Like, I don't want to be too nihilistic or cynical here, but when legislators and lobbyists who are more knowledgeable about firearms refuse to agree with the prior condition that there is a problem that needs legislation to fix...you are stuck with laws written by people who are less knowledgeable by default, or worst case no legislation at all.
All the more reason to be knowledgeable enough about the subject matter to able to discuss it with your lawmakers if the opportunity arises.
Black lives matter.
Law and Order ≠ Justice
ACNH Island Isla Cero: DA-3082-2045-4142
Captain of the SES Comptroller of the State
Well, okay. I mean, if we're going with any semi-auto center fire rifle, then great. Now I know what you mean when you say assault rifle.
Because when this has been discussed before, what people say they meant included at least one of my rifles, which the law that I live under says it is NOT an assault rifle.
From now on, though, I'm just going to assume McDermott's definition since it's easy, I agree with it, and if someone means something else, too bad I guess.
Yeah, and I don’t want you to feel like I’m attacking your posts; I don’t think you’re arguing in bad faith, though *usually* when the distinction is made that’s the purpose (usually along the “those are already banned” lines). Which is why the response to the objection is sometimes...argumentative. The main reason I think it’s important to expand the definition of “assault rifle” (or use the more nebulous “assault weapon”) to include semi-auto-only guns...at least when used in a civilian context...is because we need a short, punchy term to use when discussing the topic. Saying we need to ban “centerfire semiautomatic weapons with detachable magazines and/or xyz ergonomic features” ain’t gonna cut it, you just lost half your audience.
Whereas when you say we need to ban “assault rifles” a vast majority of civilians are going to interpret it more or less correctly, and the majority of those that don’t are going to be people intentionally misinterpreting the statement who own covered weapons and don’t want to lose their toys.
I get that precision of language is a thing, and I understand some concern there. But I don’t see much value in coming up with a new shorthand nomenclature for this class of weapon for this purpose, and it wouldn’t be very productive anyway when a majority already accept the (arguably incorrect) usage. Better just to say that’s what “assault rifle” means now.
I don't think it's necessarily incorrect, though. Like, "assault rifle" has always been more of an advertising term, it's never really meant anything specific. And that's led to a lot of ineffectual legislation. Like, there's several rifles that really should be restricted or banned in Canada, but aren't, because people decided that assault weapon meant irrelevant stuff like the plastic bolted to the sides of a barrel. And what a rifle is capable of in violence terms is 100% a factor of the action. The only time I can think of when modifications become important factors is in competition. When a dude is walking around firing at civilians, MOA doesn't matter. How fast he can effectively fire that weapon is the only thing that matters.
Which is why I like your definition. It might actually make a difference.
Is that the reason, or was it sufficient lobbyist influence/ rural opposition which watered the classification down to whatever would get the votes to pass?
There is almost no will in Canada to include all semi-autos on the Restricted list. It's just not talked about. When people talk about banning assault rifles, each person has a slightly different rifle they mean they want to ban.
That's because most people are basically fine with the laws as is. In that nothing really bad is happening and almost 95% of canadians don't own guns of any sort. There is no reason for a will to exist for changes, good or bad, to gun regulation in Canada.
Like, I don't want to be too nihilistic or cynical here, but when legislators and lobbyists who are more knowledgeable about firearms refuse to agree with the prior condition that there is a problem that needs legislation to fix...you are stuck with laws written by people who are less knowledgeable by default, or worst case no legislation at all.
Yeah, one thing I have definitely learned over the years is that a lot of people do see guns more as an abstract concept of harm than as tools, which makes a reasonable amount of sense in an urbanized environment toxically affected by gun culture. I don't take it for granted that within American culture in particular, I'm a weirdo who a) has an amateur near-academic knowledge on firearms and 2A law, and makes the rare leap to b) using that to understand the Why on what practical yet comprehensive legislation could actually look like in the USA
for whatever it's worth my country of choice to follow would be Finland, which has the best of both worlds for my personal politics - comprehensive liberal socialist programs for all including health and education, and permissive but also intensive government regulation on firearms. Finnish gun culture is pretty non-violent, too - a lot closer to Switzerland's or Canada's
El Paso shooter confessed immediately. Yay for terrorism.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
The other thing about getting more and more specific is that the more specific the ban, the larger the loophole later when manufacturers figure out how to get around it.
If I felt the argument was in good faith, this wouldn't be a concern; the argument by manufacturers and lobbyists has never been good faith.
