I think you’re being deliberately obtuse. They are dangerous in the sense that you can more easily kill a lot of people in a shorter amount of time with one and not the other. Much has been made about the “scary” looking guns not being the more dangerous ones. So if that’s the case, suggest which dangerous ones should be included, or say they are all equally dangerous and stop flogging the semantic horse
It would be great if these people can do more to suggest common sense solutions to prevent or reduce gun violence. Like the 2 posters I responded to above who suggested regulations I would agree with, the gun lobby has a lot to contribute to the discussion. But it seems like they prefer to sit on the sidelines and lob attacks without any contribution at all. Its working for them, and has worked for a long time, so I don’t expect them to change, but for someone to sit and pretend like nothing needs to be done after all those kids were killed and still stay that more guns is the answer is, to me, highly offensive and disingenuous, not to mention dickish, paranoid, and hateful. Those of us who favor regulations want the gun lobby as a partner, but so far they have preferred to take the role of real life trolls. If that’s working for you and you don’t mind it, fine, but don’t expect people to sit around and pretend to take you seriously
I think the pro-gun side simply hears what it wants to hear, and believes what it wants to believe. Its tortured logic is theirs and theirs alone when it comes to guns, and apparently we’re all expected to buy into it. As I told Absolute above, I’m not here to pretend like I have any influence over a future government and their policy. I’m here to debate gun laws now, and it doesn’t follow that a guy on a message board would refuse to say some current proposal we’re debating on, again, within the confines of the internet tubes rather than the halls of Congress, is a good law without being reassured that me, some random guy on the internet, is going to be able to do anything at all to protect their precious guns from a government of the future. So there is no poisoning the well, no national politician has called for a repeal of the 2nd Amendment or the confiscation of all guns. Even the gun devil Feinstein is only calling for a renewal of the AWB. She has a gun herself for protection, a handgun, and she is not calling for anyone to turn anything over or any handgun to be banned. The ONLY ones poisoning the well is the pro-gun people
This is simply not true. It’s been explained in this thread; it’s been explained over and over again–“barrel shrouds” and “thumbhole stocks” have jack-all to do with more easily killing a lot of people in a shorter amount of time.
You probably still think we’re talking about “machine guns”, don’t you?
I don’t think we’re ONLY talking about barrel shrouds and thumbhole stocks. There’s a lot of things that has been defined as part of the ban. As I recall from an earlier conversation, bayonets mounted on the front of the gun was also deemed to be in this category. Personally, I usually have more problems with it comes to high capacity magazines and firing rates than with barrel shrouds. But by all means, suggest things that should be in the AWB, taking into account the spirit of the law, using your knowledge of guns
How many people have been killed with an attached bayonet by individuals in the past 50 years in America? (I don’t know if anyone even has, but I did mention “individuals” in case there were some fatal bayonetings by formally-acting National Guard at some point in time.)
I noted in the OP to this thread that restrictions on magazine capacity are a somewhat different issue from the “assault weapons” nonsense, which, yes, really does boil down to barrel shrouds and pistol grips. I mean, you can read the entire text of the bill for yourself. (Bayonet lugs, by the way, are no longer included in the new and improved “assault weapon” ban. So much for the menace of drive-by bayonettings, the Scourge of the '90’s!)
“Firing rates”–I’m reminded of this line from an editorial in The New Yorker by Hendrik Hertzberg: “high-powered semiautomatic assault rifles and pistols that can fire a round every second”–just about every damned gun manufactured since the 19th Century can “fire a round every second”. Not just “semi-automatics”–double-action revolvers, single-action revolvers, pump action rifles and shotguns, lever action rifles, bolt-action rifles, etc. “Machine guns”, which can fire much faster than a round every second, are already so heavily restricted as to be all-but-banned. So, problem solved!
