Can we as a party please come up with a better idea than the AWB?

[Recursion]

For the love of God, can we please come up with a better idea?

Every. Single. mass shooting has had one object in common: a semi-automatic weapon fed by detachable magazines.

Why is our party's default position a bill that keeps these weapons legal but regulates their grip shape and ability to hold bayonets?

Seriously, we need a better bill to push.

I get that people want to get rid of the AR-15. I'm open to the idea. But what our party is pushing is a bill that would require it, literally, to be sold under a different model and brand name, and with a differently shaped grip.

Why are we doing this?

[CJCRANE]

1. Apparently the shooter didn't use an AR-15.

He was also a licensed security guard.

[Thor_MN]

6. All the articles I have read that named a weapon have said AR-15.

Do you have a link to something that says otherwise?

[Abq_Sarah]

7. Nope

It was a SIG MCX.

[Amishman]

13. I looked it up, practically the same thing

It looks like a duck, quacks like a duck...

[Calista241]

21. It's not the same thing. It has a different cycling system, which makes it completely different.

It's gas operated as opposed to Direct Impingement. It basically makes the rifle totally different. It's not an AR, it's in the AK family of rifles.

It's analogous to a Diesel Engine versus Gasoline. They will both get you from A to B, but their design and method of operation is 100% different.

[PJMcK]

40. Not quite 100% different

Your analogy is broadly correct, Calista241. But diesel and gasoline engines both burn fossil fuels by the combustion of the fuel or its vapors in a contained environment.

But your distinction of the firearms is correct, of course.

[Abq_Sarah]

22. They're both firearms but they're not the same thing

It's like calling every car on the road a Ford.

[Gomez163]

26. The AR 15 started out as a Colt brand name. Its now a generic name

It was an AR 15 style weapon.

[SpookyDem]

51. Armalite Rifle

[Spider Jerusalem]

2. Better idea:

ban all semi-automatic long arms (exception: calibre .22LR only), ban all handguns except single-shot target models and black-powder muzzle-loaders. You want to hunt? Fine, you can use a bolt-action or lever-action rifle, or a single- or double-barrelled or pump shotgun. You want a weapon for "home defence"? Fine, a shotgun is going to be more effective than that AR15.

[madinmaryland]

23. ^^^^^ THIS ^^^^^

[Eleanors38]

28. Not going to happen.

[Spider Jerusalem]

30. No, because the USA has too many fuckwits.

Who look at repeated mass shooting incidents and shake their heads and say "well, there's nothing we can do about it! The roots of the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of innocents!"

[Eleanors38]

64. More prosaic is the fact nearly 100,000,000 American possess firearms.

[linuxman]

38. What makes a shotgun better for home defense, in your opinion?

[Spider Jerusalem]

41. Than an AR-15?

The answer to that should be pretty obvious to anyone with the faintest clue of how shotguns work, I'd think? You have to aim a rifle, in a break-in situation it's a lot less than optimal. With a shotgun the spread is effective enough that if you point, you hit something. And a shotgun has a superior intimidation factor; the sound of the action on a 12-gauge pump can't be mistaken for anything else, and someone who's broken into your house and hears it may shit his pants and run away.

[linuxman]

42. You don't have to aim a shotgun?

For someone that thinks they have a "Faint clue" as to how shotguns work, well...

.html

[IMG][/IMG]


Above is a picture of a typical shotguns spread in ranges you'd find an armed encounter taking place in when inside a house. Tell me, with a maximum spread of about 4 inches being possible "unless you live in wayne fucking manor), why would you have to aim any less than with an AR?

Ah, the old chestnut of "just rack it and scare them away! First off, you are assuming the person breaking in knows what he heard or could even hear it in the first place. Secondly, an AR makes a similar sound when charged. Would that not also be effective, since we're going with the whole "The noise is enough to stop them!" bit? You really watch too many movies. Is there any evidence that anyone has ever been scared away by someone racking the action of a shotgun? It's Hollywood nonsense. Just like in action movies where the hero cock his pistol 5-6 times in a scene to prove how super serious he is.

I'll take the weapon I'm familiar with, train with, work with, have carried for over a decade, and takes frangible ammo which will disintegrate upon hitting drywall, so as to not endanger my neighbors, thanks.

Do you have anything besides hillbilly guncounter wisdom to support the shotgun over rifle concept? Maybe something about how a .45ACP to even the hand will put a man down?

