look at how people with largely nothing but rifles and low tech explosives have forced the eventual withdrawal, or made further occupation undesireable, of far greater powers from places like Afghanistan and Iraq). An armed and agitated populace is an unconqerable one. The US has not always had a global-power level military, and in several cases where it has in the past, it drew them down drastically again (e.g. after the US civil war and after WW1 and such a time may come again.
More fundamentally, the weapons you're talking about are basically almost never used to do what you describe, when you look at the actual number of deaths at the hands of these weapons, they're statistically irrelevant, and even when they are used, the number of dead isn't really particularly any different than with other incidents using ostensibly less "dangerous" weapons. The Austin Belltower shooter used primarily a bolt action rifle to kill 16 people and wound over 30 more, the guys at Columbine used a shotgun and handguns, the all time worst massacre in the US at Virginia Tech was carried out with handguns with 15 and 10 round capacities.
Any more than it would be reasonable for the general populace to possess grenades, or dynamite.
It wasn't that long ago that it was possible to go into a hardware store and buy dynamite without any regulation, IIRC the 1970's? For things like blowing up old tree stumps and things of that nature. Stuff was almost wholly unregulated for about a century, didn't seem to have any major issues.
Rapid fire, high capacity WEAPONS are intended, specifically, to kill lots of people in a short time. For war, in other words.
So was basically just about every bolt action rifle when originally designed. Nobody wants to talk about banning something like a Mosin-Nagant or an SMLE or a K98 rifle, or the thousands of other firearms based on such designs, despite being expressly designed as military weapons of war. They have other uses. Just like civilian equivalents do. Weapons like AR-15's & AK's and the like are widely used in sport and competition shooting (in fact, at the top end of 3-gun competition shooting, you'll see just about every competitor with an AR of some sort). They are used for hunting quite often (things like feral hogs/wild boar, coyotes, etc). Civilian legal versions of submachineguns make truly excellent home defense weapons. There's gobs of non-war related uses for these items, and, more fundamentally, just because they're designed for war doesn't mean that civilians shouldn't have access to them.
They should be treated like grenades. You wouldn't use a grenade for anything other than killing people, in any reasonable sense. You wouldn't use an... I don't know... AK-47? for anything but killing people, either.
Boar hunting, home defense, some competition shooting, all sorts of things.
You could use it for hunting, but that would be substantially overkill. If you don't get the kill in two shots, you've lost your opportunity when hunting.
Depends on what you're hunting. If you're hunting a deer, sure, though such a weapon also affords you greater follow up opportunity for that second shot than something like a bolt action rifle. If you're doing something like culling feral pigs (a big, and increasing, ecological problem across much off the US), such weapons make perfect sense.
Slower fire, low capacity FIREARMS are intended, specifically, for hunting game. For survival, in other words. They are less suitable for killing people, as the available ammunition is in shorter, less sustainable supply. I wouldn't take an over-under shotgun to war. I'd want an... again, not a big follower of assault weapons... AK-47? They seem to get the job done well enough.
The US 2nd amendement was never intended just to protect hunting weapons. Back then, your hunting gun was the gun you grabbed when you went to war.
"But it's my Right!" perhaps, but it shouldn't be. That right does not bring about the greatest good, and eventually removes the right of innocent persons to live, given a long enough time-span. It is eventual. Restricting such deadly arms limits that potential, and serves a greater good.
This exact line of thinking can be used to attack any right, and the "greatest good" is, well, nebulous, and often in the eye of the beholder. Don't like people saying mean things? Well, that 1st amendment is no longer in the greatest good. Not getting information out of criminal suspects fast enough? Well those 4th amendment protections are no longer in the greatest good. It's very easy to attack each and every right in this manner.
Grey Templar wrote: Well, the 2nd amendment was assuming there wouldn't be a disparity in armament.
*Citation needed*
Private ownership of anything up to and including cannons and navel warships and private military regiments were very common at the time.
It was common practice for some regiments to be owned by their commanding officers. The government would then pay the officer an amount per soldier in his regiment, which was to cover the equipment, training, and a little extra for the officer to make a profit(it was also common for there to be a few fake soldiers in the regiment, so the officer could pocket some extra cash).
Similarly, ships were often privately owned. Privateers were one of the principle ways you waged war at sea, and a single warship would often have more cannons than entire armies on land. The Constitution still has specific language regarding the recruitment of Privateers in it as well.
Grey Templar wrote: Well, the 2nd amendment was assuming there wouldn't be a disparity in armament.
*Citation needed*
Private ownership of anything up to and including cannons and navel warships and private military regiments were very common at the time.
It was common practice for some regiments to be owned by their commanding officers. The government would then pay the officer an amount per soldier in his regiment, which was to cover the equipment, training, and a little extra for the officer to make a profit(it was also common for there to be a few fake soldiers in the regiment, so the officer could pocket some extra cash).
Similarly, ships were often privately owned. Privateers were one of the principle ways you waged war at sea, and a single warship would often have more cannons than entire armies on land. The Constitution still has specific language regarding the recruitment of Privateers in it as well.
I think you're confusing "possible" with "common."
Until the Civil War, gun ownership was not nearly as common as you make it seem. especially at the time of the Revolutionary War. Normal people definitely didn't just have cannon laying about in their houses either.
Grey Templar wrote: Well, the 2nd amendment was assuming there wouldn't be a disparity in armament.
*Citation needed*
Private ownership of anything up to and including cannons and navel warships and private military regiments were very common at the time.
It was common practice for some regiments to be owned by their commanding officers. The government would then pay the officer an amount per soldier in his regiment, which was to cover the equipment, training, and a little extra for the officer to make a profit(it was also common for there to be a few fake soldiers in the regiment, so the officer could pocket some extra cash).
Similarly, ships were often privately owned. Privateers were one of the principle ways you waged war at sea, and a single warship would often have more cannons than entire armies on land. The Constitution still has specific language regarding the recruitment of Privateers in it as well.
I think you're confusing "possible" with "common."
Until the Civil War, gun ownership was not nearly as common as you make it seem. especially at the time of the Revolutionary War. Normal people definitely didn't just have cannon laying about in their houses either.
This study seems to indicate firearm ownership was very common.
The first "gun control" law that was passed was in Georgia, trying to ban handguns. The Supreme Court overturned it. The next serious attempt was aimed at restricting black Americans from owning firearms in the south, with took place just after emancipation. It wasn't until the 20th century that our government started trying to seriously regulate firearms.
So yes, our Founders had no intention of restricting what could, and could not be, owned. Our nation was about 150 years old before any serious restrictions (automatic weapons) came down. That was about a full 60 years after automatic weapons truly came into being.
d-usa wrote: Again, I'll type it slowly do maybe it's easier to understand.
It's the "gun show" loophole because it allows a buyer who cannot purchase firearms to walk into a single place, look at a large inventory of firearms, and walk back out minutes later without having to undergo any sort of background check.
1) Not a loophole, it is a feature of the law. Repeatedly calling it a loophole does not make it so.
2) The feature of the law is to protect private sellers not in the business of selling firearms. Whether or not those private sellers sell their firearm at a gunshow or elsewhere this protection is in place.
Therefore it is neither specific to a gunshow, nor is it a loophole
d-usa wrote: The reason criminals use gun shows rather than classifieds is that it is quicker and more convenient, same as most other persons that use them.
