I am confused why people think that when a general policy is proposed in the public arena, like "ban assault weapons", that the policy wouldn't go through a specific careful vetting and defining in the legislative process. That is to say I'm not concerned that these details can't be hashed out in the legislative arena.
I am confused why people think that when a general policy is proposed in the public arena, like "ban assault weapons", that the policy wouldn't go through a specific careful vetting and defining in the legislative process. That is to say I'm not concerned that these details can't be hashed out in the legislative arena.
Because there is already no such thing as an assault weapon available for civilian purchase. A semi auto weapon is a semi auto weapon. An AR-15 and a handgun both each fire one round each time the trigger is pulled. So trying to define a gun that doesn't actually exist is a pretty fruitless endeavor.
And we are repeating history, here. Stuff like stock mods and fancy grips and magazine clip restrictions were banned in the last incarnation of the Assault Weapons Ban. They did exactly nothing to stop the Columbine or VATech shootings because gun manufacturers simply made new guns to work around the AWB parameters.
We need to work smarter than the NRA to actually defeat them, not try the same thing over again.
I am confused why people think that when a general policy is proposed in the public arena, like "ban assault weapons", that the policy wouldn't go through a specific careful vetting and defining in the legislative process. That is to say I'm not concerned that these details can't be hashed out in the legislative arena.
Because there is already no such thing as an assault weapon available for civilian purchase. A semi auto weapon is a semi auto weapon. An AR-15 and a handgun both each fire one round each time the trigger is pulled. So trying to define a gun that doesn't actually exist is a pretty fruitless endeavor.
And we are repeating history, here. Stuff like stock mods and fancy grips and magazine clip restrictions were banned in the last incarnation of the Assault Weapons Ban. They did exactly nothing to stop the Columbine or VATech shootings because gun manufacturers simply made new guns to work around the AWB parameters.
We need to work smarter than the NRA to actually defeat them, not try the same thing over again.
I mean, all this says to me is that whatever ban we put into place needs to be carefully crafted. Not that it shouldn't exist.
Because there is already no such thing as an assault weapon available for civilian purchase. A semi auto weapon is a semi auto weapon. An AR-15 and a handgun both each fire one round each time the trigger is pulled. So trying to define a gun that doesn't actually exist is a pretty fruitless endeavor.
And we are repeating history, here. Stuff like stock mods and fancy grips and magazine clip restrictions were banned in the last incarnation of the Assault Weapons Ban. They did exactly nothing to stop the Columbine or VATech shootings because gun manufacturers simply made new guns to work around the AWB parameters.
We need to work smarter than the NRA to actually defeat them, not try the same thing over again.
I mean, all this says to me is that whatever ban we put into place needs to be carefully crafted. Not that it shouldn't exist.
Except banning all semi-auto guns isn't realistic because that would be pretty much every gun in the US. So, instead of wasting our time with shitty legislation that yet again the NRA can defeat or make Dems a laughingstock, why not actually be smart about it and limit who can purchase/transfer them, etc?
There are a lot of reasonable, intelligent regulations that can be written but as someone else up-thread said, we have a very small amount of political capital available with which to maneuver, so we need to use it wisely. "Assault weapons" gun bans aren't even in the same ballpark as wise.
I mean, all this says to me is that whatever ban we put into place needs to be carefully crafted. Not that it shouldn't exist.
Except banning all semi-auto guns isn't realistic because that would be pretty much every gun in the US. So, instead of wasting our time with shitty legislation that yet again the NRA can defeat or make Dems a laughingstock, why not actually be smart about it and limit who can purchase/transfer them, etc?
There are a lot of reasonable, intelligent regulations that can be written but as someone else up-thread said, we have a very small amount of political capital available with which to maneuver, so we need to use it wisely. "Assault weapons" gun bans aren't even in the same ballpark as wise.
Honestly, I'm responding to the point that these weapons are hard to define and that we don't know about them and we can't legislate something we don't know about. I'm not debating the merits of the actual policy. This "should or shouldn't we" and "how do we?" is what the legislative process is designed for.
And BTW, for purposes of government regulation, things are what the government say they are. "There's no such thing as an assault weapon" is a meaningless argument. If the government defines "assault weapon" then there are "assualt weapons" for whatever purpose the government is trying to achieve. This is true for anything. Again, this is not an endorsement of banning "assault weapons" just countering the "we can't do this because...." line of thinking. We can do this. Is it a good idea? That's for policy makers to decide (I don't know).
As to the argument "we can't pass this law because here are two examples where a similar law didn't work" I don't know about the viability of this argument either.
1. We can't stop all drunk drivers either that doesn't mean we shouldn't ban drunk driving. And
2. We know the law didn't achieve its aims in two scenarios but that doesn't mean the law didn't achieve its aims in other scenarios we don't know about. That is, the assault ban didn't prevent VAtech or Columbine. That doesn't mean it didn't prevent other masacres that we don't know about because they never occurred...because the law prevented them from occurring...
Except banning all semi-auto guns isn't realistic because that would be pretty much every gun in the US. So, instead of wasting our time with shitty legislation that yet again the NRA can defeat or make Dems a laughingstock, why not actually be smart about it and limit who can purchase/transfer them, etc?
There are a lot of reasonable, intelligent regulations that can be written but as someone else up-thread said, we have a very small amount of political capital available with which to maneuver, so we need to use it wisely. "Assault weapons" gun bans aren't even in the same ballpark as wise.
Honestly, I'm responding to the point that these weapons are hard to define and that we don't know about them and we can't legislate something we don't know about. I'm not debating the merits of the actual policy. This "should or shouldn't we" and "how do we?" is what the legislative process is designed for.
I'm arguing that we shouldn't. Again, "assault rifles" are responsible for less than 2% of gun deaths. That tells me the legality of this particular style isn't our biggest issue.
Either you define "assault rifle" so narrowly that it captures an even smaller fraction of deaths, or you expand it to include nearly all semi-auto rifles. If it's the first, then is that really worth the effort and political capital? If it's the second, is that really feasible, legal or constitutional? And it's still only 2% of deaths. My opinion is no.
Again, I want everyone in this thread to go back and do the simulator in the original link. Try "shooting" the semiautomatic handgun and the assault rifle. See for yourself what these weapons do and what the differences are. I really think this is an important thing to (virtually) experience in regards to this discussion.