“But by all means, suggest things that should be in the AWB, taking into account the spirit of the law”–The spirit of this particular law is ignorance and duplicity. If you want my advice, I would support universal background checks, and consistently getting mental health records* into the system. Again, though, getting proposals like that enacted is just that much harder as long as people keep talking as if “assault weapons” genuinely have something to do with shooting people faster.
*By “mental health records” I don’t mean “Everyone who has ever talked to a shrink” or sought help for various mental problems; I mean people who genuinely pose a public danger and are already prohibited by law from possessing firearms.
Yes, that’s correct. I do not think limiting the functionality/mechanisms/etc. of guns makes for good regulation. The problem is the crazy person holding the gun, not the fact that the gun is well-designed and functioning as intended.
You are conflating two issues. Guns are used in about 10,000 murders each year, but the vast, vast majority of these did not involve “assault weapons”, high-capacity magazines, or even a rapid rate of fire. An “assault weapons ban”, or magazine size limits, etc. will have a statistically negligible effect on “gun violence”, as I described in my previous post.
I am a fan of regulations that will actually bring down the rate of gun violence in a meaningful way. I would happily submit to background checks, waiting periods, licensing laws, etc., even though they inconvenience me, because I am sure they will save many, many lives each year. I do not think magazine size limits will save any significant number of lives per year, and I consider them a significant limitation on my freedom to defend myself, so I don’t support them.
Look, this is simply your opinion. Many people view it as a major infringement. No, it cannot be quantified, any more than we can quantify the right to free speech or due process. How about gay marriage? I really don’t give a shit about marriage personally, of any kind. So why do I support gay marriage? Because I know that it is terribly important to some people, and I respect that. You should extend gun owners the same courtesy - it is important to them, even if not to you.
No, it doesn’t, that’s ridiculous. You cannot consider a major issue of constitutional law, civil rights, freedom, etc. by saying “Well, just ignore what consequences might follow in the future.” What comes up uniquely in gun debates is the idea from your side that one should ignore the possible future consequences of legislation, because hand-waving “You can’t predict the future, all the people demanding that guns be banned might change their minds!”
And the reason gun rights advocates are worried about the government “taking <gun control laws> any further” is that we view many proposed gun control laws as ineffective in reducing the problem of gun violence, and we are concerned that when they fail, their failure will be used as an excuse to justify further restrictions - e.g. “Despite the AWB of 2013, we still have 10,000 dead each year from gun violence and mass shooting deaths have only gone down by 20%; we must do more!”. This is hardly irrational. Hell, due to the Law of Small Numbers, it is quite possible that the number of deaths in mass shootings will increase in the year following an AWB, just because it is such a statistically improbable and under-sampled event to begin with.
This is silly. The whole essence of the debate is the potential for future abuse. If you could guarantee me that a national gun registry will never be abused to institute ever more restrictive gun laws culminating in a total or near-total ban, I’d support it. But it is impossible for you or anyone else to guarantee that, and so I don’t.
Let’s say you could make that guarantee. What would you like to debate? I suspect we agree on most things. I am just unwilling to totally ignore the future when discussing laws that will take effect today.
Fundamentally, the issue I have with laws like a prototypical AWB is that it won’t solve the problem. We will still have mass shootings. Until you confiscate every single gun in the US, you will still have mass shootings. And given that they are already statistically insignificant, I see no reason to expect that grandstanding opportunistic politicians who don’t give a shit about gun rights will use every mass shooting that occurs, even if just one per year, to bring us closer and closer to that point, whenever they find one as emotionally devastating as Sandy Hook that they can latch onto.
I mean, hell, we had two mass shootings last year that made national news as anything other than a nightly “Oh, bad thing happened in Phoenix, and now, the weather!”-type story. That’s not very far away from zero! What more do you want? It is pretty damn hard to get the occurrence of any event in a country of 320,000,000 down to zero.
