If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   56% of Americans support an assault weapons ban. The other 44% were too busy hunkering in the bunker and buying all the price inflated ammo they could afford   (livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 404
    More: Interesting, assault weapons ban, Americans, assault weapons, Quinnipiac University, Dianne Feinstein  
•       •       •

876 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Feb 2013 at 10:35 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



404 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-07 07:55:36 AM  
If most of that 56% are people like my mom, they think assault weapon means machine gun.  And if they are like my mom, when you tell them we have already had a "ban" on machine guns since 1986 she then immediately, asks, well then, what the hell is the point of this law.   I bet support for this goes down greatly as more people become informed of what it really is.
 
2013-02-07 08:01:43 AM  

manimal2878: If most of that 56% are people like my mom, they think assault weapon means machine gun.  And if they are like my mom, when you tell them we have already had a "ban" on machine guns since 1986 she then immediately, asks, well then, what the hell is the point of this law.   I bet support for this goes down greatly as more people become informed of what it really is.


This.

I bet you couldn't get 60% of the people to define "assault weapon" correctly, and in fact, that's kind of been the strategy all along:

Assault weapons-just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms-are anew topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons-anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun-can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.

That quote is by Josh Sugarmann of the Violence Police Center from their paper on assault weapons first written in 1988.

Deceit is part of the strategy.
 
2013-02-07 08:03:36 AM  

manimal2878: If most of that 56% are people like my mom, they think assault weapon means machine gun.  And if they are like my mom, when you tell them we have already had a "ban" on machine guns since 1986 she then immediately, asks, well then, what the hell is the point of this law.   I bet support for this goes down greatly as more people become informed of what it really is.


Exactly. People think "Assault Weapon" when they see any sort of firearm that even vaguely looks like a military weapon, without knowing what it might be or how it operates. That AK-47 my co-worker owns? That 56% of Americans most likely thinks it would be an Assault Weapon, despite it being only semi-automatic. Why? Because all the AK-47's they have most likely ever seen were in the movies, and those were all fully automatic, so obviously all AK-47's are fully automatic.

The whole debate is stupid, to be honest. Gun violence is on the decline nationwide over the last decade, despite news reports focusing on recent tragedies and specific hot-spots like Chicago. What we need are better enforcement of current laws, and stricter penalties against those who use firearms in the commission of a crime. This isn't rocket science. New gun laws will only adversely affect those who are legal gun owners, and criminals will continue to ignore those laws, just as they do current laws.
 
2013-02-07 08:19:15 AM  

MmmmBacon: manimal2878: If most of that 56% are people like my mom, they think assault weapon means machine gun.  And if they are like my mom, when you tell them we have already had a "ban" on machine guns since 1986 she then immediately, asks, well then, what the hell is the point of this law.   I bet support for this goes down greatly as more people become informed of what it really is.

Exactly. People think "Assault Weapon" when they see any sort of firearm that even vaguely looks like a military weapon, without knowing what it might be or how it operates. That AK-47 my co-worker owns? That 56% of Americans most likely thinks it would be an Assault Weapon, despite it being only semi-automatic. Why? Because all the AK-47's they have most likely ever seen were in the movies, and those were all fully automatic, so obviously all AK-47's are fully automatic.

The whole debate is stupid, to be honest. Gun violence is on the decline nationwide over the last decade, despite news reports focusing on recent tragedies and specific hot-spots like Chicago. What we need are better enforcement of current laws, and stricter penalties against those who use firearms in the commission of a crime. This isn't rocket science. New gun laws will only adversely affect those who are legal gun owners, and criminals will continue to ignore those laws, just as they do current laws.


Pretty much this. I think the solution is a better criminal history database to enable faster, better background checks.

Better school design, and an SRO (school resource officer) at every school (we had them growing up, and I lived in a smallish town) would help too.

A .45 can be way more dangerous in a close quarters situation than an AR-15, but we're going to label one an "assault weapon" because it looks scary?
 
2013-02-07 08:21:52 AM  

Nofun: A .45 can be way more dangerous in a close quarters situation than an AR-15, but we're going to label one an "assault weapon" because it looks scary?


No, foolish cowards are going to label it thus wallowing in ignorance.
 
2013-02-07 08:23:08 AM  
...and on the other hand, the right can stop the controversy cycle about "Obama's gonna steal our guns!" The President can already take your guns if he wants them, it's called the Patriot Act: he just labels you a terrorist and then he can take your guns and a whole lot more too.
 
2013-02-07 08:40:21 AM  

doglover: Nofun: A .45 can be way more dangerous in a close quarters situation than an AR-15, but we're going to label one an "assault weapon" because it looks scary?

No, foolish cowards are going to label it thus wallowing in ignorance.


