Let’s look at the current bill that was floated that spawned this thread. It bans magazines with a capacity greater than 10. What percentage of magazines in circulation fit this criteria? I wouldn’t assert that it’s 95% of them, but it’s a very high number. Standard capacity for a the AR-15 platform rifle (the most popular rifle in the country), is 30 rounds. So this proposal bans the standard magazine of the most popular rifle. The standard capacity of most semi-auto handguns is over 10 rounds. This bill bans those as well.
This bill is also an assault weapon ban that is more strict than the 1994 ban.
125 other congress people signed on to co-sponsor. Is that the lunatic left fringe? I think it’s more of an accurate representation of what gun control proponents really want. Ignorance may be the reason that some regular folks support these things, but this is a large fraction of Congress. So why are you willing to be charitable in your interpretation of the intentions of the folks that supported this new AWB proposal? The charitable interpretation being that they are ignorant.
And more recently, the NY Times front page editorial just came out calling for bans. It would be silly to not take them at their word.
These seem to be popular ideas, I agree. What I’ve never heard is what people would be willing to trade for those things. Think of it like a FOPA II.
I’m curious if you were aware of the background that lead congress to prohibit advocacy from the CDC wrt gun control? If you’re not I can elaborate but I have included some examples below. Suffice to say, the CDC can do research all they want. What they can’t do is gun control advocacy. In any event, the amount of funding that the CDC spent on gun issues prior to the prohibition was paltry compared to the amount of dollars that are routinely spent by gun control proponents.
The CDC has been criticized for only funding research by groups who propose gun control. An historical example funded in part by CDC Grant #R49/CCR903697-06 to the Trauma Foundation, a San Francisco gun control advocacy group,:
Pure advocacy. If you don’t want disingenuous research, then you don’t want it done through the CDC. It took me a while to come to the realization that the market for health care doesn’t behave like other markets. This impacted how I viewed health care in general. Similarly, the bullet is not a pathogen, guns are not a disease, and gun violence is not an epidemic to be treated.
First, you didn’t actually ask a question.
Second, the law provides that if you know or should have known that a person is prohibited, it is a crime to lend, give, or otherwise provide a firearm to that person.
What was your question?
The reason why the “good guy with a gun” thing resonates is because it’s largely true. Bad guys with guns are typically stopped by good guys with guns (ignoring the shorthand of good and bad guys). It just happens that a lot of times that good guy is a law enforcement officer. The bad guy is stopped with a gun regardless. There are however many cases of non-police stopping bad guys engaged with or about to engage in mass shootings. And beyond mass shootings, good guys with guns use them fairly routinely to defend themselves.
Bone, I don’t have time to reply point by point at the moment.
First, a ban on magazines over 10 rounds is not a ban on the firearms? I don’t mean to be snarky but a AR-15 style rifle could be used with a 10 round clip, no? Please correct me if I’m wrong that banning magazines over 10 rounds would also ban the actual firearm.
Not sure I would agree with having a conservative defining the liberal position. I would much rather see actual policy or statements by the liberals in question. Just like I would much rather post the NRA actual positions rather than make up my summary.
What bans did the NYTimes call for? “Ban” is a pretty broad word and I’m not sure how it is used in the NYTimes context.
CDC probably needs to be a separate thread. It’s a whole can of worms.
Few people would contest “good guys with guns” when it comes to LEO’s. I think that is disingenuous. Certainly my reading of “good guys with guns” is for civilians. I would be surprised if the majority of folks out there think otherwise.
My question regarding the perceived “right” by owners to sell, lend, give or otherwise transfer your firearm to a third party without oversight. Note the without oversight. There may be laws, and how enforced they are in practice is a different issue, that prevent knowingly providing a firearm to a prohibited person. What about unknowingly providing a firearm to a prohibited person, or wink wink nudge nudge providing a firearm to a prohibited person. The whole private sale thing.
And, I don’t read the 2nd as allowing firearm owners to sell without oversight or restriction to a 3rd party. Please share the talking points where that is actually specifically called out in the 2nd?
My main point was that the current proposal was an AWB that 125 legislators signed on to. In addition to that, they are also doing a magazine ban. A magazine ban is not a firearm ban, but if greater than 10 is permissible, why wouldn’t greater than 7, or 5, or 1? At what point is a magazine ban an effective gun ban?
