Another gun debate question

[Liz CA]

For a change of pace and a little levity ;)

http://babylonbee.com/news/bee-explains-gun-control-debate/

 

:lol:  tsk, tsk, tsk

[goldberry]

Interestingly, a Democratic senator (Perlmutter) from our state requested that the Obama admin. (the ATF) issue a regulation to ban bump stocks three years ago, but it declined to do so. ETA: now that everyone has seen it in action in the hands of someone intent upon evil....

 

I'm glad to see that people have the will to do something.

Just to clarify, the ATF ruled that since a bump stock is an accessory and not an actual firearm that it did not have the authority to ban it without action from Congress.

[Guest]

Food for thought:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-used-to-think-gun-control-was-the-answer-my-research-told-me-otherwise/2017/10/03/d33edca6-a851-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html?utm_term=.7ef92a8809fe

Thanks for contributing that. I know your time is limited taking care of the budgie.

 

I think this part of the article seems circuitous:

Almost no proposed restriction would make it meaningfully harder for people with guns on hand to use them. I couldn't even answer my most desperate question: If I had a friend who had guns in his home and a history of suicide attempts, was there anything I could do that would help?

I would personally like to see it be more difficult for a person with a history of depression/suicide attempts/mental unwellness to ever obtain a gun in the first place. Could not regulations on obtaining a gun make it less likely that this population will have a gun handy when the demons turn up? ( I don't mean literal demons, FTR.) There may be little that can be done about depressed people who already have guns, yes. But we could stem the tide for the future, no?

 

This issue is quite personal to me. I know someone who took his life impulsively and this person had apparent signs for several years of being mentally unwell. I wish he could have had no access in that moment to a weapon that is so swift and certain. Might he have taken his life anyway through another means? Yes. But - swift and certain. A pistol is unmatched in it's "ease" to be completely deadly.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Nope; because of the size of the sample it’s still considered statistically insignicant. One a year out of that population size is too small a sample to make a statistically valid pool. One outlier a year, essentially.

 

Her data and arguments are solid, and the sources are hardly biased in favor of the NRA, Republicans, or yay guns. Creekland was criticizing a lack of data provided, so I provided some now that I have a little more time than the last few days. Tada.

 

It isn't a deep statistical analysis, but the trend is obvious.  This isn't a sample size issue. 

 

Her analysis is also faulty as she makes the same mistakes you and others make, which is insisting that because legislation can't stop everything/the majority (ex. suicides) then there is no merit in eliminating what it can.

[Liz CA]

Thanks for contributing that. I know your time is limited taking care of the budgie.

 

I think this part of the article seems circuitous:

 

I would personally like to see it be more difficult for a person with a history of depression/suicide attempts/mental unwellness to ever obtain a gun in the first place. Could not regulations on obtaining a gun make it less likely that this population will have a gun handy when the demons turn up? ( I don't mean literal demons, FTR.) There may be little that can be done about depressed people who already have guns, yes. But we could stem the tide for the future, no?

 

This issue is quite personal to me. I know someone who took his life impulsively and this person had apparent signs for several years of being mentally unwell. I wish he could have had no access in that moment to a weapon that is so swift and certain. Might he have taken his life anyway through another means? Yes. But - swift and certain. A pistol is unmatched in it's "ease" to be completely deadly.

 

I too knew a young man who took his own life, however, I don't know if any regulations on guns would have changed this as his family had hunting gear for many years before his mental illness became obvious.

 

I wonder if anyone has concrete thoughts on how to make it harder to obtain guns yet still offer those who hunt, hobby shoot, own guns for protection of livestock, etc. the opportunity to legally own a gun?

Regulations vary widely from state to state as well.

I could get behind tightened regulations but I would not support an all out ban. The issue here seems to lie in the consistent implementation of such regulations. Also, there would be added cost to someone. Who should absorb this?

 

As always, my mind goes in the direction of mental health and what goes wrong before a person decides to go on a shooting spree. But this is a question for another thread.

[Liz CA]

It isn't a deep statistical analysis, but the trend is obvious.  This isn't a sample size issue. 

 

Her analysis is also faulty as she makes the same mistakes you and others make, which is insisting that because legislation can't stop everything/the majority (ex. suicides) then there is no merit in eliminating what it can.

 

You know this thread offers the opportunity for a good debate. Characterizing other people's post as "correct" (in a previous post) or "faulty" implies that you are the arbiter of right or wrong. Perhaps you don't view yourself as such and it's the way you are replying to other's posts. This is a complex issue even if we wish it were easy. People should feel free to post their thoughts without being censored or labeled "right" or "wrong"...because everyone here can have a voice even if we do not all agree.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

You know this thread offers the opportunity for a good debate. Characterizing other people's post as "correct" (in a previous post) or "faulty" implies that you are the arbiter of right or wrong. Perhaps you don't view yourself as such and it's the way you are replying to other's posts. This is a complex issue even if we wish it were easy. People should feel free to post their thoughts without being censored or labeled "right" or "wrong"...because everyone here can have a voice even if we do not all agree.

 

When someone writes an Op Ed and I believe the analysis is faulty I will say so.  I did not characterize another member's post as faulty or incorrect.  I do believe it is a mistake to insist that only being able to solve part of a problem is worthless and I will say so.

 

The new talking point from the anti-gun control side is to argue sample size re: mass shootings.  It is a convenient out they use to obscure the obvious as we are the only developed nation with frequent mass shootings...and the only one with a proliferation of firearms at this level.

Edited October 6, 2017 by ChocolateReignRemix

[KarenNC]

I think I read today that the Bush administration banned them in 2005 so I don't see why not.  But the ATF ruled them OK in 2010, so...maybe there is something I'm missing.  Obviously a loophole needs to be closed?

 

Maybe you are thinking of the expiration on the 1994 ban on selling assault weapons? Congress let that expire in 2004. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/5946127/ns/politics/t/congress-lets-assault-weapons-ban-expire/#.Wdb6iGhSzDc

 

It also limited the capacity of magazines to 10 rounds. As the article (from 2004) states, "Now, some gun manufacturers are planning to give away high-capacity magazines as bonuses for buying their weapons. Sales of formerly banned gun accessories, such as flash suppressors and folding stocks, are also expected to take off."

