House Democrats introduce bill prohibiting sale of semi-automatic weapons: Reeeee - Polidicks

It's a good start to ban assault weapons. This bill needs to be reformulated though.

[QUOTE=Kommodore;53163374]That's a great answer and it's one that I can personally live with, but I think it's also one that technically evades having a conversation about where firearms fit into the problem.[/QUOTE] The other component, and part of why this gets so very unpleasant so very quickly, is that the right itself was specifically put into the constitution to reserve the rights of the people to arm themselves with weapons to counter the militia. Today, the militia described in the constitution is the national guard. So while not technically illegal, gun owners have compromised on many items to make them ridiculously restricted. Machine guns, shoulder launched munitions, main battle tanks, etc. These aren't illegal, but they are heavily monitored to the point of being essentially unattainable. Instead we allow civilians to arm with semi automatic variants of military small arms. It is the most basic version of the weapons that are carried by the guard. When you consider that these are intended to fight against the guard, then you have to also recognize exactly how much compromise has already occurred. We have the right to bear arms to kill human beings. There is no wiggle room there. It isn't for fun, or for hunting, it was to kill soldiers. We reserved the right to retain arms specifically to offset the power we granted to our government by allowing them to field a militia. We knew that a militia was "necessary to the security of a free State", so we reserved "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms". So when we start talking about how gun ownership fits into it, you start down a very difficult path of desiring regulation from the body that the 2nd amendment seeks to regulate. On top of that, you seek compromise with a faction that has not only already willingly compromised heavily on the topic, but has been spurned so many times with bad legislation, that they no longer trust the opposition to behave in a fashion they perceive as rational. [editline]27th February 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=Kazumi;53163393]It's a good start to ban assault weapons. This bill needs to be reformulated though.[/QUOTE] Case in point. Assault weapons aren't a thing. They were made up by anti gun factions to make guns sound scarier and to push legislation. It was a very successful attempt at fear mongering and is one of the many reasons that gun owners no longer view compromise as a valid option.

Admittedly I'm not well versed in the exact nomenclature of. With "assault weapons", I, at least, refer to any sort of weapon capable of high-capacity killing.

[QUOTE=mcharest;53162787][img]http://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/xhkwumxjysj9xdo/awb2018.png[/img] 3 pages in and I see we're already off to a promising start :disgust:[/QUOTE] Quoting this because it's relevant to this page. The definition of "assault weapon" is incredibly broad and vague. We need reform, but not this. People have already been over it in this thread and others, but we need to improve background checks and a lot of social issues. Some form of basic license or safety class is a great start. It functions as a background check while also making sure prospective gun owners know about gun laws and firearm safety. If we handle the problem right, we can improve life for everyone without draconian bans. The issue I find is that our politicians, on both sides, aren't going to put in the work. The right pretends like we just need more guns and simultaneously guts healthcare, the left throws bills like this out, and the actual people see no change.

[QUOTE=Kazumi;53163430]Admittedly I'm not well versed in the exact nomenclature of. With "assault weapons", I, at least, refer to any sort of weapon capable of high-capacity killing.[/QUOTE] what exactly does "high capacity killing" mean? you're sounding like the people making this bill

[QUOTE=Zezibesh;53163477]what exactly does "high capacity killing" mean? you're sounding like the people making this bill[/QUOTE] Don't be so defensive. I think it is fairly obvious, wouldn't you agree? Anything that is not an ordinary handgun. Either weapons that load "big" cartridges like 5.56 and whatnot, have magazines that hold more than 12 rounds (arbitrary number, something that does not hold more round than the average (or 1 standard deviation) pistol magazine). [editline]27th February 2018[/editline] Granted, this is my personal opinion, and I understand that it is far from a simple issue to resolve. It especially cannot be done overnight. I also understand that there is more issues than the access to weapons, like the oft discussed mental health issue, which definitely needs to be tackled. However, seeing to mental wellness is one thing. The problem of killing sprees cannot be controlled solely by fixing mental health, so to speak,. It seems like the term "going postal" has sort of fallen out of public tongue, at least on the internet from my side of the view. How do you control for sudden bouts of uncontrollable rage? Or like the old University of Texas Tower shooting, where the assailant lost control through a brain tumour? I like guns myself, and I would like to go to a range someday and try out a couple of rifles and such if I ever got the chance. And I'm not here to argue about a complete disarmament, like handguns or hunting rifles. But it feels like a line should be drawn whether or not we (or you, rather) are ok with letting a hobby effectively enable mass murder. Is it really that crazy of an idea to restrict the use of some firearms outside of, like, registered gun clubs or something?

