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
The Think Progress articles (particularly that first one) pretty much demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of the mechanics and terminology of firearms, which is probably better left to the Gun Thread.
Yes, you can bumpfire a semi-automatic hunting rifle with none of those features. And yes, converting an AR-15 to a different caliber doesn't make the weapon any more deadly.
See, one of the arguments already presented in the article is that "even a one percent drop in gun fatalities is a huge victory", the thing is that it's dropping on it's own that much, and then turns around and says "well, there's ways of making that even faster".
The article then asserts that reducing the number of "Assault Weapons" in circulation will have a direct correlation to reducing homicides. Even the FBI's Uniform Crime Report notes that there is already an incredibly small number of murders committed with rifles (let alone those that would count as assault weapons), which somehow justifies legislating the Millions of these weapons out there, when clearly it's the proliferation of handguns that has taken up the vast majority of these crimes.
The links also suggest that the end of the Assault Weapons Ban also contributed to the beginning of the Mexican Drug War, which officially started in 2006, but increased cartel movements had started before even then. Are we saying causation and correlation is evident here?
The only things I can agree with are background checks and dealer accountability. The point is to affirm law-abiding gun ownership while minimizing guns in the hands of criminals and the mentally ill.
Everything else is pretty much skewed.
edited 31st Jan '13 9:05:52 PM by DevilTakeMe
Glove and Boots is good for Blog!![]()
Thanks for posting these links. I'm not too fond of what I'm reading so far, but I'm trying to keep an open mind about this. I'm going to use this post as a place holder and read through them some more.
@Barrel shrouds: Technically, it is true that having a barrel shroud makes the weapon easier to fire because the device improves the cooling of the barrel while also making it easier the shooter to handle the weapon. However, barrel shrouds contribute relatively little to the rate at which the weapon can fire compared to, say, the rifling mechanism or the nature of the firing pin contained in the upper receiver.
@Slide fire: I don't know if the article writer is aware of this, but that feature basically allows a modified weapon to fire a two-round burst. It is admittedly a loophole in the automatic weapon restrictions that were outlined in 1986 and later revised in the 1994 Clinton-era Assault Weapons Ban. I wouldn't mind having this feature investigated further.
@Mexican homicide rates and the AWB: I'm sorry I don't have the data on hand, but I think you can find information on the ATF, FBI and DEA websites showing that a large number of weapons used in the Central American drug wars, particularly in Mexico, are Soviet-era Kalashnikovs that were stockpiled during the Cold War and have found there way into the black market since the late 1970's. To clarify, these are fully-automatic AK variants, not the civilian model AK's you can find in a Ma and Pa pawn shop. Aside from special permits and licenses, the 1986 ban prevents most citizens from even owning fully automatic weapons here in the states, and I believe Mexico is looking into something similar.
@Caliber: Agreed. Caliber is not all that relevant in gun crimes. I can kill with a .22 just as easily as I can kill with a .44 Magnum, if not more easily due to the compactness of the round and the rapid-fire capabilities that can be employed with weapons accepting that cartridge. Now can the news and pundits stop saying "high-powered rifle" so much? That would be nice.
@Secure storage and being responsible for keeping weapons away from those deemed unfit for them: I agree 100%, but any responsible gun owner should be doing this anyway. I wish it were common sense, but it's not.
@Repossession and forfeiture of high-capacity magazines: Not going to lie. I don't like this one at all. I had to read it several times to make sure I didn't misinterpret it. Tell me if I did. I can tolerate an annual property tax on owning magazines. I have three - one traditional STANAG and two Mag Pul types. Under current laws being proposed, that will be expensive for me to keep, but I can swallow that a lot more than I can with outright disowning them by law. Again, tell me if I'm wrong.
@Think Progress: It's an okay website, but I don't really find it all that suitable for a clear, non-biased viewpoint. It has a fairly strong liberal tone to it that somewhat taints the impartiality of their findings. This is also evident in the smugness of the author of the first linked article. This is the same problem I have with right-wing websites that do the same thing. Freedom this and commie Obama that. That isn't to say that Think Progress is a horrible website that should burn in hell, but I'd take those articles with a truckload of salt. Of course, asking for a non-biased source is like asking for a million dollars (it can be done, but it rarely happens), so I'm not going to call foul and totally dismiss everything those articles say.
edited 31st Jan '13 9:12:50 PM by Aprilla
![]()
They appear to be using the definition outlined in the Feinstein act there, since that's what's relevant to the article, but it seems apparent that you'll stick to your definition anyway.
