REINSTATE THE ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN!

[poli-junkie]

In 2004 GW Bush had the opportunity to renew the Assault Weapons Ban BUT HE DIDN'T. So now this country is awash with these things. Time to reintroduce the Assault Weapons Ban and license handguns like we license cars.

[Snackshack]

1. Agreed!

100%

[samir.g]

2. The 2004 ban was too lenient

Really ban those things this time.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

16. I infer that you mean the 1994 ban which expired in '04

In the realm of the possible... well, that idea isn't.

[samir.g]

20. Yes, the 94-94 ban

[poli-junkie]

3. Ban 'em!

It's just so damn agonizing to hear pundits and people being interviewed say "we need to do something." Dems need to actually stick their necks out and say this one declarative sentence: "Reinstate the Assault Weapons Ban." It's a simple one line that people can latch onto and investigate further.

[MontanaMama]

4. Do it.

Now. There is no call for weapons that liquify children on our streets.

[RandomAccess]

5. Let's add this --

During assault weapon ban, the number of gun massacres fell by 37 percent.
After the ban lapsed in 2004, the numbers shot up again — an astonishing 183 percent increase in massacres and a 239 percent increase in massacre deaths.

Link to tweet

[hack89]

8. What an idiotic tweet

AR-15 production and sales steadily increased during the AWB. All gun makers had to do was make minor cosmetic changes to their guns. Adam Lanza's rifle was perfectly legal during the AWB.

[SunSeeker]

11. No, ARs are idiotic. And should be banned. Again.

Last edited Tue Feb 20, 2018, 12:37 PM - Edit history (1)

The weapon used in the Florida school shooting Wednesday, and the Sutherland Springs church massacre in November, was a variant of the AR-15, a popular rifle that is based on the military’s M-16.
...
Mass murderers have used AR-15 variants in the past. Such rifles were used in mass shootings in Las Vegas; Newtown, Connecticut; Aurora, Colorado; and San Bernardino, California. The Orlando Pulse nightclub shooter used a Sig Sauer MCX, which is a weapon with different characteristics but based on similar concepts to the AR-15.
...
A database of 143 mass shootings compiled by Mother Jones, going back to 1984, found 20 attacks that used guns that would have been illegal under the assault weapons ban that was in place from its passage in 1994 to its expiration. The AR-15 was specifically named in that ban.

https://www.expressnews.com/news/local/article/Florida-shooter-used-an-AR-15-military-style-rifle-12614763.php

[hack89]

13. Go read the actual law - you are wrong.

CT has an AWB that is based on the federal AWB. The Sandy Hook was legal. It was not considered an assault weapon.

[SunSeeker]

19. Nothing I said is wrong. The fact is, mass shootings doubled after the ban expired.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/12/17/everything-you-need-to-know-about-banning-assault-weapons-in-one-post/?utm_term=.2fa4d4fbf20e

[hack89]

22. Read your own link

A 2004 University of Pennsylvania study commissioned by the National Institute of Justice explained why. For starters, only 18 firearm models were explicitly banned. But it was easy for gun manufacturers to modify weapons slightly so that they didn't fall under the ban. One example: the Colt AR-15 that James Holmes used to shoot up a movie theater in Aurora, Colo., last summer would have been outlawed. Yet it would have been perfectly legal for Holmes to have purchased a very similar Colt Match Target rifle, which didn't fall under the ban.

Meanwhile, here were already more than 24 million large-capacity magazines in existence before the federal ban took effect in 1994. Indeed, as soon as Congress began working on the law, manufacturers boosted production of weapons and magazines in anticipation of higher prices. Dangerous weapons were still plentiful.

Even while the ban was in effect, barring the production of certain kinds of assault weapons, gun manufacturers got around it by creating new “postban” models of guns that went by different names.

Olympic Arms began selling a version known as the PCR — “politically correct rifle” — that lacked a threaded barrel and a bayonet lug, two of the features Congress objected to. Colt stopped making the AR-15, but it made the Colt Match Target, which looks pretty similar.

