For Those Wanting More Firearm Laws

[Mr Spinkles]

Anywhere second amendment rights are effected, the effecting factor is emulated somewhere else.

Red flag laws are patently unconstitutional.

A so called assault weapons ban has proven in the past to have no effect in reducing firearms deaths.

Statistically, so called assault weapons are accountable for a very small percentage of firearms deaths.

Ok. This is separate from the article about the DA in Philadelphia though, right? For example, whether we should, or should not, ban assault weapons (again) does not hinge on whether the DA in Philadelphia is, or is not appropriately enforcing carry laws. Right?

 

[esmith]

Interesting how this post of yours has been COMPLETELY ignored...
Not the least bit surprising though.

Well one must consider that many are just spew merchants that really don't want to have a factual discussion.

 

[Audie]

Well one must consider that many are just spew merchants that really don't want to have a factual discussion.

The "assault weapons" ban is primarily about
a confusion of symbol for substance.

As for discussion of facts-

It does not take me a whole lot of time to google
up a few facts. Like that the "designed for war"
thing is a false argument. The very common
bolt-action hunting rifle and the calibre .30-06
is a direct descendant of the Mauser rifles designed
for war in the 1890s.

Of course the "designed for war" is a thing intened
for emotional impact

The lever-action Winchester cowboy guns of the
mid 19th century were also designed for war.

 

[shmogie]

Interesting how this post of yours has been COMPLETELY ignored...
Not the least bit surprising though.

I don't think it was ignored by us who know what he is talking about, though maybe not in the precise detail of the post. We certainly know the point he is making.

It is ignored by the draconian gun law crowd. They couldn't care less about current law.

They want more law, fashioned in the only manner they understand, ever increasing restriction, and more and more hoops they innocent citizen must jump through.

Once again, Australian gun confiscation has been cited as an ideal.

Unfortunately, after a calm period, Australian gun crime is on the rise. Obviously, lawbreakers with guns have broken the law regarding giving up their guns. I am shocked, yes shocked.

 

[PureX]

Interesting how this post of yours has been COMPLETELY ignored...
Not the least bit surprising though.

This post was ignored by me because it's intends to create an endless diversion into legal minutia so as to avoid the real issues.. I have explained quite clearly how I think we should regulate gun ownership and use, and saw no reason to chase down this pointless rabbit hole of ineffective legal misdirection.

 

[esmith]

This post was ignored by me because it's intends to create an endless diversion into legal minutia so as to avoid the real issues.. I have explained quite clearly how I think we should regulate gun ownership and use, and saw no reason to chase down this pointless rabbit hole of ineffective legal misdirection.

The only problem is you didn't explain how you would enforce your firearm ownership regulations.

 

[PureX]

More prisons and longer jail terms. Terrif.

Let's start with serious fines for being caught in possession of a firearm without a license. Or, for being caught neglecting safety protocols for firearms if you have a license. People used to drink and drive all the time, because they knew there weren't any serious consequences for it until you actually caused an accident. But we realized that wasn't diminishing the number of accidents. So we had to begin writing and enforcing tough laws against driving drunk, regardless of whether it caused an accident. And that did stop people from doing it. A LOT of people. I grew in a family of drinkers who used to drive regularly after drinking. None of them do that anymore because they know the consequences of being caught driving drunk, even a little bit, are dire. This doesn't have to start with prison to be effective. But it does have to go there if people insist on breaking the laws.

 

[PureX]

The only problem is you didn't explain how you would enforce your firearm ownership regulations.

The same way we enforce our driving regulations. Why is this so difficult to comprehend?

 

[PureX]

The "assault weapons" ban is primarily about
a confusion of symbol for substance.

As for discussion of facts-

It does not take me a whole lot of time to google
up a few facts. Like that the "designed for war"
thing is a false argument. The very common
bolt-action hunting rifle and the calibre .30-06
is a direct descendant of the Mauser rifles designed
for war in the 1890s.

Of course the "designed for war" is a thing intened
for emotional impact

The lever-action Winchester cowboy guns of the
mid 19th century were also designed for war.

They're called ASSAULT WEAPONS, fool! What do you think they were designed for? Assaulting deer?

