are we talking about the same thing when we speak of "assault weapons"?

[gejohnston]

This might be informative

http://www.assaultweapon.info/

Please limit comments to the content of the site.

[upaloopa]

1. When it comes to the average citizen's right

to petition their representatives to make laws on gun issues, they rely on their representatives knowledge. It is not important that the citizen have gun knowledge.
I think we need to end the meme what is an assault weapon if it is used to discount DUers opinion on gun control.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

3. I think we need to end the meme...

..."what is a fascist" if it is used to discount DUers opinion on fascism. As a matter of fact, I think it's just fine to vote on and have an opinion on topics about which folks are blissfully ignorant and unable to define.

[rrneck]

4. Okay, that's funny.

Hat tip to SCA's lol cats.

"Trust the authorities..."

"We don't have to know anything about what we are advocating"

[gejohnston]

6. but representatives usually don't have such knowledge

when it comes to a lot of things. Ideally, they seek out neutral experts on issues, unfortunately they depend too much on lobbyists and propagandists with misinformation money. I'm not saying citizens should be expert gunsmiths or gun historians, but at least be informed with correct information when telling your reps and discussing public policy. These specific guns are an a subject for policy debate.

I think we need to end the meme what is an assault weapon if it is used to discount DUers opinion on gun control.

that is not my goal. My goal is simply correct the misinformation spread by Bloomburg et al that these have higher cycle rates than normal semi autos. Speaking for myself, I discount opinions based on lack of knowledge. There are a couple of gun owners, including a collector, who knows the difference but still thinks we should go the way of Australia. While I disagree, I respect it more than coming from someone who thinks that the NFA sunsetted in 2004.

[jpak]

12. Yup - the gunners cannot obfuscate this anymore

Assault weapons are like art - we know what they are when we see them.

yup

[wercal]

14. I think its important to have a little knowledge of the subject

Why?

Because I struggle with what differentiates an assault weapon from a hunting rifle or even most pistols.

All can be semi-automatic

All accept large capacity aftermarket magazines.

One could argue that the assault weapon fires a higher velocity round...but it doesn't really matter in close in massacres.

So really - what is the difference? Surely there must be some statistics that distinguish the assault weapon as being more lethal or more prevalent in US gun deaths. But there are no such stats. In reality, if the goal is to prevent more people from getting killed, stats would point your efforts towards pistols - overwhelmingly so.

Ok, well since assault weapons were used in the last three high profile massacres, maybe that is why some think their removal would save lives. Its an argument that can be made....but does anyone seriously believe that? Most of these massacres are committed by people with common qualities: while, male, less than 30 years old, taking some sort of mind altering medication. But the most important common qualities are: smart and driven. Laws will not stop these types. They probably get joy out of their efforts to circumvent the laws.

Newtown - The guy stole his mom's guns.
New York Firemen - A felon used a straw buyer to get the weapon.
Aurora - The guy spent untold hours making home-made bombs, and patiently waited for months as he stocked up on internet purchased battle gear.
Virginia Tech - The guy used two pistols
Amish School shooting - Handgun (but an anomaly at 33 y/o)
Columbine - Homemade bombs, shotguns bought by a straw buyer, a pistol illegally purchased due to age, and a straw buyer provided carbine, illegal also because of age.

You can scour the history of high profile shootings; and, quite frankly, two things become clear: 1) Assault Weapons do not stand out as the weapon of choice 2) Just about all of the shooters had to break some law, or be inventive in some way, to procure their weapons. It is very rare that a legally owned weapon is involved (remember not even Lanza's was legally owned, once he committed murder and robbery to get them...and he was too young to legally possess them).

So, while I can understand the call to 'end school shootings by getting rid of assault weapons', the argument doesn't really track with people who know a little about guns. To them, you are saying 'I got mauled by a pack of dogs from all breeds...so lets outlaw pitbulls'. Its not a linear argument. So yes I do think it is very important.

I have some proposals, which fall short of 'banning' anything. But, I think they 1) address the actual problem 2) Are palatable to most people..i.e. they might actually happen.

1) Stop gun show loophole. This prevents straw buying
2) Make gun possession by a person currently taking mind altering drugs illegal
3) Require a safe to store semi-automatic weapons. Class III owners (fully automatic) have to deal with this requirement. Safes are relatively expensive, so there would be a period of time where owners would have to store their weapons at their local sheriff's office. We did that in the Army - people could only store any personally owned weapon in the arms room. So, its not as outrageous as it seems.

I think these proposals could have a genuine impact on these shootings. And, importantly, I think there is a realistic chance of passing them.

Quite frankly I haven't heard any elected official come up with these, so I'm not sure I can 'trust' their knowledge of the subject (or their staff's). So, I think my superficial knowledge of types of weapons has been helpful to me in their formulation. And, I would certainly recommend people at least 'listen' when people try to describe the nuances of different weapons. There are lots of people offering up advice/information; and, for the life of me, I don't understand why some people are militantly opposed to 'listening'.

[billh58]

83. A very long-winded diatribe

of a basic NRA/Gungeon talking point. Who cares what the definition of an "assault rifle" is? Evidently, only you and your NRA buddies.

Here's the deal: if it can fire more than five rounds without reloading, why in the hell does anyone need it? I don't care what you call it, if it is capable of rapid fire and has the capability of accepting a high-capacity magazine, it is NOT a weapon suitable for civilian use.

