Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumIf handguns are the problem, why is a semi-auto rifle ban the solution?
I realize the examiner is a pretty iffy source but I think this is a legitimate question if it's handguns that are the problem why is Josh Sugarmann trying to take a way my semiauto rifle?
http://www.examiner.com/article/if-handguns-are-the-problem-why-is-a-semi-auto-rifle-ban-the-solution
The Reuters story, picked up here by the Chicago Tribune, quotes Sugarmann’s claim that a semiautomatic handgun is the "weapon-of-choice" of mass shooting perpetrators. Sugarmann is the executive director of the Violence Policy Center.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)would be a good idea. You can still have them, but you will have to register them and be responsible and accountable for where they are and what is done with them. Oh and a strict limit on magazine capacity goes with that.
Trunk Monkey
(950 posts)when a gun registration list was used to facilitate confiscation in California. I doubt very seriously that gun owners will ever fall for that one again.
Licensing just registers gun owners instead of guns
I'm curious, we've already tried magazine capacity limits and they didn't do anything, so why do you push so hard for something that's already been shown to be a waste of time?
How about we start putting straw purchasers and felons in possession in jail ?
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)your op was about why restrict semi auto rifles if semi-auto handguns are the problem. I agree with you. Restrict both.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)but, you knew that.
Trunk Monkey
(950 posts)And I'd like to ask again since you brought it up; why are you so hot to limit magazine capacity when that's already been shown to be a waste of time?
Kaleva
(40,365 posts)Trunk Monkey
(950 posts)had any effect on the crime at all
Kaleva
(40,365 posts)Why fight and argue for something that has been proven is not needed?
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)have to do with anything?
The only thing about 'need' in the 2nd Amendment is the need of the government to make no laws restricting the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
Kaleva
(40,365 posts)True, the prices for semi-automatic handguns and semi-automatic long guns with barrels less then 20" will probably triple but as one pointed out in another thread, "Right to own is not quite the same as the right to have.". Basically, the government is under no obligation to ensure that all guns remain affordable for a large segment of the population. The FOPA of 1986 has made select fire guns pretty much unaffordable for all but the most well off.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)affordability. You made a point that certain guns are not 'needed'. My question remains, what does 'need' have to do with anything? Who makes decisions about 'needs'?
Kaleva
(40,365 posts)The people have decided that those with criminal felony records cannot buy guns even though they (the criminals) as individuals feel they have a need for such. There is little support for repealing the NFA of 1934 even though a few people think it infringes on their rights.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)Why on earth would you bring criminals into the conversation? Deflect much? How about answering the question legitimately? You said people don't 'need' certain weapons. What does 'need' have to do with any law-abiding, legal-to-own-firearms (is that good enough for you?) person from owning a weapon of their choosing?
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Did they lose their rights as citizens? Do poor people not have the same rights to buy a weapon of their "choosing"? 2A says nothing about specific weapons, just arms. The government could make all guns illegal tomorrow without infringing on 2A.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)You are batshit crazy.
Yes, felons lose rights. Sometimes they are restored, sometimes not.
Please explain to us how your last sentence could possibly be true.
Also, are you a constitutional scholar or hold a JD? I do not, but I would like to know what your basic knowledge level is. What you have posted so far is an indication. I would like to know if my current impression is mistaken.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)BTW, we use a modicum of decorum around here, in an effort to keep things civil. Calling fellow duers "batshit crazy" does not bode well for an extended sojourn here.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)I should not have posted the insult and I am sorry for that.
Is your claim and 'arms' and 'guns' are different the explanation you are going to use for saying that guns could be made illegal without violating the 2nd Amendment? Is it ok if I call you ignorant in constitutional law? I'm no constitutional scholar but I know enough to know that your claim is ridiculous. If you have a better explanation, I'm willing to read and consider it.
(By the way, although I have not participated in posting too much on DU, I have been registered a bit longer than you have. In fact, I first registered and posted in October of '02)
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)They normally come out of their troll caves in election years. Just saying.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)was diverted elsewhere and I only recently remembered that I was registered here. Now who's throwing out insults? Have you read a single post that I have written where it appears I may be a 'troll'?
alabama_for_obama
(136 posts)Is it desirable that only rich people will have access to certain kinds of guns because of taxation or artificial government enforced scarcity? I though is democrats belong to the party of the little guy, the party of equality?
Response to alabama_for_obama (Reply #117)
Post removed
Glaug-Eldare
(1,089 posts)Who needs a 32oz soda?
Who needs an electric shaver?
Who needs composite toe shoes?
Who needs spoilers on their car?
You need a reason to ban things, not a reason to allow them. This is not East Germany.
Trunk Monkey
(950 posts)would be because it's not going to cost any money. Crafting new legislation that would be very likely to fail would and what would we get out of it?
In theory I agree that no one really needs a magazine that holds greater than 20 rounds. What I disagree with is the idea that restricting magazines to that size will have any effect on crime.
I am also completely convinced that when (not if) I am proven right some one will be right there in the trenches calling for a ban on greater than 10 round magazines and so on until they simply call for a ban on handguns period
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)It'd make me feel better that someone else decided I didn't need it.
Of course, I'd probably feel even better if I could make that decision for myself.
Here's how "wimpy Liberals" defend themselves:
They aren't scared of the boogyman.
You mean they simply hope for the best.
They live in reality, not Rambo-fantasyland.
