No, it seems like pedantry on your part.
Pedantry is really easy - my 10 year old can do it, and unfortunately does far too often. So I’ve got a good deal less tolerance for it than I did even a few years ago.
I gather that you’re upset and this is emotional for you, but there’s a lot of stupid hyperbole in your post. For example, this line:
No, we won’t “all be dead”, and that’s a surefire recipe for getting conservatives to laugh at you and pat themselves on the back and tell themselves that their opponents’ arguments are based on emotion and not facts or logic.
If you want to try to reach a workable solution, you might want to try to tone down the hyperbole and inflammatory language (“treasonous”). Then again, perhaps a workable solution is not what you’re after, and if you just want to vent and missed the sky-scream, then carry on with your rantings and ravings.
8000 “gun murders”, 160 with assault weapons, and I’d guess 0 in most years with legal, registered machine guns.
Yeah, but if they were widely avaliable, I am sure that number would go up. Chicago Typewriters did kill a few, back in the day.
What if they were made as available as legally-registered SBRs / SBSs are today? I suspect those categories of weapons are only responsible for some minuscule fraction of gun violence too. Would you be ok with us putting full-auto weapons in that same category?
And you used to be able to say that assault weapons were not being used for any crimes.
Until they became available, and people chose them as their weapon of choice for mass shootings.
We already have the use of bump stocks being used to up body counts, and there are tradeoffs to using a bump stock rather than a gun actually made to be run full auto.
Are you telling me that if there were no longer restrictions on full auto weapons, it won’t ever be used for criminal activity?
How available is a legally registered SBR these days? I was under the impression that they were not.
Listening to the news today, I don’t think it will be the Democrats pushing the issue.
I think the kids are coming for the politicians.
Even in a full out zombie apocalypse + civil war we won’t see all Americans dead from gun shootings.
This is a good post. The problem with the Democrats (and others) picking up the banner of gun control/reform is that the issue does not seem to have “staying power” as a cause. To try and carry this issue all the way thru the 2018 elections is folly.
Sandy Hook didn’t have staying power and those were little kids, and more of them. 20 little kids and 6 adults and the issue remained in the top of the news for a month or so and boiled down to a crazy mentally ill fucker, as the Florida shoot will. There is no way that the electorate will remain energized over this issue until the elections. 8 more days or less and the Florida shooting will drop off of the front news page. And some other issue of the moment will replace it.
This is why it is easy for Trump to say he would accept some new limits, like bump stock bans, because he does not initiate the legislation, congress does, and the gun issue will fall to the back burner once again.
And what congress critters most want is to get re-elected. And they are not going to pick up the banner of gun control, plant it in the ground, and say “No More”. It’s a cold, hard world. But that is the reality. Many people would like to see it change, even most congress representatives do. But in order for them to achieve these lofty goals they first must stay in office. And that compromises every thing they stand for.
Gotta love Bill Clinton. “It’s the economy, stupid” was a brilliant observation. And it still holds true, and the Democrats need to be *for *something rather than only against the Republican programs. What is the positive plan? Negatives will not bring in the cross-aisle votes.
Gun control will not get you there.
No, it seems like ranting and raving.
When did people say that?
Guns made to run full auto have their own tradeoffs too.
No, and I’m not proposing that we eliminate all restrictions on full auto. I’m suggesting one change in one particular restriction. I generally steer clear of absolutist claims like “won’t ever”, but I"m comfortable saying that I suspect it would be an extremely rare occurrence.
You have to fill out an application with the ATF, pay them $200, wait, wait, wait some more, wait a bit longer, and eventually they process your application and you’re good to go, a legal owner of a shiny new SBR. Any law-abiding citizen with a spare $200 could go out and buy one tomorrow, and most of them will have their applications processed by the ATF by the end of the year.
I’d have to work hard to get cites, as it was some time ago, and it was pretty much all on TV at the time. but that was the justification for allowing the AWB to expire, that those weapons were not being used in crimes.
Are there any advantages to using a bump stock over full auto?
Well, what would you lift? Right now, it’s just about impossible to even find one, and it costs a fortune if you do. That’s not a good choice for criminals. Only pretty serious collectors have these items.
How available would you want to make them? Is there a number of murders that you would find to be acceptable.
