Any chance for a reasonable discussion about firearms laws? (v.2023, Dialectic Bubbaloo)

I hate the labels of liberal and conservative, let me say that.  My views are all over the map using those labels, it just depends on the topic.  

With guns, given our current culture and environment I am very staunchly anti gun.  I fully understand and agree with the argument that guns don't kill people, people kill people.  However that issue (people) is so mind blowingly complex that IMO until we can make major headway there guns should be banned for all.  Remove the gun and by absolute definition mass shootings can't happen.

Simultaneously start working on all the social issues which are at the root of so many shootings.  As things improve start reintroducing guns.

it's simple.  We realize that the firearm is a tool that when misused has destructive potential and it's routinely falling into hands of people who intend to misuse it.

The last time we did that, we got the NFA of 1934 and GCA of 1968:

Why did we make these laws?  Think BARs and Tommy guns in the hands of 1930's gangsters.

We simply add to this list the weapons that are NOW routinely being misused (the commonly referred to as "assault type weapons"), and admit that these firearms do have a sporting purpose but a larger than normal lethal potential when put in the wrong hands.  Law abiding citizens can still own these firearms, but it requires a special license and carries with it special requirements for storage, registration with law enforcement, etc.  Each state is able to decide whether or not it wants to allow private ownership of these firearms after that (but they are still held to the federal requirements).

It'll never happen.  As already stated, there is too much money in politics and if modern politics prove anything it's "it's more profitable to do the wrong thing".

 

SKJSS (formerly Klayfish) said:

I hate the labels of liberal and conservative, let me say that.  My views are all over the map using those labels, it just depends on the topic.  

With guns, given our current culture and environment I am very staunchly anti gun.  I fully understand and agree with the argument that guns don't kill people, people kill people.  However that issue (people) is so mind blowingly complex that IMO until we can make major headway there guns should be banned for all.  Remove the gun and by absolute definition mass shootings can't happen.

The issue there is that banning all guns in the United States is a non-starter. It will never, ever happen. Even if the political will existed to do it, there would still be a very vocal (and armed) minority opposing it. And it would lead to violence. Further, with hundreds of millions of guns already in circulation, there would be no way to track down and confiscate all of them.

This is part of what makes this such a thorny problem. It involves compromise and shades of gray. Those things don't play well in the current soundbite, hyper-polarized political environment.

Suppressors shouldn't require a tax stamp to purchase.  

In reply to SKJSS (formerly Klayfish) :

Respectfully, I disagree. That wouldn't even fly if we said that to fix drunk driving we first have to take away all privately owned motor vehicles. 

I read your opinion as focusing on the tool and not the person. While the tool is a valid part of the equation for discussion, it shouldn't be to the exclusion of the other variable. The shooter, the drunk driver, the assaulter, etc... I think that the gun conversation, intentionally or not, has spun off into a public screeching match over taking guns. I think that "common sense" gun laws are a good thing, those laws that even gun owners think are beneficial like background checks and encouraging gun safety education. Take the gun away and you can't have a mass shooting but you also don't have a mass shooter without a shooter. Healthy people don't go on killing sprees. 

We have mass shootings and violent division because they are profitable, and not just for the gun manufacturers. I don't think that we can truly resolve the core of this epidemic without correcting the profit over people policies and plans, like city planning, that have been enacted over decades. I also think that America is stronger with strong unions but that may not be too popular. 

I always thought some of the interesting points of the 1930's and early 1940's war on organized crime was how they made anything associated with that lifestyle highly suspicious. 

Zoot Suits? Banned. 

Vehicle Modification to aid in crime? Illegal. (holdovers from prohibition era.)

A lot of laws came into effect during that era because people had enough. 

Unfortunately, many of those laws would be used to unequally target minority groups for decades later. 

I see nothing wrong with Red Flag Laws, but they aren't effective and result in what amounts to swatting of 2nd Amendment rights, but we've all known somebody who we said "that guy probably shouldn't have access to guns."

Error404 said:

In reply to SKJSS (formerly Klayfish) :

Respectfully, I disagree. That wouldn't even fly if we said that to fix drunk driving we first have to take away all privately owned motor vehicles. 

When addressing vehicular deaths, we look at both the person AND the tool.

We have laws regulating visibility, backup cameras, bumper height and material, etc. Many states require vehicle inspections to determine that a vehicle has appropriate brake pads, controls, tires, etc.

We also regulate emissions which directly impact health.

We have laws to regulate vehicle designs to make them safer to be operated. And these are tools where the primary purpose is to transport. As opposed to a tool where the primary purpose is to project lethal force at a distance.

