Firearm Policy - Assault Weapons

[Isgrimnur]

The starting point for modern discussions revolves around the Federal Assault Weapons Ban (PDF Text, Title XI starts on page 201)

(30) The term 'semiautomatic assault weapon' means—
"(A) any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the firearms in any caliber, known as—

(i) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models);
(ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil;
(iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC-70);
(iv)ColtAR-15
(v) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC;
(vi) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12;
(vii)Steyr AUG;
(viii) INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22; and
(ix) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12;

I guess their lobbyist checks bounced. Something something winners and losers.

Regardless, I'm going to pass on researching all of the models. Let's move on to the pick-em category.

"(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of—

(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
(iii) a bayonet mount
(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and
(v) a grenade launcher;

• Folding or collapsing the stock makes it easier to conceal, one assumes. But if someone is going to do that, are they really going to take the time to replace it before starting a shooting? Firing a rifle without a stock is going to reduce accuracy. With a persuasive argument or evidence, I'd be willing to re-examine whether or not I consider this a less-than-helpful item.
• Pistol grips - is this a cart before the horse thing? Is it that much of a scary feature on a rifle? It's pretty much become a standard design because of the ergonomics. And that does not make it a persuasive argument to me, unless we're pursuing a Harrison Bergeron situation for civilian owners.
• Bayonet mount - really? Even in 1994, this was a concern?
• Flash suppressor, etc. - A QOL feature for users, one assumes that the concern is hiding your location from observers. In a hidden sniper situation, I can see the benefit in the suppression. In a mass shooting incident, I highly doubt that the presence or absences is going to make a difference. Again, I'd be willing to listen to arguments.
• Grenade launcher - see bayonet mount

(C) a semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of—

(i) an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip;
(ii) a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer;
(iii) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned;
(iv) a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; and
(v) a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm;

• The location of the magazine matters somehow? I'd love to be educated as to why that's the case.
• Threading for barrel extenders, forward handgrips and silencers are apparently fine for rifles, but not pistols. And somehow the threading is different for those vs. a flash suppressor?
• Barrel shrouds - Can't hold the pistol with the offhand with a barrel shroud. But if I can get a forward grip without having to thread the barrel, I'd be fine, apparently.
• Heavier than 50 ounces. I assume this is to prevent pistol-style rifles? Or perhaps caliber/capacity math? Dunno.
• semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm - ... I got nothing. Appearances should not be a restricting element, in my opinion.

(D) a semiautomatic shotgun that has at least 2 of—

(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
(iii) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds;
(iv) an ability to accept a detachable magazine.

• See rifle stock comments
• See rifle pistol grip comments
• Fixed magazine capacity over 5 - I disagree with ammunition restrictions. And a larger internal capacity would lead to a larger weapon.
• detachable magazine - quicker reload, I guess?

Overall, it seems to be a poorly-crafted law that was easily circumvented by manufacturers.

Then there's the mass shooting impacts, which seems mixed

A 2017 review found that there was no evidence that the Federal Assault Weapons Ban had a significant effect on firearm homicides.

A 2015 study found a small decrease in the rate of mass shootings followed by increases beginning after the ban was lifted.

Want to raise the age of purchase to 21 for all firearms? I'm fine with that.

Giffords Law Center

Under federal law, licensed firearms dealers are generally prohibited from transferring handguns to young people under 21 and are restricted from transferring rifles and shotguns to minors under 18. Federal law also generally restricts unlicensed sellers (people who are not licensed gun dealers) from transferring handguns to minors under 18 but does not restrict unlicensed people from transferring rifles and shotguns to minors at any age.

We should probably address that, while we're at it.

Texas Penal Code - PENAL § 46.06. Unlawful Transfer of Certain Weapons

It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under Subsection (a)(2) that the transfer was to a minor whose parent or the person having legal custody of the minor had given written permission for the sale or, if the transfer was other than a sale, the parent or person having legal custody had given effective consent.

Yeah, that needs to go away as well. 12yo Timmy shouldn't be getting an AR-15 for Christmas.

[dbt1949]

Odd that they want to get rid of revolver type shotguns but didn't say anything about magazine fed types. I have a little 410 revolver type shotgun and a real pistol revolver in 410. I wonder if they would be in the ban.

[Pyperkub]

So, to be clear, your problem with the Assault weapons ban is the details, and not the idea, is that correct?

[Isgrimnur]

My problem with an assault weapon ban is the idea.

I want something that focuses on the causes. I want something that doesn't criminalize up to 20 million people. That would be akin to criminalizing the entire state of New York.