[QUOTE=Kazumi;53163512]Or like the old University of Texas Tower shooting, where the assailant lost control through a brain tumour? [/QUOTE] That also comes down to healthcare availability TBF.

[QUOTE=Kazumi;53163512]Don't be so defensive. I think it is fairly obvious, wouldn't you agree? Anything that is not an ordinary handgun. Either weapons that load "big" cartridges like 5.56 and whatnot, have magazines that hold more than 12 rounds (arbitrary number, something that does not hold more round than the average (or 1 standard deviation) pistol magazine). [editline]27th February 2018[/editline] Granted, this is my personal opinion, and I understand that it is far from a simple issue to resolve. It especially cannot be done overnight. I also understand that there is more issues than the access to weapons, like the oft discussed mental health issue, which definitely needs to be tackled. However, seeing to mental wellness is one thing. The problem of killing sprees cannot be controlled solely by fixing mental health, so to speak,. It seems like the term "going postal" has sort of fallen out of public tongue, at least on the internet from my side of the view. How do you control for sudden bouts of uncontrollable rage? Or like the old University of Texas Tower shooting, where the assailant lost control through a brain tumour? I like guns myself, and I would like to go to a range someday and try out a couple of rifles and such if I ever got the chance. And I'm not here to argue about a complete disarmament, like handguns or hunting rifles. But it feels like a line should be drawn whether or not we (or you, rather) are ok with letting a hobby effectively enable mass murder. Is it really that crazy of an idea to restrict the use of some firearms outside of, like, registered gun clubs or something?[/QUOTE] No offense but he's not exactly wrong. You seem to have a very basic knowledge of weapons and cartridges. 5.56 isnt "Big" at all in the firearms world, it isn't that different from a .22 magnum. 5.56(.223) has more powder and a bigger, necked, brass to increase pressure&velocity, the bullet dimensions are close otherwise. The ballistics may be different, even more so with different tips and cores, but on paper(targets) they still poke a pen-sized hole. Compared to common handguns rounds like 9mm, .40, and .45 making much bigger holes, or larger common cartridges such as .30 caliber rounds like 7.62, or a jump up to .308. But litterally anything from .223 -.50 Cal would be *big* by your standards which is almost all handguns rounds and most rifle rounds minus some wildcat rounds and .17HMR. Magazine limits won't so shit besides piss legal owners off. Most double stack handguns hold more than 12 rounds assuming it's not a tiny compact or subcompact. Rifles have workarounds on detachable magazine limits, I've seen someone fire an AR off via belt feeding it through the magwell.

[QUOTE=frogy1289;53163652]No offense but he's not exactly wrong. You seem to have a very basic knowledge of weapons and cartridges. 5.56 isnt "Big" at all in the firearms world, it isn't that different from a .22 magnum. 5.56(.223) has more powder and a bigger, necked, brass to increase pressure&velocity, the bullet dimensions are close otherwise. The ballistics may be different, even more so with different tips and cores, but on paper(targets) they still poke a pen-sized hole. Compared to common handguns rounds like 9mm, .40, and .45 making much bigger holes, or larger common cartridges such as .30 caliber rounds like 7.62, or a jump up to .308. But litterally anything from .223 -.50 Cal would be *big* by your standards which is almost all handguns rounds and most rifle rounds minus some wildcat rounds and .17HMR. Magazine limits won't so shit besides piss legal owners off. Most double stack handguns hold more than 12 rounds assuming it's not a tiny compact or subcompact. Rifles have workarounds on detachable magazine limits, I've seen someone fire an AR off via belt feeding it through the magwell.[/QUOTE] No offence taken. With big I mean anything that is loaded in a rifle. You have to understand that I am a layman, and I hope that you understand my layman use of the word. And as I said, 12 was just an arbitrary number which was specified within the parentheses. [editline]27th February 2018[/editline] Though would is any more than 12 [I]actually[/I] necessary?

