Gun Politics

[malchior]

Yeah my Facebook feed has already blown up on several occasions that gun violence is the result of taking prayer out of schools. I guess since regular "thoughts and prayers" don't work, we should go back to pre-emptive thoughts and prayers.

Mine is full of people talking about how there have been 4300+ drunk driving deaths in 2018 already. Which isn't a true fact since that'd triple the average rate over the last decade or so. However the idiots of course lap it up. More importantly it isn't a useful comparison dubious "fact" aside.

[Isgrimnur]

Assault Weapons Ban of 2018:

The Hill

Reps. David Cicilline (D-R.I.) and Ted Deutch (D-Fla.) formally introduced a bill on Monday to ban assault weapons.
...
The legislation would make it “unlawful for a person to import, sell, manufacture, transfer, or possess, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, a semiautomatic assault weapon.”

However, the ban wouldn't apply to semi-automatic weapons that were "lawfully possessed" when the measure went into effect.

The bill also requires the attorney general to create a public record of semiautomatic assault weapons that have been used in crimes.

Bill text:

The term ‘semiautomatic assault weapon’ means any of the following, regardless of country of manufacture or caliber of ammunition accepted:
‘‘(A) A semiautomatic rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any 1 of the following:
‘‘(i) A pistol grip.
‘‘(ii) A forward grip.
‘‘(iii) A folding, telescoping, or detachable stock.
‘‘(iv) A grenade launcher or rocket launcher.
‘‘(v) A barrel shroud.
‘‘(vi) A threaded barrel.

‘(B) A semiautomatic rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds, except for an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with,.22 caliber rimfire ammunition.

‘‘(C) Any part, combination of parts, component, device, attachment, or accessory that is designed or functions to accelerate the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle but not convert the semiautomatic rifle into a machinegun.

‘‘(D) A semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any 1 of the following:
‘‘(i) A threaded barrel.
‘‘(ii) A second pistol grip.
‘‘(iii) A barrel shroud.
‘‘(iv) The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip.
‘‘(v) A semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm.

‘‘(E) A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.

‘‘(F) A semiautomatic shotgun that has any 1 of the following:
‘‘(i) A folding, telescoping, or detachable stock.
‘‘(ii) A pistol grip.
‘‘(iii) A fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 5 rounds.
‘‘(iv) The ability to accept a detachable magazine.
‘‘(v) A forward grip.
‘‘(vi) A grenade launcher or rocket launcher

Followed by the laundry list of 8 pages of specifically mentioned weapons.

(H) All of the following rifles, copies, duplicates, variants, or altered facsimiles with the capability of any such weapon thereof:

[Blackhawk]

That phrasing is either sloppy or intentionally left open in such a way as to guarantee it won't pass:

‘‘(A) A semiautomatic rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any 1 of the following:
‘‘(i) ...

This much alone eliminates nearly every semiautomatic rifle that isn't specifically excluded in the section on .22s. The way it is phrased ("has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any 1 of the following") could be interpreted two ways:

1: Has the capacity to accept a removable magazine and has a listed accessory

Or

2. 1: Has the capacity to accept a removable magazine and has the capacity to accept a listed accessory

#1 essentially bans modding rifles with removable magazines.
#2 essentially bans every rifle with a removable mag on the market, because any rifle with a stock has the capacity to have the stock modified with any aftermarket version or accessory.

I personally wouldn't mind seeing it passed, but they're never going to pass a bill (especially with this congress) that is essentially a blanket ban on semi-automatic rifles.

[Isgrimnur]

Were there guns on the market with grenade and/or rocket launchers available of which I was unaware?

[LawBeefaroni]

I personally wouldn't mind seeing it passed, but they're never going to pass a bill (especially with this congress) that is essentially a blanket ban on semi-automatic rifles.

Not just rifles. A ton of pistols and shotguns

And we thought 2016 was the high water mark for a run on firearms.

[Little Raven]

Assault Weapons Ban of 2018:

This is ridiculous. Even if you passed it (and you can't) it wouldn't pass constitutional muster.

This is the Democratic version of 'All abortions will be treated as murder everywhere from now on.' It's meat for the base, with no chance of ever becoming policy.

