Convince me: Assault weapons edition

Robbie said:

Can anyone tell me what an assault weapon is?

A big part of this problem is the lack of real definition but at the same time a promotion of language that makes things sound scary and dangerous.

As I understand it, two identical guns can be classified differently under "assault" category based simply on color. So you can have a red viper but not a black one.

I, for one, propose we ban all assault vipers but leave hunting vipers alone.

I don't think one really needs to define "assault weapon"- instead, one can define a magazine size and a fire rate both with reasonable limits that will reduce the effectiveness of many of the mass shooters.

It then becomes a technical definition that is easier to define.  

For instance, lets put the limit at a 6 shot revolver for a nominal user- so a magazine of 6 and a rate of 2 per second, as an example?  

As for the "freedom lost"- how much freedom are you really losing, especially when compared to someone who was murdered with such a weapon?  Yes, a bad person did that, and yes, they can use other instruments of murder.   But for most of those other instruments, there have been *some* limits put on them.  Just like for every single other Amendment, there are also limits on them.  For instance, there's religious freedom, but there's a limit on what is a religion.  

Part of the 2nd Amendment argument  is the multiple ways of interpreting the text.  It can be an answer for either side of the discussion, depending on your point of view. 

Personally, I think a possible compromise could be a complete re-writing of the original 1934 National Firearms Act and  the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act.  Loosen the restrictions on what can be owned, but tighten the regulations for who can own them and how they must be stored. A National state-to-state CC policy might also help get something through.

The simple fact is there are over 300 million guns in this country.  Nothing will happen quickly nor will any changes in regulation work 100% to keep weapons away from crazy people.  But right now, very little is being done so something needs to be tried.

Dr. Hess said:

  See, the people screaming that we must "do something" and ban guns that look bad or have features similar to other guns that look bad really want to ban ALL guns, not just modern sporting rifles.  Ask them "what kind of gun do you think is a good, safe gun that you don't want to ban and think that every American citizen should own?"  You'll gen an answe of "none."  The problem they have with modern sporting rifles with normal capacity magazines is that you pull the trigger and a bullet comes out.  That's what they want to ban.  

Is this a conversation you've actually had, or is this how you assume the conversation would go? 

I have to say I don't really buy your argument. I think something should be done so there are less kids being shot up in schools. That seems like a reasonable thing to hope for.

I think something should be done so the mentally unstable have really difficult time getting guns. I think that is a reasonable thing to hope for.

I don't want to take all the guns away. 

You say "they" want to take all the guns away. There is no they. Just a bunch of individuals, talking about an issue, just like we are here. 

Obama already took my guns. 

In reply to alfadriver :

The issue, as normal, is the polarization on both sides. After the 1994 Assault Weapons ban advocates took the passage as a sign they could push for much stronger restrictions. The opponents, including the NRA, looked at the fallout and current path as so heavily restricting private ownership that it would make the language of the second amendment meaningless.

If the legislature had simply stopped after the passage there probably would have been some whining and complaining but ultimately it may have subsided into a societal norm. The continued push forced the opposition to position itself the way that it did, as a freedom/rights organization, and take a hard line position where any proposed restriction, no matter how reasonable, was just a mechanism to gain a foothold for more restrictions.

You see the same thing with the first amendment all the time in regards to "hate speech" and the fourth amendment with access to smart phones. The second amendment  just has an inherently dangerous physical item attached the idea it rather than being intangible like the 1st and 4th.

In reply to gearheadmb :

Agreed.  If there is one huge misconception the far right seems to have it's that "Liberals" don't own guns.  Most of my friends are liberal. A good percentage of them have guns. 

I'm sorry Dr.  but when you make that statement, the credibility of the argument is diminished.

The0retical covered the biggest question pretty well: Why hunt with a semi-automatic rifle? While they don't have a big advantage for hunting deer, they're very useful for dealing with a pack / herd of some sort of agricultural pest, typically of the escaped domestic animal sort that wasn't part of the natural ecosystem and you want to exterminate the whole group.

There's been two main reasons AR15s have been so popular.

One is a "If it's good enough for Uncle Sam, it's good enough for me" mindset. Buyers tend to assume (not always correctly) that a weapon issued to soldiers must be something reliable enough that you can trust it with your life.

