The Gun Control Debate Thread

[PleaseBlitz]

Do definitions really matter this much for ****s sake?  

 

 

Edit:  Thank you Stickboi.

Edited June 13, 2016 by PleaseBlitz

[tshile]

Do definitions really matter this much for ****s sake?  

 

 

Edit:  Thank you Stickboi.

 

Aren't you a lawyer?

 

Jesus christ.

[TheGreatBuzz]

Why are we arguing over terms? If such a ban was reinstate they'd pick some word to use for the bill and just make a select list anyway. Arguing semantics here is a waste of time.

 

 

Do definitions really matter this much for ****s sake?  

 

 

Edit:  Thank you Stickboi.

Well it started when I complained about the media screwing it up.  I expect them to actually be accurate.  Then I couldn't put the toothpaste back in the tube.

[Captain Wiggles]

I'm thinking about starting the "clip vs magazine" discussion next.  Who's excited?

 

I know I am.

Edited June 13, 2016 by clietas

[PleaseBlitz]

Aren't you a lawyer?

 

Jesus christ.

 

I am.  Great thing about laws is that they usually come with a definitions section.  So the law will just have its own definition (Im sure Larry will consult). 

Edited June 13, 2016 by PleaseBlitz

[tshile]

Back to the assault weapons ban, I'd prefer they ban guns based on rate of fire, caliber, and I'd say distance but I don't know if distance really matters (it probably matters way more for hunting than for killing other people the way people do these days...) i'm sure there's others we could add.

 

the crap that actually has to do with the bullets coming out of the gun

 

as opposed to:

does it hold a flash light?

does it have a folding stock?

does it have a fore grip?

I am.  Great thing about laws is that they usually come with a definitions section.  So the law will just have its own definition (Im sure Larry will consult). 

 

Right, but you're kid of proving my point.

 

You're in here asking if "definitions matter"

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

Well it started when I complained about the media screwing it up.  I expect them to actually be accurate.  Then I couldn't put the toothpaste back in the tube.

 

I think it matters when it comes to the media.  Because when I hear something like, "Gunman storms nightclub with an automatic rifle", I'm wondering how in the world they got access to a fully automatic weapon.  Considering how the term automatic refers to fully automatic (for the rest of the world not Larry).  

 

Leaving out "semi" gets more attention to their article/headlines.  Doesn't matter if they are liberal or not.  Their job is to get readers/viewers.  

[tshile]

Leaving out "semi" gets more attention to their article/headlines. 

 

It also amplifies the outrage.

 

Because now a good portion of the country is saying "How did they even get an automatic weapon?!?!" and they never think anything different because, well, we're a nation of people that lives by headlines only.

[PleaseBlitz]

 

Right, but you're kid of proving my point.

 

You're in here asking if "definitions matter"

 

No, im in here asking if Larry's definition matters (or if any poster's currently-held definition matters).  It does not.  Because any law passed to address a type of weapon will define that weapon in the law itself (because the general public does not appear to agree).

Edited June 13, 2016 by PleaseBlitz

[Larry]

So what's the difference between semi-automatic and automatic?

 

The latter also includes fully automatioc. 

 

Although I also think that the term "automatic" probably has different definitions, in different contexts. 

 

When you're talking about pistols, "automatic" means it's not a revolver. 

 

OTOH, while I assume that my Dad's over and under is technically semi-automatic, (you pull the trigger, it fires one shell.  Pull again, it fires the other one.)*, you'd really get looked at funny if you called it an automatic.  Because it doesn't auto load. 

 

Just as I'm pretty sure that all revolvers, now days, are semi-auto, too.  But they've never been called automatics. 

 

---

 

* I'm pretty sure that's the way it worked.  All I ever shot was trap.  And for trap, you use a single barrel, cause it's lighter.  So, I never had to pay attention to how to fire it twice. 

[tshile]

No, im in here asking if Larry's definition matters.  It does not.  Because any law passed to address a type of weapon will define that weapon in the law itself.

 

Oh, I misunderstood then.

 

I thought you were honestly asking if the definition for automatic/semi-automatic matters or not, and I couldn't figure out why a lawyer would think having agreement in what words actually means isn't important to a conversation...

 

Yes, ultimately, Larry's personal definition and use of automatic does not matter for the rest of us.

 

(Outside of the fact that it helps perpetuate a misuse of it)

OTOH, while I assume that my Dad's over and under is technically semi-automatic,

 

no... no it's not....

