And... it's back: The ASSAULT weapons ban

[Texashiker]

It will be interesting to what SCOTUS says on this. This reads that they the ban on "Machine Guns" is lawful. However how do you define a Assault Rifle? That has caused a lot of trouble.

It would be impossible for the supreme court to allow a ban on semi-auto firearms.

There are millions of semi-auto firearms in circulation, and then there is the right to due process before property can be taken.

Awhile back Texas passed a law saying that once the coast line changed, the property then belonged to the state. Citizens sued and won. The people won mainly due to the lack of due process on part of the state in taking the property. The government can not take your property without due process and without compensation.

If anything is going to be banned, its probably going to be the 20 and 30 round magazines, and the cheap Ak-47s being imported.

the president controls trade. All obama has to do is sign a paper, get the senate to approve it, and no more rifles are imported.

 

[herm0016]

defining an AR has never been more than how it looks. is it black and scary looking? must ban!

 

[Druidx]

Just as stupid as the original AWB. One of the key factors in the definition of the last ban is it couldn't have an attached grenade launcher. As though that was a common problem.

 

[Brovane]

It would be impossible for the supreme court to allow a ban on semi-auto firearms.

There are millions of semi-auto firearms in circulation, and then there is the right to due process before property can be taken.

Awhile back Texas passed a law saying that once the coast line changed, the property then belonged to the state. Citizens sued and won. The people won mainly due to the lack of due process on part of the state in taking the property. The government can not take your property without due process and without compensation.

If anything is going to be banned, its probably going to be the 20 and 30 round magazines, and the cheap Ak-47s being imported.

the president controls trade. All obama has to do is sign a paper, get the senate to approve it, and no more rifles are imported.

Which makes me wonder if passing a federal AWB could back-fire on them. Right now there has been no good Federal Law gun control case for the NRA to take to SCOTUS. The passing of the Federal AWB would hand them a perfect case to take to SCOTUS.

 

[OutHouse]

Just as stupid as the original AWB. One of the key factors in the definition of the last ban is it couldn't have an attached grenade launcher. As though that was a common problem.

or a bayonet lug.

 

[dmens]

or a bayonet lug.

Will somebody please think of the watermelons!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOPuEuJx1MY

 

[Texashiker]

The passing of the Federal AWB would hand them a perfect case to take to SCOTUS.

The gun grabbers are probably worried about that.

With two defeats in the supreme court, and another headed their way (concealed carry in Illinois), things are not looking good for anti-gun people.

 

[SheHateMe]

Why do Civilians needs Assault Rifles?

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Why do Civilians needs Assault Rifles?

Can I ask what is a sensible definition of an assault weapon that most people can agree to? Clearly the 1994 ban had issues, so let's talk about what could make it more sensible....

 

[Texashiker]

Why do Civilians needs Assault Rifles?

Define assault rifle

 

[BoberFett]

Are you just using emotions to respond to my statement? Look at it from a realistic standpoint. Yes I did mention video games, but oh no, that means you get to laugh.

This guy didn't need to dive for cover behind board games and puzzles while reloading, but you're referring to one specific case. Magazine size would affect how a shootout occurs. If you had all 200 rounds in one magazine versus split up in 20 different mags, it'd be easier for you to put multiple bullets in a person and make sure that they're dead rather than to shoot and move on. That's the point I'm trying to make. I can't tell you how exactly it would've changed the outcome, but to act like there's no effect at all is a bit naive don't you think?



I like how you are unable to refute anything I've stated. Ok, so I mentioned video games because it's an easy scenario to understand the difference between a small and large magazine. I suppose you prefer examples of actual shootings where a shooter used a large magazine versus a small magazine, but then that'd be an apples vs oranges comparison with different shooters, different scenarios, etc. What I'm trying to get at is the mentality you have with different magazine sizes. In one case you're more aware of how many rounds you have left til you reload, etc. In the other case it's less of an issue until a certain point. The concept of scarcity is what drives basic economics and human behavior. You think it won't play an effect with guns either?

The bottom line is I'm not saying the solution is to limit magazine size. I'm just playing devils advocate for a moment and suggesting that magazine sizes should have an effect on how a shooter behaves and possibly the outcome. It could potentially alter the death count, etc, and how a massacre goes down.

You've never fired a gun have you? It takes a couple of seconds to change out a mag. Let me guess, you're an internet warrior who will use that momentary pause to bust out the combat skills that you learned from playing Call of Duty?