 

It's my understanding that the bumpstock was put through under the claim that it would help those with disabilities, as was stated before, much like the current attempt to make suppressors (silencers) easier to get is being pushed under claims to protect hearing. http://www.npr.org/2017/03/21/520953793/debate-over-silencers-hearing-protection-or-public-safety-threat. It looks to me like it's a situation of unintended consequences, though those consequences should have been pretty easily predicted IMO.

 

Can someone explain why assault weapons and high capacity magazines should be available to the general public? 

Edited October 6, 2017 by KarenNC

[Guest]

It isn't a deep statistical analysis, but the trend is obvious. This isn't a sample size issue.

 

Her analysis is also faulty as she makes the same mistakes you and others make, which is insisting that because legislation can't stop everything/the majority (ex. suicides) then there is no merit in eliminating what it can.

This is the argument I just don't get, either. There are SO MANY situations where people get around laws or routinely break them, but we don't give up and have no law. Some people exceed the speed limit on a regular basis. Some people park in a handicapped space. Some underaged people drink alcohol. And so on.

[retiredHSmom]

Thanks for contributing that. I know your time is limited taking care of the budgie.

 

I think this part of the article seems circuitous:

 

I would personally like to see it be more difficult for a person with a history of depression/suicide attempts/mental unwellness to ever obtain a gun in the first place. Could not regulations on obtaining a gun make it less likely that this population will have a gun handy when the demons turn up? ( I don't mean literal demons, FTR.) There may be little that can be done about depressed people who already have guns, yes. But we could stem the tide for the future, no?

 

This issue is quite personal to me. I know someone who took his life impulsively and this person had apparent signs for several years of being mentally unwell. I wish he could have had no access in that moment to a weapon that is so swift and certain. Might he have taken his life anyway through another means? Yes. But - swift and certain. A pistol is unmatched in it's "ease" to be completely deadly.

I agree 100% with the sentiment expressed here (I too would like to see an end to impulsive suicides) but I disagree with the conclusion that you have come too.

 

 We can not take away a person's fundamental right to control their own life and make their own decisions because they have a history of a suicide attempt.

 

People who have attempted suicide are not criminals and having had some experience dealing with mental health care I would not want anyone's future determined by the diagnoses they receive.  It is not at all unusual for diagnoses to change.  

 

People diagnosed with anorexia are often suicidal due to the feeling that they have lost control of their ability to feed themselves.  Once the malnutrition is addressed and they are recovered from anorexia they are no longer suicidal but may have an official diagnosis of major depressive disorder.  It is a violation of their fundamental rights to say that such a person should be unable to share the same rights as any other person in our society.

 

I know that many feel that its not a big deal, it's only the right to own a gun and on some level I agree.  I don't want to call "slippery slope" but on some level I am not sure that is not accurate here.  We have a right in our country to own a gun, whether you agree with that right or not and to remove that right from a person because they MAY try to kill themselves is a step that I do not want to see taken.

 

edited to add: laws about drunk driving or smoking are different because they are not taking away a right based on a possibility. You can still smoke and drink, you are simply punished for doing such in a way that we have deemed unsafe. To extend that comparison to gun we could say that you can own a gun but if you try to kill yourself with it, you will be punished.  The Catholic church did that for many years and received some "bad press" as a result.

Edited October 6, 2017 by Tania

[Guest]

I know that many feel that its not a big deal, it's only the right to own a gun and on some level I agree. I don't want to call "slippery slope" but on some level I am not sure that is not accurate here. We have a right in our country to own a gun, whether you agree with that right or not and to remove that right from a person because they MAY try to kill themselves is a step that I do not want to see taken.

You make a good point. It's something I will have to mull over. My initial thought is, isn't it true that we deem some people incapable of enjoying a certain right due to past behavior? I have a relative who is now a registered sex offender because he abused his position of authority with a minor. His rights to do many things are now severely curtailed and will be for a decade.I think it sucks to be him in some ways, but I'm also okay with that being the consequences of his actions.

 

I can see where you're saying a person with suicide attempts has not broken the law, so they shouldn't be penalized for what they might do. Well, I have to mull that over a bit. But what if their mental disorder is low frustration tolerance? Poor anger management? What if they have already displayed a tendency to harm others in a fit of rage? Is this a person who should legally secure a weapon that can do significant damage to others?

 

I don't know, just thinking out loud here.

[ktgrok]

Thanks for contributing that. I know your time is limited taking care of the budgie.

 

I think this part of the article seems circuitous:

 

I would personally like to see it be more difficult for a person with a history of depression/suicide attempts/mental unwellness to ever obtain a gun in the first place. Could not regulations on obtaining a gun make it less likely that this population will have a gun handy when the demons turn up? ( I don't mean literal demons, FTR.) There may be little that can be done about depressed people who already have guns, yes. But we could stem the tide for the future, no?

 

This issue is quite personal to me. I know someone who took his life impulsively and this person had apparent signs for several years of being mentally unwell. I wish he could have had no access in that moment to a weapon that is so swift and certain. Might he have taken his life anyway through another means? Yes. But - swift and certain. A pistol is unmatched in it's "ease" to be completely deadly.

 

That's one of the reasons I'd like to see hand guns in particular much much harder to get. It's too easy to shoot yourself with one compared to say, trying to shoot yourself with a hunting rifle. Again won't stop someone that is determined and willing to rig something up, but will prevent spur of the moment stuff, which suicide statistics say is important. 

 

Looking it up, Canada has lots of guns, but more are long guns, as hand guns are more heavily regulated than long guns. That seems like a start. 

[ktgrok]

I too knew a young man who took his own life, however, I don't know if any regulations on guns would have changed this as his family had hunting gear for many years before his mental illness became obvious.

