Mass shooting in el paso

Manic Moran

steddyeddy wrote: »

I don't mean this to cause offence but I'm guessing you're a member of the NRA? The reason I say this is you're stating the exact same views about gun control that the organisation and it's members say in relation to gun control. That research is inconclusive or that there's not enough research.

No offence taken. I probably should be an NRA member given that the majority of their efforts and resources go into laudable efforts such as training courses, but, no, I am part of the vast majority of American firearms owners who are not members. In my case, I take exception to the rather hard-lined and hyperbolic positions taken by the leadership and have no particular intention of implying my support for them by giving them my money.

That said, a fair number of folks I know sortof held their nose and became members as, flawed though the NRA are, they are the best organisation for opposing the flood of misguided legislation being proposed.

However, if the research being conducted is saying in the conclusions that it's not conclusive, or that no relationship is established, then there is a good argument for saying 'the research is inconclusive'. Repeating study after study until you get one which gives a result you want is a bit underhanded. Which brings us back to the right-to-carry study which started this all off, and which has had a large number of studies done.

It's an interesting point of view that evidence is inconclusive. It isn't at all. Research was somewhat lacking in the US as the NRA actually lobbied against gun research and the effect of gun control on saving lives. Similar to the tobacco companies lobbying congress I suppose.

If the NRA lobbied against gun research by anyone other than the CDC, they've not done a hell of a good job. There are a ridiculous amount of reports out there from both the private sector and the federal government (eg DoJ and NIH). Even the CDC has occasionally put out a report, given that the Dickey Amendment merely prohibited the CDC from putting out reports which have a goal of gun restriction, but not doing the raw research. For example, the DoJ alone shows 54 currently underway research studies on gun violence, funded to the tune of $28million. https://www.nij.gov/funding/awards/Pages/awards-list.aspx?tags=Gun%20Violence

The very first one is entitled "The Nature, Trends, Correlates and Prevention of Mass Public Shootings in America, 1976-2018", and is funded to the tune of a half-million dollars. There's another one, over a quarter million, entitled "A Comprehensive Assessment of Deadly Mass Shootings, 1980-2018". I see a $1.2million project studying school shootings. And it's not just the media-grabbing stuff, I see over a half-million going to gun violence in urban youth, or another 2/3 of a million going for the urban firearms violence problem in general.

More research is certainly good, but you can't say the US government isn't doing any.

The correlation between gun control and gun violence is well documented in the literature. When the NRA and its members question this I'm not inclined to believe that they don't believe it, rather that they'll believe anything that convinces them gun control is bad.

Yes, there is a lot of correlation. I don't think anyone particularly objects to that statement. The true question is the causative relationship. Take the Australian gun buyback. Although there are plenty of studies showing that there was a drop in firearms deaths in Australia after the buyback, studies attempting to show a causative relationship have failed to show one.

There is also, as mentioned, the circular effect of whether the gun control has caused the reduction in firearms, or if the population who are not so disposed towards them in the first place permitted the restrictive regulation. I seem to recall a study on that once, as well, now I think about it.

So here we go.

The American Journal of Public Health:

Speaking of inconslusive, there's a section which supports the problem I mention above.
In 2 studies, shall-issue laws were found to decrease homicide rates. In 2 studies, these laws were found to increase homicide rates.. Six studies reported no clear impact of shall-issue laws on homicide rates.

So now the score is 2/6/3?

Of note, also in the report Nevertheless, caution should be exercised in
assessing causality from an ecological study such as this one.

Still, let's take the report at face value. There is a saying around here that there is nothing wrong with shooting people as long as the right people get shot. All those firearms are being carried for a reason, it's not (normally) decoration, and there's a difference between homicide and murder. Remember how Illinois had 0 people convicted of a crime with their weapon in four years? That doesn't mean they didn't shoot anyone, they certainly did.

In any case, whatever the cause of the higher homicide rate, we know it's not the people using the license to carry which are doing it.

Epidemiologic Reviews stated that in every country where stricter gun control is introduced there's a reduction in firearm homicides.

Was there a similarly sized reduction in non-firearms homicides? Or did folks just decide to change over? The US murder rate per population right now is about half that of the early 1990s. And now we have modern rifles and license to carry.

The Journal of Urban Health report on what happens when gun controls are reversed? Well for that we can look at the state of Missouri. The state got rid of laws requiring a permit to purchase a firearm. Guess what happened next? The firearm homicide rate went up by 23%.

