• US Senate Democrats to start an Assault Weapons Ban bill; includes bump stocks & high capacity mags
    288 replies, posted
[quote]Senate Democrats are moving to ban assault weapons and a device that allows semi-automatic weapons to simulate automatic fire in the wake of mass shootings in Las Vegas and Texas. Roughly two dozen Democrats, led by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), introduced legislation on Wednesday that would ban assault weapons, high-capacity ammunition magazines and bump stocks, devices that can be used to make semi-automatic rifles fire faster. "We’re introducing an updated Assault Weapons Ban for one reason: so that after every mass shooting with a military-style assault weapon, the American people will know that a tool to reduce these massacres is sitting in the Senate, ready for debate and a vote," Feinstein said in a statement.[/quote] [url]http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/359381-senate-dems-introduce-bill-to-ban-assault-weapons-bump-stocks[/url] Very short article, barley under half is the OP.
I don't support any new gun control legislation that does not provide ways or means to enforce legislation that is already on the books.
Wouldn't devices that "make semi-automatic weapons shoot faster" include pretty much every single trigger modification?
[QUOTE=Amber902;52871898]Wouldn't devices that "make semi-automatic weapons shoot faster" include pretty much every single trigger modification?[/QUOTE] Fuck in extreme circumstances it could include your thumb and hip, where the Bumpstock originally came from. [editline]9th November 2017[/editline] Bumpstocks are the designer drug of guns, if people are smart enough they will come up with ways around the law, something I'm quite impressed with.
And by demonizing guns Diane Feinstein has once again secured re-election with her shitty voting base.
I wonder if any of them could put a concrete enforceable definition behind "assault weapon" and "military style". It's so hilariously vague that just about any weapon could be lumped in. The military uses semi automatic pistols and pump/semi-auto shotguns, are those types of weapons also "military style", and would they be banned as well? I'm both a gun owner, and supporter of more robust enforcement of gun laws and new gun policy, but we're never going to get any sort of worthwhile gun policy in place if Democrats keep up the same ignorance inspired, buzzword filled, knee jerk reactions that they do literally every single time. And none of this is to mention the total dismissal of any sort of mental healthcare issues in this country. Or even worse, it's used in the same racist "if it's a white guy it's mental illness, if it's a [minority] it's because he's a [bad thing to be]" comments that I see just about everywhere.
If they were serious about restricting or banning "assault weapons" they'd go after hand guns, but they always go after the scary rifles instead. Handguns are the ones killing close to 99% of people killed by guns. And isn't any weapon used on someone an assault weapon, come on
[QUOTE=tyanet;52871930] It's so hilariously vague that just about any weapon could be lumped in.[/QUOTE] Perhaps that is the point :thinking:
And people wonder why I don't trust democrats. Duh and hello.
If only our Founding Fathers knew how much damage the Second Amendment would render. We cant talk about guns, cant talk about laws, cant do anything. We're so infatuated with our guns that gun control is a dirty word, regardless of whether itll benefit society or not. We're entrusting the safety of the public to the self control of any one member of it, and its getting really old. No one in a legislative position can even touch guns, so we have to dance around with regularly updated assault weapons bans to keep the body count just a liiittle bit lower. And its still seen as bad. Churches, schools, concerts, clubs, and everything inbetween gets its fair share of mass shooting, but we expect Dale at Big 5 to tell if someones a fucking nut or not because "mental illness" is apparently easier to detect than denying access to weaponry.
Fucking virtue signalling pieces of shit. And of course it's god damn Feinstein again, it'll be a good day when she retires.
[QUOTE=RichyZ;52871973]yeah nah ill take banned guns any day over no healthcare or shitty public services or disenfranchised minorities of race gender and sexuality any day of the week[/QUOTE] Here's a thought: Why don't we have all of that AND not give up our [I]right[/I] to bear arms, eh? Who'd have thunk it? The dems are getting precisely nowhere by introducing the same legislation over and over again when they have been proven to not accomplish anything. People educated themselves. This will not go anywhere, and I will do my damndest to call and write to make sure this terrible legislation does not make itto the floor.
