Banning "assault weapons" won't solve anything

[ttt]

It drives me nuts to see this as part of candidates' platforms because it's a total distraction (don't even get me started on the obsession with "semi-automatic weapons" when the vast majority of guns today are semi-automatic and that is not going to change). Handguns, especially with high-capacity magazines, can be just as lethal as 'assault rifles.' And the vast majority of shootings are done with handguns, particularly the 'everyday' kinds of shootings that kill only one or two people and barely even make the local news, yet pile up victims across this country every year. 
 
Don't get me wrong - I see absolutely no reason that any person needs to have an AR-15, but banning them, even if you could instantly eliminate every single AR-15 in existence right this minute, would have very little impact on our rates of gun violence. The laws we truly need to reduce gun deaths have to do with straw purchases, purchase quantity limits, expanding and improving background checks and the data that feeds into that system, requiring gun owners to report lost or stolen firearms, liability requirements, and possibly banning high capacity magazines. 

There's an interesting interactive feature at the link that lets you 'try out' different kinds of guns to get a feel for what they're capable of. 


www.vox.com/2015/12/11/9886862/banning-assault-weapons-solve

Assault weapons are large, ominous-looking guns — or at least that's how we colloquially define them. There is no strict definition of an assault weapon, but they tend to be modified versions of military weapons that can unload dozens of rounds in quick succession. These are the types of guns that President Obama has proposed outlawing, a policy he advocated for after a shooting in San Bernardino, California, that left 14 dead and 21 injured.

"We ... need to make it harder for people to buy powerful assault weapons like the ones that were used in San Bernardino," Obama said in a primetime television address on Sunday.

They are military-style weapons, and there should be serious consideration of whether we should ban them. They contribute to how destructive mass shootings are.

But the debate over which guns to ban is often myopically focused on these military-style weapons, perhaps because they look scary. It ignores the fact that non-assault handguns can also fire dozens of rounds per minute, with trivial reload times, and that some handguns can accept high-capacity magazines. Only eight states have laws on magazine sizes.

Some have argued that assault weapons are the "armament of choice" for mass shootings. But data shows that the large majority of mass shootings don't involve assault weapons. And if we take a step back and look at America's gun problem as whole, the data shows that the guns that kill the most in this country aren't the big, scary-looking ones. They're handguns.

So if we're talking about banning guns or certain features of guns, what we really need to talk about is all guns — regardless of how they look. The distinction between "assault" and "non-assault" weapon is just a rhetorical line that doesn't always consider how dangerous the weapon is.


How the government defines what counts as an "assault" weapon

Guns aren't just one-piece objects; they are a collection of parts. So banning a model of gun isn't particularly useful, as California found out, because gunmakers can come out with similar guns with different names.

When Obama talks about assault weapons, he's likely referring to a vague notion of a big, military-style gun that can fire dozens of rounds quickly. But the specifics aren't clear. That said, there are some features, which you can see in this graphic, that could lead to a gun being categorized as an assault weapon. This is certainly not comprehensive, but what these features have in common is that they make the gun a more powerful weapon, with increasingly lethal power.

 
What makes these weapons especially dangerous is their ability to fire a large number of bullets in a short timespan — essentially "spraying" their target with bullets, allowing for even those with poor accuracy and precision to cause damage. The bullets are actually smaller in most assault weapons than bullets from your typical handgun, but these weapons can often accept large magazines that can hold a lot of ammunition.

The features Congress targeted when it banned assault weapons in 1994 increased the lethality of these weapons. For example, the grenade launcher and bayonet mount gives the shooter the ability to add more weaponry to the gun. Congress decided that if a gun had two or more of the defined features, as well as a detachable magazine, it would be considered an "assault weapon" and would be outlawed.

But that ban expired in 2004. A proposed 2013 assault weapon ban, with a slightly different definition of "assault weapon," failed to pass.

Now you can own an assault weapon, as long as your state allows it — and most states do.

And the Obama administration has targeted these weapons as it looks for ways to control gun violence in America. 

One misnomer is that a semi-automatic assault weapon is a machine gun. This is false. Play with the interactive at the top of this story and see the difference for yourself.

Many people from both parties have mistaken a semi-automatic weapon for a machine gun, from Obama to Hillary Clinton to Ted Cruz — and, yes, Cruz cooks bacon with a gun in this video.

The difference is that machine guns, or fully automatic guns, fire multiple bullets when you pull the trigger, whereas a semi-automatic gun fires one. The reason it's called semi-automatic is because after you fire, it automatically loads another bullet into the chamber. This means you can fire many rounds quite fast.

The US banned the production of machine guns in 1986, although ones manufactured before the ban are allowed. Buying a machine gun is expensive and requires a lengthy process.

But just because machine guns are banned doesn't mean there aren't a lot of guns that look like machine guns. That's because after the machine gun ban, gun manufacturers altered these military-style weapons so that they only fired one shot when you pulled the trigger, making them semi-automatic instead of fully automatic.

