"Assault weapons bans do not work"

[Bandit]

I hear that from Republicans and gun people all the time... OK I might buy it except, if they don't work then what is the problem? What harm can they possibly do to you? They don't work so you have absolutely nothing to fear.......They do make some feel better though.. Is that the problem? You just can't stand the thought of people feeling better over something? If they don't work you can still have all the assault weapons you want and not be hurt in the slightest....I don't get it. Either they are a huge threat to your 2nd amendment rights and work just like they are supposed to, or they are no threat to your rights at all...Which is it?

[etherealtruth]

1. Exactly

Why all the gnashing of teeth if it "won't work" or effect them?

[Recursion]

30. Some of us dislike passing pointless laws, particularly if there's a political cost

All of this "how many deaths will it take?" rhetoric doesn't change the fact that the AWB doesn't actually address how many bullets a gun can fire, it addresses what the fastest-firing class of guns can look like, and a lot of people think that's a pretty stupid idea.

[etherealtruth]

37. I would like to give these laws a chance ...

we can tighten and perfect them with time and experience

[farminator3000]

42. some of us are in 2013, and some are stuck in 1994, more lke it

and the people that think it is stupid are a minority of NRA shills.

i'd say the 'political cost' is NOT 'oh, we are too liberal, we will lose votes for doing something sensible and moral'

more like- 'don't let the a-hole repubs and NRA get away with their stupid evil crap'

the cost being human lives.

quantity saved means nothing- if ONE person dies because some a-hole needs a scary looking gun to make him feel big, that is still a SERIOUS problem.

people dying=more important than selfishness.

get with it.

[Recursion]

45. If I thought it would save one life, I would support it

Seriously.

I do not think changing the brand name and grip shape of the AR-15 will save even one life.

[farminator3000]

61. well it certainly will

so support it.

your statement is a sweeping swath of nonsense.

[Recursion]

63. How will it save a life?

How does an AR-15 having a different brand name and a differently shaped grip save a life? I really don't see it.

[AgingAmerican]

66. Is the shaped grip the whole ban?

Or are there other provisions?

[Recursion]

70. There are a list of features it bans, the grip being the most commonly found one

A list of guns are banned by brand name. This means gunmakers will have to come up with new brand names for them.

Weapons with internal magazines larger than 10 rounds are banned. I support this.
Detachable magazines larger than I think 10 rounds are banned. I support this.

The really controversial part of the ban, the actual ban of assault weapons, says that semi-automatic rifles that use those detachable magazines cannot have a distinctly protruding grip, a flash suppressor, a grenade launcher (the grenades themselves are already illegal), or a folding stock. (Under the 94 ban and most state bans it can't have two of those, and that list included bayonet lugs; that's why Lanza's rifle was legal under Connecticut's AWB). The AR-15 is the most popular rifle sold today, and it has a protruding grip. So gunmakers will need to change the shape of that grip to sell more of them. And they will.

[farminator3000]

81. i know you aren't clueless, so stop pretending to be

simply-

a law that says 'you have to keep your AR at the range' (where mrs lanza USED hers) would have saved 28 lives.

simply.

[Recursion]

84. That would be a good law I could support. That's not what we have before us.

We agree that that would be a useful law. Why isn't any legislator proposing it?

[farminator3000]

129. ya gotta read the stuff, brah!

at least we can have a productive discussion.

Protect the rights of health care providers to talk to their patients about gun safety:
Doctors and other health care providers also need to be able to ask about firearms in their
patients’ homes and safe storage of those firearms, especially if their patients show signs of
certain mental illnesses or if they have a young child or mentally ill family member at home.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/wh_now_is_the_time_full.pdf

Sec. 29-37i. (Formerly Sec. 29-37c). Responsibilities re storage of loaded firearms with respect to minors. No person shall store or keep any loaded firearm on any premises under his control if he knows or reasonably should know that a minor is likely to gain access to the firearm without the permission of the parent or guardian of the minor unless such person (1) keeps the firearm in a securely locked box or other container or in a location which a reasonable person would believe to be secure or (2) carries the firearm on his person or within such close proximity thereto that he can readily retrieve and use it as if he carried it on his person. For the purposes of this section, "minor" means any person under the age of sixteen years.
http://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/chap529.htm#Sec29-37i.htm

[Hoyt]

78. Who is saying that is all law should do? We could re-define assault weapons as

semi-autos and forget trying to otherwise describe them. That is the mistake made before, thinking that gun culture cared enough to comply with spirit of law.

[Duckhunter935]

80. so now you would ban

most modern hunting rifles

[Hoyt]

91. Ah, made you pucker. Why not ban semi-autos, including handguns?

People hunted ducks without semi-autos for a long time. Semi-autos became popular for shooting people,. Of course, that is what most in gun culture have on their minds in most cases.

[nick of time]

97. Most in gun culture have shooting people on their mind?

Can you prove that? Or are you just trying to start an argument?

[farminator3000]

144. you are unfamiliar with the self-defense argument?

or the tens of thousand of people shot in arguments?

like 2 days ago at the college in TX?