So if it is "quicker and more convenient" why do so few criminals get their guns from there?
d-usa wrote: The other reason criminals use gun shows is because for them it had all the benefits of going to a regular gun store with none of the background checks. That's the loophole.
Still not a loophole.
d-usa wrote: Seriously, the only thing dumber than most of the crap proposed by gun control advocates is the trash that gets repeated by gun advocates, including here on Dakka. Heck, just these past few weeks we have had "all .308 are alike, there is no high-power or low-power ammo" which was easily disproven by a single chart from a single manufacturer and which we all know wasn't true to begin with because we look at the damn box when we buy ammo to see what the load is, we have had "gun ownership is up and suicide rates are down" which was disproven by a simple look at actual facts, and now we have people pretending that the gun show loophole isn't s thing.
Complete non-sequiter. It does not follow that because one person was wrong on .308 rounds that your inability to accept the facts as they relate to private sales is null and void. The alleged gunshow loophole has been disproven on the facts. Can we stop pretending that it is a thing?
d-usa wrote: Want anti-gun folks to stop thinking of us gun owners as idiots? We could start by not repeating idiotic things.
Like claiming that there is a loophole that does not exist?
greatbigtree wrote: An individual's rights need to be limited by the rights of others. My rights end where another's begin. It should not be a right, to possess a firearm capable of killing indiscriminately from long range, in rapid succession. There is no greater good served by allowing the general populace to possess such weaponry. Any more than it would be reasonable for the general populace to possess grenades, or dynamite.
So the greater good is being served by massively undercutting the rights of millions of law abiding citizens because of ~300 deaths per year? That is in no pay proportionate
greatbigtree wrote: Rapid fire, high capacity WEAPONS are intended, specifically, to kill lots of people in a short time. For war, in other words. They should be treated like grenades. You wouldn't use a grenade for anything other than killing people, in any reasonable sense. You wouldn't use an... I don't know... AK-47? for anything but killing people, either. You could use it for hunting, but that would be substantially overkill. If you don't get the kill in two shots, you've lost your opportunity when hunting.
Define "rapid fire"
Define "high capacity"
AK47s are fully automatic actual assault weapons, and heavily regulated in the United States.
Grenades and indiscriminate in the manner that once they detonate shrapnel goes in all directions largely outside of the control of the operator. This is different to the operation of the majority of rifles. Your comparison is wholly inaccurate
greatbigtree wrote: Slower fire, low capacity FIREARMS are intended, specifically, for hunting game. For survival, in other words. They are less suitable for killing people, as the available ammunition is in shorter, less sustainable supply. I wouldn't take an over-under shotgun to war. I'd want an... again, not a big follower of assault weapons... AK-47? They seem to get the job done well enough.
Define "slower fire". Does this include semi-automatic fire were one round is fired for each pull of the trigger
Define "low capacity"
Are you aware that many hunting rifles use a more powerful round than the AR?
greatbigtree wrote: A particular individual may not be a threat to society. They could safely possess what would be a "Prohibited Weapon" in Canada. Some do. But law is not concerned with the individual, it's concerned, hopefully, with the greatest good. One must realize that with access to weapons capable of causing rapid-succession loss of life, that at some point a person that is disrespectful of the right to live will gain access to those weapons.
You keep saying greater good while ignoring that individuals have rights, and that you have not balanced the rights of millions against what is a statistically insignificant number of deaths. Again, more people are killed by fists and feet annually than by rifles,
greatbigtree wrote: "But it's my Right!" perhaps, but it shouldn't be. That right does not bring about the greatest good, and eventually removes the right of innocent persons to live, given a long enough time-span. It is eventual. Restricting such deadly arms limits that potential, and serves a greater good.
So my having a firearm for home defense/hunting/range shooting removes the right of an innocent person to life?
And to pre-empt the usual argument that the Second Amendment was only written to cover muskets the Founding Fathers were aware of, and fans of such rifles as the Belton flintlock which could fire 16 or 20 rounds in 5 seconds. The Congressional Congress had initially sought to obtain these firearms but the cost was deemed to be too great. Also see the Girardoni rifle (which Jefferson used to outfit the Lewis & Clark expedition) and the Puckle gun, which was one of the earliest weapons to be referred to as a "machine gun", being called such in a 1722 shipping manifest
The intent of the law is not for non-eligible buyers to have a "gun store" via gun shows. But they have, and that's the "gun show loophole". That's what people who talk about the loophole are talking about, buyers.
It's easy to fix, and a fix wouldn't even have any impact at all on private sellers. That's why it's stupid not to fix it the problem, and even stupider to pretend it doesn't exist in the first place.
d-usa wrote: The intent of the law is not for non-eligible buyers to have a "gun store" via gun shows. But they have, and that's the "gun show loophole". That's what people who talk about the loophole are talking about, buyers.
It's easy to fix, and a fix wouldn't even have any impact at all on private sellers. That's why it's stupid not to fix it the problem, and even stupider to pretend it doesn't exist in the first place.
Gun shows aren't these massive high volume sales outlets for firearms that people seem to think they are. They were much larger in the past, but at this point, at the last gun show I went to, I don't think I even recall seeing a sale of an actual firearm take place. Some other events may be different, but there aren't hundreds of weapons being cleared out at these events typically. They aren't a major source of weapons for prohibited persons, there's no evidence to support the idea that they're operating as some black market high volume clearing house. Making everything at a "gun show" go through a background check as if it were an FFL wouldn't really change anything in terms of violence and crime.
d-usa wrote: The intent of the law is not for non-eligible buyers to have a "gun store" via gun shows. But they have, and that's the "gun show loophole". That's what people who talk about the loophole are talking about, buyers.
The intent is that private sellers not engaged in the business of selling firearms may do so without government regulation. How those sellers choose to do so is immaterial. So whether they sell through classifieds, gun auction, gunshow it does matter what venue they choose so long as the individual is not involved in the business of selling firearms.
There is no loophole.
d-usa wrote: That's why it's stupid not to fix it the problem, and even stupider to pretend it doesn't exist in the first place.
I'm disappointed that you closed out last year with a strawman and you are intent to constantly use ad hominems to begin this year. It has been demonstrated why this is not a loophole to begin with, it is a feature of the law not a bug, and why it is not particular to gunshows. Saying that it is a loophole in spite of all evidence to the contrary and claiming that it is stupid to disagree with you does not make an argument.
Unless you can demonstrate that this is in fact a loophole, that the law was not intended to protect private sellers not in the business of selling firearms from government regulation, and that this is particular to gunshows then you have not established that this alleged loophole does exist. Until you manage to do so the point stands that this alleged loophole does not exist in law or in fact, and I do not intend to get into entertain your unsubstantiated claims further.
d-usa wrote: Have fsun with stupid gun laws proposed by liberals because you want to keep on pretending that actual issues don't need fixing then.
It goes back to my first statement, pretending it doesn't exist is idiotic.
The issue you're talking about fixing *isn't* an issue. The "gun show loophole" doesn't exist in the way you think it does. Furthermore, "gun shows" aren't ultra high volume sales outlets, and there is no data or evidence to support the idea that guns obtained at gun shows without a background check are a meaningful proportion of guns used in crimes, and the infrastructure of the NCIS system is simply not designed to function around such sales in the first place and would generally require both legal and IT restructuring to allow such on a national scale.
d-usa wrote: Have fsun with stupid gun laws proposed by liberals because you want to keep on pretending that actual issues don't need fixing then.