Two, AR15s are kind of a Lego gun. Not only can you take it apart and service it with fairly basic tools, you can also change a lot of features about it that are pretty hard to change on other guns. Not only can you change the barrel length, you can even change the caliber without too much difficulty.

A common problem with assault weapons "bans" is that they tend to address cosmetic features of a weapon that have little to no effect on lethality, while encouraging a sense of paranoia (or is that "It's not paranoia if they're out to get you?") to stockpile whatever restyled versions come out in case future gun control laws are even more restrictive. The result of a poorly thought out, so-called ban is to increase the number of such guns in circulation.

So, i have a question. Would it seem logical to rewrite some of the constitution to fit modern times and social issues? I mean the people who wrote it were who? and when? Sometimes I think leaning on "its in the constitution" isn't a good reason to keep certain things in affect.

With "assault rifles" or guns in general, maybe we should do it like we do vehicles. Make a DMV for gun ownership, and make it so that each gun is attached to each person/owners and have them liable for some type of insurance. I mean, if you berkeley up in your car and it's your fault you become responsible right? I cant see how a person who owns an AR and it gets taken by their son or nephew to be used to kill a bunch of people (tends to be kids), isn't liable or negligent in some way. I like shooting AR's and I like driving/owning fast cars. I have to jump through some hoops to keep said fast car and myself in check every year. An AR not as many hoops. So yeah, guns are not evil. But, they're a hell of a tool for the use of evil. So are truck to drive through a crowd of people, said truck has a lot of things in place to regulate it though. 

I'm just thinking out loud.

I've owned firearms since I was 18 and was hunting long before that, I've owned an AR-15 and didn't really care for the ergonomics of it but that shouldn't restrict others. There mainly used to coyote hunt here because you can't deer hunt with a rifle other then a straightwall cartridge. Some guys are buying them chambered in .450 bushmaster for deer hunting. I'm a huge supporter of the 2nd amendment and feel like we need to enforce the laws we have instead of adding more. 

Via that California law posted above both of my pistols are illegal, I see no reason for that kind of interference in what I can own. I usually avoid these conversations because you can't change anyone's mind. Politics, religion and firearm ownership are all things you should keep to yourself anymore.

The most recent school shooting was done with a sawed off shotgun and a revolver. In small closed rooms anyone who knows how to speed load a shotgun is as dangerous as any other form of weapon in that situation. I hunt rabbit with a shotgun, it's a pump that holds 5+1. It's a much better home defense weapon then my AR or AK were. 

In reply to yupididit :

As someone who is pretty much indifferent as to whether they should be legal or not, your post makes a hell of a lot of sense to me.

Ian F said:

In reply to gearheadmb :

Agreed.  If there is one huge misconception the far right seems to have it's that "Liberals" don't own guns.  Most of my friends are liberal. A good percentage of them have guns. 

I'm sorry Dr.  but when you make that statement, the credibility of the argument is diminished.

Of course we have guns. We need them for our war on Christmas, family values, football, the economy, traditional marriage, and of course, guns.

yupididit said:

So, i have a question. Would it seem logical to rewrite some of the constitution to fit modern times and social issues? I mean the people who wrote it were who? and when? Sometimes I think leaning on "its in the constitution" isn't a good reason to keep certain things in affect.

With "assault rifles" or guns in general, maybe we should do it like we do vehicles. Make a DMV for gun ownership, and make it so that each gun is attached to each person/owners and have them liable for some type of insurance. I mean, if you berkeley up in your car and it's your fault you become responsible right? I cant see how a person who owns an AR and it gets taken by their son or nephew to be used to kill a bunch of people (tends to be kids), isn't liable or negligent in some way. I like shooting AR's and I like driving/owning fast cars. I have to jump through some hoops to keep said fast car and myself in check every year. An AR not as many hoops. So yeah, guns are not evil. But, they're a hell of a tool for the use of evil. So are truck to drive through a crowd of people, said truck has a lot of things in place to regulate it though. 

 

I'm just thinking out loud.

I imagine you'd run into the same issues seen with a poll tax (outlawed by the 24th amendment) where it could be argued that you're setting a bar not everyone can clear to exercise a right.