I'm not so sure the "scary" look does not matter. These massacres are all tied up with a crisis of masculinity, and if the guns looked like a "block of wood with a metal tube" it wouldn't trigger the "reclaim your masculinity at gunpoint" neurosis a lot of the shooters have.
A block of wood with a metal tube would still be sufficient as long as it still has a detachable magazine (that gets loaded from the under-side of the firearm) and companies can make magazines that look like balls.
| Origin/R*SC: Ein7919 | Battle.net: Erlkonig#1448 | XBL: Lexicanum | Steam: Der Erlkönig (the umlaut is important) |
I'm not so sure the "scary" look does not matter. These massacres are all tied up with a crisis of masculinity, and if the guns looked like a "block of wood with a metal tube" it wouldn't trigger the "reclaim your masculinity at gunpoint" neurosis a lot of the shooters have.
A block of wood with a metal tube would still be sufficient as long as it still has a detachable magazine (that gets loaded from the under-side of the firearm) and companies can make magazines that look like balls.
I don't think what you get what I'm saying. I'm talking about the shooters in question being attracted to the "macho look" of guns because they feel emasculated by society. If the most lethal gun on the market was bright pink, looked like it was designed by a 3 year old, and painted with the logo "I'm a little princess girl that loves daddy!" they wouldn't use it.
What we need to do about this is what we did for cigarettes. We banned advertising and made it so that packets had to be unattractive and covered in warnings about cancer. We could do something similar to guns - banning advertising would be step #1.
The big difference between a bushmaster and other .223 hunting rifles really is t that big. One looks scarier that’s about it
No. Shorter barreled rifles with pistol grips and forward grips and other military accessories really are easier to kill large numbers of people with
+1
Options
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
Aside from the discussions on defining what constitutes an "assault weapon" there should also be a severe restriction on access to ammunition. It should be at least as difficult to obtain a stockpile of rounds from local retailers as it is to stockpile pseudoephedrine.
Aside from the discussions on defining what constitutes an "assault weapon" there should also be a severe restriction on access to ammunition. It should be at least as difficult to obtain a stockpile of rounds from local retailers as it is to stockpile pseudoephedrine.
Chris Rock’s bit about bullets priced at $5,000 each seems like a better idea as time goes on.
While nobody wants to talk about video games in this light, I think they do play a non-zero role in furthering the black rifle culture and act as advertising to teens and young adults. I know a lot of guys that can name a dozen different assault rifles from around the world thanks to Modern Warfare, Battlefield 4, etc. The sad part is I believe the money actually flows the other direction; these devs pay firearms manufacturers for the right to advertise for them.
Young and stupid me played racing game and wanted the cars in them. And also played shooters and wanted the guns. The latter are, to some extent, affordable and collectible so yeah for a hot minute I was doing dumb shit like pricing out the semi-auto SCAR.
I don’t know that we could get away with banning licensed firearms in video games. I’d love to see any video game featuring licensed firearms rated AO, though.
Aside from the discussions on defining what constitutes an "assault weapon" there should also be a severe restriction on access to ammunition. It should be at least as difficult to obtain a stockpile of rounds from local retailers as it is to stockpile pseudoephedrine.
Chris Rock’s bit about bullets priced at $5,000 each seems like a better idea as time goes on.
The $5000 bullet thing does impose a lot of stuff I'm pretty un-comfy with re: money and class issues on economics in particular, but something like California requiring background checks on ammo sales feels more tenable - albeit with the caveat that certain social strata are still vulnerable to that, but that's more an issue of enforcement practice than an issue with the letter of the law
Aside from the discussions on defining what constitutes an "assault weapon" there should also be a severe restriction on access to ammunition. It should be at least as difficult to obtain a stockpile of rounds from local retailers as it is to stockpile pseudoephedrine.
Chris Rock’s bit about bullets priced at $5,000 each seems like a better idea as time goes on.
The $5000 bullet thing does impose a lot of stuff I'm pretty un-comfy with re: money and class issues on economics in particular,
Oh noes, the poor might not be disproportionately violently murdered if their neighbors can't afford ammo. This injustice cannot stand!
Aside from the discussions on defining what constitutes an "assault weapon" there should also be a severe restriction on access to ammunition. It should be at least as difficult to obtain a stockpile of rounds from local retailers as it is to stockpile pseudoephedrine.
Chris Rock’s bit about bullets priced at $5,000 each seems like a better idea as time goes on.