It goes back to my first statement, pretending it doesn't exist is idiotic.
So again resorting to ad hominem rather than fact?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vaktathi wrote: The issue you're talking about fixing *isn't* an issue. The "gun show loophole" doesn't exist in the way you think it does. Furthermore, "gun shows" aren't ultra high volume sales outlets, and there is no data or evidence to support the idea that guns obtained at gun shows without a background check are a meaningful proportion of guns used in crimes, and the infrastructure of the NCIS system is simply not designed to function around such sales in the first place and would generally require both legal and IT restructuring to allow such on a national scale.
Correct. Other than the fact that the "gunshow loophole" is a fiction there is no evidence that criminals exploit it to the levels claimed, much less that this "assault weapon" ban that is the core of this thread will meaningfully reduce crime.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spetulhu wrote: I mean - your drugs come from Mexico but the illegal guns the Mexican drug cartels use, well, 70% of them are brought in from the USA.
Have you got a source for this 70% figure? The only way that I can see it being close to accurate is if we include guns that the US sold to the Mexican government through military contracts that the Cartels then acquired.
We do not need more restrictions on firearms ownership, especially restrictions based on cosmetic features.
Frankly, features such as pistol grips make firearms safer, as they make the firearm easier to control on the range or while hunting.
Furthermore, it is incredibly difficult to purchase a firearm already. It took me 4 hours of paperwork to purchase a 5 round capacity bolt action rifle manufactured in 1945. That is of course ignoring the $107 worth of licensing I had to purchase to own firearms in my state. I also had to sign away my 14th amendment rights in order to get the license (no literally, it said in the paperwork that they can come into my house at anytime for any reason at all once I signed the papers to get the license.)
So yeah... I stand as very much pro-firearm, and am completely against this new proposed ban.
Cothonian wrote: We do not need more restrictions on firearms ownership, especially restrictions based on cosmetic features.
Frankly, features such as pistol grips make firearms safer, as they make the firearm easier to control on the range or while hunting.
Furthermore, it is incredibly difficult to purchase a firearm already. It took me 4 hours of paperwork to purchase a 5 round capacity bolt action rifle manufactured in 1945. That is of course ignoring the $107 worth of licensing I had to purchase to own firearms in my state. I also had to sign away my 14th amendment rights in order to get the license (no literally, it said in the paperwork that they can come into my house at anytime for any reason at all once I signed the papers to get the license.)
So yeah... I stand as very much pro-firearm, and am completely against this new proposed ban.
Rapid fire, as in semi-automatic. It's pretty easy to pull a trigger in rapid succession. High Capacity would be anything more than 5 rounds per clip. Again, just going by the Canadian standards.
According to Facebook, which is not exactly a super accurate source of information...
Chris Murphy: Senator Documents Every Mass Shooting That Happened in 2015 on Social Media
"Here’s my 2015 year in review," Murphy, D-Conn., posted on New Year's Eve. He went on to post a message for all 372 mass shootings that occurred over the past year.
Did I say annual occurance? I guess I should have said daily. The individual's rights. How many individuals lost their right to life? A culture that perceives any personal loss as unacceptable, while hundreds die for that "right". You have my pity.
greatbigtree wrote: Did I say annual occurance? I guess I should have said daily. The individual's rights. How many individuals lost their right to life? A culture that perceives any personal loss as unacceptable, while hundreds die for that "right". You have my pity.
Thousands of people die every year from car crashes. At what point will they outlaw cars? They kill a lot of people on a daily basis and by your standard we should still trample over the rights of everyone who responsibly owns a car and doesn't manage to kill anyone.
greatbigtree wrote: Rapid fire, as in semi-automatic. It's pretty easy to pull a trigger in rapid succession. High Capacity would be anything more than 5 rounds per clip. Again, just going by the Canadian standards.
Are you aware that for most handguns, even subcompact, 8+ rounds is standard capacity? And firearms have progressed so that semiautomatic is pretty standard on most platforms.
greatbigtree wrote: According to Facebook, which is not exactly a super accurate source of information...
Chris Murphy: Senator Documents Every Mass Shooting That Happened in 2015 on Social Media
"Here’s my 2015 year in review," Murphy, D-Conn., posted on New Year's Eve. He went on to post a message for all 372 mass shootings that occurred over the past year.
Did I say annual occurance? I guess I should have said daily. The individual's rights. How many individuals lost their right to life? A culture that perceives any personal loss as unacceptable, while hundreds die for that "right". You have my pity.
There are 372 mass shootings if you skew the traditionally accepted definition, and include multiple people shot with a BB gun (thank you shootingtracker) so that can be ignored by anyone with a passing interest in honest discussion.
And individuals do have the right to life. That's why murder (and other crimes against the person) is illegal. I believe in the right to life, and as part of that I believe in the right to defend my life. Any loss of life is tragic, but to use it as an excuse to erode the rights of the law abiding is disgusting opportunism. What about people who lost their lives because their State refused to issue them a permit to carry a firearm within the given time? Do you have sympathy for their loss of life because they were robbed of a meaningful way to defend themselves?
No one has to die for my right to defend myself/hunt/target shoot etc. You are presenting a false dilemma.
Spetulhu wrote: I mean - your drugs come from Mexico but the illegal guns the Mexican drug cartels use, well, 70% of them are brought in from the USA.
That seems very, very unlikely. I will agree that most of the guns that the Mexican government submits for tracing show a US origin, but that's because.... surprise, they only produce the guns suspected to have originated in the US for tracing. All of the AK's with Romanian or Bulgarian manufacture marks are never submitted which really, really throws that figure off. If I recover a cache of guns that consist of 40 Kalashnikovs and 3 AR-15s with lowers from Spike's Tactical, and I ask the US to trace the 3 AR-15s, it's going to show 100%.
No one can definitively say what percentage of arms in Mexico originated in the US, but whenever you see one of those "drugs on the table" photo ops and you see stuff like M203 grenade launchers and hand grenades, you should be suspicious.
Common sense says given the choice between relatively expensive semiautomatic weapons purchased in the US and smuggled over the border and then slowly and laboriously converted to full auto, or just getting fully-automatic weapons from El Salvador or the Mexican Army for the price of a chicken each.... I'm going to presume the latter.
As a side note, I'm not sure that conflicts in a different country are a sound basis for curtailing our rights.
I agree with what you've said here and throughout the thread. In fact, you're probably the most level headed and intelligent debater on this site. Just a funny story about the "drugs on the table" photo, friend of mine is in the Border Patrol and once caught hand grenades going into Mexico from the US. I mean I'm sure they weren't American, I just thought it was funny.
But like in the US, I can imagine most cartel related murders are committed with cheap handguns. So let's ban rifles.
Is there any US member that has even tried to defend this garbage bill?
greatbigtree wrote: Did I say annual occurance? I guess I should have said daily. The individual's rights. How many individuals lost their right to life? A culture that perceives any personal loss as unacceptable, while hundreds die for that "right". You have my pity.
Thousands of people die every year from car crashes. At what point will they outlaw cars? They kill a lot of people on a daily basis and by your standard we should still trample over the rights of everyone who responsibly owns a car and doesn't manage to kill anyone.
