Your link goes to John Lott’s Crime Prevention Research Center, a pro-gun think tank.
I read Harris .proposal they day she released it.
The SIG AR is made in New Hampshire and not imported.
That link says:
It appears that you are saying this effectively bans AW imports, correct? If so, how do you get that from those words alone? Or is there more to it not at that link?
Okay, it seems you know a bit, or more, about import laws and such. Do you have any comment on my post just above this one? A cursory net search did find much on this. I see plenty about AWs in general, but not what specific weapon are banned (or not) from the act Ditka linked to.
So you claim that the fact that the US is experiencing an extraordinary level of mass shootings compared to economically similar countries is “bunk”, and your cite for that is a YouTube video by John Stossel, a raving loon and total nutjob with a well-deserved reputation for distorting and fabricating evidence! A lunatic who also claims that tobacco smoke isn’t harmful and who denies climate change. 
Back in the world of the sane, an actual numerical comparison can get complicated especially involving third-world countries where good records aren’t kept, but the following Wikipedia article presents the available facts and sums up the US as follows:
The United States has had many more mass shooting incidents and more resultant deaths than any other country in the post-WWII era.
In one 2017 study published in Time magazine by criminologist Adam Lankford, it was estimated that 31% of public mass shootings occur in the US, although it has only 5% of the world’s population. The study concludes that “The United States and other nations with high firearm ownership rates may be particularly susceptible to future public mass shootings, even if they are relatively peaceful or mentally healthy according to other national indicators.”
No, my claim is perfectly correct when “regulation” is taken to mean, you know, actual regulation, not feel-good symbolic measures that do absolutely nothing – and actual regulation is something that the US seems chronically incapable of doing. That’s why I gave the example of gun regulations in Canada, which are actually far more lenient that in most European countries, but would be unthinkable in the US in the current political climate of Republican obstruction. Yet those are the kinds of regulations that have to be the objective of any serious discussion about gun control, which you don’t appear interested in having, and would prefer to post YouTube videos of mendacious lunatics like John Stossel.
I keep seeing these quotes ’ XXXX number of people die from automobile accidents and smoking, I guess car safety and anti-smoking regulations don’t help’.
As if that’s some sort of zinger.
The number of deaths from automobile accidents has fallen dramatically, both in terms of absolute number of deaths, and in terms of rate of death per vehicle miles.
Cars are safer than they used to be, because - and you may want to read slowly here, this is important - people decided that lots of people dying was a Bad Thing, so lots of time and effort was put into studying the problem.
Regulations were enacted, ad campaigns were devised. The result was a change in driver attitude, driver behavior, increased investment in vehicle safety technology, etc.
And guess what - even though cars are vastly safer than they used to be, people are still working on making them even safer! What a concept, right?
What about smoking? Deaths from smoking are less clear-cut, but what we can see is the sharp decline in percentage of smokers in the US - from almost 50% in the 1950s to the low/mid teens today.
One would expect a decline in people dying from smoking-related illnesses over the coming years.
Too many people die from smoking, but once again - progress is being made, because people decided that lots of people dying from a spectacularly unhealthy activity was a Bad Thing.
I know this concept will be foreign to some, but when some object or activity results in lots of needless deaths, exploring ways to reduce the number of needless deaths is probably a good idea.
Yep, and it seems that the torpedo that John Lott made in an attempt to discredit the gun study was launched only to torpedo Lott himself. For starters the data of the research Lott and Stossel whine about was released and the author responded already to critics like Lott:
Now, after looking at the video I noticed on it the same tactics creationists and climate change science deniers have used regarding what they believe are contradictions and impossibilities a researcher can get into; only that, if that was so, then counter research can be published, but what I normally see is those counter ‘researchers’ going for the public’s opinion rather than challenging research properly.
So, after finding how unreliable that video was, then one should consider the source: as mentioned, the video features John Lott:
And the video is coming from John Stossel.
Well, I was only 18 at the time, but there were no specific models mentioned that I remember. There weren’t that many AWs on circulation like now either. Some notable weapons banned:
Any Ak or Ak copy such as a MAADI from Egyot, Norincos from China, or even copies from Eastern Europe.