The $5000 bullet thing does impose a lot of stuff I'm pretty un-comfy with re: money and class issues on economics in particular, but something like California requiring background checks on ammo sales feels more tenable - albeit with the caveat that certain social strata are still vulnerable to that, but that's more an issue of enforcement practice than an issue with the letter of the law
It’s not a realistic solution obviously, but some kind of “bullet control” would probably be a good addition to any other gun control measures.
I’m personally of the opinion that clips should hold something like 5 rounds max. There’s no reason whatsoever for anyone to have a magazine that holds 30, 50, or 100 rounds.
Aside from the discussions on defining what constitutes an "assault weapon" there should also be a severe restriction on access to ammunition. It should be at least as difficult to obtain a stockpile of rounds from local retailers as it is to stockpile pseudoephedrine.
Chris Rock’s bit about bullets priced at $5,000 each seems like a better idea as time goes on.
The $5000 bullet thing does impose a lot of stuff I'm pretty un-comfy with re: money and class issues on economics in particular,
Oh noes, the poor might not be disproportionately violently murdered if their neighbors can't afford ammo. This injustice cannot stand!
I don't want a system where money inherently equals access. Plain and simple. Private security for billionaires should not have inherent superiority to anyone else.
I'm not so sure the "scary" look does not matter. These massacres are all tied up with a crisis of masculinity, and if the guns looked like a "block of wood with a metal tube" it wouldn't trigger the "reclaim your masculinity at gunpoint" neurosis a lot of the shooters have.
A block of wood with a metal tube would still be sufficient as long as it still has a detachable magazine (that gets loaded from the under-side of the firearm) and companies can make magazines that look like balls.
I don't think what you get what I'm saying. I'm talking about the shooters in question being attracted to the "macho look" of guns because they feel emasculated by society. If the most lethal gun on the market was bright pink, looked like it was designed by a 3 year old, and painted with the logo "I'm a little princess girl that loves daddy!" they wouldn't use it.
What we need to do about this is what we did for cigarettes. We banned advertising and made it so that packets had to be unattractive and covered in warnings about cancer. We could do something similar to guns - banning advertising would be step #1.
No, I get what you're saying...
What I'm saying is that men have a habit of finding ways to make anything that has a cylindrical body phallic, which is then further exacerbated by accessory manufacturers catering to that with additional bits that ramp up that phallic imagery to 11.
As long as there are cans of spray paint, a bright pink, derpy looking gun with "I'm a little princess girl who loves daddy!" stamped on the side, will still be used by those people you're talking about. Granted, there may be some pushback at the counter when the buyer goes in to pick up the firearm...but even that could be mitigated by the buyer deflecting about how it's being bought "for the lulz."
But, then again, maybe I'm being overly cynical about the buying habits of those who have insecurities with their masculinity.
| Origin/R*SC: Ein7919 | Battle.net: Erlkonig#1448 | XBL: Lexicanum | Steam: Der Erlkönig (the umlaut is important) |
Aside from the discussions on defining what constitutes an "assault weapon" there should also be a severe restriction on access to ammunition. It should be at least as difficult to obtain a stockpile of rounds from local retailers as it is to stockpile pseudoephedrine.
Chris Rock’s bit about bullets priced at $5,000 each seems like a better idea as time goes on.
The $5000 bullet thing does impose a lot of stuff I'm pretty un-comfy with re: money and class issues on economics in particular,
Oh noes, the poor might not be disproportionately violently murdered if their neighbors can't afford ammo. This injustice cannot stand!
I don't want a system where money inherently equals access. Plain and simple. Private security for billionaires should not have inherent superiority to anyone else.
Your concern would be very relevant if the problem we were facing was billionaires hunting the poor for sport. However, what we face is poor people killing themselves and their (poor) neighbors. We would improve things a great deal for everyone if only billionaires were the only civilians to have guns, because there are only 538 of them.
Aside from the discussions on defining what constitutes an "assault weapon" there should also be a severe restriction on access to ammunition. It should be at least as difficult to obtain a stockpile of rounds from local retailers as it is to stockpile pseudoephedrine.
Chris Rock’s bit about bullets priced at $5,000 each seems like a better idea as time goes on.
The $5000 bullet thing does impose a lot of stuff I'm pretty un-comfy with re: money and class issues on economics in particular,
Oh noes, the poor might not be disproportionately violently murdered if their neighbors can't afford ammo. This injustice cannot stand!
I don't want a system where money inherently equals access. Plain and simple. Private security for billionaires should not have inherent superiority to anyone else.
Your concern would be very relevant if the problem we were facing was billionaires hunting the poor for sport. However, what we face is poor people killing themselves and their (poor) neighbors. We would improve things a great deal for everyone if only billionaires were the only civilians to have guns, because there are only 538 of them.
