Could the Tulsa shooters claim immunity under Oklahoma's Castle Law?

[Straw Man]

114. I see you like to play the same games.

Though I'm still a little confused about what issues you have with that segment. The right time to ban plastic guns is before they are manufactured. As a preventative measure. Which is exactly what happened.

Oh, let's just say that I have an issue with someone deliberately fostering an impression that there is an imminent danger that must be addressed when that is in fact far from the truth. Such guns do not exist, and in all probability never will exist: metal does the job far better at far less cost. The stresses that are imposed on the actual working parts of a gun (as opposed to the frame) are such that it would take a super-plastic to sustain them for even a very few firings. Were such a gun to be produced, it would be extremely expensive and have a very short working life. But what the hell -- let's ban them preemptively, but while we're at it, let's ban disintegrator rays and phased plasma guns.

Congress investigated, found out that the technology necessary to produce a plastic gun did exist, realized that this posed a security threat, and voted to ban them. Outside the NRA bubble, there was and is virtually unanimous agreement that this is the right thing to do -- there were only four dissenters, one of which was noted gun enthusiast and hunting safety expert Dick Cheney.

According to the New York Times, "The bill passed under a special procedure allowing only limited debate and requiring a two-thirds majority, a process normally reserved for noncontroversial legislation." It appears that they rammed it through. The initial hysteria over the "all plastic Glock" was fueled in part by the movie Die Hard, in which there are references to the mythical "Glock 7," which is purportedly all plastic and undetectable by airport screening machines. This gun is a fictional entity. Nevertheless, there were calls to ban Glock handguns altogether. Rachel plays on this residual antipathy by mentioning Glock in conjunction with the Loughner/Giffords shooting, despite that case having nothing to do with this legislation. For the record, a standard Glock 17, with magazine, weighs about 25 ounces, 20 of which are made up of metal parts. Add about 8 more ounces of pure metal for the ammunition, and you're talking about close to two pounds of metal in this "plastic" gun.

Politically, though, it was a no-brainer, in more ways than one. The version of the bill that ultimately passed allowed politicians to appear to be tough on crime without actually impacting anyone or anything.

So why exactly do you object to this? Do you think plastic guns should not be banned?

Really?

Actually, I have no practical objections to the legislation. It doesn't affect me or anyone in any way. It does make politicians look like hysterical jackasses; the sky wasn't falling. But that's nothing new. I do object when a piece of meaningless tripe like this is used as some sort of political litmus test. That undermines the credibility of all involved.