I can see that. Basically what the repeal did was eliminate a background check for private sales. Since I happen to support universal background checks (unlike the NRA leadership), we can agree I think that this form of regulation would be good to implement.

I'm going to digress, briefly, at this point, to reiterate something I may not have made perfectly clear.

I don't object to regulation, as long as it is both feasible and suitable. It is my opinion that adding regulation for the sake of adding regulation is pointless. Creating a new 'assault weapons ban' is meritless. Merely having a requirement for a pre-purchase certificate means nothing. The Missouri permit was related to background checks and did something positive. The California permit is instead a requirement to take a knowledge test. I don't know if it's possible to fail it, you can try out some sample questions here.
http://californiafsc.safetyquizz.com/Quizzes/QuizzesList
I seriously doubt it has been the cause of any reductions in anything, except wallet size, as there is a fee associated with taking the test. Then again, it's California, they are making a determined effort to stamp out firearms in the State.

There's more funded by John Hopkins medical research centre. Connecticut introduced permit to purchase for handguns. What happened? Yep a 40% reduction in firearm homicide.

Same as Missouri, basically, it was a universal background check system. I'm good with that.

Now you quoted the Rand organisation. I think you're misrepresenting their position. From their organisation's website. I mean you can't get clearer than that. Evidence suggests that carry and conceal laws are linked with violent crime increases.

Click the link on the page. That really narrow line indicating "weak" evidence between concealed carry laws and violent crime increases. That brings you to the page I linked to earlier, "Summary: Evidence that shall-issue concealed-carry laws may increase violent crime is limited. Evidence for the effect of shall-issue laws on total homicides, firearm homicides, robberies, assaults, and rapes is inconclusive."

You are advocating a significant change in one's ability to defend oneself in public on the basis of 'limited' and 'inconclusive' evidence, despite the fact that we have some 40 States' worth of data to draw upon.

Can I ask instead of linking to other studies can you tell me do you think gun control will save lives in the US?

I think some additional gun laws will save lives. We may or may not agree on the nature of those gun laws. Example, we may agree on universal background checks. We may not agree on mandatory firearms safety education in school. We may not agree that a new assault weapons ban will have any effect. I also think that some laws currently in effect can be removed without negative repercussions such as California's AWB or prohibition on any handgun newer than 2013, and that some new ones can be added which won't have a major effect on the macro scale either way such as national CCW reciprocity.

I can never get over the blindness to the wording of the 2nd amendment. "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Seems fairly obvious that the 2nd amendment covers well regulated militias. normal citizen don't really seem to be mentioned - unless they're part of a well regulated militia

There is a misconception that the Bill of Rights is a source of rights. It is really a list of limitations on the federal government with respect to rights already extant, to ensure that they are not infringed upon. Congress may not limit free speech. It may not infringe on arms. It may not search without due process. It may not quarter troops in private homes. And so on.

2A was placed in order to prevent the federal government from preventing the States from having an effective militia (At the time, the States were dealing with a number of uprisings/rebellions). But the militia is not the sole cause of the right to arms, it was, however, the cause of the Federal 2A.

If I may quote my State's constitution, Article 1, section 23:
"Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime"

You will find that State constitutions are often a lot more specific, after all, in the 18th and much of the 19th centuries, the Federal government had almost no authority over the individual, and the Federal Constitution did not apply against the States. Whatever about the Federal militia clauses (and every male aged 18-45 is in the Federal militia), my State Constitution clearly says that I, the individual, may have a firearm to protect myself. And, per the Texas Government Code, every able-bodied male aged 18-60 is in the State militia.

tuxy

Manic Moran wrote: »

If I may quote my State's constitution, Article 1, section 23:
"Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime"
.

Why is the vague term of "arms" used? Is it to ensure the states constitution is in line with federal? Items like grenades were reclassified to make them very difficult to obtain, same for full auto rifles. Going forward do you think that's the best way to restrict firearms that are problematic? It's a slow process but there is a long history that this is the best way to bring about change.
Backdoor legislation causes far less controversy than being honest about it.

Feisar

greencap wrote: »

how about weird and irrational fetish for guns?

most of us grow out of the 'guns are so cool' thing relatively early.

they are after all at the most fundamental level basically all just the same thing, a pipe from which a piece of metal projects. no matter how fancy.


ooooh pipe. fancy pipe, pipe with different bits. i wonder will a piece of metal shoot out of this one too.