First of all there is an impact to a ban on assault weapons. It prevents me from buying a new one. I think that ten years is PLENTY of time to measure and impact, as did the drafters of the bill. It is only now after ten years and no measurable results that they are saying that ten years isn’t long enough. AHH but maybe they were wrong then and they are right now? Aside from the fact that this is the same argument presented by supply siders when faced with the failure of their policies, we have seen OTHER policies exhibit measurable impacts. There is a ban on machine guns. This doesn’t mean that you can’t buy a machine gun. It means you can’t buy a NEW machine gun. Every machine gun is registered and every machine gun owners had to get a license to own that machine gun. Over time, machine guns were confiscated from criminals and within a very short period of time, you didn’t see machine gun shootouts anywhere near as much as you used to. now of course assault weapons aren’t anywhere near the level of problem machine guns were back then (about 3% of all gun murders are from rifles and assault weapons are a subset of rifles) but if we enacted licensing and registration requirements for all guns, I bet dollars to donuts that we see a reduction in gun violence in ten years.
Well, I won’t pretend that its some ultra thin minority of gun owners that feel this way, but it is a minority.
Of course not. Like I said it has to be imposed or coerced by the government. I have the right to bear arms but in my house, my WIFE infringes on that right all the time. I have to live with restrictions that would be unconstitutional if imposed by the government. For example, my government cannot point to all my non-defense guns and say “keep all your magazines and ammunition for those guns at the gun range, keep the guns themselves in a safe and put a trigger lock on them” I live in a tyranny and my guns aren’t doing me a lick of good in overthrowing the tyrant.
It also depends on the court.
The Republicans are not trying to change anything.
You’re blowing political capital on something that has no measurable effect on gun violence when licensing and registration has a much better track record of reducing gun violence.
I like using the voter ID laws as an analogy. When Ohio tried to enact voter ID laws claiming their desire to reduce voter fraud, we all suspected they were really interested in something else, given the fact that 90%+ of all voter fraud occurs with absentee ballots. SO. When Feinstein and other gun control advocates try to enact an AWB to reduce gun violence, we all suspect they are really interested in some other objective, given the fact that 95% of all gun violence occurs with handguns.
And If you want to go back 20 years with La Pierre, can I go back 18 yearrs with Feinstein where she admits taht she would LIKE TO confiscate all the guns if possible. The thinking at the time was that this was a good first step to getting all the guns.
The 1986 FOPAoutlawed the sales of NEW machine guns. There had been few (1 or 2) deaths by a registered and licensed owner of a machine gun in 50 years prior to its passing yet it was implemented anyway. The analogy you are looking for is that just like the current AW ban being proposed, they are/were both solutions looking for a problem.
I agree that 1986 ban was a solution looking for a problem. There have been two deaths by elgal machine guns in the last 80 years. They account ed for about 1% of deaths in miami in 1980 but these were msotly guns smuggled in from places where machine guns are more prevalent (like Nicaragua), not stolen from legal gun users or anything like that.
My point was that the NFA licensing and registration requirements started in 1934. In 1934 there was a lot of machine gun violence and since then there have been TWO murders by registered machine guns. This didn’t require confiscation of machine guns. It didn’t require a ban on the sale of new machine guns. It didn’t require draconian laws on storage of machine guns. It didn’t even require punitive insurance requirements on machine guns. All it took was licensing and registration, it is almost as if the act of registering the gun to a particular individual makes that gun much less likely to fall into the hands of a criminal.
I don’t see why something similar wouldn’t happen with other types of guns.
If I were actually advocating any ban of the sort that makes such a thing illegal, I’ll be sure to answer you then.
You need to take into account not only the firing rate but other factors like the type of gun it is, magazine capacity, etc. It sounds like you are saying that pretty much all guns are the same. If so, then it makes no sense that you are fighting so hard for a ban on what is essentially a miniscule number of gun types. If, however, you are not deliberately trying to confuse the issue, then you and I would probably agree that even if a revolver and a shotgun can shoot equally fast, there are lots of differences that distinguish one from the other. I’m not going to go around listing everything, because I think you’ll attempt to poke irrelevant holes into one or two examples using unrealistic and rare anecdotal evidence and try to establish a trend that way.
