catbarf on 24/1/2018 at 21:56
One thing I've noticed is that the way people react to specific measures depends a
lot on how it's presented. 'Close the gun show loophole', more positive. 'Ban friends and family members being able to sell each other guns', more negative. Same law (banning private sale), expressed differently. 'Prevent suspected terrorists from buying guns', overwhelmingly positive. 'Allow the government to suspend Constitutional rights without due process', overwhelmingly negative. Again, same law (barring gun purchases by those on the no-fly list).
Same goes for the details of those proposals. Anecdotally, I've spoken with a couple of people who supported assault weapons bans, but didn't know exactly what constitutes an 'assault weapon', and after learning (
https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-e07da915012885f957eca3ecca134abc-c) what it means in practice changed their minds. As with many political issues, people recognize specific phrases without necessarily understanding the whole of what's being proposed. So you get a lot of these soundbites that people buy into for partisan reasons or because they sound good on the surface, but then when they actually make it to a bill and each side starts drumming up the nitty gritty details, then the public sentiment is totally different from what the polling predicted. Like healthcare, I think you see this tendency on subjects where most of the populace agrees that something needs to be done, but they don't like the terms of any specific measure.
I'm with you in a lot of ways. I fully support background checks, and I strongly advocate for both universal background checks and doing a better job than we currently do of tying the background check system into both state criminal records and psychiatric/medical records. But there are partisan issues getting in the way of progress- for example, a few years ago a Republican senator by the name of Coburn proposed a universal background check law based on how it works in Switzerland. Basically, you apply to the government and say you want to buy a gun, they run the background check on you and give you a token with a one-month expiration, you present this token to the seller to verify that you can own a gun.
The system didn't convey the identity of the seller, what was being exchanged, or even whether an exchange actually took place after the token was procured, so it could not be used to build a registry of who owns what. Explicitly on that basis, Democrats rejected it, both killing the possibility of a bipartisan universal background check bill, and seemingly validating gun owners' worst fears that the Democrats want to build a registry to take their guns. Conversely, the Republicans have a continuous tendency to throw unrelated riders onto any gun control compromise they put forward, and then blame Democrats for being unreasonable when they're not willing to accept it. It's not a recipe for progress.
ffox on 25/1/2018 at 10:51
I strongly agree with N'al. Anything is better than nothing if it saves lives.
I don't understand what you are getting at. The link doesn't help.
Quote Posted by catbarf
I'm with you in a lot of ways. I fully support background checks, and I strongly advocate for both universal background checks and doing a better job than we currently do of tying the background check system into both state criminal records and psychiatric/medical records.
So far so good.
Quote Posted by catbarf
But there are partisan issues getting in the way of progress- for example, a few years ago a Republican senator by the name of Coburn proposed a universal background check law based on how it works in Switzerland.
Then you go on to explain why it wouldn't work. Why mention it at all?
catbarf on 25/1/2018 at 14:03
Quote Posted by ffox
I strongly agree with N'al. Anything is better than nothing if it saves lives.
I agree. But expending political capital on unpopular measures that are unlikely to have major impact is illogical when there are things we could be doing that address the root causes and are less likely to be opposed. If we're going to have to address the social problems that underlie gun violence sooner or later regardless of what we do with guns, and when taking a stab at those social problems is less likely to be vocally opposed, why not start there? We can enact further restrictions on guns if needed, but focusing exclusively on guns isn't a productive strategy.
Quote Posted by ffox
I don't understand what you are getting at. The link doesn't help.
Simply that people have the idea of an assault weapon being something distinct and readily identifiable as a military weapon, when in reality it's a purely aesthetic classification that is easily circumvented. I can explain more if you want but it was just a minor example.
Quote Posted by ffox
Then you go on to explain why it wouldn't work. Why mention it at all?
Huh? It would have worked fine for the goal of ensuring that everyone who buys a gun receives a background check, which is the stated purpose of universal background checks. It would have provided a system where private sellers can ensure that someone they're selling to isn't a felon or otherwise prohibited, whereas today ordinary citizens have no access to the NICS and can't run background checks. In Switzerland, the model has been demonstrated to work quite effectively. It simply would not have been useful as a stepping-stone to building a registry, a completely separate thing that has much less public support, is currently prohibited by federal law, and historically (using Canada as reference) has had no utility besides confiscation.