'i need a gun to shoot people who make me nervous or angry'

yep.

[Hoyt]

147. You tell me why yahoos were lined up to buy "assault" weapons right after Sandy Hook.

IMO, they covet them for their "lethality," which exciting them.

[Recursion]

86. We could! Maybe we even should. Write Senator Feinstein.

The base for the most part seems to think we're banning semi-autos, and Senator Feinstein is more than happy for that mistake to continue long enough to pass the bill.

[nick of time]

92. The AWB ain't gonna pass.

There are at least 5 red state Dem. senators opposed to it, Reid has already said that he won't bring an AWB bill up for a vote if it won't get through the repuke controlled House, and to top it off, Reid caved on the filibuster reform yesterday which pretty much destroys any chance of an AWB or a mag. size limit.
The best we can hope for is a universal background check, better mental health care screening, close the so called gun show loophole and maybe a few other things.
The ironic part is that Feinstein scuttled her own bill by refusing to vote for the complete filibuster reform package.

[madville]

2. Here's my problem with it

As far as bans, the proposed "bans" at the federal level are not really worth getting branded anti-gun over because they won't prevent anything. The ideas like universal background checks, mental health screening, etc are legitimate and could be somewhat effective, I think they have a shot at passing.

We're not going to see a new AWB this Congress anyway, not with the filibuster and the House in the way. What it does do is give the Republicans plenty of material for the 2014 campaigns in red/purple areas.

Midterms are very dangerous already because turnout is such a wildcard. Giving the right something to get fired up about is risky. They're going to be pissed at their own about the fiscal stuff, debt ceiling, etc because Republican politicians know they have to compromise on those issues. Guns will make their base brush that stuff to the side and turn out in droves.

[Bandit]

3. Their base turns out in droves every single election

Even when they have to vote for someone like Mit whom they hated....We need to inspire our base not worry about their base.....

[DainBramaged]

4. So the life of one person isn't worth the loss of mid-terms?

[Recursion]

6. How does regulating rifles' grip shape save lives?

Good lord. If we thought the AWB would save somebody's life we'd be for it.

[DainBramaged]

9. It's amazing how DU has become the defender of the gun.....

have a nice day.............

[Recursion]

12. Can you please answer my question?

How does changing the shape of an AR-15's grip save lives?

[DainBramaged]

46. Do you not understand the words "have a nice day"?

I don't have to answer shit pal, not for you not for anyone.

[cherokeeprogressive]

108. LOL

No answer huh?

[AgingAmerican]

55. How does doing nothing save lives?

n/t

[Recursion]

59. It doesn't. But doing something pointless isn't any better

This is a pet peeve of mine, mostly because I'm tired of being called a "gun nut" for opposing the AWB by people who usually end up agreeing that what it actually does is a pretty dumb idea.

[AgingAmerican]

68. Tell that to the parents

of the kids whose children had closed casket funerals because they were torn to shreds by the Bushmaster rifle in Sandy Hook. I'm sure they would readily agree with your position.

[Recursion]

71. Would they agree with you that the rifle needed a different grip to be legal?

I doubt that.

[AgingAmerican]

96. You are really stuck on the 'grip' thing

arent you?

[Recursion]

103. You're the one advocating the law

I'm not the one saying that what should have been illegal about Lanza's rifle is the way it looks

[AgingAmerican]

107. I don't think the military use grips because they like the way they look

They use them to counter recoil, making the gun more accurate when firing rapidly.

[Recursion]

109. The grips deter hip shooting and reduce drops and slips

If anything, we should be mandating them rather than banning them.

[AgingAmerican]

110. Yes, we wouldn't want the mass shooters to drop their assault rifles

..or slip up and miss....would we?

[AgingAmerican]

143. Hmmmmm...

They must be false advertising then:

"Helps control muzzle climb during sustained fire for quicker, more accurate follow-up shots"

[farminator3000]

58. that is a foolish question

i believe the extent of the law goes beyond the 'grip' you always get so excited about.

it also bans 30 and 100 round clips, so stop nitpicking.

is it like your JOB to focus on the GRIP?

[Recursion]

62. The grip is the one banned feature most rifles still have

so that's what the law is about.

As I've said repeatedly, including to you, I'm in favor of limiting magazine sizes.

is it like your JOB to focus on the GRIP?

No. But Senator Feinstein seems to have made it her job to focus on it, and she wants to take our party with her down that rabbit hole.

[jmg257]

77. I've been curious about this...just exactly how will Bushmaster et. al. change the grip on an AR

to keep it from being banned, and still function?

And why wouldn't the law be adjusted to include this new grip style? And or some new name?

[Recursion]

83. In the short term, modify the lower receiver to make the grip curved and lower the butt stock

So that the back of the rifle will look like a black polymer version of a hunting rifle (you can already buy AR's like this, in fact, also with a wood finish).

That makes bullpup designs impossible but they aren't very popular anyways.

In the medium term, I have no doubt that some designer will come up with something that looks equally evil but is not a pistol grip.