[Spider Jerusalem]

45. four inch spread at 12 feet vs...none

which means that a centre mass shot is much more likely to hit something vital. And I don't really care, since I'm not a gun fetishist (which you pretty clearly are!)

[linuxman]

60. Nice, lackadaisical attitude you have to lethal weapons there.

Feel free to "Just point" a gun, put some buckshot through the wall, and kill a neighbors kid.

"Gun fetishist" cute. You're the one imparting magical abilities to shotguns that absolve the user of skill and responsibility, an I'M the fetishist. Yeah...

Personal insults. The last refuge of a man without an argument.

[cleanhippie]

68. You know the spread pattern at a specific range but you're not a fetishist?

[spin]

44. That may sound like a reasonable idea. ...

The problem is to first get the law through Congress. The last attempt to pass a new federal assault weapons ban after Sandy Hook couldn't even pass in a Senate controlled by Democrats.

The next problem is how to enforce this ban. Many gun friendly states would simply ignore the law and not require firearms to be turned in or confiscated just like some states ignore the federal laws on marijuana.

Under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) of 1970, marijuana is classified as a Schedule I substance. By definition, Schedule I drugs have a high potential for abuse and dependency, with no recognized medical use or value. Any marijuana possession, cultivation, or use is a federal crime, subjecting a defendant to fines, prison time, or both. Large scale cultivation and trafficking (transporting or selling marijuana, often across state lines) incurs harsher penalties, and tends to be the main focus of federal drug enforcement attention.

In spite of this wholesale federal ban, since the mid-1990s 18 states have enacted laws that allow or protect the medicinal use of marijuana. Most of these states have decriminalized medicinal marijuana use (removed the risk of criminal prosecution and penalties) for patients who follow the law with respect to amounts, registration, and so on. State-level penalties still apply to those who break these state laws.
http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/criminal-defense/federal-crime/medical-marijuana-federal-laws.htm

While many gun owners would voluntarily turn in their semi automatic firearms a percentage would not. Attempts to confiscate their weapons could lead to violence and armed standoffs with media coverage. If the police were to use force that resulted in bloodshed it would only fire up other "patriots" to defend their Second Amendment rights which would result in even more bloodshed. It might even cause armed terrorist style attacks on our infrastructure. It's not all that difficult to take down major power lines, rip up railroad tracks or blow up the supports for freeway bridges.

It is even conceivable that some states might secede from the union. Sending in armed troops to quell the rebellion would result in even more violence and bloodshed even if successful. A number of states such as Texas already have secessionist movements.

The simple fact is that a high percentage of our citizens no longer trust our federal government enough to turn in their weapons.

Plus you only suggesting banning all semi-automatic long arms with the exception of .22LR. It may be even easier to massacre a large number of people with a couple of easier to conceal semi-automatic pistols. If you successfully managed to ban and confiscate ALL semi-automatic firearms it is still possible to fill a bag with revolvers and when one runs out of bullets to simply grab another one.

In my opinion all too often reality is the biggest enemy of good ideas.

[Spider Jerusalem]

46. You should read more closely

"and all handguns with the exception of single-shot/black powder"

[Lizzie Poppet]

48. Yes...that would be TOTALLY enforceable!

[Spider Jerusalem]

50. Oh, look, another gun fetishist!

Shouldn't you be off fondling your precious toys, or something?

[Lizzie Poppet]

53. Oh, look, a grade-schooler!

Way to support your (ill-considered, unworkable) plan, sparky.

[Spider Jerusalem]

56. Sorry, but I don't see much reason to engage you seriously.

You have nothing meaningful to contribute to this discussion, after all. ("You can't control or restrict access to firearms regardless of the number of murders and mass shootings that occur" doesn't constitute a meaningful contribution; neither does "LOL&quot . I'm giving you about as much respect as you deserve (more, really).

[Lizzie Poppet]

61. Since you're arguing with straw men of your own curious creation, that doesn't exactly sadden me.

"You can't control or restrict access to firearms regardless of the number of murders and mass shootings that occur" doesn't constitute a meaningful contribution)

Oh, look: shit I never said!

Should you actually wish to engage over something I've actually written, rather than your own rather inane, self-serving I'll be waiting right here (with appropriately low expectations, given your demonstrated unfamiliarity with logic).