I think that the purpose of "project lethal force" as opposed to the purpose being "to kill" is an important distinction. It allows us to to make judgment calls of what applications of lethal force we feel are reasonable, and to shape regulations in firearms design and operation towards those applications of lethal force that we agree are acceptable.

barefootcyborg5000 said:

My opinion is that if a law is demonstrably helpful, then fine, and if it doesn't make any differences, abolish said law. For example, a barrel shorter than 16" was ruled to be a controlled device requiring a tax stamp, yet there is a suspicious lack of evidence that such weapons are used disproportionately in any crime, and so I think the rule should be scrapped. Among others. 

No matter what your opinion on gun control, the law as currently written is stupid.

AIUI, when they passed the national firearms act of 1934 the law as originally written placed a registration and tax stamp requirement on handguns in addition to the other categories mentioned there.  This was essentially a ban, because a $200 tax on a $15 handgun placed it out of reach for the vast majority of consumers.  The tax stamp requirements for short barrel rifles and shotguns was added to remove a loophole where you could have a concealable firearm that wasn't a "handgun".  Before the law was passed the handgun stamp was removed from the text (not sure why, perhaps due to constitutionality concerns), but the SBR and SBS workarounds were not.  So we're left with a law that allows small, concealable handguns and large, full-sized rifles, but bans (well, requires a tax stamp/etc) things in the middle; which doesn't really make much sense.

In reply to dean1484 :

It amuses me how companies love to talk about supporting mental health - up until it costs money.

pheller said:

I see nothing wrong with Red Flag Laws, but they aren't effective and result in what amounts to swatting of 2nd Amendment rights, but we've all known somebody who we said "that guy probably shouldn't have access to guns."

I was about to argue on that first part, but I'm glad you added the later part.  In addition to the 2A issues, red flag laws have issues with the 4th, 5th, and 6th  amendments.  

In reply to GameboyRMH :

Except that repeating rifles have been common place since the 1860's. Pump shotguns that could slam-fire since the 1890's that shoot as fast as any "assault rifle". Even in the early 1800's they would carry multiple firearms to not spend time reloading. Revolvers since the 1840's etc.... 

There are over 400 million estimated firearms in the US. You will never get them out of circulation. Removing them from the law abiding only makes them an easier target for the criminals that don't pay attention to laws anyway. That's not even getting into the fact that lawful defensive gun use in the US is close to 1.7 million times per year compared to the 21,000 homicides committed with a firearm. 

Once again we are back to the other inconvenient truth that approximately 68% of violent crimes are created by repeat offenders. That means of those 21k homicides, over 14k could have been prevented had the repeat offender been kept behind bars. Many local city violent crimes are being committed by the same people that were arrested the day before and released by the prosecutors office. People with 10-20+ felonies for the same issues.

Why is the anti-gun lobby unwilling to change the only thing that allows guns in this country? 

If you aren't willing to do the work to change the Constitution, I'm not willing to discuss regulations that make the Constitution nothing more than a scrap of paper to be ignored when it's inconvenient. 

If you are willing to ignore the 2nd, should we also just ignore the 1st and have the Christians or Muslims set up a state religion or you get to catch a government bullet for speaking out against the president? Maybe we ignore the 4th and allow the police or any government drudge to ramble through your house without any due process? 

Anyone willing to ignore the Constitution is not to be trusted. They are the people that become bureaucrats and dictators who think they know better than everyone else.   

jmabarone said:

pheller said:

I see nothing wrong with Red Flag Laws, but they aren't effective and result in what amounts to swatting of 2nd Amendment rights, but we've all known somebody who we said "that guy probably shouldn't have access to guns."

I was about to argue on that first part, but I'm glad you added the later part.  In addition to the 2A issues, red flag laws have issues with the 4th, 5th, and 6th  amendments.  

It would be easy to falsify screenshots to mess with such laws- GIMP is free, and you'd just need to focus on making sure your line spacing and fonts are correct. You could start a false claim easily and at a minimum, lead to wasting time and dollars. I'm just not sure how they can work well outside of "red flag law demands a company screenshot, timestamp, and verify an actual post like this on someone's profile before it can ever be called evidence".

bobzilla said:

In reply to GameboyRMH :

Except that repeating rifles have been common place since the 1860's. Pump shotguns that could slam-fire since the 1890's that shoot as fast as any "assault rifle". Even in the early 1800's they would carry multiple firearms to not spend time reloading. Revolvers since the 1840's etc....

And those had a magazine capacity of maybe 6, before a relatively lengthy reloading process would need to start? If you wanted to try to carry out a modern-style mass shooting in the 1800s, your best bet would to carry 4 6-shooter revolvers with speedloaders. With those you could get 24 shots off in quick succession before you had to start reloading. Nowadays you could do that within a single ordinary AR-15 mag (with another revolver's capacity left over!) that can be reloaded faster than using the speedloader on just one of those revolvers. And that's without even getting into extended or drum mags. Let's be honest about the difference in the rate of fire. Some old guns can keep up for a short sprint, but modern ones can do that pace in a marathon.

bobzilla said:

There are over 400 million estimated firearms in the US. You will never get them out of circulation. Removing them from the law abiding only makes them an easier target for the criminals that don't pay attention to laws anyway. That's not even getting into the fact that lawful defensive gun use in the US is close to 1.7 million times per year compared to the 21,000 homicides committed with a firearm. 