That is, unless you you are under the impression that the 2nd Amendment gives you the "right" to own such weapons (no, it doesn't). Or unless you are under the impression that the 2nd Amendment gives you the "right" to take up arms against the government (no, it doesn't). Or, unless you're such a piss-poor shot that you need multiple rounds to hit what you're aiming at (in which case, you shouldn't be allowed to own a fucking gun).

Your last sentence certainly makes a lot of sense: "I don't understand why some people are militantly opposed to "listening." What is your excuse? We don't care what you call it!

[iiibbb]

92. I hunt where there are feral dogs

I carry a handgun with 15 rounds.
I wouldn't want to muck around with a magazine change in a feral dog attack

[Jenoch]

113. Are you saying you wish to outlaw all

semi-autos AND all revolvers too? Every revolver I know of is capable of shooting 5 or more rounds without reloading.

[SCRKBA]

115. What evidence to you have to back that up?

Why do I care what the definition or label is of a particular item? A label typically describes what an item is used for and limits it's use to that label. The example "assault weapon" would lead a person to think that this weapon is used solely to assault things. When in fact they're used for sport, hunting and self defense.

In Utah, a women used a spatula to beat her daughter to death. The spatula was used as a weapon and was used to assault someone. Should we start calling spatulas "assault weapons" now? Of course not and it would be stupid to think so. Personally, I think using "assault weapon" to describe a rifle or pistol is stupid and I think the OP is just trying to educate people on what the definition actually is.

Specifically regarding your views of the 2nd Amendment. Have you bothered to read any other writings from our Founding Fathers?

So you're saying our first 10 Amendments were meant to limit the power of the government and instill personal rights to the people, except for the 2nd Amendment which is the opposite?

There were numerous articles written by our Founding Fathers, early American Legal commentators, Legal Scholars and US Supreme Court Decisions which support an individual right to arms.

I have never heard any conclusive evidence to show that arms were meant to be controlled only by the government. If you have such information, please inform me about it.

Early writings include Federalist Papers 28 & 29 (Alexander Hamilton), Federalist Paper 46 (James Madison), Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England (1803(St George Tucker)), A View of the Constitution of the United States (1829(William Rawle)), Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833(Justice Story)) and there are many many more.

[billh58]

116. PPRed with

the comment: "This one's citing of far RW/NRA gun memes, chapter and verse-- and in great detail, strongly suggests a paid disruptor--not welcome here."

We realize that the NRA has deep pockets, but they should really think about hiring more intelligent trolls, or at least giving them more original talking ponts...

[gejohnston]

117. I seriously doubt they are actually hiring them

I think the commented might be assuming "he must be a troll because he disagrees with me." Of course it is possible. I wonder how much the Joyce Foundation pays theirs?

[wercal]

122. You do realize..

....that while others are having a discussion, you are just name calling and launching personal attacks.

Why not read the federalist papers and other sources listed above? Again I am baffled about the militant desire to learn nothing new on the subject.

I offered up some common sense legislation...you attacked me. I guess I'm not demagoguing the issue enough to pass muster.

[billh58]

124. Your side of the

"discussion" can only repeat tired old NRA bullshit talking points as you just offered up. We have been listening to your side for long enough, and it's time to take action against this obscene proliferation of guns in our society.

I don't need to read the fucking Federalist Papers to know that 2,500 gun deaths per month, every month, in the USA makes us the hands down leading gun nut nation among civilized countries.

Personal attacks? No, just attacks against the gun worship ideology that has been pushed on our country by the right-wing, neoconservative, Koch Brothers-backed NRA.

[gejohnston]

125. but your side offers nothing but

emotional rants, logical fallacies that won't save lives. It won't reduce the suicide rate, which is 60 percent of those gun deaths, and I seriously doubt it will do anything for the murders either.

[wercal]

126. You called my post a Diatribe

....and accuse me of being in the NRA....

Even though every one of my proposals would be oppsed by the NRA.

I can only assume you are too emotional to read or function in daily life. Good luck with that.

[cleanhippie]

131. There is a word for that...

I think its called hoplophobe.

[wercal]

132. Wow...Learn Something New Every Day

[Berserker]

118. What the hell is

the NRA/Gungeon? Oh I get it it's just your hate speech.

[wercal]

119. Not in the NRA and never found the Gungeon

Don't know why I bother, but I'll answer a question.

The latest home invasion crew that terrorized my city for months and eventually murdered a woman used a group of eight. Ergo more than five or six rounds would be handy.

[gejohnston]

114. quick question

1) Stop gun show loophole. This prevents straw buying

how does the "closing the gun show loophole" prevent straw buying? If you don't need a background check, you don't need a straw buyer.

[wercal]

120. I get your point

It could actually increase straw buying I suppose. I just associate it with gun shows becausr the police guard the lobby....so I assume known felons would send somebody else in to make the buy.

[gejohnston]

121. since most sellers are FFLs

at gun shows, yeah they would anyway. I would like to see the sentencing guidelines increased for straw buying, or at least the same federal mandatory min a felon in possession. I would also like to see straw buyers get slammed with state charges like co conspirator, accessory, accomplice etc.

[wercal]

123. I know somebody who dealt in illegal guns

He acquired them through straw purchase, and theft ( which is why that stunt putting gun owner names in the paper was egregious). He won't say how long he did this....probably over ten years. He was indicted on something like 130 counts, or something crazy like that. His sentence....before parole....7 years.

Sadly, I'd bet there are lots of other people like him out there. The lawlessness and ruthlessness he displayed is part of the reason I doubt new gun laws will be effective. BTW he dealt in full auto....third world AK knock offs that landed in Mexico. The law didn't stop him for ten years.