From what you were saying before, it sounded like they were more or less unavailable entirely. Sure, to me, that sounds good. Most people wanting to use a gun for criminal purposes won’t go through all of that, and even if they do, they may get picked up by the screening process. Would it be acceptable for machine guns to have a similar level of diligence applied to the customer, or are you saying that the process is too much already?
I’m pretty sure the claims were not that they are “not being used for any crimes”, but that assault weapons were used in only a tiny percentage of crimes.
They’re dramatically cheaper, can be made at home in a pinch, can be switched between firearms rather readily, probably others that I can’t think of just off the top of my head.
The Hughes Amendment.
I would put them in the same category as SBRs and SBSs are today. That is to say, they’d be available for purchase, but they would require a tax stamp and be subject to the additional NFA requirements.
No crime, tiny number of crime, whichever. Though I seem to remember there being a stat just like yours showing that there were 0 crimes committed with AW that year. Can’t find a cite, pretty sure it was a “slide” some congressman used in his speech. (I used to watch quite a bit of C-SPAN)
Looking back through cites, I see that the majority of the american public was actually in favor of renewal, including pres bush, but it expired because the rep led house refused to bring it up for a vote.
After the AWB, we saw gun violence go down.
One of the real criticisms of the law was that it hd too many loopholes. The beltway sniper, for instance, was using an MX-15, which has only cosmetic changes to get it past the technical restrictions in the AWB.
Rather than shore up the AWB, republicans just let it sunset.
Now that the weapons that were banned by the AWB are a favorite of mass shooters, is it time to revisit that?
I meant use, as in use for firing the gun. Of course they are cheaper, they are legal without crazy permits. If full auto guns were legal and as easy to acquire as a semi, they wouldn’t cost nearly as much, there really is no difference between a full auto gun and a semi, other than the setup of the firing mechanism, which doesn’t cost any more to make.
Well, repealing that just makes them completely legal and available to anyone again.
They already are, it’s just you can’t buy one manufactured after 1986 no matter what, right? I could get behind relaxing that restriction, but they would certainly need to be registered, and any and all transfers recorded.
You mean like “confiscate” and “They’re coming to take my guns ha ha ho ho he he…”?
OK, you were ranting and raving. I usually tend to tune that out in your case. 
a) What Johnny Ace said.
b) We gun control advocates have been looking for-fucking-ever for workable solutions that would reduce the gun carnage at minimal cost to gun-lovers’ ‘rights.’ And what have we gotten for it? We of course get told that our measures won’t accomplish that much, and we get called ‘gun grabbers’ and the like.
So I’m done with looking for compromises with people who’ve steadfastly blocked all compromise, even after Newtown. We get a majority, we ditch the filibuster, we pass strong laws that make a difference that the gun-humpers will hate, we grab the weapons of mass slaughter, and we end the carnage.
And if we don’t, the generation that is currently in schools learning active shooter drills most certainly will. They aren’t going to give a shit about the second amendment, they’re going to tear through that like the crumbling paper it is written upon. Then, once 2A is gone, and the gun advocates whine that they aren’t getting anything in return for the laws that are being put into place, they can be told that they had a chance to negotiate, and they blew it while thumbing their nose.
No, it would not. If the Hughes Amendment were repealed, all machine guns would still be subject to the regulations of the National Firearms Act. All transfers would be recorded, all purchasers would be vetted by the ATF, all owners would still be expected to keep a copy of their registration with the firearm, the chief law enforcement officer in the jurisdiction would still have to be notified, etc.
The only thing that would change would be that post-'86 machine guns could be acquired and registered in the same way that pre-'86 machine guns can be acquired and registered today.
I’d call that a different category, as I can buy an SBR made last year, but not a machine gun, but they’re all Title II firearms, so yes, in at least one way.
Good. I think that would be a happy compromise.
I’m tired of this problem in the US being minimized. We’re the only so-called “civilized” nation with this level of our our citizens being murdered by our own citizens. What’s stupid is not my hyperbole but rather the insistence by so many that there is nothing to be done about it.
Other countries have done something about this and they don’t have the problem on anywhere near the scale we do. It’s time to stop chanting “we’re number 1”, because we aren’t (unless you’re looking at “gun crime” and “mass shootings”) and it’s high time we take a look at what other nations are doing better than we are.
And if you don’t get emotional about people going to schools, movie theaters, schools, night clubs, schools, churches, and schools being senselessly gunned down there is something seriously wrong with you. That should be upsetting. It should make you angry. It should make you want to do something, and no, “thoughts and prayers” are not doing something.