I'm trying to find the spot you saw the "forfeiture and repossession" of high capacity magazines but I'm not finding it. The act does have a grandfather clause, so maybe current existing magazines will be included with guns in that? I have to say that personally this one doesn't bother me at all, since being able to shoot less at a time before reloading gives people time to react in some way.
EDIT: I found the part you were talking about. Here's what they said about high capacity magazines that already exist:
‘‘(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession 2 of any large capacity ammunition feeding device otherwise 3 lawfully possessed on or before the date of enactment of 4 the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013.
So basically everyone who has their goodies now will be able to keep them after the ban is enacted, if it ever is. Not sure how this applies to them trading or what.
As for Thinkprogress's bias: We have no unbiased news sources. Some people are just more honest about it. I just look for sources that fact check. Which Thinkprogress does.
edited 31st Jan '13 9:18:59 PM by AceofSpades
@Ace: To be honest, I'm more concerned with the rate of fire than I am with the shooter's capacity at hand. Reloading can be done quite rapidly with little practice, but I agree that it's simple math. Ten rounds versus thirty rounds can make a difference. I'm just afraid that this provision is still in "feel good" territory in a legal sense. It's something that's been on my mind a lot in these discussions. Obviously, it's personally important to me, but like I said, I point my finger at our schools and how our country doesn't do a very good job of supporting them with what they need (e.g. treating the teachers like adults and letting them do their jobs, supporting programs that work, long recess time, healthy lunches, individual-based testing systems, etc.).
Yeah, I think it's on Page 14. You're right:
''(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession, 14 sale, or transfer of any semiautomatic assault weapon otherwise lawfully possessed under Federal law on the date 16 of enactment of the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013.''
I believe there's another section saying this includes magazines, but I'm a little too busy to find it right now. Basically, if your weapon and mags are pre-ban, you're in the clear, and there is actually a serial number on my STANAG magazine indicating this.
edited 31st Jan '13 9:22:11 PM by Aprilla
Following some of the links:
Being designed to kill people is not what makes it dangerous, effective use in the homicide/death rate is. That's why flame throwers aren't sufficiently dangerous to require significant regulation, but cars are.
Cosmetics (in general): why does preventing cosmetics matter if they're only useful on automatics?
Barrel shrouds do not allow you to fire faster. All it does is cover the barrel. You also can not make use of any spray features unless the weapon is already automatic. Same for cooling issues.
Pistol grips of both the primary and secondary kind are also only useful for ergonomics and make shooting a gun easier.
Detachable magazines: you've not banned all the guns, just the vast majority of them (all hand guns that aren't revolvers and most rifles that aren't from before the 1950's). So, you've either got to grandfather the old ones in (thus leaving the majority of them out there), or get ready for some to try and track down a few tens of millions of guns.
Yes, these are in fact cosmetic features. Making it more ergonomic only makes it a more effective killing device in that it is less likely to give you a finger cramp. Most of said features only matter in full automatic anyway.
Semi-automatic guns can be converted to full automatic relatively easily since they operate off the same principle just with a fixed switch inside the gun. Again, you'd have to go about and ban 90% of guns to get rid of a gun that can be converted to automatic. Burst would be trickier conversion though.
The kit is essentially a bump fire conversion kit. It's the equivalent of fanning a revolver
.
I consider the overall size of the weapon itself to be what makes it similar rather than the ammunition, which is correct. AR derivatives being classified as rifles is because they both are larger than handguns and aren't shot guns, the three major classifications of guns as far as the FBI is concerned. Both rifles (including AR and AK derivatives lumped in with hunting rifles) and shotguns have similar levels of homicide rates, and are in the 1/million homicide rate. Most likely due to the whole "can't conceal it well" issue.