 

I wonder if anyone has concrete thoughts on how to make it harder to obtain guns yet still offer those who hunt, hobby shoot, own guns for protection of livestock, etc. the opportunity to legally own a gun?

Regulations vary widely from state to state as well.

I could get behind tightened regulations but I would not support an all out ban. The issue here seems to lie in the consistent implementation of such regulations. Also, there would be added cost to someone. Who should absorb this?

 

As always, my mind goes in the direction of mental health and what goes wrong before a person decides to go on a shooting spree. But this is a question for another thread.

 

In Canada you need a training course, etc (which you don't here) and also personal reference letters. 

[ktgrok]

And now we circle back to the real issue, SHOULD owning a fire arm be a right, rather than a privlege? Yes, I know right now it IS a right, due to our constitution, but if we as a country felt it should instead be a privilege, we COULD change it. We won't, but we could. 

[retiredHSmom]

You make a good point. It's something I will have to mull over. My initial thought is, isn't it true that we deem some people incapable of enjoying a certain right due to past behavior? I have a relative who is now a registered sex offender because he abused his position of authority with a minor. His rights to do many things are now severely curtailed and will be for a decade.I think it sucks to be him in some ways, but I'm also okay with that being the consequences of his actions.

 

yes, in his case his rights are curtailed because of actions that he actually took against another.  While suicide is horrific and should be avoided, we go too far if we curtail someone's rights because they MAY injure themselves.

 

Obviously this leads to some challenging questions about individuals with anger management issues or that lash out at others when frustrated.  I would assert that we, as a society, may have an interest in and right to curtail rights IF a person has shown that they cannot control that anger and will kill another person.  I do not think that we have a right to curtail their freedoms because we are afraid that they may kill someone or because they have hurts someone in the past.  As awful as it sounds I don't think that we can take away someones lawfully protected freedom to own a gun because they have beaten  their wife in the past.  Yes, that means that someone may get hurt but another right that we have in this country and that I know we ALL want to see protected is our right to be innocent until proven guilty.

 

None of these are easy questions and on some level they are particularly hard because we want to save everyone, to protect everyone from every feeling any pain or sadness and that is just not possible.  It sucks to say that and people here will argue that we should try. and I agree we should try but I think that we need to very careful to ensure that we do not begin curtailing the freedoms of individuals because we are afraid of what they MIGHT do.

[Guest]

And now we circle back to the real issue, SHOULD owning a fire arm be a right, rather than a privlege? Yes, I know right now it IS a right, due to our constitution, but if we as a country felt it should instead be a privilege, we COULD change it. We won't, but we could.

Well, I believe that it is a right and should be a right. Owning a firearm should be a right. It does not mean it has to be easily exercised by everyone with no impediment. I have a right to drink alcoholic beverages, but there are still parameters I need to observe in exercising that right. People have a right to bear children, but those rights can be recinded if they are not fit to care for those children. IMO, rights and responsibilities to exercise the right go hand-in-hand; we don't need to change the definition of firearm ownership in order to put parameters in place to add responsibilities to firearm ownership.

[Guest]

yes, in his case his rights are curtailed because of actions that he actually took against another. While suicide is horrific and should be avoided, we go too far if we curtail someone's rights because they MAY injure themselves.

 

Obviously this leads to some challenging questions about individuals with anger management issues or that lash out at others when frustrated. I would assert that we, as a society, may have an interest in and right to curtail rights IF a person has shown that they cannot control that anger and will kill another person. I do not think that we have a right to curtail their freedoms because we are afraid that they may kill someone or because they have hurts someone in the past. As awful as it sounds I don't think that we can take away someones lawfully protected freedom to own a gun because they have beaten their wife in the past. Yes, that means that someone may get hurt but another right that we have in this country and that I know we ALL want to see protected is our right to be innocent until proven guilty.

 

None of these are easy questions and on some level they are particularly hard because we want to save everyone, to protect everyone from every feeling any pain or sadness and that is just not possible. It sucks to say that and people here will argue that we should try. and I agree we should try but I think that we need to very careful to ensure that we do not begin curtailing the freedoms of individuals because we are afraid of what they MIGHT do.

I cannot agree with you in re: the bolded. My friend was a victim of DA and, shortly before she fled, she changed the code on the gun safe. Her xh was furious because he could not access the gun he was intending to use on her. She was able to get away only because she had the foresight to change that password.

 

The stakes are too high. How can we say we can't impede someone's right to have a gun until they have actually shot their wife? If he can drag his wife down the hall by her hair, throw her on the bed and punch her in the face, why must we wait until he shoots her to say, "Sorry; you obviously cannot manage owning a deadly weapon."?

 

If you prove that you cannot manage driving within the law, your driver's license can be suspended or revoked. We don't wait until the person mows down a pedestrian before we do it; enough violations indicating poor driving choices can do it.

[hepatica]

And now we circle back to the real issue, SHOULD owning a fire arm be a right, rather than a privlege? Yes, I know right now it IS a right, due to our constitution, but if we as a country felt it should instead be a privilege, we COULD change it. We won't, but we could. 

 

The thing that is so crazy about the current debate is that this idea that the individual right to own a gun is enshrined in the constitution is such a recent idea. That right was only established by the Heller decision in 2008. The NRA had been pushing to redefine the popular understanding of the 2nd amendment for about 25 years and that Supreme Ct. decision was the culmination of that effort. It is, IMO, and in the opinion of former Chief Justice Burger, one of the greatest frauds perpetrated on the American public. We have had over 200 years of jurisprudence that never understood the constitution as enshrining an individual right to gun ownership. And, it is so ironic that the conservative, so called "originalist"justices completely ignored the available historical debates surrounding the 2nd amendment, as well as 200 years of precedent to create this new "right."

 

So, I think we can change this and it doesn't require a constitutional amendment to do so. 75% of Americans own no guns at all. A mere 3% of the population owns about half of the firearms in the US, and those people own an average of something like 17 weapons. This is not really a debate about whether an individual should be able to own a gun. I think the current debate should be about whether we are ok with people owning an arsenal of military style weapons. Do we really think that is a right? Healthcare is not, but that is? Seriously? Why does three percent of the population get to determine what kind of society we live in? 