This has happened at the state level, too: California has an assault weapons ban, but entrepreneurial gun manufacturers have found ways to modify the AR-15 to get around it.

https://www.vox.com/2016/6/14/11924544/ar-15-orlando-assault-weapons

Here is a chart of AR-15 production. Notice the big spike for Bushmaster in 1999?

[SunSeeker]

24. You do not and cannot dispute that mass shootings doubled after the expiration of the AWB.

Which is what the article acknowledges and why I cited it. I did read the article. As the graph shows, AR production spiked, but then went DOWN to pre-94 levels by 2001. Unfortunately, Bush and the Republicans let the AWB expire a few years later.

[hack89]

26. The point is it had nothing to do with the number of guns

Since the number of AR-15s in circulation steadily increased throughout the AWB. If more guns means more deaths, shouldn't have gun deaths and mass shootings increased during the AWB? How do you explain it?

[SunSeeker]

28. The point is the AWB saved lives. Without it killings doubled.

Gun sales did not explode until after the AWB expired. See your compatriot's graph below: https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=205686

[Kaleva]

39. The AR-15 and AR-10 were banned by the AWB

Scroll down to" Appendix 1

Table 1: List of Assault Weapons Named in Statutes

AR-10 or -15*"

https://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/rpt/2013-R-0241.htm

[hack89]

44. Colt made the Target Match rifle

Which was an AR-15 without the "military " features that the AWB outlawed.

[Kaleva]

45. The AWB was so full of loopholes it was ineffective IMO

Manufacturers made a couple of cosmetic changes and slapped on a new name to get around the ban.

[oneshooter]

6. And how are you going to pay for them, once they are banned?

[world wide wally]

7. Ask the billionaires

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

14. I say we make Mexico pay for them n/t

[SunSeeker]

9. K & R

[mountain grammy]

10. Yes, and immediately ban the sale of ammunition.

buy back and destroy all assault ammuntion. Do it now!

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

15. Please define "assault ammunition"

While you're at it, define "assault weapon".

[mountain grammy]

17. This and the ammunition that goes with it.

“Assault weapon is a term used in the United States to define some types of firearms. The definition varies among regulating jurisdictions, but usually includes semi-automatic firearms with a detachable magazine and a pistol grip, and sometimes other features such as a flash suppressor or barrel shroud.”

But you already knew that..you just want to make fun of my clumsy old lady words.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

23. I'm very sorry

I didn't want to make fun of you. I wanted to highlight the idea that a politician latched on to the term and that ever since then, its definition has changed and been very fluid.

I'm not a young person. I am someone who thinks laws should mean something and not be left to generate dissent and discontent among the people. I want to highlight the fact that there are millions of "assault weapon" type firearms out there. I think trying to blame the firearm design for the actions of certain deranged pigs that want attention through murder is a mistake.

I'm sorry again and I hope you're feeling better about yourself because you're speaking up and being heard. Sharing ideas and being active is the way we will develop strong candidates in the future. Good for you. Thank you.

Have a great day.

[mountain grammy]

30. I understand there are many "assault" type weapons

In my opinion, if a weapon can kill dozens of human beings in just a few minutes, it doesn't belong in civilian hands. No way, no how, no ifs ands or buts. These weapons are for one purpose and it's not hunting or target practice.

I have 5 granddaughters in the same school system, 2 in the same high school, 2 in the same middle school. I'm speaking as a freaked out grandmother here.

Thank you, apology accepted. You have a good day too.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

34. I hope your granddaughters remain safe and have great experiences in their schools

Sick and unbalanced angry people have a knack for hurting others. Sometimes they shoot up a mall or, like Aurora, a theater. Sometimes they hate an area, neighborhood or community and want not only to kill but leave lasting painful scars on those they can't or don't kill.

The Bath School massacre (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster) was such an event. The piece of crap killer who murdered so many there had bolt action rifle. As far as I know he didn't kill anyone with it.