 

you need to throw your dictionary away and get one that the rest of the world uses

Edited June 13, 2016 by tshile

[PleaseBlitz]

For the record, here is the definition of "Assault Weapon" in Masschusetts law (in the definitions section ).

 

https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXX/Chapter140/Section121

 

''Assault weapon'', shall have the same meaning as a semiautomatic assault weapon as defined in the federal Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. section 921(a)(30) as appearing in such section on September 13, 1994, and shall include, but not be limited to, any of the weapons, or copies or duplicates of the weapons, of any caliber, known as: (i) Avtomat Kalashnikov (AK) (all models); (ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil; (iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC 70); (iv) Colt AR 15; (v) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR and FNC; (vi) SWD M?10, M?11, M?11/9 and M?12; (vi) Steyr AUG; (vii) INTRATEC TEC?9, TEC?DC9 and TEC 22; and (viii) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as, or similar to, the Street Sweeper and Striker 12; provided, however, that the term assault weapon shall not include: (i) any of the weapons, or replicas or duplicates of such weapons, specified in appendix A to 18 U.S.C. section 922 as appearing in such appendix on September 13, 1994, as such weapons were manufactured on October 1, 1993; (ii) any weapon that is operated by manual bolt, pump, lever or slide action; (iii) any weapon that has been rendered permanently inoperable or otherwise rendered permanently unable to be designated a semiautomatic assault weapon; (iv) any weapon that was manufactured prior to the year 1899; (v) any weapon that is an antique or relic, theatrical prop or other weapon that is not capable of firing a projectile and which is not intended for use as a functional weapon and cannot be readily modified through a combination of available parts into an operable assault weapon; (vi) any semiautomatic rifle that cannot accept a detachable magazine that holds more than five rounds of ammunition; or (vii) any semiautomatic shotgun that cannot hold more than five rounds of ammunition in a fixed or detachable magazine.

[Larry]

Back to the assault weapons ban, I'd prefer they ban guns based on rate of fire, caliber, and I'd say distance but I don't know if distance really matters (it probably matters way more for hunting than for killing other people the way people do these days...) i'm sure there's others we could add.

 

the crap that actually has to do with the bullets coming out of the gun

 

as opposed to:

does it hold a flash light?

does it have a folding stock?

does it have a fore grip?

Actually, I remember reading the text of one assault weapons ban. (There may have been more than one, I don;t know. Probably 20 years ago.)

And what struck me was that a lot of it was things like "If this weapon is also made in another version, which is capable of taking a bayonet mount".

 

Which seemed really tangential, if not outright cosmetic, to me.  Really?  Weapon X is an assault rifle if there's some other version of it that has a place for attaching some other item (that Weapon X doesn't have, and can't even accept)? 

 

That's why I've been proposing a much simpler standard:  "Automatic rifle which takes removable magazines of more than five rounds". 

 

To me, that's a definition that really shouldn't hurt recreational use much at all, but might hurt mass shooter or similar undesirable use. 

[twa]

if it takes a magazine then modding it to take higher capacity is easy(making larger magazines, or clips if you prefer  )

I made them as a teen

 

besides the huge number already manufactured and sold

[PleaseBlitz]

Actually Larry, some laws have defined "assault weapons" as have 2 or 3 or more of a list of features.  So like, "any weapon that has 2 or more of the following features is an assault rifle .... 1) a bayonet, 2) a detachable magazine, 3) A flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; 4) a pistol grip ... etc.

[tshile]

Actually, I remember reading the text of one assault weapons ban. (There may have been more than one, I don;t know. Probably 20 years ago.)

And what struck me was that a lot of it was things like "If this weapon is also made in another version, which is capable of taking a bayonet mount".

 

Which seemed really tangential, if not outright cosmetic, to me.  Really?  Weapon X is an assault rifle if there's some other version of it that has a place for attaching some other item (that Weapon X doesn't have, and can't even accept)?

Yes. Yes! You get it!

This is the point... you're remembering correctly. Specifically the Brady Federal Assault Weapons ban, which is the one called the 'scary looking weapons ban', is the one we're always talking about. The criteria:

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

•  
• Folding or telescoping stock
• Pistol grip
• Bayonet mount
• Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
• Grenade launcher mount

Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

•  
• Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
• Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
• Barrel shroud safety feature that prevents burns to the operator
• Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
• A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm.

Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:

•  
• Folding or telescoping stock
• Pistol grip
• Detachable magazine.

 

 

 

Side note: I get grenade launcher mount, but at the same time WHY DO YOU NEED ANOTHER ATTACHMENT?! it's a grenade launcher! I think that's enough!