A great question. Why do you draw the line where you do? Why is the 'right to own a gun' more sacred than, say, the 'right to go out sailing alone while drunk'? Both are unlikely, but possible, to cause harm to another, yet one is illegal and the other is not.
greatbigtree wrote: Did I say annual occurance? I guess I should have said daily. The individual's rights. How many individuals lost their right to life? A culture that perceives any personal loss as unacceptable, while hundreds die for that "right". You have my pity.
Thousands of people die every year from car crashes. At what point will they outlaw cars? They kill a lot of people on a daily basis and by your standard we should still trample over the rights of everyone who responsibly owns a car and doesn't manage to kill anyone.
A great question. Why do you draw the line where you do? Why is the 'right to own a gun' more sacred than, say, the 'right to go out sailing alone while drunk'? Both are unlikely, but possible, to cause harm to another, yet one is illegal and the other is not.
The right to own weapons is more sacred because its in the Constitution. And its generally accepted that people have the right to defend themselves from individuals wishing to cause harm to them, weather that be a tyrannical government, a violent home invader, or any other number of hazards. Thats why I think its not just a legal right, but a fundamental human right to self defense by whatever means necessary. The 2nd amendment, and all the others in the Bill of Rights, are just a tangible representation of rights which rightfully belong to everybody.
Me owning an automatic weapon doesn't endanger anyone except someone attempting to cause me harm. It only causes harm if I choose to commit a crime with it, in which case it doesn't matter if I used an M60 or a sharpened stick. All of these crimes are already illegal, they don't become more or less so if you change the tools used in the commission of a crime. Guns are never a problem, just like cars aren't the problem with all the tens of thousands of people who are killed or injured in crashes. Someone snapping and killing a bunch of people with a gun is no different than if he ran down a bunch of people with a car instead. Yet in the first case people cry out for banning the murder weapon, and in the second don't make any mention of it, yet its exactly the same scenario and same root cause.
Let's not go to absurd extremes in defending the right to own weapons. It's indisputable fact that guns make certain crimes significantly easier to commit. If you want to kill someone it's a lot easier to shoot them than to attack them with a pointy stick. In the real world we have to acknowledge that we are making a deliberate choice to accept a certain level of criminal use of guns in exchange for allowing law-abiding citizens to own them. Even if you feel that the right to gun ownership and self defense out-weighs the harm caused and is the right thing to do it's still a tradeoff that you're making.
greatbigtree wrote: Rapid fire, as in semi-automatic. It's pretty easy to pull a trigger in rapid succession. High Capacity would be anything more than 5 rounds per clip. Again, just going by the Canadian standards.
Peregrine wrote: Let's not go to absurd extremes in defending the right to own weapons. It's indisputable fact that guns make certain crimes significantly easier to commit. If you want to kill someone it's a lot easier to shoot them than to attack them with a pointy stick. In the real world we have to acknowledge that we are making a deliberate choice to accept a certain level of criminal use of guns in exchange for allowing law-abiding citizens to own them. Even if you feel that the right to gun ownership and self defense out-weighs the harm caused and is the right thing to do it's still a tradeoff that you're making.
Given that making guns illegal would not actually reduce their availability to criminals I don't think this trade-off you speak of actually exists in any appreciable form. Especially given that gun violence is extremely rare, and declining at a massive rate.
Criminals overwhelmingly use illegally acquired guns. This suggests that guns being available legally doesn't actually do anything to increase gun violence. If that were the case we would expect a massive portion of these crimes to be committed using legally purchased guns, but instead almost all of them are done using illegally acquired guns.
greatbigtree wrote: Did I say annual occurance? I guess I should have said daily. The individual's rights. How many individuals lost their right to life? A culture that perceives any personal loss as unacceptable, while hundreds die for that "right". You have my pity.
Thousands of people die every year from car crashes. At what point will they outlaw cars? They kill a lot of people on a daily basis and by your standard we should still trample over the rights of everyone who responsibly owns a car and doesn't manage to kill anyone.
A great question. Why do you draw the line where you do? Why is the 'right to own a gun' more sacred than, say, the 'right to go out sailing alone while drunk'? Both are unlikely, but possible, to cause harm to another, yet one is illegal and the other is not.
One is a fundamental right enumerated in the founding document of the nation and incorporated as an individual right by the supreme court that can be exercised without any threat or harm to another, the other is not a right and is a fundamentally and inherently unsafe practice.
greatbigtree wrote: Rapid fire, as in semi-automatic. It's pretty easy to pull a trigger in rapid succession. High Capacity would be anything more than 5 rounds per clip. Again, just going by the Canadian standards.
The problem with this is that just about everything designed since the late 19th century, including all sorts of designs dating back to before the first world war, falls into this category. You'd basically be freezing the capabilities of firearms in the 1870's.
According to Facebook, which is not exactly a super accurate source of information...
Chris Murphy: Senator Documents Every Mass Shooting That Happened in 2015 on Social Media
"Here’s my 2015 year in review," Murphy, D-Conn., posted on New Year's Eve. He went on to post a message for all 372 mass shootings that occurred over the past year.
Did I say annual occurance? I guess I should have said daily. The individual's rights. How many individuals lost their right to life? A culture that perceives any personal loss as unacceptable, while hundreds die for that "right". You have my pity.
The problem is that a lot of these shootings are...well, stretches (as with the aforementioned BB gun incident) and tend to concentrate heavily around a number of socio-economically depressed geographical locations.
We're also talking about a nation of nearly 320 million people, the actual number of people involved in these incidents is quite low on a statistical or per-capita basis, effectively negligible.
Peregrine wrote: Let's not go to absurd extremes in defending the right to own weapons. It's indisputable fact that guns make certain crimes significantly easier to commit. If you want to kill someone it's a lot easier to shoot them than to attack them with a pointy stick. In the real world we have to acknowledge that we are making a deliberate choice to accept a certain level of criminal use of guns in exchange for allowing law-abiding citizens to own them. Even if you feel that the right to gun ownership and self defense out-weighs the harm caused and is the right thing to do it's still a tradeoff that you're making.
That's absolutely true, but as Americans, collectively, and over the centuries, as a society we generally lean more towards allowing greater freedom of action for the individual at the cost of increased discomfort of society. This applies in just about every aspect. Yeah, people can say atrocious things that offend many people and may be outright lies, but they're shielded by the 1st amendment, and we as a society have accepted that. Yes, in many instances it could be easier for society to deal with dangerous criminals without the 4th and 5th amendments, but we're willing to accept the extra danger from some of these criminals in exchange for greater protections for the individual against abuses of power. That's simply a facet of US society.
And, I think at this point, with the size of the US and the number of weapons in circulation, any attempt to remove such weapons from society wouldn't remove them from criminal elements given how vast the potential supply is and how long such items last, the time for something like that has come and gone.
greatbigtree wrote: Rapid fire, as in semi-automatic. It's pretty easy to pull a trigger in rapid succession. High Capacity would be anything more than 5 rounds per clip.
What is this clip you speak of? Perhaps you mean magazine? You know, the actual thing that holds the ammunition in the gun.
It would be easier to take gun control proponents seriously if they could actually use the correct terminology and weren't targeting entirely the wrong types of weapons for a problem which actually doesn't exist.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vaktathi wrote: You'd basically be freezing the capabilities of firearms in the 1870's.