Oh, wait:

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.) introduced a bill earlier this month that would ban civilians from buying or selling hundreds of gun models it defines as semiautomatic assault weapons, and it would halt future manufacturing.

However, the bill still allows current gun owners to hold onto their assault weapons.

In short, there are millions of people who own these weapons and manage to not murder people.

Number of murder victims in the United States in 2020, by weapon used


If there was a substantial problem in your life, would you try to focus on the 5th biggest issue on the list first that represents <10% of the problem or go for the one that's responsible for over half?

[dbt1949]

So, to be clear, your problem with the Assault weapons ban is the details, and not the idea, is that correct?

I was merely commenting on a detail yes.
I'm all for banning assault weapons but where does an assault weapon begin? Does the next time a shooting occur with a Ruger 22 pistol do we start banning those too?

[Pyperkub]

One other cost to *not* banning many of these weapons - the increased militarization of the police, and training to fear for their lives and always use excessive force.

[Blackhawk]

Thank you for addressing it directly (and with nuance.) It turns out that I don't disagree with you all that much. The assault weapons ban was idiotic. It was theater, designed to prohibit scary looking weapons, not features that made them more effective. In fact, the things that we've banned as knee-jerk reactions have been things make guns less effective. We don't have school bayonettings. That ban shouldn't be used as an example of anything except for how to mollify your base while doing absolutely nothing meaningful.

And yes, I have argued repeatedly for years in the shootings thread that addressing gun violence on the basis of school/public venue shootings is like the doctor treating the pimple on your nose while ignoring the growth in your lung. It's preventing dozens of deaths while ignoring thousands. That doesn't mean that both issues cannot be addressed. And no, 'assault weapons' (and the first step should be to quit using that useless term) are not the #1 priority. I would rather five or twenty people be gunned down at once than 200 one by one. But it is still worth discussing, because it is a priority.

Most of my own personal arguments in that thread have been counter-arguments to other bad ideas or excuses, not suggestions for how to proceed. My suggestions on how to proceed - that we can't proceed until we fix the system that makes it impossible, that the first step in fixing gun violence is to stop focusing on it (which drives conservative talking points and votes) and focus on fixing the government first - was met with disdain. *shrug*

[hepcat]

My suggestions on how to proceed - that we can't proceed until we fix the system that makes it impossible, that the first step in fixing gun violence is to stop focusing on it (which drives conservative talking points and votes) and focus on fixing the government first - was met with disdain. *shrug*

Not disdain, just complete disagreement. We’re never going to “fix the system”, and delaying any action until we do is defeatist. If we followed that path, women wouldn’t be allowed to vote and African Americans would still forced to sit in the back of the bus. All change has been met with resistance…and oftentimes a great deal of it.

[RunningMn9]

The reality of our situation is that no one needs something like an AR-15. But we want them. And we want them more than we don’t want little kids gunned down during reading class.

[LawBeefaroni]

My problem with an assault weapon ban is the idea.

I want something that focuses on the causes. I want something that doesn't criminalize up to 20 million people. That would be akin to criminalizing the entire state of New York.

Oh, wait:

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.) introduced a bill earlier this month that would ban civilians from buying or selling hundreds of gun models it defines as semiautomatic assault weapons, and it would halt future manufacturing.

However, the bill still allows current gun owners to hold onto their assault weapons.

In short, there are millions of people who own these weapons and manage to not murder people.

Number of murder victims in the United States in 2020, by weapon used


If there was a substantial problem in your life, would you try to focus on the 5th biggest issue on the list first that represents <10% of the problem or go for the one that's responsible for over half?

Heller made focussing on the 90% very difficult. And as I said in the other thread, we are ready to address the 10%. We don't want more kids pulped by rifles. For whatever reasons, we are not ready to tackle gang shootings, domestics, etc. Time to stop letting perfect stop us from doing good.

If there's a substantial problem in my life, I focus on what I can solve. I don't dwell on what is far out of my control.

[Pyperkub]

My suggestions on how to proceed - that we can't proceed until we fix the system that makes it impossible, that the first step in fixing gun violence is to stop focusing on it (which drives conservative talking points and votes) and focus on fixing the government first - was met with disdain. *shrug*

Not disdain, just complete disagreement. We’re never going to “fix the system”, and delaying any action until we do is defeatist. If we followed that path, women wouldn’t be allowed to vote and African Americans would still forced to sit in the back of the bus. All change has been met with resistance…and oftentimes a great deal of it.

It's also the written plan. Do nothing. Change the topic.