[Duckhunter935]

88. just use a traditional

wooden or composite stock without a grip. It would look like a "normal" hunting rifle but the function would be the same.

[jmg257]

105. Can you do that on an AR? I guess if one gets creative enough.

Then I guess you just add that to the banned list.

[Recursion]

139. Sure, as long as it's not a bullpup action everything's forward and above the grip anyways.

Then I guess you just add that to the banned list.

Add what? Guns that "used to" have a pistol grip?

[farminator3000]

89. great. and the grip is for shooting from the hip. so that's what its about...

who the F needs to shoot an assault weapon in the first place, much less WITHOUT AIMING?!?!?!

also applys to shotguns, so just stop.


All semiautomatic rifles that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: pistol grip; forward grip; folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; barrel shroud; or threaded barrel.
All semiautomatic pistols that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: threaded barrel; second pistol grip; barrel shroud; capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip; or semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm.
All semiautomatic rifles and handguns that have a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
All semiautomatic shotguns that have a folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; pistol grip; fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 5 rounds; ability to accept a detachable magazine; forward grip; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; or shotgun with a revolving cylinder.
All ammunition feeding devices (magazines, strips, and drums) capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.
157 specifically-named firearms (listed at the end of this page).

[Recursion]

90. You have that backwards. It's basically impossible to hip shoot with a pistol grip

It's much easier with a traditional grip. Militaries like pistol grips because they force their poorly-trained conscript armies to use proper shooting positions, and make drops and slips much less likely.

[farminator3000]

131. i personally don't give a crap, but here is a gun forum post

I think "assault" rifles have full pistol grips mainly for recoil control and faster followups under fully automatic fire.

A rifle can really start pushing back on you in full auto and the full pistol grip at least partially allows you to push back. You can fire the rifle better one handed as well with the full pistol grip.

it basically lets you put your elbow down instead of chicken wing.

hunters did not design rifles with pistol grips. the military did.

Assault rifle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle
The StG 44, the first true assault rifle, was adopted by the Wehrmacht in 1944. .... automatic fire, and was loaded with a magazine and also featured a pistol grip.

your user name suits you well!

Recursion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recursion
Recursion is the process of repeating items in a self-similar way.

[Duckhunter935]

134. most all rifles

were designed for and by the military. Even those old fashioned bolt action rifles or semi-automatics that have been around for 100 years.

[farminator3000]

138. do you really think i give a flying crap? traditional hunting rifles don't have pistol grips

Last edited Sat Jan 26, 2013, 06:09 PM - Edit history (1)

ask any hunter.

ask a cop if he wants any yahoo to have a bigger gun than he/she does.

really.

[nick of time]

99. Shoot from the hip?

You've been watching far too many Rambo movies.

[farminator3000]

132. you should watch Hot Shots Part Deux

because it is certainly you who has the rambo fetish.

"-Also surprising? Rambo himself is anti-gun. In response to the shooting of Phil Hartman in 1999, Sylvester Stallone told Access Hollywood, “Until America, door to door, takes every handgun, this is what you’re gonna have. It’s pathetic. It really is pathetic. It’s sad. We’re living in the Dark Ages over there.”

[nick of time]

137. I have a Rambo fetish?

Where in the world do you get that?
And Sly Stallone as an anti gun person? Yeah, he's a real model for the gun control movement, isn't he?

He's nothing more than a hypocrite when just about every movie he's ever made has him using guns and lots of violence, and he has a CCW.

His motto must be "good for me but not for thee".

[AgingAmerican]

120. You answered your own question

Here

[Recursion]

122. That's where I said the grip you want to ban is safer

Getting rid of a safer design does not save lives

[AgingAmerican]

125. I thought it was cosmetic?

n/t

[Recursion]

130. Mostly. The safety increase is marginal (nt)

[AgingAmerican]

140. "If anything, we should be mandating them rather than banning them"

So, they are essentially useless, but we should be mandating them?

[Recursion]

142. They're marginally safer, so mandating makes more sense than banning

Imagine something that reduces car accidents by .0001% (that's about the level of safety increase we're talking about -- very marginal). Would that be mandated? Conceivably. But it definitely wouldn't be banned.

[FarPoint]

73. I try to endure....

doing so...I think it helps me sharpen my argument for the weapons ban in the world beyond the walls of DU.

[AgingAmerican]

65. You conveniently left out the rest

Assault weapons ban provisions you conveniently left out...

All semiautomatic rifles and handguns that have a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.

All semiautomatic shotguns that have a folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 5 rounds; ability to accept a detachable magazine; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; or shotgun with a revolving cylinder.

All ammunition feeding devices (magazines, strips, and drums) capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.

[Recursion]

67. There are similar arguments to be made for the shotguns, and I support the magazine limit

The pistol feature bans are just as silly.

But, yes, I do support the internal and detachable magazine size limits, which is why you don't see me complaining about them.

[AgingAmerican]

69. You call the law "pointless"

n/t

[Recursion]

72. The part that is the actual ban of assault weapons is

The magazine limits I support, and I hope they can be passed on their own.