It is ignorant. First off, how many cops carry .45's? You really think gaurds at schools are going to carry them? No, it's going to be a 9mm. Still deadly but but your stupid for thinking a SRO is going to be carrying one. Secondly, even if we did put armed guards at every school do you really think they are going to be the highest quality people? No. They are going to be folks that couldn't hack it as a cop. Now put that dipshiat up against a psycho like Adam Lanza wearing body armor, sporting an AR-15 with pocket full of clips ready to go and an itchy trigger finger that wont hesitate. Farking dirty Harry is at a huge disadvantage in that situation.
 
2013-02-07 08:40:33 AM  
I was going to say that I have no idea how I feel about this since I'm not sure I know what an assault weapon is exactly but I see that's been covered.

So let me ask a question, what measures of new gun control would be sensible? Please don't respond with "enforce existing laws." That sounds like a dodge to me. I am one of the few on the left who is very torn about this issue because I am deeply committed to the Bill of Rights and I don't think I get to ignore one Amendment just because I think guns are stupid. On the other hand, I also don't believe that that one Amendment is so sacrosanct that we cannot place limitations on the right it grants. We do with all the others, so why not this one?

Honestly, I am someone who could be persuaded by either side in this debate. But I need to hear a rational, reasonable argument and I haven't yet. It's extremely frustrating.
 
2013-02-07 08:43:35 AM  
Gun nuts be posting
 
2013-02-07 08:49:01 AM  

clancifer: Gun nuts be posting


LOL! You just got favorited :)
 
2013-02-07 08:57:20 AM  

sammyk: First off, how many cops carry .45's?


Probably about 1/3.  Officers these days pretty much are split evenly between, 9mm, .40 S&W and .45. ACP

The rest of your post seems to be an incoherent rant, so I'm not going to address that.
 
2013-02-07 08:57:40 AM  

ginandbacon: I was going to say that I have no idea how I feel about this since I'm not sure I know what an assault weapon is exactly but I see that's been covered.

So let me ask a question, what measures of new gun control would be sensible? Please don't respond with "enforce existing laws." That sounds like a dodge to me. I am one of the few on the left who is very torn about this issue because I am deeply committed to the Bill of Rights and I don't think I get to ignore one Amendment just because I think guns are stupid. On the other hand, I also don't believe that that one Amendment is so sacrosanct that we cannot place limitations on the right it grants. We do with all the others, so why not this one?

Honestly, I am someone who could be persuaded by either side in this debate. But I need to hear a rational, reasonable argument and I haven't yet. It's extremely frustrating.


I would support background checks for all transfers. But I also think the real issue isn't related to weapon types and I don't see banning things by platform (like the AR-15) as a practical method to reduce the numbers of people being shot. We're better off addressing the underlying causes as there is truth to the statements about criminals being the ones with guns if they're banned.

The war on some drugs creates a black market where people are criminals for participating, disputes are settled with violence as there's no other recourse. Turf battles are often actual battles. How about changing that? Legalize the drugs and turn that enforcement money into interdiction and treatment.

Domestic violence is not taken seriously, either. I've seen lots of of statistics posted regarding gun violence; seems a significant chunk involves a known assailant. Might be a good idea to restrict access to weapons for abusers, make reporting abusers easier and add actual teeth to the protection part of protection orders. Bet your wife? No guns for you, here, wear an ankle bracelet so we can monitor you instead of relying on the honor system.
 
2013-02-07 09:04:16 AM  

ginandbacon: I was going to say that I have no idea how I feel about this since I'm not sure I know what an assault weapon is exactly but I see that's been covered.

So let me ask a question, what measures of new gun control would be sensible? Please don't respond with "enforce existing laws." That sounds like a dodge to me. I am one of the few on the left who is very torn about this issue because I am deeply committed to the Bill of Rights and I don't think I get to ignore one Amendment just because I think guns are stupid. On the other hand, I also don't believe that that one Amendment is so sacrosanct that we cannot place limitations on the right it grants. We do with all the others, so why not this one?

Honestly, I am someone who could be persuaded by either side in this debate. But I need to hear a rational, reasonable argument and I haven't yet. It's extremely frustrating.


I am a gun owner.  I think background checks, safety courses, waiting periods, barring felons and the mentally unstable, and locking up your stuff to keep children from being able to play with it are all reasonable.

I feel a 20 round capacity limit would be a compromise position for me, even though I don't think it would accomplish much;  at the same time I don't feel it would inhibit self defense at all either.  I would accept that, but advocate it.

I feel like banning any specific type of gun is meaningless, since the function is the same and bans are usually predicated on cosmetic or ergonomic elements rather than anything that actually address lethality in these spree situations.

Not all gun owners agree with my positions, but there you go.
 
2013-02-07 09:06:08 AM  

Nofun: Better school design, and an SRO (school resource officer) at every school (we had them growing up, and I lived in a smallish town) would help too.