The perfect is the enemy of the good.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/p ... y-1362970/

[Blackhawk]

My suggestions on how to proceed - that we can't proceed until we fix the system that makes it impossible, that the first step in fixing gun violence is to stop focusing on it (which drives conservative talking points and votes) and focus on fixing the government first - was met with disdain. *shrug*

Not disdain, just complete disagreement. We’re never going to “fix the system”, and delaying any action until we do is defeatist. If we followed that path, women wouldn’t be allowed to vote and African Americans would still forced to sit in the back of the bus. All change has been met with resistance…and oftentimes a great deal of it.

It's also the written plan. Do nothing. Change the topic.

The perfect is the enemy of the good.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/p ... y-1362970/

I think that applies to both of our positions.

Their written plan means that those of us who want change will not be allowed to achieve it. Unless we change the way that works, it's dead in the water.

[Blackhawk]

And just like last time that point was made, I am not changing the subject. I am changing the strategy for achieving gun control.

[RunningMn9]

What does fixing the government mean?

[LawBeefaroni]

What does fixing the government mean?

Betting against the casino.

[hepcat]

And just like last time that point was made, I am not changing the subject. I am changing the strategy for achieving gun control.

It pretty much is, though. You're coming at this with a mindset that fixing the foundation of the house is the first step in fixing the house. But the foundation of our government is not some monolithic construct that can be "fixed". Like it or not, you're ALWAYS going to have to work with what you have, or just give up and wait...which then makes time your enemy as the message gets pushed to the back of everyone's mind.

I repeat: ALL change has met with resistance.

[Blackhawk]

And that, I think, is where we differ. I have become enough of a pessimist that I do not believe that we can achieve any progress "working with what we've got." I think that doing so is guaranteed failure.

And, as such, I feel like approaching the gun problem head on is doing nothing. In fact, I think that the most likely outcome is going to be to energize the right and help to lock the problem down even tighter.

I don't know how to fix the government. That doesn't mean that I don't believe that it is the only real option for addressing this problem. To bring back an analogy, we're trying to fix the forklift with broken tools. We have to fix the tools first.

And the thing is, I hope I am wrong. I hope change happens. I hope we get gun control, mental health/medical reform, etc, and cut the violence. I hope I end up looking like an idiot and am ashamed to show my face in serious discussions for years. I hope you are all right and make a fool of me.

But I don't think I'm wrong, so I speak up for what do believe.

[Blackhawk]

What does fixing the government mean?

Betting against the casino.

Yep. I don't think the odds are very good, and they are definitely not in our favor.

[hepcat]

I don't know how to fix the government.

Nor does anyone else. Probably because it's never going to be "fixed". There is ALWAYS going to be resistance. So backing off and then trying to do something that you can't even define before you can approach any other issue is defeatist.

Yep. I don't think the odds are very good, and they are definitely not in our favor.

I mean...even you kind of argue against yourself here.

I hope you are all right and make a fool of me.

No one wants or thinks that. We're simply disagreeing with your message.

[Blackhawk]

I don't know how to fix the government.

Nor does anyone else. Probably because it's never going to be "fixed". There is ALWAYS going to be resistance. So backing off and then trying to do something that you can't even define before you can approach any other issues is deafitist.

Yep. I don't think the odds are very good, and they are definitely not in our favor.

I mean...even you kind of argue against yourself here.

I don't think we are going to win. I just think it's better to bet against the house and face long odds when every other option is a guaranteed loss.

And please don't think that I mean that we need to perfect the government. We can't. But we need it to be functional again. What sort of gun reforms are going to make it past Mitch and The Supremes?

[hepcat]

I don't think we are going to win. I just think it's better to bet against the house and face long odds when every other option is a guaranteed loss.

Again, that comes across as giving up. And that's not the message I think we need. If we don't fight, if we change course and try to do something that even you seem to think we can't do (or even define), what are you doing? You're giving up. Change has happened in this country only after people fought.

[Blackhawk]

I'm not giving up. I've lost hope, but I am not giving up. I'm just looking for the fights that I don't believe are guaranteed losses, but that could still make a difference in the long run.

Had I given up, I wouldn't be pushing alternative approaches. In fact, had I given up, I wouldn't be coming into R&P.

[hepcat]

But the message you're sending comes across as looking for a fight that you either can't define, and/or don't even believe you can win yourself (in your own words). Hopefully you can see why I consider that message just a way of telling people to give up. And I disagree with that.

[Blackhawk]

I am not just looking at gun violence. The economy. Medical reform. Voting reform. Climate change. Social rights. Education. Others. All of them are locked down tight and only allowed to change in one direction. Every attempt to address any of them never even gets off gets off the ground. And all of the time, money, and effort we've put into them at the national level has been largely wasted beyond the lessons learned.