The difference between an "assault weapon" and a handgun might not be as big as you think

Most modern guns are semi-automatic, including most handguns — and that's a big part of what makes them so dangerous, regardless of whether they fall into the assault category.

A German engineer in the late 1800s invented the technology that feeds a new bullet into the chamber after every shot. Without this technology, you had to do something manually before you could shoot again, like pulling back the hammer on a revolver. Uptake was slow, and even in 1980 only 32 percent of handguns produced in the US were semi-automatic.

But by 1994, 77 percent of handguns were semi-automatic.

That matters, a lot. Play with the interactive at the top of this story. You'll notice that there isn't a huge initial different between a semi-automatic pistol and a semi-automatic assault weapon. Both allow you to fire multiple bullets in rapid succession.

The assault weapon lets you keep shooting and shooting and shooting without a reload. Still, reload times for both weapons are very fast. That's because these guns can be reloaded by feeding an entire magazine of bullets into the gun all at once. With a revolver, you have to slide one bullet at a time into the cylinder. (Some readers have pointed out that a device like a speedloader would speed up reloading a revolver.) That used to make shooting multiple bullets much slower and more difficult.

Small changes turn an "assault" weapon into something else

It's quite easy to turn a military-style gun into something that Congress wouldn't consider an "assault weapon" under its various definitions. This video from the San Diego Union-Tribune gives a great example of how small adjustments in the components move a weapon in and out of this categorization:



For example, if you had a nondetachable magazine that held fewer than 10 bullets, then you could legally have features like a forward pistol grip or a flash suppressor. This is because if the magazine isn't detachable, it takes a lot more than a few seconds to reload the entire magazine.

That said, you can still detach a "nondetachable" magazine quite quickly; it just requires a small tool.

The mass shootings with large body counts used assault weapons. But shootings with handguns also have huge death tolls.

In the mass shootings that have garnered the most attention — including San Bernardino, Sandy Hook, and Aurora — military-style assault weapons were part of the shooters' arsenals.

But Mother Jones's database of mass shootings shows there are plenty of shootings where the shooter just had an array of semi-automatic handguns. The most recent and notable is the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre, when the shooter killed 33 people with two semi-automatic handguns.

In homicides and suicides, the most common weapon of choice is a handgun. In fact, when we look at the percentage of homicides caused by a rifle of any kind — much less a semi-automatic assault rifle — it comes out to about 2 percent, according to FBI data.


Assault weapons do drive up the death toll when someone wants to kill a large number of people. That shouldn't be surprising, because assault weapons were literally designed to kill large numbers of people during combat and allow for huge magazines.

But banning assault weapons won't greatly reduce the number of US gun homicides — and it won't prevent mass shootings. Modern handguns also have the lethal ability to fire multiple bullets in quick succession — and just because they look less ominous doesn't mean we should treat them as any less dangerous.

[2doxies]

I agree, this is a quick political play to try to keep people happy because it gives the appearance of doing something about the problem. It's a bone for both sides to fight over but it doesn't solve the actual problem.

[ESF]

I agree. Assault weapon bans don't do shit. In any event, the number of guns actually already out there is what terrifies me. I think we are reaching a point where increased regulation on sales are going to deliver diminishing returns in terms of public safety improvements. Lawmakers really need to put less emphasis on point of sale regulations and more emphasis placed on ownership itself. Laws that would make gun ownership incredibly risky and undesirable such as strengthened tort laws and insurance regulation, coupled with a buy back programs so the guns are gotten rid of responsibly.

New point of sale regulations should be on the table, but shouldn't be the main priority.

[asdfjkl]

Just skimmed, but I side eye the notion that we shouldn't ban assault weapons because it's not a broad enough category.  All that means is that it's the starting point, not the end point.  Which is find with me.  Re-implementing gun control is going to be a process.  I do agree that the term "assault weapon" is overly broad, but in any legislation banning them, the actual law will define what it is.  So, I'm not going to get hung up on that.  To me this is like people who don't like the ACA because it doesn't do "enough" and then their survey results get lumped up to prove that people want it repealed.  No, some people just want way the fuck more than this.  

[ttt]

Dec 14, 2015 8:01:45 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

Just skimmed, but I side eye the notion that we shouldn't ban assault weapons because it's not a broad enough category.  All that means is that it's the starting point, not the end point.  Which is find with me.  Re-implementing gun control is going to be a process.  I do agree that the term "assault weapon" is overly broad, but in any legislation banning them, the actual law will define what it is.  So, I'm not going to get hung up on that.  To me this is like people who don't like the ACA because it doesn't do "enough" and then their survey results get lumped up to prove that people want it repealed.  No, some people just want way the fuck more than this.  