Your point doesn't really stand up to much scrutiny. One can say the same thing about cars for example, four wheels and an engine.

Manic Moran

tuxy wrote: »

Why is the vague term of "arms" used? Is it to ensure the states constitution is in line with federal? Items like grenades were reclassified to make them very difficult to obtain, same for full auto rifles. Going forward do you think that's the best way to restrict firearms that are problematic? It's a slow process but there is a long history that this is the best way to bring about change.
Backdoor legislation causes far less controversy than being honest about it.

I wouldn't say it's a very vague term. The Federal constitution was brought into line with State ones. The Bill of Rights was adopted in 1791, but a number of State constitutions use 'arms' earlier than that, such as Pennsylvania (1776) and Vermont (1777). (Most Constitutional rights to arms date to the 19th Century, though, granted, mainly because most States weren't States until then)

The exact legal definition of 'arms' has not yet been thoroughly tested, though it's fairly settled opinion that requires that they be capable of being borne. For example, it's kindof hard to bear a cannon, even though the citizens' retention of a cannon (The famous "Come and take it" flag) was the start of the Texas Revolution. A secondary requirement is that the weapons are the sort commonly used by the citizenry for lawful purposes, which currently excludes automatic weapons, but some appellate courts have started nibbling at the question on the basis of the circular logic that the only reason that automatic weapons are not commonly used is that they have been banned from production or import for 30 years. Or, more specifically, if tasers are not in common use in a State because the State banned them as soon as they are invented, does that preclude a 2A argument for tasers (Answer, no, and Tasers are arms under 2A per Supreme Court). The question with regards to automatic weapons specifically has been brought up by judges as a side-note in cases regarding other bans, but has not yet been specifically addressed.

To be clear, even if automatic weapons are found to be arms as per 2A, and I strongly suspect they eventually will be, that does not mean a free-for-all. Regulation is still permitted, and I see no reason why the 1934 NFA and the process currently in place for machinegun ownership cannot be allowed to stay.

greencap

Feisar wrote: »

Your point doesn't really stand up to much scrutiny. One can say the same thing about cars for example, four wheels and an engine.

maybe thats a fetish for an inanimate object too.

although i dont know of many people who build their identity to such an extent their around their cars.

and the few who do can also be kind of infantile.

BattleCorp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Does it? Would you give, "the crazies" as you put it, unlimited access to guns in your well-regulated militia? or would you find more suitable jobs for "crazies" depending on their brand of crazy?

I think I've clearly said that steps should be taken to ensure 'the crazies' don't have access to guns.

I can never get over the blindness to the wording of the 2nd amendment. "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

Seems fairly obvious that the 2nd amendment covers well regulated militias. normal citizen don't really seem to be mentioned - unless they're part of a well regulated militia.

I'm not American nor an expert on their law but I would guess that a well regulated militia is made up of normal citizens. Kind of goes without saying really.

BattleCorp

tuxy wrote: »

It's not as difficult to get a gun legally in Ireland as the average citizen here believes. Yes the time frame can be long, 3 months is not unusual. And realistically you are probably limited to a 12 gauge shotgun or bolt action rifle. These are gun that are more suited to hunting small animals or target practice not mass shootings. So if you live in Ireland and have a love for guns you can take part in that hobby but very few have an interest in doing so. Most guns are owned in rural areas out of necessity. I know plenty of farmers that don't like guns but own them because they need them. To them guns are about as interesting as owning a shovel or any other tool.

You are in no way limited to a 12 gauge shotgun or bold action rifle.

Lots of semi-autos here too, and pistols. The most common reason for licencing them here is target shooting.

Igotadose

Seems like this thread has turned into minutiae about the 2d amendment and what types of guns are acceptable without restriction.

30+ dead in 2 weeks in the US. Would *more* gun availability make this less likely to happen? No.
Would less? Probably. Is probably worth it?

No one *needs* an AR-15 or an AK-47. Maybe the military does (and the history of the AR-15 seems to indicate that it was a pretty poor design originally, the Vietnam soldiers using it, would readily drop it for an AK-47 taken from the VC/NVA, as they were more reliable). Maybe the AR is better now, but that doesn't matter.