HALO141
(911 posts)But that's fine. Obviously, since the world is such a safe place, you have no problem with what I have in my gun safe.
Good to know.
> Obviously, since the world is such a safe place, you have no problem with what I have in my gun safe.
Let me know where I said the world is a safe place. If you find it, I'll give you a million bucks. Not being scared, as gun-relgionists are, is not the same as thinking the world is a safe place.
Strawmen - the only "argument" the gun-relgionists have.
LOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOL
Strawman?
OK, Ray Bolger, whatevs.
bongbong
(5,436 posts)> Strawman?
Yeah, I even pointed it out VERY SPECIFICALLY. Guess I wasn't specific enough for you gun-relgionists. Try a class in basic reading comprehension.
HALO141
(911 posts)based on your insistence that "wimpy Liberals... aren't scared of the boogyman."
Such a statement requires the reader to make some assumptions. That's hardly the same thing as building a strawman.
You might as well stop trying to goad me into lashing out. You can't make me angry. I simply don't care about you, your feelings or your ideas about what constitutes good policy. Your silly "LOL's," childish name-calling and inveterate insults are a waste of time.
"You controllers swarm over a tragedy like ants on a dead bug. You scream and cry and threaten and insult and name-call in a vain attempt to cow your opposition. You quote agenda-driven ideologues as if they preach gospel and cite dubious (at best) studies and opinion pieces presented as fact. When your so-called "facts" are challenged with verifiable evidence you claim such evidence is immaterial or fantasy. You go to great lengths to construct red herrings, straw men, guilt-by-association and ad hominem attacks. You accuse others of the worst sort of bigotry while failing to recognize your own. When pinned down on a point you strike off on other tangents sometimes not even at all connected with your original arguments. Then, when all else fails, you decry your opposition as the unwashed rabble, turn up your nose and prance away muttering something about the futility of arguing with those who refuse to acquiesce to your obvious superiority. It's all very old and very tired and very predictable.
But please, by all means... Tell us more about how stupid, inept, uneducated and dull we all are."
> Such a statement requires the reader to make some assumptions.
No it doesn't. Not in the slightest. But to build your Strawman, it does.
> You might as well stop trying to goad me into lashing out.
Quite the imagination on you. Paranoid much? I could care less about you scared bunch of gun-relgionists.
> Tell us more about how stupid, inept, uneducated and dull we all are."
No need to. You just told me yourself that you're a suspicious, paranoia-leaning gun-relgionist.
HALO141
(911 posts)"I couldn't care less about you scared bunch of gun-relgionists." The phrase is, "I couldn't care less" as in, "I could not care less than I already do." Saying, "I could care less" is rather pointless if not for the fact that the whole world assumes they know what you mean when you say it. Still, it's wrong.
Grammatical errors aside, though, you were correct the first time. It's painfully obvious that you could, in fact, care less. You could care much, much less. If you didn't care you wouldn't take the time out of your day to come to the RKBA group and fling poo.
Trunk Monkey
(950 posts)HALO141
(911 posts)Peepsite
(113 posts)I seem to recall preban mag prices rising around 50% annually.by the time the ban was lifted most of those(grandfathered) magazines were selling for 500-600% of their preban prices,had the ban on mags been continued prices would have eventually outstripped the prices on the guns they serviced.
While this may not have prevented the crimes from happening,it likely have taken the 33rnd glock mag out of laughner's reach, and the 100rnd out of the hands of the joker in Colorado. One can't say a law didn't work if one doesn't give it time to do so.
Trunk Monkey
(950 posts)Ten years wasn't long enough?
rl6214
(8,142 posts)have also proposed no grandfathering in of weapons and mags.
"One can't say a law didn't work if one doesn't give it time to do so."
If ten years isn't enough time, how much time would you think would be needed?
Peepsite
(113 posts)And the capacity ban was working, people were finding it harder and more expensive to acquire those magazines,I recall not being able to find 11,13, or 17 rd mags for less than like $50. Ar15 mags weren't quite as high, but a lot were used. And in rough shape.
The only real problem with the magazine capacity limits, IMHO, is that they were attached to the stupidity that was the assault weapons ban.
HALO141
(911 posts)was merely to make them harder and more expensive to obtain then one might say it achieved a measure of success.
If, on the other hand, the purpose of the limit was to reduce the human cost of violent crime then it was a dismal failure.
The conclusion, then, is that the ban existed because certain people found such items repugnant and such a limit was all they could get at the time. I'm done with giving a shit whether or not anyone else approves of the things I own. I used to give it some consideration but not anymore. Such people are tortured by the fact that the world doesn't revolve around them and they don't get to dictate everyone else's values. They don't like the things I own so they relentlessly attack me and them, relentlessly trying to chip away at what they don't like. If the real purpose of such a ban/limit is merely to let those people have what they want I'm not inclined to give even the tiniest of shits.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)So instead of unreliable magazines that jammed and stopped the killings, they would have been forced to use reliable standard magazines and rapid reloads like the VT and Luby's killers did and racked up a much higher body count.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)the victims were not only unarmed, but locked in while campus police stood around with their fingers up their asses doing nothing but wait for a SWAT unit from the city PD. Once it they showed up, it took them ten minutes to breach one of the doors. That being the case, it didn't matter what Cho had. He would have done the same damage with a percussion revolver and a crossbow.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)are there to protect the law enforcement officers, not primarily to protect anyone else. It's not a local cop's job to do a suicidal rush into a a hostage/shooting situation. That's what the SWAT teams are for.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)that is hardly suicidal. It was not a hostage situation. So you are saying that the students would have been worse off if they had been able to defend themselves, and it was OK for the campus police to stand around listening to the gun shots?