Basically, there’s a difference between a handgun and an AR-15. Those differences may not always be simply firing rate per minute, but they exist and that’s why one should be banned and the other not. If you truly believe they are the same, then you should support the AWB as a pointless law that doesn’t infringe on your right to carry arms.
This is type of well-poisoning that always come from only the pro-gun side. All of us know that the spirit of the law is to try to decrease gun violence by decreasing access to the types of weapons generally believed to be the main culprits of such massacres. Nobody’s in a dark room plotting the takeover of the US and using a 2nd Amendment repeal as the first step, NOBODY. And yes, there may be ignorance in writing the law, but that is not the POINT of the law. Please try to stay on topic.
As for your ideas, I have no problems with them at all. We should definitely have background checks and try to make sure people who don’t need them don’t get them. However, and try not to accuse me of being Hitler-esque, I think its perfectly fine to have the government be a part of that process. Unless the NRA, which is a lobbying group, doctors working for the US government should be consulted if we’re to do this federally. I don’t think abuse of that will happen on any significantly widespread level, and if it does, then we need to sack those doctors, not scrap the law. I also understand that in some jurisdictions, sheriffs and law enforcement get to sign off on things like concealed carry. I am fine with that, I think LEO’s should be in the loop. So long as the requirement is stringent but not impossible, they should have a say.
I can agree with that. I think the BEST way of lowering gun violence is to do the checks and have waiting periods, and licensing. I’m glad you’re not against that. The reason why I support the AWB, however, is not because its the best way of lowering violence, but twofold: 1) I think it will lower some violence, if miniscule, and 2) I don’t believe a ban on a type of weapon is an infringement. But I can certainly see your point
I get what you think you are trying to say, but I have to disagree that your analogy to gay marriage is apt. Nowhere should a gay American be denied the rights freely expressed by a straight American. But nowhere is the fundamental right to bear arms harmed by an admittedly tiny fraction of restrictions on a certain type of guns. Gays need to have ALL the rights straights do. But in order to enjoy the 2nd Amendment, one does not need to have ALL the types of weapons accessible. I point you to the ridiculous examples people use to illustrate the point: you can’t own a nuke. Nor can you own bombs, bazookas, tanks, etc. Now maybe tanks aren’t exactly a type of firearm per se, but bazookas are. You are restricted in your 2nd Amendment rights from owning weapons deemed too dangerous for private ownership. The AWB is simply an extension of that. Therefore I don’t believe it crosses any type of line. That may be simply my opinion, but its more reasoned than just saying banning guns is like banning gays from marriage
Yes I can ignore that because your fear does not follow reality. You’re tasking me to ensure to you that future government won’t do something down the line. I can’t do that, and I think you see the impossibility of that. Therefore, you get to say it could happen and end the conversation right there. Its ludicrous.
We have an ability to reason a rational outcome. But if you’re going to go with the most extreme nothing, you are simply trying to shut down all debate before it has even begun. Just what evidence would you have me produce to ensure you that a total gun ban won’t happen in a decade?
I challenge you to drop the paranoia for the purposes of this debate, and ignore what may or may not happen. Analyze whether a law would be good NOW, if it would do the job it professes to do NOW, and let future people worry what may or may not happen. Because I don’t agree the future will be a dystopian nightmare, and you can’t agree it won’t. Neither one of us will ever get anywhere.
And that is why I asked you what you think we should do. To your credit, you responded seriously. But I don’t think a 10 year ban on AWBs, if it was riddled with as much loopholes as you say, was enough time. And yes, I disagree with you that gun control advocates will eventually want to ban all guns. Realistically, I think that part of what you say may come to pass, that violence won’t be reduced as much as we’d like and more laws will be introduced. I simply disagree that it would be a bad thing. I don’t think the AWB is a bad thing, but I also don’t think it goes far enough
Its not impossible. I guarantee that a national gun registry will never be abused to institute ever more restrictive gun laws culminating in a total or near-total ban. Now prove me wrong.