[Spider Jerusalem]

62. Considering that your response was "LOL" you're lucky I didn't tell you to go fuck yourself (n/t)

[Lizzie Poppet]

65. Lucky?

Sweetie, I don't need luck to deal with clown shoes like you.

Bye, Felicia...

[Duckhunter935]

67. How civil of you

Another reason gun control tends to lose

[spin]

49. Try to get a law like that through Congress. Your chances would be less ...

then my winning the Florida lotto two times in a row with only one ticket for each lotto.

[Just reading posts]

57. You will grant, I presume, that your proposal or one like it hasn't the slightest chance of actually

being passed, yes?

[Spider Jerusalem]

59. That depends on how much of a drag on the GOP ticket Trump is, no?

And also on who fills the open seat on the Supreme Court. With a 5-4 liberal SC and a solid Congressional majority? More meaningful firearms restrictions would be almost certain to pass in the next Congress. It won't happen until 2017, if it does, but I think that something has a very good chance of passing, in those conditions.

[Ferretherder]

3. Can we as a party come up with a better idea than the...

...Average White Band?

I dunno, what idea do they embody or represent?...

...always thought they were pretty funky, really.

[Squinch]

33. Did you think this was funny when you were writing it? How about now? Do you think it's funny now?

[Jerry442]

4. Repeal 2A

We've tried compromising with the gun folk. Look where it got us.

[Crepuscular]

31. ...

Good luck with that. Good luck not having a bunch of other constitutional rights being removed while the constitutional convention is going on.

[aikoaiko]

5. I dont think very many people will understand what you are trying to say.

And for many people who do, we just can't go with banning all semi-autos with detachable mags.

[backscatter712]

9. Maybe that's where we should go.

Ban semi-automatic weapons with removable magazines.

Require semi-autos to have fixed magazines, that you reload one bullet at a time.

[Recursion]

11. I'm down with that, personally (I'd imagine the poster above is not)

But it at least does what it purports to do.

[aikoaiko]

14. That would address the issue but I don't think it is winnable even with a Dem WH and Congress

I would not support it.


Recursion has suggested listing the NFA. That would probably help and might be winnable if there wasn't a tax.

[Crepuscular]

32. so it's ok

for me to own a rifle with a ten round magazine but you want to limit semi-autos to be limited to one round at a time?

Logic much?

[backscatter712]

37. You obviously have reading comprehension problems.

It's not that hard to build a firearm with a fixed magazine, say ten rounds, that's built into the weapon and not removable, that you would reload by inserting one round at a time into the reloading slot. After that process, you get to shoot ten times, at semi-auto speeds if you want, but it makes reloading slower than just dropping a magazine and popping in a new one.

[backscatter712]

8. Bills regulating firearms should directly address the amount of hot lead that comes out the barrel.

Pistol grips and bayonet mounts are irrelevant.

The question is how many bullets can be fired from a weapon in a short amount of time? Say a minute? Or ten seconds?

As it turns out, the deadliest weapons, have one thing in common - they are designed to fire a lot of bullets in a short period of time. So bills should restrict the rate of fire, the number of bullets in magazines/cylinders/ammo-carrying-devices, and ease of reloading. Anyone who wants a weapon with a large magazine, or that can be very quickly reloaded, should be subjected to extra scrutiny and regulation.

So any bill regulating them should be written as follows: Weapons capable of firing more than ten bullets in ten seconds (the number of bullets and the amount and units of time can be adjusted) are to be restricted by banning, or mandatory licensing, or so on. If a weapon in its stock configuration from the manufacturer cannot fire more than 10 bullets in ten seconds, but can be easily modified to make it capable of doing so, it is also restricted.

If you are a firearms manufacturer, and you do not want your weapons to be restricted by this law, use your engineering expertise to make it damned hard to modify the weapons you make to accept larger magazines, or fire at a faster rate. I don't care how, so long as you do.

[spin]

47. I can fire ten rounds accurately in ten seconds using two six shot revolvers.

Some experts can do far better than that with just one revolver.

[Lee-Lee]

10. I'm always amused at the pie in the sky wishes for bans

By people with no idea what they are really banning, or with no clue of how it would be done.

Let me tell you, as someone who has worked in law enforcement- in the vast majority of the country you would find two things. The first would be MASSIVE civil disobedience and refusal to cooperate. This happened in Austraila and its pretty much been left alone and ignored but the total number of firearms turned in under their ban was less than just the number of one model, the SKS, that had been imported. Likewise you can look at two very liberal states, NY and CT, who recently passed "assault weapon" registration laws. Those states have been met with massive refusal to register- estimates put compliance at about 12-15%.