[Travis_0004]

35. Maybe we should also ban alchol, and high fat foods.

Those would certainly save at least one life. I bet stop and frisk saves lives, and I bet the patriot act has saved at least one life.

So I assume you support all those as well?

[DainBramaged]

39. RKBA, how did I guess?

Bark up another tree......

[Travis_0004]

60. I'm just trying to see where you stand.

You said you support a law if it saves just one life, not me.

[DainBramaged]

112. It's obvious one life doesn't matter to you or the NRA

as long as you get to buy more gunzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Lizzie Poppet]

50. Possibly not.

How many people will die if the GOP gains more power, guts healthcare reform, destroys the economy, continues the War of Drugs, etc.?

[AgingAmerican]

146. Most of the country wants a ban

A ban would work in the Democrats favor.

[Recursion]

5. Pointless laws are generally bad ideas

I mean, you're right, people will still be able to buy an AR-15, just under a different brand name and with a differently-shaped grip. I don't oppose it because it deprives anybody of their rights, I oppose it because I oppose pointless legislation.

[aikoaiko]

7. For example CT has an AWB and Lanza's rifle was apparently compliant

That's a good example of how an AWB can in effect and yet not really mean much in terms of preventing a mass shooting.

http://www.jud.ct.gov/lawlib/law/firearms.htm

[xoom]

118. Exactly. n/t

[Daemonaquila]

8. Then here's a really simple explanation.

You could also say "abortion bans don't work, women will just go elsewhere or head down a back alley." By your reasoning, then, the answer should be "So what's the harm - can't you stand the poor pro-lifers feeling good over something?" Does this sound ridiculous? Of course it does. So does your statement about the AWB.

You don't get it because you have no interest in having an assault weapon. Neither do I, but I also have no concern about the 50% of my neighbors who do keep them. I'm sick of the attitude that if someone gets hurt by X, quick, OMG, ban X! By that logic, let's ban the medical system, which kills tens of thousands each year because of financial choices.

[krispos42]

10. If it doesn't work, then why do it?

Look, people don't like have their choices removed. People especially don't like having their choices removed because of hysteria and desperate politicians seeking to placate the hysteria with placebo national law.

So if it does nothing, is solely a placebo, and is being trumpeted by politicians eager to not address real solutions to violence like, say, legalizing drugs or USP mental and physical health insurance... then we actually lose.

And here's the harm, if you will...

The Democrats will blow their legislative wad on ornamental gun-control legislation, which will neatly divert attention from the aforementioned drug legalization, or fighting poverty, or making the economy fairer, or making schools better.

It also makes people that own guns and want to continue to do so politically active.

People that don't own guns have to do literally NOTHING to continue to do so. Just remain inert, and your right to own a gun will dissolve into nothing, and that person won't really care because they don't and won't own a gun. That person will not become politically active.

It's like straight people on gay marriage... for a very long time no straight person didn't give a fuck about gays marrying because they had no dog in the fight... "I can still marry!"


But gun owners will. And guess which side they will join?

[RobertEarl]

13. The real hystericals are the

Hysterical gun owners who think all their guns are gonna be taken. What a bunch of idiots they are, huh?

They are so hysterical they won't even acknowledge much less participate in finding solutions to such problems as Columbine or Sandy Hook for fear of... what? What is it that the hysterical gun owners really fear?

[Duckhunter935]

16. Well I have seen quite a few

on this board that have put forward many proposals that provide solutions. They just do not agree a ban on cosmetics of a rifle work. And people on the other side call us names all the time and talk about confiscation of weapons.

[RobertEarl]

21. Face it

Semi-automatics are not something that should be freely available. This bullshit about cosmetics is just that. There need to be tight controls on the weapons of mass bullet sprayers and if there is no cooperation from those that are addicted to the fleeting power a mass bullet spraying gun gives them, then they risk being shunned by society.

Pretty much all the hysterical gun owners I have seen, fear Obama. There is something wrong in their heads from what I can tell. Otherwise they'd be coming up with solutions instead of just blabbing, blah, blah, blah, ""gimme my guns, Mommy. ""

[Recursion]

22. Then ban semi-automatics. That's a decent idea. It's also not remotely what the AWB does.

This bullshit about cosmetics is just that.

If you see that it's bullshit about cosmetics, why do you support it?

There need to be tight controls on the weapons of mass bullet sprayers

OK, that's a good idea. The problem is that you think that's what the AWB is, and it's not.

[Recursion]

28. And that's the problem. Can you at least try to read what I'm saying?

The AWB does not keep people from buying guns that can fire a lot of bullets quickly. It says the grips of those guns can't stick out from the body of the rifle. Seriously. That's what it does.

[RobertEarl]

31. Right

We need a much stronger law. Laws. I am not in favor of many new laws except new laws that have these weapons of mass bullet spraying severely restricted. Maybe banned altogether.

What do you think?

[Recursion]

40. I would support banning semi-automatics with detachable magazines

I doubt I will ever support restricting what they can look like, as long as they are legal.

