Feinstein: Assault Weapons Ban Bill

russ_watters

I wouldn't consider most of those features "cosmetic". Even if they were, they would be included in the ban for recognizably, which is still fine with me. Sure, the need to reload stopped some, but not all. So what? I'm not claiming it can reduce the death toll of all or eliminate all mass killings, I'm just saying it will help. You agree it will help, right?

nsaspook

Actually you are aiming but just not using the rear sights at under 25 meters. Instead of three point aim it's a two point aim. It's a good thing most gangsters learn weapons handling from movies because they actually think aiming matters less when you can "spray bullets" unfortunately it's usually why bystanders get shot instead of the intended target.

The only reason it's (pistol grip) in the law is cosmetics unless these are assault weapons too. http://www.harrogateshooting.co.uk/shooting.html

CAC1001

Not sure what you mean when you say, "they would be included in the ban for recognizably?" I do not see how a folding or collapsible stock makes any difference regarding the gun's ability to shoot, or pistol grip (you can fire a rifle with a pistol grip from the hip if that is what one wants to do)., or bayonet lug (has a criminal ever fixed a bayonet and charged?).

It probably would help, but I don't know if it would help enough to where it makes sense to limit the ordinary citizen in terms of the size of the magazine they can use. Take car accidents. About 3X as many people died in car accidents in 2011 as died from gun violence. So should we ban sports cars and put limits on the rate at which a car can accelerate from 0-60 and on the top speed cars can be capable of going to? Wouldn't that help limit some of the car accidents by some amount? About the same number of people each year are killed by drunk drivers/driving as are killed by gun violence as well, but imagine the uproar if someone decided to ban alcohol and could enforce the ban, or limit how much people could buy?

nsaspook

No I don't. What's wrong is the type of "sicko gun sub-culture" we are creating where a gun is seen as a force of emotional vengeance. This is totally different from the NRA type "freedom gun culture" that mainly sees weapons as the protector of freedom and country or even the "gang gun culture" use of weapons.

http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news...as-no-newtowns

edward

Most any semi automatic rifle with one of the slide stocks certainly appears to be spraying bullets.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BKQAnTH-2c

The slide stock was supposed to be a safety device to avoid a bump fire. The ATF needs to reconsider the approval of the slide stock.

MarneMath

In combat, I used to carry 7-9 mags, which contained 210-270 rounds. Why would any civilian ever need that? That is what I would carry with the full intention to kill someone who would fire back at me. If we limited mags to civilians to be 10 rounds only, that would only be 90 rounds. A huge difference. It's a lot easier to escape with a guy has to reload every few seconds. Most people are not pros at the quick reload.

edward

Watch the slide fire closely. Once started the trigger finger doesnt move.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_U6tORrODJE

CAC1001

Yes, as I said before, I don't have a problem with bans or limitations on such devices.

CAC1001

90 rounds is still plenty to kill a lot of people with and a person could carry more then 7 to 9 magazines. But out of most of the mass shootings we've seen as of late, in only one of them would a more limited magazine size have made a difference possibly (Tucson shooter). In the Virginia Tech shooting, in the Aurora shooting, in the Adam Lanza shooting, the outcome would have been the same. That said, I am not strictly opposed to limiting magazines to ten rounds, but not convinced of it either. I think both sides can make good arguments on the magazine issue.

MarneMath

I fail to see how the outcome would've been the same. Ironically, I think it would have been worse in the Aurora shooting. (Simply because the mag he was using is well known to cause a weapon Jam, and from what I can recall, his inability to peform remedial action render that weapon ineffective.) Yes a person can literally carry more than 7-9 rounds, but every way I can think of for the person to do so, only increases the loading time for the weapon, and thus can give people a better chance to get away.

Nevertheless, let's assume you're right and the only possible shooting where it could've made a difference is the Tucson shooter. Isn't one enough? Especially, since there doesn't seem to be a real reason to have a 30 round quick release mag.

Edit:Just notice you mention the Aurora case!