[QUOTE=SKEEA;52871967]And people wonder why I don't trust democrats. Duh and hello.[/QUOTE] Ok we get it, you don't like democrats.
[QUOTE=SKEEA;52871982]The dems are getting precisely nowhere by introducing the same legislation over and over again when they have been proven to not accomplish anything.[/QUOTE] I agree, None of these recent gun bills attempt to tackle gun crime, they tackle gun owners, and unfortunately that's the point. The Assault Weapons Ban is starting to become the "Repeal Obamacare" of the Democratic Party, and it's just as sad and wasteful. They know it's not going to pass, but they have to do it for those sweet political points. Democrats need to drop the anti-gun shit, they'll get more votes from the pro-gun center and they can't really lose votes because their anti-gun supporters don't have anywhere to go. When we have the hysterical anti-gun propagandists gone, we can create legislation grounded in reality.
[QUOTE=SKEEA;52871982]Here's a thought: Why don't we have all of that AND not give up our [I]right[/I] to bear arms, eh? Who'd have thunk it? The dems are getting precisely nowhere by introducing the same legislation over and over again when they have been proven to not accomplish anything. People educated themselves. This will not go anywhere, and I will do my damndest to call and write to make sure this terrible legislation does not make itto the floor.[/QUOTE] The same argument can be used to ask why the US can't have decent healthcare and public services, along with an almost ridiculous list of firearms civilians are allowed to own. [B]- Edit -[/B] And by "an almost ridiculous list of firearms civilians are allowed to own", I want to add "in addition to the already ridiculous list of firearms, and other types of guns, that US civilians are allowed to legally own and operate as long as they have the right paperwork, compared to any other country in the world" Both parties are to blame here. To reach an agreement is to concede defeat to the "other side".
[QUOTE=bob4life;52871974]If only our Founding Fathers knew how much damage the Second Amendment would render. We cant talk about guns, cant talk about laws, cant do anything. We're so infatuated with our guns that gun control is a dirty word, regardless of whether itll benefit society or not. We're entrusting the safety of the public to the self control of any one member of it, and its getting really old. No one in a legislative position can even touch guns, so we have to dance around with regularly updated assault weapons bans to keep the body count just a liiittle bit lower. And its still seen as bad. Churches, schools, concerts, clubs, and everything inbetween gets its fair share of mass shooting, but we expect Dale at Big 5 to tell if someones a fucking nut or not because "mental illness" is apparently easier to detect than denying access to weaponry.[/QUOTE] The reason it's so hard to do ANY gun control legislation in the US is that typically they're based on emotion and not facts. This AWB, and the one like it before, were written out of pure emotion with no regard for the facts, which is why it didn't reduce gun murders AT ALL. The only thing it did was fuck over the typical gun owner. Rifles of ANY type are present in something like 0.3% of murders, and yet Senators like Feinstein want to restrict those the most, and not cheap throwaway handguns like Hi-Points that make up the other 99.7% of murders. Feinstein does not give half a fuck about gang violence or robbery deaths, only going after the biggest, scariest weapons to make themselves and their constituents feel better. It's all about getting re-elected, and Senators from very anti-gun regions such as Cali or New York are always the ones pushing the bills. They keep targeting the biggest, scariest guns while completely ignoring the REAL problems. Our society has a massive unseen stigma against anyone with a mental illness. So even with free mental healthcare, most people, myself included, won't bother using it because people automatically distrust and dislike people with mental illness. Hell, if you tell someone that you're feeling suicidal, 3/4 of the time they just throw your ass in a mental hospital for a few days then send you back home with no real treatment if you stop showing signs. It's basically like getting thrown in jail for a few days. It's not hard to see why people who DO have access to mental healthcare don't use it that often. When someone is having problems coping with life or work, or a failed relationship, most of the time they try to "tough it out" because asking for help is stigmatized in the US. That's how you end up with people who have no, or weak coping skills snapping and killing someone in a fit of rage or a murder-suicide. The US as a society needs to start caring about people that have mental health issues like depression and anxiety, not stigmatize them as weak, damaged people.
