Gun Politics

[LawBeefaroni]

You thought those were already laws?

Those should-be laws are pretty much what the entirety of three of these threads have been about.

Depends on the state. Many are laws in some states.

[Kraken]

You thought those were already laws?

Those should-be laws are pretty much what the entirety of three of these threads have been about.

Depends on the state. Many are laws in some states.

MA banned bump stocks within weeks of the relevant massacre. I don't recall any dissent. The NRA has no power here.

[hepcat]

Sigh...my far right extremist coworker is filling his Facebook page with nothing but hateful posts about the kids from Parkland the last few days. What a despicable piece of shit. Because he doesn’t agree with him, he’s calling them commies and sheep now.

Unfortunately he’s fucking up his own kids now by filling them with the same hate. I truly feel bad for them.

[Kraken]

Commies? Hello, the '80s called and they want their villain back. He'd sound fractionally less stupid if he stuck with libtards.

[Carpet_pissr]

Commies? Hello, the '80s called and they want their villain back. He'd sound fractionally less stupid if he stuck with libtards.

Ha! I LOL’d.

[hepcat]

I wish I was paraphrasing, but I am not. He quite literally calls them commies.

[PLW]

We had 2k in Greenville, SC. I don't know what all this "puppet kids" stuff is all about. I met the students who organized our local march. The oldest was 20, the youngest was 15.

[Chaz]

We had 2k in Greenville, SC. I don't know what all this "puppet kids" stuff is all about. I met the students who organized our local march. The oldest was 20, the youngest was 15.

The spin I keep seeing is that the walkout was actually supposed to be about honoring the victims of Parkland, and it's the teachers and the lefty agenda that twisted and coerced it into being something about getting stricter about guns. Which is dumb, because the entire time, the students organizing it have been super clear that no, this shit's about guns.

[LawBeefaroni]

They point to the organization and slick logos and media savvy as evidence that it's all orchestrated by "adults".

Becaise kids today suck at social media and branding and viral movements. Really?

[Carpet_pissr]

We had 2k in Greenville, SC. I don't know what all this "puppet kids" stuff is all about. I met the students who organized our local march. The oldest was 20, the youngest was 15.

The spin I keep seeing is that the walkout was actually supposed to be about honoring the victims of Parkland, and it's the teachers and the lefty agenda that twisted and coerced it into being something about getting stricter about guns. Which is dumb, because the entire time, the students organizing it have been super clear that no, this shit's about guns.

I think the words, delivered in the most sickeningly saccharin drawl you can imagine, sum it up pretty well, by our esteemed Govenah, Foghorn Leghorn, the Thuhhhd.:

"I understand that there is a left-wing group that is coordinating this around the country," McMaster said. "I think the children, it appears that these school children - these innocent school children - are being used as a tool by these left-wing group to further their own agenda. It is not about the tragedy, it's not about the school children or what we should all do and what these students should do."

"I imagine a lot of them intend to do is pray and to hope for the families of those who were slain," McMaster continued. "But this is a tricky move, I believe, by a left-wing group from the information I've seen, to use these children as a tool to further their own means. It sounds like a protest to me, it's not a memorial, it's certainly not a prayer service, it's a political statement by a left-wing group and it's shameful."

I fully blame Nikki Haley for abandoning us to this utter douchebag.

[Enough]

We had over 1000 here in Fort Collins and a lot more in Denver. It was a gorgeous day and I would say at our event there were definitely more adults than kids. Glad we went!

[gameoverman]

I mentioned, in one of these threads here in R&P, that I thought a cultural shift ala people turning against cigarette smoking was the only way gun control could happen. This past weekend's events are exactly the kinds of things I was thinking about. Those kids were very eloquent and I was impressed by them.

So step two is on the table. Time for people to step up. You know that people like me, anti-gun control, are going to vote and in large numbers. This mass of people around the country who are supposedly sick of the gun violence need to show up, even though it's a mid term.

These kinds of large protests are impressive, but they are also meaningless if not followed up by real action by their supporters. You need to fund your candidates and get people off their ass to vote. If gun control people don't show up and make a splash in the voting, then they will embolden the NRA and its supporters. It will show the gun control threat is a paper tiger. Things will be worse for you, gun control will be even farther away than it is now.