[SKL]

I don't disagree with what you said; I do believe that happens. But the thing with the bump stock is most people (I'm guessing, but I think I'm right) had never heard of such a thing and had no idea such a thing exists and can be bought by anyone. SO many people's comments when seeing the video of Vegas were, "HOW can a civilian have a gun that fires like that?!" Because so many of us believed previously that regular people cannot have a machine gun, myself included. So, now that we know this exists, of course people (like me) will say, "Well let's plug this gap at least!" It seems like it's knee-jerk lawmaking, but really it's just because something has come to light that a really large number of people probably had no idea even exists. But we know now! So now seems like as good a time as any to make a law about it.

 

Well first they need to make sure there isn't a good reason to not ban them.  Or to not make xyz amendment to the law, because the way laws are cross-referenced etc., the impact of one change usually affects many other laws that may have nothing to do with the intent behind the amendment.

 

And secondly, the way the legislature works, everyone is going to want to add on his or her pet project etc ... I just don't believe lawmaking is intended to be done quickly.  It's not set up that way for a reason.

 

It's still illegal to shoot people regardless of what you shoot them with.  For the small % of people who would want to do that, fear of existing law is enough to prevent most of them from actually trying it.  And as has been explained above, if someone is as determined as this guy in LV, the suggested ban is not going to make a difference.

[Word Nerd]

It isn't a deep statistical analysis, but the trend is obvious.  This isn't a sample size issue. 

 

Her analysis is also faulty as she makes the same mistakes you and others make, which is insisting that because legislation can't stop everything/the majority (ex. suicides) then there is no merit in eliminating what it can.

 

She didn't say there is no merit at all in legislation; she said it wouldn't make a big difference. "As my co-workers and I kept looking at the data, it seemed less and less clear that one broad gun-control restriction could make a big difference." That's what most of the posters have said in this thread about banning bump stocks, including those of us you accuse of faulty thinking.

[Word Nerd]

Food for thought:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-used-to-think-gun-control-was-the-answer-my-research-told-me-otherwise/2017/10/03/d33edca6-a851-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html?utm_term=.7ef92a8809fe

 

I think she offers some good points, especially this: "We save lives by focusing on a range of tactics to protect the different kinds of potential victims and reforming potential killers, not from sweeping bans focused on the guns themselves."

[thessa516]

Maybe you are thinking of the expiration on the 1994 ban on selling assault weapons? Congress let that expire in 2004. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/5946127/ns/politics/t/congress-lets-assault-weapons-ban-expire/#.Wdb6iGhSzDc

 

It also limited the capacity of magazines to 10 rounds. As the article (from 2004) states, "Now, some gun manufacturers are planning to give away high-capacity magazines as bonuses for buying their weapons. Sales of formerly banned gun accessories, such as flash suppressors and folding stocks, are also expected to take off."

 

It's my understanding that the bumpstock was put through under the claim that it would help those with disabilities, as was stated before, much like the current attempt to make suppressors (silencers) easier to get is being pushed under claims to protect hearing. http://www.npr.org/2017/03/21/520953793/debate-over-silencers-hearing-protection-or-public-safety-threat. It looks to me like it's a situation of unintended consequences, though those consequences should have been pretty easily predicted IMO.

 

Can someone explain why assault weapons and high capacity magazines should be available to the general public? 

 

Addressing the assault weapons question...

 

What do you mean by an assault weapon?

 

Because an assault weapon is not the same thing as an assault rifle. An assault rifle is used by the military. It can be set to semi-automatic, burst mode, or automatic. Assault (or armalite) rifles have been banned since 1934. They are still banned.

 

In contrast, an assault weapon is a regular old semi automatic gun that has had two or more modifications made to it. Those modifications are almost always cosmetic. For example, a folding stock (the part that goes into your shoulder can fold down), a pistol grip (where you hold you hand is shaped in the same way that you hold a pistol), a barrel shroud (a covering that goes over the barrel of the gun, usually used so you don't burn yourself on the barrel). None of those modifications change the firing power, the distance, or speed of the gun. The gun still shoots exactly the same way.

 

There are two modifications listed by Congress that are not necessarily cosmetic. The first is the addition of a bayonet. Adding a bayonet to your rifle can turn it into an assault weapon. The second is the addition of a grenade launcher. Grenade launchers were already banned and continue to be banned, so I'm not quite sure why it was included in the list in the first place.

[KarenNC]

Addressing the assault weapons question...

 

What do you mean by an assault weapon?

 

Because an assault weapon is not the same thing as an assault rifle. An assault rifle is used by the military. It can be set to semi-automatic, burst mode, or automatic. Assault (or armalite) rifles have been banned since 1934. They are still banned.

 

In contrast, an assault weapon is a regular old semi automatic gun that has had two or more modifications made to it. Those modifications are almost always cosmetic. For example, a folding stock (the part that goes into your shoulder can fold down), a pistol grip (where you hold you hand is shaped in the same way that you hold a pistol), a barrel shroud (a covering that goes over the barrel of the gun, usually used so you don't burn yourself on the barrel). None of those modifications change the firing power, the distance, or speed of the gun. The gun still shoots exactly the same way.

 

There are two modifications listed by Congress that are not necessarily cosmetic. The first is the addition of a bayonet. Adding a bayonet to your rifle can turn it into an assault weapon. The second is the addition of a grenade launcher. Grenade launchers were already banned and continue to be banned, so I'm not quite sure why it was included in the list in the first place.