[QUOTE=SKEEA;52871982]Here's a thought: Why don't we have all of that AND not give up our [I]right[/I] to bear arms, eh? Who'd have thunk it? The dems are getting precisely nowhere by introducing the same legislation over and over again when they have been proven to not accomplish anything. People educated themselves. This will not go anywhere, and I will do my damndest to call and write to make sure this terrible legislation does not make itto the floor.[/QUOTE] Youre absolutely right. We should choose to do nothing. No legislation. Any step in any direction is a wrong one, and is aimed against you and ONLY you. Or maybe if every gun owner would stop framing every piece of legislation regarding gun control as an attack on their own person, we would maybe be able to throttle back on the issues thats brought up these bills in the first place. You want guns but you want it to be as unregulated as possible. You dont want the "Feel Good" bills but anything that "Does Good" is considered as such. You cant have your cake and eat it too.
[QUOTE=SKEEA;52871982]Here's a thought: Why don't we have all of that AND not give up our [I]right[/I] to bear arms, eh? Who'd have thunk it? The dems are getting precisely nowhere by introducing the same legislation over and over again when they have been proven to not accomplish anything. People educated themselves. This will not go anywhere, and I will do my damndest to call and write to make sure this terrible legislation does not make itto the floor.[/QUOTE] Better gun laws would be great but the sad state of affairs is that in the current bipartisan political climate there's only two political parties with power. If you're voting repub over dem you're choosing guns over a number of far more important issues. Single issue gun voters are irresponsible.
[QUOTE=zombini;52872013]The reason it's so hard to do ANY gun control legislation in the US is that typically they're based on emotion and not facts. This AWB, and the one like it before, were written out of pure emotion with no regard for the facts, which is why it didn't reduce gun murders AT ALL. The only thing it did was fuck over the typical gun owner. Rifles of ANY type are present in something like 0.3% of murders, and yet Senators like Feinstein want to restrict those the most, and not cheap throwaway handguns like Hi-Points that make up the other 99.7% of murders. Feinstein does not give half a fuck about gang violence or robbery deaths, only going after the biggest, scariest weapons to make themselves and their constituents feel better. It's all about getting re-elected, and Senators from very anti-gun regions such as Cali or New York are always the ones pushing the bills. They keep targeting the biggest, scariest guns while completely ignoring the REAL problems. Our society has a massive unseen stigma against anyone with a mental illness. So even with free mental healthcare, most people, myself included, won't bother using it because people automatically distrust and dislike people with mental illness. Hell, if you tell someone that you're feeling suicidal, 3/4 of the time they just throw your ass in a mental hospital for a few days then send you back home with no real treatment if you stop showing signs. It's basically like getting thrown in jail for a few days. It's not hard to see why people who DO have access to mental healthcare don't use it that often. When someone is having problems coping with life or work, or a failed relationship, most of the time they try to "tough it out" because asking for help is stigmatized in the US. That's how you end up with people who have no, or weak coping skills snapping and killing someone in a fit of rage or a murder-suicide. The US as a society needs to start caring about people that have mental health issues like depression and anxiety, not stigmatize them as weak, damaged people.[/QUOTE] So are you saying its easier to regulate someones thoughts, then it is their actions? These bills are an attempt to throttle back on gun violence. They may be ones acted out on by emotion, but no one wakes up one day and thinks "you know what? I want to fuck with rifle owners today". The second amendment cant be touched and even approaching it has half the population up your ass about "muh gun rights". So what is a body of decision-makers supposed to do, exactly? Maybe try to throttle back on the dangerous guns, at the very least? Mental illness is not easy to detect. Your doctor doesnt know if something is wrong with you, unless he actually sees you, and you go in detail about whats going on. No one whos crazy is actively aware they are as such, and if they were, why the hell would they tell you? Its a misunderstanding of how mental illness works. We dont produce mental illness, but we produce weaponry. We can control one, but not the other, yet we choose not to.
