Our cops do not use the term “assualt rifle” or “assault weapon”. We have “restricted firearms” and “prohibited firearms” here:
"According to the Criminal Code, a restricted firearm is:
a handgun that is not a prohibited firearm,
a firearm that
is not a prohibited firearm,
has a barrel less than 470 mm in length, and
is capable of discharging centre-fire ammunition in a semi-automatic manner,
a firearm that is designed or adapted to be fired when reduced to a length of less than 660 mm by folding, telescoping or otherwise, or
a firearm of any other kind that is prescribed to be a restricted firearm"
and
"According to the Criminal Code, a prohibited firearm is:
a handgun that
has a barrel equal to or less than 105 mm in length, or
is designed or adapted to discharge a 25 or 32 calibre cartridge, but does not include any such handgun that is prescribed, where the handgun is for use in international sporting competitions governed by the rules of the International Shooting Union,
a firearm that is adapted from a rifle or shotgun, whether by sawing, cutting or any other alteration, and that, as so adapted,
is less than 660 mm in length, or
is 660 mm or greater in length and has a barrel less than 457 mm in length,
an automatic firearm, whether or not it has been altered to discharge only one projectile with one pressure of the trigger, or
any firearm that is prescribed to be a prohibited firearm"
Heck might even get the manufacturers on board if we make part of the deal, we help with your bills you don’t try to sue the gun manufacturers (is that even a thing anymore) I know for a while it seemed like every time something went bang they sued the mfr.
Honest, I checked on Google and trusted some second-hand info about Maryland and Virginia gun shops.
Incidentally, the whole “There’s no such thing as assault rifles” rankles me because it sounds so similar to the “no such thing as Pit Bulls” and “No such thing as the Mafia” arguments put forth by shills for dog fighting and organized crime. Online dictionaries have a definition for “assault rifle” and guns that fit that description exist and, according to a previous post, are legal in over 30 states. “There’s no such thing as assault rifles” has no traction with me, and it sounds suspiciously like something out of an NRA “How to Argue about Gun Control with Stupid Liberals” handbook. The possibility that owners of these things prefer the term “assault weapon” i about as compelling as my preference to be described as “portly, with thinning hair” instead of “fat and bald.”
Noted. The website I linked to didn’t distinguish between types of gun.
I would say that $50 would be something. I would say it should be an annual registration fee instead of a one time point of purchase. And if the annual fee doesn’t fund the survivers fund, then it should increase until it does. It is better than the nothing in place now and if it proves adequate then great.
However, IMHO it probably wouldn’t cover the full costs, and would view it merely a token attempt at showing full responsibility for your firearm until proven otherwise. I prefer insurance just like you have to have with a motor vehicle, but would support a $50 annual licensing fee tied to the survivors fund.
If you’re truly worried about saving lives and reducing the cost to society of certain behaviors, wouldn’t you have to support a body mass index registry in order to fine people who are overweight? After all, obesity is far and away a much greater killer in the US than guns.
I would really appreciate your answer to the above.
In Post 195, one of your fellow travelers made fun of me for thinking automatic weapons were illegal and here you’re making fun of me for thinking they aren’t. Forgive me for wondering why you guys don’t get your stories straight.
Separate the issues. yep the BMI, drug use, alcohol use. These are different from firearms in that they are self destructive with an associated non trivial societal cost. That said, I don’t equate self destructive behavior with firearm violence, do you?
Anyhoo, this debate is around common sense reasonable gun laws and not whether it makes sense for Uncle Sugar to tackle obesity. AFAIK, issues such as obesity are tackled by employeers and insurance companies in terms of carrots like free weight loss management programs because it’s in everyone’s self interest. The time prohibition was tried didn’t work out well. I think reducing firearm violence is in societies self interest and will require a multi prong approach. YMMV
To the extent that I’m making fun of you it’s for not knowing what you’re talking about. Nowhere have I said that automatic weapons are per se illegal.
Now, AGAIN, you offered a definition of an assault rifle. I ask you if you believe any rifle meeting your definition is being legally sold to civilians.
Well, there is such a thing- sorta. They tend to be semi-automatic guns, that look kinda military. They often have long magazines, and maybe things like flash suppressors or even bayonet lugs.
So, that’s how the law has to define them- something like "a center-fire semi-automatic weapon, capable of having a magazine with more than ten rounds, with either or both flash suppressors or bayonet lugs. " But it’s purely a political definition.
And smokers kill more. Handguns are used to murder 5-6000 Americans a year. Second Hand Smoke kills about **TEN TIMES **that in non-smokers every year- mostly kids and the elderly.
SHS kills more* kids *that handguns kill of any age every year.
If people were serious about saving lives, they’d ban smoking, not guns.
Well, Second hand smoke kills 50,000 Non-smokers a year. Hardly “self-destructive”, eh?
And, anti-gunners always trot out some number like 30000 GUN DEATHS!!!:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek: They associate this number with firearm violence. In fact, havent you used that number?
but more than 2/3rds of those are self destructive suicides.
According to Yahoo Answers, yes with a permit, no not under any circumstances, and maybe in some states. I walked right by a gun shop today in Poulsbo and didn’t think to go in and ask.
I see news reports of a shaky, mentally unhinged teenager with a duffle bag full of legally-obtained automatic weapons and think “Fuck, this ought to be illegal.” Mock me at will.
Self harm versus firearm death by murder or accident. I’m consistent as well. Depends how you define it. This isn’t about gotcha’s. Firearms in the commission of crimes and accidents are a real issue. I want to solve for that issue and have provided a common sense solution.
If you consider everything a slippery slope, that there are no substantive changes that you would consider, and that world peace needs to be solved before tackling the firearm issue in the US, then there isn’t a lot to debate now is there? To repeat ad nausem, I am not trying to prevent the legal ownership of firearms nor am I mandating how to secure said firearm(s), but IMHO even legal owners don’t carry their share of responsibility and that should be changed.
Short answer: Since 1934 all fully automatic weapons were required to be taxed at $200 and registered with the federal government. In 1986, the registry was closed: no new automatic weapons could be registered.
So the supply is fixed. If you want to buy such a weapon (assuming you live in a state where it is legal), you go to a specialized gun dealer, pay for the weapon, pay the tax, get fingerprinted, and wait 3 months for a full FBI background investigation.
I haven’t seen prices lately, but they are simply outrageous. Others can correct me, but I believe even the cheapest piece of crap full auto will run you about $4k to $5k. If you want a Thompson like the '20s gangsters carried, you will pay around $40k. It’s a hobby only for the rich; the idea that a teenager would have a duffel bag full of them is unlikely in the extreme.
The beef us on the pro-gun side of the debate have with the term “assault rifle” is that by definition those guns must have a fully automatic feature. The 1994 ban called these guns “assault weapons” even though they were semi-automatic weapons that merely looked like their fully automatic counterparts, and the left attempted to confuse the public into thinking that they were outlawing machine guns.
I fought that battle with time and money and I bitterly resented the outcome. However, we lost to the antis not to “the left.” There were plenty from the right who wanted that 1994 ban passed, including their patron fucking saint Ronald Reagan.
Yes. Gun controllers have been attempting to mislead the public on this subject for years. NBC and CBS repeatedly interspersed footage of fully-automatic weapons firing when discussing proposed bans of semi-autos, prior to the 1994 ban. The head of the VPC publicly stated that this attempt was deliberate:
“Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons.”
-Josh Sugarmann, founder of the gun control group; Violence Policy Center
“Assault Weapons and Accessories in America,” 1988