Yeah, like, the actual problem would be ammo access for hunting. Gun battles with a billionaire's security detail are the silliest of fantasies.
Aside from the discussions on defining what constitutes an "assault weapon" there should also be a severe restriction on access to ammunition. It should be at least as difficult to obtain a stockpile of rounds from local retailers as it is to stockpile pseudoephedrine.
Chris Rock’s bit about bullets priced at $5,000 each seems like a better idea as time goes on.
The $5000 bullet thing does impose a lot of stuff I'm pretty un-comfy with re: money and class issues on economics in particular,
Oh noes, the poor might not be disproportionately violently murdered if their neighbors can't afford ammo. This injustice cannot stand!
I don't want a system where money inherently equals access. Plain and simple. Private security for billionaires should not have inherent superiority to anyone else.
Your concern would be very relevant if the problem we were facing was billionaires hunting the poor for sport. However, what we face is poor people killing themselves and their (poor) neighbors. We would improve things a great deal for everyone if only billionaires were the only civilians to have guns, because there are only 538 of them.
You're proposing money equals rights and I don't fuck with that, but this is turning into a class discussion, and I'm going to cap it with my solution is equally tighter access via red tape for everyone, a la Canada, Australia, or Finland. Does that probably inherently benefit people who can afford to handle red tape? Sure. But it's far more equal than letting the billionaires have perks
Aside from the discussions on defining what constitutes an "assault weapon" there should also be a severe restriction on access to ammunition. It should be at least as difficult to obtain a stockpile of rounds from local retailers as it is to stockpile pseudoephedrine.
Chris Rock’s bit about bullets priced at $5,000 each seems like a better idea as time goes on.
The $5000 bullet thing does impose a lot of stuff I'm pretty un-comfy with re: money and class issues on economics in particular,
Oh noes, the poor might not be disproportionately violently murdered if their neighbors can't afford ammo. This injustice cannot stand!
I don't want a system where money inherently equals access. Plain and simple. Private security for billionaires should not have inherent superiority to anyone else.
Your concern would be very relevant if the problem we were facing was billionaires hunting the poor for sport. However, what we face is poor people killing themselves and their (poor) neighbors. We would improve things a great deal for everyone if only billionaires were the only civilians to have guns, because there are only 538 of them.
Sure. But it's far more equal than letting the billionaires have perks
I don't seriously think class-based access to guns is a good thing. But I'm tired of the Republicans' snide argument about restricting guns being anti-poor or minority, since poor minorities are generally the first to demand gun control, because it's largely them getting shot.
Good law needs to take into consideration the future. If a tax on each bullet makes one worth $5000, it could spur weapon development towards areas not covered by legislation. Man portable directed energy weapons that become cheaper to operate than an AR15 with a 30 round P-Mag could pop out into the world with enough financial incentive.
Black lives matter.
Law and Order ≠ Justice
ACNH Island Isla Cero: DA-3082-2045-4142
Captain of the SES Comptroller of the State
Good law needs to take into consideration the future. If a tax on each bullet makes one worth $5000, it could spur weapon development towards areas not covered by legislation. Man portable directed energy weapons that become cheaper to operate than an AR15 with a 30 round P-Mag could pop out into the world with enough financial incentive.
I used to play a tabletop RPG in the '90s called "SLA industries" that basically had this as its premise. The players were urban gladiators in a future dystopia, who were followed everywhere by cameras, and they could buy weapons for an absurdly cheap price, but ammo was ruinously expensive, as the TV studio wanted them to use Kewl future melee weapons because it looked better on TV.
Aside from the discussions on defining what constitutes an "assault weapon" there should also be a severe restriction on access to ammunition. It should be at least as difficult to obtain a stockpile of rounds from local retailers as it is to stockpile pseudoephedrine.
Chris Rock’s bit about bullets priced at $5,000 each seems like a better idea as time goes on.
The $5000 bullet thing does impose a lot of stuff I'm pretty un-comfy with re: money and class issues on economics in particular,
Oh noes, the poor might not be disproportionately violently murdered if their neighbors can't afford ammo. This injustice cannot stand!
I don't want a system where money inherently equals access. Plain and simple. Private security for billionaires should not have inherent superiority to anyone else.
Your concern would be very relevant if the problem we were facing was billionaires hunting the poor for sport. However, what we face is poor people killing themselves and their (poor) neighbors. We would improve things a great deal for everyone if only billionaires were the only civilians to have guns, because there are only 538 of them.