I'm not against banning assault weapons, per se, - if I were in charge, I'd happily ban every single one of these tomorrow. But I think that past bans have been terribly ineffective due to the difficulty in defining what an assault weapon is and the ease of modifying other weapons so that they're technically not assault weapons even though they in effect are. It's nearly impossible to write a law that would effectively ban these weapons, which makes passing one essentially meaningless.

More importantly, it's a distraction, IMO, and it takes political capital and energy away from measures that could actually be effective at reducing gun violence. And those measures would be even easier to pass, because there are a ton of policies that would be both effective and politically popular - I'm thinking specifically of increasing enforcement and penalties for straw purchases (which is a HUGE problem when you're talking about the kind of violence that happens in places like Chicago), limiting the number of guns a person can purchase at one time, improving the data that feeds into the background check system.

Personally I would like to see a ban on high-capacity magazines before a ban on assault weapons, because therein lies the real problem with mass shootings: the ability to fire a large number of rounds at a high speed without having to stop to reload (which means giving victims an opportunity to escape and giving others an opportunity to stop you - see Tucson, for example). 

Incidentally, guess who asked Congress years ago for a ban on high-capacity magazines? William Ruger. Yes, that Ruger. 

ETA: there is no reason a private citizen needs a high capacity magazine. You don't need it for hunting, unless you're hunting some kind of terrifying mutant deer, and you don't need it for self-defense unless Jack Bauer is breaking into your house. If you want to use it for fun/sport, then make it so that these magazines are only allowed at licensed ranges and must be stored there, under lock and key, and with heavy liability insurance requirements. 

[ttt]

One more thing - try the simulator at the link and tell me that there's any meaningful difference in the damage you can do with the semiautomatic handgun vs the assault rifle, especially if you were to put an extended magazine in that handgun allowing it to fire 30 rounds without reloading.

[wawa]

enthusiastic dittos ttt 

I'll also add that anecdotally, talking about assault weapons bans pretty much earns you an instant eyeroll from well educated (about guns) gun owners of my acquaintance because they assume that if you're for a ban that is basically based on cosmetics (since for example, many standard non-assault styled hunting rifles are far more powerful than an AR-15), then you have no fucking idea what you're talking about.   It comes across as a knee jerk reactionary measure instead of something actually effective and thoughtful.

Which may or may not be fair, but since it's also ineffective in terms of rates of violence it seems stupid to waste political capitol on it.

[sushi]

I'm willing to be convinced it's an arbitrary label. And that it could be counterproductive.

But, since I'm a leftie who wants to ban pretty much all guns except are what are required for hunting (Japanese style, where you have to keep track of ammo and hunting stuff), I think any ban is worthwhile. Something's better than nothing. Or maybe not? Like I said, I'm open to being convinced.

[ttt]

Dec 14, 2015 9:09:47 GMT -5 sushi said:

I'm willing to be convinced it's an arbitrary label. And that it could be counterproductive.

But, since I'm a leftie who wants to ban pretty much all guns except are what are required for hunting (Japanese style, where you have to keep track of ammo and hunting stuff), I think any ban is worthwhile. Something's better than nothing. Or maybe not? Like I said, I'm open to being convinced.

In a vacuum, sure. Like I said, I'd be happy seeing all of these banned. But in our system, there's a cost to these bills being passed, and getting this passed means other measures are much less likely to be passed or will have to wait much longer for their turn. So for that reason, I want to see this shelved in favor of some other, more effective proposals.

[eclaires]

Honestly I think banning assault rifles plays right into the hands of the NRA. Anyone who knows anything about guns and is willing to fight gun control legislation will probably see it as a dumb, feel good measure that doesn't do anything, which gives the NRA credibility and supporters instead of focusing on measures that will make a difference and are more difficult to paint as not doing anything. I think if the first step is banning assault rifles, we might as well resign ourselves to nothing happening for a long, long time. I genuinely believe if that is where we start, it would only hurt the movement for gun control legislation.

[sushi]

Dec 14, 2015 9:11:44 GMT -5 ttt said:

Dec 14, 2015 9:09:47 GMT -5 sushi said:

I'm willing to be convinced it's an arbitrary label. And that it could be counterproductive.

But, since I'm a leftie who wants to ban pretty much all guns except are what are required for hunting (Japanese style, where you have to keep track of ammo and hunting stuff), I think any ban is worthwhile. Something's better than nothing. Or maybe not? Like I said, I'm open to being convinced.

In a vacuum, sure. Like I said, I'd be happy seeing all of these banned. But in our system, there's a cost to these bills being passed, and getting this passed means other measures are much less likely to be passed or will have to wait much longer for their turn. So for that reason, I want to see this shelved in favor of some other, more effective proposals.

But, if we can't pass these basically meaningless bans, what confidence do you have that we'll pass anything with teeth?