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)The theory is that the shooter is an abject coward who will often kill himself when he first encounters armed resistance.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)to this 'police doctrine'?
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)Google: active shooter police doctrine
http://www.poam.net/train-and-educate/2011/active-shooter-response-training/
SNIP
The answer is new training and policy sweeping across the nation to deal with “Active Shooters”.”Active Shooter” is defined as: Suspect(s) activity is immediately causing death and serious bodily injury.The activity is not contained and there is immediate risk of death or serious injury to potential victims.The Active Shooter scenario is dynamic, evolving very rapidly, and demands an immediate deployment of law enforcement resources to terminate the life threatening situation. “Immediate deployment” doesn’t usually apply to SWAT teams unless they are on the scene as the situation unfolds.Immediate deployment is more likely going to involve the first officers on the scene taking aggressive action to find and neutralize the Active Shooter(s).
SNIP
As first responders to virtually every violent 911 call, our patrol officers might very well find themselves facing an Active Shooter who is a foreign terrorist armed with several weapons and more than willing to die for his/her cause.As those responsible to “protect and serve”, the first responders won’t be able to set up a perimeter and wait for the SWAT teams to arrive and resolve the situation.The first responders will have to aggressively close on the Active Shooter and neutralize him/her by arrest or termination.
SNIP
There were lots of other hits on the google.
HALO141
(911 posts)"The theory is that the shooter is an abject coward who will often kill himself..."
I disagree. The theory is that it's impossible to placate the pissed off public and media when they start accusing the police department of doing nothing while waiting for SWAT to arrive and mop up. Politicians are just as afraid of action as they are of inaction. They make their choices based on which course involves the least political risk. Chiefs of Police are more politician than LEO so I count them with the mayors and governors. After Columbine, there arose a collective "WTF?!?" which was repeated more pointedly after every successive situation. Political dogma has now changed to reflect the idea that there is greater risk in inaction than there is in immediate response even if that response is ultimately unsuccessful.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)to the fact of the 'intel' you say the cops had.
Peepsite
(113 posts)To plan such a rampage with 30 5rnd mags than 5 30rnd mags, or whatever. Hate to say it but it seems the crazies think big mag=big penis=increased confidence in carrying out their crazy plans.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)just read too much mall ninja shit written by Walter Mitty.
Edit to ask: what is it with "antis" and this sophomoric obsession with penises?
Peepsite
(113 posts)I do believe however,that mag capacity limits aren't a bad idea. I can understand needing higher capacities in military situations where lots of suppressive fire helps keep our soldiers alive,but on main st. Anytown USA....not so much.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)biggest I have seen is a 30 on the M-16. Being short, I preferred the 20 round when firing from prone position. I would make the rule to what amounts to "what the designer intended" which are not clown car/mall ninja mags. How you would put that in a law, is a different issue. Personally, I would put them in the place of SBRs on NFA, but with only the five dollar transference tax as a pen gun.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)standard capacity magazines?
Standard 20rnd ar15 mag, standard 50rnd ps90 mag? I just think there ought to be some kind of practical limit.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)magazines it is likely that more people would have been shot than actually were because both of those magazines jammed. The after-market high-capacity magazines that are the focus of anti-gunners are highly unreliable. The talk of banning them is really more about 'feel-good' legislation rather than an effective way to control crime.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)... it jammed, and the murderer had no idea of how to clear the stoppage.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)... and have deep stocks of 30 round magazines. You'd be waiting a couple generations to burn through those stocks and by then, we'd probably see 3D printed magazines as standard.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)them as callous thugs (mostly right wingers, I might add), looking to make a buck off their lethal weapons. That is, they are just a typical gun cultist, caring little for society as long as they have theirs.
rDigital
(2,239 posts)Adrahil
(13,340 posts)Perhaps they just want to ensure they have magazines for their own use.
My point is just that there are LOTS and LOTS of magazines out there. And with some modern technologies, it won't be long before making them is as easy as using a printer.
But I think all this effort is wasted. I think going after guns to stop gun violence is roughly the same as going after cars to stop drunk driving. Could it potentially work? I guess, but it's the wrong way to go about solving that problem.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)break laws.
If nothing else, we can stop some of the guns that will pollute our society for decades, centuries.
We need registration, we need to investigate big purchasers of guns and ammo, we need to stop carrying in public, stop coddling those who can't function without guns, etc.
We need to change the way public perceives gun toters and gun hoarders the way we did tobacco, pollution, sporting swastikas and confederate flages, greedy corporations, etc.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)what the point of gun registration is. What exactly DOES gun registration do to help reduce gun crime?
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Second, gun control board can identify people arming up, selling guns in back alley rather than through FFLs, and more.
HALO141
(911 posts)simple persecution of people you don't like.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Last edited Tue Aug 14, 2012, 04:09 PM - Edit history (1)
"feel" threatened. Tell us what you imagine that "threat" looks like?