 

We can start with the definition used in the 1994 assault weapons ban:

(b) Definition of Semiautomatic Assault Weapon.--Section 921(a) of

title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the

following new paragraph:

``(30) The term `semiautomatic assault weapon' means--

``(A) any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the

firearms in any caliber, known as--

``(i) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat

Kalashnikovs (all models);

``(ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and

Galil;

``(iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC-70);

``(iv) Colt AR-15;

``(v) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC;

``(vi) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12;

``(vii) Steyr AUG;

``(viii) INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22; and

``(ix) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to)

the Street Sweeper and Striker 12;

``(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a

detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--

``(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

``(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath

the action of the weapon;

``(iii) a bayonet mount;

``(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to

accommodate a flash suppressor; and

``(v) a grenade launcher;

``© a semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a

detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--

``(i) an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol

outside of the pistol grip;

``(ii) a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel

extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer;

``(iii) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or

completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter

to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being

burned;

``(iv) a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the

pistol is unloaded; and

``(v) a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm; and

``(D) a semiautomatic shotgun that has at least 2 of--

``(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

``(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath

the action of the weapon;

``(iii) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds;

and

``(iv) an ability to accept a detachable magazine.''.

 

So, why should "regular old semiautomatic guns" like AR-15s or Kalashnikovs and high capacity magazines be available to the general public? 

[Liz CA]

Well, I believe that it is a right and should be a right. Owning a firearm should be a right. It does not mean it has to be easily exercised by everyone with no impediment. I have a right to drink alcoholic beverages, but there are still parameters I need to observe in exercising that right. People have a right to bear children, but those rights can be recinded if they are not fit to care for those children. IMO, rights and responsibilities to exercise the right go hand-in-hand; we don't need to change the definition of firearm ownership in order to put parameters in place to add responsibilities to firearm ownership.

 

This is the crux of it, isn't it? If we want to preserve our rights, we will probably always have to deal with those who abuse that right and do not take responsibility. Using your example here: Alcohol gets abused often and people have died because of it.

 

If we want to avoid people abusing rights and we take away that right, we may have lowered the potential for one particular incident (shooting) but we have also stripped responsible, law abiding citizens of a right. This is why I view this as much more complex than it seems at first.

People here have already pointed out that many of the regulations are not accomplishing what we would like to see. Katie mentioned restrictions in Canada being tighter, perhaps something to explore even though those who legitimately use guns will balk at increased cost and hassle.

 

Edited October 6, 2017 by Liz CA

[Liz CA]

I think she offers some good points, especially this: "We save lives by focusing on a range of tactics to protect the different kinds of potential victims and reforming potential killers, not from sweeping bans focused on the guns themselves."

 

I feel this is certainly an angle that needs to be included in this particular discussion.

[Liz CA]

If you prove that you cannot manage driving within the law, your driver's license can be suspended or revoked. We don't wait until the person mows down a pedestrian before we do it; enough violations indicating poor driving choices can do it.

 

In the case of reckless driving there has been a violation of some sort that was documented before the person loses driving privileges or is made to pay a fine. How do we fine gun owners for irresponsible handling of a weapon BEFORE they get completely out of control?

I understand what you are saying about your friend narrowly escaping a madman. This has always been the lament: we cannot arrest people for what they may intend to do; only after the deed is done they can be detained. However, in some cases there are truly enough red flags like your example of DV and thank God she got out.

If someone owns a gun, is planning to do shoot someone but sits tight until he deems the time right, nobody will know he is contemplating murder and nobody can legally detain him.

[EmseB]

We can start with the definition used in the 1994 assault weapons ban:

(b) Definition of Semiautomatic Assault Weapon.--Section 921(a) of

title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the

following new paragraph:

``(30) The term `semiautomatic assault weapon' means--

``(A) any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the

firearms in any caliber, known as--

``(i) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat

Kalashnikovs (all models);

``(ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and

Galil;

``(iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC-70);

``(iv) Colt AR-15;

``(v) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC;

``(vi) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12;

``(vii) Steyr AUG;

``(viii) INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22; and

``(ix) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to)

the Street Sweeper and Striker 12;

``(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a

detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--

``(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

``(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath

the action of the weapon;

``(iii) a bayonet mount;

``(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to

accommodate a flash suppressor; and

``(v) a grenade launcher;

``© a semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a

detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--

``(i) an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol

outside of the pistol grip;

``(ii) a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel

extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer;

``(iii) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or

completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter

to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being

burned;

``(iv) a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the

pistol is unloaded; and

``(v) a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm; and

``(D) a semiautomatic shotgun that has at least 2 of--

``(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

``(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath

the action of the weapon;

``(iii) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds;

and

``(iv) an ability to accept a detachable magazine.''.

 

So, why should "regular old semiautomatic guns" like AR-15s or Kalashnikovs and high capacity magazines be available to the general public? 

 

The legislative language you just quoted is mostly what the PP distilled into layman's terms. Most of the things listed on there are purely cosmetic and make a gun look scary.

 

Semiautomatic means it fires one bullet per trigger pull. Short of banning guns, you can't get much more basic than one bullet per trigger pull. An AR-15 is a pretty basic rifle. It doesn't fire more than one bullet at a time.

 

The interesting thing is that people will look at certain rifles that are all black/metal and reflexively say they are more dangerous than weapons that have a wood or wood-look stock, regardless of how powerful the weapon actually is or what features it actually has.

[thessa516]

 

So, why should "regular old semiautomatic guns" like AR-15s or Kalashnikovs and high capacity magazines be available to the general public? 

 

Because they don't shoot farther, faster, or more powerfully than any other gun? Because the difference is cosmetic? It seems silly to say that this rifle is legal and this rifle is an assault weapon. They both shoot exactly the same way. One just looks scarier.

 

In an attempt for me to understand your point of view, why do you think an AR-15 should be banned?

[Bluegoat]

I don't think it would make much of a difference.  They are too easy to make on your own.  It would be for show, mostly.

 

We have a few odd laws in Canada with banned firearms - essentially the same kind of scenario, there was some sort of incident, and something was banned, but it isn't a substantial thing - it happens to have been used in the incident, or looks scary - but is actually no different than other legal firearms.

 

I don't think rules like this really have much effect - so they are an easy concession.

 

I think that it actually doesn't make sense to focus too much on one particular incident to see what laws or restrictions would be most useful - you really want to look at the bulk of problems, not just the most recent or most spectacular.  

