FEinstein: Assault Weapons Ban Bill

[nsaspook]

http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons

Mainly a rehash but this is the section that will kill the bill if it remains in.

Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include:

Background check of owner and any transferee;
Type and serial number of the firearm;
Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;
Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that possession would not violate State or local law; and
Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration

A complete database of most gun owners in America complete with fingerprints and photos because IMO most gun owners will have at least one weapon that meets some criteria of the bill.

 

[phinds]

Yeah, we'll have to have a lot more children murdered before congress would dare pass anything that the NRA doesn't like

 

[Jack21222]

Yeah, we'll have to have a lot more children murdered before congress would dare pass anything that the NRA doesn't like

And in what way will a database prevent somebody from stealing (or even just borrowing) a gun from a relative and using it?

 

[russ_watters]

And in what way will a database prevent somebody from stealing (or even just borrowing) a gun from a relative and using it?

It won't prevent, but should reduce, since most such killings have used legally obtained weapons.

It should also reduce straw purchases by making them easier to track.

 

[TheMadMonk]

How does banning certain features like a thumbhole stock make it any more difficult to shoot somebody? That is just cosmetics.

 

[MarneMath]

How does banning certain features like a thumbhole stock make it any more difficult to shoot somebody? That is just cosmetics.

No, not at all. It's a way to make a semi go fully automatic.

 

[CAC1001]

No, not at all. It's a way to make a semi go fully automatic.

A thumbhole stock has nothing to do with making the weapon fully automatic, and all guns manufactured in the U.S. must be made where they cannot easily be converted to fully automatic. Any gun that is easy to convert to automatic is considered under the law as an automatic fire weapon.

 

[MarneMath]

I wrote a reply earlier that got deleted so just check your email for the notification . Short and simple, attach the stock and adjust the trigger well you can an auto feel. Almost like using the spring in a butt stock and forward pistol grip to automatically launch the bolt forward.

 

[russ_watters]

Googling on "thumbhole stocks", it appears they were added to the ban because the last time around they were used as a work-around to the pistol-grip ban. Still, I can see how using the springy-ness of your thumb you might be able to let the gun's recoil shake it back and forth and pull the trigger faster in a semi-auto gun.

Even better, the "slide-fire" stock: http://www.shootingtimes.com/2011/07/22/shoot-your-ar-15-faster-than-ever-with-a-slide-fire-stock/

 

[CAC1001]

Bans or limits on bump fire mechanisms I can understand, bans on things like pistol grips I think are silly.

 

[russ_watters]

I think a pistol grip implies firing from the hip instead of aiming like with a "real" rifle. That's the difference between a gun meant for hunting and one that's well suited for hosing down a room full of kids.

A pistol grip shotgun for home defense would different to me though, since the range is generally very low and firing from the hip more normal.

 

[nsaspook]

I think a pistol grip implies firing from the hip instead of aiming like with a "real" rifle. That's the difference between a gun meant for hunting and one that's well suited for hosing down a room full of kids.

Anyone who has shot expert with at M-16 would disagree about the pistol grip nonsense. A huge number of the AR-15 type rifles are owned by former military members who have never hip-shot a weapon in combat, that crap only happens in video games and bad movies.

http://www.thefirearmsforum.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=17949&d=1214659269
http://www.thefirearmsforum.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=17950&d=1214659269

 

[TheMadMonk]

I think a pistol grip implies firing from the hip instead of aiming like with a "real" rifle. That's the difference between a gun meant for hunting and one that's well suited for hosing down a room full of kids.

A pistol grip shotgun for home defense would different to me though, since the range is generally very low and firing from the hip more normal.

If you want to hose down a room full of kids, firing from the hip doesn't make sense. You'd probably not hit a thing doing that. I also doubt the types of people who would shoot at a room full of children would care whether their weapon of choice has a pistol grip or not. After all, if you're willing to break the law by murdering people, why would you bother paying attention to gun laws?

 

[russ_watters]

Anyone who has shot expert with at M-16 would disagree about the pistol grip nonsense. A huge number of the AR-15 type rifles are owned by former military members who have never hip-shot a weapon in combat, that crap only happens in video games and bad movies.

I was in the navy and tested sharpshooter on the M-16, the one and only time I had the opportunity to qualify and I didn't say you would shoot from the hip in combat. But a non-military mass murderer who know little more than what they see in movies might be inclined to do it.

Oh, and just for clarity, I didn't literally mean shooting from the hip: I really meant any shooting position below shouldered (such as is described in your links), where you are't actually aiming. Aiming matters less when you can spray more bullets.

 

[russ_watters]

If you want to hose down a room full of kids, firing from the hip doesn't make sense. You'd probably not hit a thing doing that.

At close range, when you're firing dozens of bullets at multiple targets, clustered together, I think you could hit quite a lot.

I also doubt the types of people who would shoot at a room full of children would care whether their weapon of choice has a pistol grip or not.