Bubba with an AR isn't going to keep his local police force away when they come to get him. They have armored vehicles. Grenades. Who knows what else. Bubba doesn't *need* an AR. He can hunt with a rifle. Or a handgun. Or go bear hunting with a knife.
Bubba can protect his property with a handgun. Maybe the kind that the Founders envisioned when they wrote the Bill of Rights - powder & ball, single shot. O.K... a revolver of low caliber. Good enough to scare off those that would be scared off, if Bubba's a good enough shot, good enough to stop someone who won't be scared off. Plenty good to scare off threatening animals.

But no civilian needs an AR or a AK or an AA-12. Ban them in private hands. Track any sales. Buy out the manufacturies. Result: Fewer mass shootings.
It'll also help the poor sods in Mexico being flooded with US arms, which the NRA has ensured are nearly impossible to track as there's no 'gunrunning' statutes at the federal level. https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/arming-mexican-cartels-inside-story-of-a-texas-gun-smuggling-ring-866836/

Do *something*. Or, in a few weeks, there'll just be another. Perhaps more dead schoolchildren.

El_Duderino 09

BattleCorp wrote: »

I think I've clearly said that steps should be taken to ensure 'the crazies' don't have access to guns.



I'm not American nor an expert on their law but I would guess that a well regulated militia is made up of normal citizens. Kind of goes without saying really.

We'll, you did say there should be background checks to ensure crazies don't get guns. But you also said it flies in the face of the second amendment. That suggests the second amendment would be OK with the crazies having guns.

Re well regulated militias: everyone could join a militia, but why mention a militia if they just meant everyone? Why narrow it down to a well regulated militia if they meant everyone?

Interesting thing is that if there ever were to be a tyrannical government, chances are the people would be split down the middle in support/opposition to it. A well regulated militia would be one thing. Individual citizens, having at each other with their personal armouries, would be a absolute carnage.

BattleCorp

greencap wrote: »

how about weird and irrational fetish for guns?

Go to a target shooting club here in Ireland and you'll see loads of people who don't have an irrational fear of guns. What they have is a respect for the guns, not a fear. There are over 400 people in my target shooting club and they range from young'uns to auld lads who can hardly stand. It's a sport where men and women compete on an even footing.

What many of the general public don't realise is that target shooting is a sport that has an unbelievable safety record and the people who take part in it are amongst the most trustworthy people in the country. They are vetted by the Gardaí and if they weren't trustworthy, the Gardaí wouldn't issue them with licences. And if they do have a licence and act the boll1x, then the Gardaí will remove their firearms.

They also have to keep their guns secure, and there are different security categories depending on the number and type of guns that people have.

most of us grow out of the 'guns are so cool' thing relatively early.

You don't have to think guns are cool to have a gun. You might need one for vermin control, sport etc.

Many people don't grow out of collecting model trains, painting etc. So what if someone things guns are cool, there's no law against it.

they are after all at the most fundamental level basically all just the same thing, a pipe from which a piece of metal projects. no matter how fancy.

ooooh pipe. fancy pipe, pipe with different bits. i wonder will a piece of metal shoot out of this one too.

I don't know how to answer that paragraph given that it's so eloquently written, and with such maturity. :rolleyes:

Seriously though, it's not just a pipe. No more than a car is just a box with wheels. There's a lot more to the gun than the bit of a pipe (barrel). I could elaborate but I suspect you have no interest in listening.

BattleCorp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

We'll, you did say there should be background checks to ensure crazies don't get guns. But you also said it flies in the face of the second amendment. That suggests the second amendment would be OK with the crazies having guns.

You misunderstood my comment. Or maybe I wasn't clear.

I believe that there should be background checks etc. I believe nobody should get a gun without a background check, no matter what the 2nd Amendment says.

But others may argue:

The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to arm the citizens against a tyrannical Government. If that's the case, (and I am not standing up for this point, just mentioning it) it could be argued that the Government shouldn't know who has all the guns because that would give them a list of who to go after first if they decided to get tyrannical. I'm saying that it might fly in the face of the 2nd Amendment.

Re well regulated militias: everyone could join a militia, but why mention a militia if they just meant everyone? Why narrow it down to a well regulated militia if they meant everyone?

No idea what they were thinking back then when they said that. I guess a well regulated militia was their way of saying an organised resistance.

Interesting thing is that if there ever were to be a tyrannical government, chances are the people would be split down the middle in support/opposition to it. A well regulated militia would be one thing. Individual citizens, having at each other with their personal armouries, would be a absolute carnage.