I can think of a few things. For instance, lets define exactly what an “assault weapon” is and ban that. I think the 2nd Amendment has shit all to do with some national coup or homegrown insurrection attempt and everything to do with the historical lack of a police force and standing army of the time. Now that we have police and a military, not to mention a national guard, I think self-defense is about the only defensible purpose of the 2nd Amendment. We should ban all guns that’s not handguns and shotguns, and limit rifles to sport shooting. What do you think?
You know, its not inherently a bad thing to revise your beliefs when presented with different evidence. You can call that backtracking or moving the goalposts, but in fact if there was no combination of registration and licensing, of course there will be a loophole. I would rather have those guns confiscated, but apparently that makes me a jack-booted thug. I think political reality limited the ban to 10 years, and political reality limited the scope of the law. Ideally, I would like to see a total ban of such guns for a generation, 25+ years, and a confiscation of the known ones and severe jail penalties for anyone who owns one. That may seem harsh, but I’m uninterested in what kind of names people would call me. If you are going to ban something, then REALLY ban it, don’t make it half-assed
IF it is a minority, and that’s a big IF, then it is a vocal one and disproportionately skews the national debate in their favor.
I think then that our only disagreement may be what we each consider to be coercion. Do you think the Smith & Wesson deal crossed the line?
I think factions of them are, seeing as I believe many recent gun laws were struck down after prolonged attack by conservative groups. Plus more often than not, those calling Obama a tyrant and wanting to arm school teachers are Republicans.
I won’t disagree that the Dems might take a political hit on this down the line, however that was not my point. My contention is that the President and Dems are NOT poisoning the well. Their response has so far been measured and even-handed, common sense reforms proposed that would have sailed past a less partisan GOP is only being stymied by their radical shift right in recent decades. It is the Republicans who are doing all of the poisoning
Voter ID tackled a non-existent crime and was perpetuated by Republicans who have admitted that it was an attempt to disenfranchise Democratic voters. Like I said above, there is NO equivalency on the two sides. What people should do is to trust that Democrats are doing the right thing and let them pass their reforms because Democrats on the whole, especially Obama, is no scoundrel trying to weasel rights away from people. Pretending that there is an equivalent Democratic shadow group trying to take away people’s rights for the sake of taking them away lowers the ones who are in the right and elevates those who are wrong. You have to just trust me when I say that we believe assault weapons are too dangerous to have around, will do little for your protection, and is not an infringement upon your rights. Hell, Feinstein herself has a handgun for protection, so I’ve read, I doubt she’d be interested in preventing herself from having one.
The difference between the two is that one is realistic and the other is not. I don’t sit around worrying about when the Westboro Baptist Church will take over the government and kill all the gays and neither should you worry that a total gun ban will ever happen. Plus, the reasoning behind LaPierre flip-flopping is much more egregious. His partisanship caused him to change his mind. For Feinstein, even when the AWB was in effect, she did not author a bill to ban all guns. You need to be able to recognize wishful thinking and reality. Personally, I would like a total ban on all guns except for LEO’s, but that doesn’t mean that if I want registration and licensing for guns that it isn’t a good idea
Sorry I reread my post and i garbled it:
I think I put it better in post 289.
Perhaps so but too many folks on the other side don’t seem to have any idea what an assault weapon is.
I didn’t pay attention to it so I probably wasn’t offended. What did the government do to S&W again?
Hmm, I guess you’re right. Both sides are activated on this issue.
I disagree. I think the AWB is only common sense if you are operating on bad facts. You need to overblow the role of assault weapons to justify the inordinate focus on them.
Like I said, licensing and registration si much mroe effective than an assault weapons ban and is less of a political pull.
