That supports my rebuttal to the claim that these shootings are random and occur across all social groups. Thank you.
No, I didn’t realize that she started including 10/22s. I hadn’t read any of her recent proposals in great detail, just some of the older ones. She should stop calling it an ‘assault weapon ban’ and just start calling it a ‘semi-auto ban’ if she’s including the Ruger 10/22. It’s the most bland, mundane and under-powered semi-auto rifle I can readily think of.
Cite?
In my opinion, if the gun control crowd is really interested in compromise, they need t become much better informed. Their ignorance is making it impossible for them to feel comfortable with any compromise that requires some sort of give from their side.
For example, I have on several occasions proposed licensing and registration in exchange for:
(I) repealing all other federal gun laws (most of it is a patchwork of laws that are imperfect attempts at licensing and registration anyways);
(II) preemption of all state and local gun laws;
(III) federal carry license;
(IV) better reporting requirements (with funding) for mental illness and misdemeanor domestic violence.
But whenever I do this the gun control crowd says they like the licensing and registration but don’t want to give up the rest ad AFAICT, a lot of the resistance is because they aren’t really sure what they would be giving up. I don’t speak for the gun rights side but I am pretty sure they would be much more receptive to a compromise that actually involved some… you know… compromise.
LOL, so we’ve narrowed it down to males mostly caucasian (not necessarily white). Great now how is that information useful at all?
I did not recall correctly.
The specifically named .22lr rifle that she is proposing to ban is AR15-22 (IOW a 22 lr rifle that looks like an ar-15).
In my defense, the legislation also proposes to ban any semiautomatic weapon that can take a magazine and one of he following:
“(i) A pistol grip.
“(ii) A forward grip.
“(iii) A folding, telescoping, or detachable stock.
“(iv) A grenade launcher or rocket launcher.
“(v) A barrel shroud.
“(vi) A threaded barrel.
This includes many models of the Ruger 10/22 but it does not include the simplest ones.
We’re ahead of where we were when someone else posted something that was incorrect.
You’re the sort of person who I love to engage on this subject because you’re the person who is primarily going to be affected, moving forward. I’m assuming you’re 100% honourable and sane and an upright citizen, and I’m also assuming you despise killing sprees as much as anyone else.
Technology always needs debugging and time to iron things out, I totally accept that, I’m a computer programmer by trade, so I know, boy do I know. Work with me for a moment…
My concept is not so much to ban or restrict access to certain classes of weapons, I’m suggesting a solution which migrates analog guns into a form of forced obsolescence by virtue of a lack of ammunition. My suggestion is to embrace 2A while concurrently banning the continued manufacture and/or importation of ammunition which works in the weapons being sold on the market as at 2016. With massive jail terms attached to attempts at importation. Combined with that, I also propose new classes of ammunition which cannot work with existing weapons, ammunition which cannot be purchased anymore in free for all situations. I propose all future ammunition should only be allowed for sale from Law Enforcement shops. Yes, I propose that Law Enforcement should become the retail front end for all ammunition on sale in the US.
In my proposal, if you’re a law abiding citizen one would think you should have no problem with continued purchases of ammunition which meet your needs. Assuming you don’t walk into a Law Enforcement ammo shop acting like a nutjob, a terrorist, a druggie, a drunk, social misfit… or any of the other sorts of gut feelings that Law Enforcement would think “Nah, this guy’s a bit too dodgy for me… no sale…”
Slowly but surely, over time, pre 2016 guns would become less and less meaningful. The potential that they might be used in a killing spree would also become less likely. I’m proposing that Law Enforcement ammo shops should be allowed to make value judgements on how much ammo you can buy, based on their personal knowledge of the locals who they’re dealing with on a regular basis. New to the neighbourhood? One clip sorry, build up some history please. You’ve got a crips tattoo on your arms, nope, no sale. It has flaws obviously, but don’t reject the concept out of hand please. It could work if people agree it’s a framework to build on.
I don’t agree that it’s a framework we can build on. For starters, nothing about your suggestion “embraces” the Second Amendment. You throw it out completely.
FYI, there are billions (or perhaps trillions) of rounds of ammunition in private hands in America today. Even if you could wave a wand and stop another round from ever bring produced or sold (and you can’t), there’s already more than enough out there to kill thousands of people for decades / centuries to come.
Lastly, in too many places, law enforcement would just deny all ammo sales to all citizens. And I simply do not trust the government with the power to make those sort of value judgments. In most places in America, whatever cop gets stuck manning the ammo counter isn’t going to have any personal knowledge about most customers. Your desire to have them try to “size up” customers will just end with racial profiling.
Fair enough, so let’s consider the current situation in which various states are already proceeding with laws which are clearly unconstitutional, prima facie, with regards to 2A. It’s already happening. To undo the mess which is brewing due to non consistency popping up around the Union, requires SCOTUS rulings which undo the possible overreach in the individual state laws. In that context 2A is already becoming redundant because a right delayed is a right denied.
It’s irrelevant how much anyone within the US shouts “2A shall not be touched”, it’s reality that it’s being walked over already by individual state laws which engage in overreach.
There’s nothing preventing an opt in buy back program being put into place. Especially one which gives a higher price now, which reduces over time. Sell back your ammo now, you get more for it. Sell it back later, you get less. Same deal with existing weapons, sell 'em back now, you get more for 'em, sell 'em back later, you get less. Wanna keep 'em fine. Not a problem. Wanna keep your existing ammo stocks, again, not a probem.