 

this is not about a weapon's true functionality (outside of the grenade launcher...) it's like someone played call of duty and said 'man we got to ban these from the public'

 

 

That's why I've been proposing a much simpler standard:  "Automatic rifle which takes removable magazines of more than five rounds". 

 

To me, that's a definition that really shouldn't hurt recreational use much at all, but might hurt mass shooter or similar undesirable use.

I don't disagree with you, I just think we should get away from using the term 'assault weapon' (mainly because of it's ambiguity, but also because it just makes you look like you don't know what you're talking about, it's just received that sort of reputation)

 

Start banning weapons based on their functionality.  Not on stereotypes, not on what you've seen in movies, but on what damage they can do and how quickly.

 

If you crafted a bill that clearly did that, you'd get much more support from many more gun owners than you will by rolling out a second version of the "Assault Weapons Ban." Come up with functionality requirements to draw a line at, and then defend your bill as such.

 

Come out with another version of the Federal Assault Weapons ban and we'll be here 3 years from now still watching the same people **** about how nothing ever changes.

Edited June 13, 2016 by tshile

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

I find it hard to believe that someone could be both unaware of who Wayne LaPierre is

Wasn't he one half of the Quebecers in WWF?

Edited June 13, 2016 by Sacks 'n' Stuff

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

Well, they definitely need to make the process to obtain a firearm take longer along with every purchase going forward requiring registration for all firearms.  They could say that the process to obtain the background check and registration may take up to 4 weeks, depending on the pending applications. 

 

Then the FBI could flag people behind the scenes that had been interviewed or were a person of interest and if they try to purchase a legal firearm, it shows up on the instant background check submitted by the gun shop.  This would then allow them up to 4 weeks to re-evaluate the person, make phone calls to their employer, etc. see if they should be allowed to purchase a legal firearm and register it.

 

They could also limit the size of the magazines.  And they could monitor how much ammo is sold per month to anyone and set a max limit.  They do that for my freaking allergy medicine because it contains pseudoephedrine which is used in creating meth.  In order to even buy my Mucinex D, I have to give them my drivers license, which they scan, then I have to sign.  Then depending on how much has been purchased, I can buy my meds.  

 

There is no reason they can't use the same equipment and process to track how much ammo is sold or who buys the high capacity magazines (should they not restrict the sizes).  They can then collect data on who is buying what and see if there are any red flags.

[PleaseBlitz]

That all sounds reasonable Taze, but if they are tracking your ammo purchases, then they'll know where to find you when Obama personally comes to confiscate all the guns.  Finally.  After 7 1/2 years of not doing that.  NOW it's gonna happen.  

Edited June 13, 2016 by PleaseBlitz

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

That all sounds reasonable Taze, but if they are tracking your ammo purchases, then they'll know where to find you when Obama personally comes to confiscate all the guns.  Finally.  After 7 1/2 years of not doing that.  NOW it's gonna happen.  

 

Just tossing some ideas out there.  Maybe not limit ammo, but apply it to certain purchases, like high capacity magazines.  

[tshile]

That all sounds reasonable Taze, but if they are tracking your ammo purchases, then they'll know where to find you when Obama personally comes to confiscate all the guns.  Finally.  After 7 1/2 years of not doing that.  NOW it's gonna happen.  

 

but we track people when they buy sudafed

Just tossing some ideas out there.  Maybe not limit ammo, but apply it to certain purchases, like high capacity magazines.  

 

I'll throw out there

 

Psychological evaluation. Like they do for law enforcement or military.

 

I doubt I'll get much support (from the pro gun people, because they're the ones holding everything up) but I think it would be worth it. Create a 'license' that's required if you're going to use or purchase weapons, and you have to renew it every year and part of it is qualification (including basic demonstration of knowledge of safety and laws applicable to your area), and a psych eval.

 

I'd be willing to go up to renewing ever 2 years, or I could even be convinced of 5.

[Chew]

 

There is no reason they can't use the same equipment and process to track how much ammo is sold or who buys the high capacity magazines (should they not restrict the sizes).  They can then collect data on who is buying what and see if there are any red flags.

 

All your ideas are very reasonable, and I would be willing to abide by any rules put in place like this.  The problem is that most of the hardcore gun nuts would never go for it.

 

I can go to my local Cabelas 2 miles from my house and buy thousands of rounds of 556 NATO if I wanted.  They've got tens of thousands of rounds stacked in the ammo section out in the open.  I'd be all for keeping that stuff behind the counter and scanning IDs to purchase ammo and have all ammo purchases tracked.  But there are so many unreasonable people out there, it would never fly.