On reddit I see people complaining that cars are more deadly than guns. Guns don't drive into a school and mow everyone down. So in my view it's a moot point to try and compare the two. Especially when you have to take a written and behind the wheel test to receive your driver's license. When I bought my shotgun it took 15 mins. When I bought my handgun it took 30 mins. I didn't have to show I knew how to use them. [QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;53162875]Because it's no one's damn business what I own, and said weapons do not account for more then 300 ~ 500 murders per year.[/QUOTE] Actually it is. Depending where you *live*. Your local or state government can dictate what you own. [sp]late reply because of work[/sp]

[QUOTE=Kazumi;53163675]No offence taken. With big I mean anything that is loaded in a rifle. You have to understand that I am a layman, and I hope that you understand my layman use of the word. And as I said, 12 was just an arbitrary number which was specified within the parentheses.[/QUOTE] What about rounds used in both handguns and rifles, like .357 and .44 magnum? What about hunting medium to big game in general? Or the fact that handguns account for an absolutely huge percentage of gunshot wounds and fatalities compared to rifle or shotgun, or them combined even. Why ban rifles and rifle rounds when someone could just load up multiple double stack handguns and fire more rounds off potentially quicker and with possibly one always loaded when the other(s) need a reload, like the Virginia Tech shooting.

[QUOTE=frogy1289;53163652] Magazine limits won't so shit besides piss legal owners off. Most double stack handguns hold more than 12 rounds assuming it's not a tiny compact or subcompact. Rifles have workarounds on detachable magazine limits, I've seen someone fire an AR off via belt feeding it through the magwell.[/QUOTE] Even with the most restrictive magazine bans are just going to lead to people who up their stripper clip game. [media]https://youtu.be/x7Sr6tSZhDM[/media] Or even better; Just make weapons or mods that do this. [media]https://youtu.be/IQutj2wNaPc[/media]

[QUOTE=Tudd;53163694]Even with the most restrictive magazine bans are just going to lead to people who up their stripper clip game. *Vid* Or even better; Just make weapons or mods that do this. *Vid* [/QUOTE] Exactly my point, a feel good ban does us no good when plenty of alternative methods exist and will always exist.

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;53162979]A firearm can be used for self defense, hunting, sports and target shooting. An explosive has very limited uses outside of, say, fireworks. The relationship is that they tend to have highly reactive chemical compounds within them. But that's where the relationship ends.[/QUOTE] Technically, mines are a defensive measure, dynamite fishing is a fairly well-known trope, I imagine one could bag a lot of feral hogs with appropriate bait and gratuitous amounts of C4, and lots of people enjoy shooting exploding targets. [editline]27th February 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=Raidyr;53162980]Many items can cause damage to matter, even on a larger scale that most firearms that the average person can buy in the US. That criminals and madmen use their guns for the wrong reasons doesn't mean I should have to give up mine.[/QUOTE] Personally I just wish they'd come up with a way to enforce or at least encourage gun-owners to keep their gun as close to their chest usage wise as they would, say, their bank PIN or SSN.

[QUOTE=frogy1289;53163703]Exactly my point, a feel good ban does us no good when plenty of alternative methods exist and will always exist.[/QUOTE] Totally concur with you. People don't even realize how 3D-printing will soon make alot of these bans even more moot. Not to mention that criminals just won't care and this completely ignores how many semi-auto firearms with clips are in circulation.

[QUOTE=frogy1289;53163693]What about rounds used in both handguns and rifles, like .357 and .44 magnum? What about hunting medium to big game in general? Or the fact that handguns account for an absolutely huge percentage of gunshot wounds and fatalities compared to rifle or shotgun, or them combined even. Why ban rifles and rifle rounds when someone could just load up multiple double stack handguns and fire more rounds off potentially quicker and with possibly one always loaded when the other(s) need a reload, like the Virginia Tech shooting.[/QUOTE] Which is why in my post I talked about a combination about [I]not only[/I] the rounds, but how many rounds can be loaded as well, and maybe whether how fast they can be fired downrange. This is what frustrates me regarding this discourse. It is very hard to get a holistic grasp, and we all tend to get hooked up on details. It is difficult, yes. But it ought to be analysed and demarcated. My question for everyone here is: would you give up one of your guns, only one, if that would mean sparing/saving the life of a kid somewhere? This is only a thought experience.

[QUOTE=Kazumi;53163722]Which is why in my post I talked about a combination about [I]not only[/I] the rounds, but how many rounds can be loaded as well, and maybe whether how fast they can be fired downrange. This is what frustrates me regarding this discourse. It is very hard to get a holistic grasp, and we all tend to get hooked up on details. It is difficult, yes. But it ought to be analysed and demarcated. My question for everyone here is: would you give up one of your guns, only one, if that would mean sparing/saving the life of a kid somewhere? This is only a thought experience.[/QUOTE] I think most people who own guns - will keep defending guns even after hundreds of people get sprayed down. Only after it happens to them - they might look at it from another perspective as to whether it's worth being able to *pew* *pew* sometimes at a cost of their [relative title]'s lives.