Think about that- in two of the most progressive states in the union they couldn't even get compliance with a registration law. How do you think a confiscation law would be complied with in those states, much less less liberal ones?

Now, many of you are saying "screw them, arrest them, put them in jail." Who do you think will do that? Law enforcement is overwhelmingly pro gun and they are not going to do it. Sheriff's in some of these states have openly said they won't enforce these laws. I can tell you that my old departments and any I know of wouldn't do it. They would refuse the same they would if they got an order to arrest people based on religion or race.

You will have luck in a few major urban areas getting LE to do it. Otherwise, forget it.

Federal LE doesn't have to manpower to do it even if you did one state a year and didn't meet any resistance.

If your saying "fire them and hire new cops until they will follow the law"- are you in line to sign up? We already fight to get people with clean backgrounds and who otherwise meet the standards, where in all these red states are you going to get these new cops? Progressives are not typically lining up to go to the academy....

So talk all you want of bans and confiscations. It's a feel good fairy tale that you couldn't make happen even if you tried, but if you keep pushing it your going to put senate seats and the presidency in jeapordy in red and purple states.

[Recursion]

12. OK, but the curve can be bent here. Ban manufacture and import of semi's without fixed magazines

Sure, people will scream "what about the millions already in the country?!?!" What about them? They're there with or without the ban. But with the manufacture/import ban that's it; they stop being made or legally imported. People can still have their AR-15, but to reload its factory-fixed magazine you have to open the upper receiver. I'm fine with that.

[Lee-Lee]

18. Once again- how are you enforcing it?

Mandatory retrofit for millions of rifles?

That's already the law in Califonia and the San Bernadino terrorist couple simply ignored the law and modified the guns anyway- because if your bent on killing people a law about what parts you can use isn't a concern.

There are plans online now for 3D printing your own magazines and every part can be printed but the spring, so the plans include a printable form that you wrap spring wire around and make the spring. Literally anybody can make magazines at home now, so no law can stop anyone who wants one.

None of these measures will have any real effect- much like the continued clamping down on doctors and patients and pharmacists doesn't have any real effect on prescription drug abuse but just makes life harder for those working in health care and who are lawful users.

With both the most effective approach is to focus not on the item being abused- be it guns or prescription drugs- and hassle all the people breaking no laws but to focus on the abusers of the items and work first toward mitigating the circumstances and influences that lead them down that path and failing to divert them provide proper and timely intervention however that is needed.

[Recursion]

20. An import ban? Customs

That's what it's for. Next question?

[Crepuscular]

35. On what grounds

are you banning them? If someone wants to kill people, they will find a way. A 12 gauge pump loaded with buckshot or slugs will do a hell of a lot of damage in close quarters, can hold 9 rounds and can be reloaded on the fly very quickly.

There are probably 30 million+ plus semi-auto weapons with detachable mags in this country, are you going to confiscate them?

[Lizzie Poppet]

58. One huge problem: 3D printers.

AR upper plans already exist. A ban on detachable mags would feed a market for more and better such plans...and 3D printers will become utterly commonplace in not so many years. It might well turn out that all those restricted ARs do is provide a nice way to buy all the other parts you need to go with the upper you just printed.

The gun genie is well and truly out of the bottle, never to return...in no small part because the 3D printing genie's free, too. Despite being a shooting enthusiast, I'm by no means sanguine about that, but it's the reality we have to figure out how best to adapt to.

[Duckhunter935]

66. Very true

[whatthehey]

15. Depends what we want

Is the point to pass a bill, to pass a bill and remain politically viable, to be constitutionally acceptable or to overturn 2A, to save total lives as much as possible or to reduce media-splashy mass shootings as much as possible?


Answers are different in each case. To take the latter dilemma first. More people are shot with old revolvers than anything else, then cheap small semi-auto pistols. But most mass shootings (less than 5% even in their worst year of all shooting homicides) use either semi-auto rifles or higher end semi-auto pistols with large magazines.

Then you have desired outcomes which conflict. A bill which would maximize lives saved (and even here the result would not be as hoped. Even the most effective and accessible tool for murder only makes murder easier; removing it will not remove what actually caused the murder to occur, so the reduction will only be those where the killer could not find other means) would need 2A to be abolished and would have large political negative fallout in the short to medium term at the very least.