[pescalita]

Dec 12, 2015 11:35:31 GMT -5 ESF said:

I agree. Assault weapon bans don't do shit. In any event, the number of guns actually already out there is what terrifies me. I think we are reaching a point where increased regulation on sales are going to deliver diminishing returns in terms of public safety improvements. Lawmakers really need to put less emphasis on point of sale regulations and more emphasis placed on ownership itself. Laws that would make gun ownership incredibly risky and undesirable such as strengthened tort laws and insurance regulation, coupled with a buy back programs so the guns are gotten rid of responsibly.

New point of sale regulations should be on the table, but shouldn't be the main priority.

Yes, especially since the last 8 years of no legislation have resulted in a metric shitton of gun & ammo sales for fear of legislation.

[ttt]

Dec 14, 2015 9:42:05 GMT -5 sushi said:

Dec 14, 2015 9:11:44 GMT -5 ttt said:

In a vacuum, sure. Like I said, I'd be happy seeing all of these banned. But in our system, there's a cost to these bills being passed, and getting this passed means other measures are much less likely to be passed or will have to wait much longer for their turn. So for that reason, I want to see this shelved in favor of some other, more effective proposals.

But, if we can't pass these basically meaningless bans, what confidence do you have that we'll pass anything with teeth?

I don't have a lot of confidence that anything at all will pass. But if we're going to expend political capital and lobbying money to try to get something passed, I at least want it to be something that will be somewhat effective at reducing gun deaths.

[eclaires]

Dec 14, 2015 9:42:05 GMT -5 sushi said:

Dec 14, 2015 9:11:44 GMT -5 ttt said:

In a vacuum, sure. Like I said, I'd be happy seeing all of these banned. But in our system, there's a cost to these bills being passed, and getting this passed means other measures are much less likely to be passed or will have to wait much longer for their turn. So for that reason, I want to see this shelved in favor of some other, more effective proposals.

But, if we can't pass these basically meaningless bans, what confidence do you have that we'll pass anything with teeth?

I think the fight for meaningless bans hurts the overall effort because of how strong the opposition is. I genuinely believe doing this would do more damage in the end because of how people react and how it helps the NRA. This is such an easy fight for the NRA to gain traction on, whether we agree with that or like it.

[asdfjkl]

Dec 14, 2015 8:46:47 GMT -5 ttt said:

Dec 14, 2015 8:01:45 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

Just skimmed, but I side eye the notion that we shouldn't ban assault weapons because it's not a broad enough category.  All that means is that it's the starting point, not the end point.  Which is find with me.  Re-implementing gun control is going to be a process.  I do agree that the term "assault weapon" is overly broad, but in any legislation banning them, the actual law will define what it is.  So, I'm not going to get hung up on that.  To me this is like people who don't like the ACA because it doesn't do "enough" and then their survey results get lumped up to prove that people want it repealed.  No, some people just want way the fuck more than this.  

I'm not against banning assault weapons, per se, - if I were in charge, I'd happily ban every single one of these tomorrow. But I think that past bans have been terribly ineffective due to the difficulty in defining what an assault weapon is and the ease of modifying other weapons so that they're technically not assault weapons even though they in effect are. It's nearly impossible to write a law that would effectively ban these weapons, which makes passing one essentially meaningless.

More importantly, it's a distraction, IMO, and it takes political capital and energy away from measures that could actually be effective at reducing gun violence. And those measures would be even easier to pass, because there are a ton of policies that would be both effective and politically popular - I'm thinking specifically of increasing enforcement and penalties for straw purchases (which is a HUGE problem when you're talking about the kind of violence that happens in places like Chicago), limiting the number of guns a person can purchase at one time, improving the data that feeds into the background check system.

Personally I would like to see a ban on high-capacity magazines before a ban on assault weapons, because therein lies the real problem with mass shootings: the ability to fire a large number of rounds at a high speed without having to stop to reload (which means giving victims an opportunity to escape and giving others an opportunity to stop you - see Tucson, for example). 

Incidentally, guess who asked Congress years ago for a ban on high-capacity magazines? William Ruger. Yes, that Ruger. 

ETA: there is no reason a private citizen needs a high capacity magazine. You don't need it for hunting, unless you're hunting some kind of terrifying mutant deer, and you don't need it for self-defense unless Jack Bauer is breaking into your house. If you want to use it for fun/sport, then make it so that these magazines are only allowed at licensed ranges and must be stored there, under lock and key, and with heavy liability insurance requirements. 

I agree with some of what you're saying, but not all of it.  I don't think it would be impossible to write a law that would define what an assault weapon is and then ban them.  I understand the criticism that the 1994 ban didn't do this very well, but that's not to say we aren't capable of doing it.  Whether the ban would be effective would depend on the definition used.  And I do think a well-defined assault weapons ban would reduce the number of mass shootings - something that is worth addressing even if it is only the tip of the iceberg.  