In reply to The0retical :

Not everyone can clear the bar to drive a car. And I'm thinking that bar should be much higher as well.

In reply to Nick Comstock :

Car's, and their licensing, aren't an enumerated right though. Private gun ownership is. That's why restrictions can more easily be placed on vehicle ownership and licensing.

Not saying it's right or wrong just how it is. I can't imagine there is enough momentum at the moment to amend out the second amendment and bring it under a DMV type structure which is what would likely have to happen in order for licensing and insurance to stand up to the courts.

I'm not a constitutional lawyer though.

I keep running across an interesting statistic that really makes me ponder the gun issue.  Best estimates suggest that there are about 101 guns per 100 people in U.S....by far largest number in the world by far.

But here's the odd statistic:  50% of U.S. civilian owned guns are in the hands of 3% of the population.  Doing the math that means the 3% each have an average of 17 guns.

FWIW I'M a gun owner...I have one handgun,  4 shotguns and a .22 calibre rifle. So I have six.   Just struck me as an odd statistic.

Wasn't aware I had to pass a federal background check to own a car.

Beyond that, convince me "assault rifles" should be banned. ALL types of rifles killed a whopping 374 people in 2016, out of 300+ million people.

I am trying very hard to be polite and definitely fighting the urge to post pictures of Elmer Fudd. 

Nick Comstock said:

In reply to The0retical :

Not everyone can clear the bar to drive a car. And I'm thinking that bar should be much higher as well.

I think the bar for guns should be higher as well. 

Grizz said:

Wasn't aware I had to pass a federal background check to own a car.

Beyond that, convince me "assault rifles" should be banned. ALL types of rifles killed a whopping 374 people in 2016, out of 300+ million people.

I am trying very hard to be polite and definitely fighting the urge to post pictures of Elmer Fudd. 

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/four-times-more-stabbed-than-rifles-any-kind/

Breitbart isnt exacty the most reliable source. 

In reply to Grizz :

Federal background checks are the easiest part of the gun buying process. 

I do not think AR's should be banned. I think guns should be more regulated and I think the bar for ownership and usage should be as high as something like a car. 

Ovid_and_Flem said:

I keep running across an interesting statistic that really makes me ponder the gun issue.  Best estimates suggest that there are about 101 guns per 100 people in U.S....by far largest number in the world by far.

But here's the odd statistic:  50% of U.S. civilian owned guns are in the hands of 3% of the population.  Doing the math that means the 3% each have an average of 17 guns.

FWIW I'M a gun owner...I have one handgun,  4 shotguns and a .22 calibre rifle. So I have six.   Just struck me as an odd statistic.

Same here. I own(ed) 6. So either there are a lot of people with 20+ or their statistics are crap. I'm going with the statistics are crap theory. 

I'm not even going to bother with the rest of this tired trope. If we really want to tackle school shootings and murders we will address the mental health issue that we are currently completely ignoring. Or the lack of enforcement of laws that we are ignoring. Or the ignoring of all the tell tale signs of something being off like the last 3 shootings. You know, where the local leo ignores crimes and doesn't prosecute students so the school district can get more grant money. 

There are already so many laws that are broken when something like this happens to show adding more laws isn't going to change anything. Lets do something that will have an impact on something. 

And yes, I have an AR. it's a great coyote gun and, honestly, its the miata of the gun world. 

The0retical said:

yupididit said:

So, i have a question. Would it seem logical to rewrite some of the constitution to fit modern times and social issues? I mean the people who wrote it were who? and when? Sometimes I think leaning on "its in the constitution" isn't a good reason to keep certain things in affect.

With "assault rifles" or guns in general, maybe we should do it like we do vehicles. Make a DMV for gun ownership, and make it so that each gun is attached to each person/owners and have them liable for some type of insurance. I mean, if you berkeley up in your car and it's your fault you become responsible right? I cant see how a person who owns an AR and it gets taken by their son or nephew to be used to kill a bunch of people (tends to be kids), isn't liable or negligent in some way. I like shooting AR's and I like driving/owning fast cars. I have to jump through some hoops to keep said fast car and myself in check every year. An AR not as many hoops. So yeah, guns are not evil. But, they're a hell of a tool for the use of evil. So are truck to drive through a crowd of people, said truck has a lot of things in place to regulate it though. 