People are still mocking the NRA for saying we need armed people in every school, but that is exactly what a resource officer is.  My school had Resource officers 20 years ago.

  And didn't Obama's executive orders seek to place more resource officers in schools?
 
2013-02-07 09:08:59 AM  

manimal2878: sammyk: First off, how many cops carry .45's?

Probably about 1/3.  Officers these days pretty much are split evenly between, 9mm, .40 S&W and .45. ACP

The rest of your post seems to be an incoherent rant, so I'm not going to address that.


There's nothing incoherent about it. You simply do not have a counter point so you would rather talk about what types of firearms cops carry. Pretty weak sauce.
 
2013-02-07 09:10:39 AM  

ginandbacon: Please don't respond with "enforce existing laws." That sounds like a dodge to me.


I also just wanted to respond to this sine I just thought of it.  In my county, there was a kid who killed his mom and her boyfriend with a shotgun recently.  He had a record and tried to by a gun and was denied.  He had a friend by him the gun that he later used to commit his crime.   That is what is know as a Straw Purchase and is a federal crime.  Our local law enforcement is not pursuing any charges of the straw purchaser as of yet.   Same thing with a shooting a few years ago where a guy shot two police officers in our area with a gun his girlfriend bought him.  As far as I know she has not been charged either.

When people say enforce existing laws, it's not a dodge, the straw purchase law is a perfect example of an existing law that could prevent crimes and local enforcement doesn't bother to do anything about it even when it results in deaths.
 
2013-02-07 09:13:14 AM  

sammyk: manimal2878: sammyk: First off, how many cops carry .45's?

Probably about 1/3.  Officers these days pretty much are split evenly between, 9mm, .40 S&W and .45. ACP

The rest of your post seems to be an incoherent rant, so I'm not going to address that.

There's nothing incoherent about it. You simply do not have a counter point so you would rather talk about what types of firearms cops carry. Pretty weak sauce.


You are clearly conflating the theater shooter with Lanza.  Lanza didn't have body armor.
 
2013-02-07 09:17:34 AM  

dr_blasto: ginandbacon: I was going to say that I have no idea how I feel about this since I'm not sure I know what an assault weapon is exactly but I see that's been covered.

So let me ask a question, what measures of new gun control would be sensible? Please don't respond with "enforce existing laws." That sounds like a dodge to me. I am one of the few on the left who is very torn about this issue because I am deeply committed to the Bill of Rights and I don't think I get to ignore one Amendment just because I think guns are stupid. On the other hand, I also don't believe that that one Amendment is so sacrosanct that we cannot place limitations on the right it grants. We do with all the others, so why not this one?

Honestly, I am someone who could be persuaded by either side in this debate. But I need to hear a rational, reasonable argument and I haven't yet. It's extremely frustrating.

I would support background checks for all transfers. But I also think the real issue isn't related to weapon types and I don't see banning things by platform (like the AR-15) as a practical method to reduce the numbers of people being shot. We're better off addressing the underlying causes as there is truth to the statements about criminals being the ones with guns if they're banned.

The war on some drugs creates a black market where people are criminals for participating, disputes are settled with violence as there's no other recourse. Turf battles are often actual battles. How about changing that? Legalize the drugs and turn that enforcement money into interdiction and treatment.

Domestic violence is not taken seriously, either. I've seen lots of of statistics posted regarding gun violence; seems a significant chunk involves a known assailant. Might be a good idea to restrict access to weapons for abusers, make reporting abusers easier and add actual teeth to the protection part of protection orders. Bet your wife? No guns for you, here, wear an ankle bracelet so we can monitor you ins ...


Excellent points and thank you for taking the time to respond.

I think the domestic violence issue is maybe the easiest thing to tackle that we are currently ignoring. The War on Drugs is just racist and ridiculous but I'm not sure how much support there is today for legalization.

Are transfers not subject to background checks now? That sounds like a no-brainer to me.

manimal2878: I feel a 20 round capacity limit would be a compromise position for me


Would you be so kind to explain capacity to me? Why is it important to you? (I'm really asking out of ignorance here. I'm not judging or baiting.) Is there any practical difference between having to reload after six shots instead of twenty? To someone with good intentions and a responsible approach to gun ownership?
 
2013-02-07 09:18:14 AM  

manimal2878: ginandbacon: Please don't respond with "enforce existing laws." That sounds like a dodge to me.

I also just wanted to respond to this sine I just thought of it.  In my county, there was a kid who killed his mom and her boyfriend with a shotgun recently.  He had a record and tried to by a gun and was denied.  He had a friend by him the gun that he later used to commit his crime.   That is what is know as a Straw Purchase and is a federal crime.  Our local law enforcement is not pursuing any charges of the straw purchaser as of yet.   Same thing with a shooting a few years ago where a guy shot two police officers in our area with a gun his girlfriend bought him.  As far as I know she has not been charged either.

