Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Yeah, the silly thing with these laws is that pistols kill far more people:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#Violent_crime_related_to_guns

 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.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/expanded-homicide-data/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2010-2014.xls

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.

 Ouze wrote:
Maybe 3 pages was optimistic.

It never hurts to hope

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...

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 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.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/expanded-homicide-data/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2010-2014.xls

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:

 Alex C wrote:

 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.

So in an attempt to not create another thread on a similar topic.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/dec/29/california-gun-violence-restraining-order-law-goin/

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.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/04/09/right-to-bear-arms-gun-grabbing-sweeping-nation.html

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

 Jihadin wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 Alex C wrote:

 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

The 10/22 has an exception listed for it in the rimfire rifle section which i have omitted because I presumed people would be more concerned with what's banned - my fault. The list of exceptions is quite long, you can see it in the full text.

 TheWaspinator wrote:
Yeah, the silly thing with these laws is that pistols kill far more people:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#Violent_crime_related_to_guns

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.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 TheWaspinator wrote:
Yeah, the silly thing with these laws is that pistols kill far more people:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#Violent_crime_related_to_guns

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?

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 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?

Great question. Why indeed?

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 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.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 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?

Telescoping, folding or removable stocks are indeed evil features to be banished.

As are the dreaded barrel shrouds.

 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?

Removing gang violence and homicide seems pretty damn arbitrary.

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.