I would also like to see a ban on straw purchases, mandatory universal background checks, bans on high-capacity magazines, mandatory liability insurance coverage for gun owners, limitations on the number of guns a single individual can own, limitations on the number of rounds of ammunition an individual can store outside a shooting range, bans on concealed carry, certainly bans on open carry, bans on guns on school campuses, in dorm rooms, in places of public accommodation, an end to "stand your ground" laws, and liability on the original owner of a stolen gun used in the commission of a crime that has not been reported stolen.  Among other things.  

I don't much care what order it happens in.  I think the gun control movement needs an easy victory in order to gain some momentum.  It feels to me right now like no one (in congress) is willing to take a risk because they don't really know how it's going to play out.  If we can get some momentum forwards, some good legislation pushed through that makes people start talking about how gun control =/= Hitler and how we can rely on our leaders for progress, that might be a pretty good thing.  

[asdfjkl]

Dec 14, 2015 9:11:44 GMT -5 ttt said:

Dec 14, 2015 9:09:47 GMT -5 sushi said:

I'm willing to be convinced it's an arbitrary label. And that it could be counterproductive.

But, since I'm a leftie who wants to ban pretty much all guns except are what are required for hunting (Japanese style, where you have to keep track of ammo and hunting stuff), I think any ban is worthwhile. Something's better than nothing. Or maybe not? Like I said, I'm open to being convinced.

In a vacuum, sure. Like I said, I'd be happy seeing all of these banned. But in our system, there's a cost to these bills being passed, and getting this passed means other measures are much less likely to be passed or will have to wait much longer for their turn. So for that reason, I want to see this shelved in favor of some other, more effective proposals.

There's also a political cost to not getting anything passed.  At all.  Ever.  So I'm with you on the fact that handguns should be banned.  I actually would ban them all.  Every goddamn one.  You don't need them for hunting (and hunting shouldn't be constitutionally protected anyway), they are the gun of choice in the overwhelming number of violent crimes, the are easy to conceal, they are... problematic.  However, I think the general public identifies them as the "self protection" gun of choice.  The gun you have in your night stand, in you purse, in your glove compartment.  TO BE CLEAR - I do not find that to be a compelling LEGAL reason to not ban handguns, but I do find it a compelling PR reason why starting there might not work out very well.  You lose that battle, you lose steam, and you accomplish nothing.

I think if you establish a definition of assault weapon that includes its use with a high capacity magazine, you kill two birds with one stone.  I think the use of the rhetoric in "assault weapon" is powerful.  The gun control movement suffers from bad PR and lack of momentum.  The gun rights movement has extremely powerful rhetoric - patriot, freedom, Constitution, Hitler, defender, "good guy," "law abiding citizen."  The gun control advocates have Sandy Hook and that's pretty much it.  And since it was unequivocally an assault weapon used there, that seems like a pretty good place to get this project off the ground.   All respect to wawa whom I love, but the gun control debate is not about understanding guns; it's about understanding people and what motivates them.

[asdfjkl]

Dec 14, 2015 10:26:41 GMT -5 eclaires said:

Dec 14, 2015 9:42:05 GMT -5 sushi said:

But, if we can't pass these basically meaningless bans, what confidence do you have that we'll pass anything with teeth?

I think the fight for meaningless bans hurts the overall effort because of how strong the opposition is. I genuinely believe doing this would do more damage in the end because of how people react and how it helps the NRA. This is such an easy fight for the NRA to gain traction on, whether we agree with that or like it.

I just can't agree with this.  Clinton passed an assault weapons ban and while the far right wing-nuts didn't like it, we did not see anything NEAR the ramp-up in rhetoric that we've seen at the mere discussion of it being reimplemented now.  The difference now is really two things having nothing to do with the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of an assault weapons ban (something that I still maintain comes down exclusively to drafting and cannot be prospectively written of):
1.  We have a black president;
2.  Citizens United and the power of money as affecting the political discourse.

[downtoearth]

I am running off, but most handguns are "semi-automatic weapons" now. So banning semi-automatic weapons would include a ban on handgun rounds and the ability to buy a handgun that can shoot 30 rounds at once.

[wawa]

Dec 14, 2015 12:18:42 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

Dec 14, 2015 9:11:44 GMT -5 ttt said:

In a vacuum, sure. Like I said, I'd be happy seeing all of these banned. But in our system, there's a cost to these bills being passed, and getting this passed means other measures are much less likely to be passed or will have to wait much longer for their turn. So for that reason, I want to see this shelved in favor of some other, more effective proposals.

There's also a political cost to not getting anything passed.  At all.  Ever.  So I'm with you on the fact that handguns should be banned.  I actually would ban them all.  Every goddamn one.  You don't need them for hunting (and hunting shouldn't be constitutionally protected anyway), they are the gun of choice in the overwhelming number of violent crimes, the are easy to conceal, they are... problematic.  However, I think the general public identifies them as the "self protection" gun of choice.  The gun you have in your night stand, in you purse, in your glove compartment.  TO BE CLEAR - I do not find that to be a compelling LEGAL reason to not ban handguns, but I do find it a compelling PR reason why starting there might not work out very well.  You lose that battle, you lose steam, and you accomplish nothing.