Sure. But it's far more equal than letting the billionaires have perks
I don't seriously think class-based access to guns is a good thing. But I'm tired of the Republicans' snide argument about restricting guns being anti-poor or minority, since poor minorities are generally the first to demand gun control, because it's largely them getting shot.
I don't disagree with that part of it, but I do believe that we can do a lot of legitimate good in actually equally enforcing firearms law in this country with the laws we do currently have, restricting the supply of new guns, as well as incentivizing getting illegal or unnecessary guns off the streets via buybacks. Urban violent crime is down even as mass shootings are up, and there are ways to continue to reduce crime among the poor and vulnerable without specifically punishing them or denying their legal rights
The guy who sold that gun absolutely deserves getting the book thrown at him because interstate private gun sales are a Federal violation of a pretty huge order
The guy who sold that gun absolutely deserves getting the book thrown at him because interstate private gun sales are a Federal violation of a pretty huge order
I recall the shooter moved to Nevada for a brief period of time and that was when the weapon was purchased. Is that incorrect?
GONG-00 on
Black lives matter.
Law and Order ≠ Justice
ACNH Island Isla Cero: DA-3082-2045-4142
Captain of the SES Comptroller of the State
The guy who sold that gun absolutely deserves getting the book thrown at him because interstate private gun sales are a Federal violation of a pretty huge order
I recall the shooter moved to Nevada for a brief period of time and that was when the weapon was purchased. Is that incorrect?
I could be wrong but I thought this one was an illegal private sale in the vein of the gun show "loophole"
Aside from the discussions on defining what constitutes an "assault weapon" there should also be a severe restriction on access to ammunition. It should be at least as difficult to obtain a stockpile of rounds from local retailers as it is to stockpile pseudoephedrine.
Chris Rock’s bit about bullets priced at $5,000 each seems like a better idea as time goes on.
The $5000 bullet thing does impose a lot of stuff I'm pretty un-comfy with re: money and class issues on economics in particular,
Oh noes, the poor might not be disproportionately violently murdered if their neighbors can't afford ammo. This injustice cannot stand!
I don't want a system where money inherently equals access. Plain and simple. Private security for billionaires should not have inherent superiority to anyone else.
Unless you are proposing some sort of social gun security where everyone is given a gun and a monthly ammo stipend while banning buying and selling beyond that, i don't really see how you can create a system where money does not equal access.
The guy who sold that gun absolutely deserves getting the book thrown at him because interstate private gun sales are a Federal violation of a pretty huge order
According to that article, it was a legal purchase.
diablo III - beardsnbeer#1508 Mechwarrior Online - Rusty Bock
The guy who sold that gun absolutely deserves getting the book thrown at him because interstate private gun sales are a Federal violation of a pretty huge order
I recall the shooter moved to Nevada for a brief period of time and that was when the weapon was purchased. Is that incorrect?
I could be wrong but I thought this one was an illegal private sale in the vein of the gun show "loophole"
So apparently it was bought through the seller's website and picked up by the shooter in NV despite living in CA. Yeah, seller should be turbofucked.
Edit:
It is my understanding is that I can buy a weapon in another state, but it has to be first transferred to a registered dealer in my home state before I can take possession. If the weapon is banned by my state, the registered dealer would not take transfer of the gun.
GONG-00 on
Black lives matter.
Law and Order ≠ Justice
ACNH Island Isla Cero: DA-3082-2045-4142
Captain of the SES Comptroller of the State
The guy who sold that gun absolutely deserves getting the book thrown at him because interstate private gun sales are a Federal violation of a pretty huge order
I recall the shooter moved to Nevada for a brief period of time and that was when the weapon was purchased. Is that incorrect?
I could be wrong but I thought this one was an illegal private sale in the vein of the gun show "loophole"
The actual sale appears to have been legal. The defense fund is for lawsuits from victims and/or surviving family members, none of which appear to have materialized yet.
While nobody wants to talk about video games in this light, I think they do play a non-zero role in furthering the black rifle culture and act as advertising to teens and young adults. I know a lot of guys that can name a dozen different assault rifles from around the world thanks to Modern Warfare, Battlefield 4, etc. The sad part is I believe the money actually flows the other direction; these devs pay firearms manufacturers for the right to advertise for them.
Young and stupid me played racing game and wanted the cars in them. And also played shooters and wanted the guns. The latter are, to some extent, affordable and collectible so yeah for a hot minute I was doing dumb shit like pricing out the semi-auto SCAR.