Sure - that was a quote that came to mind. Obama and Hillary and Brady and Bloomberg and CSGV are plenty on record supporting bans.
The point is, the meme resonates because it’s true.
Not to quibble, but there is no actual question here either.
I don’t think opposition to UBC are rooted in constitutional arguments. And btw, the 2nd doesn’t “allow” anything. It recognizes and protects a fundamental right and restricts the government.
This is *always *a rat hole with 2nd enthusiasts. I have no desire to get into a debate on the merits or logic of the number of bullets. There is no way to satisfy anyone in such a dick measuring contest. And no way for a non gun user to satisfy the NRA.
The phrase “I know it when I see it” is a colloquial expression by which a speaker attempts to categorize an observable fact or event, although the category is subjective or lacks clearly defined parameters. The phrase was famously used in 1964 by United States Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart to describe his threshold test for obscenity in Jacobellis v. Ohio.
Certainly there is room to agree that it is really hard to imagine a 30 shot AR-15 clip required for self defence or hunting in any kind of realistic scenario.
You want me to define it, then I’ll date myself with what’s good enough for Dirty Harry ought to be good enough for America.
Mind using more exact language here on the boards? At least Obama and Hillary are not on record for supporting blanket bans on individual firearm ownership in the US. It’s not accurate to say they are. See ban on “big” magazines not being equivalent.
Yes, read it at the time. Didn’t realize that it had entered the NRA psyche. Honestly, I’m not obsessed with this topic but do appreciate the chance to both educate myself and hone arguments for the future.
BTW, the “ban” called for “Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, and certain kinds of ammunition, must be outlawed for civilian ownership.” You might call that a ban on the private ownership of firearms in the US, on the other hand I would call it a pathetic miniscule first step to getting the death by firearm epidemic under control. “Ban” is an inflammatory word, as is “firearm epidemic”.
Cite for good guy with a gun? There isn’t any kind of unbiased data that supports this Wayne LaPierre meme. Please share if you have any data that isn’t biased and/or anecdotal data. Remember, Congress is not funding such efforts via the CDC or any other source.
[quote=“Bone, post:84, topic:741598”]
Not to quibble, but there is no actual question here either.
Question: do you believe that the 2nd amendment confers the right for firearm owners to privately sell firearms freely to buyers?
Question: does the 2nd confer the right to sell firearms to buyers without restriction and as long as the seller has reason to believe that the buyer is prohibited by law to purchase said firearm?
Question: do you personally believe that laws providing that if you know or should have known that a person is prohibited, then is a crime to lend, give, or otherwise provide a firearm to that person, is a sufficient deterrent, has a high enough penalty and is effectively enforced?
Bonus question: are not such laws State by State, and if so would support a Federal requirement?
Bonus bonus question: if not, why not?
Bonus bonus bonus question: no right, including the 2nd, is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation, correct?
Truly, I am not trying to pick nits and get gotchas. But if any ban, for example limiting the capacity of a magazine, is assumed to lead to an effective 100% ban on private ownership of firearms in the US, then there isn’t anything to debate.
And if 125 congress critters signing on to a bill that has no chance of passing is “mainstream” when it’s going to require at least a majority if not a super majority, then I’ve got a wildlife refuge with free grazing rights in Oregon to give you for only a small processing fee.
First of all, this is not necessarily a theoretical discussion. In the NY SAFE act that was passed after Newtown, they did implement a 7 round limit that was later struck as unconstitutional. The point is that there is no magic associated with 10 rounds. Take all the new information you’ve learned recently about “assault weapons” and apply it to the term “high capacity”.
I certainly do not agree that a 30 round magazine is not useful in a self defense, hunting, or realistic scenario. I can elaborate but if you have no interest in it that’s fine.
When I say “supporting bans” that means precisely what I said. I did not say that they support blanket bans or banning all firearms. If a person supports any ban in addition to what is already prohibited, then they support ban(s). When Hillary comes out and calls for an assault weapon ban, it is perfectly accurate to say that she supports a ban. This applies to the NY Times as well.
Do you know what types of weapons were used in San Bernardino? It was semi automatic AR-15 pattern rifles, and 9mm pistols. There was nothing special about these weapons and a call for their banning is in fact calling for a ban.