If individual citizens didn't have their personal armouries, what would they use fighting in a militia?

To be honest, some lad with an AR15 isn't going to be able to put up much resistance to a tyrannical government seeing as he has an AR15 and they have fighter jets and reaper drones etc.

Anyway, I'm not standing up for the 2nd Amendment. I like it in some ways and I dislike it in others. But it's there until it's not there.

Feisar

Still here loving guns however that 2nd Amendment is past it's sell by date.

Being armed to stand up to a tyrannical government was valid when the government had little more than a militia at it's disposal.

steddyeddy

Every single time I hear someone say that the Second Amendment is what protects us from tyrants, I laugh and laugh and laugh.

Where were gun owners when the government was putting Japanese Americans in concentration camps? Where were gun owners during the Trail of Tears? They were waving flags and cheering, that’s where.

Gun owners have always been on the side of tyrants. Always. If the tanks ever do roll down Main Street, I have not the slightest doubt that fans of the Second Amendment will be there…to applaud and clap that at last we are Doing Something About The Problem. Whatever pretext tyranny dresses in when it arrives, it’s always the most fanatic Second Amendment types who come out to shake its hand.

El_Duderino 09

Feisar wrote: »

Still here loving guns however that 2nd Amendment is past it's sell by date.

Being armed to stand up to a tyrannical government was valid when the government had little more than a militia at it's disposal.

And they were probably at serious risk of re invasion be the British or invasion by the French. Might well have mede good sense at the time. Now free access to guns is absolute mayhem. But that's a price they're willing to pay.

El_Duderino 09

steddyeddy wrote: »

Gun owners have always been on the side of tyrants. Always. If the tanks ever do roll down Main Street, I have not the slightest doubt that fans of the Second Amendment will be there…to applaud and clap that at last we are Doing Something About The Problem. Whatever pretext tyranny dresses in when it arrives, it’s always the most fanatic Second Amendment types who come out to shake its hand.

Trump boasted as much recently. He said the gun owners would be on his side - along with the bikers and the police and the army. Truly frightening thought. He hasn't even started giving reason why he shouldn't leave office if he loses the election next year. I'm pretty sure he will make that point before long - rigged, stealing your victory, elites etc.

BattleCorp

steddyeddy wrote: »

Every single time I hear someone say that the Second Amendment is what protects us from tyrants, I laugh and laugh and laugh.

Where were gun owners when the government was putting Japanese Americans in concentration camps? Where were gun owners during the Trail of Tears? They were waving flags and cheering, that’s where.

Gun owners have always been on the side of tyrants. Always. If the tanks ever do roll down Main Street, I have not the slightest doubt that fans of the Second Amendment will be there…to applaud and clap that at last we are Doing Something About The Problem. Whatever pretext tyranny dresses in when it arrives, it’s always the most fanatic Second Amendment types who come out to shake its hand.

I own guns. Can you point out which tyrant I stand behind?

steddyeddy

BattleCorp wrote: »

I own guns. Can you point out which tyrant I stand behind?

I'm referring to the defenders of the second amendment as some sort of sacred text that ensures protection against a tyrannical government. Nothing whatsoever to do with Irish gun owners. They're not the same species at all.

Not once did the defenders of the 2nd amendment stand up to tyrannical governments in America's history.

steddyeddy

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Trump boasted as much recently. He said the gun owners would be on his side - along with the bikers and the police and the army. Truly frightening thought. He hasn't even started giving reason why he shouldn't leave office if he loses the election next year. I'm pretty sure he will make that point before long - rigged, stealing your victory, elites etc.

It is scary. I'm in Colorado which is pretty liberal believe it or not. Even here I've met some crazy, crazy worshippers of the 2nd amendment.

BattleCorp

steddyeddy wrote: »

It is scary. I'm in Colorado which is pretty liberal believe it or not. Even here I've met some crazy, crazy worshippers of the 2nd amendment.

Do you think there's an appetite on the ground over there for the removal of the 2nd Amendment? I don't mean in the media mind, just people on the ground.

I personally doubt it.

steddyeddy

BattleCorp wrote: »

Do you think there's an appetite on the ground over there for the removal of the 2nd Amendment? I don't mean in the media mind, just people on the ground.

I personally doubt it.

Not at all! Nor was there an appetite for removing slavery in a lot of states, nor is there an appetite for affordable healthcare in modern times. I don't think there's an appetite for it at all. I think it requires a culture change. I think the solution is more gun control. Banning guns is a completely stupid idea and would never fly with people, including me.