[Pyperkub]

Assault Weapons Ban of 2018:

This is ridiculous. Even if you passed it (and you can't) it wouldn't pass constitutional muster.

This is the Democratic version of 'All abortions will be treated as murder everywhere from now on.' It's meat for the base, with no chance of ever becoming policy.

How does it compare to the previous assault weapons ban which expired during the 2nd Bush admin?

Note that currently, every single state assault weapons ban has been upheld in federal courts recently, so those would be a good comparison as well.

[Little Raven]

How does it compare to the previous assault weapons ban which expired during the 2nd Bush admin?

It is way, WAY stronger. I mean, look at the list of banned weapons. Virtually ALL of those were legal under the previous ban. Heck, most of them were developed with the ban specifically in mind.

As Blackhawk and LawBeef point out, this is basically a blanket ban on semi-automatic...well, anythings. I'm not sure there's a gun on the market that can't ACCEPT a magazine that holds more than five rounds. I'm not even sure how you go about designing a gun like that...at least, not a gun that looks anything like a modern firearm.

This is lunacy. The Democrats couldn't even muster enough votes to save the ACA, but they're going to push THIS monstrosity through?!?

edit - Ok, I may be misreading the bill some. I thought the entire list was guns that were banned, but it seems at least part of it is guns that are specifically excluded...which frankly makes even LESS sense. Believe me, a Mini-14 is every bit as deadly as an AR-15. Ask Micah Johnson.

[GreenGoo]

Nice to see you Lil' Raven. If this bill is too extreme, what would you suggest as a first step?

[Little Raven]

Hey GreenGoo. Nice to see you too!

If they want to institute policy, the FIRST thing Democrats need to do is to regain political relevancy. We have managed to lose it all these last few years. The House, the Senate, the Presidency, the Court, most state-houses...the last 8 years have been a slaughterhouse. Democrats need to start ACTUALLY WINNING ELECTIONS, which (I believe) means shutting up about gun control.

Maybe I'm biased because I live in Texas, but as far as I can tell, this is POLITICAL POISON in every place that isn't a coastal liberal mecca - I don't think this even flies in Colorado. After the last ban, we Democrats lost what...40 seats in Congress? I can't think of a better way to destroy a potential blue wave in 2018 than to bust out something like this. Maybe Florida represents a turning point, but I've seen absolutely no evidence of that. A town hall on CNN plays well to everyone in the choir but I don't know a single person who's changed their mind on the issue. But I DO know several people that were really wanting to vote against the Republican party but will absolutely swallow their disgust and vote GOP if they become convinced that the only thing Democrats want to do is take their guns.

I'm mostly against gun control because I think it's a political anchor, but I confess I'm not wild about it as policy either...mostly because I'm not convinced it can work.

There are a simply RIDICULOUS number of guns in this country. It's...mind boggling. 270 MILLION...and that's on the LOW end of the estimates. So...even if you passed some Australia level gun control...which is impossible given the current constitution...it would take DECADES to drain the swamp. Which would be fine...if I thought we had decades before this debate became irrelevant. But we don't.

Technology is going to keep doing what technology does, which is empower individuals to do more and more with less and less. The traditional barriers to creating effective firearms at home have been metallurgy and machining capability. You need strong metal machined to a fairly precise standard in order to create an effective firearm. RIGHT NOW, that's not something most people can do on their own, but that's already changing. And sure, RIGHT NOW, this technology is fairly expensive and contained, but by the time we finish draining the hundreds of millions of guns that are already floating around, it's going to be cheap, and everywhere. We're currently in a world awash with guns. 20 years from now, we'll be in a world where ANYONE with a tiny modicum of funds and ambition can simply MAKE a gun on demand. Either way, we're in a world where a bad guy can easily get a gun. But at least in the future we'll have personal security drones that will hover over every citizen ready to tase them if they engage in any unauthorized behavior.

So as far as I can tell, gun control is a silly way to go about trying to solve the problem of mass shootings. I see no way it can succeed but it's virtually guaranteed to keep Democrats out of power for the next 20 years. And frankly, I'd rather be in power. At least then maybe we could get some people health care.

[YellowKing]

But the fact remains that other countries have successfully reduced gun violence. How can people keep saying "It will never work" when we have living examples that it indeed worked?