I'm sure they don't put much thought into it; they just buy a gun they know is designed as an assault weapon. So what? I haven't put much thought into the particulars of the suspension system design on my car either. Someone else did that for me.

After all, if you're willing to break the law by murdering people, why would you bother paying attention to gun laws?

What does "pay attention" mean? It certainly makes a difference whether they can buy everything they need at K-Mart or not. They will find out out about gun laws when they go and try to buy an assault weapon and are unsuccessful, whether they are "paying attention" or not.

The fact of the matter is that most of the weapons purchased in these mass killings were purchased legally, so it stands to reason that gun laws that change the type of available guns will have an impact on what kinds of guns are used in these crimes.

The pistol used in the 2011 Tuscon shooting had a legally obtained 33 round magazine from which 31 shots were fired. The shooter was taken down by bystanders when he couldn't reload smoothly. It stands to reason that if he had had a 10 round magazine, there would have been fewer people shot: the magazine he used was one that was banned for a few years under the '94 assault weapons ban.

And, the shooter tried to buy more ammo the morning of the shooting but was thwarted by a WalMart clerk who didn't like his demeanor.

Sure, people can try to find black market sources for guns and ammo, but that is difficult, expensive and risky.

Availability matters.

 

[Astronuc]

A reason to address availability of guns: the Christmas Eve ambush slaying of two volunteer firefighters responding to a house fire in upstate New York.

Now, a 24-year-old woman was arrested Friday and charged in connection with the Christmas Eve ambush slaying.

She apparently purchased the Bushmaster and shotgun used by the shooter who apparently committed suicide.

http://news.yahoo.com/ny-woman-arrested-connection-slaying-2-195532926.html

 

[CAC1001]

Let's also remember that no gun one can buy in America "hoses" or "sprays" bullets.

I'm sure they don't put much thought into it; they just buy a gun they know is designed as an assault weapon.

So what? I haven't put much thought into the particulars of the suspension system design on my car either. Someone else did that for me. What does "pay attention" mean? It certainly makes a difference whether they can buy everything they need at K-Mart or not. They will find out out about gun laws when they go and try to buy an assault weapon and are unsuccessful, whether they are "paying attention" or not.

The fact of the matter is that most of the weapons purchased in these mass killings were purchased legally, so it stands to reason that gun laws that change the type of available guns will have an impact on what kinds of guns are used in these crimes.

The pistol used in the 2011 Tuscon shooting had a legally obtained 33 round magazine from which 31 shots were fired. The shooter was taken down by bystanders when he couldn't reload smoothly. It stands to reason that if he had had a 10 round magazine, there would have been fewer people shot: the magazine he used was one that was banned for a few years under the '94 assault weapons ban.

Remember "assault weapon" is just a term referring to cosmetics on the weapon, such as a pistol grip, folding or retractable stock, bayonet lug, etc...on the magazines, people can have an argument I think, but even that depends. For example, the Virginia Tech shooter reloaded fifteen times. And reloading wouldn't have stopped Adam Lanza. James Holmes, if he'd had to reload ten round magazines repeatedly, might have been able to shoot more people then he did, because his 100 round drum magazine jammed. Those are very prone to jamming. 10 round magazines are not very prone to jamming, and he'd have probably been able to keep reloading them with the tear gas he'd fired.

 

[russ_watters]

Remember "assault weapon" is just a term referring to cosmetics on the weapon, such as a pistol grip, folding or retractable stock, bayonet lug, etc...on the magazines, people can have an argument I think, but even that depends.

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.

For example, the Virginia Tech shooter reloaded fifteen times. And reloading wouldn't have stopped Adam Lanza. James Holmes, if he'd had to reload ten round magazines repeatedly, might have been able to shoot more people then he did, because his 100 round drum magazine jammed. Those are very prone to jamming. 10 round magazines are not very prone to jamming, and he'd have probably been able to keep reloading them with the tear gas he'd fired.

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]

Oh, and just for clarity, I didn't literally mean shooting from the hip: I really meant any shooting position below shouldered (such as is described in your links), where you are't actually aiming. Aiming matters less when you can spray more bullets.

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]

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.

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?).

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?

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]

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?

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-and-politics/119408/why-israel-has-no-newtowns

If the United States, itself awash with weapons, wishes to benefit from Israel’s experience, it must make sure it learns the right lessons. The first and most universal one is that ever more stringent gun control is bad policy: As is the case with drugs, as was the case with liquor during Prohibition, the strict banning of anything does little but push the market underground into the hands of criminals and thugs. Rather than spend fortunes and ruin lives in a futile attempt to eradicate every last trigger in America, we would do well to follow Israel’s example and educate gun owners about their rights and responsibilities, so as to foster a culture of sensible and mindful gun ownership.

 

[edward]

Let's also remember that no gun one can buy in America "hoses" or "sprays" bullets.

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



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]

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

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 doesn't move.

 

[CAC1001]

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



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.

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

 

[CAC1001]

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.

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.com/2012/12/24/how-to-fix-our-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.