When people say enforce existing laws, it's not a dodge, the straw purchase law is a perfect example of an existing law that could prevent crimes and local enforcement doesn't bother to do anything about it even when it results in deaths.


For one-off purchases like these, though, it is harder to prove a straw purchase as opposed to a simple gift. You can legally buy a gun for someone and give it to them for their birthday; the government would have to prove you knew they were not legally able to own that gun. That's why I think requiring background checks for all transfers would be a good idea; the possibility of a "I didn't know they were not allowed" defense would no longer exist.
 
2013-02-07 09:20:15 AM  

ginandbacon: Are transfers not subject to background checks now? That sounds like a no-brainer to me.


Face-to-face sales of private party, non-FFL holders do not currently require NICS checks.
 
2013-02-07 09:25:12 AM  

manimal2878: When people say enforce existing laws, it's not a dodge, the straw purchase law is a perfect example of an existing law that could prevent crimes and local enforcement doesn't bother to do anything about it even when it results in deaths.


I agree 100%. When I said dodge, I was referring to those people who refuse to entertain any new restrictions and claim our current measures are more than adequate if we would only enforce them.

There was a statistic that came up a few days ago that something like 5% of dealers sell more than 50% of the guns used in gun fatalities. That should be something we deal with ASAP.

BTW, thank you and the others here who are engaging in a reasonable discussion. I really appreciate it.
 
2013-02-07 09:27:00 AM  

dr_blasto: For one-off purchases like these, though, it is harder to prove a straw purchase as opposed to a simple gift


You can't give gifts of firearms to felons.  In both the cases I pointed out the dudes had records.
 
2013-02-07 09:27:29 AM  

dr_blasto: ginandbacon: Are transfers not subject to background checks now? That sounds like a no-brainer to me.

Face-to-face sales of private party, non-FFL holders do not currently require NICS checks.


Good place to start?
 
2013-02-07 09:33:56 AM  

manimal2878: dr_blasto: For one-off purchases like these, though, it is harder to prove a straw purchase as opposed to a simple gift

You can't give gifts of firearms to felons.  In both the cases I pointed out the dudes had records.


Yeah, true, but you would need to know they were a felon-or at least the prosecutor would have to show you knew. Either way, we should prosecute people who buy guns for people as straw purchasers in every case. I'm not disagreeing with you, just pointing out what the DA excuse has been in other cases.
 
2013-02-07 09:35:55 AM  

manimal2878: sammyk: manimal2878: sammyk: First off, how many cops carry .45's?

Probably about 1/3.  Officers these days pretty much are split evenly between, 9mm, .40 S&W and .45. ACP

The rest of your post seems to be an incoherent rant, so I'm not going to address that.

There's nothing incoherent about it. You simply do not have a counter point so you would rather talk about what types of firearms cops carry. Pretty weak sauce.

You are clearly conflating the theater shooter with Lanza.  Lanza didn't have body armor.


It does not matter if Lanza had armor or not. He still would have been at a huge advantage over any cop or rent a cop with a pistol. Hell, give them the same weapons and the crazy guy has the advantage by a long shot. He simply does not give a fark and will not hesitate. Any school resource officer or cop is going to try for an arrest first. That tiny bit of hesitation will get them killed.

The whole argument that the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun is idiotic and you guys need to stop using it. It makes you look stupid. I'm saying that as someone that does not support bans on anything currently legal.

The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is to not let them get a hold of the gun in the first place.
 
2013-02-07 09:47:47 AM  

ginandbacon: Would you be so kind to explain capacity to me? Why is it important to you? (I'm really asking out of ignorance here. I'm not judging or baiting.) Is there any practical difference between having to reload after six shots instead of twenty? To someone with good intentions and a responsible approach to gun ownership?


Sure.  Capacity is how many rounds a magazine can hold before it is empty and you have to reload.  Magazines can be chambers like in a revolver, tubes like on lever action rifles, or removable spring loaded boxes.

There is some semantic and legal arguements over the definitions of standard, high, and low capacity, that can change depending on what side of the issue you have, but here is how most see them.

Standard capacity:  the number of rounds the gun was designed to hold.  Most revolvers are designed to hold six shots.  Most modern semi-auto handguns, anywhere between 8 and 17, some though some can hold more even more if they fire small bullets.  For handguns this standard is usually based on the size of the grip and the size of the bullet, since the magazine must fit in the grip and bullet must fit in the magazine.  For rifles the standard size also depends on the gun, lever action and pump shotguns with tube magazines usually hold somewhere between 3 and 8 rounds.  Box magazines in a standard size will hold 4 to 5 rounds, for other semi auto guns these can range from 10 to 30 rounds.   30 rounds is usually the upper design limit for weight, size, and reliability, etc.