[Remus West]

But the fact remains that other countries have successfully reduced gun violence. How can people keep saying "It will never work" when we have living examples that it indeed worked?

I don't believe it can work within the framework of the constitution. Unless we repeal/rewrite the 2nd amendment any ban will always run up against that. We need to address the mentality regarding guns and gun ownership as much or more than the actual guns themselves. We, as a nation, profess great respect for human life but our actions continually give the lie to that claim.

[YellowKing]

I think there's a LOT that can be done within the confines of the 2nd amendment. Up to the point you're not allowing someone to own a gun, everything else is fair game. The 2nd amendment says we have the right to bear arms. It doesn't say anything about the licensing, insurance, registration, training, etc. around it.

[LawBeefaroni]

But the fact remains that other countries have successfully reduced gun violence. How can people keep saying "It will never work" when we have living examples that it indeed worked?

I don't think they had the same constitutional protections nor the same per capita number of firearms in private citizens' hands.

I'm going to guess that most were more homogeneous and smaller. They didn't have the political and regional spread that the US does, like California to Texas to Florida to New York.

[LawBeefaroni]

Which makes me wonder, how do different states fare with their different laws? Buying age here is 21. California and.. some East Coast state have firearms rosters and you can only buy approved guns from the rosters. There are several states with magazine size restrictions (California, Colorado, Massachusetts, off the top of my head).

A lot of things being proposed are already in the books in some states. How are they doing?

[Rip]

I think there's a LOT that can be done within the confines of the 2nd amendment. Up to the point you're not allowing someone to own a gun, everything else is fair game. The 2nd amendment says we have the right to bear arms. It doesn't say anything about the licensing, insurance, registration, training, etc. around it.

I guess it will come down to how the definition of infringe is interpreted.

If the constitution said "shall make no law that infringes on the right to an abortion", would it be ok to make only certain people could get them if the abortion met certain criteria?

Either way for the reasons Little Raven noted I am thrilled that this is the battle that dems have chosen for the midterms. I was afraid they would pick an issue that would help them win.

[hepcat]

There's a lot of polls showing that the Dems picked the right battleground.

[Rip]

There's a lot of polls showing that the Dems picked the right battleground.

I am sure they are as accurate as the polls that said Trump had no chance to win.

[stessier]

There's a lot of polls showing that the Dems picked the right battleground.

Oh thank goodness! If there's one thing I've learned the Dems should rely on, it's polling.

[LawBeefaroni]

There's a lot of polls showing that the Dems picked the right battleground.

I'm hearing lots of hardcore pro-gunners threatening to not vote or go 3rd party. It's just a bullshit bluff. They would never do that when it could yield a Democrat. I would ignore any polls that have them turning on the "lesser evil" of a faltering Republican for the "greater evil" of an anti-gun Democrat. It's just a bluff to try to get them back in line. You can see the strategy handed down from the pro-gun leadership if you know where to look and it's such an obvious bluff.

[Remus West]

You folks remember that the results of the election were within polling error rates, don't you? That said, I don't doubt this is not a beneficial fight right now given the construction of the current government and the low potential for actually achieving anything.

[Blackhawk]

Nice to see you Lil' Raven. If this bill is too extreme, what would you suggest as a first step?

To start with, stop wasting time with a bill that has no chance of passing, riles up the opposition, and gives them something to wave at their voters during the next election.

As I've said before, we can't have truly significant gun control laws in the current social and cultural climate. It simply won't happen. We have to change minds before we change the laws. In the meantime, you chip away at the edges. You improve things like background checks that are hard to argue against. You close loopholes like bump stocks and gun show exemptions. You improve other factors that drive violence, like poverty.

You put the frog in cold water and turn on the heat. You don't try to flash-boil the pond.

[YellowKing]

The enthusiasm gap will be more than enough to put Dems over the top in mid-terms. It's time for Republicans to experience the same malaise that struck Dems in 2016.

[LawBeefaroni]

In the meantime, you chip away at the edges. You improve things like background checks that are hard to argue against. You close loopholes like bump stocks and gun show exemptions. You improve other factors that drive violence, like poverty.

And maybe, just maybe, things get better before you have to go nuclear.

[Pyperkub]

There's a lot of polls showing that the Dems picked the right battleground.