[AgingAmerican]

98. That is one minor provision of the legislation

and you know it.

[Recursion]

102. That's the one part relevant to Newtown

Yes, there are other cosmetic features it bans, but very few rifles have them

[DainBramaged]

44. You are being swarmed by the gunnies, enjoy the wave

[RobertEarl]

48. Yeah, swarmed

Better me than some innocent school kids.

[nadinbrzezinski]

64. Tell me, how many f those few are actual members of

Any state or Federal legislator? For the record, Grayson is a member of DU, he has not posted on this matter.

I take them as seriously as I take the, the are gonna take my guns away crowd, which is not at all.

[Recursion]

74. Grayson's position on guns surprised me

He supports national concealed carry, which even I don't agree with.

[krispos42]

38. There are no solutions to problems like Sandy Hook

Columbine, maybe... if we cracked down on bullying. As a bullied student, I know how bad it can be.


But there is no real solution to random mass murders by random people with no rational reason other than blood lust. That is why people are terrified.

[RobertEarl]

41. Fuck there isn't a solution

Keep the weapons out of the hands of random people.

It is so fucking simple, why would you deny such a thing?

"There are no solutions to problems like Sandy Hook" is total fucking bullshit!

[Duckhunter935]

57. so you propose

going house to house and confiscate some 3-4 hundred million weapons including law enforcement weapons. That would be the only way, as even police officers commit mass murder. Yep no talk of confiscation here.

[Spryguy]

75. Whats's the problem?

Loyal democrats will turn over their unnecessary death spewers. The only people who will give police problems are tea baggers and rethugs. I say fuck'em, if they want us to pry their death spewers from their cold, dead hands, we'll honor their request :3

[nick of time]

85. You support summary execution of people who disagree with a ban?

Sure sounds like it. Myself, I would just sell mine back to the govt. if a ban happened and go out and buy a tube fed semi auto for use around my farm. Wouldn't break my balls.
The point is moot anyway, the AWB isn't going anywhere now that Reid has caved on the filibuster reform and it never stood a chance in the repuke controlled House.

[Spryguy]

111. I never said summary execution.

All the teabaggers say they will kill lawful authorities seizing contraband weapons. I just point out I won't shed tears over their wish being fulfilled.

Are you saying you would fight lawful, democratically elected officials carrying out their duties to remove death machines from our nation's streets?

[nick of time]

113. Point out where I said I would fight such a law.

I said I would just sell my AR-15 back to the govt. and go buy a nice tube fed semi auto of the same caliber for use on my farm for varmit control.

[Spryguy]

116. My apologies.

I was looking at the post below where the guy said no one was going to take his guns away.

[nick of time]

117. No problem.

And I apologize for my assuming that you supported summary execution. I was obviously wrong.

[nadinbrzezinski]

93. Nobody will go house to house to take guns away

The solutions are mid to long term

This is not party specific either. There are "tea baggers" who would turn them in and democrats who'd die?

None is going to have guns taken away. Nobody. It's a fantasy.

And I say this as somebody who believes in gun control. You want a hot civil war? Thankfully you do not have the legislative power to even be laughed out of the room.

As I wrote elsewhere, I take the "they are gonna take my guns away" crowd as seriously as the "let's grab all guns" crowd. Both live in a fantasy. They are also quite unserious.

Politics is the art of the possible.

[nick of time]

100. +1000

I see the the extremist comments from both sides of the firearms debate and I just gotta shake my head in wonderment. Are we, as a nation, really that polarized on this issue? It really makes me wonder if we can get anything done.
Thanks for the reasonable post, it gives me hope that reasonable people like you can shepard this debate to a sane and just conclusion.

[nadinbrzezinski]

101. The AWB is needed, but guns already out there will be

Grandfathered. Selling them will be a pita, why it is mid to long term.

Anyhow, as I told my critter...not cosmetics, actual workings. But it will take time.

When the NRA s opposed to 100% background checks...that is extreme.

[krispos42]

121. Hi. i'm going to snap.

At some point in the next 2 years, on a random day, at a random hour and minute, without warning, i'm going to walk into 1 of the 133,000 grade schools in America and kill a bunch of random people and then myself.

Now find me and disarm me.

[Taitertots]

11. In this case, "Do not work" means they have a negligible effect on violent crime and murder rates

People oppose them because they do not want draconian gun laws that don't actually do much of anything.

The only "work" they do is restrict access to guns for the 99.9999% of gun owners who will never use their guns in any criminal acts.

[RobertEarl]

15. So, what is the answer then?

How do you stop the next Sandy Hook type massacre? Or do you consider that to be not as important as having access to more weapons of mass bullet spraying?

[Recursion]

17. You know that the AWB doesn't limit access to weapons of mass bullet spraying, right?

I mean, seriously, I do hope you know that. What the AWB does is limit what a weapon of mass bullet spraying can look like. So, for instance, the weapon Lanza used will need a different brand name and different grip shape to be legal -- and if this passes I guarantee next year's model will have those, and will sell very well.