But did it prevent any actual deaths? Based on the text, most of the listed assault weapons were in fact the "high capacity magazines" ones, which is likely because 10 rounds is not some standard that was issued by any gun makers. The Glock 17 for instance fits 17
and is the standard police gun in a lot of places. Based on that, the guns are used because they're available, not because the higher capacity magazines allows for more murder (remember, the majority of murders are not spree). Banning higher capacity magazines which just see the murders committed with smaller capacity magazines, not a drop in total number.
This is a faulty argument. It's assuming that not having those guns would prevent the crime as opposed to the crime just being committed with a different gun at exactly the same rate and assuming that any life saved is worth whatever sacrifice needs to be made to make it, which ignores the majority of laws about acceptable risk. I, personally, don't consider banning something from tens of millions to save a little more than a hundred to be a worthwhile trade.
On statistics: massaging statics to get what you want to show (including suicides in gun death rates for instance, which almost triples the gun death rate) is as old as statistics themselves.
Where does it say that? I caught the number of crimes committed with the banned guns went down, but not that the number of crimes committed or people killed did.
Fight smart, not fair.
So would you suggest that we make the manufacturers make all their guns fire at a slower rate? Because while I can see that being effective in reducing danger, I think that'd be just as hard to put into law as lower capacity feeding devices. If not harder, considering rate of fire is a selling point for a gun.
edited 31st Jan '13 9:24:04 PM by AceofSpades
Yeah, I really don't think either would be effective.
The guns are certainly part of the problem, but I feel that we're not hitting this issue in the gut. Bolt-action rifles have a very low rate of fire, as do high-caliber revolvers ans many shotguns. However, those have also been used in gang violence and some shooting sprees. I believe the registration and background check process is where we should be looking, which we are. Making it harsher or more laxed isn't the precise solution. We need to surgically evaluate what's going on between the legal acquisition of the firearm and the crime itself. We also have an alarmingly high number of criminals who are either obtaining their weapons legally or they are taking weapons from a family member or friend. Los Zetas and MS 13 are notorious for sending their girlfriends or wives into gun stores to purchase weapons for them so they can evade felony-based background checks.
"remember, the majority of murders are not spree"
Right. Due to recent events, people tend to forget this fact.
edited 31st Jan '13 9:40:42 PM by Aprilla
This is called "straw purchasing" which is where the cartels and gangs have been primarily getting their guns. This is especially true of the guns being moved to Mexico, as "Fast and Furious" was put into place to try and catch people who were doing this sort of transaction (though, that backfired miserably).
According to most studies based on interviewing convicts and criminals, straw purchasing is where most of them get their guns. Not through the "gun show loophole", but through friends or family buying for them.
Stronger, universal background checks is a way to reduce this, but you also want to discourage people from buying guns for other people in the first place.
edited 31st Jan '13 9:45:23 PM by DevilTakeMe
Glove and Boots is good for Blog!I've heard of a possible "proof of ownership" concept similar to what is used in vehicle licenses and registration along with insurance. The theory goes that you have to demonstrate that you are the owner of the weapon, possibly with a card of some sort or an imprint on your driver's license similar to "organ donor" or "CDL certified". You can also have a joint insurance policy or owner certification in which multiple people can be legally allowed to operate your firearm such as your mom or your brother. On a certified shooting range, the permit would not be necessary, but if you're out in the woods with your buddy, you can't use his rifle and vice versa if you aren't the owner or a co-owner on paper.
The idea behind this "gun owner proof" is that it reduces straw purchases and gives gun owners an incentive to keep track of their weapons and anyone using those weapons at any given point in time. That way, Uncle Russ can't let Jimmy just take the .22 out of the rack without either supervising him or giving him the card with both of their names on it. The theoretical law has obvious flaws in it that I assume I don't have to explain, but it's not a horrible idea.
edited 31st Jan '13 9:49:00 PM by Aprilla
I don't think it would actually be effective. Mostly because as the old gun slingers say, shooting accurately is a hell of a lot better than throwing an entire stripper clip at somebody. Raw ROF is actually not that good of something to have in a weapon outside of various heavy applications. To put it simply, give shooters full automatic with a high ROF and they'll burn through all their ammo at a truly alarming rate. That's why burst fire weapons are the norm in the US military (certain guns excluded like LM Gs). If the bad guy is controlling themselves and aiming in between shots, a slower rate isn't really going to help as aiming will likely take longer.
