Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
From my understanding of it the assault weapons ban is to ban "scary looking" guns. Which might be a valid purpose, but there's not really much actual factual difference between one and a hunting rifle. After all we take down game as big as us a lot. The difference between the hunting rifle and the assault rifle is mostly, well, the power fantasy associated with it.
Banning expanded magazines seems like a good idea though.
Old article, but the trend is still true.
Again, after the ban went into effect.
edited 15th Jan '13 8:53:39 PM by Pykrete
Good to know. But tighter regulation might prevent the mass shootings.
(Note: I might mess up the terminology a bit, but I think my comments get across)
A) "burst fire" is the way those weapons are usually used. It is much more accurate than full-auto and thus more deadly.
B) Why do you even need burst fire on your household or hunting gun? You should only need one shot to hit under normal circumstances.
Yes, they are slightly different on the inside. But, to use your car analogy, being hit by a normal car going 70mph is just as deadly as one with all the "bells and whistles" going 80mph. Why should they be regulated differently?
edited 15th Jan '13 8:53:22 PM by Belian
Yu hav nat sein bod speeling unntil know. (cacke four undersandig tis)the cake is a lie!There are two different problems really being discussed here. Mass shootings like what happened at Sandy Hook are much more visible tragedies and prompt much more national conversation on gun violence. That's one of the problems. The other is "normal" gun violence, which is much more widespread and gets much less media coverage. Which problem are you trying to solve, and how are you going to do it without infringing on the rights of reasonable, law-abiding gun owners (whose rights are, like it or not, constitutionally protected)?
If you're trying to prevent mass shootings, then I think that gun control is the wrong direction to approach it from. While not all mass shooters are "crazy" in the conventional sense, I believe that the vast majority of them do suffer from serious mental health issues (eg, they may be severely depressed, rather than psychotic or delusional). Making mental health care — including both diagnosis and treatment — universally available and affordable will do much more to curb such events than simply restricting access to guns. (Nevermind the fact that making mental health care universally available and affordable is a worthy goal in and of itself.)
If you're trying to prevent "conventional" shootings, then there are far better places to start than with "assault weapons" (whatever that actually means). Start by requiring background checks for all gun sales, period, without exception — specifically including both gun shows and private sales. Require all guns to be licensed to a specific entity at all points starting with it's manufacturer — you should be able to track a gun through its licensing information from the manufacturer, to a wholesaler, to a retailer, to a private individual, to another private individual the first one sold it to, etc etc. There would be legal consequences for anyone who cannot account for a gun that is licensed to them. The license-holder would also be partially culpable for any crime committed with that gun. It's not a perfect system (licensing information can be forged, identifying marks on guns can be destroyed, there would be a lot of guns around from before the system was implemented, etc), but it's a big damn improvement over what we have now. Best of all, it doesn't violate the second amendment.
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.NRA targets Obama over daughters
THIS CAN'T POSSIBLY BACKFIRE!
edited 15th Jan '13 9:12:33 PM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016"Assault weapons" is generally a meaningless term except by the ignorant.
In addition, assault weapons bans are near useless since what they ban usually has nothing to do with what actually shows up in crimes. The previous assault weapons ban banned approximately two percent (from memory) of the guns used in crimes of the time. And the steady decline of gun crime wasn't effected either. So the laws don't help, making them bad laws.
That the guns are not used that much in crime is, in fact, the point. If they're not used in crimes in more than a vanishingly small events, they should not be banned.
Semi automatic is even more accurate, but accuracy is more of a training event anyway. If some nut job just ran in and tried to squeeze off a full magazine and couldn't control it, schools would likely be safer.
Expanded magazines: expanded magazines do not effect gun crime, see the assault weapons ban previously.
In addition, refusing to enforce bad laws (which this is, as it's a feel good laws which are bad by nature), is something that is good. Much in the way that refusing to enforce the criminalizing of marijuana is good. Laws don't deserve respect for being the law, they deserve respect for doing good. Until bad/useless laws are repealed in rapid order instead of only being repealed when there's an outcry, refusing to support bad laws is good (a law is bad by default, it's only good when it accomplishes its goal with a minimum of collateral damage, assault weapons bans do neither).