And all of them are that way for exactly the same small cluster of reasons (starting with campaign finance, the filibuster, the stacking of the courts, etc.) I do think that if we had pulled out all the stops on addressing those issues starting the day the government changed hands, if we'd poured all of those resources into that instead, had made Biden's first two years about a single issue, then today we'd at least stand a chance to address those other issues in a meaningful way.

And I think we keep making the same mistake. Not wanting to repeat the same mistake isn't giving up. It is putting the unwinnable on the back burner, and taking the time to make it winnable. Otherwise we just keep spinning our wheels.

[hepcat]

Not wanting to repeat the same mistake isn't giving up. It is putting the unwinnable on the back burner, and taking the time to make it winnable. Otherwise we just keep spinning our wheels.

Not having any idea of what that entails, or even believing it in yourself, then hinging everything else on that, sounds like giving up to me.

I think we're going in circles though at this point. I'm just repeating the same thing over and over again now. I see your message as being an example of, to quote an earlier post by someone else, "the perfect being the enemy of the good", and you don't.

[Blackhawk]

I think we're going in circles though at this point. I'm just repeating the same thing over and over again now. I see your message as being an example of, to quote an earlier post by someone else, "the perfect being the enemy of the good", and you don't.

No, I don't want perfect. I'm just sick of seeing good effort devoted to good ideas that are impossible to achieve. It is a waste of time to push for a law that our government will not pass. I would rather make good ideas possible to achieve, and then come back and achieve them.

We're a fly trying to pound our head through a window pane over and over. That's useless, and the fly invariably ends up dead on the window sill. Looking for a different route isn't giving up on getting out. It's just changing the approach from one that isn't working to trying to find one that will.

Not having any idea of what that entails, or even believing it in yourself, then hinging everything else on that, sounds like giving up to me.

If I'm on a boat and it starts sinking because there's a hole in the side, I don't have to be the one who knows how to patch the hole to say that patching the hole is how you save the boat. I don't know exactly how we reform the government enough to make it functional again. I don't know how to restore democracy. That doesn't mean I can't see that every solution we've tried to every major problem has hit the same roadblock. Find a way around it, find a way through it, fix the road - whatever - but don't keep wasting effort with what we know doesn't work. That's useless.

And to me, that is giving up. It is giving up while pretending to do something to make ourselves feel better. "Hey, we tried to pass gun reforms! They were blocked, but that was someone else's fault. We tried! We care!" I want to do the opposite of giving up. I want to find a way to succeed, not just to gripe about how we should have succeeded.

You say it's try or give up.

I say it's giving up if you're not trying to find a way to try and succeed.

And all anyone seems to be saying about how to succeed is just to keep yelling louder and hope someone finally decides to care (it's been decades, and the needle hasn't just not budged, it's gone backwards.)

So, here's all of these ideas - good or bad - about what kind of gun reforms we should have. Now, tell me how we're going to take any of those from being good ideas to being enforced law.

[hepcat]

If I'm on a boat and it starts sinking because there's a hole in the side, I don't have to be the one who knows how to patch the hole to say that patching the hole is how you save the boat.

To me, it comes across as you saying it's not worth doing anything until people learn how to breath underwater.

So, here's all of these ideas - good or bad - about what kind of gun reforms we should have. Now, tell me how we're going to take any of those from being good ideas to being enforced law.

By not telling people to stop fighting until some undefined event occurs that even you don't believe in?

Again, we're going in circles. Although you have moved your benchmarks a bit over time.

[Blackhawk]

If I'm on a boat and it starts sinking because there's a hole in the side, I don't have to be the one who knows how to patch the hole to say that patching the hole is how you save the boat.

To me, it comes across as you saying it's not worth doing anything until people learn how to breath underwater.

And to me, what you're saying is that people should keep running to the rail with teaspoons full of water while the boat gets lower and lower. If the boat is sinking, giving up on bailing that isn't working isn't giving up on stopping the boat from sinking. It's admitting that your solution isn't working and trying something else.

Again, we all agree that something needs to be done about guns. Everyone who says that we need to approach it directly - if I handed you the gun control bill right now that combined the best of all of our suggestions with the best expertise out there, what would you do with it?

1. Idea/bill
2. ?
3. Profit

[Unagi]

If I'm on a boat and it starts sinking because there's a hole in the side, I don't have to be the one who knows how to patch the hole to say that patching the hole is how you save the boat.

To me, it comes across as you saying it's not worth doing anything until people learn how to breath underwater.

The analogy that I was thinking of, that serves everyone here, is that we are in a car but we need it to work in the lake. Our culture is against us on this, but it is what we have to work with.