[pkdu]

2. I tried....but you lost me at "modern musket"....nt

[gejohnston]

8. the light bulb is the modern oil lamp

analogy

[pkdu]

11. Nah, the founders had no idea what COULD be invented in the future....

....what will gun rights advocates claim is he "modern musket" in a hundred years? (or 5 for that matter?)

[gejohnston]

17. particle beam weapons, or phasers but

ideally with a stun setting for CCW.

[krispos42]

84. If, one day, we do have "Star Trek" hand phasers...

...it can be argued that, with a "heavy stun" (#3) setting, the need for lethal levels of energy could be effectively eliminated and thus outlawed, without impeding self-defense.

Here you have a weapon that, when striking any part of your attacker, is guaranteed to knock out an attacker for an hour, and is capable of repeated, multiple shots to engage multiple threats.

[Pullo]

39. Semi-autos have been around for 100 years n/t

[AtheistCrusader]

46. 260 years.

They just didn't always use gunpowder for propellant.

20 shot semi-auto: Girandoni Repeating Rifle. 1788

[pkdu]

85. More deflection.....How long to recharge the Air cylinder? Nt

[AtheistCrusader]

94. Not long enough for it to be the primary cause for it falling out of use.

The Austrians were fielding it in war. Primary drawbacks were maintenance (the air tanks were hand-hammered, riveted affairs) and training costs.

Meriwether Lewis carried one on the Lewis and Clark expedition.

[pkdu]

128. Nice collection of random facts that dont support your assertion or answer my question ..how long?

[AtheistCrusader]

130. Actually, it does support my assertion.

A 20 shot semi-auto rifle existed prior to the ratification of the US Constitution, and was fielded by the Austrians at the same time.

This speaks to the cyclic rate of weapons at the time the 2nd Amendment was ratified, which is, for the first 20 shots, directly relevant to today's debate.

Hand-cranking took about 150 revolutions to recharge the tank, and the Austrians developed a wagon-tank system that recharged them much faster.

You said:

"Nah, the founders had no idea what COULD be invented in the future....
....what will gun rights advocates claim is he "modern musket" in a hundred years? (or 5 for that matter?)"

To which the poster above me asserted that semi-auto technology was 100 years old. I corrected that, as the technology is 260 years old.

The founders knew about this device. They had a direct ancestral preview of modern semi-auto weapons, before they ratified the 2nd amendment. They also clearly had no problem with allowing civilians access to then state-of-the-art weaponry.

As to your question about the future, I suspect the courts will have to get involved, as they have with rocket launchers and other items classified as Destructive Devices, but I expect the future will have to deal with lasers, and directed energy weapons of other types. To take one example, lasers, I suspect that would be regulated in the same manner as explosives. You can't use a grenade defensively, per the courts as a 2nd amendment protected implement, because by its nature, you cannot use it against a single person/target. Same with a laser, whose beam will go right on forever. Nobody wants the Comcast rebroadcast satellite getting winged by some dude shooting a car jacker or something.

[pkdu]

86. And that's relevant to my question how? Nt

[underpants]

5. I have three comments

First - assuming that this is correct in that "assault weapon" is a politically created term so what? We actually got one of our (meaning not the rightwing) talking points into the lexicon and it took hold? Good. I think the phrase "assault weapon" perfectly describes these things.

Second - The NRA talking point of "cosmetic features" has also taken hold int he lexicon. Until recently I like most Americans have pretty much ignored the gun issue and the NRA types have had a field day establishing their talking points. These cosmetic changes don't effect the actual operation of the weapon but that was not the point - the point was that it was well known that these features would "move product" really make them sell....and they do. One of the main attractions of the AR-15 is simply that it LOOKS BADASS and makes the person carrying it FEEL BADASS. It has little use in hunting and in close quarters a handgun would be much preferred - the experts clearly agree on that.

Lastly "only 2% of gun crimes" This is a serious argument AGAINST doing something? Would you like a 2% raise (see Soc. Security tax holiday threads)? Would you like 25 greater mileage on your car? The alternative to the status quo does not have to be perfect.

[gejohnston]

7. couple of things

First - assuming that this is correct in that "assault weapon" is a politically created term so what? We actually got one of our (meaning not the rightwing) talking points into the lexicon and it took hold? Good. I think the phrase "assault weapon" perfectly describes these things.

it is a political term coined by Josh Sugarmann founder of VPC

"Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons."
-Josh Sugarmann, Assault Weapons and Accessories in America, 1988

Second - The NRA talking point of "cosmetic features" has also taken hold int he lexicon. Until recently I like most Americans have pretty much ignored the gun issue and the NRA types have had a field day establishing their talking points. These cosmetic changes don't effect the actual operation of the weapon but that was not the point - the point was that it was well known that these features would "move product" really make them sell....and they do. One of the main attractions of the AR-15 is simply that it LOOKS BADASS and makes the person carrying it FEEL BADASS. It has little use in hunting and in close quarters a handgun would be much preferred - the experts clearly agree on that.

Value judgement and not true. Until the "ban" they were not "bad ass" but "stupid mall ninja plastic shit". It's hunting use depends on the caliber and local hunting regulations, so that is not actually true either. I have never found an expert that made any such claim.

Lastly "only 2% of gun crimes" This is a serious argument AGAINST doing something? Would you like a 2% raise (see Soc. Security tax holiday threads)? Would you like 25 greater mileage on your car? The alternative to the status quo does not have to be perfect.

statement of fact, use it however you wish.