What is "needed" isn't relevant any more than "you don't need it" is grounds for banning anything else that can be abused but rarely is. Allowing something unless it proves reliably dangerous (considering the rates of crimes with such weapons, that's not a given) is something I consider the necessary default of any laws instead of the opposite. Switch blade bans come to mind as something that was banned out of fear and did precisely jack to prevent crimes.
You don't but you don't need to go through an airport without taking off your shoes, and you're likely to be just as safe.
I'm with Maddie myself: gun crimes have a higher penalty, non violent have less with general lower restrictions on guns and gun owners. Law abiding gun owners are not a problem much at all and criminals aren't going to work within the law anyway.
Fight smart, not fair.Before that line of thought goes any further, burst fire is not being discussed. Machine guns, burst fire or full-automatic, have not been manufactured for the general public since 1986. There are few of those machine guns around. The guns being discussed are not machine guns. (The last murder committed with a registered machine gun was way back in the 90s, and committed by a police officer, for instance).
The ones being discussed are no different than hunting rifles, except that they have certain ergonomics that make them more comfortable to fit the users' particular body type. It's like the difference in being able to adjust the seat in your car and being forced to sit on wood block. The features being discussed don't change the function.
That's the thing, there already are regulations for both. We're going from a discussion about things that look like those that aren't legal to be used and then applying the same logic to the ones that are.
The US had a federal regulation for speed limits for many years, limiting drivers to 55 everywhere, as a means to try and curb gas usage and reduce safety. It did not work. Why didn't we simply make cars that didn't go past 55? The answer is that it was not and is still not practical.
Glove and Boots is good for Blog!Yoinking a discussion from the Economics thread, because it seems on-topic to the gun control debate. I postulated that, even if I liked the idea of a stimulus and spending money to Make Jobs(tm), I didn't like the idea of having to trust someone else to use my money effectively. Fighteer said that he was about as distrustful of the idea of businesses taking his money to do the same thing.
All of this makes me wonder if this kind of idea is behind the Libertarian suggestion of "let's all be private armed citizens so we don't have to worry about the government taking our stuff!" If so, my sympathy for certain lunatics just went up a notch (but only a notch); "I don't trust anyone to have power over me" is reasonable (and something I hold to wherever possible), if not reasonably actionable.
That and most assault rifle and similar designed weapons are mostly used for sport by enthusiasts, not crime (too big and bulky, although you could make an argument for things like the PDR). It's the same reason that we don't get that many serial killers who just climb up into a tower with a hunting rifle, take one shot and move somewhere else over and over to bask in the fear, that doesn't fit the particular type of crazy that would make it work.
Fight smart, not fair.My (old) school has eleven cops, three on duty at any given time. It can't be that expensive. If they're discussing adding a cop in every room, that would be a bit more outlandish. Hell, call it economic stimulus.
Fight smart, not fair.we should ban all guns period.
Being that a legal impossibility in the U.S (2nd ammendment and how it will be removed when hell freezes over) we should limit ourself to weapons that could be used to:
1. Stage succesful mass shootings
2. Ambushing army convoys
I mean, should people really be allowed to have AK 47´s and M16´s in their homes? Edit: of course not. The real discussion then centers on semi-automatic.
![]()
There was a cop at Columbine and he got into a shooting with the shooters (I feel so redundant). It didnt help much...
edited 15th Jan '13 9:59:25 PM by Baff
I will always cherish the chance of a new beggining.
I wasnt saying they werent do, but it kinda came across that way so my bad.
As for putting a cop on every school and on every classroom, we can afford it. But then it would turn us into more of a police state than we already are, do we truly want that? But maybe thats just me being paranoid...