Gun control such as background checks and mental health checks would save a lot of lives in my view.

BattleCorp

steddyeddy wrote: »

Not at all! Nor was there an appetite for removing slavery in a lot of states, nor is there an appetite for affordable healthcare in modern times. I don't think there's an appetite for it at all. I think it requires a culture change. I think the solution is more gun control. Banning guns is a completely stupid idea and would never fly with people, including me.

Gun control such as background checks and mental health checks would save a lot of lives in my view.

We are on the same page.

Feisar

steddyeddy wrote: »

It is scary. I'm in Colorado which is pretty liberal believe it or not. Even here I've met some crazy, crazy worshippers of the 2nd amendment.

It's like they are living in a perpetual state of fear or something. I remember reading an article in Guns and Ammo back in the day. This lad was advocating .45 over 9mm. "For defense you need a bore you can damn near crawl down". Or writing to that effect. That sort of mindset is part of the problem IMHO.

El_Duderino 09

steddyeddy wrote: »

It is scary. I'm in Colorado which is pretty liberal believe it or not. Even here I've met some crazy, crazy worshippers of the 2nd amendment.

There are a shocking number of "single issue" voters in the US. People who nm I ly vote on one issue, guns, religion, abortion. I think Trump is probably walking a tightrope by even suggesting gun laws. Those people are unlikely to ever turn against him but they might be less inclined to vote.

That's the main reason they can never actually bring about gun control.

Try asking some colorado people about where guns come in people's list of priorities when voting for president

BattleCorp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

That's the main reason they can never actually bring about gun control.

Honest question.

What's your idea of gun control? What measures would you like introduced.

El_Duderino 09

BattleCorp wrote: »

Honest question.

What's your idea of gun control? What measures would you like introduced.

Figure out what people should not be allowed to own guns and enforce that standard. Fewer "crazies" with guns.

Likewise, figure out what guns are sensible to have and which ones aren't and enforce that standard.

Gun show loopholes closed (sales between private individuals, living in the same state, which don't require any background checks whatsoever)

Why do you ask?

Manic Moran

Igotadose wrote: »

Seems like this thread has turned into minutiae about the 2d amendment and what types of guns are acceptable without restriction.

Well, it’s kindof an important topic if one wishes to restrict guns. The restriction must be definable, and it most be legal. Without that, then you just get people hollering “this type of weapon should be banned/restricted” regardless of how divorced from possibility such an action may be. It’s not very helpful.

No one *needs* an AR-15 or an AK-47. Maybe the military does (and the history of the AR-15 seems to indicate that it was a pretty poor design originally, the Vietnam soldiers using it, would readily drop it for an AK-47 taken from the VC/NVA, as they were more reliable). Maybe the AR is better now, but that doesn't matter.

There was never anything wrong with the rifle. The Army ignored manufacturer specifications for the ammunition, combined with bad information to troops about maintenance. And it does matter, because the rifle is so good it’s the most commonly sold centerfire rifle design in the US. People are not buying them in the millions to play soldier, they are buying them because it’s highly capable, highly adaptable, and highly affordable.

Bubba with an AR isn't going to keep his local police force away when they come to get him. They have armored vehicles. Grenades. Who knows what else. Bubba doesn't *need* an AR. He can hunt with a rifle. Or a handgun. Or go bear hunting with a knife.

I sure as hell am not going to rely on a knife to protect against bear. An AR will do nicely though, if you swap the upper. Also very handy for hunting, as it happens, which is why more hunters than ever are using AR platform rifles. Equally handy for pest control.

Bubba can protect his property with a handgun. Maybe the kind that the Founders envisioned when they wrote the Bill of Rights - powder & ball, single shot. O.K... a revolver of low caliber. Good enough to scare off those that would be scared off, if Bubba's a good enough shot, good enough to stop someone who won't be scared off. Plenty good to scare off threatening animals.

And now we start to divorce from reality...

no civilian needs an AR or a AK or an AA-12. Ban them in private hands. Track any sales. Buy out the manufacturies. Result: Fewer mass shootings.

Let us presume we ignore the multitude of benefits the modern rifle provides the law-abiding civilian and decide to ban an AR. Many localities in the US have attempted to do so and failed, because of those minutia you dismissed in your opening paragraph.