[rrneck]

9. Look at it from the point of view of the politician.

Politicians tap the worlds oldest natural resource to keep their jobs - human emotion. That's what fuels political parties, it's what fuels political careers, it's what unifies people to action. The more of it you can get, the more you can get done. Some of it is hard to get, some of it is easy to get. Obtaining this resource does not require knowledge or even truth.

So in the case of "assault weapons", if you want to tap a well of emotion and keep it going for a long time, you have to structure your extraction of emotional energy for the long term to make the most of it. So when someone shoots up a school with an "assault weapon" the emotional energy will be easy to tap. Use it by outlawing something that is defined by the emotional response but make sure your legislation won't impact your constituency negatively. That way you get to claim to be doing some good and get reelected. Sooner or later someone will shoot up a school with another kind of semi automatic weapon, and the emotional response will be another easy political score. Continue until you run out of emotional totems to exploit at which time you will have made enough money and contacts to join the ranks of the 1% (if you weren't one already).

All politicians work on this principle. Those with integrity will use the will of the people to make a better world, others will use it to line their pockets. Almost all use some of both. The solution is to have an enlightened electorate that can tell the difference between meaningful legislation and legislation designed to curry favor but actually will do nothing that will damage the political career of the legislator proposing it.

[Scuba]

10. Instead of solving our gun violence problem, let's nitpick over obscure definitions.

That way we can avoid solving the problem while appearing scholarly.

[jpak]

13. I refuse to use their definitions

Last edited Sun Jan 13, 2013, 04:21 PM - Edit history (1)

an AR15 is an assault rifle.

a 10 round clip (a magazine is something you read) is a high capacity clip

and I will henceforth call all 30 round clips "douchebags" because only douchebags "need" them.

yup

[beevul]

60. I guess we know what you think of police then. N/T

[billh58]

74. And yet another "famous"

Gungeoneer joins in with a false equivalence NRA talking point.

[beevul]

112. Famous?

How so?

Been around these parts under a different name, have you?

At any rate, the post in question said this:

"I will henceforth call all 30 round clips "douchebags" because only douchebags "need" them."

If you have an issue with how that applies to police, perhaps you should take that up with the poster that actually made that remark.

The poster in question is from your side of the gun issue.


Have a nice day.

[rl6214]

111. And you continue to show your ignorance

[gejohnston]

15. you solve the problem by dealing with root causes

those are many and complex. Inequality of wealth and the WOD being the largest causes.

[Scuba]

16. And our loose gun laws, don't forget that cause.

[gejohnston]

18. that's not a cause

unless you can explain why USVI has the worst murder rate in the US. The British Virgian Islands are next to them. Burmuda has UK gun laws, and twice our murder rate.
in terms of inequality of wealth, we are in the same category as Mexico according to the CIA World Factbook. All of the countries that have higher murder rates than we do all have greater wealth inequality than us. They also have stricter gun laws, like Mexico for example.

[Scuba]

19. Loose gun laws aren't part of our gun violence problem?

[gejohnston]

21. it affects suicide by gun, if you want to call that violence

but that is about it.
We had laxer gun laws in the 1950s. Our last murder rate was 4.8 per 100k, the same as 1958. Only a little more than half were with guns back then compared to about 70 percent today.

[Scuba]

22. I like your pic. Very flattering.

[gejohnston]

24. that's all you have?

anything of substance?

[Scuba]

25. Well, as a firearm owner, yes I have several more substantive arguments regarding what is ....

... reasonable in reining in our gun violence problems. Unfortunately, the "guns are not the problem, they're the solution" crowd (yourself included) are not interested in "reasonable". As a result, we'll eventually lose our 2A rights.

Intransigence isn't helping the cause of gun owners.

[gejohnston]

27. two things

Well, as a firearm owner, yes I have several more substantive arguments regarding what is ....
... reasonable in reining in our gun violence problems.

I never opposed some regulation. I support NICS on private sales, and adding some juvenile convictions to prohibited persons (animal cruelty for example, because of its link to sociopathy and a gateway to serial killing) I support current laws for the most part, although I would make minor tweaks in them.

Unfortunately, the "guns are not the problem, they're the solution" crowd (yourself included) are not interested in "reasonable". As a result, we'll eventually lose our 2A rights.

I never said guns were the solution. I'm saying they are neither the cause or solution, simply the means. I think it is naive to think if "OK if we throw Mattel plastic shit under the bus, they will leave us alone." Your bolt action .243 is already a "sniper rifle." To prohibitionists in Australia, your pistol is now a "hand machine gun hidden in a glove box". The next spree killer uses any of those, guess what.

Intransigence isn't helping the cause of gun owners.

neither is naive appeasement. Once memory of the good faith concession fades, the Fudd guns are next.

Less wealth inequality and legalizing pot would do more to curb gun or knife violence than any more laws.

[Clames]

56. Does jpak know you have that picture?

He might not like you posting that...

[upaloopa]

20. You are not going to stop the tide of calls

for gun control laws.
My guess this OP is for that purpose. Every time there is a mass shooting there is more call for gun control.
People are not going to take courses on gun knowledge. Calling me out will not improve your cause.
It is only logical that you hurt your own cause. You call for more guns. More guns cause more gun violence. More gun violence cause more calls for gun control.
That is all there is to it.
If you really wanted to help your side you would join in the fight to slow the rise of gun violence. Instead you remain stubborn and remain intragenent.

[gejohnston]

23. gun violence is dropping

I prefer to cut all violence regardless of means. I find mass murder bomb and arson equally has heinous as a mass shooting. A teenager who drinks battery acid or hangs themselves is just as tragic as someone who uses mom's pistol.

I was not calling you or anyone out. My goal is informed debate.