[Isgrimnur]

Ban semi-automatic weapons that fire high-velocity rounds

On the face of it, I am against it. But the adjective of "high-velocity" sounded like a charged modifier that I needed to look up. So I did:

Field and Stream, 2009

I started out believing devoutly in lots of speed, but 40 years later, having shot creatures of all sizes with just about everything that goes bang, I've never been able to find any correlation between bullet speed and sudden animal demise.

For 15 years I hunted whitetails in South Carolina, where you can shoot lots and lots of deer, so I had the ability to draw some valid comparisons. The smallest cartridge I used was the .257 Roberts; in other years I used the .270 Winchester, .257 Weatherby, and 7mm Weatherby. None of them killed anything any faster or deader than any other cartridge.
...
Third, barrel life for the super-speed cartridges is considerably shorter than it is for standard-velocity loads. A well-cared-for .30/06 (60 grains of powder per cartridge) will give you about 5,000 rounds of first-class accuracy. Any of the super .30s (80 grains of powder) will get perhaps 1,500 before they start to deteriorate--and the cost of a good barrel, installed, is now about $600.
...
Given all these drawbacks, why is it that high velocity keeps getting higher, and new and horrific super loads keep appearing? Because nothing makes hitting at long range easier than a good dose of feet per second. If you think you will need to take a shot at 300 yards and over, high velocity is your very best friend.

So, from that reading, there are plenty of weapons that are capable of firing high-velocity rounds that may never see one, and the overall impact on lethality is moot. If high-velocity rounds are a concern, ban or license the rounds, don't ban a weapon just because it has the capability to fire them, which sounds like most of them.

[PLW]

I thought the point was really to ban all semi-auto rifles.

[Isgrimnur]

That’s my fear. And I oppose that completely.

[PLW]

Can you say why?

[pr0ner]

Morocco is now touting its limited threat from gun violence as a part of why it should host the 2026 FIFA World Cup over the US/Canada/Mexico coalition.

[Isgrimnur]

The numbers don't support it as the major issue.

Total murders: 15,070
Total firearms: 11,004
Handguns: 7,105
Rifles: 374
Shotguns: 262
Firearms (type unknown): 3,263
Knives or cutting instruments: 1,604
Other weapons: 1,806
Hands, fists, feet, etc: 656

Let's assume that the unknown firearms category follows the known distribution.
That puts the other three categories at:

Handguns: 10,100
Rifles: 532
Shotguns: 372

For the breakdown, murders by handgun are 91.8% of the murders. If I'm murdered, I'm more likely to be beaten to death than I am by being shot with a rifle. If I'm murdered by a firearm, it's a 91.8% chance that it's by handgun.

But somehow, it's semiautomatic rifles and/or high-powered rifle ammunition that's the problem?

[Rip]

That kind of logic only works when you are trying to dismiss any need for voter ID.

[Isgrimnur]

Go troll somewhere else.

[LawBeefaroni]

Morocco is now touting its limited threat from gun violence as a part of why it should host the 2026 FIFA World Cup over the US/Canada/Mexico coalition.

Two words: 2014 Brazil.

I thought the point was really to ban all semi-auto rifles.

If so, it's misguided and, honestly, naive. A Ruger 10/22 is a semi automatic rifle. An Adams Arms XLP EVO is not. The former would fall under such a ban, the latter would not.

You can probably guess which is which.

.22 semi auto:



.300 blackout pistol:

[PLW]

For the breakdown, murders by handgun are 91.8% of the murders. If I'm murdered, I'm more likely to be beaten to death than I am by being shot with a rifle. If I'm murdered by a firearm, it's a 91.8% chance that it's by handgun.

But somehow, it's semiautomatic rifles and/or high-powered rifle ammunition that's the problem?

Well, sure, but full auto rifles were a relatively small part of the problem before they were regulated, too. It's not so much about absolute numbers as about the costs versus the benefits of regulation.

[Isgrimnur]

Full auto rifles and pistols were both regulated. Regulating semi-auto rifles out leaves semi-auto pistols in, which does nothing productive. And you have yet to sell me on the benefits to justify the cost. Four times as many people were beaten to death with or without weapons than were murdered by a rifle. More than 2.5 times as many people were stabbed to death.