I've heard of this. I've also talked with the guy behind the counter when I got my shotgun, and apparently some of them actually keep an in house black list.
I think this is something we need to do more often regardless of the issue. There seems to be this assumption that anytime a disaster of some kind happened that we need to regulate harder instead of a good assessment of what's going on and whether or not loose regulation, bad regulation, or unenforced regulation are responsible for any of the issues. I suspect it's another form of There Should Be a Law in knee jerk form. I suspect if you looked back, you'd find calls for tighter regulations on nuclear safety at the time of the nuclear disaster in Japan even though the NRC has no control over it.
Which I suspect is due to the fact that most of these types of regulations only occur when something big happens.
Fight smart, not fair.![]()
![]()
Is purchasing a gun for someone other then yourself a crime? Because if it isn't then it certainly should be, if it is then you guys obviously need stricter enforcement and harsher sentences.
edited 31st Jan '13 9:55:54 PM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
Would you believe that, technically, no, it's not actually illegal? As a matter of fact, Patrick Leahy has introduced a bill specifically to make it illegal
.
In the past, it has simply been a paperwork technicality that you should not buy for someone else, as it is a violation of Federal law to make a false statement on a form 4473, and this is how straw purchasing has been prosecuted. The law had specifically targeted dealers so that they could not knowingly sell guns to people with the knowledge that it might be used in the commission of a crime.
edited 31st Jan '13 10:16:15 PM by DevilTakeMe
Glove and Boots is good for Blog!
That appears to only be aimed at gun trafficking. What I'm talking about is the guy who gets a gun for his cousin because he's not sure if he would pass the background check. Or is that covered in the proposed law?
I'm not sure how you'd really enforce a law like that if the gun mule keeps their mouth shut when buying it.
Fight smart, not fair.![]()
That's exactly what the new law is proposing. It succinctly spells it out without resorting to legalese.
Some see it as a "Feel Good" law, as it really just states the obvious, but the problem has always been with the enforcement of the laws we already have. But it helps to literally say "Don't Lie for the Other Guy!"
edited 31st Jan '13 10:19:31 PM by DevilTakeMe
Glove and Boots is good for Blog!Well, I'd say that mandatory registration would help with that, and making it so that you can gift guns, but only if the giftee passes the background check, clears all other applicable laws, and reregisters under their name.
"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -DrunkscriblerianDepends on how many guns start falling out of boats never to be recovered by legal means.
Fight smart, not fair.The real problem of registration is that it will not affect criminals at all. Under the Fifth amendment, a criminal cannot be found guilty of not registering a firearm based on the right against self-incrimination. They would be forced to admit to their own guilt (illegal possession of a firearm), and such a case would be thrown out. Only law-abiding citizens would be required to register firearms in that case.
There are other arguments against registration, such as the sheer lack of cost-effectiveness (Canada is still looked at as a prime example of this), or historical precedence regarding mandatory gun registration, etc. etc. Some hold water, some are a little more nebulous.
Simple practical application has always prevented all guns from being registered. We don't register anything that is only intended to be used in private. The approach has always been the same as anything else.
People bring up cars requiring to be registered, or boats, or motorcycles, but they forget they are only registered if used on public roads, and not if they are relegated to private land.
Glove and Boots is good for Blog!Uh...you can be found guilty without incriminating yourself, y'know.
That, and the 5th has been chewed up, spat out, chewed again, swallowed, shat out, shat upon, and chewed and shat out once more with as many ways as prosecutors screw you out of it anymore.
edited 1st Feb '13 12:36:39 AM by Pykrete
Right, but this makes the whole idea of Registration unenforceable. Or, going the complete opposite direction, turns a large number of otherwise law-abiding citizens into criminals, one way or another. The sort of problems that plagued Prohibition, etc.
"You can be found guilty without self-incrimination you know."