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Can I ask what is a sensible definition of an assault weapon that most people can agree to? Clearly the 1994 ban had issues, so let's talk about what could make it more sensible....

That's really the problem - it's very hard to define it in a useful way that is not more arbitrary and aesthetic than substantive/sensible. Often it really does come down to looks as much as anything else. If memory serves the AWB and/or its state analogues banned, among other things, collapsible stocks, large-capacity magazines, and pistol grips. All of these can be added back on to AWB-compliant rifles, even if they don't come that way from the factory. Moreover, there are untold millions of currently-legal assault weapons already on the market which would effectively obviate any benefit of the law.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

You've never fired a gun have you? It takes a couple of seconds to change out a mag. Let me guess, you're an internet warrior who will use that momentary pause to bust out the combat skills that you learned from playing Call of Duty?

In fairness even a combat reload of a rifle creates at least a window of opportunity for someone to rush the shooter, particularly if he's standing, and a magazine as small as 10 rounds requires a lot of frequent reloads, with accompanying fumbling with magazines. (And yes, I have been militarily trained on and done a fair number of combat reloads). The present shooting is one of the few scenarios where it might not have made as much of a difference, admittedly, since the overwhelming majority of the people present were small children and isolated females - the same would not be true in, say, a movie theater or mall.

I myself don't advocate banning large-capacity magazines, but there's no question they are highly effective tools for spree shooting in a way that ten-round magazines simply aren't.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

You've never fired a gun have you? It takes a couple of seconds to change out a mag. Let me guess, you're an internet warrior who will use that momentary pause to bust out the combat skills that you learned from playing Call of Duty?

Actually I have. I go to the shooting range regularly. You're right. It's a couple of seconds. I have no problem at the range. This isn't a shooting range. Why is it that you, me, and police officers can excel on the shooting range but in shootouts fire 30 rounds and have the suspect get away?

SHooting with accuracy under stress is a totally different thing. Same with changing a magazine. I used that 270 round example. If you had 27 magazines, you'd probably toss them in a duffel bag. Yeah maybe at first the gunman is quick and reloads fast. After a while he's struggling to find innocent victims, he's frustrated. He has to reload too much, etc. Is that going to have ZERO effect at all?

In the case of this shooting, do you think he'd be putting the same # of rounds into everyone if he was limited to 10 rounds per magazine? I don't think so.

You're right, if you take a video game or some perfectly controlled scenario where the shooter had plenty of time without a rapidly changing environment, you bet he'd go around and do the same damage regardless of magazine size. However, you see how fast these shootings take place. Few minutes and it's over. Having to deal with multiple reloads with victims screaming, running, shooter having to run around room to room across hallways, etc, is not something you compare with changing a mag at the shooting range.

In fairness even a combat reload of a rifle creates at least a window of opportunity for someone to rush the shooter, particularly if he's standing, and a magazine as small as 10 rounds requires a lot of frequent reloads, with accompanying fumbling with magazines. (And yes, I have been militarily trained on and done a fair number of combat reloads). The present shooting is one of the few scenarios where it might not have made as much of a difference, admittedly, since the overwhelming majority of the people present were small children and isolated females - the same would not be true in, say, a movie theater or mall.

I myself don't advocate banning large-capacity magazines, but there's no question they are highly effective tools for spree shooting in a way that ten-round magazines simply aren't.

Well said. Unfortunately I'm not as concise and effective with my words, but you pretty much summarized my sentiments. The solution isn't to ban the large-capacity magazines. However, I do believe magazine size can greatly impact the way a shooting is carried out.

 

[MiniDoom]

Define assault rifle

scary looking black rifle.

 

[blankslate]

In fairness even a combat reload of a rifle creates at least a window of opportunity for someone to rush the shooter, particularly if he's standing, and a magazine as small as 10 rounds requires a lot of frequent reloads, with accompanying fumbling with magazines. (And yes, I have been militarily trained on and done a fair number of combat reloads). I myself don't advocate banning large-capacity magazines, but there's no question they are highly effective tools for spree shooting in a way that ten-round magazines simply aren't.

The shooter in Arizona who shot a congress member as I recall had an extended magazine for his pistol that allowed him to fire more than 15 rounds before reloading and that he was stopped by people near him when he had to reload.