[QUOTE=SKEEA;52871982]Here's a thought: Why don't we have all of that AND not give up our [I]right[/I] to bear arms, eh? Who'd have thunk it? The dems are getting precisely nowhere by introducing the same legislation over and over again when they have been proven to not accomplish anything. People educated themselves. This will not go anywhere, and I will do my damndest to call and write to make sure this terrible legislation does not make itto the floor.[/QUOTE] In an ideal world there'd be more choice but as it stands, there isn't and so long as daddy Donny holds onto power there is not going to be any opportunity to create those choices. Voting against the dems is voting against change and opportunity to create that change. Right now you're choosing gun rights over human rights. You could have both but you've gotta think long term. Personally as an Australian I am not pro-gun but I recognise that it's a deep seated culture that can't just be easily flushed out and I have respect for guns as historical artifacts.
[QUOTE=RichyZ;52872004]we wont lose the 2nd amendment though because the firearms lobby has greased basically every palm in washington and will not let that happen [/QUOTE] Lol, I like how you people blame it on the mythical gun lobby when half of Americans own guns and another good percentage more support gun ownership even if they're not gun owners themselves. The 2nd Amendment has majority support in the US. Stop blaming it on corruption.
[QUOTE=bob4life;52872046]So are you saying its easier to regulate someones thoughts, then it is their actions? These bills are an attempt to throttle back on gun violence. They may be ones acted out on by emotion, but no one wakes up one day and thinks "you know what? I want to fuck with rifle owners today". The second amendment cant be touched and even approaching it has half the population up your ass about "muh gun rights". So what is a body of decision-makers supposed to do, exactly? Maybe try to throttle back on the dangerous guns, at the very least? Mental illness is not easy to detect. Your doctor doesnt know if something is wrong with you, unless he actually sees you, and you go in detail about whats going on. No one whos crazy is actively aware they are as such, and if they were, why the hell would they tell you? Its a misunderstanding of how mental illness works. We dont produce mental illness, but we produce weaponry. We can control one, but not the other, yet we choose not to.[/QUOTE] As someone who got extremely close to attempting suicide (as in gun loaded, and in my mouth), I can tell you for a fact that no amount of gun regulation would have deterred me in that moment. And if I couldn't get my hands on a gun, I would have tried some other method that could have left me worse off than dead. What [B][I]would[/I][/B] have helped is a place I could go and the resources I needed before ever getting my hands on a weapon or something else to harm myself, not some piece of feel good legislation, since I only resorted to self harm because I felt literally no other alternative. And I find the fact that you think mental healthcare is equivalent to "regulating someones thoughts" to not only be deeply offensive, but also a dangerous mentality that prevents people from getting help that they need.
I think the less guns the harder it is for ill willed people to obtain one, legal or illegal. If that means tackling the second amendment, then well, shit
[QUOTE=tyanet;52872070]As someone who got extremely close to attempting suicide (as in gun loaded, and in my mouth), I can tell you for a fact that no amount of gun regulation would have deterred me in that moment. [B]And if I couldn't get my hands on a gun, I would have tried some other method that could have left me worse off than dead. [/B] What [B][I]would[/I][/B] have helped is a place I could go and the resources I needed before ever getting my hands on a weapon or something else to harm myself, not some piece of feel good legislation, since I only resorted to self harm because I felt literally no other alternative. And I find the fact that you think mental healthcare is equivalent to "regulating someones thoughts" to not only be deeply offensive, but also a dangerous mentality that prevents people from getting help that they need.[/QUOTE] Just as a statistical reminder to everyone, this is the exception not the rule. [url]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2704353/[/url] [QUOTE]accelerated declines in annual total gun deaths and firearm suicides and a non‐significant accelerated decline in firearm homicides. [B]No substitution effects occurred for suicides or homicides.[/B][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=EcksDee;52872085]Just as a statistical reminder to everyone, this is the exception not the rule. [url]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2704353/[/url][/QUOTE] I'm sorry but that is moronic. The 1996 ban was a ban on semi-auto rifles and shotguns, and pump-action shotguns. The idea that it reduced suicides is makes no sense because it only takes one bullet to blow your brains out. If you'd bother to look you'd find other studies disagreeing with that study's conclusions.