Voter ID tackled a non-existent crime and was perpetuated by Republicans who have admitted that it was an attempt to disenfranchise Democratic voters. Like I said above, there is NO equivalency on the two sides. What people should do is to trust that Democrats are doing the right thing and let them pass their reforms because Democrats on the whole, especially Obama, is no scoundrel trying to weasel rights away from people. Pretending that there is an equivalent Democratic shadow group trying to take away people’s rights for the sake of taking them away lowers the ones who are in the right and elevates those who are wrong. You have to just trust me when I say that we believe assault weapons are too dangerous to have around, will do little for your protection, and is not an infringement upon your rights. Hell, Feinstein herself has a handgun for protection, so I’ve read, I doubt she’d be interested in preventing herself from having one.
The difference between the two is that one is realistic and the other is not. I don’t sit around worrying about when the Westboro Baptist Church will take over the government and kill all the gays and neither should you worry that a total gun ban will ever happen. Plus, the reasoning behind LaPierre flip-flopping is much more egregious. His partisanship caused him to change his mind. For Feinstein, even when the AWB was in effect, she did not author a bill to ban all guns. You need to be able to recognize wishful thinking and reality. Personally, I would like a total ban on all guns except for LEO’s, but that doesn’t mean that if I want registration and licensing for guns that it isn’t a good idea
[/QUOTE]
I think that you will find that even the machine gun violence prior to 1934 was overblown. You forgot a few other things that throw a wrench in your idea that the NFA model worked simply due to licensing and registration, first, there is limited licensing. A trust can own NFA guns which allows an individual to bypass the CLEO signoff. Second, a good chunk of states do not and have not allowed NFA weapons since 1934, sadly, my own state is one of them.
Since the market was artificially limited by passing of the NFA, very few manufacturers even competed in the full auto market except for military contracts. As such, the full auto gun never really cemented a place in the average shooter’s collection. There just aren’t enough of them out there to allow folks to cause trouble with them.
I would tend to agree, using myself as an example. But live and learn, right? However, it seems too many in the pro-gun side just expects one to be one of them as soon as you learn about guns. Knowing the technical details between what a semi-automatic means doesn’t make me want to join the NRA. If you think we are misusing the term assault weapon, then define it
I think there is some contention on the pro-gun side that the government strong-armed S&W into agreeing to put things like gun safety locks on all their weapons. That created a pushback by gun owners who boycotted S&W. I think S&W lost a lot of business and was bought out a few years later. Now personally, I don’t know the details, it was a long time ago, but I don’t believe that something like safety locks even approaches a light year’s radius of the 2nd Amendment. I would love it if all gun manufacturers start voluntarily manufacture guns with safety locks on them.
What if, for the sake of argument, we don’t overblow the facts on them. Can you acknowledge that despite the relative paucity of assault weapon-related violence, that the weapon type itself, if we take it to be some high capacity, rapid-firing, automatic weapon, the kind used in the 1997 North Hollywood bank robbery, is almost useless for self-defense, and at the very least overkill, so that people can still have their 2nd Amendment rights but without these types of guns?
Agreed that gun control advocates believe that restricting access to firearms will make society safer and that’s their honest motivation. In that case:[ul]
[li]the pro-gun side simply doesn’t agree with that fundamental premise[/li][li]that it’s not even a case of the proposed firearms limitations being useless, but actively detrimental[/li][li]that gun control advocates ignore the logical arguments repeatedly put forth to explain why gun control is a bad idea, seemingly because of an ingrained mindset incapable of understanding or accepting that their position is flawed.[/li][li]And if fewer guns are better, then presumably none at all would be best, which is why the pro-gun side fears the worst when gun control is proposed.[/li][/ul]So I suppose it’s a question of whether it’s less insulting to be called evil, crazy, or stupid.