I have a few ideas but I doubt there's a simple answer to the violence in the US. I know people talk about the UK being much safer and that we should do the same that they do. What I don't know about the folks suggesting that is if they know that our non-gun murder rate is higher than Briton's overall murder rate.

I really appreciate polite discussion, thank you again.

[Straw Man]

35. And yet ...

These weapons are for one purpose and it's not hunting or target practice.

... they are frequently used for both of those things.

[mountain grammy]

37. Target practice maybe, but hunting?

I live in a huge hunting area.. big game, elk, moose, bears. No hunter I've ever known uses a AR 15 or anything like it for hunting. What type of assault weapon is used for hunting big game?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

38. They are used many places to hunt wild hogs

AR pattern rifles are also available in higher calibers suitable for large game.
A basic AR-15 in .223 isn't suitable for large game like deer and elk and is probably illegal for that use in most places.

[mountain grammy]

42. No wild hogs in our neck of the woods.

and yes, I think the AR 15 is illegal here for big game, but not sure. Will have to check on that. I've never known anyone to use one.

[Straw Man]

50. No wild hogs? Lucky you.

Semi-auto rifles are legal for hunting big game in Colorado. The only requirement by Colorado law is a caliber of at least .24 and a magazine that doesn't hold more than six rounds. The standard AR-15 is ruled out by virtue of its chambering: the .223 round is considered too weak to humanely kill big game. However, the modularity of the AR platform allows the upper to be swapped out for one in a larger, big-game-legal, caliber. Additionally, there a numerous AR-style rifles in larger calibers, such as the AR-10.

[Straw Man]

40. Not big game. There are other kinds of hunting.

The AR-15 uses .223 Remington, which is an intermediate caliber suitable for varmints: coyotes, prairie dogs, and the like.

https://www.americanhunter.org/articles/2015/5/20/top-5-varmint-and-predator-cartridges/

The fact that it's a semi-auto rifle can offer some slight advantages in hunting (for follow-up shots) but is mostly irrelevant in that application. Smaller-capacity magazines are readily available for jurisdictions that limit the number of rounds that can be loaded when hunting.

The AR-15's big brother, the AR-10. is chambered in .308, which makes it appropriate for deer, bear, etc.

Lots of people use AR-pattern rifles for hunting. Where do you live that you've never encountered this?

http://www.hunter-ed.com/blog/hunting-tips-ar-platform-rifles/

[mountain grammy]

41. Colorado.

Last edited Fri Feb 16, 2018, 11:27 PM - Edit history (1)

Never seen it. Never talked to any hunter who used one for hunting in our national forests, doesn't mean they don't, I've just never talked to anyone who did. Varmints? fox, gophers? I have a sling shot that takes care of them... or my little 22 for a coyote, and that's just to keep them away from my property and my pets. Most everyone I know who hunts uses a .30-06. My daughter's boyfriend uses a 7mm-08 in his hunting rifle. He said it's made for deer, but works fine for him with elk. He doesn't think much of hunters who would use semi autos and large magazines. He's been hunting since he was 10.

I don't hunt, but have lived here a long time and know plenty who do.

[Straw Man]

49. Please explain.

You shoot foxes and gophers with a slingshot? Does it humanely kill them? Or merely wound them and leave them to suffer? Possibly illegal, and certainly unethical, even for nuisance animals.

Most people consider .22 LR to be insufficient for humane kills on coyotes, and suggest a bare minimum of .22 Magnum or preferably .223 Remington. If you're shooting them just to wound or harass them, then once more you're engaging in unethical and possibly illegal behavior.

There are AR-pattern rifles chambered in both .30-06 and 7mm-08. A person who is used to the AR platform could easily, safely, humanely, legally, and ethically use one to hunt deer or elk.

[mountain grammy]

53. really, I'm just babbling..

