The laws in most countries ban most semi-auto firearms unless you are part of a gun club.
A near full ban on semi-auto firearms =/= an assault weapons ban. But I want Hilary to go on national TV and say.
Why? Because such an announcement would be unpopular?
I think that really shows the feeling of many gun rights activists. If there’s a compromise position that would save lives and be palatable to the majority, they’re not interested in finding it.
Sent from my Lenovo K50-t3s using Tapatalk
Gosh, Rusty, it seems to me that the weapon he used, a .223 AR-style Sig Sauer MCX semiautomatic rifle, shoots a lot of bullets in a short amount of time and is intended for military use. I’m a little impatient with “There’s no such thing as an ‘assault rifle’” and “Okay, there is, but technically this isn’t one of them” as distracting side arguments. There are, this is one.
Name one modern military that uses a semi-automatic rifle as their primary infantry weapon without burst fire or fully auto?
No because the Assault Weapons Ban will do nothing. We tried it before and we have no evidence of an effect. Why will this time be any different?
Btw reasonable solutions:
>Universal Background Checks
>A special FISA like court for suspected terrorists so that their firearm rights could be suspended with due process intact.
>Mandatory safe storage laws with a tax rebate for gun safes.
>Safety Demonstration before release of the weapon.
>Suspend domestic abusers from buying guns
These measures for gun safety constantly poll over 80% with die hard gun nuts. Don’t believe me? Visit a gun forum, tell them you have a toddler and just bought a gun. Ask them if you should get a gun safe. Most will say yes.
This is the path of least resistance and may actually save a few lives. Heck, most of my suggestions will pass Constitutional muster.
BTW reasonable solutions might also include:
-universal registration
-closing all of the so called gun show loopholes
Once again; assault weapons bans can and have worked for many countries around the world. And they have not resulted in a corresponding increase in mass killings using other weapons.
Now if you want to say that a ban may not work in the US because the gun lobby will make it toothless, or because there are just too many guns out there already, then those are good points, and we can have that discussion.
But it’s just nonsense to imply that weapon bans themselves are inherently ineffective.
Sure, many of these things are good ideas. I also like a mandatory firearms license that involves being told about firearms use, safety and maintenance.
All semi-auto weapons effectively have the same cycle rate. You pull the trigger, a round is fired. You pull the trigger again, a round is fired. The majority of weapons made in the last century function this way, including essentially all handguns.
Please cite where other countries banned assault weapons only, left all other repeating rifles, shotguns or pistols alone, and what their definition of an assault weapon was, then demonstrate a previous problem in that country with mass killings with assault weapons that was reduced through said ban. This claims sounds pretty much made up.
I do, let’s have it. A ban on a minuscule subset of firearms in this country used in less than 1% of all crimes will accomplish nothing. The firearm used in most homicides, mass or otherwise is a handgun. It’s not even close.
A ban on a product never allowed in the first place? Sure, that’s easy. A ban in this country without a compulsory buy back or confiscation? You are kidding yourself.
I think you have cause and effect reversed here. New laws don’t change culture, changes in culture create new laws. Take gay marriage as an example, it became legal first in places where homosexuality was already generally broadly accepted and it eventually became a national thing, but not until AFTER the general consensus on gay marriage had changed significantly to the point that the majority of people were in favor of it. Similarly, look at race laws, tons of laws were passed during reconstruction but it still took another 100 years and the civil rights movements before real change happened. This is also exactly why prohibition and the current drug war aren’t working.
Now, yes, the overwhelming majority of gun owners are generally law abiding citizens, so if some sort of gun ban actually DID manage to get passed, most of them would comply, but I also suspect you’d see a lot of the same kind of stuff happen there that’s happening with abortion and drug laws in various states. By that, I mean, in states where the culture strongly disagrees with the federal laws, they pass their own laws. Sure, theoretically, they might get struck down if brought to federal court, but then they just figure out another way to get a similar effect.
That is, you’re not going to win a culture war coercively through passing laws. There is no magic law or set of laws that can be passed and change American gun culture to be more like the apparent desired effect that exists in Australia or Europe or wherever. I think those sorts of laws there were more effective because the way those peoples already viewed guns was much different from how we still see them here. And, of course, those in favor of guns will fight every bit as hard to stop the banning as we’ve seen with the several other examples above. So, if that really is your goal, you have to stop with the banning and start actually reaching out to people. But the problem there is that the well is so poisoned, by both sides, that even reaching a point where reasonable people can disagree is nearly impossible, much less actually reaching a point where we can have a compromise that everyone can be happy with.