Doent conservatives want small government anyways? What is the NRA stance on the deficit?
edited 15th Jan '13 10:02:14 PM by Baff
I will always cherish the chance of a new beggining.cops are low level government, the big government they're against is regulation in ever little micromanaged detail.
and as for automatics being illegal... typical anti-gun ignorance.
there are several THOUSAND machine guns in the hands of private citizens, along with artillery as large as 40mm bofors autocannon and 57mm antiTANK cannon.
as long as the right atf clearance and fees are exchanged, the citizen gets their flashy toy.
when was the last time a schoolbus was shredded by artillery and heavy machine gun fire?
the anti-gun people in america can't fathom the injustice of punishing millions of law abiding citizens for the acts of a few lunatics
Guilt by Association? in america?
i heard several reports that most of the victims of newtown were shot by the pistols anyway.
there is though, an irony to the new york ban just passed.
it has a seven shot limit. allowing the purchase of colt 1911 handguns over large capacity, smaller caliber glocks, meaning the body count in future shootings may INCREASE
and hunting rifles with hunting ammo are more lethal than assault weapons anyway
so the ban, and eventual national awb 2, will increase the body count
as for WHY one should have the right to own.
simple, art. firearms are a work of art and engineering. ironically, the pinnacle of the antigun crowd cultures' "art" is the likes of seranno's "piss christ" (sold for over a quarter million dollars???!!!), while gun art is things like this:
chivethebrigade.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/gun-art-2-920-10.jpg
and this
imageshack.us/photo/my-images/824/imagen463.jpg/sr=1
now which side is civil?
edited 15th Jan '13 10:35:38 PM by Byakuko
"I will strike down all that threaten my clan!""as long as the right atf clearance and fees are exchanged, the citizen gets their flashy toy. "
This is exactly the point we should be focusing on (as other people have mentioned and then the topic got side-tracked *is also guilty of taking the topic off on a tangent*). Just out of curiosity, does anyone have a handy list of what the current requirements are for different types of weapons? That would probably be the best reference and serve as a starting line for all arguments.
Yu hav nat sein bod speeling unntil know. (cacke four undersandig tis)the cake is a lie!@Baff is trying to take away my right to ambush army convoys.
edited 15th Jan '13 11:30:43 PM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016Which is why we really should have federal standards, because all this differing state standard has resulted in politicians in Maryland or somewhere trying to make it so that their citizens with concealed carry licenses can do so in DC where that's banned, effectively trying to circumvent laws in another area where they don't make the decisions.
@Baff: No sane politician is going to ban hunting rifles, particularly in low density population areas or farms where overpopulation of deer and such are a concern. There are people who legitimately hunt for their food instead of going out and buying processed meats. These are usually the responsible gun owners who don't go and shoot up schools.
I'm still dumbfounded that anyone things having any of these weapons will actually protect them from our government if our government actually decides that going after them is a good idea. What with the fact that our police and military will always be better armed than the average citizen, no matter how many crazy things they buy. Or why they think our government would go after them in the first place. Our government doesn't usually go after people for no reason like that. Hell, last I checked Ted Nugent is still alive and well despite his idiotic rantings about how Obama would go after him if he was elected again.
The IRA, Taliban, Drug Cartels, and the Viet Cong are proof that being better armed doesn't mean instant victory.
Granted I'm not sure how a band of rednecks lead by Ted Nugent would stack up in comparison to the groups listed above.
GOP lining up behind US effort in Mali
For those who don't know what 'Fast and Furious' is:
edited 15th Jan '13 11:54:48 PM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016@ Baff: Yes, there was an armed Sheriff's Deputy who was posted to the school at Columbine (the armed guard that keeps being mentioned), but he was not at the school itself when the shooting started (he was watching a smoking spot just off the school grounds where students would go to smoke). He was essentially in the position of a first responder when he arrived back at the school. He never went inside, and his entire focus was protecting the people who were now outside the school. Whether he could have changed things by staying at the school itself is entirely speculation.
The same officer has come out and said that armed guards placed in a school should focus on the school itself.
Glove and Boots is good for Blog!

nevermind
edited 15th Jan '13 8:39:04 PM by Baff
I will always cherish the chance of a new beggining.