If we as a country are unwilling to consider further gun laws and it seems we are then we better be willing to address what to me is a common factor in these types of shootings.

Most if not all the killers in these rampages seem to have had issues with mental health. We need to stop cutting funding for mental health treatment and require that mental health professionals flag individuals who would be dangerous around firearms.

Maybe I'm wrong in this assessment but in my opinion many people who argue against control laws also have no issue with spending cuts that include cuts to mental health services.

If we accept that civilian ownership of firearms are a part of the U.S. way of life then we also must accept the extra responsibilities that it entails. These responsibilities include ensuring that people who don't need to be anywhere near a firearm are kept away from them.

I don't think that enough people who advocate for gun rights accept fully the implications of living up to that extra responsibility yet.

 

[soulcougher73]

your ideas?

I know this wasnt directed at me, but my idea would be to do nothing. Nothing you can do related to guns will keep people from killing. In fact it would probably make it worse to ban them because they it would ALL go underground and be untracible. Be a huge black market for it.

 

[Nintendesert]

I am ambivalent about whether more gun restrictions are ethically the right thing to do - I see pros and cons to both sides of that discussion - but I am 100% convinced that they will have no beneficial effect, and other things being equal I don't favor creating new laws that don't help the American public. I'd much rather see the focus placed on revamping our mental health laws to allow for more commitment of violent, scary mentally ill people like James Holmes and Jared Laughner.

I agree with you. The real issue here is the mental health problems and how we deal with mentally unstable people.

We may look at expanding laws preventing ownership of guns to mentally ill people along with restricting guns at the residence of someone that houses a mentally unstable person. I'm sure some States address that though I'm not familiar with any.

We might have to bring back more insane asylums and hospitalize some of these loons until they get proper treatment. We might have to force people to get mental health treatment. I don't know yet, but I do know that the last few incidents have been by people that after the fact everyone knew just wasn't quite right and we need to have a real debate in this country on ways to deal with these wackos before they commit atrocities.

 

[soulcougher73]

Won't have to enforce anything. Because after the weapon is used in such an assault, the owner will have spend his life in prison. After sending a couple of folks up the river, everyone will fall in line.

Doubt it. most of them kill themselves, and the assault would have still happened and many would be dead. Its people, not the guns.

 

[Texashiker]

I agree with you. The real issue here is the mental health problems and how we deal with mentally unstable people.

Our society, and our legal system are not setup to handle those issues.

If someone can not be treated with medicine, do we keep them locked away for the rest of their lives, simply because the person "might" pose a danger?

 

[Jaepheth]

If the democrats are smart they'll only use this to push healthcare for the mentally ill.

Gun control is a losing issue for them; they risk losing pro-gun independent voters and have practically no anti-gun voters to gain as those already vote democrat and will continue to do so with or without new gun control legislation.

 

[soulcougher73]

So there was a crazy guy up here in Canada who went on a rampage on a Greyhound bus. He heard voices that told him to kill. While on the bus he stabbed this sleeping teenager in the throat until he died. Everyone got off the bus ASAP and watched as he cut the kid into pieces and ate parts of him.

It was tragic, and the guy is now getting the treatment he needs, but I only wonder how much worse it could have been if he had access to assault rifles.

Crazy people who want to kill will do so. Limiting them to a knife may mean only one person dies as opposed to 28.

The problem in the US is that the weapons are already out there. Making them illegal now won't change much now. If you ban them and then do a 10+ year campaign of confiscation and destruction of the weapons, you may see some effect down the line.

Canada has tons of guns as well, or so ive heard.

 

[soulcougher73]

maybe we should bring back huge insane asylums like Pilgram Psychiatric Center in NY (now closed) and lock up mentally ill people.

That or kill them. Im down with either

 

[xj0hnx]

I wouldn't mind all of these weapons that could accommodate 15 to 30 round magazines and could fire 4-6 rounds in about a second fairly accurately in semi-auto if these weapons were from now on all made with a biometric feature that limited the use of that weapon to the owner.

If you're squeezing off 4-6 rounds per second, you are not putting down accurate fire, or anything close to it, area/suppression fire yes, accurate, no.

 

[Nintendesert]

Our society, and our legal system are not setup to handle those issues.

If someone can not be treated with medicine, do we keep them locked away for the rest of their lives, simply because the person "might" pose a danger?

Who knows? It however is the debate we need to be having and not the one on guns.