[upaloopa]

26. Gun violence is dropping, AR 15s are not assault weapons

All you do is repeat the same talking points over and over mean while your opposition is growing stronger and stronger.
Why don't you get it?
Do you ever ask why gun control is on the front burner again?

[gejohnston]

28. because that is what the FBI says

I know exactly why, a tragic black swan event happens people react with emotional reactions. Special interests groups and their propagandists jump on it to try to keep the momentum going.

[upaloopa]

34. You don't get it.

Possibly your enthusiasm for guns is a paradigm that prevents you from seeing what most of America sees.
The opposite is true also I assume.

[gejohnston]

42. maybe it is your paradigm

I'm not so sure most of America sees it the same way you do. Time will tell.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

43. enlighten us

I don't get it either. I don't own a gun. There are no firearms in my house.

Characterizing data as "talking points" does not draw or refute any conclusions.

[friendly_iconoclast]

50. "talking points" is an incantation, not a refutation.

Either what you call a "talking point" is true, or it is not.

If it is not true, show why.

[Frustratedlady]

31. I just read in the email from Mayors against Illegal Guns

that tomorrow is one month since NewTown and there have been 900 citizens gunned down since then. At that rate, you can probably add more before tomorrow morning.

How many have we lost in Afghanistan since a month ago? That's where the real war is going on.

[gejohnston]

33. how many were drug gangs killing each other

the real solution is dealing with root causes.

[upaloopa]

36. Does it matter who got gun down? A gang member

has no value so we needn't concern ourselves with their deaths?

[gejohnston]

41. not what I'm saying

just that they would have guns anyway, and would still be killing each other by other means even if they didn't. I would prefer that they be able to use the jury box work out their business disputes instead of the ammo box. Fortunately, a few states like Colorada are starting to move in the right direction on that front. Maybe we can do the same on the federal level.

[upaloopa]

47. Why is it every solution you have skirts the

fact that we have an increase in gun ownership and an increase in gun violence?
Why does that threaten you so much?

[gejohnston]

48. I believe the FBI Uniform Crime Report more than MAIG

The FBI is more honest and has fewer felons.
Lying authoritarian plutocrats leading an organizations rife with felons, who are now former members and former mayors, does cause me concern.

[upaloopa]

49. You hang on to that like a junk yard dog.

Soon we will have the CDC again

[gejohnston]

51. you are either claiming the DoJ is in the pocket of the gun lobby or

hoping CDC will be in the pockets of prohibition lobby. The NRA used to claim that the CDC was. It sounds like you are hoping the NRA to be proven correct. Are you sure you thought that through?

[upaloopa]

58. No. I think information is being restricted

by law and that law will be overturned shortly. You won't have you FBI meme for much longer.
It's sticking your head in the sand to refuse the logic that more guns brings on more gun violence.

[friendly_iconoclast]

52. It happens to be true. Please note:

'true' and 'palatable to my taste' are not synonyms...

[WinniSkipper]

65. How many were handguns?

[Pullo]

35. False.

More guns cause more gun violence.

That claim is not supported by facts.

Perpetuating ignorance to advocate policies that have proven to be ineffective doesn't solve a thing.

[upaloopa]

37. In your world not in reality you have your own

facts

[billh58]

40. But they are only

trying to "help" us to understand that more guns are the answer to all of our social problems. They just want to "help" us understand that they have everyone's best interests at heart.

[Pullo]

61. Guess the FBI is in some alernative reality according to you, then?

In the last 20 years, the number firearms in private hands has ballooned. Throughout this period, violent crime rates have steadily fallen.

To be clear, I'm not claiming this drop in violent crime was caused by the the increased number of firearms. However, the "more guns = more crime" meme is simply false.

[billh58]

78. Wow, even more basic

NRA talking points. This particular variation really implies exactly what you deny: "more guns = less crime." Actually, there is less crime because of improved police techniques, better communications capabilities between police agencies, more sophisticated security systems, and more public awareness.

The real point is that gun deaths remain at 2,500 per month in the United States, and are the highest (by far) than any in the civilized world. So actually, "more guns = more deaths."

You sound very familiar. Are you perhaps an awakened "member" of the Gungeon?

[billh58]

29. This is indeed "informative"

Last edited Sun Jan 13, 2013, 06:13 PM - Edit history (1)

if you are a Gungeoneer, and are concerned about upcoming gun regulations. For the majority of Americans, however, it is about as informative as reading about the formation of fungi on the floor of a forest.

Semantics, nomenclature, and feature vomit do absolutely nothing but attempt to put lipstick on a weapon whose sole purpose is to dispense rapid-fire death and mayhem -- regardless of what it is called. Yes, there have been many of them sold, and there are many of them in civilian hands, but that fact does not make them any less lethal or any less dangerous.

This NRA smoke and mirrors game about what is, or what is not, an "assault rifle," is only a weak attempt to confuse the real issue, which is why does anyone need a rapid-fire weapon or a high capacity magazine? Many people may want them, but no one actually needs an AR-15.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled NRA propaganda channel...

[gejohnston]

30. nobody needs a car capable of going over the speed limit either

so, uninformed opinion is OK?

[Pullo]

32. Why not just come out and say you'd like to see all semi-auto's banned?

This "assault" weapon nonsense does not lead to productive discussions on policies to reduce gun violence.

[billh58]

38. And another Gungeoneer

joins in the belated attempt at a "productive discussion."