 

[Audie]

Let's start with serious fines for being caught in possession of a firearm without a license. Or, for being caught neglecting safety protocols for firearms if you have a license. People used to drink and drive all the time, because they knew there weren't any serious consequences for it until you actually caused an accident. But we realized that wasn't diminishing the number of accidents. So we had to begin writing and enforcing tough laws against driving drunk, regardless of whether it caused an accident. And that did stop people from doing it. A LOT of people. I grew in a family of drinkers who used to drive regularly after drinking. None of them do that anymore because they know the consequences of being caught driving drunk, even a little bit, are dire. This doesn't have to start with prison to be effective. But it does have to go there if people insist on breaking the laws.

Do you though think that any violation of any firearms law
should be subject to exceptionally harsh penalties?

Drunk driving gives Americans 15000 deaths per year.

Same as firearms murders.

Rather few firearms laws deal even indirectly
with murder.

 

[PureX]

Do you though think that any violation of any firearms law
should be subject to exceptionally harsh penalties?

I think the penalties will be as harsh as they need to be to get people to obey the laws. Most people will obey the laws because they are the laws. Some will test the laws by ignoring them, and those people should suffer sufficient consequences that they stop doing that. A few will ignore the laws no matter what, and as they are unrepentant criminals, they should be treated accordingly.

Drunk driving gives Americans 15000 deaths per year.

Effective regulation has save millions of lives that would otherwise have been lost to irresponsible driving. Effective firearm regulation would do the same.

 

[esmith]

The same way we enforce our driving regulations. Why is this so difficult to comprehend?

see Post #1 for your answer

 

[esmith]

They're called ASSAULT WEAPONS, fool! What do you think they were designed for? Assaulting deer?

That is a "marketing hype". They are nothing more than tricked out semi-automatic rifles. You do understand that don't you?????? Probably not though.,

 

[Audie]

They're called ASSAULT WEAPONS, fool! What do you think they were designed for? Assaulting deer? And long guns were always bought and used for hunting. So pretending they were originally created and sold as war weapons is just stupid.

Well, I suppose when you are wrong, it is best to
shout insults. The snark is uncalled for and inappropriate.

The term "assault weapon" is misapplied to the civilian
legal weapons.

The U.S. Army defines assault rifles as "short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachine gun and rifle cartridges." ... It must be capable of selective fire.

Operative detail is "selective fire" aka, "full auto".

The term "assault weapon" has been weaponized by the
left to refer to guns which LOOK LIKE "Assault weapons"
but do not fit the definition.

These so called assault weapons are essentially
identical in function to guns that have been in more or
less common use for well over a hundred years.
1905 winchester - Google Search

Semi auto, detachable magazine, compact. Some used
a ten-round magazine and were used by the French Airforce
in WWI.

Of course, the meaning of words changes with creative use.
So such things as the above are now "assault weapons" in the
sense that "awesome" now means "thank you".

For those who like meaningful distinctions among words
and terms, avoidance of equivocation, find it better to
use words correctly. Certainly not to call others names
for being a stickler about vocabulary.

As for this-And long guns were always bought and used for hunting. So pretending they were originally created and sold as war weapons is just stupid.

It may be that you are too emotionally invested and have dug too deep
a hole to be able to back off and concede any of your errors here.

Not being a "know it all" re guns, I did a bit of looking on google.

We find: In the days when the 2nd amendment was written,
"long guns" were smooth-bored flintlocks that could be loaded
with "ball", or, "shot". Other than that an army would pick
a standard design, there was no difference between a
hunting rifle / musket, a shotgun and a, ah, "assault rifle".

My reference to modern hunting rifles in the USA had to
do with that the rifle mechanisms in most widespread use.
the lever-action and the bolt-action rifles were in fact
designed and produced for military use.

I looked that up. I kind of think you did not.
You might want to remedy that and avoid
so many mistakes.

So, in brief, the guns themselves were indistinguishable
between hunting and military long guns, for many many
years.

Newer mechanisms including bolt, lever, and single-shot
were designed primarily for military use. (biggest market)

The better designs were then adapted for hunting purposes.

Everything in you last sentence, in bold, is untrue.

I am not pretending anything, and it is very unreasonable to
call me stupid. Personally, I think an apology is appropriate.