High Capacity:  These really has two definitions now depending on where you are in the argument.
1.  Anything higher than the standard design capacity.  Like beta mags for the AR-15, or surefire mags that hold 60 and 100 rounds.  or for handguns any magazine that makes the magazine extend past the hand grip.
2.  Anything higher than the arbitrary legal limit imposed by law, depending on state this can be anything more than 10, 20 or now in NYC 7,. rounds.

Low capacity:
Is usually a term used by those that see mag laws as limiting their capacity below the design capacity, making their gun hold less than it's initial design intended.  Example:  A glock17 handgun, was designed to hold 17 rounds.  A proponant of mag limits would see the 10 round as standard since that is the law or intended law, and anything hire as high capacity.  A gun guy would prob see it 10 rounds as less than standard since the gun can hold 17 and anything less than 17 as a low capacity mag.

The reason some people don't see mag limits as being effective in mass shootings is that if your intent is to break the law and kill people you don't care about concealing your weapons all that much, and can bring two guns so reloading is not that big a deal, or just bring a bunch of mags, to reload more often.  Proponents of mag limits see that any paune in shooting to reload is an opportunity for victims to escape or fight back.  In ethier case you are talking about seconds.

If you are carrying guns for legal reasons, like you have a ccw you would be against mag limits because you want your  gun to have as many rounds as possible to defend yourself so that you don't have to stop to reload while being attacked by criminals.  As a lawful concealed carrier, you carry the gun as part of your daily life.  You would not carry around dozens of  of spare magazines and extra guns to continue killing as many people as possible like the spree killer.  Also laws say you must keep your gun concealed, so you aren't going to have a bunch of guns or rifles on your person anyway.
 
2013-02-07 09:52:37 AM  

sammyk: Any school resource officer or cop is going to try for an arrest first.


Citation needed.  If you are a resource officer, and hear gunshots coming from the front of the school, you are not going to run up their with arrest on your mind, you are going to run up their with stopping the threat in the best way possible, if the person is already shooting that would be by shooting back, not arresting them.

The problem with your posts is that they are full of baseless and faulty assumptions.  You are deiling with rhetorical questions and loading the imaginary situations to be in your favor i.e. the spree killer, is wearing armor but not the cop.

I'm done responding to you,  I find you dishonest and am not going to respond to you anymore, so don't bother responding to me.
 
2013-02-07 09:58:03 AM  

dr_blasto: ginandbacon: Are transfers not subject to background checks now? That sounds like a no-brainer to me.

Face-to-face sales of private party, non-FFL holders do not currently require NICS checks.


I think there should be a phone app that would allow anyone to do a background check at any time for gun purchases.  You hand the person you want to sell to your phone with the app open.  You take their id and enter name and everything on it, then give it to them and they enter some info you never see, like SSN and then it pops up with a sell or no sell a minute later.   And you say sorry or take their cash.  This would effectively close the gun show loophole and the government doesn't need to even know about the sale.
 
2013-02-07 10:00:36 AM  

manimal2878: Box magazines in a standard size will hold 4 to 5 rounds,


for a bolt action rifle, I meant.
 
2013-02-07 10:01:41 AM  

manimal2878: ginandbacon: Would you be so kind to explain capacity to me? Why is it important to you? (I'm really asking out of ignorance here. I'm not judging or baiting.) Is there any practical difference between having to reload after six shots instead of twenty? To someone with good intentions and a responsible approach to gun ownership?

Sure.  Capacity is how many rounds a magazine can hold before it is empty and you have to reload.  Magazines can be chambers like in a revolver, tubes like on lever action rifles, or removable spring loaded boxes.

There is some semantic and legal arguements over the definitions of standard, high, and low capacity, that can change depending on what side of the issue you have, but here is how most see them.

Standard capacity:  the number of rounds the gun was designed to hold.  Most revolvers are designed to hold six shots.  Most modern semi-auto handguns, anywhere between 8 and 17, some though some can hold more even more if they fire small bullets.  For handguns this standard is usually based on the size of the grip and the size of the bullet, since the magazine must fit in the grip and bullet must fit in the magazine.  For rifles the standard size also depends on the gun, lever action and pump shotguns with tube magazines usually hold somewhere between 3 and 8 rounds.  Box magazines in a standard size will hold 4 to 5 rounds, for other semi auto guns these can range from 10 to 30 rounds.   30 rounds is usually the upper design limit for weight, size, and reliability, etc.

High Capacity:  These really has two definitions now depending on where you are in the argument.
1.  Anything higher than the standard design capacity.  Like beta mags for the AR-15, or surefire mags that hold 60 and 100 rounds.  or for handguns any magazine that makes the magazine extend past the hand grip.
2.  Anything higher than the arbitrary legal limit imposed by law, depending on state this can be anything more than 10, 20 or now in NYC 7,. rounds.