We are surrounded by wildlife. I've never killed any but skunks and I had no choice.. I throw rocks and shoot my .22 at coyotes but I don't try to hit them and never have, just keeping them from stalking and snatching my pets and eating my flowers.

I don't want to killl wildlife. One of the joys of where I live is the abundant wildlife all around us. I have nothing against hunters who help our economy and manage herd size, but I couldn't do it and don't know much about it so I ask those who do. I've never seen anything beyond traditional hunting rifles. Yes the ammo may be the same, but do hunters need to shoot 160 rounds in 6 minutes to take down an elk? just go out in the forest and blast away? Kind of negates the sport side of the sport, wouldn't you agree? and if that's the weapon of choice, why?

The hunter who can "safely, humanely, legally and ethically" use an AR pattern rifle to hunt, could they not also use a traditional hunting rifle? What is the advantage of using a semi automatic for hunting? What did hunters do before these weapons were widely available to the public?

[gejohnston]

54. may I recommend

mountain lion urine to mark your property. Might have to do it a couple times a month. Lions are apex predators, coyotes are not.
Semi-autos were always widely available, just not popular. The few that were something like this
http://www.browning.com/products/firearms/rifles/bar/current-production.html

Just from what I have seen, the trend to semi-autos started with inexpensive Chinese military surplus SKSs being popular with lower-income Americans and Canadians.
Advantage? I can fire a lever or bolt action just as fast. Maybe part of it is taking modernity too seriously, or maybe it says something about their marksmanship.
Since the wife and I don't eat that much red meat (and the best fishing in Wyoming is during deer season) I don't hunt anymore.

[mountain grammy]

55. Fishing.. now there's something I can relate to..

catch anything or not, I love it. Thanks for the hint on the lion urine. I'll give it a try.

[Straw Man]

57. Let's try this again.

Yes the ammo may be the same, but do hunters need to shoot 160 rounds in 6 minutes to take down an elk? just go out in the forest and blast away? Kind of negates the sport side of the sport, wouldn't you agree? and if that's the weapon of choice, why?

Hunter using ARs don't "shoot 160 rounds in 6 minutes." Just because the rifle CAN do that doesn't mean the operator HAS TO do that. After the first shot, the game is spooked and runs away anyway. Hunters using ARs can use smaller magazines and fire at the same rate as hunters with manual-action rifles. They use the AR because it's what they have and what they are familiar with.

This subthread started with you saying that ARs aren't used for target shooting or hunting. That is simply not true.

Don't use a firearm to frighten animals away. It's dangerous and irresponsible. Don't point a gun at anything that you're not willing to destroy. That's a fundamental gun safety rule.

[AtheistCrusader]

92. Follow-up shots.

A lot of crazy stuff can happen after you pull the trigger, and it can leave the animal frightened, fleeing, and merely wounded.

I don't know any hunters that want to see an animal suffer. Being able to snap off a follow-up shot is very useful for those 'oh shit' moments where everything goes wrong.

With training and practice you can get pretty quick with a bolt action, counter-rotating your wrists, but it can't beat a semi-auto.

[mountain grammy]

97. And I think all of you can take your semi autos and shove em..

[Straw Man]

100. Don't hold back. Tell us what you REALLY think ...

And I think all of you can take your semi autos and shove em..

Why didn't you say so in the first place? You would have spared everyone the effort of trying to discuss the issue rationally.

[mountain grammy]

109. It can't be discussed rationally,there's no excuse for not reinstating the AWB. Body counts rising

?,mode=pad&width=750&height=422&scale=both&bgcolor=000000

[Straw Man]

111. I've been discussing it rationally.

You're resorting to name-calling and posting graphics that ignore multiple causal factors in their rush to reinstate the AWB. Please be advised (a) the number of spree shootings is up, (b) AR-15 rifles are not the sine qua non for spree shootings, and (c) talk of bans puts more AR-15s in circulation with every passing day.

[AtheistCrusader]

146. AWB didn't ban semi-autos.

You're just mixing issues now. Basically, making angry noises. Nothing more.