And semi-auto is effectively the baseline of firearm technology these days. You're not getting back to the day of single-action revolvers and bolt-action rifles.

[pr0ner]

Morocco is now touting its limited threat from gun violence as a part of why it should host the 2026 FIFA World Cup over the US/Canada/Mexico coalition.

Two words: 2014 Brazil.

Oh, I know. But there are real rumblings that Morocco has a legit chance of winning the 2026 Cup, even with their clear disadvantages to the North American bid (such as Morocco having to spend billions on infrastructure and stadium construction that the NA bid won't, or the fact that the NA bid would make FIFA ALL the money). Adding this argument to the mix can't hurt their chances, especially in today's political climate.

[Remus West]

Full auto rifles and pistols were both regulated. Regulating semi-auto rifles out leaves semi-auto pistols in, which does nothing productive. And you have yet to sell me on the benefits to justify the cost. Four times as many people were beaten to death with or without weapons than were murdered by a rifle. More than 2.5 times as many people were stabbed to death.

And semi-auto is effectively the baseline of firearm technology these days. You're not getting back to the day of single-action revolvers and bolt-action rifles.

How many times did someone go to beat another person to death and accidentally beat the 2 year old next to them instead? There may be more deaths due to beating but there are fewer children (or anyone else) accidentally killed due to beatings meant for another. If someone is intent on murder they will find a way. Why not limit their access to the easiest method?

[Kraken]

Full auto rifles and pistols were both regulated. Regulating semi-auto rifles out leaves semi-auto pistols in, which does nothing productive. And you have yet to sell me on the benefits to justify the cost.

George Mitchell would like to convince you.

In evaluating an assault weapons ban, it’s important to keep in mind that the goal was and is to decrease the frequency and deadliness of mass shootings; neither a ban nor any other single action will end such shootings altogether.

Given the intensity of emotion on the issue, it’s not surprising that both sides point to studies that support their position. But one analysis, by Louis Klarevas, a professor at the University of Massachusetts, is persuasive. He found that mass shootings fell by 37 percent during the ban and then increased by 183 percent after it lapsed. Also, gun deaths from mass shootings fell by 43 percent during the ban, and then increased by 239 percent afterward.

The 10 deadliest mass shootings in our country’s history all occurred either before or after the ban was in effect. And today, as weapons become more sophisticated and deadly, casualties have increased.

Read his whole column if you're open to persuasion.

[Isgrimnur]

I'm on a bit of a deadline, but I will try to get back to it.

[Isgrimnur]

Full auto rifles and pistols were both regulated. Regulating semi-auto rifles out leaves semi-auto pistols in, which does nothing productive. And you have yet to sell me on the benefits to justify the cost. Four times as many people were beaten to death with or without weapons than were murdered by a rifle. More than 2.5 times as many people were stabbed to death.

And semi-auto is effectively the baseline of firearm technology these days. You're not getting back to the day of single-action revolvers and bolt-action rifles.

How many times did someone go to beat another person to death and accidentally beat the 2 year old next to them instead? There may be more deaths due to beating but there are fewer children (or anyone else) accidentally killed due to beatings meant for another. If someone is intent on murder they will find a way. Why not limit their access to the easiest method?

They and the elderly seem to be safer than anyone else.

The lowest rates are for children younger than 12 and for adults ages 65 and older.

Again, target the biggest problems, not the ones that get the most press or the biggest emotional response.

By age group, 69% of gun homicide victims are ages 18 to 40, a proportion that has changed little since 1993. These groups also have the highest homicide rates: In 2010, there were 10.7 gun homicides per 100,000 people ages 18 to 24, compared with 6.7 among those ages 25 to 40, the next highest rate.
...
Younger adults are disproportionately likely to be firearms homicide victims. In 2010, young adults ages 18 to 24 were 30% of gun homicide victims in 2010, a higher likelihood than their 10% share of the population would suggest. Similarly, in 2010, people ages 25 to 40 accounted for 40% of gun homicide victims, though they were 21% of the population that year.

[LawBeefaroni]

Full auto rifles and pistols were both regulated. Regulating semi-auto rifles out leaves semi-auto pistols in, which does nothing productive. And you have yet to sell me on the benefits to justify the cost.