First of all, you agreed in post #82 so I’m not sure what type of cite you are looking for. My claim is that it happens. Anecdotal evidence would satisfy this claim, and common sense would as well. I also linked to specific times where people stopped or thwarted mass shootings in post #81.
In my haste earlier, I neglected to elaborate further here. It’s perfectly fine to not be interested in a discussion about magazine capacity. But if a person is supportive of a ban or restriction in this arena, it is at best lazy to not be able to articulate and support the justification for those actions. If a person says, “have whatever magazine size or configuration you want, I don’t care” then there would be no reason for them to be involved in a debate about the merits or logic of the number of bullets. But if a person proposes restrictions while at the same time is uninterested in the merits or logic of such a proposal, that is not only poor form, but terrible public policy making.
As to Dirty Harry, the fictional character may have used a 6 round revolver, but modern police typically carry firearms with much higher capacity. If there was a proposal that limited civilians to what police typically use, that would at least have some basis of support.
I wouldn’t go so far as to say any ban is assumed to lead to an effective 100% ban on private ownership of firearms in the US. But as far as opposition goes, any new ban will be opposed. This is a more sound strategy than any other. But I do share your sentiment - there often isn’t anything to debate when one side wants bans. It’s an absolute non-starter. There is no compromise when the goal of the other party is to kill you, they can’t kill you just a little bit. There is no compromise when one side wants to ban, because no ban is acceptable. I am more interested in relaxing bans that are already in place. For example, in CA:
[ul]
[li]I am barred from purchasing any Gen 4 model Glock. They have different handles, mag releases, and slide locks, but are otherwise the same as their Gen 4 predecessors. Some models come with 3 magazines instead of two so they are a slightly better value as well. But because they don’t have technology that doesn’t exist anywhere, they are banned for sale in CA. In reality, every single new model handgun is banned in CA because they do not contain technology that doesn’t exist.[/li][li]I am barred from purchasing a .50 cal rifle. Even though these have not been used in any crime, are absurdly heavy, ridiculously expensive, and each round costs like $5 or so, for some reason these are considered too dangerous to buy.[/li][li]When traveling to the city of Los Angeles and Sunnyvale, I am barred from possessing my legal magazines that have a capacity greater than 10 rounds.[/li][/ul]
(I added numbers for ease of response)
I will answer your first and second question together. #1 & 2:
I think your second question is missing a negative qualifier there. I read it to say *"does the 2nd confer the right to sell firearms to buyers without restriction and as long as the seller has **no *reason to believe that the buyer is prohibited by law to purchase said firearm? " Let me know if that’s not what you intended. As I mentioned in post #84 - I don’t think opposition to UBC are rooted in constitutional arguments. Now, certainly the 2nd amendment recognizes coextensive rights along with the right to keep and bear. That would include rights to purchase or acquire, as well as practice. Nothing that has been widely proposed for UBC would infringe on those items substantially from a constitutional perspective, IMO. I am still opposed to UBC on other grounds.
Up until a few years ago, the opposition was mostly theoretical. There was multi-pronged opposition. First, the idea that the government should step in between a transaction between a willing seller and buyer for a product that is legal to own was nonsense. If we allowed the government to have a yes/no say in that transaction, then we give them the power to deny the transaction for reasons they determine appropriate. Second, the goal of UBC was perceived as a step towards registration. Registration is an absolute non-starter. But more recently, these prongs of opposition became more than theoretical - the push to add more and more people to the list of who is prohibited (people on rep payee and on government watch lists) makes the idea of UBC even less tenable. Today those are the folks that are targeted without due process. Tomorrow it could be people who have unpaid parking tickets, political adversaries, or all manner of thinly veiled attempts to restrict more people. And when UBC was proposed that did not include registration, it was rejected by Democrats. This was revealing that the goal was not actually UBC, but registration.
#3:
Your third question is multi part. I believe current laws are sufficient deterrents and have a high enough penalty. I am unaware of the levels of enforcement, but my suspicion is that they are not sufficiently enforced. I am in CA. We already have UBC by state law. I and every gun owner I know would never ever conduct a sale that violates the law. The risk is too high (permanent revocation of firearm rights, among other felonies) and the reward is non-existent. That being said, I’m sure there are people that violate these laws. More laws to violate will not impact the illegal sales.