HALO141
(911 posts)http://www.break.com/usercontent/2006/10/5/stabby-stab-stab-161848
http://www.break.com/usercontent/2008/1/guy-goes-on-stabbing-spree-in-vegas-429719
http://www.break.com/index/office-worker-goes-absolutely-insane.html
http://www.break.com/usercontent/2007/8/12/lightning-quick-cop-nearly-gets-stabbed-in-the-fac-348643
http://www.break.com/usercontent/2008/3/biker-stabs-cab-driver-477803
http://www.break.com/usercontent/2007/7/19/sacramento-ca-quik-stop-clerk-stabbed-with-mach-334375
http://www.break.com/usercontent/2008/2/diamond-robbery-452115
http://www.break.com/usercontent/2012/1/26/robbery-2292214
http://www.break.com/usercontent/2007/2/15/extremely-voilent-robbery-with-shooting-226743
http://www.break.com/usercontent/2007/1/5/now-thats-a-robbery-204195
http://www.break.com/usercontent/2011/10/21/gas-station-robbery-2192677
http://www.break.com/usercontent/2012/1/18/robbery-interrupted-2288964
http://www.break.com/usercontent/2007/4/26/tobacco-store-robbery-281755
http://www.break.com/usercontent/2009/3/attack-brutal-691045
http://www.break.com/usercontent/2007/5/16/vicious-beating-295180
http://www.break.com/usercontent/2009/8/violent-armed-robbery-caught-on-tape-953727
http://www.break.com/usercontent/2007/5/8/girl-stabs-another-girl-in-the-leg-during-a-fight-290152
http://www.break.com/tru-tv/trutv-wailing.html
http://www.break.com/usercontent/2007/6/24/someone-got-stabbed-319412
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=627_1344528860
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=09a_1343487764
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=09a_1343487764
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=85e_1343252304
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f4d_1338580018
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7ed_1265242538
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=eb7_1173581870
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7ed_1325857824
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=3d7_1252525699
leveymg
(36,418 posts)If you got 'em smoke 'em, but you won't be able to resell them, or their magazines, legally. Ammo sales will be tracked and limited. No private resale. That's the solution.
Bolt-action hunting rifles, shotguns, and revolvers for home defense won't be restricted. That's how you keep your 2A. That's the deal. You won't get a better one later.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)of course we both know that when it does not have the desired effect, there will be pushes for more regulations and bans. You will allow bolt actions, how about lever and pump actions? How about semi auto shotguns? Serious target pistols tend to be semi automatic.
Did you know many of the pistols used in the Olympics and International Shooting Sports Federation are classified as "assault pistols" and banned under California law? Example:
http://haemmerli.info/en/products/2746986_haemmerli_sp20.html
Why? because the magazine well is someplace other than the grip. Can you explain the logic in that? Yes many gun laws in the United States are that moronic. That isn't to say other countries have some stupid provisions too.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)the only one that seems to make sense on its face if you're trying to diminish the chance of the sort of massacres we've seen lately.
Trunk Monkey
(950 posts)I’m basing that on the fact that the only place I’m seeing a call for banning semi auto guns is right here on DU.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)there will be no exceptions to the rule. The stated goal of the VPC is to ban private possession of all firearms and archery.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)transfer of semi-auto guns going to reduce crime? The criminals certainly will violate your proposed law.
By the way, if your proposed law is pushed for and passed by democrats it will hand over both houses of congress and likely the White House to the republicans for many years. Is that what you hope to accomplish?
HALO141
(911 posts)play the "repeal" card when it looks like they're going to lose and that will likely guarantee they hold those offices for years afterward.
Trunk Monkey
(950 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)the semiautos you already have, and if you try to buy a ton of ammo, somebody's going to ask why you want it and maybe take a closer look at you.
That may not be an ideal solution as far as you're concerned, but it keeps 2A - the right to keep and bear arms -- uninfringed. The Second says nothing about a right to sell arms. Besides, if you want to be a fundamentalist about it, since you will still have a right to freely trade in bolt-action hunting rifles, revolvers and shotguns, your 2A is still vastly expanded compared to what you could do within it in the late 18th Century, when there was nothing but single shots.
So, "Molon Labe" doesn't apply. Anyone who would try to "Come and take it" would meet up with the "cold and clammy finger" lunatic fringe, and the point is not to get more people killed by firearms, but fewer.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)
Anything else?
hack89
(39,181 posts)just how do you think you can enforce this?
And what limits do you propose for ammo?
leveymg
(36,418 posts)How would they enforce it? I think pretty much the same way they do other controlled substances.
You tell me how much ammo you need per month. Please specify what you do with it. If it fits within a norm for that purpose, you'll be able to pick it up the same day. In the vast majority of cases, self-certification will be approved. Some will be randomly audited. Others that trigger a red flag or match a profile will get a closer look. Just like every other administrative process.
TheKentuckian
(26,314 posts)That has worked out well, right?
You seriously want to expand a dangerously failed model that eats civil liberties like a black hole, has created a for profit prison system, and magnified exactly what is supposed to be limited?
That is not very bright at all. If this really how you folks think then you are more dangerous than any possible mad shooter. At least the shooters have the excuse of being off the reservation. Prohibitionist embrace the counter-productive when they are supposed to be lucid.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Only we would still have all those semi-autos in law-abiding American hands for years to come.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)their problems are different than ours.
and why limit it to just the western world? Most gun control advocates love to point to Japan and Singapore.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)And, Japan and Singapore are generically considered part of the OECD or "western" economies. Let's not be nit-picky.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)or drug problem, wealth inequality problem. They do have far more, per capita and absolute, higher rate of criminal use of automatic weapons than we do. That includes the UK.
bongbong
(5,436 posts)> hey don't have the gang problem
What a load!