[Bluegoat]

Not Quill, but for me, I'm for more regulation (speaking in general, not bump stocks in particular) because it will curb some of the crime, not because I think it will stop all of it. So making hand guns harder to get means that some people just will be too lazy to get a gun. That same person otherwise might have bought one spur of the moment but then been too lazy to lock it up, or too lazy to take a safety class or look up info, etc. Had they bought the gun they could have been one of the ones that accidentally kills themselves, or had a child get it, etc. Making them work for it means you will get more people that actually have the executive function skills to properly handle a weapon. 

 

Same with say, bump stocks. Yes, a person could take the time and effort to look it up and figure out how to make one. Maybe get a 3D printer and make one that way. Whatever. But there are a whole lot of people that although they talk a big game, they aren't going to bother to DO those things. Sure, they'll order a $25 fun gun accessories at 3am in between video games or while watching TV, but aren't going to bother to actually get up and go make one. It limits how many are out and about. And then, that is one less to be used by a bad guy. Maybe that guy wasn't bad, but his roommate/kid/boyfriend/cousin is, and now they won't have access to his weapon in a spur of the moment incident. 

 

None of this will stop the really determined person, but so MANY crimes are much less thought out than that. 

 

A harder time getting firearms in general might have this effect.

 

I'm not so sure about this particular sort of accessory.  

[ktgrok]

The guns in Canada are mostly long guns, not hand guns, so would be less likely to be used to commit suicide. You can get a rifle there, but to have a hand gun you must participate in shooting competitions several times a year, and first participate for 6 months with a shooting club before you can purchase your own gun. 

http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2013/01/australian-gun-ownership-back-up-to.html?m=1#links
Courtesy of my spouse, with private gun ownership in Australia now being back up to the mid 80’s levels. . This link specifically addresses the suicide connection or lack thereof with firearms

This may have already been linked in the other thread, but controlling for suicides and just examining homicide data and firearms:
https://crimeresearch.org/2014/03/comparing-murder-rates-across-countries/

The Massachusetts case study is super interesting, in terms of material restrictions in firearms and what it did to overall crime rates.
https://crimeresearch.org/2015/02/what-happened-to-violent-crime-in-massachusetts-after-the-the-1998-firearms-licensing-law/

There is plenty more data that this, but I don’t have more time right now.

 

[KarenNC]

Because they don't shoot farther, faster, or more powerfully than any other gun? Because the difference is cosmetic? It seems silly to say that this rifle is legal and this rifle is an assault weapon. They both shoot exactly the same way. One just looks scarier.

 

In an attempt for me to understand your point of view, why do you think an AR-15 should be banned?

 

If they do not "shoot farther, faster, or more powerfully than any other gun" then why are they bought over other types of firearms? What is the advantage over other types of firearms? It is my assumption, correct me if I'm wrong, that the reason to prefer semiautomatic over manual is that the semi-automatic does indeed have the potential to shoot "faster" and therefore do more damage in a shorter period of time, particularly when it can be fitted with a high capacity magazine, just as an automatic has the potential to shoot faster than a semi-automatic. What compelling reason is there that the line should not be drawn below high capacity magazines and semiautomatic weapons (rifles or handguns), as it was at one time?

 

I will admit that I do not have an extensive knowledge of all varieties of guns, which is why I said "start with" a definition that has already been established. I have no doubt many other guns would and probably should fall into the same category as those listed. The ones you show are both semi-automatics and I would not argue that one is not an assault weapon. From what I can read from afficianados, however, it does appear that an AR-15 is cheaper to buy, lighter, has cheaper ammo, less recoil, more easily modifiable than the M1A so perhaps it is easier to afford and to use with less effort and less practice or easier to modify into something even more quickly or widely lethal? https://www.1911forum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=309846. My question has nothing to do with whether one looks "scarier." I don't suppose the purpose of a pink AR-15 or pistol is to be scarier https://www.gungoddess.com/magpul-ar-15-pink-furniture-3-piece-set/ and https://www.pinterest.com/tzarmory/guns-for-the-ladies-pink-purple-tiffany-blue-and-m/?lp=true. I don't think cosmetics make a weapon designed to kill things more or less dangerous, though I will allow that the people who feel compelled to carry them to the grocery store and to torchlit rallies for the purposes of intimidation may indeed think so.

Edited October 6, 2017 by KarenNC

[thessa516]

If they do not "shoot farther, faster, or more powerfully than any other gun" then why are they bought over other types of firearms? What is the advantage over other types of firearms? It is my assumption, correct me if I'm wrong, that the reason to prefer semiautomatic over manual is that the semi-automatic does indeed have the potential to shoot "faster" and therefore do more damage in a shorter period of time, particularly when it can be fitted with a high capacity magazine, just as an automatic has the potential to shoot faster than a semi-automatic. What compelling reason is there that the line should not be drawn below high capacity magazines and semiautomatic weapons (rifles or handguns), as it was at one time?

 

I will admit that I do not have an extensive knowledge of all varieties of guns, which is why I said "start with" a definition that has already been established. I have no doubt many other guns would and probably should fall into the same category as those listed. The ones you show are both semi-automatics and I would not argue that one is not an assault weapon. From what I can read from afficianados, however, it does appear that an AR-15 is lighter, has cheaper ammo, less recoil, more easily modifiable than the M14 so perhaps it is easier to use with less effort and less practice? https://www.1911forum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=309846. My question has nothing to do with whether one looks "scarier." I don't suppose the purpose of a pink AR-15 or pistol is to be scarier https://www.gungoddess.com/magpul-ar-15-pink-furniture-3-piece-set/ and https://www.pinterest.com/tzarmory/guns-for-the-ladies-pink-purple-tiffany-blue-and-m/?lp=true nor do I think cosmetics make a weapon designed to kill things more or less dangerous.

 

I'll try to answer your questions in the order you asked them. 

 

The reason the AR-15 is bought over other types of firearms is because it's so customizable. That's it's advantage. Let's say that you don't like the stock because it wears a sore spot in your shoulder. Then you can change it out with a different stock. Perhaps the hand grip feels too large for you. Then you can buy a different type of grip that better fits you. It allows you to make the gun fit you and your shooting style without buying a completely different gun. 

