The degree to which I'm impressed by technical arguments as to what constitutes an assault rifle: nil
Another inaccurate article on assault weapons.
- Thread starter Ranb
- Start date
They tried in HR 3355;
Followed by a list, and then....
There was also a definition for pistols and shotguns.
Something used in 1% of gun crime.
Would you apply that approach consistently to all legislation? Seems like that methodology would be terrible for civil liberties and wildly open to abuse.
What methodology do you propose, seeing as it's illegal for the government to formally study gun violence?
Belz...
Fiend God
Not sure what you mean. If we're going to discuss assault weapons, it's important to define what it means.
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
Pretty much. Handguns, often cheap revolvers and small-caliber semi-autos, make up the majority of gun deaths and gun crime in this country.
"Assault Weapons" make up a minority, but they're "flashier" and get press. Which is part of why they're focused on by both the ban-proponents and the shooters. IMHO I think that focus and attention is part of why mass shootings are occurring more often. There's such a storm of press and attention around all of these incidents, with the pundits arguing for weeks, and of course online: how many threads here are discussing the latest one? And that doesn't count the tweets and facebook posts and everything else. For a person that's already got issues, usually feels isolated, and wants to be noticed or prove they matter, what better way to get attention? And we sure give them attention afterwards.
AS to bans, it's an emotional reaction, not a rational one. Think about the arguments:
1. They're designed to kill (same as any weapon ever created, from the stone club to the nuke).
2. They look like military rifles (even though most of the military features are removed-no flash suppressor, no select-fire, etc., and there are other rifles with similar capabilities that wouldn't be classed as assault weapons)
3. They cause deaths and have no useful purpose (not true; they are used for varmint control, hunting, and defense as well as recreation. But you don't see this argument made against alcohol, whose ONLY purpose is recreation, and there are twice as many alcohol-related deaths each year as gun-related)
Add to that that most of those calling for firearms bans of various sorts have very little knowledge of firearms (i.e.-the assault weapons ban of 94), and that ignorance leads to ineffective legislation. Even for the goals they want, that seems odd. "Know your enemy" as a saying has been around quite a while, after all. I'd think if they were truly interested in a functional solution, they'd do some research...instead is mostly based on emotional factors (they look like military weapons, and militaries kill people!).
Now, that being said, we do need regulation improvements. I don't think a ban is politically achievable, practical, or functional. I've always been a proponent of a licensing system, much like a driver's license: An extensive background check initially to determine if you're eligible, along with a requirement for training on use, safety, storage, and law. Pass that, you get the license. License is revoked if you ever have a disqualifying event. Maybe a 4 or 5 year time limit after which a renewal is required (another background check, but maybe a quicker one this time, similar to what's done now, to keep costs lower).
And get rid of the stupid regulations that don't allow various gun records to be put in an electronic format and used efficiently.
But any sort of gun regulation is a treatment, not a cure. It's Tylenol for the fever, not an antibiotic to actually stop the infection. We need better mental health in this country, desperately. We need ways to identify those with problems and get them help before it turns into something like this...whether they choose a mass shooting, driving a car into a crowd, building a bomb, or whatever other method of mutual destruction they pick. We need to work on less tribalism, picking causes and sides and dying on ideological hills, and more pragmatism: being willing to include everyone in our democracy, and quit viewing compromise and negotiation as an evil. Compromise is, after all, the foundation of functional society.
But that's just my opinion, and I fully expect these comments to be twisted to strawmen, and to be hit with numerous insults about how I simply have a fetish to kill people, which is why I rarely post in gun threads. I don't need the ulcers.
Except it's a red herring. It doesn't take a genius to define characteristics that we consider unacceptable, e.g. magazine capacity and rapidity of fire, and it doesn't require "assault weapon" descriptor.
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
Actually, assault rifle has a very specific definition that generally isn't in contention: A select-fire, magazine fed weapon designed for infantry use.
It's the made-up "assault weapon" term that's murky and ill-defined, and that's the one they used in the law.
If the law is going to be effective at all, it has to actually show some understanding of what it's trying to block. The assault weapons ban did not.
That's part of the problem too. Extremists on both sides are blocking anything effective. On one side you have the NRA screaming "If any government official is in the same county as you when you buy a gun, you'll lose them all!!!11!". On the other side, you have ineffective legislation being pushed based on ignorance an emotion, that will have little if any effect on the actual problems. And that puts us into the mess we're in now.
Neither side wants to study the issue; they each want to stand on their hills of purity and look down on the other. Both are proposing things that are ineffective, impossible, and/or impractical...which means things that could actually help are ignored.
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
Then we should do that, clearly, instead of making up terms to sound scary. That wasn't done with the "assault weapons" term, and that was part of the problem.
Belz...
Fiend God
Well, doesn't that mean we shouldn't use the term at all if it's misleading? Let's instead limit these characteristics in the law.
Of course, the reason why they use the term is that it evokes a feeling that is more likely to bias people against these weapons.
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2005
- Messages
- 96,955
No, I mean if the problem is gun manufacturers get around the law, the solution is to update the law, not throw it out.
You argue gun semantics often in this forum. What is your solution to the problem you regularly complain about? Surely you have more to say here than just some reporter got something wrong.
Firstly, not a ban on research: "Congress passed an amendment to a spending bill that forbade the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from using money to “advocate or promote gun control.”
Secondly, if you look at a number of studies in that era, they were very misleading (counting those up to agree 26 as children, saying owning a gun increased homicide risk without controlling for whether you were involved in criminal activity etc)
Thirdly, there has been more research, president Obama's 2013 study, which found:
Armed citizens are less likely to be injured by an attacker
Defensive uses of guns are common
Mass shootings and accidental firearm deaths account for a small fraction of gun-related deaths
Whether gun restrictions reduce firearm-related violence is an unresolved issue.” The report could not conclude whether “passage of right-to-carry laws decrease or increase violence crime
Stolen guns and retail/gun show purchases account for very little crime
https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1#x
lobosrul5
Philosopher
Also needs to be an intermediate cartridge. If its (approximately) 30 cal then its a battle rifle. If it fires a pistol cartridge it would be a sub machine gun.
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2006
- Messages
- 54,545
They are also used in spree killings which are on the rise, unlike general murders which the rate is falling on.
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2006
- Messages
- 54,545
Except of course when it is a battle rifle or a carbine or ...
People have never be terribly clear and consistent in naming conventions as some people would like.
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
Yes, thank you. I forgot about that bit
And a thank you to Giz as well, for additional detail on gun violence research. I simply took the statement as truth instead of checking (mea culpa). Frankly, it didn't surprise me because of the stupid mish-mash our gun laws have become from being decided by two extremes
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2016
- Messages
- 29,791
That is why there are constitutional rights that can't just be changed by simple law.
But the approach is essentially what time-limits on legislation are supposed to do: have a trial period in which to study the effects of the law and then fine-tune it.
Of course, this isn't the way things usually go.
Similarly, the advantage of having a Federation is to let different states try to different solutions to similar problems. But in the case of gun laws, this is impossible when the laws of most pro-gun state have to be upheld in all states.
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2006
- Messages
- 54,545
And if it has a short barrel it is a carbine. If it is intended for more sustained fire it is squad automatic weapon.
The homicide rate has generally been in decline for a while now, but the rate actually went up a little in 2015 and 2016. Not sure how 2017 went. Still far from the bad old days.