It would go further than that. Revolvers and repeating rifles were a thing even before that.
Ashiraya wrote: A great question. Why do you draw the line where you do? Why is the 'right to own a gun' more sacred than, say, the 'right to go out sailing alone while drunk'? Both are unlikely, but possible, to cause harm to another, yet one is illegal and the other is not.
It's no more sacred than the right to free speech, protection against illegal imprisonment, or the right to trial by jury, should we also get rid of all the other sacred cows?
It was written into the foundation laws of our country so that we'd have the ability to protect ourselves, be it from other people, wildlife, or invading armies. Depending on our personal views It's something that we can opt to exercise or not, but under law we are at least given the option to choose. When you take away the option of choice then it is not freedom. Those that choose to use their freedom of choice to pursue ill will against others and do harm are dealt and punished by laws against such actions. As a free society we don't punish people for what they "might" do or "might' have the capacity to do.
If they want to go after criminal use of guns then they should make the penalties stiffer for the criminal use of a firearm, not use a blanket punishment on people that own and use their firearms in a responsible manner. Commit a crime with a gun? Automatic life sentence, it provides a much bigger legal deterrent and doesn't impact law abiding owners one bit.
Grey Templar wrote: Criminals overwhelmingly use illegally acquired guns. This suggests that guns being available legally doesn't actually do anything to increase gun violence. If that were the case we would expect a massive portion of these crimes to be committed using legally purchased guns, but instead almost all of them are done using illegally acquired guns.
This is simply wrong. Criminals might use illegally acquired guns, but where were those guns manufactured? Are there a lot of illegal gun factories making illegal pistols and AR-15 copies for criminals to use, or are those illegal guns legally-manufactured guns that are stolen or sold illegally? If you eliminate 99.9999999% of the demand for legal gun manufacturing then you make it a lot harder to get a gun illegally.
And yes, it's probably too late to do this in the US, without a massive investment of time and effort to remove the existing stockpiles of weapons. But it doesn't change the fact that we have made and continue to make a deliberate choice that civilian gun ownership is worth the consequences.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: It would be easier to take gun control proponents seriously if they could actually use the correct terminology and weren't targeting entirely the wrong types of weapons for a problem which actually doesn't exist.
It would be easier to take gun control opponents seriously if they could actually address the substance of the "how many bullets can a gun hold" argument instead of nitpicking over the fact that the commonly-used term for the thing that holds bullets is not technically correct. You know exactly what was meant by "clip" in this context and nitpicking at definitions just comes across as trying to show off your superior gun knowledge.
If they weren't manufactured in the US they'd be smuggled over the border from the rest of the world. Or is there no legal gun manufacturing anywhere in the world in your hypothetical scenario?
Guns are also not overly complicated bits of machinery. If all legal gun production ceased tomorrow it wouldn't be long before you had serviceable weapons getting produced by people with machinery you'd find in any metal shop. The simplest gun can be made using a pipe, rubber band, and nail. With a little more effort you can make something more reliable.
This is simply wrong. Criminals might use illegally acquired guns, but where were those guns manufactured? Are there a lot of illegal gun factories making illegal pistols and AR-15 copies for criminals to use, or are those illegal guns legally-manufactured guns that are stolen or sold illegally? If you eliminate 99.9999999% of the demand for legal gun manufacturing then you make it a lot harder to get a gun illegally.
Whenever something has been outlawed and made illegal it only deepens the criminal involvement and violence associated with it. Criminalize booze? prices went through the roof as did gang related violence. When it became legal again all that violence disappeared. When they outlawed pot same effect, prices went up and the criminal and violent elements increased. Nobody was killing people over stuff they could grow in their backyard but once it was criminalized it fuels criminal violence. Attempting to eliminate guns will have a similar, if not worse impact. The price on them will skyrocket which attracts criminals and unlike drugs or booze anyone dealing in illegal guns will by default be armed so it's a perfect storm of creating a high black market ability and having the ability to kill others with the very item they are smuggling.
If you criminalize all guns (or anything else) then somebody will always move in to supply the demand and then only criminals will have them, sounds like good times.
Grey Templar wrote: It would be easier to take gun control proponents seriously if they could actually use the correct terminology and weren't targeting entirely the wrong types of weapons for a problem which actually doesn't exist.
It would be easier to take gun control opponents seriously if they could actually address the substance of the "how many bullets can a gun hold" argument instead of nitpicking over the fact that the commonly-used term for the thing that holds bullets is not technically correct. You know exactly what was meant by "clip" in this context and nitpicking at definitions just comes across as trying to show off your superior gun knowledge.
Why not make suggestions on how to impose gun control elements that punish criminals while not chipping away at the rights of law abiding citizens? I can't take the control side seriously when they can't accept anything other than "all guns are bad and should be gone" mantra. This bill is choke full of things that would ban weapons simply on the cosmetics features and does absolutely nothing to impact the actual criminal usage of guns.
Firearms are a tool and just like every other tool they are nothing without the will of the user being applied. The foundation of the problem isn't the item but it's the criminal will of the user (or the user being carelessness) There are millions of people who own firearms and use their tools in a completely responsible and legal fashion, ownership is simply not the problem. Where we need to be focused lies with the human criminal element.
Grey Templar wrote: If they weren't manufactured in the US they'd be smuggled over the border from the rest of the world. Or is there no legal gun manufacturing anywhere in the world in your hypothetical scenario?
So I guess you're in favor of legalizing all drugs, including domestic manufacture of those drugs? After all, they'll just be smuggled over the border if we don't.
Guns are also not overly complicated bits of machinery. If all legal gun production ceased tomorrow it wouldn't be long before you had serviceable weapons getting produced by people with machinery you'd find in any metal shop. The simplest gun can be made using a pipe, rubber band, and nail. With a little more effort you can make something more reliable.
That's why I said it makes it harder to get a gun, not impossible. Let's not forget that most criminals are desperate and/or stupid. People with useful skills and ambition aren't typically out robbing people in dark alleys or murdering rival drug dealers over rights to sell on a particular street. Take away the easy guns and I bet a lot of criminals won't be able to get the harder ones.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
stanman wrote: Whenever something has been outlawed and made illegal it only deepens the criminal involvement and violence associated with it. Criminalize booze? prices went through the roof as did gang related violence. When it became legal again all that violence disappeared. When they outlawed pot same effect, prices went up and the criminal and violent elements increased. Nobody was killing people over stuff they could grow in their backyard but once it was criminalized it fuels criminal violence. Attempting to eliminate guns will have a similar, if not worse impact. The price on them will skyrocket which attracts criminals and unlike drugs or booze anyone dealing in illegal guns will by default be armed so it's a perfect storm of creating a high black market ability and having the ability to kill others with the very item they are smuggling.
If you criminalize all guns (or anything else) then somebody will always move in to supply the demand and then only criminals will have them, sounds like good times.
Oddly this doomsday scenario doesn't seem to happen in countries with much stricter gun laws than the US.
Grey Templar wrote: If they weren't manufactured in the US they'd be smuggled over the border from the rest of the world. Or is there no legal gun manufacturing anywhere in the world in your hypothetical scenario?