I think if you establish a definition of assault weapon that includes its use with a high capacity magazine, you kill two birds with one stone.  I think the use of the rhetoric in "assault weapon" is powerful.  The gun control movement suffers from bad PR and lack of momentum.  The gun rights movement has extremely powerful rhetoric - patriot, freedom, Constitution, Hitler, defender, "good guy," "law abiding citizen."  The gun control advocates have Sandy Hook and that's pretty much it.  And since it was unequivocally an assault weapon used there, that seems like a pretty good place to get this project off the ground.   All respect to wawa whom I love, but the gun control debate is not about understanding guns; it's about understanding people and what motivates them.

And what i'm saying is that understanding people who understand guns might be an essential part of actually getting something passed.  When the NRA paints any and all gun control as stupid, and people who understand guns look at the one thing that actually gets pushed hard (an assault weapons ban) and can see that on the face of it it is in fact stupid, then it's just that much harder to get them to listen to the rest of your slate of proposed regulations since they now think you're an idiot and maybe the NRA is right.

Stop pushing something that they see as reactionary and pointless and maybe the block of non-idiot gunowners* would actually break from the NRA and support your other wants. 

But if the people we're trying to motivate are not that block, then I agree with you that it's a useful rhetoric tool.

*and maybe those people are such a small block as to be a non-issue.  I dunno.  I know several of them, but anecdotes aren't data.

[wawa]

Now that I've actually read all the the previous posts - I will add that an assault weapon ban that actually had a meaningful definition instead of a cosmetic definition would go a long way toward changing the game. So if we're talking about new kind of definition then I could totally be on board.

[asdfjkl]

Dec 14, 2015 12:37:35 GMT -5 wawa said:

Dec 14, 2015 12:18:42 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

There's also a political cost to not getting anything passed.  At all.  Ever.  So I'm with you on the fact that handguns should be banned.  I actually would ban them all.  Every goddamn one.  You don't need them for hunting (and hunting shouldn't be constitutionally protected anyway), they are the gun of choice in the overwhelming number of violent crimes, the are easy to conceal, they are... problematic.  However, I think the general public identifies them as the "self protection" gun of choice.  The gun you have in your night stand, in you purse, in your glove compartment.  TO BE CLEAR - I do not find that to be a compelling LEGAL reason to not ban handguns, but I do find it a compelling PR reason why starting there might not work out very well.  You lose that battle, you lose steam, and you accomplish nothing.

I think if you establish a definition of assault weapon that includes its use with a high capacity magazine, you kill two birds with one stone.  I think the use of the rhetoric in "assault weapon" is powerful.  The gun control movement suffers from bad PR and lack of momentum.  The gun rights movement has extremely powerful rhetoric - patriot, freedom, Constitution, Hitler, defender, "good guy," "law abiding citizen."  The gun control advocates have Sandy Hook and that's pretty much it.  And since it was unequivocally an assault weapon used there, that seems like a pretty good place to get this project off the ground.   All respect to wawa whom I love, but the gun control debate is not about understanding guns; it's about understanding people and what motivates them.

And what i'm saying is that understanding people who understand guns might be an essential part of actually getting something passed.  When the NRA paints any and all gun control as stupid, and people who understand guns look at the one thing that actually gets pushed hard (an assault weapons ban) and can see that on the face of it it is in fact stupid, then it's just that much harder to get them to listen to the rest of your slate of proposed regulations since they now think you're an idiot and maybe the NRA is right.

Stop pushing something that they see as reactionary and pointless and maybe the block of non-idiot gunowners* would actually break from the NRA and support your other wants. 

But if the people we're trying to motivate are not that block, then I agree with you that it's a useful rhetoric tool.

*and maybe those people are such a small block as to be a non-issue.  I dunno.  I know several of them, but anecdotes aren't data.

How is "assault weapon" defined in the most recent bill presented to Congress on this issue?  I'm going to go look. 

Ultimately, I think I just disagree with you.  I don't think "knowing more about guns" is going to help here.  I mean, I trust that there are folks involved in this legislation that know more about it than I do, but the rhetoric that controls the gun debate right now is not coming from people like yourself or the handful of others here who lean towards gun rights but aren't showing up at fucking Target with a semi-auto rifle strapped across your back.  It's actually those jackasses who are the voice of gun rights movement.  They are its direction; they represent its momentum.  They are moving/pulling it to the right.  Plenty of gun control advocates have offered logical, thoughtful evidence-based initiatives (e.g. closing the gun show loop hole) and have not been able to push it through.  There is just really no indication that the gun control issue will be won on the battle field of logic and data.  It's going to be won by the side that amasses a critical and very loud voice and then looks like it's able to get shit done.  