Low capacity ...


Thank you. I'm learning a lot today.

Two points that jump out at me are that very few people are victims of stranger-initiated violence. So it seems a little weak? rhetorical? pointless? beside the point? to bring up self defense as a reason to allow higher capacity magazines. I'm not done processing what you wrote but that occurred to me. The second point would be that anything that can slow down a shooter even for a fraction of time seems like a good idea if their intent is to murder as many people as possible.

Again, I need to reread your post and ponder a bit, but I did have those thoughts right off the bat.
 
2013-02-07 10:03:23 AM  

ginandbacon: I was going to say that I have no idea how I feel about this since I'm not sure I know what an assault weapon is exactly but I see that's been covered.

So let me ask a question, what measures of new gun control would be sensible? Please don't respond with "enforce existing laws." That sounds like a dodge to me. I am one of the few on the left who is very torn about this issue because I am deeply committed to the Bill of Rights and I don't think I get to ignore one Amendment just because I think guns are stupid. On the other hand, I also don't believe that that one Amendment is so sacrosanct that we cannot place limitations on the right it grants. We do with all the others, so why not this one?

Honestly, I am someone who could be persuaded by either side in this debate. But I need to hear a rational, reasonable argument and I haven't yet. It's extremely frustrating.


1) Magazine restrictions to 10 or 15.
2) Universal background checks
3) Increased fines for failing to report stolen firearms

Basically, lots of gun crime is done with illegally purchased handguns. Rifles, especially AR-15s are only scary-looking guns, which is why people think they are the problem.  Most illegal handguns sales happen across state lines (Bought in Southern gun stores and sold in Northern cities), so such crime is directly under the purview of the ATF and the federal government.
 
2013-02-07 10:08:23 AM  

ginandbacon: Thank you. I'm learning a lot today.

Two points that jump out at me are that very few people are victims of stranger-initiated violence. So it seems a little weak? rhetorical? pointless? beside the point? to bring up self defense as a reason to allow higher capacity magazines. I'm not done processing what you wrote but that occurred to me.

Again, I need to reread your post and ponder a bit, but I did have those thoughts right off the bat.


I would counter that very few people are the victims of spree shooter related violence so magazine limits are weak, rhetorical, pointless, beside the point, and not good reasons to ban higher capacity mag.

The second point would be that anything that can slow down a shooter even for a fraction of time seems like a good idea if their intent is to murder as many people as possible.

The converse:   slowing down a person lawfully defending themselves even for a fraction of a second from a criminal isn't a good idea if their intent is to save their life or the life of their loved one from that criminal?


You can quickly see why both sides have a hard time understanding the other.
 
2013-02-07 10:12:59 AM  

manimal2878: dr_blasto: ginandbacon: Are transfers not subject to background checks now? That sounds like a no-brainer to me.

Face-to-face sales of private party, non-FFL holders do not currently require NICS checks.

I think there should be a phone app that would allow anyone to do a background check at any time for gun purchases.  You hand the person you want to sell to your phone with the app open.  You take their id and enter name and everything on it, then give it to them and they enter some info you never see, like SSN and then it pops up with a sell or no sell a minute later.   And you say sorry or take their cash.  This would effectively close the gun show loophole and the government doesn't need to even know about the sale.


That's not unreasonable. I would also consider requiring government agencies perform the service on a walk-in basis for free. I would require FFL holders perform the service with a fee cap of $10 or so.
 
2013-02-07 10:13:00 AM  

manimal2878: I would counter that very few people are the victims of spree shooter related violence so magazine limits are weak, rhetorical, pointless, beside the point, and not good reasons to ban higher capacity mag.


True, which is why it's more of a political restriction. However, restricting the sale of high capacity mags to higher gun licenses makes it harder for the one nutjob to get such a magazine and still allows shooters to have them.
 
2013-02-07 10:18:06 AM  

manimal2878: ginandbacon: Thank you. I'm learning a lot today.

Two points that jump out at me are that very few people are victims of stranger-initiated violence. So it seems a little weak? rhetorical? pointless? beside the point? to bring up self defense as a reason to allow higher capacity magazines. I'm not done processing what you wrote but that occurred to me.

Again, I need to reread your post and ponder a bit, but I did have those thoughts right off the bat.

I would counter that very few people are the victims of spree shooter related violence so magazine limits are weak, rhetorical, pointless, beside the point, and not good reasons to ban higher capacity mag.

The second point would be that anything that can slow down a shooter even for a fraction of time seems like a good idea if their intent is to murder as many people as possible.

The converse:   slowing down a person lawfully defending themselves even for a fraction of a second from a criminal isn't a good idea if their intent is to save their life or the life of their loved one from that criminal?


You can quickly see why both sides have a hard time understanding the other.