 

I have to admit that I'm not sure what you mean with manual vs semi-automatic. (Someone with more knowledge is welcome to jump in and correct my limited knowledge of manual guns.)

 

- A semi-automatic is what most every gun is, especially when you're talking about the average gun-owner. It means when you pull the trigger, you get one shot. The semi-automatic part comes into play because when you fire one shot, the next round (bullet) is automatically pushed into the firing chamber. And AR-15 falls in this category.

 

- A true manual style gun would include both the firing mechanism and loading of the next shot. It would be like what was used in the Civil War. Load the round, pull back the hammer, and pull the trigger. Then repeat the process for the next shot. Some people would argue that revolvers like those used in the 1800s would be manual because you have to pull back the hammer each time you use it. Some people would say it's not a true manual because the revolver automatically spins so that you can shoot the next round. Yes, you are right, semi-automatic guns can fire faster than a manual and it's pretty easy to see why.

 

- A full automatic gun is what the military uses. These are different than semi-automatic guns because you can pull the trigger once and get multiple rounds coming out of the gun. They are banned from civilian use except in very rare cases. 

 

The AR-15 can be lighter. An AR-15 could just as easily be a heavier rifle. It depends on what accessories you decide to use on your rifle. It can have cheaper ammo, but it could just as easily have more expensive ammo. The ammo is determined by the diameter of the guns barrel. The most common are .22, 9 mm, .40, and .45. Nine mm rounds are cheaper than .45 rounds. It might be cheaper at Cabela's than Bass Pro Shop. The barrel size you buy determines how expensive your ammo will be. Generally the larger diameter ammo costs more. A hand gun that uses 9 mm rounds will use the exact same ammo as an AR-15 that is 9 mm caliber. You don't walk into a store and say you need ammo for an AR-15. The clerk would look at you like you didn't know what you were talking about. They don't care what kind of gun you have, rather they would direct you to what size you need. I hope I'm explaining this well.

 

As far as recoil goes, again that depends on the ammo you are using. .45 has a much bigger kick than a 9 mm. Equal and opposite reaction, and all that. The AR-15 is more easily modifiable as I said above. That's part of what makes it so popular. I do think it would be easier to use, especially if you can modify it to you. Hmm, trying to think of an analogy.... maybe like driving a car. It's much easier and safer to drive a car when the seat has been adjusted so you can easily reach the pedals, steering wheel, and see the mirrors. Adjusting the seat doesn't make you a proficient driver, just like modifications don't make you a marksman. It just makes it so you can operate in an easier and safer manner. For example, I'm a short lady so a lot of stocks would be extremely uncomfortable for me. I would want a shorter stock so I'm not stretching my arms and finger to reach the trigger.

 

So, in short, an AR-15 shoots the same speed, using the same ammo, at the same power, as many, many other guns. It is one trigger pull, one bullet. There is nothing inherently special about the AR-15 that makes it any more dangerous than other guns of the same caliber. The speed of the round and power come from the ammo used. The cosmetic accessories are what got it classified as an assault weapon.

 

Woo... I'm long-winded today. You deserve cookies if you got through all of that... lol!

[Bluegoat]

The guns in Canada are mostly long guns, not hand guns, so would be less likely to be used to commit suicide. You can get a rifle there, but to have a hand gun you must participate in shooting competitions several times a year, and first participate for 6 months with a shooting club before you can purchase your own gun. 

 

You know, I'm not sure if that is true.  People who really want to commit suicide don't see to have a hard time doing it with a rifle.  Goodness knows they seem them in the ER on a regular basis.

[KarenNC]

Woo... I'm long-winded today. You deserve cookies if you got through all of that... lol!

 

I'm partial to pretty much any kind with nuts. :)

 

I've learned a lot, thanks. Maybe if we did paint all guns hot pink with green polka dots and bedazzle them it would deter folks who are looking primarily for the intimidation factor?

 

Can we move on to my question about high capacity magazines, then? What purpose do they serve that makes a compelling argument to allow them to be readily available to the general public rather than, say, available for use only on the premises of a legal shooting range for target practice?

 

I have to admit I've suggested that maybe we should glue a pseudoephedrine tablet to every bullet so that then there might be some interest in limiting purchase amounts at any given time. 

[Bluegoat]

I'm partial to pretty much any kind with nuts. :)

 

I've learned a lot, thanks. Maybe if we did paint all guns hot pink with green polka dots and bedazzle them it would deter folks who are looking primarily for the intimidation factor?

 

Can we move on to my question about high capacity magazines, then? What purpose do they serve that makes a compelling argument to allow them to be readily available to the general public rather than, say, available for use only on the premises of a legal shooting range for target practice?

 

I have to admit I've suggested that maybe we should glue a pseudoephedrine tablet to every bullet so that then there might be some interest in limiting purchase amounts at any given time. 

 

High capacity magazines are banned in many places - I don't think anyone needs them.

 

As far as large purchases, I think that often is a cost saving measure.

[thessa516]

I'm partial to pretty much any kind with nuts. :)

 

I've learned a lot, thanks. Maybe if we did paint all guns hot pink with green polka dots and bedazzle them it would deter folks who are looking primarily for the intimidation factor?

 

Can we move on to my question about high capacity magazines, then? What purpose do they serve that makes a compelling argument to allow them to be readily available to the general public rather than, say, available for use only on the premises of a legal shooting range for target practice?

 

I have to admit I've suggested that maybe we should glue a pseudoephedrine tablet to every bullet so that then there might be some interest in limiting purchase amounts at any given time. 

 

I'm just *meh* on high capacity magazines. To me it's like saying you can't buy a 20-slice loaf of bread, but you can buy two 10-slice loaves. It takes some people literally less than a second to change magazines. I think it's probably a lot like the bump stock debate right now, makes some people feel better about doing something, anything at all. And some people, and I probably fall into this category, know that it isn't going to make any difference to someone intent on hurting others.