So I guess you're in favor of legalizing all drugs, including domestic manufacture of those drugs? After all, they'll just be smuggled over the border if we don't.
Personally, can't speak for Grey Templar, but I'd absolutely be for legalization of all drugs, and instead putting resources to treatment and penalty enhancements for violent crimes committed while under the influence of such substances (much the same way committing a crime with a firearm drastically enhances the penalty quite often). It'd be a far more effective outcome in terms of social benefits while simultaneously also enhancing individual choices/freedoms, opening up new, legal, domestic markets and cutting off the market need for foreign cartels.
My sincerely sarcastic apologies for mis-noming a magazine as a "clip". I'm sure it was tricky, requiring many hours of internet based searching to determine my meaning.
A bolt-action rifle requires notably more time between firing, compared to semi-auto. You must manually eject the spent casing from the chamber, resetting the pin, before reloading a cartridge into the empty chamber and then subsequently pulling the trigger again. Hopefully those terms are acceptable. While I own a firearm, mine is an over-under with a break that allows for direct access to the chamber from which I must manually remove my spent shells, before reloading and then closing the receiver. Is my prick sufficiently large to compare?
I could not walk into a theatre and kill 10 people before reloading. To reload, even when acting quickly, would provide ample time for someone to wrestle my firearm away to the point I could not continue a rampage. With a 5 round limit in a bolt-action, could I reload before being halted? Particularly a tube magazine similar to a pump-action shotgun? Manual reloads take much more time than the ejecting and replacing of a magazine.
Regulating firearms does not equal taking away firearms. We've got plenty of them in Canada, but somehow with 1/10th of the US population, we manage to have mass shootings so rarely I had to look back 45 years to find a half-dozen of them. At 10 times the population [actually, closer to 9] one should find approximately 10 times as many shootings in those 45 years in the States. Say, 60?
On one hand, we dismiss the killings of hundreds of individuals every year as "insignificant" while the right for millions of individuals to own weapons is considered sacred. Lives are meaningless, while possessions are sacred.
The argument that vehicles kill people every year is a false equivalency. The movement of goods and services is necessary. The right to own a weapon capable of killing an entire classroom's worth of people in under a minute? Not so necessary. Not when less body-count-capable firearms could serve all non-people-killing purposes just as handily. Quite frankly, firearms can be manufactured with lower capacities. My understanding is that magazines are replaceable? Say, with lower ammunition counts? It's not like we're reinventing the wheel, here.
Yes, a 6-shot revolver would be considered high-capacity in Canada, though all pistols are "restricted" firearms in Canada, so it would make little difference. Somehow, the people of Canada have learned to get by, without needing to carry a gun at all times.
stanman wrote: Whenever something has been outlawed and made illegal it only deepens the criminal involvement and violence associated with it. Criminalize booze? prices went through the roof as did gang related violence. When it became legal again all that violence disappeared. When they outlawed pot same effect, prices went up and the criminal and violent elements increased. Nobody was killing people over stuff they could grow in their backyard but once it was criminalized it fuels criminal violence. Attempting to eliminate guns will have a similar, if not worse impact. The price on them will skyrocket which attracts criminals and unlike drugs or booze anyone dealing in illegal guns will by default be armed so it's a perfect storm of creating a high black market ability and having the ability to kill others with the very item they are smuggling.
If you criminalize all guns (or anything else) then somebody will always move in to supply the demand and then only criminals will have them, sounds like good times.
Oddly this doomsday scenario doesn't seem to happen in countries with much stricter gun laws than the US.
That is because people only consider the short-time scenario. People would get used to the bans eventually, and proportionately speaking that time of turmoil will be a minor one in a country's history and future.
greatbigtree wrote: Somehow, the people of Canada have learned to get by, without needing to carry a gun at all times.
We don't carry because we need to. We carry because we want to.
Wasn't one argument that you need guns to ensure you are safe from the government?
Yep. And it is a valid argument, which is why the 2nd Amendment was included in the Bill Of Rights. When we, as a nation, determine it is not valid we have mechanisms in the Constitution to amend that Amendment.
The right to self defense is considered a universal right to us, and is not dependent of the 'who' or 'what' you have a right to defend yourself from. The 2nd Amendment ensures citizens may possess the tools for their defense.
greatbigtree wrote: Somehow, the people of Canada have learned to get by, without needing to carry a gun at all times.
We don't carry because we need to. We carry because we want to.
Wasn't one argument that you need guns to ensure you are safe from the government?
Yep. And it is a valid argument, which is why the 2nd Amendment was included in the Bill Of Rights. When we, as a nation, determine it is not valid we have mechanisms in the Constitution to amend that Amendment.
The right to self defense is considered a universal right to us, and is not dependent of the 'who' or 'what' you have a right to defend yourself from. The 2nd Amendment ensures citizens may possess the tools for their defense.
Than why can't you have fighter jets and warships? Full-automatic machine guns? Surely all of that also falls under the 2nd Amendment.
Iron_Captain wrote: Than why can't you have fighter jets and warships? Full-automatic machine guns? Surely all of that also falls under the 2nd Amendment.
Don't spoil the fantasy.
Edit: Missed the Machine Gun part. You can legally have those if you really feel the need bad enough to fork over the cash. The Knob Creek shoot is based around them.
Than why can't you have fighter jets and warships? Full-automatic machine guns? Surely all of that also falls under the 2nd Amendment.
Great question. I'm not sure why the gov't got so scared of the people they allegedly work for that they decided to restrict our rights so much.
But it isn't like there have not been many cases across the globe where folks a lot worse armed than the gov't have been able to resist. And some states do have those things.
greatbigtree wrote: Rapid fire, as in semi-automatic. It's pretty easy to pull a trigger in rapid succession. High Capacity would be anything more than 5 rounds per clip. Again, just going by the Canadian standards.
That definition includes my revolver.
Or anyone proficient in the Mad Minute with a bolt action rifle
Ashiraya wrote: A great question. Why do you draw the line where you do? Why is the 'right to own a gun' more sacred than, say, the 'right to go out sailing alone while drunk'? Both are unlikely, but possible, to cause harm to another, yet one is illegal and the other is not.
One is an enumerated right that is granted to all Americans (and those who are legal permanent residents) which allows that person to defend themselves, provide for their families by hunting, etc. the other is operating a complicated device while intoxicated. The two are in no way comparable, except in some extremely superficial and unhelpful manner.
You may as well ask is a right to free speech as important as juggling flaming chainsaws while I have an airtight plastic bag around my neck.
Peregrine wrote: So I guess you're in favor of legalizing all drugs, including domestic manufacture of those drugs? After all, they'll just be smuggled over the border if we don't.
Absolutely. Ending the War on Drugs will reduce crime
greatbigtree wrote: Regulating firearms does not equal taking away firearms.
Except for those rifles listed as prohibited in the legislation. You know, the most common rifles owned by Americans.
greatbigtree wrote: We've got plenty of them in Canada, but somehow with 1/10th of the US population, we manage to have mass shootings so rarely I had to look back 45 years to find a half-dozen of them. At 10 times the population [actually, closer to 9] one should find approximately 10 times as many shootings in those 45 years in the States. Say, 60?
And might there be cultural, economic, social, etc. issues at play that would make a bigger difference than just the availability of guns?
greatbigtree wrote: On one hand, we dismiss the killings of hundreds of individuals every year as "insignificant" while the right for millions of individuals to own weapons is considered sacred. Lives are meaningless, while possessions are sacred.
