News FEinstein: Assault Weapons Ban Bill

[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.

 

[CAC1001]

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.

Maybe in certain areas, but in ordinary America, you are asking for trouble if you just go out with a rifle.

 

[MarneMath]

Ever heard of an Alaska carry or Vermont carry? Some states do allow open carry and concealed carry without a license.

 

[CAC1001]

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

There is no difference. The list for rifles is the following:

Folding or telescoping stock - certain hunting rifles have these

Pistol grip - certain hunting rifles have these

Bayonet mount - when has a criminal ever fixed a bayonet?

Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one - what difference does the use of one of these make?

Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device that enables launching or firing rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those mounted externally) - it was for a WWII grenade launcher, but regardless, one can't buy the grenades for either one anyhow

None of the above has anything to do with the ability of the gun to kill.

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.

It is not nonsense at all. The term "assault weapon" as we know it now was created by gun control activist Josh Sugarmann. It has nothing to do with the weapon's functionality. And "hunting rifles" are not guns that "used to be the same" as military weapons. They are the same guns that the military used, albeit just with certain features that make them more suited to hunting. Even this gets arbitrary, as many of the same features that make guns ideal for military and police use also make them ideal for hunting use.

Here are some modern hunting rifles:

Remington R15

Smith and Wesson 300 Whisper

http://www.smith-wesson.com/wcsstore/SmWesson2/upload/images/firearms/detail_md/811300_01_md.jpg

Note these look identical to many an AR-15, which is many ways they are, but they have a camouflage pattern for hunting and some extra more hunting-oriented features. But functionally there's not really any difference.

The military does not use different guns today unless you mean machine guns, which are more for suppressive fire purposes. Otherwise, the military's guns have the same functionality as any semi-automatic rifle one can buy. One of the first semi-automatic rifles was the Winchester 1903 (came out in 1903 hence the name). The M1 Garand is a semi-automatic WWII rifle and the Springfield M1A is a 1950s-era weapon. The AR-10 and the AR-15 are late 50s to early 60s.

The military does use 30 round magazines, which as said, one can argue for limiting the magazine size to ten rounds.

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?

No, because there is no such thing as a "military-type" weapon in terms of killing ability. A gun is a gun is a gun. It doesn't care if it's being used to shoot people or animals. Here is a sniper rifle used by the military, the M24:

Here is the Remington 700 hunting rifle, which is what the M24 is based off of:

http://www.remington.com/~/media/Images/Firearms/Centerfire/Model-700/Model-700-BDL-Anniversary/700_7mm_50th_BDL_84063_Right.ashx?w=570&bc=black

Neither gun cares whether it's shooting a bear or a person.

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.

Remember though that the Second Amendment isn't about hunting. For example, weapons like the AR-15 are also excellent for home defense purposes. That said though, while I can see the arguments about magazine capacity, I do not at all see what the stock has anything to do with the gun's ability to kill something. As for silencers, silencers do not silence a gun shot, that is just Hollywood where that happens.

 

[BobG]

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

If weapons were banned entirely, an underground manufacturing industry would bloom (or be smuggled in from other countries manufacturing weapons legally). If the choices are legal weapons that have a somewhat limited capability or "more capable" replicas made by underground manufacturers, the replicas may not be quite as popular.

http://www.dismalworld.com/black-economy/faithful_replicas_of_guns_and_rifles_produced.php. Primitive weapons made under primitive conditions that at least look like the real thing. It's a little like bootleg whiskey. You find a reliable manufacturer and you're probably okay. On the path to finding a reliable manufacturer, a customer takes their chances.

 

[Pythagorean]

There is no difference. The list for rifles is the following:

Folding or telescoping stock - certain hunting rifles have these

Pistol grip - certain hunting rifles have these

Bayonet mount - when has a criminal ever fixed a bayonet?

Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one - what difference does the use of one of these make?

Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device that enables launching or firing rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those mounted externally) - it was for a WWII grenade launcher, but regardless, one can't buy the grenades for either one anyhow

None of the above has anything to do with the ability of the gun to kill.



It is not nonsense at all. The term "assault weapon" as we know it now was created by gun control activist Josh Sugarmann. It has nothing to do with the weapon's functionality. And "hunting rifles" are not guns that "used to be the same" as military weapons. They are the same guns that the military used, albeit just with certain features that make them more suited to hunting. Even this gets arbitrary, as many of the same features that make guns ideal for military and police use also make them ideal for hunting use.

Here are some modern hunting rifles:

Remington R15

Smith and Wesson 300 Whisper

http://www.smith-wesson.com/wcsstore/SmWesson2/upload/images/firearms/detail_md/811300_01_md.jpg

Note these look identical to many an AR-15, which is many ways they are, but they have a camouflage pattern for hunting and some extra more hunting-oriented features. But functionally there's not really any difference.

The military does not use different guns today unless you mean machine guns, which are more for suppressive fire purposes. Otherwise, the military's guns have the same functionality as any semi-automatic rifle one can buy. One of the first semi-automatic rifles was the Winchester 1903 (came out in 1903 hence the name). The M1 Garand is a semi-automatic WWII rifle and the Springfield M1A is a 1950s-era weapon. The AR-10 and the AR-15 are late 50s to early 60s.