Also pretty much any H&K rifle like the G3, model 94, MP5, etc.
Other too I assume but again, that was a long time ago. 
Manufacturers got around this ban a few ways. One was to add a thumbhole stock to existing rifles. Another, which persists today is to import parts kits with no barrel, and add them to a US made receiver.
The WASR-10 that was used in El Paso was imported legally and modified with a pistol grip, and other items that would have prevented its import otherwise.
Remember these were banned by their configuration not by name.
Guns have changed a lot since the early days.
If you define early days in the 1700’s sure. In the last 100 years or so? Not really, which is the issue. Yeah they look different but function exactly the same.
Would Americas founding fathers, in their infallible wisdom, have looked around today at what they have wrought and written the second amendment just as they did, or at all?
Could they envision the evolution of the firearm? Sure
Would they rewrite the Second? Your guess is as good as mine.
I agree. I bet your guess is exactly as good as mine.
Vaping is gaining popularity among smokers and I believe the second hand vape is far less dangerous, so I expect the risk is being reduced in that arena.
Car technology over the past 10 years has improved so much that new cars are capable of stopping by themselves with better reaction than attentive drivers. Some of us stand a pretty good chance of seeing roads predominantly populated by self driving cars in our lifetime. Which will save lives without giving up our need for speed and to get places faster than we can at horse & buggy velocities.
Now, if you told me that in our lifetime the overwhelming majority of guns will be replaced by technologically advanced weapons that would prevent people from killing other people, I’d be fucking thrilled. But let’s be honest, even if that came to be, how many people are going to hand over their current guns for something like that? Very few. Because the majority of gun owners don’t buy them to shoot at targets. They buy them for protection; From ze jermans. And the occasional wild deer when the supermarket runs out of meat. (Whatever. I don’t judge. Much.)
Worst news of all however, there is no technology on the horizon that will make consumption of cheeseburgers safe at any speed.
Permits are a lazy way to ban firearms. It isn’t like a driver’s license (which is NOT a Constitutional right), it is a de facto ban in a few states already.
Registration sounds reasonable, but carries the implication of making confiscation easy.
Again: the militia is a justification, not a prerequisite.
Again: you want to deprive the right to use a firearm for self-defense from all who would not qualify physically for the militia (“all able-bodied male citizens of the United States and all other able-bodied males who have . . . declared their intention to become citizens of the United States,” between the ages of eighteen and forty-five.).
Does the 2nd Amendment specifically refer to the right to self-defense? “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” - that seems to be discussing the State’s right to defend against a tyrannical government, not the right of the individual to kill someone trying to break into their house to steal a TV. Yes, I’m aware that’s not how SCOTUS currently views it. Anyway…
Registration and licensing works for cars.
Ad campaigns and taxation has worked to reduce smoking.
Awareness campaigns and tougher penalties seems to have worked at reducing incidents of drunk driving.
Nobody has banned smoking. Nobody has banned alcohol. But smoking is down, cars are safer, drunk driving is down.
Some combination of these approaches, working together, could reduce the number of gun deaths without needing to ‘ban’ guns.
Jeez, I’d forgotten about ol’ Mary Rosh. How’s she doing these days? 
Yeah, Lott’s been found to be dishonest pretty much across the board. Maybe somebody new to the gun control debate who stumbled across his site for the first time has an excuse, but anyone who’s been in this debate for awhile who’s still citing him has no excuse. (ETA:**) And Ditka’s not exactly a newcomer to these discussions.
You are both being jerks. If you want to debate, feel free to do so. If your intent is to take shots at other posters, then don’t.
[/moderating]
My access is a bit spotty so it will take me a bit to get back to the thread.
Self defense and Castle Doctrine is woven into common law, but not enumerated in the Second Amendment. One can not generally (in most jurisdictions I know; Texas for one appears to be different) use lethal force if someone is “trying to break into their house to steal a TV”; you have to wait until they actually get inside (or the PD shows up).
I seem to recall that banning alcohol was tried several decades ago.
You are listing false equivalences, also. Operating a motor vehicle is a privilege, not a right. Drunk driving is illegal. Smoking is a health hazard for the user and those nearby, with zero positives.
There is an obvious positive to smoking; people enjoy it.