Yes, there’s a difference between a handgun and an AR-15–the question is, what’s the difference between an AR-15 and an M1 Garand? Other than the barrel shrouds and so forth. That’s what no one can ever seem to give any very good answer for, other than to say, gosh, they’re obviously different! (Yes, there’s magazine capacity. As I’ve said all along, you can logically separate restrictions on magazine capacity from broader “assault weapons” bans.)
I decline to support laws that are pointless.
It’s not a question of believing anybody is evil and plotting to take away our guns in order to pave the way for some kind of Socialist Muslim Nazi One World Government takeover. I believe that there are lots of people who, perfectly sincerely, want to institute stringent and confiscatory gun controls, that would be at least as strict as those in the UK or Australia, because they genuinely believe that would be the right thing to do and would make the world a better place. People like…
Why, people like you!
And no, I don’t think you’re likely to get your way, not anytime soon. But why is that? It’s because there is resistance to your ideas, because a substantial portion of the population lobbies vigorously against them and supports (right-wing, kind of assholish) organizations like the NRA. Part of the process of making sure you don’t get your way is to push back vigorously on nonsense like bans/severe restrictions on guns based on stuff like what kind of grip they have and whether or not they have a “barrel shroud”. Unfortunately, these days (partly as a result of bigger political trends beyond the gun debate) this also spills over into resistance even to things like universal background checks (which once upon a time the NRA would have probably been out there lobbying for).
Not to jump into your quote festival, but you need to understand that the guns used in the Hollywood robberies were already illegally modified to fire full auto. They were already heavily restricted by the 1934 NFAand 1968 GCAand outright banned by 1986 FOPA.
These are not the guns that fall under the 1994 AW ban or the current ban languishing in the Senate. They are already illegal.
I’m not making any guarantees but so far, the only thing that has any history of working is licensing and registration. We’ve tried a national assault weapons ban and it did very little. We’ve tried virtual complete bans in some localities and it actually worsened the situation.
There were 1.5 million assault weapons in civilian hands in 1994. There are about 250,000 machine guns in civilian hands today (I don’t know how many there were in 1986). As few assault weapon deaths as there have been, machine guns do not account for 1/6 of that number in the period between 1994 and 2004.
I don’t blame you. I blame people who should know better but continue to say Assault weapons while showing videos of machine guns. I blame gun control advocates (including our president) who calls assault weapons “weapons of war” What the fuck else are you supposed to think.
If your side of the argument is telling these sort of blatant lies, its a good sign that you’re on the wrong side of the argument.
I voted for Obama twice and this one issue is not important enough to me to change my voting habits but my party is wrong on this issue.
Hmm it depends on whether or not they were actually strong armed or were currying favor with the government. Its one thing if S&W is trying to curry favor, its an entirely different thing if the government was going to ban S&W from winning any government bids or if the government is going to punish S&W with extra tax audit scrutiny or something like that.
Assault weapons have no magazine capacity requirement.
I personally don’t think that assault weapons are ideal self defense but I keep seeing more and more hunting rifles that look like assault weapons (and looking like an assault weapon basically makes it an assault weapon.
For example, the Remington 750 is a widely used hunting rifle. It is a semiautomatic rifle. Putting a pistol grip on it makes it an assault weapon. A lot of hunters make this modification.
I think you could make an argument that an AR 15 is a good defense weapon (very manageable recoil and one shot stopping power), especially if they have military experience and are already very familiar with the AR 15 platform. All things being equal, I think a shotgun is a better home defense weapon than an AR 15 but the best weapon is the one that you know how to use and are comfortable using. My wife for instance prefers firing an AR15 to a shotgun. She is scared of the recoil (the AR 15 is basically a 22 caliber rifle round).
With all that said. I think about 99% of AR15 and AK47 owners are hobbyists and target shooters (although the tacticool ar15 is becoming more practicool). However, I still think that you need to overcome the second amendment to ban them.