 

[Audie]

I think the penalties will be as harsh as they need to be to get people to obey the laws. Most people will obey the laws because they are the laws. Some will test the laws by ignoring them, and those people should suffer sufficient consequences that they stop doing that. A few will ignore the laws no matter what, and as they are unrepentant criminals, they should be treated accordingly.
Effective regulation has save millions of lives that would otherwise have been lost to irresponsible driving. Effective firearm regulation would do the same.

As harsh as they need to be...
You will have to go with death penalty if you want 100%

"Effective" laws result in as many accidental deaths from drunk
drivers as murders with guns.

"Millions" is an absurd number,made up, ad hoc.

 

[Audie]

That is a "marketing hype". They are nothing more than tricked out semi-automatic rifles. You do understand that don't you?????? Probably not though.,

Clearly not. But then, some of us do our
diligence, and some do not. I do not care
to be called a fool, nor to act like one because
I shoot off my mouth, knowing nothing of what
I am talking about.

 

[shmogie]

This post was ignored by me because it's intends to create an endless diversion into legal minutia so as to avoid the real issues.. I have explained quite clearly how I think we should regulate gun ownership and use, and saw no reason to chase down this pointless rabbit hole of ineffective legal misdirection.

So, you want more laws without any understanding of current law. Ah, not particularly an informed approach

How can you possibly evaluate whether these laws are effective, or not?

Have you looked at the that the actual alleged assault weapons ban of the past, and the statistics that led to it being lifted?

No, you just want another ban, because it just makes you feel better.

Intuition can be a good thing, but what seems to you counter intuitive, might actually be proper after all.

You might say that if one life was saved by a so called assault weapons ban is worth it.

Of course that standard can be applied to many other things, knives, ladders, electrical cords, or my favorite, illegal aliens. In the past two years, less than three hundred people died as the result of a mass shooting, probably much less, yet thousands were killed by illegal aliens.

So, I ask again, what standard to ban firearms. You said those that were "designed" as military firearms should be banned. You ignore the proof that all the firearms technology from age to age was first adopted by, or became military weapons, is that still your position?

Then all should be banned, right?

The AR 15 platform, is primarily about the action and it's reliability, meaning how the gun loads ammo into the chamber, fires it and ejects the spent cartridge case. Most AR 15 rifles are based on this semi auto action, with barrels, stocks, and other parts that were designed specifically to make hunting and target shooting more effective.

The action is semi automatic, and millions of semi auto rifles have been in use by Americans for 75 years, at least.

Are you still sure these should be banned? They certainly are not military rifles.

 

[shmogie]

They're called ASSAULT WEAPONS, fool! What do you think they were designed for? Assaulting deer?

They are NOT assault weapons as defined by the agency having jurisdiction. That is a bogus political term that has many political meanings.

Knock off the name calling, it is the safe harbor of those who have nothing intelligent to say.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Well, I suppose when you are wrong, it is best to
shout insults. The snark is uncalled for and inappropriate.

The term "assault weapon" is misapplied to the civilian
legal weapons.

The U.S. Army defines assault rifles as "short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachine gun and rifle cartridges." ... It must be capable of selective fire.

Operative detail is "selective fire" aka, "full auto".

The term "assault weapon" has been weaponized by the
left to refer to guns which LOOK LIKE "Assault weapons"
but do not fit the definition.

These so called assault weapons are essentially
identical in function to guns that have been in more or
less common use for well over a hundred years.
1905 winchester - Google Search

Semi auto, detachable magazine, compact. Some used
a ten-round magazine and were used by the French Airforce
in WWI.

Of course, the meaning of words changes with creative use.
So such things as the above are now "assault weapons" in the
sense that "awesome" now means "thank you".

For those who like meaningful distinctions among words
and terms, avoidance of equivocation, find it better to
use words correctly. Certainly not to call others names
for being a stickler about vocabulary.

As for this-And long guns were always bought and used for hunting. So pretending they were originally created and sold as war weapons is just stupid.

It may be that you are too emotionally invested and have dug too deep
a hole to be able to back off and concede any of your errors here.

Not being a "know it all" re guns, I did a bit of looking on google.

We find: In the days when the 2nd amendment was written,
"long guns" were smooth-bored flintlocks that could be loaded
with "ball", or, "shot". Other than that an army would pick
a standard design, there was no difference between a
hunting rifle / musket, a shotgun and a, ah, "assault rifle".