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)They don't have the gang problem.
You have such a great intellect, mommy must be proud of you.
Bless your heart.
bongbong
(5,436 posts)> They don't have the gang problem
You're saying it twice - so it MUST BE TRUE!
The comedy never ends with the gun-relgionists.
hack89
(39,181 posts)and being law abiding citizens they will obey this law, thus reducing gun violence.
Are you arguing that purchases/sales of guns by criminals is not an issue? Or are you assuming that this is the one law criminals will decide to obey?
So just like illegal drugs, you don't necessarily plan actually stop anything but rather to have the tools to punish people after the fact. Because we know how scarce illegal drugs are in America.
I fail to see how your ammo limits will stop mass killings - one trip to the range equals a couple of hundred rounds. Any "norm" for any legal purpose will provide a mass shooter with all the ammo he needs. And if he is patient enough to spread his purchases over time, there will never be any red flags.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)G-d help you if it should show up later as involved in a crime. Bye, bye!
The ammo limits aren't so much to limit the availability of rounds, as to track and monitor the "normal" use of them. I agree that someone who coldly, calculatedly plans a mass-killing spree can probably game the system and hoard enough ammo to fill a closet. But, over time, less and less so. Not perfect, but better than laissez-fire.
hack89
(39,181 posts)what is your plan to get all 50 states to pass legislation?
hack89
(39,181 posts)As long as you are law abiding, why should you be concerned?
You realize your scheme will never pass Constitutional muster.
Trunk Monkey
(950 posts)None of your business
If it fits within a norm for that purpose, you'll be able to pick it up the same day.
I can do that now w/out government infringement.
seriously, creating a bureaucracy to handle all that is going to cost a lot of money as well as a lot of political capital for very little if any return.
Your solution generates a bunch of questions as well who decides what "normal" consumption of ammunition is? what are you going to do when the American people overwhelmingly reject your proposal and vote every Democrat that supports this legislation (regardless of their stance on other progressive issues) out of office for ever and hands control of the house and senate to to conservanazis until Hell freezes solid?
proposing this 'deal'?
pipoman
(16,038 posts)issue. We are not in agreement but we may be close.
I don't think federal registration is a good idea, nor is it a realistic possibility, but this part, "be responsible and accountable for where they are and what is done with them.", may have some merit if thoughtfully considered.
I hate that there are so many "straw purchases" and so few prosecutions. I would like to see data on the average length of time between the purchase of a gun from an ffl and recovery as evidence in a crime. I believe that time would often be within 2 years (just speculation). From that a criminal statute could be drafted requiring reporting of lost or stolen firearms which would allow for a lighter, misdemeanor like, with a light punishment for violation when the firearm was purchased from an ffl. This way if grandpa's luger which he hasn't looked at for 20 years is found to be missing after discovery of the weapon in connection with a crime, grandpa wouldn't be convicted of a serious offense. OTOH, if a year after the purchase a gun is recovered, traced, purchaser interviewed, and the claim made the gun was "lost" or "stolen", and the person didn't report it they could be charged with a felony with a hefty sentence. To further assist in prosecution, an addition to FFL regulations to require keeping video of sales counters for 2 years. The cost would not be prohibitive, around 500 gigs per year, and the equipment has never been cheaper. I use SuperCircuits system with some low and some higher resolution cameras, it could be done for less than $1000. Then if the criminal who used the gun is found to have been present at the purchase, the straw buyer's defense would take a turn for the worse.
petronius
(26,696 posts)Looking at my state (CA), it seems that more than 75% of recovered firearms are more than 3 years out from purchase, with an average of 13.9 years. The national time-to-crime average is 11.2 years.
I do agree with you that straw purchasers need to be pursued and prosecuted more aggressively...
pipoman
(16,038 posts)it seems like every time a whack job shoots up the place, he just bought it/them within the year. The last one I can remember who was actually a 'gun nut' may have been McVeigh, and he used explosives.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)... it's already illegal to murder someone with a legally owned weapon.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Jenoch
(7,720 posts)It appears you are referring to Fast and Furious. I agree with you that many should be prosecuted for that operation.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)girl friends buying guns for their felon old man, Fast and furious was about gun smuggling/trafficking.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)there were no straw purchases as part of the Fast and Furious operation?
pipoman
(16,038 posts)Jenoch
(7,720 posts)that you seem to have missed. Our esteemed attorney general was behind a whole slew of straw purchases.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)he was behind a failure to enforce the law. I'm not aware that he had anything to do with arranging or purchasing any of the guns. He didn't create or employ the buyers, he allowed the sales as a tactic in an investigation which went tragically south (no pun intended).
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)Registration accomplishes nothing but wastes money and has been used as a prelude to confiscation.
Magazine limits are counter-productive. In the two mass killings in which a hi-cap mag was used, the magazine jammed. In other mass killings the shooter used standard magazines and reloaded. It only takes less than one second to reload.
BTW - People who are outlawed from having guns cannot be required to resister them due to the 5th Amendment. That has already been to SCOTUS.
Kaleva
(40,365 posts)Make it illegal to manufacture and to import into this country for civilian use any semi-automatic that has a barrel length less then 20".
Those such guns currently in civilian hands now and in gun shop inventory would remain legal to own, sell or purchase. This would cover all semi-auto handguns and many of the so-called assault weapons.