Almost no law is pointless, unless it covers something that doesn’t exist. What you meant was that the law is insignificant, to which I would object to. If there is functionally no difference between 2 types of guns, for example, then banning one means little to the person who wants guns, but means more to the person who doesn’t want them (50% reduction in type of guns, yay!)
I think your first sentence contradicts itself. Realistically, there is no way to ban guns, or get gun control to be as stringent as Japan or someplace like that. You, Absolute, and Damuri have mentioned some sane gun control laws I would gladly support. You guys just feel some internal prodding to push that further, and claim that I, and people like me, have the power to turn the world into a no-gun zone. We don’t. Its flattering that you think I have that much power, but we really don’t. So in the meantime, please try not to oppose laws that doesn’t come close to that nightmare scenario for you.
Culturally, there is never going to be an adoption of my ideas. I think many pro-gun people think they and their opposition stand as some kind of bulwark against tyranny, but I feel they are overestimating themselves. I am no threat to you. So half-agreeing with me is not going to do any harm to your gun collection. And the 2nd half of your paragraph illustrates the paranoia that is replete in pro-gun people’s minds. You are essentially saying that you oppose laws that you would otherwise support simply based on the unsubstantiated fear of the anti-gun crowd. You are hurting yourself, and countless people harmed by guns, by continuing to keep this standard that no one can ever aspire, because nobody can see the future and tell you that your guns will be safe, so therefore you will always be paranoid, always opposing of any laws. You can claim all you want that in your heart, you really don’t believe in the paranoia and that you really agree with us on stuff like background checks, but if your actions are those of a paranoid person, then you sir, are paranoid
Let me ask you something: what realistic evidence would you accept as proof that pro-gun control people will never go that far as to ban guns like the UK? Tell me something that we can do to remove that paranoia right now or in the near future so that you can wholeheartedly support things like background checks, registration, and licensing
My understanding is that some types of legal firearms are easily moddable, and parts of modify them are unregulated and/or legal, so that they can be turned into one of those deadly types that people are stereotypically afraid of. Would you be willing to oppose the legality of any such weapons, or support a law making those modifications illegal?
So again, help us define it. Offer a solution
Would you say that these lies are more mistakes or deliberate deceptions? I’ve already mentioned that I don’t know nearly as much about guns as you or anyone else, yet my opinion remains unchanged. People fall back on the self-defense argument, and it is my contention that if you’re going for self-defense, you don’t need an AR-15 or something that’s automatic. And you don’t need 30 rounds. You’re not facing a horde of zombies, 10 rounds is plenty. So limit guns to handguns and shotguns with those specific traits. What’s wrong with that?
Maybe they should. Would you support that? I would, seems like a very common sense restriction to allow you to defend yourself and make it tougher for a nut to go crazy and shoot up a school. Note: I said “tougher”, not impossible. I’m fine with making it tougher, as should you
Suppose they make it a law that such a modification is illegal. Would you support that?
I am sure that almost any type of gun makes a good defense if you’re looking down the barrel at it, but self-defense does not necessarily mean that you get access to all types of defense that you can buy, and that all types should be available with no restrictions. Handguns and shotguns are good enough for self and home defense, let’s let people have those and ban the rest. Why wouldn’t that be a good idea?
Well of course we’d have to overcome that. But people too often are using that as an excuse to not even have the discussion. Its insanely stupid, and frustrating, to say that for defense, we should have so-and-so type of gun, and be immediately confronted with “you can’t say that, 2nd Amendment!”. The point is to discuss whether or not such a thing would be sufficient to meet the criteria of defense. To me, as long as you have handguns and shotguns, that meets the criteria. I think the government should and can ban any other types of guns without touching the 2nd Amendment, but that’s just me
You insist that 10 rounds is sufficient for self defense, and that semi automatic rifles are unnecessary for self defense. This is not true. I’m pretty sure there is no convincing you of otherwise, but when you say this, gun rights advocates look at you like you have 3 heads. It’s nonsensical.
The reality is, that anything that makes self defense more effective will also make offense more effective.