[RobertEarl]

23. Any sell of such a weapon needs to be restricted

Or do you think everyone should own one?

What is your point? They should be sold like candy? Where is the line of ownership and responsibility? Or are you just hysterical with fear?

[Recursion]

27. When some legislator proposes that, I'll listen. That's not what this does.

This doesn't say "you can't make a weapon that can fire a lot of bullets in a short period of time". This says "When you make a weapon that can fire a lot of bullets in a short period of time, the grip cannot distinctly stick out from the body of the weapon." Why on earth does anybody care about that?

[Enrique]

14. whether it works is an important question

the reason for the ban is not to prevent people from being able to have guns. That is actually a cost, not a benefit. It is an actual reduction in freedom and there has to be a reason for it. The benefit would be a reduction in gun violence.

[leeroysphitz]

18. Thanks to Harry we'll never know.

[gulliver]

19. There's no downside, and there is plenty of real upside.

In addition to making people feel better, a ban would destroy the market for new weapons. Now if we do the sensible thing and just make them illegal to possess, then we would have a much nicer situation. These weapons would become horrendously expensive on the black market for criminals and practically inaccessible to barely cogent maniacs. Criminal would still have them, but probably fewer, because they would be way too expensive and dangerous to own.

There's no downside to a complete ban on assault weapons. It's all upside and all real.

But society is already playing its role. These things are already effectively banned. I don't mind normal gun owners, but if I knew of someone who had one of these pervo assault weapons or magazines or special ammo, I would make sure they were exposed on the Internet. Google someone's name and it comes up from some anonymous site that they have one of these flake weapons. Then fire them, divorce them, make a pariah of them. Society now views AR-15 owners with the same affection as kiddie porn hoarders.

[Recursion]

20. What? The market for new assault weapons will be huge

The gunmakers will give the AR-15 a new name, change the shape of its grip, and sell their new "BS-16" or "PCR-17" or whatever they call it and sales will go through the roof.

This isn't a guess. This is exactly what happened in 1994.

[gulliver]

24. The key is making possession itself illegal

No one is going to buy a BS-15 if they know a new government rule can be issued the next day to make possessing it illegal. Who wants a $2,000 piece of metal that you have to turn in to a buy-back program for a tenth of what you paid for it.

Destroy the legal gun market and you've destroyed the market. Maybe we can use lessons learned from 1994 (haven't verified your year, but I'll trust you on it) and do this right.

[Recursion]

25. If that were the proposal I would consider it. It's not.

The proposal is to ban manufacture and import of semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines and protruding pistol grips. While leaving manufacture and import of semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines and non-pistol grips completely legal. What exactly does that accomplish?

[gulliver]

33. That's why I favor the one-two punch.

Government can do what it can. That has the unfortunate side-effect of feeding the fantasies of the weapon pervos and assorted juvenile emotional lightweights.

The social side may be far more effective. And it is already happening. You don't want to be Googled on the Internet and have people in general see you in a smiling pose with one of these pervo weapons. That would be career and social life poison. These bozos and funny-boys that have these weapons are picking up on it too. You can't brag and joke about drunk driving or having kiddie porn, and it's about the same level for owning a perv weapon.

[Benton D Struckcheon]

34. Hmm

So is the idea to try to get at weapons that are semi-automatic/automatic, period?

[Recursion]

47. The idea is that people don't understand the law or the weapons it regulates

People see an AR-15 and think "machine gun! ban it!" despite the fact that it doesn't fire any faster than a more traditional-looking semi-automatic rifle. Honestly, I don't care what the gun used in the next mass shooting (God forbid) looks like, and if sem-automatics are going to be legal, I see no good to be served by saying "they can look like this, but not like that".

[Benton D Struckcheon]

133. So, how's about....

...we ban all semi-auto rifles except for the police. I guess it'd have to be by muzzle length? Some weapon with muzzle-length > x (inches, centimeters) can't be semi-auto or auto? And keep mag capacity to 6 rounds on the pistols. If a six-shooter was good enough for the Wild West, it oughtta be good enough now.
Anyway, background checks looks like what has the best chance. I'd be happy with that for now.

[Recursion]

136. Background checks have the best chance and would do the most good, IMO

I'm amenable to a ban on semi-automatics, or semi-automatics with detachable magazines (that's more realistic). It's not my preferred policy so I don't push for it, but I wouldn't push against it either.

[Crepuscular]

36. No it would not.

As has been pointed out, all the proposed AWB would do is result in some minor changes in cosmetics, due to the totally arbitrary nature of what has been proposed. Here is an example of the arbitrary nature of Di-Fi's proposed bill;

Two versions of the same weapon that are currently available. The proposed bill specifically exempts the top weapon from the ban, while making the production of the second version of the same weapon illegal. Same rifle, same caliber, takes the same detachable magazines of which hundreds of thousands are legally available and which would be grandfathered from this bill. Yet one version is deemed an "assault weapon" due to the pistol grip and adustable stock, while the other version remains completely legal to purchase and own. I just don't understand the logic behind this type of totally arbitrary distinction or why some people think that banning a few cosmetic features would have any meaningful impact on reducing crimes perpetrated with these types of weapons?