[QUOTE=frogy1289;53163703]Exactly my point, a feel good ban does us no good when plenty of alternative methods exist and will always exist.[/QUOTE] I think that the term "feel good ban" sort of detracts from the discussion and diminishes the anti-gun side. Just me commenting on the terminology. [editline]27th February 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=arleitiss;53163723]I think most people who own guns - will keep defending guns even after hundreds of people get sprayed down. Only after it happens to them - they might look at it from another perspective as to whether it's worth being able to *pew* *pew* sometimes at a cost of their [relative title]'s lives.[/QUOTE] Yeah I think it's definitely a problem in what you say.

[QUOTE=arleitiss;53163723]I think most people who own guns - will keep defending guns even after hundreds of people get sprayed down. Only after it happens to them - they might look at it from another perspective as to whether it's worth being able to *pew* *pew* sometimes at a cost of their [relative title]'s lives.[/QUOTE] My answer is still no. You may not take my right to own firearms away because someone else misused them. Why is collective punishment such the norm these days? My right is not dictated on if someone else will misuse it. People misuse the 4th Amendment all the time to hide evidence of crimes from the cops. Should we get a rid of it so that we could save lives? There have been plenty of murders that could have been prevented had the police not had to worry about the 4th Amendment. [editline]27th February 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=Kazumi;53163725]I think that the term "feel good ban" sort of detracts from the discussion and diminishes the anti-gun side. Just me commenting on the terminology. [/QUOTE] It's feel good because it has no real world changes to the murder rate. Its feel good because that is all it does, feels good to the people who passed and supported it. The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban is a prime example. As far as magazine limits, well, those are useless. Because the only time someone could be threatened by having to reload is when they are being shot at themselves. A firearm is a distance tool. You keep sufficient distance from whatever you are firing at. If that happens to be a person who tries to bum rush you, well, they probably won't succeed if they aren't already very close to you. Then of course there is such a thing as New York reload. A lot of the mass murders have had multiple tools (firearms and/or knives) on them to deal with anyone attempting to bum rush them. Its just painful to see people debating what they want passed into law on a subject they obviously know nothing about.

[QUOTE=Kigen;53163751]My answer is still no. [B]You may not take my right to own firearms away[/B] because someone else misused them. Why is collective punishment such the norm these days? My right is not dictated on if someone else will misuse it. People misuse the 4th Amendment all the time to hide evidence of crimes from the cops. Should we get a rid of it so that we could save lives? There have been plenty of murders that could have been prevented had the police not had to worry about the 4th Amendment. [/QUOTE] Not really what I said but ok, interpret it as that if you wish. I didn't mention taking guns away or even anything remotely close to that, I said that maybe - A gun owners who defend guns now may change their opinion on gun laws after (for example) their nephew or their sister gets shot and killed by one of those shooters.

[QUOTE=Kigen;53163751] [B]It's feel good because it has no real world changes to the murder rate.[/B] Its feel good because that is all it does, feels good to the people who passed and supported it. The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban is a prime example. As far as magazine limits, well, those are useless. Because the only time someone could be threatened by having to reload is when they are being shot at themselves. A firearm is a distance tool. You keep sufficient distance from whatever you are firing at. If that happens to be a person who tries to bum rush you, well, they probably won't succeed if they aren't already very close to you. Then of course there is such a thing as New York reload. A lot of the mass murders have had multiple tools (firearms and/or knives) on them to deal with anyone attempting to bum rush them. Its just painful to see people debating what they want passed into law on a subject they obviously know nothing about.[/QUOTE] The claim that it has "no real world changes to murder rate" sounds completely unsubstantiated. International comparisons can be applied. And the last sentence about how it's painful for non-gun owners to discuss weapon laws is not very productive. In a democracy everyone should be involved, especially people of differing opinions. [editline]27th February 2018[/editline] My question to you, Kigen, as stated in the more open thought experiment I posted earlier. Would you give up one of your guns, only one, if that would mean sparing/saving the life of a kid somewhere?

[QUOTE=arleitiss;53163789]Not really what I said but ok, interpret it as that if you wish. I didn't mention taking guns away or even anything remotely close to that, I said that maybe - A gun owners who defend guns now may change their opinion on gun laws after (for example) their nephew or their sister gets shot and killed by one of those shooters.[/QUOTE] I know what you said, that is why I said my answer is "no." My opinion does not change due to death of a family member. Or people that I've known. Because I don't blame the firearm for murder. I blame the murderer. Though of course in my case, the murder that happened to someone I knew didn't involve a firearm. Because, of course, firearms are not needed to commit murder against people that a weaker physically than the attacker. Though firearms would have helped the victim if she had had one in the case I know about.