 

I'm just thinking out loud.

 

I imagine you'd run into the same issues seen with a poll tax (outlawed by the 24th amendment) where it could be argued that you're setting a bar not everyone can clear to exercise a right.

 And it's clear that not everyone should exercise the right to bear arms. 

In reply to lnlogauge :

And snopes is two lefties with access to google and their cat. I yanked the number right from the fbi data though, thanks for assuming.

So to amend my statement, in 2016 all rifles killed at least 374, while making up an indeterminate, but likely small, amount of an additional 3000 deaths.

yupididit said:

In reply to Grizz :

Federal background checks are the easiest part of the gun buying process. 

I do not think AR's should be banned. I think guns should be more regulated and I think the bar for ownership and usage should be as high as something like a car. 

So to own a gun you should pass a laughably easy test, a basic inspection, and pay insurance in case you have to shoot someone. Beyond that no restrictions to what types of gun you can own, how many, what you do to them or even making your own from bits of scrap steel and a washing machine.

I mean it's not like I paid cash for every car I've owned and didn't let the state know I owned them until I deemed it necessary or anything. 

yupididit said:

The0retical said:

yupididit said:

So, i have a question. Would it seem logical to rewrite some of the constitution to fit modern times and social issues? I mean the people who wrote it were who? and when? Sometimes I think leaning on "its in the constitution" isn't a good reason to keep certain things in affect.

With "assault rifles" or guns in general, maybe we should do it like we do vehicles. Make a DMV for gun ownership, and make it so that each gun is attached to each person/owners and have them liable for some type of insurance. I mean, if you berkeley up in your car and it's your fault you become responsible right? I cant see how a person who owns an AR and it gets taken by their son or nephew to be used to kill a bunch of people (tends to be kids), isn't liable or negligent in some way. I like shooting AR's and I like driving/owning fast cars. I have to jump through some hoops to keep said fast car and myself in check every year. An AR not as many hoops. So yeah, guns are not evil. But, they're a hell of a tool for the use of evil. So are truck to drive through a crowd of people, said truck has a lot of things in place to regulate it though. 

 

I'm just thinking out loud.

 

I imagine you'd run into the same issues seen with a poll tax (outlawed by the 24th amendment) where it could be argued that you're setting a bar not everyone can clear to exercise a right.

 And it's clear that not everyone should exercise the right to bear arms. 

True but a background check vs "It'll be $110 dollars per month per gun for a $1 million dollar policy" are very different things. At that point you insert insurance into it, you've made it so the only people who can exercise the right are the people who can afford to. That's literally a poll tax and it'll suffer from the same abuses as a poll tax.

We've acknowledged over the years that rights can have limitations attached to them, and I'm not opposed to that, but you have to be careful how you go about limiting those rights because the second and third order consequences can be pretty debilitating.

Again, we're talking about walking back the entirety of the second amendment, as it is historically interpreted, to make that happen. If we as a society deem that to be the correct action I'd support at least trying to get another amendment passed because that's how the process works. With the way things are at the moment however, the new amendment would likely never get 3/4 of the states to ratify it either through convention or legislature.

In reply to Grizz :

I think you minimalized the idea a lot. Especially since a lot of those things are already regulated. I think it's laughingly easy to own a gun today. And I support the right to own one. I damn sure should since I signed up to die for the right to do so. BUT, my idea was something to put in addition to other regulations and laws. And hopefully we'll take care of our mentally ill as well, though it seems we care more about our guns than them.

People get pretty emotional when it comes to their right to own guns. I myself am a multiple gun owner. I'm not trying to make owning a gun impossible or illegal. I'm trying to come up with an idea to make it more responsible and having said ownership of such items should be done with what I feel more  levels of accountability. If you truly feel like it's a right to own a gun (it is) then you'd be willing to submit yourself through the process of owning one legally and responsibly. It'll still be a lot easier than acquiring a car and perhaps operating one. And way easier than home ownership. 

I've bought guns in Texas and Virginia, that E36 M3 is way too easy to do.