[IMG][/IMG]

[gulliver]

51. What about the magazine?

It looks like it might hold more than 10 rounds.

Personally, I would limit it to five.

[Recursion]

53. That's the thing with detachable magazines. They aren't a part of the weapon

They usually aren't even made by the same manufacturer. There's not really a physical limit to how big they can be.

That said, legislative limits on them are a good idea.

[Crepuscular]

76. The magazine pictured

The magazine pictured is a 30 round magazine and if manufactured prior to the proposed bill being enacted would be perfectly legal to own and possess. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions of these magazines have been legally manufactured and would continue to be bought and sold under the terms stated in the proposed AWB bill.

[gulliver]

82. If we aren't able to ban mere possession...

...then at least we can get the number down by attrition. The limited number should reduce availability by causing prices to go way up.

I would hope the framers of the AWB would have the sense to outlaw new weapons compatible with the grandfathered magazines, but who knows what loopholes the NRA will be able to force into the bill through their Republican lapdogs.

[Recursion]

87. I think you'll find a lot less resistance to magazine size limits

Both on DU and in the public as a whole.

That said, even the AWB polls pretty well right now (though, interestingly, not as well as a complete semi-auto ban), but that popularity doesn't make it a better idea.

[Crepuscular]

94. Why the need for loopholes?

Why the need for loopholes when the original legislation as proposed does not ban the manufacture of weapons that are compatible with existing magazines? Again, the first gun in that picture would continue to be manufactured and could be purchased by anyone who wants one, it's exempted from the proposed ban, as are M-1 carbines, another semi-automatic weapon that uses detachable magazines. The M-1, which was originally designed for the US army and was in service for over 40 years, has been manufactured since WWII, there are about a gazillion 15 & 30 round mags available for the M-1 on the open market, none of which would be banned under the proposed legislation. An M-1 was one of the weapons that was possessed by Charles Whitman, the infamous Texas Bell tower shooter, who killed 14 people and wounded 32 others in one of our country's worst public shooting incidents. Specifically exempted from Di-Fi's proposed AWB, except for the paratrooper version that has a folding stock.

[Duckhunter935]

79. kind of points out

how stupid the new AWB is does it not. Also an AR-15 chambered in the smallest round available that is not much larger than a BB pellet would be banned because of its looks.

[Buzz Clik]

29. Your "logic" is not going to make any ground with a gun freak.

They want their toys. If you want to restrict access to their toys, then you are a fascist.

Fuck the labels. Fuck the logic. Ban the god damned guns, make sales and possession of assault weapons a crime.

Time to grow a spine.

[JaneyVee]

32. Who's to say it doesn't work? Perhaps it is currently preventing even MORE mass shootings.

We need to FURTHER regulate firearms.

[yardwork]

43. How would we know?

[Recursion]

49. Because we did this in 1994

Gunmakers change the names and appearances to comply with the law, and sales went through the roof. The rifle Lanza used was legal under the 1994 ban. For the proposed 2013 ban, the gunmaker will have to change the shape of the grip and give it a new brand name. What has this accomplished?

Bans on appearance and features are always going to turn into a cat and mouse game. The effective gun control legislation we do have (the 1934 NFA) regulates based on capabilities, ie, how many bullets a weapon can fire in a short period of time. We could do that for semi-automatics if we want to, what bothers me is that most Democrats seem to think that's what the AWB does.

[yardwork]

54. Sounds like a very minor, weak effort that was doomed to fail.

[Recursion]

56. And we're repeating it

This is why I keep banging my head into this wall here...

[Duckhunter935]

135. and my head is hurting

also

[bluedigger]

52. Statement of faith based on a sample size of one is unconvincing.

[nadinbrzezinski]

95. The statistics tell a different story

But statistics are something both groups in your OP do not like.

[Heimer]

114. What statistics? N/t

[jmg257]

104. This is THE problem...gunners & their lobby WILL NOT let you pass effective bans.

They muddy the waters, talk about useless laws, and slippery slopes, scream about confiscation, bitch about registration, hide behind a false intent of the 2nd and now Heller.

So we are left with what? Doing what we can to try to get what we can...while having to allow them to keep the ones they have, and fuck around with 'features' and names so they can buy the next wave. Which is why they won't support the appointment of an authority by law that can readily decide what is an assault weapon and what isn't. They don't wan't ANY laws that control the flow, so they pretend to give here and there, KNOWING the laws that will actually matter won't be passed.

Total backgorund checks? Yeah - great - but WITHOUT REGISTRATION are almost meaningless in controlling illegal flow.
Magazine limits? Sure - fine - 'as long as MY guns aren't affected and my Glock takes 15 or 20' or 'Its a start, but...', but fuck confiscating the ones that are out there already, or limiting how many one can own...'THAT's going too far'!!