Edited June 13, 2016 by Chew

[Larry]

I wonder about the notion of tracking ammo. 

 

I keep remembering when my dad and brother were shooting trap. 

 

(For those unaware, trap is a lot like skeet.  A machine throws a small, clay, thing, about the size of an ashtray, and shooters try to shoot it, mid air, with a shotgun.  The difference is the direction in which the machine throws the targets.) 

 

It's a sport that's a lot like bowling or golf.  Repetition is a big part of it.  Doing things exactly the same way, every single time.  Kind of turning yourself into a robot. 

 

People who compete at it can spend a whole lot of time, practicing.  Like, 100 targets or more at a time, several times a week. 

 

It can get expensive.  The targets and the ammo cost money. 

 

One way of reducing the cost is that pretty much every shooter who's not a millionaire loads their own shells.  They save their "brass", take them home, and put new powder and shot into them, and shoot them again. 

 

But they don't just reload.  They often buy their supplies in bulk.  10 pounds of shot will cost one price.  But if you buy 100 pounds, from a wholesaler, the price drops. 

 

Well, if you buy 1,000 lbs, direct from the factory, it's even cheaper. 

 

A couple of times a year, Dad and Bro would take our old beat up F-150 from Fairfax to the Winchester factory (PA?), and come back with 1,000 or more pounds of lead shot, to divide up among the members of Fairfax Rod & Gun Club. 

 

And remember, 1,000 lbs of shot is enough shot to load 16,000 shells, for trap. 

 

So, I will point out from family experience, that buying enough supplies to make 16,000 rounds of ammunition, a couple of times a year, is certainly not unheard of. 

 

(Although it is rare.  Bro mentioned to me that they were actually federal firearms dealers for a while, there.  And, supposedly, they were the largest ammo distributors in NoVa.) 

 

And, granted, they were buying supplies that could only be used to load 16,000 rounds of bird shot.  Hardly something that screams "potential terrorist". 

 

But still, that somewhat historical, and somewhat OT story does make me wonder if the notion of "tracking large ammo purchases" will really be so painless as people seem to think. 

[tshile]

...

A couple of times a year, Dad and Bro would take our old beat up F-150 from Fairfax to the Winchester factory (PA?), and come back with 1,000 or more pounds of lead shot, to divide up among the members of Fairfax Rod & Gun Club. 

...

And, granted, they were buying supplies that could only be used to load 16,000 rounds of bird shot.  Hardly something that screams "potential terrorist". 

 

But still, that somewhat historical, and somewhat OT story does make me wonder if the notion of "tracking large ammo purchases" will really be so painless as people seem to think. 

 

I hope they're being careful. I have a family member that investigated a house blowing up because dude was reloading their ammo in the basement. over time the powder built up in the floor joists (I believe?) and when the wife turned on a vacuum upstairs one afternoon - boom.

 

Fairfax also has very strict laws about explosives... hope they're following those...

 

But, back to your original point, if our federal systems were allowed to track appropriately I think they'd be able to differentiate between the guy that buys it to shoot skeet and soforth. There will be false positives, and even still missed chances to stop a crazy person, but that's inherent to whatever we do in these cases. Question is whether it correctly balances public safety, common sense, and individual rights.

Edited June 13, 2016 by tshile

[Larry]

I'll throw out there

 

Psychological evaluation. Like they do for law enforcement or military.

 

I doubt I'll get much support (from the pro gun people, because they're the ones holding everything up) but I think it would be worth it. Create a 'license' that's required if you're going to use or purchase weapons, and you have to renew it every year and part of it is qualification (including basic demonstration of knowledge of safety and laws applicable to your area), and a psych eval.

 

I'd be willing to go up to renewing ever 2 years, or I could even be convinced of 5.

Now, I think we have some professional pshrink-types on this board. (Obviously, they aren't doing their jobs.)

 

But I suspect that they'll say that there really isn't a good, cheap, test that's going to tell you who's going to go postal. 

 

One that I've seen (once when I was applying for a job at NSA) was the MMPP.  I think it takes four hours to administer.  (It's like 400 questions).  And takes a skilled psychiatrist to read it. 

 

(And it's still not a reliable predictor of future behavior.) 

 

(Although I'm not certain that it's not good enough.  Just because I wouldn't consider such a test to be good enough to justify locking somebody up, doesn't mean it's not good enough to say "No, I won't let you buy that AR-15."  I'd be willing to accept some false positives, in that context.)