George Mitchell would like to convince you.

In evaluating an assault weapons ban, it’s important to keep in mind that the goal was and is to decrease the frequency and deadliness of mass shootings; neither a ban nor any other single action will end such shootings altogether.

Given the intensity of emotion on the issue, it’s not surprising that both sides point to studies that support their position. But one analysis, by Louis Klarevas, a professor at the University of Massachusetts, is persuasive. He found that mass shootings fell by 37 percent during the ban and then increased by 183 percent after it lapsed. Also, gun deaths from mass shootings fell by 43 percent during the ban, and then increased by 239 percent afterward.

The 10 deadliest mass shootings in our country’s history all occurred either before or after the ban was in effect. And today, as weapons become more sophisticated and deadly, casualties have increased.

Read his whole column if you're open to persuasion.

He has 3 points.

1. That assault weapon bans do work.
2. That it is not complicated to draw up/enact such bans
3. That it's ok to prevent "law abiding citizens" from owning certain firearms.


His persuasive arguments for each:
1. He notes that there have been several studies supporting both sides of the issue. He names one that supports his position.
2. He says that Congress has legislated far more complex issues so they can handle this one.
3. He says that you don't need 30 rounds to kill a deer.

Honestly, it's a really shallow dive into the topic, over well trodden ground. (Forgive the mixed metaphor.)

[El Guapo]

Full auto rifles and pistols were both regulated. Regulating semi-auto rifles out leaves semi-auto pistols in, which does nothing productive. And you have yet to sell me on the benefits to justify the cost.

George Mitchell would like to convince you.

In evaluating an assault weapons ban, it’s important to keep in mind that the goal was and is to decrease the frequency and deadliness of mass shootings; neither a ban nor any other single action will end such shootings altogether.

Given the intensity of emotion on the issue, it’s not surprising that both sides point to studies that support their position. But one analysis, by Louis Klarevas, a professor at the University of Massachusetts, is persuasive. He found that mass shootings fell by 37 percent during the ban and then increased by 183 percent after it lapsed. Also, gun deaths from mass shootings fell by 43 percent during the ban, and then increased by 239 percent afterward.

The 10 deadliest mass shootings in our country’s history all occurred either before or after the ban was in effect. And today, as weapons become more sophisticated and deadly, casualties have increased.

Read his whole column if you're open to persuasion.

He has 3 points.

1. That assault weapon bans do work.
2. That it is not complicated to draw up/enact such bans
3. That it's ok to prevent "law abiding citizens" from owning certain firearms.


His persuasive arguments for each:
1. He notes that there have been several studies supporting both sides of the issue. He names one that supports his position.
2. He says that Congress has legislated far more complex issues so they can handle this one.
3. He says that you don't need 30 rounds to kill a deer.

Honestly, it's a really shallow dive into the topic, over well trodden ground. (Forgive the mixed metaphor.)

I mean, it's a newspaper op ed. That's about as much detail as will fit.

If you're open to persuasion, though, the next step would be to read the study that he highlighted. George Mitchell has a strong background in this stuff, so the study he points to should be one of the better pro-gun control effectiveness studies.

[Isgrimnur]

The 10 deadliest mass shootings in our country’s history all occurred either before or after the ban was in effect.

This statement bothers me, as it doesn't make any claim as to whether the ban would have had an impact. So I went to investigate. I uses the VOA News top 10. Of those, two of them did not use anything that could be classified as a rifle:

Virginia Tech: Glock 19 pistol, Walther P22 pistol
Edmond post office shooting: Two M1911 (.45 ACP) semi-automatic pistols, Ruger (.22-caliber) semi-automatic pistol

And then there's the University of Texas tower shooting: Universal M1 carbine, among others. Which probably wouldn't end up on anyone's "assault" rifle list.

[Isgrimnur]

The central question is whether an AR-15 is closer on the spectrum of weapons to a machine gun or to a hunting rifle. The answer is obvious.

Which he then doesn't explain. It's obvious to me that, as a semiautomatic rifle, it's closer to a hunting rifle than a machine gun. But I doubt my obvious and his are on the same page.

[LordMortis]

Mad me laugh more than it should have.