In rejecting the proposal, Democrats sent a message to gun owners that their interest in universal background checks is purely a smokescreen for building a registry. It's the kind of thing that kills any trust gun owners might have that compromise measures won't be later exploited. Without that trust, gun owners are incentivized to dig their heels in the dirt and oppose any new regulation, no matter how reasonable, and that's not going to help things.
caffeinatedzombeh on 25/1/2018 at 19:25
Quote Posted by catbarf
Simply that people have the idea of an assault weapon being something distinct and readily identifiable as a military weapon
It means "black and scary looking" doesn't it? Surely that's a perfectly sensible way to decide whether to ban something
Nicker on 26/1/2018 at 03:04
Quote Posted by caffeinatedzombeh
It means "black and scary looking" doesn't it? Surely that's a perfectly sensible way to decide whether to ban something
Ah yes, the
you got the technical language wrong so you can't participate in this debate argument.
It's not about it being black and scary looking, it's about the ability of certain firearm designs and modifications to deliver more lead into more bodies faster than others. Faster, might I suggest, than any sane person in a civilised society should reasonable require.
It's the difference between a single shot, bolt action and a fucking semi-demi-quasi-automatic.
Bang! Click-click...clicik click... Bang! vs Brrrrrrrrrtttttttttt!!!!!
Did I get the technical language right?
And here we are again with the gun enthusiasts refusing to contribute anything meaningful to a discussion about public safety, because Muh Gunz!
Trance on 26/1/2018 at 03:53
I get the distinct impression that you completely missed the point catbarf was making.
catbarf, you may need to elaborate because US laws concerning assault weapons are probably not something that people outside the US are familiar with.
catbarf on 26/1/2018 at 04:49
Quote Posted by Nicker
Ah yes, the
you got the technical language wrong so you can't participate in this debate argument.
It's not about it being black and scary looking, it's about the ability of certain firearm designs and modifications to deliver more lead into more bodies faster than others. Faster, might I suggest, than any sane person in a civilised society should reasonable require.
It's the difference between a single shot, bolt action and a fucking semi-demi-quasi-automatic.
Bang! Click-click...clicik click... Bang! vs Brrrrrrrrrtttttttttt!!!!!
Did I get the technical language right?
And here we are again with the gun enthusiasts refusing to contribute anything meaningful to a discussion about public safety, because Muh Gunz!
Yeah, uh, I don't think he was mocking a lack of technical knowledge as you seem to have interpreted, rather the terms of 'assault weapon' legislation.
Basically, assault weapon laws in the US define 'assault weapons' as semi-automatic weapons able to accept detachable magazines and having a certain number (depending on which state, 0-2) of banned characteristics, derisively called 'scary features' as they have no real functional impact on the weapon but are associated with popular imagery of military weapons. These features include protruding pistol grips, barrel shrouds (enclosures which surround the barrel, to prevent the shooter from burning themselves), threaded muzzles (to accept accessories), bayonet lugs, folding or collapsing stocks, or grenade launchers (because... something, I guess).
In practice what this means is that there is a laundry list of characteristics with have negligible impact on the performance of a weapon, but distinguish whether it's an ordinary rifle or an assault weapon.
For example:
Inline Image:
https://thejacknews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/semi-automatic-weapon-not-machine-gun.jpgThese are Ruger Mini-14s with various configurations from the factory. Under the assault weapon laws currently in states like Connecticut and New York, the bottom-left and all three in the right column are assault weapons. The top three in the left column are not.
These rifles are all functionally identical to the AR-15. Same caliber, same mechanism, same magazine capacities, same everything. In states that have enacted assault weapons laws or more specific efforts to ban AR-15s as a response to the negative publicity surrounding them, many shooters have purchased Mini-14s and other rifles which provide the same functional capability, but in a completely legal non-assault-weapon package. Others choose to purchase 'New York legal' AR-15s:
Inline Image:
http://www.reno4x4.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=49180&d=1392151478Gone are the threaded muzzle, pistol grip, and collapsing stock. Same rifle. Same operation. Different accessories.
The Department of Justice did a study on the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban when it expired in 2004. They (
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf) concluded that the ban itself had little effect on crime, as the specific terms were easily circumvented, and the majority of firearms did not fit the 'assault weapon' category to begin with. In the years since that ban, firearms design has shifted towards modularity, making it easier to create compliant configurations, and a whole market has sprung up around toeing the line.