** #4 & 5:**
Certainly there are state by state laws as I mention above, but at a federal level 18 U.S. Code § 922 (d)states:
This is a federal requirement - cannot sell, give, loan firearms to prohibited persons. I support this federal requirement.
#6:
Of course I agree that no right is unlimited. I don’t subscribe to the way you’ve phrased the 2nd part of your question, but what is reasonable is always going to be debateable.
Are you saying that these 125 congress people are the lunatic left fringe?
Bone, I think you’re being dishonest with terminology.
“Good guy with a gun” ≠ law enforcement officers. When Wayne LaPierrespeaks after most recent large massacres, and is very clear he is talking about civilians. To expand this to mean LEO and civilian good guys is deliberately disingenuous. (Vast majority will agree that LEO are good guys with guns.)
You’ve got cherry picked anecdotal examples. And these are, well, anecdotes and the good guy with a gun being a net positive result does not necessarily follow. Correlation does not prove causation, and one could question whether there is even a statistically valid set to draw from. I would like to see real non partisan funding of non partisan studies that would change these from anecdotes to real data. Not disagreeing that there have been instances of a person with a gun in the right place at the right time and acted with a successful outcome. That said, how many times have people used their firearms with a bad outcome, with collateral damage, with accidentally killing family members? How do the good guy with a gun stats rank against “good guy with a gun that had a bad outcome”?
“Supporting bans” ≠ banning all or most all private firearm ownership. As I pointed out earlier, banning a 30 round magazine is not banning the firearm, nor does it prevent the use of said firearm. You could be a lot more accurate and less inflammatory by calling for “specific bans” or “limited bans” or even “a ban”. Lord knows in recent firearm threads, I’ve been corrected many many times by 2nd enthusiasts on non inflammatory wording. Would appreciate the same courtesy.
NY Times called out semi automatic AR-15 pattern rifles and didn’t mention 9mm handguns. Again, seems to be a pattern of taking one thing and expanding it to something much larger. Although I think we are in agreement that if those that want to do something about firearm murders in the US, going after 9mm would be more effective than the AR-15 pattern rifles give the related deaths to each category.
Yes, I would like to see the logic behind a 30 round magazine. Especially as opposed to say 3 10 round magazines (or give me a better example if 2 13 round clips makes more sense as a firearm owner since I’m just pulling these numbers out my ass). I’m having difficulty imagining a responsible gun owner with a reasonable skill level that would need 30 rounds in a single clip when out hunting or for home defense. Excepting of course the zombie apocalypse…
And, I will repeat that there isn’t any magic number that will satisfy all people and all cases for magazine limits. Again, it’s akin to how many cats in a household moves you from cat lover to crazy cat lady to public health hazard…
It’s precision, not dishonesty. I’ve made an effort to address any question you’ve had. I specifically called out that police are also “good guys with guns” when I first broached this topic. It was pretty clearly stated. Now, LaPierre is talking about increased civilian firearm carry sure. But the fact that the good guy with a gun is often police is simply because firearm carry is not as widespread as it could be, in LaPierre’s estimation.
That’s why I asked what type of cite you are looking for. Other people have said they reject any cite that relies on user reports or survey data. Do you? I’m not sure what you would consider a “net positive” - can you define it?
I agree that supporting bans != banning all or most private firearm ownership. I stated this. It doesn’t matter though since any new ban will be opposed. I’ve never construed limited bans to equate to a total ban. Words have meaning and I am precise in the language chosen.
Actually, the NY Times called them “combat rifles” which is another new term designed to sound scary. It is factually correct that the people in San Bernardino used AR-15 pattern rifles and 9mm pistols. I’m not expanding the NY Times editorial call for a ban to include handguns - I think that’s your interpretation but not what I said.
But really, the larger point is that people who support gun control often want to ban subsets of types of weapons, and the refrain is generally that they are not trying to ban *ALL *firearms. Well no shit. In reality - any new ban on any subset of any type of firearm will be opposed. I don’t care that it’s not a ban on *ALL *firearms. Like you said, it’s a first step. This is a huge gulf where there is no common ground. "It is no answer to say, as petitioners do, that it is permissible to ban the possession of handguns so long as the possession of other firearms (i.e., long guns) is allowed. " - from the Heller opinion. My opinion is that this reasoning applies broadly not in a constitutional sense, but from a strategic point of view - a ban on one type is not acceptable because other types are allowed.