The military surplus SKS would remain legal to import as its barrel is more then 20" and the AR-15 and semi-auto AK-47 are offered with 20" barrels.
One could also ban the manufacture and importation for civilian use any detachable gun (handgun, rifle, and shotgun) magazine that holds more then 20 rounds.
Trunk Monkey
(950 posts)Columbine, Luby's, Vonn Maur, Lane Bryant,Troley Square or VT
Now what?
Kaleva
(40,365 posts)Would that have had an impact in those examples you mentioned?
Trunk Monkey
(950 posts)I doubt very much that it would have though at Columbine long guns were used and at Luby's Henard drove his truck through the window of the Restaurant. It wouldn't have been too hard for him to have a 20 inch plus hand gun on the seat next to him.
I would appreciate an answer to my question please, if a 20 round limit on magazine capacity wouldn't have stopped those crimes what's your next solution?
Kaleva
(40,365 posts)One could try and argue that hunter safety courses are not effective by citing examples of hunters getting shot but that would be ignoring the fact that gun related hunting accidents have declined by about 50% since many states have made hunter safety courses mandatory.
Trunk Monkey
(950 posts)and asking them to sponsor the bill.
Let us know how it works out for you.
Reasonable_Argument
(881 posts)If you want a rifle or shotgun with a shorter barrel you have to register it as a SBR and pay a fee.
Kaleva
(40,365 posts)Reasonable_Argument
(881 posts)"Under the NFA, §5845 classifies “a rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length” or “…a weapon made from a rifle if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length” as a firearm regulated by the NFA’s additional restrictions. SBRs require a taxable transfer process very similar to that required for fully automatic guns and sound suppressors (machine guns and silencers in NFA-parlance)."
Kaleva
(40,365 posts)I'm talking about making it illegal to manufacture or to import for civilian use any semi-automatic that has a barrel less then then 20" long.
If 4" on a long gun makes no difference, then there is no reason to argue against such a restriction.
rDigital
(2,239 posts)length on rifles?
Kaleva
(40,365 posts)rDigital
(2,239 posts)When you want to make a restriction on an inalienable right you need to have a really good reason, no matter how small you think the infringement is.
Kaleva
(40,365 posts)Last edited Sat Aug 11, 2012, 06:44 PM - Edit history (1)
You'll still be able to buy such guns and magazines. They'll cost about three times as much as they do now and more then that as time goes on but none of our rights are equate-ably distributed. The Koch brothers can donate millions to their favorite causes and candidates while I'm looking at possibly being able to donate $5 to $15 bucks this month.
"The Koch brothers can donate millions to their favorite causes and candidates while I'm looking at possibly being able to donate $5 to $15 bucks this month."
What does the above sentence have to do with minimum barrel lengths and limits on magazine capacity? It reads like a non-sequitur to me.
rDigital
(2,239 posts)Kaleva
(40,365 posts)You'd still be able to buy such guns and magazines. True, they'd cost alot more but if you think they are vital, you'll find a way to pay for them.
rDigital
(2,239 posts)more expensive is an infringement. Freedom of choice. You still haven't given a reason. There is no debate if you can't give a reason.
Good luck, but that ship will not sail in the US.
Kaleva
(40,365 posts)So no change there.
As for the reason, I go back to a question I asked earlier in this thread. What are the weapons of choice for bad guys and why?
ManiacJoe
(10,138 posts)They usually have a weapon of convenience, based on what is available to what they can afford.
rDigital
(2,239 posts)Kaleva
(40,365 posts)was the most common firearm used by criminals.
ManiacJoe
(10,138 posts)semi-autos and revolvers. Semi-autos are the most common type now for everyone.
At that same level, there are only two types of automobiles: those with manual transmissions and those with automatic transmissions.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)of all types.
Long guns make up less than 4% of all murders committed with firearms.
ManiacJoe
(10,138 posts)A longer barrel makes the rifle heavier and harder to maneuver in tight spaces.
There are also technical advantages to a longer barrel in some circumstances. It depends on your needs.
Your longer-barrel restriction is a proposed solution to a problem. Please define the problem so we can analyze how well your proposed solution solves the problem.
Kaleva
(40,365 posts)then one must look at what semi-automatics the bad guys prefer and the reasons why.
ManiacJoe
(10,138 posts)What is the problem that your barrel-length solution is trying to solve?
aikoaiko
(34,214 posts)...with as short a barrel as possible (for maneuvering) with a bright light and Aimpoint. Why? More control, less likely to miss, and one shot delivers a lot of energy. I'm not saying the job couldn't be accomplished with a pistol or shotgun, but I'd rather have an short AR.
Someday I will buy and do the paperwork for a 10 inch barrel and a suppressor, but for now I just use my 16 in carbine.
rl6214
(8,142 posts)functions great and the buffe tube can be put right up against the shoulder to use as a stock without having to jump thru the hoops of an SBR.
Kaleva
(40,365 posts)As the bad guys never call ahead and make a reservation, for self defense then, the gun must be at least within reach 27/7.
There's nothing wrong with having a rifle, carbine or shotgun for home defense but I would only have such as a backup as I may not be ale to get it when needed.
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)You're all over the place here.
Kaleva
(40,365 posts)GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)Your barrel length remains the same but the overall weapon is much shorter, and you won't wast money on a tax or have excess paperwork.
