News 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.

 

[CAC1001]

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.

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.

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

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]

About 3X as many people died in car accidents in 2011 as died from gun violence.

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

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?|

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]

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

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]

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

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.

 

[Skrew]

In regards to magazine capacity,

Cho killed the highest number of people in the US with two handguns, one which used 10rd magazines the other 15rd.

There is little reason to think lanza wouldn't have been equally capable.

When shooting unarmored people at close range, children even more so handguns would be just as fatal.

Suppose this passes, when the next mass shooting happens, what will be the next set of regulations pushed? Magazine limits to 5rds? No detachable magazines?

Outside of a mass confiscation of firearms and a ban on semiautomatics, you're not going to be stopping mass shootings before they start.

I feel the only thing which is worth doing as a response to mass shootings is allowing the general population to respond in a proactive fashion.

While what happened in Newton is horrible, things like it are incredibly infrequent events considering the US population of over 300 million. I feel feinstein is more interested in advancing a social agenda then makeing anyone significantly safer. Her proposed legislation results in a significant loss of freedom and personal power for little if any gain.

 

[MarneMath]

Of course, the handgun issue is an entirely different issue altogether, and quite frankly more dangerous. You can carry more mags, in less space that can do quite a bit of damage quickly and also hide the weapon better. I've always argued that targeting assault weapons is really just a 'feel good' tactic. The real problem in the US is the massive amount of killing done by handguns.

However, that isn't the point. The point is there is literally no point for a civilian to have a 30 round mag nor is there a point for a guy like Cho to have a hollow point round. The only goal for a hollow-point is to increase the damage to a target. This round is ban for military use, yet we sell it? Come on! (I can understand why it would be sold for hunting rifles, but I'm willing to wager no one is going to hunt for a deer with a p22.)

While massing shooting like Newton are 'rare', they are more frequent here than our peers, and gun violence as a whole is larger in the states also. Clearly there exist a problem, ignoring it and saying 'welp there's nothing that can be done' seems way too defeatist for my taste.

 

[Skrew]

Of course, the handgun issue is an entirely different issue altogether, and quite frankly more dangerous. You can carry more mags, in less space that can do quite a bit of damage quickly and also hide the weapon better. I've always argued that targeting assault weapons is really just a 'feel good' tactic. The real problem in the US is the massive amount of killing done by handguns.

However, that isn't the point. The point is there is literally no point for a civilian to have a 30 round mag nor is there a point for a guy like Cho to have a hollow point round. The only goal for a hollow-point is to increase the damage to a target. This round is ban for military use, yet we sell it? Come on! (I can understand why it would be sold for hunting rifles, but I'm willing to wager no one is going to hunt for a deer with a p22.)

While massing shooting like Newton are 'rare', they are more frequent here than our peers, and gun violence as a whole is larger in the states also. Clearly there exist a problem, ignoring it and saying 'welp there's nothing that can be done' seems way too defeatist for my taste.

The reason to own a 30rd magazine is to be able to shoot more bullets. 10rd magazines aren't any more legitimate then 30rd in their use and both are pretty arbitrary numbers. It's true that 30rd are more effective but effectiveness doesn't imply something is bad to own. The vast majority of people who own 30rd magazines don't wrongly shoot people with them(30rd is standard on ar-15s in most states).

Hollowpoints are standard defensive rounds. It's true they are designed to cause as much damage as possible to an unarmored target, I don't see a problem with this.

I don't consider my position defeatist, I consider the losses associated with access to and ownership of firearms including ar-15s with standard capacity magazines(30rd) acceptable. I support looking at other ways to reduce deaths but a ban on ownership is not one of them.

 

[BobG]

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

Availability matters.

The expense is transitioning a legally purchased gun into the black market. The guns have to be stolen or purchased using some sort of forged paperwork or other means. Difficult, but cheaper and less risky than smuggling guns into the country.

Increasing the difficulty of obtaining weapons legally also increases the difficulty (and expense) of obtaining black market weapons.

 

[nsaspook]

However, that isn't the point. The point is there is literally no point for a civilian to have a 30 round mag nor is there a point for a guy like Cho to have a hollow point round. The only goal for a hollow-point is to increase the damage to a target. This round is ban for military use, yet we sell it? Come on! (I can understand why it would be sold for hunting rifles, but I'm willing to wager no one is going to hunt for a deer with a p22.)

We all know banning 30 round mags will be as effective as banning 40s of beer in stopping crime in the hood.

Almost nobody uses FMJ rounds in a handgun for personal protection or law enforcement except the military. I reload .45 .223 308 ammo and use FMJ rounds only for target practice.

http://forums.officer.com/t82674/

 

[nsaspook]

The expense is transitioning a legally purchased gun into the black market. The guns have to be stolen or purchased using some sort of forged paperwork or other means. Difficult, but cheaper and less risky than smuggling guns into the country.

Increasing the difficulty of obtaining weapons legally also increases the difficulty (and expense) of obtaining black market weapons.

I spent some time in the southern Philippines long ago. It was amazing to me to watch modern weapons being made in such primitive conditions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=lLApVGIU8eQ

With 3D printing and low cost CNC machines the underground gun manufacturing market will bloom if it becomes a crime profit center due to the increased value and demand for banned guns. This bill makes current semi-auto weapons on the banned list the same NFA class as real machines guns so the incentive might be to produce full-auto weapons if the penalties for using one are the same. Do you think it's a sane idea to make every AR-15 clone a NFA weapon?