Frankly, I see the whole "assault weapons bans are for stupid people" as playing right into the hands of the gun-nuts.  We can't pass a hand gun ban because of the Supreme Court; we can't pass a ban on ammo because people can reuse bullets; we can't close the gun show loophole because then only criminals will have guns; we can't pass an assault weapons ban because, stupid you, that's meaningless legislation and if you knew anything about the gun debate you wouldn't support it so here let me just hand you a little dose of "you don't even go here" and send you on your way. 

An effective assault weapons ban could be drafted.  And at the end of the day the "block" we're talking about isn't so much "people who understand guns" its the psyche of this modern "patriot" (dick quotes intentional) who lives in a kind of constant state of paranoid fear and has been fed and exploited by a post-Citizens United corporate gun lobby that is making billions of dollars off of keeping those people scared and telling the rest of us that we're naive and stupid, or worse un-American.  

[wawa]

asdfjkl I'm not sure we do disagree, but I do know that i'm tired and busy and already cranky, so I'm not up for this one today. I'll check back in at some point, probably tomorrow and see where this one ended up.

Carry on.

[asdfjkl]

So this is apparently the like-I'm-five version of how Assault Weapons were defined in the 2013 bill that did not pass:

Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 - (Sec. 3) Amends the federal criminal code to ban the import, sale, manufacture, transfer, or possession of a semiautomatic assault weapon, including:

a semiautomatic rifle that can accept a detachable magazine and has any one of the following characteristics: (1) a pistol grip; (2) a forward grip; (3) a folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; (4) a grenade or rocket launcher; (5) a barrel shroud; or (6) a threaded barrel;
a semiautomatic rifle or pistol with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds;
a semiautomatic pistol that can accept a detachable magazine and has any one of the following characteristics: (1) a threaded barrel, (2) a second pistol grip, (3) a barrel shroud, (4) the capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip, or (5) a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm;
a semiautomatic shotgun that has any one of the following characteristics: (1) a folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; (2) a pistol grip; (3) a fixed magazine that can accept more than five rounds; (4) the ability to accept a detachable magazine; (5) a forward grip; or (6) a grenade or rocket launcher;
a shotgun with a revolving cylinder;
firearms that are specifically listed as prohibited by this Act and copies, duplicates, variants, or altered facsimiles with the capability of any such weapon;
all belt-fed semiautomatic firearms;
any combination of parts from which any such prohibited firearm can be assembled; and
the frame or receiver of a prohibited rifle or shotgun.


www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/150

I haven't looked at this very closely, but even if this is not sufficiently specific (or broad), all that suggests is revision.  It does not suggest abandon.  This is, I believe, the same law that was going to require universal background checks.  I mean, just skimming it, it's actually a very good law.  Of course it died.  

[MrsAxilla]

I don't believe it's possible to make a reasoned, coherent, persuasive argument about a subject you know little or nothing about, or when you refuse to accept certain facts as true. The assault weapons ban is akin to banning IUDs because they're abortifacients. People who accept facts and understand the process of conception know they are NOT abortifacients. Those who argue otherwise either don't know what they're talking about, or have some other agenda they're trying to get through.

[downtoearth]

Dec 14, 2015 13:39:12 GMT -5 MrsAxilla said:

I don't believe it's possible to make a reasoned, coherent, persuasive argument about a subject you know little or nothing about, or when you refuse to accept certain facts as true. The assault weapons ban is akin to banning IUDs because they're abortifacients. People who accept facts and understand the process of conception know they are NOT abortifacients. Those who argue otherwise either don't know what they're talking about, or have some other agenda they're trying to get through.

So understanding guns means that you'll write reasonable gun control laws? I think this argument is hogwash! Most state legislators in the west understand guns and how they differ, yet even the democrats in the west won't touch gun rights. How the laws are written is likely not the biggest hurdle.

[nikki25]

I will always remember a story from China regarding a man entering a kindergarten class and attacking the children with knives because guns are banned. He did damage, children were harmed but not one child died. This event occurred on the same day as Sandy Hook and we all know the outcome. Both incidents were eerily similar in every way except the 'how.'That 'how' is the difference between zero deaths and 22 deaths.



I admittedly have little knowledge on guns and the standard laws at this point, but, I think any attempt to ban anything is going to end up blowing up, causing even more push by the NRA, lobbyist and gun nuts. However, I think quietly limiting the magazine capacities, high-power clips and limits on the number of bullets/magazines allotted for sale may be a start.

All the focus and push back has to do with the fear of guns being taken away but, so we don't touch that, fine buy fucking guns, but limit the amount of bullets, so they have their loving gun but unable to load them making them worthless yet they still get to stare at all their guns and feel they 'won.' It is the backdoor effort just like the same shit the R'Saturday are doing to abortion.