I'm hearing lots of hardcore pro-gunners threatening to not vote or go 3rd party. It's just a bullshit bluff. They would never do that when it could yield a Democrat. I would ignore any polls that have them turning on the "lesser evil" of a faltering Republican for the "greater evil" of an anti-gun Democrat. It's just a bluff to try to get them back in line. You can see the strategy handed down from the pro-gun leadership if you know where to look and it's such an obvious bluff.

They did in Alabama. Never say never.

[GreenGoo]

In the meantime, you chip away at the edges. You improve things like background checks that are hard to argue against. You close loopholes like bump stocks and gun show exemptions. You improve other factors that drive violence, like poverty.

K. Do that then.

[Blackhawk]

In the meantime, you chip away at the edges. You improve things like background checks that are hard to argue against. You close loopholes like bump stocks and gun show exemptions. You improve other factors that drive violence, like poverty.

K. Do that then.

Ok. Lemme get my shoes...

[LawBeefaroni]

There's a lot of polls showing that the Dems picked the right battleground.

I'm hearing lots of hardcore pro-gunners threatening to not vote or go 3rd party. It's just a bullshit bluff. They would never do that when it could yield a Democrat. I would ignore any polls that have them turning on the "lesser evil" of a faltering Republican for the "greater evil" of an anti-gun Democrat. It's just a bluff to try to get them back in line. You can see the strategy handed down from the pro-gun leadership if you know where to look and it's such an obvious bluff.

They did in Alabama. Never say never.

Throwing a lecherous pedophile into the mix will do that.

[GreenGoo]

In the meantime, you chip away at the edges. You improve things like background checks that are hard to argue against. You close loopholes like bump stocks and gun show exemptions. You improve other factors that drive violence, like poverty.

K. Do that then.

Ok. Lemme get my shoes...

Awesome. Stand back everybody, Blackhawk's got this.

[noxiousdog]

But the fact remains that other countries have successfully reduced gun violence. How can people keep saying "It will never work" when we have living examples that it indeed worked?

How are you defining "worked"? I have not seen evidence that clearly backs that up.

[GreenGoo]

How would you like it defined?

[Jag]

But the fact remains that other countries have successfully reduced gun violence. How can people keep saying "It will never work" when we have living examples that it indeed worked?

How are you defining "worked"? I have not seen evidence that clearly backs that up.

The lack of dead children with bullet ridden corpses.

[GreenGoo]

Oh Snap! It's about to get pedantic up in here!

[Max Peck]

What happened when Australia actually did something to stop gun violence

tl;dr:

1. Australia hasn't had a single mass shooting since the gun buyback.
2. There was no statistically significant change in firearm homicides after the gun ban.
3. Suicide rates did start to fall after the NFA.
4. People weren't simply using other weapons as a result of the ban.

[noxiousdog]

What happened when Australia actually did something to stop gun violence

tl;dr:

1. Australia hasn't had a single mass shooting since the gun buyback.
2. There was no statistically significant change in firearm homicides after the gun ban.
3. Suicide rates did start to fall after the NFA.
4. People weren't simply using other weapons as a result of the ban.

The "mass shooting" statistic is a bit of cherry picking. They want 5 people to be a mass shooting, but will exclude the shooter if it breaks the sound bite. Note that according to your article, there was no statistically significant change in firearm homicides.
From a previous post of mine.
The data was selected in a way to include a lot of stuff prior, exclude a lot of stuff since, and pretend that a change in method makes a difference (though I'm open to agreeing it's not as severe.)

Multiple murders in Australia
21 years prior were:
'96 Hillcrest murders: 6
'93 Cangai seige: 5
'92 Central coast: 6
'91 Strathfield: 7
'90 Surry Hills: 5
'88 Oenpelli: 6
'87 Queen St.: 8
'87 Canley Vale: 5
'87 Hoddle St. 7
'87 Top End: 5

21 years after:
'02 Manash University 2
'11 Hectorville 3
'14 Hunt Family 4 (not including shooter)
'14 Sydney 3
'16 Port Lincoln 2 (not including shooter)
In addition there were 2 stabbings (10 dead), clubbing (5), gassing (4), 2 car attacks (12) and 3 arsons (36 )[/quote]

[Rip]

So is the suicide rate reduction.