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/national-firearms-act-firearms.html#nfa-firearms

 

[CAC1001]

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

I should have been clearer in my writing, but by "gun violence deaths," I was thinking of gun homicides: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.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.

A lot of traffic accidents happen because of people who do not obey those laws is the problem however.

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 ... ?

I don't think that analogy works.

 

[CAC1001]

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.

I don't buy the argument on recognizability. A gun is a gun. It isn't going to be more recognizable due to something like a bayonet lug or pistol grip. As for the stock, they make fixed stocks that look identical to collapsing stocks.

But also, it's illegal to just go out walking around with rifles. It's not like you can just go out for a jog and carry a rifle with you.

 

[CAC1001]

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.

I think it depends on how much additional hassle does it put onto the ordinary citizen. There is always "more" that we could do to theoretically make mass shootings even rarer by making it more and more difficult ot legally purchase a gun.

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.

If the gun makes killing very easy, then why do people need special training in how to use them? Also, how do we define "properly store?" (that gets arbitrary).

However, that isn't the point. The point is there is literally no point for a civilian to have a 30 round mag nor is there a point for a guy like Cho to have a hollow point round. The only goal for a hollow-point is to increase the damage to a target. This round is ban for military use, yet we sell it? Come on! (I can understand why it would be sold for hunting rifles, but I'm willing to wager no one is going to hunt for a deer with a p22.)

My understanding of hollow-point is that it penetrates less, which makes it ideal for civilians and law-enforcement. One thing to also keep in mind with the Second Amendment is that it isn't solely about whether one needs something. Now I'm not saying that in a way as to not allow any kinds of regulations, but I mean, when people say, "No one needs this or that," arms-wise, people need to remember when it comes to regulating it that arms ownership is a fundamental right. Also, who decides what is the "appropriate" number of rounds for a magazine to hold?

 

[CAC1001]

Suppose this passes, when the next mass shooting happens, what will be the next set of regulations pushed? Magazine limits to 5rds? No detachable magazines?

In New York state, they are talking about now reducing magazine size from ten rounds to seven rounds; I don't see how that will make a difference at all.

 

[russ_watters]

The reason to own a 30rd magazine is to be able to shoot more bullets. 10rd magazines aren't any more legitimate then 30rd in their use and both are pretty arbitrary numbers.

Yes, they are arbitrary, but that is not a good reason for why there should be no limit at all, if a limit saves lives.

 

[russ_watters]

The expense is transitioning a legally purchased gun into the black market. The guns have to be stolen or purchased using some sort of forged paperwork or other means. Difficult, but cheaper and less risky than smuggling guns into the country.

Increasing the difficulty of obtaining weapons legally also increases the difficulty (and expense) of obtaining black market weapons.

Yes and "risky" in that doing something illegal can get you arrested before you even get a chance to do what you wanted to do with that gun.

 

[russ_watters]

I don't buy the argument on recognizability. A gun is a gun. It isn't going to be more recognizable due to something like a bayonet lug or pistol grip. As for the stock, they make fixed stocks that look identical to collapsing stocks.

My point was that assault weapons need to be differentiated from hunting rifles, so features that differentiate them are specified in the laws, whether those features are functional or cosmetic.

 

[CAC1001]

My point was that assault weapons need to be differentiated from hunting rifles, so features that differentiate them are specified in the laws, whether those features are functional or cosmetic.

There is no difference though, unless one is talking automatic fire weapons which are already banned (minus the bump fire mechanisms which I am fine with limitations on). As said before, there is no such thing as an "assault weapon" even. That's a political term that was invented by gun control people to give them an "in" with regards to being able to restrict firearms ownership. As for hunting rifles versus military rifles, the practice of adopting military rifles for hunting purposes goes back to the Revolution.

What people forget is that they think you need some kind of special gun to be able to kill people. But people, biologically, are animals. If the gun can kill a human, it can be used to kill an animal and vice-versa. The AR-15 and the AR-10 (it's bigger brother) both make fine hunting rifles. The military uses a variant of a very popular hunting rifle for use as a sniper rifle as well, the Remington 700.

 

[Pythagorean]

I don't buy the argument on recognizability. A gun is a gun. It isn't going to be more recognizable due to something like a bayonet lug or pistol grip. As for the stock, they make fixed stocks that look identical to collapsing stocks.

But also, it's illegal to just go out walking around with rifles. It's not like you can just go out for a jog and carry a rifle with you.

What? I don't know where you live but where I live people carry all the time. It's not illegal and its socially acceptable. The intent is always hunting or bear protection.

 

[russ_watters]

There is no difference though...

You mean functionally? That isn't really true. Here's the list of features from the original ban. Looks to me like most are regarding functionality:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

As said before, there is no such thing as an "assault weapon" even. That's a political term that was invented by gun control people to give them an "in" with regards to being able to restrict firearms ownership. As for hunting rifles versus military rifles, the practice of adopting military rifles for hunting purposes goes back to the Revolution.

That's nonsense and your historical example shows why: hunting rifles used to be the same as military weapons, but they aren't anymore. The military uses different weapons today because the ones they use are better suited for killing people (lots of people) than hunting rifles.

And why quibble with a name? It is just a name and it doesn't change the fact that the weapons are military-type weapons. We could just as easily call them "military-type weapons." Would that change your stance?

What people forget is that they think you need some kind of special gun to be able to kill people.

No, we most certainly have not forgotten that. In a way, you are looking at this backwards: you don't need a 30 round magazine, folding stock and silencer threads to hunt deer. The descriptions of features exist as much to protect hunting rifles than to identify assault rifles. Otherwise, they could simply ban all semi-automatic rifles.