To make this car work in the water, it's going to look stupid - - and a lot of people are going to say "Let's fucking sell this car and buy a boat!", but what if you can't, what if you don't have the deed to sell the car, nor the means to just buy a boat? But still, you must make this work?

[hepcat]

if I handed you the gun control bill right now that combined the best of all of our suggestions with the best expertise out there, what would you do with it?

Tell people to fight for it and not wait for the government to be "fixed". Newsflash: Our government has ALWAYS been contentious. EVERY change in this nation has been fought for at some point. All it takes is one success for it be worth it. Civil rights didn't occur overnight...or even after decades. As a matter of fact, we're still fighting for it in some ways. But at least there's been movement on that front. Something that wouldn't have happened if folks had just sat back and waited for some fantastical event that would "fix" the government.

[Blackhawk]

Fight for it how? Any such bill that goes anywhere near Congress is DOA. Nothing progressive - nothing against the GOP platform is allowed to pass, regardless of public support. Most of it doesn't even get argued. McConnell just waves his magic wand an it goes away. And this is before the midterms.

So fight for it how? Yell louder? Maybe - maybe if you could get through to the Republicans-in-sheep's-clothing (IE - Manchin, Sinema), then maybe you could get them to kill the filibuster for this. Is there any other route? Get 12 Republicans to flip? But either one of those options - talk about betting against the house!

The best thing that will come from the perfect gun bill going to congress will be if they can force the Republicans to publicly vote against it. That would have a small chance to hurt them in the midterms (but they've also taken strong measures to ensure that their power is less reliant on public support than ever before.) But there again - that isn't gun control, that's addressing the broken government.

[hepcat]

So yeah, you pretty much answered your own question there.

Not every win has to be a complete and utter success. It's an incremental fight. Let's not give up and work on something else just because we want perfect (to paraphrase an earlier statement again).

[Unagi]

When and if this is ever solved... One side will think of it as if they made a boat, the other will think they waterproofed a car.

[hepcat]

And another side will drive by in a boat and wonder why we didn't just use that to begin with.

Friggin' boat owners. Always so full of themselves.

[Blackhawk]

/edit - and the quote I was referring to was edited out. I need to learn to quote the quote I'm quibbling.

I'm pretty sure I just said that we're not going to control the guns again. At best, we're going to use a gun control bill to try and influence the midterms with zero expectation of actually passing it.

So sayeth Schumer. Well, so paraphraseth I. And as to my other point in... one of these threads about how it could be counterproductive:

Other Democratic senators, however, say there’s “fatigue” about holding failed votes on proposals that are popular with the Democratic base.

Senate Democrats have painful memories about the last time the Senate held an extended debate on expanded background checks and other measures to address gun violence in the spring of 2013.

Their proposals failed, and the party suffered an intense voter backlash the following year when Republicans picked up nine seats and captured the majority in the 2014 midterm elections.

[Unagi]

And another side will drive by in a boat and wonder why we didn't just use that to begin with.

Well, in this analogy that would meaning going back in time somewhere between the horrible wording in the 2A and DC vs. Heller

[hepcat]

/edit - and the quote I was referring to was edited out. I need to learn to quote the quote I'm quibbling.

I'm pretty sure I just said that we're not going to control the guns again. At best, we're going to use a gun control bill to try and influence the midterms with zero expectation of actually passing it.

Which might result in more gains for democrats in the midterms. Which then might result in getting something passed eventually that WOULD control the guns again. And if it doesn't this time, it might the next. That's why continuing to fight is important.

We want the same thing at the end of the day, it now sounds like. However, we don't seem able to agree on how to get there. Let's agree to disagree and move on.

[Blackhawk]

/edit - and the quote I was referring to was edited out. I need to learn to quote the quote I'm quibbling.

I'm pretty sure I just said that we're not going to control the guns again. At best, we're going to use a gun control bill to try and influence the midterms with zero expectation of actually passing it.

Which might result in more gains for democrats in the midterms. Which then might result in getting something passed eventually that WOULD control the guns again. And if it doesn't this time, it might the next. That's why continuing to fight is important.

We want the same thing at the end of the day, it now sounds like. However, we don't seem able to agree on how to get there. Let's agree to disagree and move on.

Of course we do. I think if we could all describe our ideal end-state, we'd all be pretty much on the same page.

But yeah, my brain is starting to hurt from the back-and-forth. I will leave it at this: Using gun control as a lever to adjust the government to eventually pass gun control falls pretty close to my view that to address gun control we have to address the broken government first. I just think it is a particularly risky lever to use.