I think discussion of magazine limits should be another thread.
Yes I have advocated for licensing and registration for YEARS!!!
Read this article by one of LBJ’s former staff members about how gun control folks are their own worst enemy in actually getting anything meaningful done. The biggest problem that the gun control crowd has is that their members are largely ignorant about guns and gun issues and overestimate how “right” they are about everything.
Not to nit pick, but you are not using the term “military grade” the way gun control folks are using the term.
Are you familiar with the term “mil spec”?
It generally refers to AR-15s that are made to the same specifications (length, composition, size of components, etc) as a rifle issued to a soldier. The AR-15 crowd like to use mil spec rifles because it provides a standard that allows accessory manufacturers to make one accessory that will fit onto every AR-15 out there regardless of the manufacturer.
I have frequently heard the term “military grade” used as a synonym for mil-spec. Its highly misleading and preys on the ignorance of their base.
I am OK with these things as long as there is no extraneous liability attached to gun owners that you would not attach to someone who owned something else like a car.
In fully support more research. But the research being conducted by places like the CDC are designed to define how guns harm society, they never try to define how much guns help society (defensive gun uses). They do this knowing full well that defensive gun uses might number in hundreds of thousands if not millions.
They never distinguish between legal gun owners and criminals. They do this knowing full well that any policy proposal they advance is going to affect ONLY legal gun owners.
Good luck getting 2/3rds of each house and 3/4ths of the states to repeal the second amendment. I can name 13 states off the top of my head that would NEVER ratify a repeal of the second amendment. Trying to do so will only backfire on the gun control crowd.
The way I envision it is simple and these are the broad strokes. When the firearm is registered to you, you are responsible. As soon as that registration transfers to a dealer or another individual, then it is not your responsibility. If a firearm is lost and forget to report it then it is the owners responsibility. If a firearm is stolen, it is the owners responsibility *until *it is reported, and once reported no longer the owners responsibility.
Responsible firearm owners should know where the firearm is and how it is secured. No free pass for “forgetting to report it lost” or “didn’t realize it was lost” or “didn’t notice it was stolen 3 months ago.” But once the firearm is legally transferred then there is no liability.
I’m for not trying to mandate how to store the firearm in your home or what constitutes an assault weapon. But the flip side of the coin, is that if there is a gun accident in your home, then there is some kind of penalty for failing to adequately secure the firearm. Firearm owners are trusted to adequately secure the firearm in their home based on their situation/knowledge/requirements. If not “adequately” secured, then pay the price. And by definition, if there is a firearm accident in your home then it was not adequately secured.
I have an autistic child in my home. She doesn’t understand a lot of things. There is only one way I can guarantee there are no firearm accidents in my home, and that is to never allow a firearm in my home. Your situation is probably different, and I find it difficult the government can *dictate *in an effective way.
IMHO, I think an insurance solution might be workable. If you’re a firearm owner, then you have to have insurance against accidents. Insurance actuarials will work out if an “assault style” long gun is statistically more or less safe, and the premiums would adjust accordingly. It might be that 10 round magazines cost less to insure than a 30 round magazine or vice versa. Depends on the actuarial data. Or that insurance goes up for handguns versus hunting rifles, or an over under is statistically the safest firearm out there and therefore has the lowest insurance rates. And the insurance would pay out if there are accidents, or if its stolen and used to commit a crime, or if the neighbor kid accidently kills his little sister with it. And higher risk firearms have higher premiums…and this is a free market solution instead of government bureaucratic decision.
Bone, thanks for your replies. Sincerely, as it’s been a good education. When the onion is peeled back, we’re getting to a common understanding and then can actually discuss.
I believe that a vocal amount of the NRA supports and/or 2nd amendment enthusiasts deliberately play on definitions to obfuscate the issue. And keep moving the goal posts.
“Good guy with guns” may include LEO in your definition. This is an example rather than a criticism of you. The voice of the NRA uses it for civilians and why there needs to be less firearm control rather than more.