 

Also, banning high capacity magazines is sort of a ridiculous goal. The average 9 mm handgun comes with a 14 round capacity (which would be considered high capacity). I don't know how many weapons are out there, but they are super common. How would that work? Everyone that has a 14 round capacity handgun would be on their honor to hand over their magazines?

 

I don't know the average number of rounds fired at a gun range, but shooting 50 - 100 rounds an hour sounds about right. I think switching magazines every 10 shots is slightly ridiculous, but again, it's so easy and quick to switch to another magazine that it really doesn't make a difference to me. Which kind of goes back to why I don't think it would make a difference to someone intent on hurting others.

SaveSave

Sorry, I'm posting and running out the door. I'll check in later tonight.

[KarenNC]

High capacity magazines are banned in many places - I don't think anyone needs them.

 

As far as large purchases, I think that often is a cost saving measure.

 

From what can find, they are only banned in relatively few areas. From Bass Pro Shops: 

• Notice--Gun Magazines.

  We cannot ship gun magazines with a capacity larger than 10 rounds to CA, DC, HI, MA, NY, CT, Oak Park, IL and Village of Westchester, IL; larger than 12 rounds to Chicago, IL; larger than 15 rounds to NJ, CO, or Aurora, IL; or larger than 16 rounds to Franklin Park, IL or Philadelphia PA. For US sale only. This item cannot be purchased by using Pay Pal. -- Even though you are able to check out with this item, it will be removed from your order if shipping to a restricted location.

 

But is the potential cost saving a compelling enough reason not to restrict the amount of ammo that can be purchased at one time or the ways in which it can be purchased? We put all kinds of limits on buying something like Sudafed because some people have used it to cook meth https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/InformationbyDrugClass/ucm072423.htm(in-person, kept behind the counter in a pharmacy, show id, sign a logbook with info that has to be maintained for two years, daily and monthly limits to the number of pills, etc), but I can go online to bulkammo.com and buy multiple sets of 1000 rounds easily without even having an adult's signature required for delivery (with the exception of a few states and municipalities https://www.bulkammo.com/frequently-asked-questions#13).

 

To go further, restrictions on ammunition purchases could help in those situations where a person may have legally purchased a firearm or otherwise come by one but their status has changed to the point that they would no longer be able to legally do so.

Edited October 6, 2017 by KarenNC

[Ausmumof3]

I'm just *meh* on high capacity magazines. To me it's like saying you can't buy a 20-slice loaf of bread, but you can buy two 10-slice loaves. It takes some people literally less than a second to change magazines. I think it's probably a lot like the bump stock debate right now, makes some people feel better about doing something, anything at all. And some people, and I probably fall into this category, know that it isn't going to make any difference to someone intent on hurting others.

 

Also, banning high capacity magazines is sort of a ridiculous goal. The average 9 mm handgun comes with a 14 round capacity (which would be considered high capacity). I don't know how many weapons are out there, but they are super common. How would that work? Everyone that has a 14 round capacity handgun would be on their honor to hand over their magazines?

 

I don't know the average number of rounds fired at a gun range, but shooting 50 - 100 rounds an hour sounds about right. I think switching magazines every 10 shots is slightly ridiculous, but again, it's so easy and quick to switch to another magazine that it really doesn't make a difference to me. Which kind of goes back to why I don't think it would make a difference to someone intent on hurting others.

Save

Save

Sorry, I'm posting and running out the door. I'll check in later tonight.

Most people here only have a five shot.

[ktgrok]

Handguns do have higher round capacity, but then again, handguns are hard to defend from a 2nd amendment perspective....they are hardly the tool of a militia. 

[Guest]

In the case of reckless driving there has been a violation of some sort that was documented before the person loses driving privileges or is made to pay a fine. How do we fine gun owners for irresponsible handling of a weapon BEFORE they get completely out of control?

I understand what you are saying about your friend narrowly escaping a madman. This has always been the lament: we cannot arrest people for what they may intend to do; only after the deed is done they can be detained. However, in some cases there are truly enough red flags like your example of DV and thank God she got out.

If someone owns a gun, is planning to do shoot someone but sits tight until he deems the time right, nobody will know he is contemplating murder and nobody can legally detain him.

Right, but as in my example, I am not saying we fine someone before they misuse a gun. I'm saying that a person like that already has a record with the police and there should be some way to petition that person's gun registration be revoked due to their known tendency towards violence. (Of course, that would only be possible in places where guns already do have to be registered which is not everywhere...)

 

I remember before there were anti-stalking laws; people were pointing out that there needs to be a way to make it illegal to stalk someone. But for a long while, the argument against anti-stalking laws was that we can't make a law that says Joe Blow can't walk around in a place that so happens to be where the person feeling threatened is also walking around; we can't make it illegal to stand outside someone's house for three hours and merely stare at the door. The response was always, "Well, we can't do anything about it. We can't detain someone for standing in the street and staring at your door." But presumably, they did find a way to make criteria (at least in some places) because some places do have anti-stalking laws.

[Janeway]

In the case of reckless driving there has been a violation of some sort that was documented before the person loses driving privileges or is made to pay a fine. How do we fine gun owners for irresponsible handling of a weapon BEFORE they get completely out of control?

I understand what you are saying about your friend narrowly escaping a madman. This has always been the lament: we cannot arrest people for what they may intend to do; only after the deed is done they can be detained. However, in some cases there are truly enough red flags like your example of DV and thank God she got out.

If someone owns a gun, is planning to do shoot someone but sits tight until he deems the time right, nobody will know he is contemplating murder and nobody can legally detain him.

Drunk drivers usually get no jail time or limits. They can be convicted over and over again and still drive. They can kill and still let out of jail and drive. Many people think alcoholism is a defense for drunk driving claiming that alcoholics are not in control of their alcohol use and then driving. Yet, we still allow people who purchae alcohol, and we even allow people who purchase too much alcohol to own cars. Using the "reckless driving" analogy just is not working here. I have driven on Texas roads. Reckless driving seems to be a way of life here.