Once again we are back to the other inconvenient truth that approximately 68% of violent crimes are created by repeat offenders. That means of those 21k homicides, over 14k could have been prevented had the repeat offender been kept behind bars. Many local city violent crimes are being committed by the same people that were arrested the day before and released by the prosecutors office. People with 10-20+ felonies for the same issues.

Again there are plenty of other countries out there as successful examples, and mass confiscation isn't necessary.

Toyman! said:

Why is the anti-gun lobby unwilling to change the only thing that allows guns in this country? 

If you aren't willing to do the work to change the Constitution, I'm not willing to discuss regulations that make the Constitution nothing more than a scrap of paper to be ignored when it's inconvenient. 

If you are willing to ignore the 2nd, should we also just ignore the 1st and have the Christians or Muslims set up a state religion or you get to catch a government bullet for speaking out against the president? Maybe we ignore the 4th and allow the police or any government drudge to ramble through your house without any due process? 

Anyone willing to ignore the Constitution is not to be trusted. They are the people that become bureaucrats and dictators who think they know better than everyone else.  

Just curious, do you think past gun laws such as the assault weapons ban and the legal requirement to surrender guns at the Sheriff's office when entering towns in the old West were just ignoring the constitution?

In reply to GameboyRMH :

Yes, they absolutely were and are. 

Henry's held 15+1. Winchesters were usually 12-15 depending on caliber. They were also actual heavy rifle calibers not the intermediate cartridge most AR's are chambered in. You get hit with a 44-40, or 45-70 you ain't getting back up. 45-70 is throwing half inch diameter 300gr slugs at ~2000 fps with about 3000ft-lbf muzzle energy. compare that to the .223/5.56 that's throwing out .224 inch 55gr slugs at 3000fps, making 1600ft-lbs of energy. Instead of needing 3 or 4 rounds one does the trick. 

As far as comparing to other countries, none have had our history or even a constitutional ammendment guaranteeing the right to keep and bear arms. What works for somewhere else, doesn't translate well to our constitution. 

bobzilla said:

As far as comparing to other countries, none have had our history or even a constitutional ammendment guaranteeing the right to keep and bear arms. What works for somewhere else, doesn't translate well to our constitution. 

Those other countries all had unique histories too, a few involving widespread gun ownership, and they all have unique sets of laws which have managed to do the job. There's no reason it shouldn't be possible to piece together a workable solution for the US.

In reply to GameboyRMH :

so they had a specific provision in their founding documents maintaining the right for the citizens to keep and bear arms?

Honestly tight gun laws and requirements seem to be exceptions rather than norms in many European states. Most of east Europe like Poland and Cezchia require some licensure and training but are otherwise pretty open. I totally agree that legally, I feel there's a good way through but attitudes make it very difficult.

In reply to GameboyRMH :

To me, Mag capacity matters little when even common bolt-action rifles can be reloaded extremely quickly. Penn & Teller in an episode of BullE36 M3! showed you can reload a WW2-era Garand in a second or two without training- I believe it was intentional for the era with those en-bloc clips.

I am sure we can have a reasonable discussion about reasonable firearm laws.

Laws that don't cover what they are intended to cover even though they may have at one time.

Exhibit A 

A shotgun is a firearm subject to the NFA if the shotgun has a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length. A weapon made from a shotgun is also a firearm subject to the NFA if the weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length.

Retort to exhibit A

590 Shockwave  

12 GA  

Barrel Length  14.375"

Length  26.37"

Pistol grip

not a NFA firearm.

So, in closing.  You can buy one of these brand new and it is not an issue.  But if you take a cheap shotgun from a pawnshop and cut the barrel down and give it a pistol grip you are a bad boy.  I am confused.  I do realize that Mossberg found a legal hole and jammed an 18 wheeler through said hole.  But I digress.  

In reply to GIRTHQUAKE :

the problem is the stated goals of many is to ban and remove all firearms. It's even been stated here a few times. It's very difficult to negotiate in good conscience with people who are unwilling to give and their stated goals are the polar opposite. 

GameboyRMH said:

bobzilla said:

As far as comparing to other countries, none have had our history or even a constitutional ammendment guaranteeing the right to keep and bear arms. What works for somewhere else, doesn't translate well to our constitution. 

Those other countries all had unique histories too, a few involving widespread gun ownership, and they all have unique sets of laws which have managed to do the job. There's no reason it shouldn't be possible to piece together a workable solution for the US.

Then change the Constitution. There are provisions in the document to do so. Follow them, change or amend the 2nd, and we can have a discussion about reasonable and proper regulations. Until that is done, there is nothing to talk about.