Reasonable_Argument
(881 posts)In which case you basically want a defacto ban on semi-automatic handguns that can be circumvented with 1 min and a saw by someone who wants to.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)to break laws by using guns illegally would have no problem breaking the 'barrel length' gun law. So once again, it would be a gun law affecting only the law abiding citizens. (Not to mention the millions of semi-automatic handguns already manufactured).
bongbong
(5,436 posts)> to break laws by using guns illegally would have no problem breaking the 'barrel length' gun law.
You win the award for posting the NRA Talking Point "criminals don't obey laws so why have laws?" Big Lie for the trillionth time on DU!
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)It would be a pain-in-the-ass for legal gun owners, and totally ineffective against criminals.
Criminal #1: Let's rob First bank on Friday.
Criminal #2: We can't sneak the guns in. The barrels are too long and it is against the law to cut them down.
Does that sound like a realistic converstation to you?
Have you noticed that high body count mass shootings almost always happen in "gun free" zones?
There have been several mass shootings that have been stopped by an armed citizen before the body count could get high,
Kaleva
(40,365 posts)Those who have them can still have them. One just couldn't go into a gun shop and buy one that already wasn't in inventory or owned by someone else before the ban went into effect.
Reasonable_Argument
(881 posts)Trunk Monkey
(950 posts)in cirulation now wear out, maybe your proposal will have some affect.
Kaleva
(40,365 posts)The same would go for detachable magazines that hold more then 20 rounds. Especially if it's also illegal to import even those that were made before the ban went into effect.
Those who have them would be less likely to sell as they would become investment pieces whose value would certainly go up each and every year.
In many of the mass shooting cases, the shooter bought the guns not long before he used them.
Trunk Monkey
(950 posts)Kaleva
(40,365 posts)"Columbine, Luby's, Vonn Maur, Lane Bryant,Troley Square or VT "
Stolen guns?
Trunk Monkey
(950 posts)Doesn't that seem just a little extreme to you?
FWIW Vaunn Maur was a stolen gun also FWIW I went to high School w/ the first cop on the scene there and he doesn't see how restrictive gun laws would have helped
Kaleva
(40,365 posts)They'll just be alot more expensive but those who think such a gun is vital will find a way to pay for it. Those who don't will buy a revolver or a semi-automatic long gun with a barrel of 20" or more.
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)One trigger pull, one shot, that's what semi-auto means.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)As explained by Wikipedia,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_revolver
In contrast, as also explained by Wikipedia,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_revolver
Of course, they could be wrong.
ManiacJoe
(10,138 posts)Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)The trigger being pulled causes one round to fire and the next to be put in battery for the next trigger pull. This guy is essentially arguing to ban revolvers as well as magazine-fed pistols.
ManiacJoe
(10,138 posts)However, revolvers do not work that way.
Yes, banning revolvers is probably what he is arguing for.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)revolvers do work the way as described. It is however, a ridiculous comparison/definition.
ManiacJoe
(10,138 posts)The cocking of the hammer (either by your thumb or by the double-action trigger) rotates the next round into alignment with the barrel. The release of the hammer by the trigger fires the current aligned round. The fired shell remains aligned with the barrel until the shooter rotates the next one in.
The difference is more than just semantics.
Peepsite
(113 posts)How do you know that "most crime handguns are stolen"?
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)when you look at the average age of the crime gun. Also, most murders and most murder victims have criminal records to begin with. Plus, most of the problem is in places like DC, Chicago, USVI.
Peepsite
(113 posts)Stats that suggest 90% of Mexico crime guns are bought legally in US gun shops? I'd take that with a big grain of salt. I'm willing to believe that most guns reported stolen are subsequently used In Other crimes, but if there's no way to trace the rest,no registry that is outside places like DC,one has to wonder how they get those numbers. I'd bet they just don't really care and just list em as stolen to avoid more paperwork.
Trunk Monkey
(950 posts)Kaleva
(40,365 posts)or take better care of them if they were more costly.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)And are therefore impermissible.
Kaleva
(40,365 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Took a while to kick over DC's handgun ban. It happened.
Kaleva
(40,365 posts)This law effectively bans semi-automatics with detachable magazines because it also covers guns that can easily converted to fire more then 7 rounds before reloading which can be done by using a larger magazine.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Such small capacities are not in 'common usage', and larger capacities are, so Heller also laid groundwork that can be used to torpedo that.
Kaleva
(40,365 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I will agree that at the moment, there doesn't appear to be any public traction on this, aside from a petition to local legislators to rescind the ban.
bongbong
(5,436 posts)> Do you really expect criminals to obey that law?
You win the award for posting this NRA Talking Point for the zillionth time on DU.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)Perhaps you are unable to refute it because you understand that it is true.
bongbong
(5,436 posts)The NRA Talking Points have been rebutted and laid to rest a million times. NRA parrots keep resurrecting them. I'm not wasting my time again.
Trunk Monkey
(950 posts)rl6214
(8,142 posts)I've got ARs in both 20" and 16". They function exactly the same. I've even got one with a 7" barrel, it also functions exactly the same.
"Those such guns currently in civilian hands now and in gun shop inventory would remain legal to own, sell or purchase."
The last AWB had a grandfather clause and all it did was cause prices of those weapons to triple, which would really be great for my retirement.
Kaleva
(40,365 posts)"The last AWB had a grandfather clause and all it did was cause prices of those weapons to triple, which would really be great for my retirement."
And you pointed out how this law, if passed, wouldn't hurt in any form what-so-ever those who already have such guns. In fact, it'd be a financial bonanza for them. It wouldn't hurt gun dealers either as they'd mark up their prices right away. Long before the law actually went into effect.