So, in short: They banned features which were aesthetically associated with military weapons (ie 'black and scary') but which had little to no effect on lethality or suitability for a mass shooting and were easily bypassed. And now that it's even easier to bypass, this is the kind of legislation that they want to bring back, for... some reason. A lot of people think it's like you said, that an assault weapon is something functionally different and more lethal than an ordinary rifle, but in practice this isn't the case.
Starker on 26/1/2018 at 11:59
That sounds simply idiotic. Why would you classify guns based on cosmetic features instead of caliber, fire rate, etc? Nobody needs ineffective gun laws like that. But surely there are weapons and ammunition that have no business being in civilian hands? And surely nobody needs dozens of guns outside of collectors?
heywood on 26/1/2018 at 14:18
1980s American TV and movies were full of guns, heavily armed cocaine traffickers, paramilitaries, terrorists, etc. They especially glamorized high capacity automatic rifles, Uzis, etc.
Also during the 1980s, drug traffickers started arming themselves more and more, and when the crack epidemic hit hard in the late 1980s, murder rates spiked up, and support for gun control spiked up with it. The assault weapons ban was popular because it banned guns that looked like the ones that all the bad guys were using on TV. It was never anything more than a feel-good sort of measure. Automatic weapon sales had already been banned earlier, along with semi-automatic versions of certain weapons e.g. Uzis.
I think we tend to spend way too much time worrying about military-looking rifles when gun deaths are mostly suicides and the vast majority of gun homicides are committed with plain old handguns: (
https://www.statista.com/statistics/195325/murder-victims-in-the-us-by-weapon-used/) https://www.statista.com/statistics/195325/murder-victims-in-the-us-by-weapon-used/
catbarf on 26/1/2018 at 15:29
Quote Posted by Starker
But surely there are weapons and ammunition that have no business being in civilian hands?
Yeah, that was the purpose of the 1934 National Firearms Act (NFA), the first major gun control effort in this country and still in effect today.
Anything with a caliber over half an inch is a Destructive Device. Anything that is an explosive or fires explosives is also a Destructive Device. Rifles or shotguns under a certain length are considered Short Barreled Rifles or Short Barreled Shotguns. Any very compact weapon with a stabilizing foregrip is an Any Other Weapon. Anything capable of firing more than one projectile per trigger pull is a Machine Gun. Anything that reduces the report of a weapon is a Silencer.
All of these can be legally owned, but it requires paying a tax stamp (typically $200) and filing a multi-page application to the ATF, with wait times of anywhere from a few weeks to over a year, to manufacture or purchase. I know it probably sounds ridiculous that anyone can buy a machine gun or grenade launcher, but the process has done a surprisingly good job of keeping legally registered NFA items away from misuse- for example, in the entire history of the NFA, legally registered machine guns have only ever twice been used to commit felonies. One was a dirty cop executing an informant with a department-issued weapon, the other was eventually ruled self-defense. Seems to work pretty well.
The problem with trying to regulate further than that is that when it comes to semi-automatic firearms there really isn't any quantifiable functional difference between a hunting weapon, a self-defense weapon, and a weapon of war. They all use the same mechanics, calibers, and fire rates (full auto excepted, that makes a NFA-restricted machine gun). California took the approach of banning detachable magazines, but the gun community found this restriction easy to work around, and compliant firearms were still easily illegally modified back (this is what the San Bernardino shooters did). Some states, and Canada, have a 'banned list' of specific models that are not allowed, but this doesn't work at all. Canadian shooters can't have AK-47s, for example, but they can have (
http://cdn.cz-usa.com/hammer/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/cz-vz-58-military-sporter.png) Vz-58s. Same caliber, same fire rate, same magazines blah blah pretty much the same gun.