And, frankly, I still think attempting to change the culture is missing the point. Gun culture isn’t anymore the problem than Islam itself is, otherwise we’d see more than a tiny fraction of gun owners shooting people or Muslims becoming terrorists. Yet, in the debate over what to do to address the problem, it seems like one side seems to one to demonize guns and the other wants to demonize Islam; well, and there’s some that demonize both. I just don’t think this is a problem we can pass laws and fix. I think we need to do a better job enforcing existing laws, investigating leads, and being responsible citizens. I mean, after all, this most recent shooter had been interviewed multiple times by the FBI but they couldn’t get enough evidence to do anything, yet there’s also stories of him professing hate for gays and obsessing with killing people, and telling people about it. On the one hand, from a freedom perspective, I’m glad they didn’t start curtailing his rights without enough evidence, but on the other hand, I’m troubled that it seems like the signs were there and they weren’t able to gather enough evidence to stop it.
What’s the answer? I’m not sure, but I don’t think it would have been substantially different even if he had no guns. After all, he did have an undetonated explosive vest, without guns, it probably just would have been a suicide bombing or something similar.
My first choice would be a magic wand that makes all guns disappear.
With the caveat that rules do change: If you are in the military and live in governement quarters (barracks or housing), the rule used to be that your personally owned weapon had to be stored in the unit arms room. A parallel policy with all guns would be my less-powerful-magic-wand solution.
With magic wands being in short supply, banning any weapon already in distribution is difficult to implement.
The second amendment,like the rest of the constitution, amendments and laws, were written by humans. It is inevitable that they will be flawed and/or not anticipate all of the social and technological changes over time. We have restrictions on speech and on the press and on religion, most rooted in dealing with cases when two individual’s rights conflict. Opposing gun laws with “THE SECOND AMENDMENT”, is just begging the question.
Chicago has the toughest gun laws and lots of shootings. I can spin that as gun laws don’t work or that we need consistent gun laws for the entire country.
People will always kill, if they don’t have guns they will use knives, if they don’t have knives they’ll use rocks, etc. I can spin that as gun laww don’t work or that people are dangerous, we can’t eliminate that but let’s make it harder for them to kill.
Overheard conversation after Sandy Hook: Would those people feel better if those kids had been killed with a shotgun instead of an AR15? No. But if someone is in a school killing students and is going to kill as many as he can before the police arrive, I’d prefer him to have to relaod after each one or better yet, have to bash each skull with a rock.
But that wouldn’t have stopped this guy. Rejecting a solution because it is not perfect doesn’t make sense. Would the proposed action reduce the overall incidence? And at what cost?
“A good guy with a gun” - An off duty police officer working as a security guard fits my definition of a “good guy with a gun”. But, to be consistent, just because it didn’t work this time doesn’t mean it never works.
Regarding the latest proposal for preventing people on a terrorist watch list from buyng guns - “Someone might be on the list by mistake and their rights are taken away with out due process.” At least on variation includes a process to appeal being on the list. Demanding perfection is an unreasonable standard.
Despite all of the scare talk, Obama has proposed no legislation to “take away our guns”. I think in seven years, if that was really his goal it would have happened by now.
Gun manufacturers financially support the NRA. We have a mass shooting and the NRA digs in, attack strawmen that no one is proposing via legislation. Gun and ammo sales spike; gun manufacturers stock prices rise. As the Onion reported, they use the extra money to buy a few more Congressmen.
I don’t lament that we have passed any serious gun control. Despite the slant of most of this, I am skeptical. I lament that we can’t have a serious discussion about it. I’d be happy with just 25% of the congressional investigation that had been focused on Bengahzi.
I don’t know what, if anything, would work. I know it is a complicated issue. I believe that if your opion can fit on a bumper sticker, it is wrong.
What is the compromise? And how would it save lives?
You know, it would be nice if people actually addressed one of the main points of the OP. Out of 30 responses, I think Blaster Master is the only one who did so. The rest are just rehashes of the same old gun control arguments. It’s no wonder we have so much trouble solving problems in this country. Anytime someone tries to bring a novel viewpoint into the discussion, it gets lost in knee-jerk responses that don’t even address the new idea.
Name one “sport” that requires a high-capacity magazine.
Can you cite which national military uses the Sig Sauer MCX semi-automatic rifle? I mean, since your terse ‘dictionary definition’ cites that in the second line? Or was that line not important?
Ok, so, can we all agree that Horatio Hellpop’s definition is THE definitive definition of what an ‘assault weapon’ is? And that this is what we are going to ban? I can get on board with that…how about you anti-gun types? For those who didn’t click, here is the definition:
Largest magazine competition? No seriously, 3 gun competition.
What type of weapon is the Sig Sauer MCX? After scrolling through Sig’s own very detailed description of what it is and what it is capable of(scroll down for full effect), two terms definitely do not come to mind: Hunting rifle, and self-defense.
Is current use by a formal military force necessary to be considered “intended for military use?”
Sincere, if pedantic, question.
Just using the word ‘ban’ gives ammunition to the opponents of the most common sense laws that could keep guns out of the hands of criminals, psychotics, and children. End the gun show loophole, require background checks, make people civilly and criminally responsible for the use of their guns by anyone.