If you force the manufacturers to change the chambers and cartridges being used, by definition, over time existing weapons will become increasingly irrelevant. I’ve got no problem at all proposing a situation where the only place you can purchase ammo is from a Law Enforcement retail shop, and in the 20 zip codes which have the highest rates of murder in the US, not setting up ammo shops at all. In those circumstances LEO would have both an interest in selling ammo because it’s a cost positive thing to do, but they would also have an interest in not selling to people they don’t approve of, because that would be a danger to them. In other words it’s a form of background check at each every point of sale, by the very people who should be doing it.
Do I understand you to mean that all pre-2016 guns could be made obsolete by mandating that all newer guns be different calibers than what’s sold today and only selling ammo for those new guns under strict controls? I’m sorry but it’s clear you don’t know a lot about how guns or ammunition are made. It would be trivially easy for anyone with even moderate knowledge of gun smithing and reloading ammo to get around that.
“Gizmos?” Do they also have “the thing that goes up?”
Higher cyclic rate if fire is in no way relevant to deadliness in semi-automatic weapons. (For full-autos, the exact opposite is generally true: slower is better.)
A video game-level understanding of firearms function cannot be taken seriously.
Let’s just focus on this one point for a minute. NO, the police should not be doing “a form of background check” that relies on how someone looks, or the feeling the police get from them, any more than I’d want them to be able to randomly arrest people because they gave them the heebie-jeebies or deny someone a parade permit because they felt they were “social misfits”. The police should NOT be in the business of deciding who can exercise constitutional rights and who can not, and they *especially *shouldn’t do it just based off a quick-glance evaluation of how the individual looks.
It’s basically the same problem I have with Feinstein’s “no fly, no buy” proposal: it’s ripe for civil rights violations and there’s no due process.
And there would be some police departments that just decided no one in their jurisdiction should have guns and refuse sales to all would-be customers, not because the would-be customer was unworthy, but because some police departments are led by individuals who don’t believe anyone at all (besides them) should have guns or ammo.
What rubbish. Changing calibers, chamber leade length and as well as cartridge lengths results in an entire class of ammunition, you know that. There’s a reason why the NATO 7.62×51mm can’t be interchanged with a NATO 5.56 x 45mm, even if you’re the world’s best gunsmith.
Ban the sale of primer and powder and the issue of re-use becomes much harder. Reusing spent cartridges can me made illegal if the will is there. Banning the sale of reload powder can be made, if the will is there. They can be taxed out sight, if the will is there. Banning the sale of reload presses can be paased, if the will is there. They too can be taxed out of existence, if the will is there. They’re all further charges which can be brought against criminals, if the will is there.
Wouldn’t take long for the word to get out… the word is already out regarding converting a semi auto into a full auto. Totally verboten. In many respects, the gun industry itself is it’s own worst enemy. In my solution, if you’re a law abiding citizen, there wouldn’t be an impediment to your continued ownership of firearms and your continued purchase of ammunition. In my solution, if you re-use your ammo, any ammo, you go from being a law abiding citizen to someone who’s no longer a law abiding citizen. If you attempt to import powder or bring it into the country you’re a criminal. Manufacturers need to get on board instead of simply selling stuff full tilt without contributing to the improvement process. Single use casings can be developed for example. There are so many ways to skin this cat.
So ban powder, primer, reusing casings, banning reload presses, banning ammo sales, banning caliber types, all the while saying to embrace the 2nd amendment. That’s a lot of banning.
The right to purchase ammo, train, practice, etc. are coextensive with the right to arms.
Why not just admit you want to ban all guns? Do you have a plan to make sure there isn’t one left in the entire country?
Yep, I get that. Don’t have a problem with it all. I’m on the side of the police all day long. And here’s why… in the current business model, gun shops are in the business of selling product. Imposing the background check process is like having a record shop and wanting to sell records to customer but first doing a background check as to what their musical tastes are, in other words it gets in the way.
Police on the other had have a first hand vested interest in not selling ammo to the wrong people. They can get shot by it. In the absence of ammo, a gun is just a chunk of steel you can throw at someone.
The biggest hurdel for you to get past right now is your intransigent “can’t be done” mindset. I don’t have much tolerance for “can’t be done”. They didn’t put a man on the moon listening to people who said “can’t be done”, they focused on people who could come up with solutions. Got a better solution than I’ve come up with in reducing gun violence, I’m all ears.
Yep, and in my solution there’s nothing preventing you from still doing that. It’s just gonna cost you more, so don’t do it so much. Like I said a moment ago, you’re either part of the solution or you’re part of the problem. Keep saying “can’t be done” you’re part of the latter.
I have no problem whatsoever with anyone owning a gun. Introduce “one use cartridges” and a law which says you have to return every old cartridge for every new one you buy and watch how the landscape changes.
Because I don’t. I love the fact I can go feral pig shooting for example, I wish, I wish, I wish I was allowed to use a semi automatic.
I can understand that in remote parts of America there is a need for a high powered rifle but in urban areas no. I think that a basic firearms licence should allow a none magnum handgun only with licences for more powerful grades of weapons needing separate licences. If the gun lobby does not stop crowing about their rights and start to work towards a workable licencing system they will loose their right to bare arms