Give me credit, I'm making an effort here. But I am having a hard time imaging a situation that would require more than say ten rounds that doesn't involve wholesale murder. Thus I'm having a hard time understanding why limits on capacity are so horrible.

Again, my mind is not made up at all on any of these ideas. I'm just trying to understand the arguments on both sides before I come to any conclusions of my own.

WTF Indeed: 3) Increased fines for failing to report stolen firearms


Is this a big issue?
 
2013-02-07 10:18:21 AM  

WTF Indeed: manimal2878: I would counter that very few people are the victims of spree shooter related violence so magazine limits are weak, rhetorical, pointless, beside the point, and not good reasons to ban higher capacity mag.

True, which is why it's more of a political restriction. However, restricting the sale of high capacity mags to higher gun licenses makes it harder for the one nutjob to get such a magazine and still allows shooters to have them.


What do you mean?  People should have a license to buy magazines or guns?

If the background checks could be made free, I would have no problem saying you need a check to buy magazines or ammo that is not going to be shot immediately at a gun range.  I don't see that as causing any undue burden,  I'm not sure about a license though.  Maybe if the license meant you didn't have to get a check each time, like how my CCW license nullfies the waiting period.  I think there is plenty of room for workable laws and improvement on these issues.
 
2013-02-07 10:19:30 AM  

manimal2878: ginandbacon: Thank you. I'm learning a lot today.

Two points that jump out at me are that very few people are victims of stranger-initiated violence. So it seems a little weak? rhetorical? pointless? beside the point? to bring up self defense as a reason to allow higher capacity magazines. I'm not done processing what you wrote but that occurred to me.

Again, I need to reread your post and ponder a bit, but I did have those thoughts right off the bat.

I would counter that very few people are the victims of spree shooter related violence so magazine limits are weak, rhetorical, pointless, beside the point, and not good reasons to ban higher capacity mag.

The second point would be that anything that can slow down a shooter even for a fraction of time seems like a good idea if their intent is to murder as many people as possible.

The converse:   slowing down a person lawfully defending themselves even for a fraction of a second from a criminal isn't a good idea if their intent is to save their life or the life of their loved one from that criminal?


You can quickly see why both sides have a hard time understanding the other.


Most gun violence seems to be handgun-related. If your crazy cousin, husband or other relative decides to put a couple of rounds into you, magazine capacity isn't going to make a difference.

I can't see where some arbitrary limit would save people, the key is to prevent the action, not just limit a shooter to only putting 7 holes in their victim instead of 15.
 
2013-02-07 10:29:43 AM  

manimal2878: If the background checks could be made free, I would have no problem saying you need a check to buy magazines or ammo that is not going to be shot immediately at a gun range.  I don't see that as causing any undue burden,  I'm not sure about a license though.  Maybe if the license meant you didn't have to get a check each time, like how my CCW license nullfies the waiting period.  I think there is plenty of room for workable laws and improvement on these issues.


Like the CCW licence. Give those people with the track record of proper gun ownership the access to items you wouldn't give to a guy that just walked off the street.  Responsible gun ownership should be rewarded in the law, right now it's not.

ginandbacon: Is this a big issue?


Guns that are sold illegally come from a variety of different areas.  Many of them are stolen from homes or businesses. By increasing the fines you are giving owners incentive to report these guns as stolen.
 
2013-02-07 10:30:48 AM  

dr_blasto: I can't see where some arbitrary limit would save people, the key is to prevent the action, not just limit a shooter to only putting 7 holes in their victim instead of 15.


I think the idea is to prevent more victims in mas shootings? Not the more common type of gun fatalities. (And I understand that they are very rare.)
 
2013-02-07 10:39:17 AM  
 
2013-02-07 10:41:15 AM  

ginandbacon: Give me credit, I'm making an effort here. But I am having a hard time imaging a situation that would require more than say ten rounds that doesn't involve wholesale murder. Thus I'm having a hard time understanding why limits on capacity are so horrible.


Well, like I said, I personally feel a round limit of 20 would be reasonable.  It retains the standard capacity for most guns, especially handguns, the most likely ones to be used in self defense, and keeps the huge capacity mags, like the surefire ones out of the hands of spree shooters, when the more legitimate use of those types of magazines holding a hundred rounds, would be in military use like for suppressing fire.

I am pretty sure that in the world of those that own guns, my position on mag capacity is a minority one, most gun owners won't accept any mag limit as being reasonable.

I am guessing from you questions you are  not the familiar with guns and self defense shooting.  Don't take this the wrong way at all, you seem truly interested and have been extremely respectful so I'm not trying to attack you in anyway.  But guns are not like in the movies.  One shot, does not hurl a guy out the window or off the top of the building.  In fact in many real life shootouts people don't even realize they have been shot until after the shooting is over.