[QUOTE=download;52872088]I'm sorry but that is moronic. The 1996 ban was a ban on semi-auto rifles and shotguns, and pump-action shotguns. The idea that it reduced suicides is moronic because it only takes one bullet to blow your brains out. If you'd bother to look you'd find other studies disagreeing with that study's conclusions.[/QUOTE] It wasn't the gun ban that did it, it was the firearms buyback. AKA reducing firearm ownership. You'd know that if you read the link. They use the 1996 law reform as a time point, not a causal link. [QUOTE]The Australian example provides evidence that [B]removing large numbers of firearms[/B] from a community [B]can be associated with[/B] a sudden and ongoing decline in mass shootings and [B]accelerating declines in total firearm‐related deaths, firearm homicides and firearm suicides[/B].[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=EcksDee;52872092]It wasn't the gun ban that did it, it was the firearms buyback. AKA reducing firearm ownership. You'd know that if you read the link. They use the 1996 law reform as a time point, not a causal link.[/QUOTE] [url]http://melbourneinstitute.unimelb.edu.au/downloads/working_paper_series/wp2008n17.pdf[/url] There was no structural break in the data in 1996, suggesting it had no effect. The study you cited relies on a trend line to determine the change in firearms deaths. Their choice of trend line starting point manipulated their result. If they had gone five years before and five years after instead of ten years before and five years after they would have produced different results. [b]Edit:[/b] Wait, 18 years before and 6 after. Either way, same result.
[QUOTE=tyanet;52872070]As someone who got extremely close to attempting suicide (as in gun loaded, and in my mouth), I can tell you for a fact that no amount of gun regulation would have deterred me in that moment. And if I couldn't get my hands on a gun, I would have tried some other method that could have left me worse off than dead. What [B][I]would[/I][/B] have helped is a place I could go and the resources I needed before ever getting my hands on a weapon or something else to harm myself, not some piece of feel good legislation, since I only resorted to self harm because I felt literally no other alternative. And I find the fact that you think mental healthcare is equivalent to "regulating someones thoughts" to not only be deeply offensive, but also a dangerous mentality that prevents people from getting help that they need.[/QUOTE] The fantastic thing about guns, is that they look like guns. The mentally ill, however, do not always come off as such. Depression, anxiety, schizophrenia, disassociation, and all that stuff is not something easy to detect, nor something anyone actively chooses to vocalize. But youre saying if we had the Planned Parenthood version of a therapist, you would have have been more than happy to walk in and tell them about your depression? Youre blaming the lack of something for your access to something else. If you didnt have access to a gun you wouldnt criticize your lack of access to mental health facilities. The only thing that stopped you was your own self control, but not everyone is that strong. And the only thing it takes is for that person to turn that barrel on themselves or someone else. We see the headlines over and over again. I dont find it comforting that at any given moment i could be gunned down because someone wasnt all there in the head, and that my death would be blamed on him not being coddled by government-mandated mental health facilities. Theres 2 sets of flowers a block down the street from me for 2 men gunned down during a drive-by, and I was in Vegas one sunday before some guy shot up a concert because he lost a slip-and-fall case. This isnt excusable anymore. Also, i think defending guns -especially when you were moments away from blowing your own brains out- then blaming the medical profession as a whole for not recognizing you had an issue after the fact, is a much more dangerous mentality. Again, Dale at Big 5 isnt a qualified medical practitioner, so try holding yourself accountable instead of blaming the lack of access to already accessible facilities.
Snip
[QUOTE=download;52872105][url]http://melbourneinstitute.unimelb.edu.au/downloads/working_paper_series/wp2008n17.pdf[/url] There was no structural break in the data in 1996, suggesting it had no effect. The study you cited relies on a trend line to determine the change in firearms deaths. Their choice of trend line starting point manipulated their result. If they had gone five years before and five years after instead of ten years before and five years after they would have produced different results. [b]Edit:[/b] Wait, 18 years before and 6 after. Either way, same result.[/QUOTE] Mmmm, so now we have a conflict on our hands. The NFA was a large implementation project which took place over several years, so expecting a structural break in 1996 is optimistic at best. [url]https://cdn1.sph.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/1264/2012/10/bulletins_australia_spring_2011.pdf[/url] [QUOTE]However, when policies have even modest lags, [B]the structural break test can easily miss the effect. [/B]It can also miss the effect of a policy [B]that occurs over several years.[/B] The massive Australian gun buyback occurred over two calendar years, 1996-97. [/QUOTE]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.