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;53162769]It bans rifles with detachable magazines. That goes from AR-15s from last year to Lee Enfield rifles from World War 1.[/QUOTE] Jesus fuck who thought this was a good idea. I doubt it will, but this better not go through since I’m so close to finally getting my SMLE.

[QUOTE=Kazumi;53163796]The claim that it has "no real world changes to murder rate" sounds completely unsubstantiated. International comparisons can be applied. And the last sentence about how it's painful for non-gun owners to discuss weapon laws is not very productive. In a democracy everyone should be involved, especially people of differing opinions. [/QUOTE] International comparisons cannot be made. A country can only be compare to itself before and after. The UK and Australia are often made, however, if you look at the country before the ban you will see that the general trend in most cases continues. Or in the case of the UK their murder rate actually increased after the ban then continued a downward trend. [QUOTE=Kazumi;53163796] My question to you, Kigen, as stated in the more open thought experiment I posted earlier. Would you give up one of your guns, only one, if that would mean sparing/saving the life of a kid somewhere?[/QUOTE] This question is clearly designed to lead to me either being a heartless bastard or a hypocrite. So let me pose to you, would you allow the police to search your home anytime they want if it'd mean sparing/saving the life of a kid somewhere?

[QUOTE=Lambeth;53162762]Not gonna go anywhere in a republican controlled house and senate.[/QUOTE] Doesn't have to. They're playing to their base and to moderates in this country. They'll all vote aye and the Republicans will vote nay and then the Democrats have a sound bite for each and every Republican voting against gun control for 2018 midterms.

[QUOTE=proboardslol;53163815]Doesn't have to. They're playing to their base and to moderates in this country. They'll all vote aye and the Republicans will vote nay and then the Democrats have a sound bite for each and every Republican voting against gun control for 2018 midterms.[/QUOTE] I'd be wary of that, a lot of moderates here might not support a ban this drastic.

[QUOTE=Kigen;53163813]International comparisons cannot be made. A country can only be compare to itself before and after. The UK and Australia are often made, however, if you look at the country before the ban you will see that the general trend in most cases continues. Or in the case of the UK their murder rate actually increased after the ban then continued a downward trend. This question is clearly designed to lead to me either being a heartless bastard or a hypocrite. So let me pose to you, [B]would you allow the police to search your home anytime they want if it'd mean sparing/saving the life of a kid somewhere?[/B][/QUOTE] lol That is such a shitty comparison. One is - sitting, having tea and watching TV when out of sudden cops bust into your house. Other is - taking away something you own and use on occasion (not even an everyday necessity)

[QUOTE=Kazumi;53163796] My question to you, Kigen, as stated in the more open thought experiment I posted earlier. Would you give up one of your guns, only one, if that would mean sparing/saving the life of a kid somewhere?[/QUOTE] Stuff like this has nothing to do with anything and is not helpful and proves nothing. It's pointless bait. How about actually providing substance to the conversation instead of nebulous "thought experiments?" This piece of legislation is a direct threat to everyone's rights. Take it a bit more seriously. [editline]27th February 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=arleitiss;53163830]lol That is such a shitty comparison. One is - sitting, having tea and watching TV when out of sudden cops bust into your house. Other is - taking away something you own and use on occasion (not even an everyday necessity)[/QUOTE] The premise is stupid. I own 12 guns. Would I exchange just one for a life somewhere? Duh. Like 99% of gun owners would. It's really not helpful.

[QUOTE=arleitiss;53163830]lol That is such a shitty comparison. One is - sitting, having tea and watching TV when out of sudden cops bust into your house. Other is - taking away something you own and use on occasion (not even an everyday necessity)[/QUOTE] I view my 2nd Amendment rights as the right to self-defense. Primarily against criminals and animals. So I view my right to preserve my continued existence a bit importantly than you do apparently. For a lot of people firearms aren't just toys to be taken to a range. Particularity the elderly otherwise physically inferior to their attackers need a firearm more.

[QUOTE=arleitiss;53163830]lol That is such a shitty comparison. One is - sitting, having tea and watching TV when out of sudden cops bust into your house. Other is - taking away something you own and use on occasion (not even an everyday necessity)[/QUOTE] Actually, it’s not really a shitty comparison. As per the Bill of Rights. [quote]The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.[/quote] They’re both considered constitutionally protected natural rights in U.S. law.