If you are going to quote me do not omit vital context. What I said was "statistically insignificant number of deaths" which is, like it or not, correct. And I challenge you to find one single example in this thread where anyone has seriously said that "[l]ives are meaningless". Again you are posing false dilemmas to make your point
greatbigtree wrote: The argument that vehicles kill people every year is a false equivalency. The movement of goods and services is necessary. The right to own a weapon capable of killing an entire classroom's worth of people in under a minute? Not so necessary. Not when less body-count-capable firearms could serve all non-people-killing purposes just as handily. Quite frankly, firearms can be manufactured with lower capacities. My understanding is that magazines are replaceable? Say, with lower ammunition counts? It's not like we're reinventing the wheel, here.
Do you have an actual argument to make that does not involve the overuse of emotion to use make your point?
If just the movement of goods and services is necessary then we can have licenses only for those transporting goods. Ban public ownership of transport. After all to use your standard of the greater good more people are killed in vehicular accidents by a tool not designed to cause harm than by "a weapon capable of killing an entire classroom's worth of people in under a minute" so obviously the right to own a private means of transport should be strictly regulated. After all no one needs a high capacity assault vehicle capable of mowing down innocent people. We can instead have the government provide transportation, with all drivers strictly monitored and tested, their mental health evaluated, and checks on their blood alcohol levels to prevent accidents or injury.
And magazine capacity has little to do with the ability to harm others. Changing a magazine is a very quick process, so that is a waste of time designed to appear as if you are doing something.
greatbigtree wrote: Yes, a 6-shot revolver would be considered high-capacity in Canada, though all pistols are "restricted" firearms in Canada, so it would make little difference. Somehow, the people of Canada have learned to get by, without needing to carry a gun at all times.
That is wonderful that your society has come to a decision on how to treat the private ownership of firearms, I'm sure that you would like us to respect that, as we would like you to respect the fact that we have our own decision on how to treat the private ownership of firearms.
Ashiraya wrote: Wasn't one argument that you need guns to ensure you are safe from the government?
Wasn't one of the Moderator warnings to refrain from a discussion of the Second Amendment and how it relates to resisting a government?
Greatbigtree is representative of Canadian gun owners who threw the rest under the bus because he personally doesn't want more then an over under shotgun, so why would anyone else need/want one.
Decades ago you could buy any gun you wanted, full auto even, and we never had issues with gun violence even in those wild west days.
Gun violence was already low, and already decreasing, then the liberals passed laws and credited them for our low gun violence after the fact.
Yet now, every time there is a shooting, the call is for yet more gun control.
The same "if it only saves one life" logic that saw mag capacity reduced to 5 rounds is the same logic that can, and will, ban everything from magazines to his over under eventually.
After all, great big tree shouldn't be able to shoot 10 people, so why should we let him shoot 2 people?
He can go buy meat at the grocery store, his rights end where my life begins and all that.
The argument that vehicles kill people every year is a false equivalency. The movement of goods and services is necessary. .
Since you seem interested in reducing the body count by eliminating unnecessary things, what about alcohol? Guns, account for around 12, 000 homicides a year, but according to the CDC, 88,000 people a year in this country die from alcohol related causes yearly and 2 out of 3 domestic abuse cases involve alcohol. Throw in all of the other negative effects besides those, such as dementia, other assorted health issues, lost jobs, broken marriages, etc., the question comes to my mind whether you drink and serve out alcohol at parties, and even if you don't, are you as vocal in wanting to outlaw alcohol as you are guns?
The right to self defense is considered a universal right to us, and is not dependent of the 'who' or 'what' you have a right to defend yourself from.
The natural right to self defense exists regardless of law, but that does not mean that the law respects it. Indeed, the "who" and "what" are very important when considering legal matters.
I'm lazy. I rather not break a sweat swinging a base bat at the intruder in my house.
Remember kids and those not happy with those of us who argues in favor of keeping our evil mean looking weapons
Sticks n Stones may break your bones but bullet holes really gawddang HURT
greatbigtree wrote: Somehow, the people of Canada have learned to get by, without needing to carry a gun at all times.
We don't carry because we need to. We carry because we want to.
Wasn't one argument that you need guns to ensure you are safe from the government?
Yep. And it is a valid argument, which is why the 2nd Amendment was included in the Bill Of Rights. When we, as a nation, determine it is not valid we have mechanisms in the Constitution to amend that Amendment.
The right to self defense is considered a universal right to us, and is not dependent of the 'who' or 'what' you have a right to defend yourself from. The 2nd Amendment ensures citizens may possess the tools for their defense.
Than why can't you have fighter jets and warships? Full-automatic machine guns? Surely all of that also falls under the 2nd Amendment.
It's entirely legal to own such things. The issue in the case of fighter jets and warships is that typically most people can't afford them and things like avionics are classified so you'd have to provide your own alternatives, but there are a couple of thousand privately owned and operated older military aircraft like Vietnam, Korean War, and WW2 era bombers & fighters. With respect to tanks, there's lots of those in private hands, Arnold Schwarzenegger owns the tank he drove while serving in the Austrian army, and one of (if not the) largest private collection of tanks was the Littlefield collection in California until the owner died and it was liquidated a couple of years ago. Machine guns are legal to own at a Federal level (they have extra paperwork & associated waiting times attached however) but are limited in supply to those already in civilian hands before May of 1986 (~200,000 items).
The big issue is that most of these things are *wayyyyyy* beyond the means of your average citizen, hence why you never really see them brought up. The only crime I can recall ever committed with a tank was one stolen out of a national guard armory when I was like 10 and living in San Diego and the dude ran over a bunch of stuff with it.
Grey Templar wrote: The right to own weapons is more sacred because its in the Constitution.
The constitution is not a graven tablet handed down on high, perfect in form and not to be touched by mortal hands. It was written and intended to be a living document to keep up with our evolving social mores. We've amended it nearly 30 times - as recently as 1992. If the political will was there*, the 2nd amendment could be rewritten. It's not "sacred".
Additionally, the modern interpretation by SCOTUS has really, really expanded in the last 20 or so years - I'd remind you that it was a grey area as to whether or not the right to own a firearm was tied to militia use up until Heller vs DC in 2008.
I believe guns are necessary for preserving freedom.
Any other reason is just icing on the cake.
If the purpose of guns is to fight against enemies foreign or domestic then we should be on as equal terms as possible. Limiting guns to bolt actions would defeat the purpose of the 2A.
And yes, I hold my rights as sacred.
The right to free speech is sacred to me.
The right to practice my religion is sacred to me.
The right to free assembly is sacred to me.
Rights are "Granted" by the Constitution, they're supposed to be protected by it.
MWHistorian wrote: I believe guns are necessary for preserving freedom.
Any other reason is just icing on the cake.
If the purpose of guns is to fight against enemies foreign or domestic then we should be on as equal terms as possible. Limiting guns to bolt actions would defeat the purpose of the 2A.
And yes, I hold my rights as sacred.
The right to free speech is sacred to me.
The right to practice my religion is sacred to me.
The right to free assembly is sacred to me.
Rights are "Granted" by the Constitution, they're supposed to be protected by it.
