Why we should not ban assault guns

[Skintaster]

Then why are people getting their panties in a bunch over an assault weapon ban?

Because it's a curtailment of currently held firearm rights that would affect millions of law abiding, responsible citizens, and would probably not affect gun crime rates much at all.

It's ineffective, badly thought out legislation that appeals to the sensibilities of people with little or no actual firearm experience, and it's being driven by a handful of long term anti gun politicians exploiting a tragedy for the emotional push it's giving their agenda.

"Assault weapon" crimes are a tiny drop in the bucket in regards to gn violence. They're not even used that often in mass shootings.

Taking all of these things together, why would I support that? I support all sorts of potentially useful policies that might curtail gun violence, but the "Assault weapon" ban is ridiculous.

 

[Beerdog80]

The reason why the answer is zero is because of the extensive background checks involved in getting a machine gun permit.

So, it seems like extensive background checks on ALL firearms would reduce the number of mass shootings in the US. Yes?

Reasonable idea but full automatics are VERY expensive, thus, your common criminal can't afford one and stealing them is probably more difficult for reasons I outlined in my earlier post.

Handguns used in the commission of a murder/homicide account for nearly 96% of the firearm related violence in this country. Yet, we hear next to nothing about banning handguns. Irony?

Extensive background checks won't matter much when the weapons are not properly secured. Most handguns/rifles are easily stolen because irresponsible owners don't lock them up and/or allow those who are mentally unstable (re: Sandy Hook) to have access to them. Resolve that problem to start.

Mental health is the biggest issue personally. As of right now, the FBI has a system in place to report mental health issues in NCIC so when your local cop runs a background, it will show up. Problem is, it is NOT a requirement to submit the info to that system. Yet, I have not heard a single proposal to make that mandatory. More irony.

 

[LtDave32]

On the other hand, every heroin addict started out drinking milk. Why is it still legal?

Some milk delivery systems could be considered large-capacity.

 

[LtDave32]

Because it's a curtailment of currently held firearm rights that would affect millions of law abiding, responsible citizens, and would probably not affect gun crime rates much at all.

It's ineffective, badly thought out legislation that appeals to the sensibilities of people with little or no actual firearm experience, and it's being driven by a handful of long term anti gun politicians exploiting a tragedy for the emotional push it's giving their agenda.

"Assault weapon" crimes are a tiny drop in the bucket in regards to gn violence. They're not even used that often in mass shootings.

Taking all of these things together, why would I support that? I support all sorts of potentially useful policies that might curtail gun violence, but the "Assault weapon" ban is ridiculous.

Quoted as an example of common-sense.

 

[Skintaster]

The reason why the answer is zero is because of the extensive background checks involved in getting a machine gun permit.

So, it seems like extensive background checks on ALL firearms would reduce the number of mass shootings in the US. Yes?

Possibly. That's one of the strategies I would personally support. But bans of certain types of common weapons? Nope.

And they don't have the votes to do it anyway. They should focus on policies that might make a real difference.

 

[lespaul01]

....Blargle Slag....

 

[Caoimhin]

You can ban all the guns, video games, and horror movies you want and it wont prevent another mass shooting.

 

[Beerdog80]

Because it's a curtailment of currently held firearm rights that would affect millions of law abiding, responsible citizens, and would probably not affect gun crime rates much at all.

BINGO

 

[Beerdog80]

You can ban all the guns, video games, horror movies and Walking Deads you want and it wont prevent another mass shooting.

You ban Walking Dead and that alone will spark at least one mass shooting.

 

[allbusinessjoe]

The NRA made a statement today that they are going to fight for gun rights.

And that is fine. But they should also man up and claim personal financial responsibility for every massacre in which an assault weapon was used. It may not totally solve the problem, but it's a step in the right direction.

Either put their money where their mouth is, or STFU.

 

[LtDave32]

Extensive background checks won't matter much when the weapons are not properly secured. Most handguns/rifles are easily stolen because irresponsible owners don't lock them up and/or allow those who are mentally unstable (re: Sandy Hook) to have access to them. Resolve that problem to start.

Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding. Winner.

Recognizing actual problems leads to the actual solving of them. Outstanding.

Namby-pamby, "paws in the air" "oh-why-oh-why" tearful cries of misery and whines of "I hate this place, I'm leaving" aren't going to solve a fvcking thing.

 

[bertzie]

Because it's a curtailment of currently held firearm rights that would affect millions of law abiding, responsible citizens, and would probably not affect gun crime rates much at all.

It's ineffective, badly thought out legislation that appeals to the sensibilities of people with little or no actual firearm experience, and it's being driven by a handful of long term anti gun politicians exploiting a tragedy for the emotional push it's giving their agenda.

"Assault weapon" crimes are a tiny drop in the bucket in regards to gn violence. They're not even used that often in mass shootings.

Taking all of these things together, why would I support that? I support all sorts of potentially useful policies that might curtail gun violence, but the "Assault weapon" ban is ridiculous.

Just do what they did to machine guns. Didn't take the guns away from people that already had them.

 

[ScottKendrick]

You joke about the milk thing but some places already try to regulate peoples soda capacity.