MarneMath

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn....r-gun-problem/ Thoughts?

encorp

They just need to put liability insurance on each gun owner. Let the markets decide which guns they'll insure. No insurance? No gun.

And if your gun slips into others hands and you're not some how killed in that theft, then you should be thrown in jail for a term depending on the crime committed with said fire arm

mheslep

I've only read Sen Feinstein's page on the proposed bill with regards to links provided in this thread, so perhaps I missed some proposed answers to what appear to me to be the obvious questions. The US had an assault weapons ban for ten years, starting in '94. So:
1. Was the '94 ban effective?
2. How would this ban improve on the '94 ban?

Do most simply take it as axiomatic that a renewed prohibition law without seizure of existing weapons will reduce homicides, or is there consideration of evidence for a testable hypothesis?

I do see some specific changes from '94 until now in Feinstein's description, but it is not clear that they are germane to the flaws in the '94 law. Recall that Harris and Klebold used a TEC-9 at the Columbine HS shootings in '99, a weapon specifically banned by the '94 law.

CAC1001

This is a good point, but at the same time, then I think of the examples cited about limiting liquor purchases or limiting the types of cars available, their speeds, etc...which would surely save some lives too.

I think he's over-simplifying the issue in a few ways. Stricter gun laws could probably prevent certain mass shootings from occurring, but gun violence itself, overall, isn't the same, where you have a lot of illegally-acquired hand guns being used in inner cities in cities with very restrictive gun laws. The other thing is that back when gun laws were less restrictive, we did not have these mass shootings as we see today.

He mentions China and Japan. Well Japan has a very homogenous population that is very well-behaved, we saw that during the aftermath of their earthquake, where things like rioting and looting didn't break out. Also, Japan has never had a large ownership of guns in the way the United States has. So with a well-behaved population and a complete lack of guns in the country, it isn't surprising that they have very little gun violence. Regarding China, well again, China has never introduced guns in large amounts to the general population and has been a repressive dictatorship for many years now. The punishment for getting caught with a gun there I'd imagine is pretty severe. The government censors the media and the Internet, so it surely makes sure the population is also disarmed.

AlephZero

I don't know how you define "violence", but the total number of people whose cause of death was firearms related is roughly equal to the number killed in traffic accidents. Maybe you should forget about the "violent minority" and focus on other 2/3 of the problem. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm

Actually, we already have a better idea - controlling the public use of ALL cars by speed limits and traffic regulations, not to mention compulsory driver training.

If somebody wants to drive off-road at 150 or 200 mph, that's their own affair. If they want to do the same along Main Street, that's something different.

Let's try an analogy to the "guns protect people against gun crime" argument: maybe everybody should have high performance cars, so if they see somebody driving dangerously they can chase them and force them off the road to defuse the situation ..... ?????????????????

Pythagorean

I'm fairly sure he meant "Recognizability". It's the same reason you're not supposed to remove the orange tip from a (fake) pop gun. If you get shot by a cop for pointing a fake gun at him without an orange tip, it's your fault, not the cops fault.

If you're a bunch of kids riding around pointing a fake gun without the orange tip at people, you're being reckless. It doesn't matter about the gun's functionality, it matters about the social implications of having something that looks like a gun.

Now we apply this logic to assault weapons. If you look like an illegally-armed militia group, it gives you proximity social power.

MarneMath

If it can prevent mass shootings, then why not do it. It seems like the crux of your argument is "it doesn't solve everything so why bother?" Sure, illegal gun ownership and gang violence will probably kill more people yearly than any mass shootings, but that doesn't mean you don't do anything to make it harder for mass shootings to happen.

A gun's real only purpose is to kill someone with relatively little skill. I understand there exist SOME shooters (include myself) who enjoy going to ranges and testing your skill, but in the end of the day, the gun was designed to kill something. With that in mind, I have no idea why it isn't highly regulated. If we are going to trust people with guns, we need to make sure that they know how to use them, properly store them and at the same time limit the ability for one person to shoot 30 5.56 mm rounds.