If that is indeed the purpose of the 2nd Amendment, I would argue that its purpose has already been defeated because heavy and full-automatic weaponry has already been banned. What actual, practical purpose does the 2nd Amendment now serve, and is this purpose in any way affected by the proposed ban?
What is the difference between full-auto machineguns, semi-auto assault weapons and bolt-action weapons that a line should be drawn at the one, but not the other? In other words, why has the US drawn a line at full-automatic weapons, and why should this line not be extended to assault weapons? All arguments in this thread I have seen so far against this ban, could equally apply to the ban on full-automatic or even heavy weaponry. So to the people who oppose this ban, do you think that all weapons should be legalised in the US because of the 2nd Amendment? And if not, why draw the line where you do?
Vaktathi wrote: It's entirely legal to own such things. The issue in the case of fighter jets and warships is that typically most people can't afford them and things like avionics are classified so you'd have to provide your own alternatives, but there are a couple of thousand privately owned and operated older military aircraft like Vietnam, Korean War, and WW2 era bombers & fighters.
Though it should be noted that the FAA has some very strict rules about how you can use those ex-military aircraft. Tons of maintenance paperwork, training requirements, limits on where you can fly them, etc. We recognize that there are some serious safety issues involved that put other people at risk, and we take steps to minimize those risks as much as possible. So I think it's reasonable to expect similar restrictions on artillery/grenades/etc, to make sure that owning them doesn't put anyone else at risk. And once you impose those restrictions I think you'll find that the number of civilians qualified to own tanks/artillery/rocket launchers/etc is so small that it's completely irrelevant from a "defend against the government" point of view. All we're really protecting here is the "right" for rich collectors to have their toys.
MWHistorian wrote: I believe guns are necessary for preserving freedom.
Any other reason is just icing on the cake.
If the purpose of guns is to fight against enemies foreign or domestic then we should be on as equal terms as possible. Limiting guns to bolt actions would defeat the purpose of the 2A.
And yes, I hold my rights as sacred.
The right to free speech is sacred to me.
The right to practice my religion is sacred to me.
The right to free assembly is sacred to me.
Rights are "Granted" by the Constitution, they're supposed to be protected by it.
If that is indeed the purpose of the 2nd Amendment, I would argue that its purpose has already been defeated because heavy and full-automatic weaponry has already been banned. What actual, practical purpose does the 2nd Amendment now serve, and is this purpose in any way affected by the proposed ban?
What is the difference between full-auto machineguns, semi-auto assault weapons and bolt-action weapons that a line should be drawn at the one, but not the other? In other words, why has the US drawn a line at full-automatic weapons, and why should this line not be extended to assault weapons? All arguments in this thread I have seen so far against this ban, could equally apply to the ban on full-automatic or even heavy weaponry. So to the people who oppose this ban, do you think that all weapons should be legalised in the US because of the 2nd Amendment? And if not, why draw the line where you do?
Full auto weapons are legal, they're just really expensive.
Also, the army's M-16 isn't full auto.
Full auto is good if you have a huge supply line to keep it fed. Otherwise it's more of a hindrance.
So you think anyone who wants one should be able to own artillery, without any licensing/safety inspections/etc to get in their way?
There are people that own artillery pieces.
Now don't let facts get in the way of things.
We're all insane, remember?
Besides, the people that own them have given lots of money and paperwork to the government, so they couldn't possibly do anything bad with the big toys could they?
We talking black powder cannons? Hell Mythbusters went through the loop firing one. In like a safety hard area and the cannonball landed in someone lawn
As for modern field piece. No way. Someone might get a 105mm piece but not the newer version of the M119. Might get a 75mm pack howizter but there be no firing pin in it. No t only that but you will not get on a average buy a Gunner sight or the elevation/quadrant bubbles pieces.
Now the shell cartridge cannot be brought. Nor the primer for the shell. Guess one could make the powder bags 1-7. Fuses are a controlled sensitive items but...well there's a lot involve with a artillery piece.
Have a better chance on getting a recoiless cannon like the one they use to set off avalanches
Alex C wrote: If they do something stupid with it then appropriate criminal charges can be filed.
I'm sure that will be a lot of consolation to the families of the people they killed because they just had to have the biggest gun in the neighborhood. Thankfully you are part of a tiny minority and most people understand the need to prevent incredibly dangerous situations before they get people killed, and not just file criminal charges after it's too late.
Note the key point of that question: without restrictions. It's possible for civilians to own artillery, even functioning artillery, if they are willing to get the appropriate licenses. But this is, and should be, an exceptional case. We should not have a situation where artillery has the same lack of restrictions as a .22 rifle.
Alex C wrote: If they do something stupid with it then appropriate criminal charges can be filed.
I'm sure that will be a lot of consolation to the families of the people they killed because they just had to have the biggest gun in the neighborhood. Thankfully you are part of a tiny minority and most people understand the need to prevent incredibly dangerous situations before they get people killed, and not just file criminal charges after it's too late.
Note the key point of that question: without restrictions. It's possible for civilians to own artillery, even functioning artillery, if they are willing to get the appropriate licenses. But this is, and should be, an exceptional case. We should not have a situation where artillery has the same lack of restrictions as a .22 rifle.
Well, seeing how artillery isn't a personal firearm and isn't protected by the 2nd, sure.
But restrictions on Constitutional rights? No.
Alex C wrote: It's a form of armament, so I think it should be protected
An ICBM with nuclear warheads is also a form of armament. Do you honestly think that, in the unlikely event that technology changes somehow to make it possible for a civilian to obtain one, that the right to have nuclear ICBMs should be protected and buying one should be no more difficult than buying a .22 rifle from your local walmart?
Alex C wrote: It's a form of armament, so I think it should be protected
An ICBM with nuclear warheads is also a form of armament. Do you honestly think that, in the unlikely event that technology changes somehow to make it possible for a civilian to obtain one, that the right to have nuclear ICBMs should be protected and buying one should be no more difficult than buying a .22 rifle from your local walmart?
Alex C wrote: It's a form of armament, so I think it should be protected
An ICBM with nuclear warheads is also a form of armament. Do you honestly think that, in the unlikely event that technology changes somehow to make it possible for a civilian to obtain one, that the right to have nuclear ICBMs should be protected and buying one should be no more difficult than buying a .22 rifle from your local walmart?
The anti's line of argument is so predictable...
I think in the case of WMD there absolutely needs to be a line drawn to make them inaccessible.
Yes, the common "Would you allow private ownership of nukes? No? Aha! Gotcha!" argument wins yet again.
Aside from WMD though, I err on the side of liberty.
I think wanting to restrict gun ownership is insane.
Wow, that was easy. Don't try to understand the other side's point of view and just call them insane. It makes believing one to always be right so much easier.
Alex C wrote: It's a form of armament, so I think it should be protected
An ICBM with nuclear warheads is also a form of armament. Do you honestly think that, in the unlikely event that technology changes somehow to make it possible for a civilian to obtain one, that the right to have nuclear ICBMs should be protected and buying one should be no more difficult than buying a .22 rifle from your local walmart?
Not a firearm. Not covered.
'
Incorrect, the term "arms" in the second amendment refers to all arms, not just firearms. People forget that a lot. It's a perfect example how out constitutional rights are restricted everyday for concerns about public safety.
)
Soft on Crime 