Guilty of what? Not registering your firearm if you're a felon? Nope. You'll probably be guilty of other things, but that particular law will not be one of them.
edited 1st Feb '13 12:40:59 AM by DevilTakeMe
Glove and Boots is good for Blog!@ Jobs Council: "fashioning about 60 proposals that were largely adopted by the administration and 30 legislative proposals that remain largely unfulfilled" Considering what the President was up against, that is a fairly good record. I am also heartened that the administration is talking about broadening the scope/membership of a similar Council. But I am not going to take it at face value until it actually comes to pass.
@ Air Security: I understand that that would work in theory, but... I feel more comfortable that it is the government running the scanners. Not because of additional information they might gain on people, but because I know who would be accountable if something DID go wrong and that the public will have some control over what those policies are.
Yu hav nat sein bod speeling unntil know. (cacke four undersandig tis)the cake is a lie!Except that's not the only regulations being argued against, as has been demonstrated in this thread repeatedly. If pro-gun advocates would limit their arguments to attacking bad firearm laws, there wouldn't be much to argue about.
Deboss, you are consistently misunderstanding my posts to the point where I'm wondering if you're doing it on purpose.
My point is not 'Don't complain about ineffective laws.' My point is that 'a handful of ineffective laws that still allow you major access to broad types of firearms != firearm dystopia,' the dreaded slippery slope that has been claimed to be inevitable if firearm advocates allow ANY KIND OF REGULATION WHATSOEVER over and over again. By using the bad as an excuse to attack the good, you only prevent any rational compromise from being reached.
Your qualifier seems like an unnecessary way to make it harder to find sources, and seeing as how pro-gun people love to talk about how ignorant the opposition is about guns, you'd think they'd be quick to suggest and/or support actually effective measures while identifying and sorting out the chaff. But here's off the top of my head (and Google's results).
http://www.denverpost.com/politics/ci_22479834/top-senator-close-gun-background-check-loopholes
I'm going to go ahead and draw a line in the sand and say that if you don't think firearm owners should, at the very least, have background checks, there's no compromise you'd accept that'd be worth talking about. And if you've been reading, you'll know that the NRA is opposed to them.
That wasn't just some random yahoo flapping his jaws on the air, that was the NRA's official response. Seriously, to blame things like Splatterhouse. How is that any less ignorant or based in emotion than the anti-gun advocate who complain about assault weapon features after a shooting?
Yet I see only one side using a slippery slope habitually, to the point where yesterday's episode on the Daily Show had a lovely speech by a pro-gun advocate who, with a very serious face, talked about the dangers of roving bands of looters and rapists that we would need to protect ourselves from in the event of the universe morphing into the setting of Fallout or Mad Max. Only one side is screaming '1776 will come again if you try and take our guns!'
And so, as Stewart said in an earlier episode, we seemingly cannot do anything about the dystopia we are living in right now because of another dystopia firearm owners fear we might have in the future.
Tell me who's being more irrational here.
Edit: To address your 'compromise' link, Deboss, gun culture has changed over the years and the pro-firearm subfaction, like most aspects of the GOP, have circled the wagons. In the 90s, the NRA were not opposed to background checks. In 2013? It's a different story. Your compromise points have dates fifty or more years in the past, when the political environment was very different.
edited 1st Feb '13 8:56:34 AM by Karkadinn
Furthermore, I think Guantanamo must be destroyed.

Saw this today, directly addressing the issues of assault weapons.
http://thinkprogress.org/gun-debate-guide/#assaultterm
Specifically, they are talking about this particular thing right now, with a list of what they consider to be an assault weapon:
http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve/?File_id=9a9270d5-ce4d-49fb-9b2f-69e69f517fb4
There's this linked in the article:
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/12/17/1344391/study-allowing-the-assault-rifle-ban-to-expire-led-to-hundreds-of-mexican-deaths-as-well/
http://themonkeycage.org/blog/2012/12/17/the-expiration-of-the-u-s-assault-weapons-ban-increased-violence-in-mexico/#
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/jerrylee/research/aw_exec2004.pdf
And this paper seems to think that the ban was a factor in dropping the crime rate.
So while not wholely effective (what law is?) it does seem like the assault weapons ban was as ineffective as people like to claim that it is.