You people had your chance at joining the conversation at any time over the past several years. But no, you flaunted your "2nd Amendment rights" bullshit in our faces, and actively helped the fucking NRA and the Koch Brothers to buy and bully politicians to jam insane gun policy down our throats. The right-wing NRA's political influence is coming to an end, and soon their political "endorsement" will mean absolutely nothing.

Now it is our turn, and the tide of public opinion has turned against "all guns, all the time" and we WILL have a return to sanity, through the legislation of sane gun laws and policy in this country.

Use of the words "confiscation" and "ban" are the most insidious of the NRA's talking points, and I see that you haven't disappointed. These terms are meant to instill fear in the Gun Nuts who can't think for themselves, and promote the falsehood that "the Democrats are coming for our guns!"

With mandatory registration and tracking, licensing, and sane regulation, there is no need to confiscate or ban any existing weapons. Legislation aimed at preventing the future manufacture or importation of "assault like" weapons would be a good start at getting rid of these obscene machines of death through attrition.

[Scuba]

44. +1

[Pullo]

67. Except the terfms "confiscation" and "ban" getting thrown around right now, and not by the NRA

Cuomo, Feinstein, and others have not been shy using those terms lately.

I think there are many here who are going to be disappointed when this renewed push to ban "assault" weapons fails, anyway.

[billh58]

73. Back to the Gungeon

with you. Of course the NRA, and people like you, are using the terms "confiscation" and "ban" as scare tactics, and to paint we Democrats as the "bad guys." There will be no "push" to confiscate or ban anything, so how are we to be disappointed?

[Pullo]

80. So you're not trying to ban semi-autos with plastic black stocks, then???

Could of sworn I heard some things in the news recently about that.

[friendly_iconoclast]

68. Use of the search function belies your words:

Use of the words "confiscation" and "ban" are the most insidious of the NRA's talking points, and I see that you haven't disappointed. These terms are meant to instill fear in the Gun Nuts who can't think for themselves, and promote the falsehood that "the Democrats are coming for our guns!"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021995753

Do not renew the AWB -- ban semi-automatic weapons

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2161159

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=thread&address=10021995753&info=1#recs

6 members have recommended this thread


I'm all for a total ban on semi-automatic guns

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=thread&address=10022161159&info=1#recs

39 members have recommended this thread


http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2036504


I would like to see an assault weapons ban along with a ban on any semi automatic weapons for...civilian use.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=thread&address=10022036504&info=1#recs

14 members have recommended this thread


When are you lot going to figure out that the phrase "NRA talking point(s)" is so much empty verbiage?

[WinniSkipper]

71. I think people keep pointing out the "talking points" to you

because there seem to be agreements on some of the basic issues. The potential disagreements in laws are going to come down to specifics. The things you call diversions.

I don't think many of those "NRA Types" think these solutions will do any good. I agree with them. But I don't think you will see a huge fight. And I'm talking your regular gun owner. Which probably make up 90% of gun owners. What you get from the actual NRA may differ.

From what I have read here - not just this post but threads in general - it should be pretty easy to come to conceptual agreements on

1) "Gun Show Loophole". Make all private sales subject to NICS approval. Both sides seem to agree
2) Hi Cap Mag - make it 10, 15, whatever. The sides can reach a number

Now you get into weapon specifications. And the control side is going to have to define that. Because if they can't it is a dead issue before it starts. You cant outlaw things like "guns capable of moving down X number of people". Can't outlaw "guns that guys have because they want to look tough". Can't outlaw things that you have no idea why anyone would need.

So when will we see it? What does the pro control side want? I am sure there are some extremely capable pro-control people who can come up with a definition of what they are trying to ban from a weapon perspective.

[billh58]

77. You are very naive

to believe that there can be any compromise with the NRA, when their spiritual leader has already stated that he will fight ANY gun regulation proposed by President Obama.

No, they had their chance at being reasonable, but the NRA and the DU Gungeoneers have waited too long for compromise. Their "I've got an AR-15 and there's nothing you can do about it," bullshit is coming back to haunt them, and this time sanity will prevail.

[WinniSkipper]

81. I didn't say compromise with the NRA

I am talking about REAL gun owners. The people you talk to here - the people who are not here but who are gun owners that agree with you - specifically on those two issues - NICS and Capacity. Everyone seems to agree there.

The NRA will fight all restrictions - that's what they do. They are a freak show.

Of course there are trolls that come through the gungeon. But there are also people who have their head screwed on straight about firearms and laws. You have talked to many of them over the past few weeks.

So when you say people have waited too long for compromise, I assume that means you are for banning something. I am curious as to what that is?

[rl6214]

129. "Machines of death"

Can anyone be any more irrational and Whiny?

[upaloopa]

45. Why not just come out and say you don't

want any restrictions on gun ownership ?
It would save us all a lot of bull shit talking points.

[Pullo]

62. Because that wouldn't be true.

Like many of your bullshit talking points.

[billh58]

76. A real Gungeon

die hard aren't you? You have the audacity to accuse someone of using "bullshit" talking points? Did Uncle Wayne tell you to fight fire with fire, or did you make that up yourself?...

[dorkulon]

53. I agree with this. And I think all guns except maybe single-shot rifles should be banned.

It's true that an assault weapons ban is not a real solution. But I'm greasing up that slippery slope.

[Pullo]

63. At least you're being honest. I can appreciate that.

Even if we disagree.

[gejohnston]

66. to quote Josh Sugarmann

One tenet of the National Rifle Association's faith has always been that handgun controls do little to stop criminals from obtaining handguns. For once, the NRA is right and America's leading handgun control organization is wrong. Criminals don't buy handguns in gun stores. That's why they're criminals. But it isn't criminals who are killing most of the 20,000 to 22,000 people who die from handguns each year. We are.