Allowing everyone unfettered access to arms and accoutrements is THE problem. Only by substantially reducing the number of guns can we hope to substantially reduce the number of gun related deaths....but gunners won't let it happen. Too much fear, too much selfishness involved.

Maybe when its their turn - when it is their kids being massacred by a disfunctional ass with a firearm, they will get it...until then, its someone else's problem...and not worth giving something - ANYthing up for. So the rest of us can only hope to get what we can while we can. And even that little bit is unlikely.

Sad.

[Duckhunter935]

119. many have already have said how to work this

and they have all been quickly dismissed as just gun loving crazies.

No one I have ever heard her supports "Allowing everyone unfettered access to arms and accoutrements"

We just want something that could make a dent in the gun homicide rate, most of which are carried out by handguns and not rifles.

Most everybody here supports background checks for all transactions.
enforcing existing laws...... straw buyers being one, make sure it is fully funded.
Increased mental health treatment
limiting magazine size
registration of weapons
safe storage requirements of firearms
report of lost or stolen firearms

Most gun owners do not support bans that are based on looks, names or cosmetic features.
Ban due to function and include all of that function. This will however ban all semiautomatic rifles and you would have to pay to make the current legal owners whole as I do not think the government can just come and take your property. That would be the only way to make an impact on semi-automatic rifles.


Some people on her are just deaf unless it fits their narrative.

[jmg257]

124. And YOU would be OK with such a ban? On all repeating arms that take a detachable magazine

or have a fixed capcity of more then 7 or 8 rounds?

And YOU would be OK with 'confiscation' of the ones owned as long as a reasonable amount was given in compensation (which would be low due to them being contraband, or maybe a tax credit). And, or at the least, registration of any kept arms that are allowed?

'Cause there ya go...it should make a HUGE dent in the gun homicide rate, as it will substantially reduce the number of arms, and help control the access to the rest.

"We just want something that could make a dent in the gun homicide rate, most of which are carried out by handguns and not rifles."

[Duckhunter935]

127. not my first choice

but if that would ever happen, yes. I am quite sure it will not get through this congress

Make sure you also include handguns and ensure law enforcement personnel are included as they "snap" at times also. Remember if we can save one life.

[jmg257]

128. Handguns included, and police as the grace period expires, at the least

when they are not on duty. Certainly no different then anyone else when they 'are retired'.

Of course it won't get through Congress...yet; as I said earlier...gunners and their lobbies won't allow it.

1 life saved isn't worth it, but thousands and thousands saved are.

[nadinbrzezinski]

126. An AWB is easy peachy

Last edited Sat Jan 26, 2013, 03:09 PM - Edit history (1)

You keep your toys, selling them....well the person you sell them to has to have a class iII, like 1934. Oh wait, that would not be confiscation, nor buy back. Tell me, can you buy a tommy off the shelf? I did not think so.

The NRA and the most radical gun owners don't want this. The NRA of the 1930s would by the way, in a Sandy Hook minute. They were for responsible gun owners not for gun manufacturers. These days...on the other hand...

[zappaman]

148. *sigh*

Again, you can't get the saying right.
It's "easy peasy".
It comes from a 1970's british TV commercial for Lemon Squeezy detergent. They were with a little girl who points out dirty greasy dishes to an adult (mom or relative) and then this adult produces Lemon Squeezy and they clean the dishes quickly. At the end of the commercial the girl says "Easy Peasy Lemon Squeezy".

Today it is a silly way to state something was or will be very easy.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=easy%20peasy

It's hard to be a know-it-all if you can't manage the correct and simple phrases...

[legaleagle_45]

106. A law that does no good

Leads to contempt for the law and should not be passed.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

115. Simple solution. Make the laws stronger and give them something to get their diapers in a knot.

Then they can throw tantrums about something substantial.

[DesMoinesDem]

123. The war on drugs does not work

But it does make some people feel better. So whats the problem?

Same logic.

[Jester Messiah]

141. They don't work as intended, meaning they don't solve the problem of gun misuse.

That doesn't mean that the ban isn't a pain in the arse for law-abiding citizens. Basically it's the worst of both worlds: doesn't fix the issue, and introduces problems where there were none prior.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

145. They don't work (at reducing crime/homicide rate) is what I think they mean.

I think they absolutely work at decreasing ownership rate of a particular ban-targeted firearm. The problem is that you're now restricting the actions of other people in exchange for NOTHING gained socially. Nothing is gained socially because not only are those ban-targeted firearms NOT the source of the problem often illustrated, but the technical aspects of the legislation are easily circumvented meaning that even IF that type of firearm were a source of a target problem... another legal substitute will soon fill that role.

If a salesman sold you a bill of goods in return for a payment and then failed to deliver the goods after the payment was made... wouldn't you be pissed regardless of whether the payment was trivial or substantial? I'd choose never to use that salesman again!

An AWB, by definition, restricts the choices and freedoms of some gun enthusiasts. That is the payment, however trivial or onerous you might feel those restrictions impact another's choices. So what social benefit is derived from these AWBs... what was promised and/or what is the goal? Is that social benefit going to be "worth" the payment?