In 2016, the suicide rate in Australia was 11.7 deaths per 100,000 people, up from 10.6 per 100,000 people in 2007.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_in_Australia

There is a strong correlation between alcohol (as well as other drugs) and suicide in Australian young adults. Between 30-50% of suicides, detectable substances are found during post-mortem coronal investigations, with alcohol being the most common.

Obviously they need to ban alcohol and start a drug war.

[Paingod]

Some talkie-head person on NPR said something that was interesting to me yesterday.

We're looking at America's gun culture, and the violence we seem to have as a result. He argued that America has always had a gun culture, but the theme of mass shootings has only started up in the last 20 years and has become an epidemic. He wondered why, if guns are the problem, we didn't have epidemic mass killings 30, 40, 50 years ago.

His theory revolved around the culture part, and how America's culture has degraded. Parents less aware of children, electronics stimulating and depressing people, media glamorizing violence constantly - a number of societal factors that have let our overall moral code slide, resulting in an environment that's ripe for these events.

I'd agree with him to a large extent. Gun control laws won't stop most people who intend to perform criminal activities. Criminals that want firearms in America have a remarkably easy time getting guns, even illegal ones. We can pass laws until we're blue in the face, but our culture isn't changing, and as long as we have guns, people will do terrible things with them.

That leaves us with two options. Fix America's culture, or remove the guns. That's where it deadlocks. A nation of 300+ million people with 300+ million different world-views can't accomplish either objective.Culture's off the table; no one's even sniffing at it, let alone discussing it. So you've got guns.

The only way this gets solved is if there are enough negative events that it pushes the critical mass over the line. Unfortunately, America doesn't seem to be anywhere near there yet. I would have personally thought the Vegas shooting would have done it if anything ever would.

It's like America's struggle with obesity and America's struggle with climate change. We know the things we're doing are killing us. We are individually able to take action to make things better. As a whole, though, we're idiots and things are just getting worse.

[El Guapo]

Democrats woo Delta after Georgia Republicans threaten retribution over NRA benefits.

I do like how at the very end of the article it's like "oh BTW there are a lot of practical reasons why Delta isn't going to leave Atlanta."

Also notes that this whole mess could easily hurt Atlanta's efforts to woo Amazon, which seems plausible.

[Skinypupy]

Some talkie-head person on NPR said something that was interesting to me yesterday.

We're looking at America's gun culture, and the violence we seem to have as a result. He argued that America has always had a gun culture, but the theme of mass shootings has only started up in the last 20 years and has become an epidemic. He wondered why, if guns are the problem, we didn't have epidemic mass killings 30, 40, 50 years ago.

His theory revolved around the culture part, and how America's culture has degraded. Parents less aware of children, electronics stimulating and depressing people, media glamorizing violence constantly - a number of societal factors that have let our overall moral code slide, resulting in an environment that's ripe for these events.

I'd agree with him to a large extent. Gun control laws won't stop most people who intend to perform criminal activities. Criminals that want firearms in America have a remarkably easy time getting guns, even illegal ones. We can pass laws until we're blue in the face, but our culture isn't changing, and as long as we have guns, people will do terrible things with them.

That leaves us with two options. Fix America's culture, or remove the guns. That's where it deadlocks. A nation of 300+ million people with 300+ million different world-views can't accomplish either objective.Culture's off the table; no one's even sniffing at it, let alone discussing it. So you've got guns.

The only way this gets solved is if there are enough negative events that it pushes the critical mass over the line. Unfortunately, America doesn't seem to be anywhere near there yet. I would have personally thought the Vegas shooting would have done it if anything ever would.

It's like America's struggle with obesity and America's struggle with climate change. We know the things we're doing are killing us. We are individually able to take action to make things better. As a whole, though, we're idiots and things are just getting worse.

Every country in the world has those same cultural challenges, yet we're the only ones who end up with mass shootings on a near daily basis.

So yeah, maybe we should address the guns.

[GreenGoo]

There's a lot of polls showing that the Dems picked the right battleground.

I am sure they are as accurate as the polls that said Trump had no chance to win.

Just noticed this.

Which polls stated that Drumpf had 0% chance to win? Also, win what? Nomination? Presidency? Art Dealer of the Century?