LaPierre uses it as a meme, there are some anecdotal reports held up, and a paucity of any kind of real data. And a paucity of support for funding and conducting non-partisan studies that might actually prove or disprove the “good guy with a gun” meme. It’s a meme until shown to be more substantial than a bunch of accidents. There is a wealth of firearm accident reports, family members killed because they were mistaken for burglers, collateral damage when a good guy with a gun misses the target, etc. You can’t have your cake and it eat too if one side can use anecdotes and the other is criticized for doing so.
“Ban” is another. We have to agree to disagree whether you’re being clear or obfuscating in your usage.
A magazine capacity thread could be interesting. I’m seriously scratching my head to understand how a 30 round magazine is needed to go out deer hunting? Or if you really need to go shoot a whole bunch of feral hogs or a prairie dog colony (if that’s legal), the *need * for a 30 round clip versus 3 10 round clips beyond the obvious convenience factor. But I don’t use firearms these days so maybe I am missing something. I am generally curious when it would be a common use case scenario when a 30 round clip is “needed”.
I agree that gun control folks are like headless chickens, especially in the face of the NRA. NRA is really simple, any net new firearm limitation is bad, a slippery slope and implied that this will lead to universal confiscation of existing firearms (and probably without compensation), a total ban on private ownership and enslavement to a fascist police state.
Those that want to limit firearms in some way
can’t agree on where to focus
rat hole on ineffectual areas such as the “assault weapons ban” when 80% of firearm murders are committed by hand guns.
Not organized to turn a tragedy into an opportunity (good read by LBJ’s advisor in your link)
For whatever reason, spend political capital on getting something like a 10 round magazine limit passed
have no clue how to stack rank what is the most dangerous firearms or what the “best” limitation would be if you could only pass one thing.
Accept the strategy of one tiny limit is all that can be hoped for instead of going after universal registration, universal background checks, and complete closure of the “gun show” loophole
Not understanding the definitions and language of 2nd amendment enthusiasts. So roll over on verbal jousting on things like “gun show” loophole. Ie, gun show means private sales and most take part outside of actual gun shows.
…2nd amendment enthusiasts on this board have given me quite an education in the past few months.
I don’t really agree with this. Sure there are one off folks who act stupidly, but in general gun rights advocates would gladly explain any nuance when asked. The part that is often lost is that definitions do matter. They matter especially when talking about restrictions - and often those crafting restrictions don’t understand how the laws and restrictions they propose will impact people. I grant our experiences in this matter may differ.
Defensive gun uses (DGU) are controversial because measurement is not as reliable as accident reports. A person killed by gunfire is pretty clear. A person that is scared away by the display of a gun doesn’t get recorded anywhere. This is why I asked what type of study you’d accept. Because there has been quite a few studies that show quite a high level of DGU. As you can imagine we’ve had many threads on this board about this topic. Here is a recent one: Studying Firearm Related Violence. You can see there is contention about measurement methods, etc. Here is an older one: Does gun ownership lead to fewer home invasions? Many cites in each thread.
I could not be more clear in how I am using the term. And the way I am using it is both accurate and precise. If a person wants to ban a subset of firearms, they want to ban guns. That is not the same as saying they want to ban all guns.
I’ll have to write something later. Right now I’m reading about a proposal TODAY to ban more assault weapons in CA. The downside is that it will take time and money to fight it, and it may still pass. The upside is that if they ban more firearms as assault weapons there will have to be a period of registration where existing weapons can be registered as assault weapons - meaning I could go to town on configuration since registered assault weapons are exempt from most state restrictions. I’ll have to stock up on lower receivers. If the law passes, it would likely motivate me to create at least 10-20 additional assault weapons in CA that would not otherwise have been created. I would prefer if the proposed law fails. (AB 1633 and AB 1634)
Why is it a problem if there isn’t a gun ban of any type (of course there are plenty of gun bans, including a federal ban on machine guns and all sorts of gun bans at the state level)?
You will NEVER be able to ban any significant portion of guns without repealing the second amendment and anything short of a significant gun ban does NOTHING for your cause. It just hardens the resolve of the other side and you lose lots of political capital for almost no effect.
Starting small on a stupid idea is still a stupid idea. Banning guns is a stupid idea.
BTW, how are people supposed to believe that no one wants to ban guns when you say shit like this? Can we all agree that there are PLENTY of gun control folks (including people in government) that WANT to ban guns, they just don’t have the political power to do so.