My reference to modern hunting rifles in the USA had to
do with that the rifle mechanisms in most widespread use.
the lever-action and the bolt-action rifles were in fact
designed and produced for military use.

I looked that up. I kind of think you did not.
You might want to remedy that and avoid
so many mistakes.

So, in brief, the guns themselves were indistinguishable
between hunting and military long guns, for many many
years.

Newer mechanisms including bolt, lever, and single-shot
were designed primarily for military use. (biggest market)

The better designs were then adapted for hunting purposes.

Everything in you last sentence, in bold, is untrue.

I am not pretending anything, and it is very unreasonable to
call me stupid. Personally, I think an apology is appropriate.

Hi Audie, I think perhaps this discussion of assault weapons and “weapons of war” is about semantics and is missing the point.

Let’s take an example. At the Orlando night club mass shooting that killed nearly 50 people, the suspect bypassed security guards who engaged him, then killed dozens of people in the first two minutes using a SIG MCX. This is a high caliber weapon capable of 900 RPM, compact, only weighs 6 lbs and has a 30 round magazine.

At the Aurora movie theater shooting, a Smith and Wesson M&P15 (an AR15) with a 100-round drum was used at the outset. 100 rounds. Think about that - 100 rounds. Fortunately the drum jammed after 70 rounds or so and he switched to other weapons. In about 9 minutes, he killed and injured 70 people.

At the Stoneman Douglas high school shooting, a M&P15 Sport II (an AR-15) was used. These are gas operated, lightweight, high caliber (although light caliber options are available), 30-round magazine weapons. In just six minutes, he shot 17 people and all 17 died.

At Newtown, 26 people (mostly children) were killed in just 5 minutes. Primary weapons: Bushmaster XM15: again high caliber, 30 round magazine, gas operated, 45 RPM at a muzzle velocity over 3,000 feet per second.

Sutherland Springs church: Ruger SR556. High caliber, gas operated, 30-round magazine. 11 minutes, nearly 50 injured and dead.

There are more examples but you get the point. You can say it’s not a “weapon of war” but semantics aside, this is a lot of killing power. It’s unclear why a civilian needs this unless they plan to do a lot of killing. It’s also good if you want to be able to outgun first responders.

I say this, by the way, as someone who has fired “assault” weapons while hunting hog (without much luck) and for fun. I enjoy firing assault weapons. I would be willing to give that up even if it “only” saved a hundred or so people per year from mass shootings. To do otherwise, is to ignore we have a mass shooting problem in this country and just not even try to reduce it.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

So, you want more laws without any understanding of current law. Ah, not particularly an informed approach

How can you possibly evaluate whether these laws are effective, or not?

Have you looked at the that the actual alleged assault weapons ban of the past, and the statistics that led to it being lifted?

No, you just want another ban, because it just makes you feel better.

Intuition can be a good thing, but what seems to you counter intuitive, might actually be proper after all.

You might say that if one life was saved by a so called assault weapons ban is worth it.

Of course that standard can be applied to many other things, knives, ladders, electrical cords, or my favorite, illegal aliens. In the past two years, less than three hundred people died as the result of a mass shooting, probably much less, yet thousands were killed by illegal aliens.

So, I ask again, what standard to ban firearms. You said those that were "designed" as military firearms should be banned. You ignore the proof that all the firearms technology from age to age was first adopted by, or became military weapons, is that still your position?

Then all should be banned, right?

The AR 15 platform, is primarily about the action and it's reliability, meaning how the gun loads ammo into the chamber, fires it and ejects the spent cartridge case. Most AR 15 rifles are based on this semi auto action, with barrels, stocks, and other parts that were designed specifically to make hunting and target shooting more effective.

The action is semi automatic, and millions of semi auto rifles have been in use by Americans for 75 years, at least.

Are you still sure these should be banned? They certainly are not military rifles.

You are saying AR-15’s are not military rifles? My understanding is the civilian version removes the automatic fire capability and elongates the barrel to comply with the law regulating civilian weapons. Otherwise it is essentially the same as what is used in military variants.

Should we get rid of current law and allow fully automatic? Why or why not, in your view?