This is an ugly truth for a country that thinksof handgun violence as a "crime' issue and believes that it's somehow possible to separate "good' handguns (those in our hands for self-defense) from "bad' handguns (those in the hands of criminals).

Contrary to popular perception, the most prevalent form of handgun death in America isn't murder but suicide. Of the handgun deaths that occur each year, approximately 12,000 are suicides. An additional 1,000 fatalities are accidents. And of the 9,000 handgun deaths classified as murders, most are not caused by predatory strangers. Handgun violence is usually the result of people being angry, drunk, careless, or depressed --who just happen to have a handgun around. In all, fewer than 10 percent of handgun deaths are felony-related.

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+NRA+is+right%3b+but+we+still+need+to+ban+handguns.-a05010444

Old article, but he was saying that gun laws would prevent 12k suicides. Not happening. He also misinterepted and misrepresented the "knew the attacker" part, since killer and victim usually have criminal records.

[doc03]

54. Ok 25 years from today they invent a weapon

like the Phaser on Star Trek would you say it falls under the 2nd Amendment?

[gejohnston]

55. if they make a model that only works on stun

that works as well as the Star Trek version, wouldn't you rather have that as a CCW? Personally, I would.

[doc03]

57. No I want one you can set on kill or vaporize "The right

of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

[gejohnston]

59. as a personal small arm maybe,

but then I don't picture any such weapon being able to vaporize anything.

[doc03]

64. The folks that wrote the 2nd Amendment couldn't picture

such weapon as an AK-47, it's progress man. I have a coyote problem and I need a phaser for hunting and personel protection. The police have them why can't I, it's my 2nd Amendment right to have one.

[gejohnston]

69. how can you eat it if you vaporize it?

I didn't say a lethal version would not be legal, simply for CCW.

I would limit the cops to the stun version only, especially NYPD.

As for the founder's imagination
neither of us have no way of knowing that, and we have no way of knowing that they would have a different opinion even if they did. Makes a nice political cartoon, but it is not a very good argument.

[doc03]

70. Seems like a logical argument, we have no way of knowing what kind of

weapon could be developed in the future. I don't think coyotes are good for eating anyway, they could have a BBQ setting. There may be a weapon in the future where just one push of a button would kill everyone in a theater. The NRA would claim you have the right to carry one.

[gejohnston]

72. that goes from arm to ordnance,

an indiscriminate weapon like that would be a destructive devices and would be NFA as a destructive device anyway.

That is what the "own a nuke" argument absurd. At least partly, the other part is the expense. If you can afford a nuke plus maintenance and crew and a place to put it, you make the Kochs look like paupers. If you can do afford it, there is probably a good chance you are doing more destruction with your pen.

[pkdu]

87. Really? ...you think dirty bomb is beyond a Tim McVeigh type ? Nt

[gejohnston]

90. I was speaking of the absurd "legal nuke" argument like ICBMS

Which has nothing to do with a Tim McVeigh type.
To answer your question, I don't know enough on the subject to say.

[chicoguy]

127. A dirty bomb is not a nuke

It is just a regular bomb with nuclear material in it (like from a hospital). Equating a nuke with a dirty bomb shows you are either ignorant or being deliberately misleading.

[pkdu]

133. I can assure u I am neither , welcome "member since Monday with all my posts in Gundgeon" nt

[iiibbb]

75. I like that,

Didn't they just call the Ruger Mini14 an assault weapon as well though... I mean even back then because it used AR-15 magazines.

[Starboard Tack]

79. Personally, I don't like the term for obvious reasons.

We just get bogged down about the meaning of certain words. I understand the difference and find that difference irrelevant, especially as it relates to recent mass shootings. Unfortunately, semi-automatic weapons no longer have a legitimate place in society, unless they can be rendered unusable by anyone other than the legitimate owner and unless ownership is governed by strict licensing.
What we have now is a nightmare, which gets worse by the day as these guns fly off the shelves.

[jmg257]

82. Well, So far...the 6th page is BS.

Google: 1986 Gun Digest Book of Assault Weapons

Isbn: 0910676968

[Straw Man]

88. The term "assault weapons" was created by gun controllers.

In reference to rifles, that is. There is a specific military designation of "assault rifles," which are capable of full-auto fire and use a round that is larger than that of a submachine gun but smaller than that of a heavy machine gun, which is usually fired from a tripod or other stand. The term "assault weapon" in a military context is vague and really means any infantry armaments.

They thought it would be a much easier sell than "semi-auto firearms" -- much scarier-sounding, and it lets them avoid the stigma of trying to ban a technology that has been in civilian use in the US for over a century. The scary-looking ones are low-hanging fruit, and they figured they could get those out of the way before advancing incrementally on the rest of semi-autos, and probably pump and lever-action firearms eventually.

You think I'm making this up? Ask Josh Sugarmann.

[jmg257]

89. The term Assault Weapons was used by Gun Digest

And Jack Lewis in 1986.

Edit: and their use covered alot more guns then VPC's does.

[Straw Man]

91. That book is about military and law-enforcement weapons.

The term Assault Weapons was used by Gun Digest

And Jack Lewis in 1986.

Full-auto stuff. Infantry weaponry, not civilian variants. That usage came later, with the gun control movement.

[jmg257]

96. See #95. That usage was then. nt

[gejohnston]

93. not in the same context

there is even a chapter about less than lethal weapons

The Gun Digest Book of Assault Weapons is all

about true assault weapons...fully automatic, selective-fire or equipped with mission-specific features designed only for military and law enforcement applications.