If you really want to get into meaty utilitarianism, are all lives saved equal? Mass shooting victims are far more likely to be generally law-abiding. While many of the people shot to death in more limited widespread acts of violence are as pure as the driven snow, a far higher percentage (and a hugely higher percentage compared to mass-shooting victims) are involved in criminal activity themselves and shot in large part because of this. Again I remind folks that 70%+ of both victims and killers in Chicago shooting homicides are from the same very small pool of people already in a police database that predicts them as being at high risk of shooting/being shot. While it's smugly obvious to preen that all lives are equally precious, that's really not true from a universalized societal viewpoint. I'm sure there were a couple, maybe a few, bad eggs in the Pulse shooting, just by law of averages. I'm sure there were far more in Chicago's last 50 fatal shootings. Given a magic wand and the ability to bring one batch of 50 back, which would you resurrect?

So what's the goal?

[DVRacer]

16. Magazine capacity is where it is

That is something that can make it harder to shoot multiple people at once. My personal preference is 5 rounds that still maintains its use as a defensive platform and hunting rifle. The problem would be the proliferation of high capacity mags already around. But most could be retrofitted with stops under the spring to only allow 5 rounds if it was made federal law.

[Just reading posts]

17. As you point out, there are already a lot of magazines out there. Hundreds of millions at least.

Possibly more than a billion magazines in excess of 5 rounds.

Mandating that they be retrofitted is a practical impossibility.

[Duckhunter935]

54. And they can be 3D printed now

[Just reading posts]

55. Yup. That genie's not getting back in the bottle.

[Iggo]

19. Or at least something other than nothing.

[ileus]

24. First of all would it be a real ban this time?

[Adrahil]

25. FWIW, I think magazines are the place to start

A semi-auto ban is unlikely to pass Constitutional muster with the current court. Limit magazine capacity to 5-10 rounds.

[Eleanors38]

27. Symbollic victories in culture war seem more important.

[Aerows]

34. It's not a symbolic victory

if we get magazines that can shoot over a hundred souls in a matter of minutes curtailed so that the next lunatic that goes off the rails only has enough firepower to kill just a few of us.

That's where we are at, and I'm not even going to attempt to put a nice coat of paint on it.

Only has enough firepower to kill just a few of us at once.

That's not a culture war, that is recognition that there are some serious goddamn problems with widespread availability of guns that can spit out enough bullets in one or two magazines to wipe out dozens of people.

Can we settle for enough restraint so that it will kill only a few of us at once?

Is that an unreasonable request?

[Eleanors38]

63. Seems reasonable to you, but it won't stop mass murder...

...setting asde the lack of political will and political juice to accomplish this, it will not stop mass murderers from doing what they do. Bombs, arson, and if what happened in Rwanda is half true, machetes. Characterize as you will the argument of "just a few of us," but therein is the problem:

Mass murders are not into "just a few of us.".

Consider that seriously. It is akin to the criticism of military organization:. They are always planning for the last war.

Your proposal will not address the problem of mass murders.

[Aerows]

29. I've said this before, and I'll say it again.

If you are that damn bad of a shot that you need that many bullets in a gun (that measure fire rates in bullets per second) you either need to put the damn gun down or quit putting yourself in situations where that many bullets "warrants" their use - like mass slaughter of people in bars, churches, movie theaters and schools.

There is no need to be able to wound/or kill over 100 people at a moment's notice. There is no damn justification for it, either.

[Crepuscular]

36. ...

meaningless rhetoric. Need is not a reasonable metric. You don't NEED a car that will go faster then the legal speed limit, are you going to call for banning those that do?

[Aerows]

39. Meaningless rhetoric

is people mourning the death of 49 people, the injury of 53, many in critical condition, and then saying "Oh, but we've got no problems, everything is hunky dory, no changes necessary."

You didn't address a damn statement I made, you just threw up the normal talking points of "OH MY GOD, some people died, but it's more tragic if we limited magazine capacities so that a nutjob can't shoot dozens of people in a matter of minutes."

You are equating that with being able to speed? That is some meaningless damn rhetoric.

[Crepuscular]

43. Had your statement

included anything factual worthy of a being addressed, I would have.

Unfortunately, it did not, as it was meaningless rhetoric.

[KamaAina]

52. What, pray tell, is the matter with Average White Band?