[Punisher]

The central question is whether an AR-15 is closer on the spectrum of weapons to a machine gun or to a hunting rifle. The answer is obvious.

Which he then doesn't explain. It's obvious to me that, as a semiautomatic rifle, it's closer to a hunting rifle than a machine gun. But I doubt my obvious and his are on the same page.

I think this is a big issue with the whole, "assault rifle" that a lot of people assume that if it looks like an assault rifle it is an assault rifle.
I am very Pro gun. I used them growing up and own 2 handguns. I do eventually want a shogun and and AR-15 type rifle.
I am also Pro REASONABLE gun control. Better and universal background checks, both criminal and mental health are reasonable.
Going from 18-21 is not in my eyes. Neither is banning semi-automatic rifles. I can see regulated fully automatic weapons as reasonable. As well as explosives, like frag grenades and rocket launchers. I'm kind of surprised they aren't banned already actually.
and while, I'm all for decreasing mass murders, I'm just not sure this is the right way (and I don't know what is)
I can also see a heavy backlash to the pro gun control, if something like this happens and nothing really changes. the NRA could have a field day and say "see? the fear mongers were wrong anyway" and use that to push back harder on the next gun control battle.

[Isgrimnur]

Let's go back top the list:

The Guardian's US edition has published a manifesto/proposal by Parkland high school students.

tl;dr:
--Ban semi-automatic weapons that fire high-velocity rounds
--Ban accessories that simulate automatic weapons
--Establish a database of gun sales and universal background checks
--Change privacy laws to allow mental healthcare providers to communicate with law enforcement
--Close gun show and secondhand sales loopholes
--Allow the CDC to make recommendations for gun reform
--Raise the firearm purchase age to 21
--Dedicate more funds to mental health research and professionals
--Increase funding for school security

• high-velocity rounds - been covered, I'm against it as it appears to be a blatant grab against firearms, when supposedly it's the ammo that's the problem.
• automatic simulation - I can get on board with this. If you want to jump through the government's hoops to own automatic weapons, jump through the hoops. They're already highly-regulated.
• I can be down with universal background checks. I don't like the sound of a database of sales, as it's not that far off a database of weapon ownership, and we've already seen how that can be abused.
• Privacy laws - [*]
• Gun show and secondhand sales loopholes - I have no issues, as with mandatory background checks.
• CDC recommendations - I have no issues with the CDC being allowed to study the issue and make recommendations based on the data, as long as it stays within its AOR and does not become a de facto lobbying organization.
• Raise the age - prove to me that the age limit is a factor
• More funds to mental health research and professionals - I support it fully
• Increase funding for school security - a blanket statement that is wide in net. Some schools, I'm sure that their security is adequate. Not every school is going to need an armed SRO. Some schools are going to need more. If we're tackling it at the federal level, then let's set up some grant programs. On its face as a bumper sticker, my response is, "Sure, show me a plan".

[*]

In January 2016, the Department of Health and Human Services finalized an amendment to the HIPAA Privacy Rules to directly address mental health reporting to NICS. The new rule explicitly states that certain entities may report certain identifying information to NICS and state agencies that report to NICS.

Obviously, 'may' is not 'must'. Again, the devil is in the details. A properly crafted policy with protections in place, I have no issue with.

[em2nought]

Silly society, if you want to protect your dumb brats ban texting. Texting kills more brats than rifles and pistols combined. http://www.sierrastar.com/opinion/article205835414.html


But we all know that's not what this is about don't we?

[Victoria Raverna]

Silly society, if you want to protect your dumb brats ban texting. Texting kills more brats than rifles and pistols combined. http://www.sierrastar.com/opinion/article205835414.html


But we all know that's not what this is about don't we?

US doesn't ban texting while driving? If so then ban it.

After banning that, then go back to ban rifles and pistols since they also kills people.

[Daehawk]

Ban people. All problems solved in one neat tidy ban.

[hepcat]

Silly society, if you want to protect your dumb brats ban texting. Texting kills more brats than rifles and pistols combined. http://www.sierrastar.com/opinion/article205835414.html


But we all know that's not what this is about don't we?

I’m fine with that. Are you now fine with gun control? Seems only fair.

[Holman]

The level of reactionary victim-blaming around this episode is disgusting. Look, there it is right in this thread.