This seventh edition gives you all the details you need about the world's latest assault weaponry and ammunition, and the changing missions of those weapons in military and law enforcement applications. Other valuable information includes: Numerous field test results Training and tactics Leading schools that train special military and law enforcement units Historical insight into weapon systems and programs International coverage of Germany, Israel, Russia, South Africa and the United States No other reference provides such comprehensive insight and details about the always evolving weapons America's soldiers and law enforcement agencies and armed with.

http://books.google.com/books/about/Gun_Digest_Book_of_Assault_Weapons_7th_E.html?id=HyF_GKQdPXgC

History of terminology
The term "assault weapon" was originally used solely in the context of military weapons systems, such as for the Rifleman's Assault Weapon that is an American weapons system that dates from the 1970s built around the M16 assault rifle. Over time, this usage has changed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon#History_of_terminology

[jmg257]

95. "Testing the latest in full auto & semiauto centerfires, rimfires

and shotguns"..."current approaches to military, LE & sporting use"

Not the same of course, but it actually includes more types of guns then VPC, it seems.

[Straw Man]

97. Where are you getting that?

I get this when I Google that book:

The Gun Digest Book of Assault Weapons is all about true assault weapons...fully automatic, selective-fire or equipped with mission-specific features designed only for military and law enforcement applications.

[jmg257]

98. From the cover of the Gun Digest Book of Assault Weapons, 1986.

Amazon has a few pics, or do a google. (im on ipad so cant post it)

[Straw Man]

102. OK, you're talking about this.

The sub-title qualifies those as "assault-type weapons." The focus of the book is clearly the military stuff, as in the blurb I referenced here.

[jmg257]

103. No doubt. Pretty sure there is an AK .22 in there.

And the AR-180, and the AUG, and the SAR 48 and the Daewoo...

You know, Assault Weapons.


(See bibliography to ATF Memo Jul 06, 1989 re: sporting use of SA rifles)

[Straw Man]

104. Umm ...

You know, Assault Weapons.

If we're depending on this publication for our lexicon, "Assault-Type Weapons."

[jmg257]

105. You're kidding right? Did you miss the big block letters at the top???

Just above the (semi) Uzis?
(Psstt..they Are red & blue)


"ASSAULT WEAPONS"

You're just Joshing now, right?

(Joshing..get it?)

[Straw Man]

106. No, not kidding.

He's calling the rimfires, semi-autos, etc. "assault-style" because they're not military weapons. It's the subtitle.

I reiterate:

The Gun Digest Book of Assault Weapons is all about true assault weapons...fully automatic, selective-fire or equipped with mission-specific features designed only for military and law enforcement applications.

[jmg257]

107. Riiigghhht!

Cause he didn't want anyone to confuse the Uzis on the cover, or the AR, AK, SAR, AUG and Daewoo, etc. with "official" ASSAULT WEAPONS.

The target audience must not have been too bright.

And here we are constantly getting schooled that "assault weapons" are not "assault rifles", so..which is it?

[jmg257]

108. Was that quote from the 1986 edition? Aahh..so assault weapons ARE assault rifles???

[Straw Man]

109. No, my mistake.

It's from a later edition. But I get this for the 1986 edition:

DBI Books, Northbrook IL, 1986. Paperback. 8.5x11 inches. In many respects, the final word on assault weaponry in use by international military and law enforcement organizations. The authors report on the changing mission of these weapons (as of publication date 1986) and then test many of them during the preparation of exclusive performance reports. Coverage includes countries such as the U.S., Germany, Israel, Russia and South Africa.

Its primary focus is military weaponry.

Aahh..so assault weapons ARE assault rifles???

Not exactly -- assault rifles are a type of assault weapon, when the latter term is used generically in a military context. Civilian semi-auto rifles are something else again, until the AWB promoters decided that it would behoove them to muddy the waters.

[jmg257]

110. Thats OK...on Amazon I "clicked to see inside" the book so

Thought I was looking at the 86 version and it was the latest..was ready to drag it out for 'proof' cause they had a Remington bolt action.

No worries...I know what you're saying. Figure they were looking to sell books, and those rifles were hot back then...and cheap! $500 for an AUG!

[Ashgrey77]

134. 500.00 was a lot of money in 1986. :)

Thinking back to those times. I should have talked my father and grandfather into investing a little bit into a few actual M16's back when you could buy new ones. I think they went for about 800.00 and then a additional 300.00 for the ATF tax stamp. They are worth 25,000.00+ today because of the 1986 closure of the machinegun registry. Rich man toys. When you ban stuff like that, that's what the banned or restricted items turn in to, rich man toys.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

101. What all the controllers are "getting at" is...

...we will pick and chose, from the thousands of weapons on the market, anyone we think looks scary enough to warrant being banned. We will add to that list, any specific weapons and look-a-likes subsequently used in committing a crime that gets enough press coverage.

[gejohnston]

99. not really

there are shotguns and rimfires that look bad. If you want to see wide, there is a bill in NY that would ban a common traditional hunting rifle that might be owned even by Ed Shultz. Under California law, pistols like the Walther GSP, which are target pistols used in the Olympics and ISSF matches, are assault weapons.
You want to know the real kicker? CT and NJ have strict gun laws including banning "assault weapons". That Bushmaster rifle is not an "assault weapon" under CT state law.

[jmg257]

100. I know. And an AR 180 is not an AW in NY...yet, just in this book.

Last edited Mon Jan 14, 2013, 03:01 AM - Edit history (1)

Just pointing out a probable Origination for the term.