The military does use 30 round magazines, which as said, one can argue for limiting the magazine size to ten rounds.



No, because there is no such thing as a "military-type" weapon in terms of killing ability. A gun is a gun is a gun. It doesn't care if it's being used to shoot people or animals. Here is a sniper rifle used by the military, the M24:

Here is the Remington 700 hunting rifle, which is what the M24 is based off of:

http://www.remington.com/~/media/Images/Firearms/Centerfire/Model-700/Model-700-BDL-Anniversary/700_7mm_50th_BDL_84063_Right.ashx?w=570&bc=black

Neither gun cares whether it's shooting a bear or a person.



Remember though that the Second Amendment isn't about hunting. For example, weapons like the AR-15 are also excellent for home defense purposes. That said though, while I can see the arguments about magazine capacity, I do not at all see what the stock has anything to do with the gun's ability to kill something. As for silencers, silencers do not silence a gun shot, that is just Hollywood where that happens.

As far as cosmetics goes, it makes a big difference to the tactical team responding whether the perps are armed with hunting rifles or assault rifles. Some towns (like the one I am in now) wouldn't be able to do much against assault rifles, and the rules of engagement are different. So if a clever team of bank robbers buy each member a hunting rifle that looks like an automatic weapon, they render some response teams inert.

If we can ban all weapons that look like assault rifles, then we remove this complication. We make it more difficult to fool law enforcement and we create more accountability for people masquerading hunting rifles as assault weapons.

 

[Skrew]

Can someone explain the basis of "hunting rifles" being used as the basis of what is or isn't acceptable to own?

I don't hunt and I don't consider hunting the basis of gun ownership, they are two completely separate issues. Hunting is a sport/hobby and as such is nonvital. To associate the two degreades firearms ownership into a hobby and as a hobby it is open to far more regulation.

I suspect that's the intended goal.

 

[CAC1001]

As far as cosmetics goes, it makes a big difference to the tactical team responding whether the perps are armed with hunting rifles or assault rifles. Some towns (like the one I am in now) wouldn't be able to do much against assault rifles, and the rules of engagement are different. So if a clever team of bank robbers buy each member a hunting rifle that looks like an automatic weapon, they render some response teams inert.

If we can ban all weapons that look like assault rifles, then we remove this complication. We make it more difficult to fool law enforcement and we create more accountability for people masquerading hunting rifles as assault weapons.

By that standard, the bank robbers would be smart to just use fake guns that look real is all. Are they going to ban the fake guns too? And not everyone wants a gun for hunting, a lot of people just prefer a gun for self-defense is all. Some people prefer a hand gun, some a rifle, some a shotgun. It's a matter of preference.

 

[Pythagorean]

By that standard, the bank robbers would be smart to just use fake guns that look real is all. Are they going to ban the fake guns too? And not everyone wants a gun for hunting, a lot of people just prefer a gun for self-defense is all. Some people prefer a hand gun, some a rifle, some a shotgun. It's a matter of preference.

Like I said, fake guns must have an orange plug in their barrels. To have a fake gun out without a orange plug is illegal, yes. Kids riding around in cars pointing fake guns at people with the orange cap removed get arrested. Completely illegal. You rob a bank with a fake gun, you get armed robbery. That kind of thing isn't taken lightly.

Also, genuinely curious whether you can show me some (non-anecdotal) proof that guns work for home protection. I remember hearing a statistic that it's more likely there's an accidentals shooting than a home protection, but that statistic was not verified, just stated./

 

[CAC1001]

Like I said, fake guns must have an orange plug in their barrels. To have a fake gun out without a orange plug is illegal, yes. Kids riding around in cars pointing fake guns at people with the orange cap removed get arrested. Completely illegal. You rob a bank with a fake gun, you get armed robbery. That kind of thing isn't taken lightly.

Yes, my point was though that it doesn't make much sense to ban real guns based on how they look if the criminals could use fake guns that look real as well. If the criminals are planning to rob a bank, they obviously won't leave the orange plug in.

Also, genuinely curious whether you can show me some (non-anecdotal) proof that guns work for home protection. I remember hearing a statistic that it's more likely there's an accidentals shooting than a home protection, but that statistic was not verified, just stated./

I do not know the statistics regarding that off the top of my head. But even if in more home invasions, the person wasn't able to access the gun in time, I do not think a person should be denied their right to try to protect themself.

 

[Pythagorean]

Yes, my point was though that it doesn't make much sense to ban real guns based on how they look if the criminals could use fake guns that look real as well. If the criminals are planning to rob a bank, they obviously won't leave the orange plug in.

Why doesn't it make much sense? What's the contradiction you're detecting?

I do not know the statistics regarding that off the top of my head. But even if in more home invasions, the person wasn't able to access the gun in time, I do not think a person should be denied their right to try to protect themself.

Even if home discharges lead to more accidental shootings than home defenses? At some point, I think that's reckless. (if the statistical claim is true).

Nobodies being denied their right to protect themselves in general. People are being denied the right to protect themselves in a particular way that has (or might have been) shown to be ineffective.