ManiacJoe
(10,138 posts)Machine guns (select-fire weapons) were not covered in any way by the previous federal "assault weapons" ban. That ban addressed semi-auto rifles only.
Machine-guns are expensive because no new ones can be added to the federal register since 1986, creating an artificial limit on the supply side.
Kaleva
(40,365 posts)Select fire guns are expensive because the only ones one can legally buy are those that were already registered or "grandfathered in" before the Act went into effect.
The AWB had the same effect on certain banned so-called assault weapons.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)The AWB only addressed some of a gun's cosmetics. Gun manufacturers merely changed the cosmetics and changed the name of the gun and kept on selling them.
For example, the Intratec TEC DC-9 was slightly modified and renamed the AB-10. Function, rate of fire, accuracy, reliability (Actually lack of reliability. It is a crappy gun.) did not change. The barrel shroud being removed was the only change.
TEC DC-9 Pre-AWB
AB-10 During AWB.
Kaleva
(40,365 posts)In reading various forums where this was discussed, the general consensus was that prices doubled for the more common banned guns and prices went up more then that for the less common ones.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)With some slight cosmetic changes, the same guns continued to be sold without signifigant price increases. Yes, if one insisted on having the old pre-ban cosmetics then one did pay a premium. Most buyers didn't mind not having a bayonet lug or a flash suppressor as the shooting part of the rifle was unchanged, therefore they did pay huge prices due to the AWB.
Guns were going up due to the huge legal expenses the firearms industry was having to pay, but the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005 took care of that problem.
The objective of those behind the 1994 AWB was not to ban some gun but to get Americans accustomed to the idea of some guns being banned, then to increase the size of the ban until total disarmament had been reached. As evidence of that incrementalism on need only look at the so-called renewal AWB (HR 1022) that was introduced in 2004.
Kaleva
(40,365 posts)What I propose would cause the prices of the affected guns and magazines to go up but it would not affect the price of say revolvers or bolt action, pump action, or break open action long guns with barrel lengths from 16 to 20 inches.
Reasonable_Argument
(881 posts)Having more personal wealth entitles one to be better armed?
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)That won't fly.
Kaleva
(40,365 posts)I'm satisfied with the laws we have on the books now.
But for those who wish to see a renewal of the AWB, I think that would be a wasted effort and wouldn't accomplish anything as the AWB was more about the appearance of the gun and about some features that had nothing to do with gun crime.
For any added restriction to work, IMO, it would have to concentrate on the action of the gun itself and on magazine capacity. Which is a ban on all semi-automatics and detachable magazines that hold more then 20 rounds. As a concession to hunters, I've talked about allowing semi-automatics that have a barrel length of 20" or more. And as a further concession to those who already own such guns (semi-automatics with a barrel length of less then 20" )and magazines (mags that hold more then 20 rounds) and to gun dealers who have them in stock, those guns & mags would remain legal.
ManiacJoe
(10,138 posts)is trying to solve?
rDigital
(2,239 posts)alabama_for_obama
(136 posts)To offer people concessions as you needlessly propose trampling on their rights.
rl6214
(8,142 posts)to do with the 94 AWB.
A short-barreled carbine-type rifle is ideal for home defense, but a 20" barrel wouldn't really be a hinderence to someone using the weapon in a mass shooting in more open open area. After all, the standard M16 has a 20" barrel.
Iggy
(1,418 posts)his pathetic perfromance in Aurora.
the only reason he did not murder more people in that theater is because something
jammed in his AR-15.. not sure it was the stupid drum magazine he was using or it was
the gun itself-- moot maybe.. the point is he would have killed/injured alot more
people had he not had this problem.
these guns must be banned.. and IMHO, the drum magazine also
Trunk Monkey
(950 posts)You admit that the drum magazine he used may have jammed but you want to ban them anyway?
My understanding is that he did for far more people with the shotgun than the AR perhaps we should ban shotguns as well?
Iggy
(1,418 posts)the drum magazine don't jam every time there are used... you get that right?
or is this just about NRA talking points and "rationale".
Trunk Monkey
(950 posts)Is that the new euphemism for "Any position on gun rights I don't agree with"?
Both times an extended magazine has been used in a "mass" shooting they did jam ... you get that right?
Why are you so hot to ban something that isn't going to affect crime at all?
bongbong
(5,436 posts)> Is that the new euphemism for "Any position on gun rights I don't agree with"?
No, it's the euphemism for the Big Lies that gun-relgionists trot out with great repeatability & predictability after every mass murder by a gun-relgionist.
Trunk Monkey
(950 posts)beyond this it isn't forthcoming .
good day.
bongbong
(5,436 posts)Don't go away mad.
Just go away.*
* (and play cowboys, Indians, and Rambo somewhere else)
rrneck
(17,671 posts)GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)Numerous mass killers have racked up much larger body counts using standard magazines and quickly reloading. Standard magazines are far more reliable.
So you want to force a particular mass killer to use something that would be more effective for his purpose. You want that because you are angry and not thinking but instead are reacting emotionally.
rl6214
(8,142 posts)that type of military grade assault rifle, doncha know.
spin
(17,493 posts)Handguns are far too popular to ban as the first step.
rDigital
(2,239 posts)then we'll come for the rest in 10 years.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)safety has been one issue they've used to advance their agenda.
It is not their agenda however.