I don’t know that we could get away with banning licensed firearms in video games. I’d love to see any video game featuring licensed firearms rated AO, though.
Media does influence people and helps shape beliefs, norms, and cultures. We are social animals. That's never what is meant by their mention after a mass shootings, though. It also wouldn't really matter if gun laws restricted access so that a PS90 cost more than a Lamborghini. Because, again, technically full auto weapons aren't actually banned. You just need a mortgage and an ATF colonoscopy to get one. It can be a fun daydream hobby in Japan, because you can't actually just go out and buy the thing in Japan then go on a murder spree.
Aside from the discussions on defining what constitutes an "assault weapon" there should also be a severe restriction on access to ammunition. It should be at least as difficult to obtain a stockpile of rounds from local retailers as it is to stockpile pseudoephedrine.
Chris Rock’s bit about bullets priced at $5,000 each seems like a better idea as time goes on.
The $5000 bullet thing does impose a lot of stuff I'm pretty un-comfy with re: money and class issues on economics in particular,
Oh noes, the poor might not be disproportionately violently murdered if their neighbors can't afford ammo. This injustice cannot stand!
I don't want a system where money inherently equals access. Plain and simple. Private security for billionaires should not have inherent superiority to anyone else.
Your concern would be very relevant if the problem we were facing was billionaires hunting the poor for sport. However, what we face is poor people killing themselves and their (poor) neighbors. We would improve things a great deal for everyone if only billionaires were the only civilians to have guns, because there are only 538 of them.
You're proposing money equals rights and I don't fuck with that, but this is turning into a class discussion, and I'm going to cap it with my solution is equally tighter access via red tape for everyone, a la Canada, Australia, or Finland. Does that probably inherently benefit people who can afford to handle red tape? Sure. But it's far more equal than letting the billionaires have perks
Which, again, is why many of us are suggesting repealing the 2nd. To skip over this argument. Less guns are good.
Also, don't the tax stamps for fully auto guns that gun enthusiasts always point to as good gun restrictions, already favor billionaires?
As Incenjucar said, I had always heard that the failure of $5000 bullets is that enthusiasts already can and do make their own bullets for super cheap
The guy who sold that gun absolutely deserves getting the book thrown at him because interstate private gun sales are a Federal violation of a pretty huge order
I recall the shooter moved to Nevada for a brief period of time and that was when the weapon was purchased. Is that incorrect?
I could be wrong but I thought this one was an illegal private sale in the vein of the gun show "loophole"
So apparently it was bought through the seller's website and picked up by the shooter in NV despite living in CA. Yeah, seller should be turbofucked.
Edit:
It is my understanding is that I can buy a weapon in another state, but it has to be first transferred to a registered dealer in my home state before I can take possession. If the weapon is banned by my state, the registered dealer would not take transfer of the gun.
Yeah all interstate transfers have to go through a federal firearms license holder in each state
The fact that this kid was able to straw his way through a dealer Nevada is turbo-fucky
Getting into the weeds about whatever a M1 Garand is is pointless. Weapons should be licensed on how dangerous they are, and that will always be a bit of a judgement call. What matters is they *are* licensed and categorized by danger potential.
Which is why i advocate for caliber based restrictions, not model based.
A bolt action 7mm STW will wreck shop and annihilate anything in its path from 1000 yards away.
A .22 Caliber MP-5 "replica" will certainly put some people in the hospital, but its lethality is 1/100th of that bolt action caliber.
Those can 100% be reversed too. It woudl get rid of the "whats an assault weapon" game too. Doesnt matter what it is, it's all based off caliber for restrictions.
Getting into the weeds about whatever a M1 Garand is is pointless. Weapons should be licensed on how dangerous they are, and that will always be a bit of a judgement call. What matters is they *are* licensed and categorized by danger potential.
Which is why i advocate for caliber based restrictions, not model based.
A bolt action 7mm STW will wreck shop and annihilate anything in its path from 1000 yards away.
A .22 Caliber MP-5 "replica" will certainly put some people in the hospital, but its lethality is 1/100th of that bolt action caliber.
Those can 100% be reversed too. It woudl get rid of the "whats an assault weapon" game too. Doesnt matter what it is, it's all based off caliber for restrictions.
You think you'd have any luck at all getting 9mm on that list?
is 7mm STW a caliber which is used a detectable percentage of crimes?
Posts
All the more reason to be knowledgeable enough about the subject matter to able to discuss it with your lawmakers if the opportunity arises.