Being shot with a gun is less instantly lethal than many would believe, including many that own guns, and some might even disagree with me and start advocating things like one-shot stops and the theory of stopping power.  But the leading edge of science and research on the topic says that  for a gunshot wound to reliably stop somebody from attacking you it has to do one of two things.  Either damage the central nervous system, like the brain or spine, so that the person is physically paralyzed or cause such massiveand quick bleeding that the person is deprived of oxygen to the brain and cannot physically continue fighting.  If you imagine a persons spine, heart and lungs nestled in their chest, those are very small targets.  You cannot reasonably expect to hit those targets in one shot, especially in a definsive situation.  Most self defense advocates, even police doctrine, will now suggest shooting in controlled pairs, thus you double your chances of hitting the most vital targets if you have to shoot, some are now upping that to 3 shots.

Additionally the hit probability for defensive shootings is abysmally low, even for police officers, one study claims that it hovers between 1 and 2 in 10 shots being a hit by the NYPD.   That is a hit to the person, period, not a hit to the small vital areas of heart, spine, lungs and brain.   So you can start to see, that you may need to fire many shots to actually stop your attacker.  Limiting your capacity is truly limiting your ability to defend yourself.

Here is just one study I found supporting this concept:  http://www.theppsc.org/Staff_Views/Aveni/OIS.pdf
 
2013-02-07 10:41:33 AM  

Princess Ryans Knickers: Don't worry! Guns are perfectly safe!


So is what the NRA was blabbering on about when they said they need armed police officers in schools?
 
2013-02-07 10:44:18 AM  
Gun and ammo companies are making a killing (no pun intended) My son and I were discussing this phenomena and started looking for ammo online. Several, well numerous places had NO 9mm in stock at all. Or .223. He showed me a pic he took from a Walmart in Lynchburg. The entire case was empty, except for some .270. Normaly, they carry the standard stuff, .223, 9mm, .357, .38 special, .30-06 etc, etc.

Wow.

Obama, the #1 seller of Guns and Ammo in the US, for the 5th straight year
 
2013-02-07 10:44:29 AM  

ginandbacon: dr_blasto: I can't see where some arbitrary limit would save people, the key is to prevent the action, not just limit a shooter to only putting 7 holes in their victim instead of 15.

I think the idea is to prevent more victims in mas shootings? Not the more common type of gun fatalities. (And I understand that they are very rare.)


If they now only hold 10 each, a shooter just brings more. Or, simply, another weapon.

That aside, there are millions and millions of 30 round STANAG magazines floating around. Also likely millions of Glock, Sig or whatever pistol magazines with 15 or more round capacity. Those aren't going away, but do represent convenience to anyone firing one of those weapons- they don't really make a spree shooter any more lethal.

It takes but a second for a moderaty-practiced operator to swap magazines if they don't concern themselves with the empty one. I don't see that as a method to enable victims to safely flee. I would also bet that spree shooters aren't concerned with spent magazine care and are likely to simply drop one since they're not as liky to ever have a chance to reuse it.
 
2013-02-07 10:44:55 AM  
30 to 50 years ago we probably could have conducted a poll that showed 56% or greater of the population believed that people should not marry out side their race.

Should our rights be determined by polls?
 
2013-02-07 10:47:20 AM  

MmmmBacon: Exactly. People think "Assault Weapon" when they see any sort of firearm that even vaguely looks like a military weapon, without knowing what it might be or how it operates. That AK-47 my co-worker owns? That 56% of Americans most likely thinks it would be an Assault Weapon, despite it being only semi-automatic. Why? Because all the AK-47's they have most likely ever seen were in the movies, and those were all fully automatic, so obviously all AK-47's are fully automatic.


Bbbbbbut "Jackie Brown" taught me that I should have one when I want to kill every motherfarker in the room.
 
2013-02-07 10:52:11 AM  
Oh boy, a gun thread for ditty to shiat on and an economics thread for Matt to shiat on at the same time! Party down!
 
2013-02-07 10:53:32 AM  

manimal2878: If most of that 56% are people like my mom, they think assault weapon means machine gun.


I bet if you took one of the "Assault Weapons" from the ban, and then fired it as fast as you could, these people would go "yes, that is precisely the thing I mean."

It's not always that they don't know the difference between semi and full auto, it's that the difference is somewhat insignificant to them.
 
2013-02-07 10:53:42 AM  

pdee: 30 to 50 years ago we probably could have conducted a poll that showed 56% or greater of the population believed that people should not marry out side their race.

Should our rights be determined by polls?


Why do you hate democracy and freedoms??
 
2013-02-07 10:56:48 AM  
The important fact is that assault weapons serve only the purpose of killing as many people as possible as quickly as possible, which is why any prohibition upon them must include an exception for law enforcement personnel.
 
Displayed 50 of 404 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report