I can't over-stress how messy it gets when these regulations are targeted at specific features. Just take the National Firearms Act I described. While it has done a good job of regulating explosives, anti-tank guns, and machine guns, there's a currently a market for firearms that circumvent its Short Barreled Rifle definitions, because the writers of the NFA couldn't have anticipated the modularity of modern firearms. These weapons meet the legal definition of a pistol, then use devices for stabilization that the ATF does not consider shoulder stocks. (
https://cdn3.volusion.com/hrtjt.qumdb/v/vspfiles/photos/RDMRSBR--2.jpg?1487021040) This is an SBR because it's a rifle with a barrel under 16" long, requiring the $200 tax stamp and multi-month application to build. (
https://www.rainierarms.com/media/product/787/kak-shockwave-blade-pistol-stabilizer-black-kak-black-by-kak-industries-color-black-212.jpg) This is legally a pistol, because that thing on the back is intended as an arm brace rather than a shoulder stock, so it can have a short barrel without being NFA-restricted. But because it's legally a pistol, if the owner puts a vertical foregrip on it like the one on the SBR, it would be considered 'remanufactured' to be fired with two hands and then it's an illegal unregistered Any Other Weapon. But you can still put an (
http://www.tampafirearms.com/images/AR15-BO300Pistol.jpg) angled foregrip on it, because ATF doesn't consider that a proper foregrip. But wait, if it's over 26" in overall length, then it's just a (
http://cdn0.thetruthaboutguns.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/P1100114-1024x684.jpg) firearm, neither a rifle nor a pistol under federal law, and it can have a barrel under 16" and a vertical foregrip if you so desire- but no stock, because that will remanufacture it into a rifle. Clear as mud? I'd consider myself fairly knowledgeable about gun laws but even I (
http://nebula.wsimg.com/e42476d128930824cf3422ae93fed9e4?AccessKeyId=AEA5A16431995DC40AD0&disposition=0&alloworigin=1) have trouble keeping it straight.
Both the UK and Australia took the sledgehammer solution of banning semi-automatic firearms altogether, which I would say is about the only practical way to do it. But now
culture rears its ugly head- good luck convincing America to turn in their self-defense weapons, which are overwhelmingly semi-automatic, as well as the large number of sporting/hunting firearms that are also semi-automatic. In addition to the Glocks and the AR-15s, we're talking (
https://www.pagunblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/hmp95el.gif) Olympic target pistols, (
http://www.browning.com/content/dam/browning/product/firearms/rifles/bar/bar-pre2016/Browning-BAR-Mark-II-Safari-031001-690.jpg/_jcr_content/renditions/original.img.jpg) classic hunting rifles, and some of the most popular (
http://www.browning.com/content/dam/browning/product/firearms/shotguns/a5/a5-pre2016/Browning-A5-Hunter-011800-158.jpg/jcr:content/renditions/cq5dam.web.835.835.jpeg) skeet shooting and birding shotguns, so there's going to be a lot of collateral. Unlike assault weapons bans, this isn't something you can spin to the public as banning only weapons of war with no legitimate purpose.
Supposing we could pull that off and actually get compliance (in New York,
just registration of
just assault weapons had a (
https://hudsonvalleyone.com/2016/07/07/massive-noncompliance-with-safe-act/) 4% compliance rate), I have no doubt whatsoever in my mind that it would immediately reduce the lethality of mass shootings. But for the overwhelming majority of homicides that are gang-related and committed with handguns, the use of a cheap semi-automatic versus a cheap revolver makes no difference, they both go bang every time you pull the trigger. And then our gun industry would go into malicious compliance mode, and it would be only a matter of time before you see technically-not-semi-automatic revolvers with quick-swap technically-not-detachable high-capacity technically-not-magazines cylinders.
Anyways: Originally the NFA was supposed to include handguns, and in that light the laws on SBRs and SBSs make a lot more sense, since the intent was to heavily regulate all concealable firearms. That provision was dropped due to public outcry and strong opposition in Congress. If we wanted to address the firearms primarily used in homicide, as heywood noted, handguns are the place to look, and I'd
much sooner support simply adding handguns to the NFA than enact more schemes of ineffective nitpicking. It'd be easier to sell to the public than a blanket ban on semi-autos, would have the same impact on the overwhelming majority of gun crime, and there are some bones you could throw to the hardline gun community that could get even them to go along with it.
Quote Posted by Starker
And surely nobody needs dozens of guns outside of collectors?
That's a little tautological, isn't it? Some people buy just one gun for self-defense or hunting or sport, some buy several that all do different things, and those that buy more than that are pretty overwhelmingly collectors because at that point there's not much practical reason. I think I know what you're getting at, that if someone is buying lots of guns but isn't a collector then there's something fishy going on, but I don't think it has any real-world relevance. The Las Vegas shooting is the only major incident I'm aware of where the shooter had a large number of firearms available, and even then it's not clear whether he actually used more than one or two.