Law and Order ≠ Justice
ACNH Island Isla Cero: DA-3082-2045-4142
Captain of the SES Comptroller of the State
That's because most people are basically fine with the laws as is. In that nothing really bad is happening and almost 95% of canadians don't own guns of any sort. There is no reason for a will to exist for changes, good or bad, to gun regulation in Canada.
Yeah, one thing I have definitely learned over the years is that a lot of people do see guns more as an abstract concept of harm than as tools, which makes a reasonable amount of sense in an urbanized environment toxically affected by gun culture. I don't take it for granted that within American culture in particular, I'm a weirdo who a) has an amateur near-academic knowledge on firearms and 2A law, and makes the rare leap to b) using that to understand the Why on what practical yet comprehensive legislation could actually look like in the USA
for whatever it's worth my country of choice to follow would be Finland, which has the best of both worlds for my personal politics - comprehensive liberal socialist programs for all including health and education, and permissive but also intensive government regulation on firearms. Finnish gun culture is pretty non-violent, too - a lot closer to Switzerland's or Canada's
If I felt the argument was in good faith, this wouldn't be a concern; the argument by manufacturers and lobbyists has never been good faith.
A block of wood with a metal tube would still be sufficient as long as it still has a detachable magazine (that gets loaded from the under-side of the firearm) and companies can make magazines that look like balls.
I don't think what you get what I'm saying. I'm talking about the shooters in question being attracted to the "macho look" of guns because they feel emasculated by society. If the most lethal gun on the market was bright pink, looked like it was designed by a 3 year old, and painted with the logo "I'm a little princess girl that loves daddy!" they wouldn't use it.
What we need to do about this is what we did for cigarettes. We banned advertising and made it so that packets had to be unattractive and covered in warnings about cancer. We could do something similar to guns - banning advertising would be step #1.
No. Shorter barreled rifles with pistol grips and forward grips and other military accessories really are easier to kill large numbers of people with
Chris Rock’s bit about bullets priced at $5,000 each seems like a better idea as time goes on.
Young and stupid me played racing game and wanted the cars in them. And also played shooters and wanted the guns. The latter are, to some extent, affordable and collectible so yeah for a hot minute I was doing dumb shit like pricing out the semi-auto SCAR.
I don’t know that we could get away with banning licensed firearms in video games. I’d love to see any video game featuring licensed firearms rated AO, though.
The $5000 bullet thing does impose a lot of stuff I'm pretty un-comfy with re: money and class issues on economics in particular, but something like California requiring background checks on ammo sales feels more tenable - albeit with the caveat that certain social strata are still vulnerable to that, but that's more an issue of enforcement practice than an issue with the letter of the law
Law and Order ≠ Justice
ACNH Island Isla Cero: DA-3082-2045-4142
Captain of the SES Comptroller of the State
It sounds reasonable to most, but it'll never pass because of the 2nd amendment.
Oh noes, the poor might not be disproportionately violently murdered if their neighbors can't afford ammo. This injustice cannot stand!
It’s not a realistic solution obviously, but some kind of “bullet control” would probably be a good addition to any other gun control measures.
I’m personally of the opinion that clips should hold something like 5 rounds max. There’s no reason whatsoever for anyone to have a magazine that holds 30, 50, or 100 rounds.
I don't want a system where money inherently equals access. Plain and simple. Private security for billionaires should not have inherent superiority to anyone else.
No, I get what you're saying...
What I'm saying is that men have a habit of finding ways to make anything that has a cylindrical body phallic, which is then further exacerbated by accessory manufacturers catering to that with additional bits that ramp up that phallic imagery to 11.
As long as there are cans of spray paint, a bright pink, derpy looking gun with "I'm a little princess girl who loves daddy!" stamped on the side, will still be used by those people you're talking about. Granted, there may be some pushback at the counter when the buyer goes in to pick up the firearm...but even that could be mitigated by the buyer deflecting about how it's being bought "for the lulz."
But, then again, maybe I'm being overly cynical about the buying habits of those who have insecurities with their masculinity.
Your concern would be very relevant if the problem we were facing was billionaires hunting the poor for sport. However, what we face is poor people killing themselves and their (poor) neighbors. We would improve things a great deal for everyone if only billionaires were the only civilians to have guns, because there are only 538 of them.
Yeah, like, the actual problem would be ammo access for hunting. Gun battles with a billionaire's security detail are the silliest of fantasies.