After all, most people would apparently be fine with this rifle being legal.



But many people would like this banned.



The problem is defining the difference in such a manner that it actually has some effect. Go on, give it your best shot. Then explain why you think it makes sense. If you manage it, you will be doing better than any jurisdiction in the US so far, even though California has supposedly banned AR15s and similar “assault weapons” since 1989.

And would it remove mass shootings? Unlikely. Contrary to the perception you may get from just looking at news bulletins, most mass shootings, and most murders in general, occur with the humble handgun.

BattleCorp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Figure out what people should not be allowed to own guns and enforce that standard. Fewer "crazies" with guns.

Likewise, figure out what guns are sensible to have and which ones aren't and enforce that standard.

Gun show loopholes closed (sales between private individuals, living in the same state, which don't require any background checks whatsoever)

Why do you ask?

The general public (non gun owners) tend to equate gun control with the banning of guns. I wasn't sure what side of the fence you were on.

I'd agree with some of your points such as background checks etc. but I would be slightly worried about who decides what guns are sensible to have and which ones aren't.

I wouldn't fancy banning semi auto firearms such as AR15s or M1 Carbines or M1 Garands. I've shot competitions with them and hopefully will continue to do so.

Igotadose

Manic Moran wrote: »

The problem is defining the difference in such a manner that it actually has some effect. Go on, give it your best shot. Then explain why you think it makes sense. If you manage it, you will be doing better than any jurisdiction in the US so far, even though California has supposedly banned AR15s and similar “assault weapons” since 1989.

And would it remove mass shootings? Unlikely. Contrary to the perception you may get from just looking at news bulletins, most mass shootings, and most murders in general, occur with the humble handgun.

Two part answer:

1. Let's re-use and update the wording from the Federal Assault Weapons ban that was the law starting in 1994 but expired in 2004. Link here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban#Definition_of_semi-automatic_weapon

As you know, it was proposed to make this permanent, but fell due to GOP Senate majority. Embedded in the article is a study (2019), showing reduction in mass shootings during the period the ban was in place. If you remember the Gabby Giffords shooting, that was done with a Glock with a 30 round magazine, which was banned under the assault weapons ban (which was not in effect at the time, 2011). I believe the explicit list of weapons in the ban should be updated, though I don't have the expertise, "I'm sure" (always risky) there are new models and product lines to be included.

2. As for detecting the difference, allowing the CDC to research gun violence would help understanding better the psyche of a person who engages in such. Right now they're blocked, considering the kind of government research that gets paid for in general, this is abhorrent.

Manic Moran

Update it how? The ‘ban’ was a farce. It did not stop the sale of AR15 platform or any other type of semi auto rifle. I bought my first “assault weapon” (a Bushmaster M17S) in 2003 when the ban was in effect. Californianhas an assault weapons ban, has had for years, most recently updated two years ago. The WASR used by the Walmart shooter is currently on sale in the gun shop by my California house.

I refer you again to the pictures of the two rifles above, and the difficulty in attempting to legislate agains the one vs the other. It cannot be done. Not “it is difficult”. Cannot.

As explained above, CDC is not blocked, and the US government puts millions of dollars into gun violence research every year.

Igotadose

Manic Moran wrote: »

Update it how? The ‘ban’ was a farce. It did not stop the sale of AR15 platform or any other type of semi auto rifle. I bought my first “assault weapon” (a Bushmaster M17S) in 2003 when the ban was in effect. Californianhas an assault weapons ban, has had for years, most recently updated two years ago. The WASR used by the Walmart shooter is currently on sale in the gun shop by my California house.

I refer you again to the pictures of the two rifles above, and the difficulty in attempting to legislate agains the one vs the other. It cannot be done. Not “it is difficult”. Cannot.

As explained above, CDC is not blocked, and the US government puts millions of dollars into gun violence research every year.

Simple. Ban them both, by name if necessary.

CDC if not blocked, is hamstrung by the Dickey amendment. Quote from the 2013 paper from the APA on the numbers: " since 1996 the CDC’s funding for firearm injury prevention has fallen 96 percent and is now just $100,000 of the agency’s $5.6 billion budget. " They probably spend more on paper clips.

https://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2013/02/gun-violence

Remember that the assault weapon ban, banned high-capacity magazines like the one Loughlin used to shoot Gabby Giffords. Unfortunately, the ban was no longer in effect then. It's not simply about rifles.