 

[Beerdog80]

The NRA made a statement today that they are going to fight for gun rights.

And that is fine. But they should also man up and claim personal financial responsibility for every massacre in which an assault weapon was used. It may not totally solve the problem, but it's a step in the right direction.

Either put their money where their mouth is, or STFU.

Why should ANY orginization accept personal liability for their products being used illegally?

I guess I can sue the automakers and the alcohol distributors after every DUI based on your logic.

 

[Torren61]

Reasonable idea but full automatics are VERY expensive, thus, your common criminal can't afford one and stealing them is probably more difficult for reasons I outlined in my earlier post.

Handguns used in the commission of a murder/homicide account for nearly 96% of the firearm related violence in this country. Yet, we hear next to nothing about banning handguns. Irony?

Extensive background checks won't matter much when the weapons are not properly secured. Most handguns/rifles are easily stolen because irresponsible owners don't lock them up and/or allow those who are mentally unstable (re: Sandy Hook) to have access to them. Resolve that problem to start.

Mental health is the biggest issue personally. As of right now, the FBI has a system in place to report mental health issues in NCIC so when your local cop runs a background, it will show up. Problem is, it is NOT a requirement to submit the info to that system. Yet, I have not heard a single proposal to make that mandatory. More irony.

So, you're agreeing with me that we need better background checks on ALL firearms?

 

[Skintaster]

The NRA made a statement today that they are going to fight for gun rights.

And that is fine. But they should also man up and claim personal financial responsibility for every massacre in which an assault weapon was used. It may not totally solve the problem, but it's a step in the right direction.

Either put their money where their mouth is, or STFU.

Why should they? Seriously... Wy should they? The NRA has been painted as some crazy extremist organization, but they represent the rights of millions of law abiding citizens. Why should they be held accountable for the actions of some criminal lunatic?

How is that a step in the right direction? You might as well hold the parent of any future shooters financially accountable for their kid's homicidal actions. There's a disconnect there.

 

[Shelbyblues]

Then why are people getting their panties in a bunch over an assault weapon ban?

Assault Weapons Ban of 2013

Mass shootings in Newtown, Aurora, and Tucson have demonstrated all too clearly the need to regulate military-style assault weapons and high capacity ammunition magazines. These weapons allow a gunman to fire a large number of rounds quickly and without having to reload.

The legislation bans the sale, transfer, manufacturing and importation of:

All semiautomatic rifles that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: pistol grip; forward grip; folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; barrel shroud; or threaded barrel.

All semiautomatic pistols that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: threaded barrel; second pistol grip; barrel shroud; capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip; or semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm.

All semiautomatic rifles and handguns that have a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.

All semiautomatic shotguns that have a folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; pistol grip; fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 5 rounds; ability to accept a detachable magazine; forward grip; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; or shotgun with a revolving cylinder.

All ammunition feeding devices (magazines, strips, and drums) capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.



The legislation strengthens the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and state bans by:

Moving from a 2-characteristic test to a 1-characteristic test.

(The bill also makes the ban harder to evade by eliminating the easy-to-remove bayonet mounts and flash suppressors from the characteristics test.)

Banning dangerous after-market modifications and work-arounds.

Bump or slide fire stocks, which are modified stocks that enable semi-automatic weapons to fire at rates similar to fully automatic machine guns.

So-called “bullet buttons” that allow the rapid replacement of ammunition magazines, frequently used as a work-around to prohibitions on detachable magazines.

Thumbhole stocks, a type of stock that was created as a work-around to avoid prohibitions on pistol grips.

Adding a ban on the importation of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines.

Eliminating the 10-year sunset that allowed the original federal ban to expire.

The legislation addresses the millions of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines currently in existence by:

Requiring a background check on all sales or transfers of a grandfathered assault weapon.

(This background check can be run through the FBI or, if a state chooses, initiated with a state agency, as with the existing background check system.)

Prohibiting the sale or transfer of large-capacity ammunition feeding devices lawfully possessed on the date of enactment of the bill.

Allowing states and localities to use federal Byrne JAG grant funds to conduct a voluntary buy-back program for grandfathered assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition feeding devices.

Imposing a safe storage requirement for grandfathered firearms, to keep them away from prohibited persons.

Requiring that assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition feeding devices manufactured after the date of the bill’s enactment be engraved with the serial number and date of manufacture of the weapon

 

[LtDave32]

You joke about the milk thing but some places already try to regulate peoples soda capacity.

Yes. ree-dickle-uss, innit?

 

[Skintaster]

Just do what they did to machine guns. Didn't take the guns away from people that already had them.

No, but there is a major difference between a full auto weapon and a semi auto one, even if the semi auto looks "scary". The AR 15 is one of the most popular rifles in Aerica and is commonly owned by people. "Machine guns" never really were. Why should we allow lawmakers to ban a popular gun that for the most part isn't used often by criminals?

 

[Torren61]

We had nearly a solid week of no gun/anti-gun/politic threads (except for Neo) and it was really nice. Then this. Why threads like these are allowed, I don't know. Can you feel the love? Not me.

IBTL