We will not stop the daily gun violence at this point, that is a much tougher and longer battle to fight. Nor are any regulations going to lessen the mass shootings but we can attempt to limit the harm, death and destruction of these shootings. I would agrue it is much harder to kill a large amount of people with a 10 bullet clip or having to re-load. It gives people time and the ability to flee or fight. This doesn't solve the problem nor do I think any change will have any significant effect at this point- which is a horrible thought but the truth. Any immediate change needs to focus not on prevention but limitation/reduction of deaths.

I hope I don't get flamed, lol, as I have no idea if this is even logical or possible but we needed to be smarter about change and more sneaking to go up against not only the NRA but the ingrained gun culture.

[MrsAxilla]

Dec 14, 2015 13:43:46 GMT -5 downtoearth said:

Dec 14, 2015 13:39:12 GMT -5 MrsAxilla said:

I don't believe it's possible to make a reasoned, coherent, persuasive argument about a subject you know little or nothing about, or when you refuse to accept certain facts as true. The assault weapons ban is akin to banning IUDs because they're abortifacients. People who accept facts and understand the process of conception know they are NOT abortifacients. Those who argue otherwise either don't know what they're talking about, or have some other agenda they're trying to get through.

So understanding guns means that you'll write reasonable gun control laws? I think this argument is hogwash! Most state legislators in the west understand guns and how they differ, yet even the democrats in the west won't touch gun rights. How the laws are written is likely not the biggest hurdle.

No, I think it's the opposite. You have to understand an issue before you can adequately address it.  You can't write reasonable gun controls laws unless you understand guns, or the background check process, or third-party transfer laws, or the terror watch list, or whatever it is you're addressing.  Carly Fiorina said recently that we should ban people on the terror watch list from owning guns because their mere presence on the list meant there is enough evidence for an indictment.  That's just false, and as we discussed, there are lots of reasons completely innocent people may be on that list and not even know.  

[Smolinsk]

Dec 14, 2015 13:43:46 GMT -5 downtoearth said:

Dec 14, 2015 13:39:12 GMT -5 MrsAxilla said:

I don't believe it's possible to make a reasoned, coherent, persuasive argument about a subject you know little or nothing about, or when you refuse to accept certain facts as true. The assault weapons ban is akin to banning IUDs because they're abortifacients. People who accept facts and understand the process of conception know they are NOT abortifacients. Those who argue otherwise either don't know what they're talking about, or have some other agenda they're trying to get through.

So understanding guns means that you'll write reasonable gun control laws? I think this argument is hogwash! Most state legislators in the west understand guns and how they differ, yet even the democrats in the west won't touch gun rights. How the laws are written is likely not the biggest hurdle.

I think understanding guns goes a long way to establishing credibility when someone is proposing legislation.  A few years ago one of Colorado's representatives made statements about magazines and clips not being reusable which just served as fodder for the gun activists and may have alienated reasonable gun owners.

www.denverpost.com/news/ci_22971620/inaccurate-remarks-gun-magazines-put-rep-diana-degette

[asdfjkl]

Dec 14, 2015 13:39:12 GMT -5 MrsAxilla said:

I don't believe it's possible to make a reasoned, coherent, persuasive argument about a subject you know little or nothing about, or when you refuse to accept certain facts as true. The assault weapons ban is akin to banning IUDs because they're abortifacients. People who accept facts and understand the process of conception know they are NOT abortifacients. Those who argue otherwise either don't know what they're talking about, or have some other agenda they're trying to get through.

Who's winning the abortion debate?

Hint: it's the folks who think IUDs are abortifacients.

[debatethis]

Dec 14, 2015 14:02:32 GMT -5 MrsAxilla said:

Dec 14, 2015 13:43:46 GMT -5 downtoearth said:

So understanding guns means that you'll write reasonable gun control laws? I think this argument is hogwash! Most state legislators in the west understand guns and how they differ, yet even the democrats in the west won't touch gun rights. How the laws are written is likely not the biggest hurdle.

No, I think it's the opposite. You have to understand an issue before you can adequately address it.  You can't write reasonable gun controls laws unless you understand guns, or the background check process, or third-party transfer laws, or the terror watch list, or whatever it is you're addressing.  Carly Fiorina said recently that we should ban people on the terror watch list from owning guns because their mere presence on the list meant there is enough evidence for an indictment.  That's just false, and as we discussed, there are lots of reasons completely innocent people may be on that list and not even know.  

I agree. And frankly, it's a very pot-meet-kettle situation. The Dems decry the GOP for using politically charged but factually inaccurate language such as "partial birth abortions" and accuse the GOP of not doing their research before attempting to pass legislation on women's rights...and now the Dems are doing the same thing with "assault weapons" language that is factually and legally meaningless, with something that is a Constitutional right.

Know Thy Enemy. Get to know the stuff you want to legislate. Then make actual, fact-based legislation based on that knowledge, not paranoia or buzzwords.