You're proposing money equals rights and I don't fuck with that, but this is turning into a class discussion, and I'm going to cap it with my solution is equally tighter access via red tape for everyone, a la Canada, Australia, or Finland. Does that probably inherently benefit people who can afford to handle red tape? Sure. But it's far more equal than letting the billionaires have perks
I don't seriously think class-based access to guns is a good thing. But I'm tired of the Republicans' snide argument about restricting guns being anti-poor or minority, since poor minorities are generally the first to demand gun control, because it's largely them getting shot.
Law and Order ≠ Justice
ACNH Island Isla Cero: DA-3082-2045-4142
Captain of the SES Comptroller of the State
I used to play a tabletop RPG in the '90s called "SLA industries" that basically had this as its premise. The players were urban gladiators in a future dystopia, who were followed everywhere by cameras, and they could buy weapons for an absurdly cheap price, but ammo was ruinously expensive, as the TV studio wanted them to use Kewl future melee weapons because it looked better on TV.
I don't disagree with that part of it, but I do believe that we can do a lot of legitimate good in actually equally enforcing firearms law in this country with the laws we do currently have, restricting the supply of new guns, as well as incentivizing getting illegal or unnecessary guns off the streets via buybacks. Urban violent crime is down even as mass shootings are up, and there are ways to continue to reduce crime among the poor and vulnerable without specifically punishing them or denying their legal rights
The guy who sold the gilroy shooter his weapon had a successful go fund me for his defense. GOD BLESS AMERICA!
pleasepaypreacher.net
Right-wingers always have super successful GoFundMes. Unless your like the 2nd or 3rd person doing the same thing. You gotta be the first.
The people funding this shit are so used to being grifted for their political beliefs they basically ask for it.
I recall the shooter moved to Nevada for a brief period of time and that was when the weapon was purchased. Is that incorrect?
Law and Order ≠ Justice
ACNH Island Isla Cero: DA-3082-2045-4142
Captain of the SES Comptroller of the State
I could be wrong but I thought this one was an illegal private sale in the vein of the gun show "loophole"
Unless you are proposing some sort of social gun security where everyone is given a gun and a monthly ammo stipend while banning buying and selling beyond that, i don't really see how you can create a system where money does not equal access.
According to that article, it was a legal purchase.
So apparently it was bought through the seller's website and picked up by the shooter in NV despite living in CA. Yeah, seller should be turbofucked.
Edit:
It is my understanding is that I can buy a weapon in another state, but it has to be first transferred to a registered dealer in my home state before I can take possession. If the weapon is banned by my state, the registered dealer would not take transfer of the gun.
Law and Order ≠ Justice
ACNH Island Isla Cero: DA-3082-2045-4142
Captain of the SES Comptroller of the State
https://www.sfchronicle.com/crime/article/Source-Gilroy-Garlic-Festival-shooter-s-rifle-14201639.php
The shooter lived in California, bought the gun using an Internet order with a pickup at a Nevada store, then returned to California without making the modifications needed to make the gun legal in California.
The actual sale appears to have been legal. The defense fund is for lawsuits from victims and/or surviving family members, none of which appear to have materialized yet.
Media does influence people and helps shape beliefs, norms, and cultures. We are social animals. That's never what is meant by their mention after a mass shootings, though. It also wouldn't really matter if gun laws restricted access so that a PS90 cost more than a Lamborghini. Because, again, technically full auto weapons aren't actually banned. You just need a mortgage and an ATF colonoscopy to get one. It can be a fun daydream hobby in Japan, because you can't actually just go out and buy the thing in Japan then go on a murder spree.
Which, again, is why many of us are suggesting repealing the 2nd. To skip over this argument. Less guns are good.
Also, don't the tax stamps for fully auto guns that gun enthusiasts always point to as good gun restrictions, already favor billionaires?
As Incenjucar said, I had always heard that the failure of $5000 bullets is that enthusiasts already can and do make their own bullets for super cheap
Yeah all interstate transfers have to go through a federal firearms license holder in each state
The fact that this kid was able to straw his way through a dealer Nevada is turbo-fucky
Which is why i advocate for caliber based restrictions, not model based.
A bolt action 7mm STW will wreck shop and annihilate anything in its path from 1000 yards away.
A .22 Caliber MP-5 "replica" will certainly put some people in the hospital, but its lethality is 1/100th of that bolt action caliber.
Those can 100% be reversed too. It woudl get rid of the "whats an assault weapon" game too. Doesnt matter what it is, it's all based off caliber for restrictions.
You think you'd have any luck at all getting 9mm on that list?
is 7mm STW a caliber which is used a detectable percentage of crimes?