[mountain grammy]

148. Then give up on me already..

go have a semi auto gun fest and enjoy yourselves.. whatever makes you happy.

[AtheistCrusader]

150. I don't give up on people.

Giving up on dialogue is the sort of path that leads to bigger problems. When people aren't heard, then you get shit like rioting.

I'm still listening to you. Still willing to talk.

[mountain grammy]

154. Colorado put a limit on magazine size in 2013.

It prompted two recalls in the legislature. Republicans were screaming because a magazine was limited to 15 rounds.. how is that necessary for hunting? It's not and you and all your semi auto loving buddies know it. This is insanity..

Colorado law stands in spiite of the recalls.

"Other laws. Effective July 1, 2013, Colorado requires background checks for all firearm sales at the buyer's expense. Magazines that are capable of accepting more than 15 rounds or are designed to be readily convertible to accept more than 15 rounds cannot be sold or transferred within state limits."

[AtheistCrusader]

155. Most of the time that restriction wouldnt' affect me.

None of my handguns hold more than 15+1 rounds.

Several of my rifles came factory-standard with 20 round magazines. A couple came with 30 round. If my state enacted that law I would be annoyed, because I would no longer be able to sell any of that stuff. If ever a question arose when/where/how I acquired those magazines, the onus would be on me to prove I legally acquired them prior to the law, and that's basically impossible to prove. There's no serial number. They aren't registered. I don't have receipts for them anymore, most likely. Couple were inherited.

When a law is a pain in the ass, people get angry. Especially when they have not bought-in that the restriction will bring any meaningful safety to themselves or the public.

[friendly_iconoclast]

166. The onus would be on the prosecutors, and as noted there's no way to make it stick...

...unless one were fool enough to buy them with a credit card and have them shipped to a
CO address.

[friendly_iconoclast]

164. Yeah, about that: "Many Circumventing Colorado High-Capacity Magazine Ban"

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1172155240

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1172155240#post2

For that matter nothing prevents them from driving to an adjoining state
and buying them there. If you are a Massachusetts or Connecticut resident all you have to do is drive to
RI, NH, VT or ME and you can buy magazines that hold more then your state law allows easily.

The same applies to Maryland, New York, New Jersey, Illinois or California for that matter, all of them have neighboring states that don't have the stupid, useless magazine ban limits.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1172174456#post5

Because of grandfather clauses, and the fact that magazines tend NOT to have any serial numbers, it is IMPOSSIBLE to enforce the magazine ban...

IOW, it's just about as effective as the Federal prohibition on cannabis. How's that been
working in Colorado?

The term 'security theater' comes to mind...

[AtheistCrusader]

145. I'll let my wife know. I'm sure she'll appreciate your opinion.

[mountain grammy]

43. And one more question about that.

Is it necessary? I mean, could a hunter get his prey with a traditional hunting rifle? When is it no longer a sport but just shooting fish in a barrel?

[Straw Man]

48. I think you're missing the point.

Last edited Sat Feb 17, 2018, 03:47 AM - Edit history (1)

It's no easier to shoot an animal with a semi-auto rifle than it is with a traditional hunting rifle. (Not sure what you mean by "traditional," but I'll include everything back to black powder muzzleloaders.) You still have to aim and pull the trigger. The first shot is the one that counts, and as I said above, many states have limits on magazine capacity for hunting anyway. You can use a five-round magazine in an AR. There are even adapters that make it possible to load only a single round at a time.

Necessary? Probably not, but the AR is an extremely reliable, adaptable, and ergonomic rifle. When people encounter a technological improvement, they generally don't stop and ask themselves if it's "necessary" before they adopt it.

[AtheistCrusader]

91. The AR-10 is used on big game. The AR-15 is too small, and illegal in most states for use against

deer. I believe it is illegal for use against ANY animal bigger than a deer in all states.

It's a caliber issue. The .223 round is insufficient to put down a deer. In my state, the legal minimum is .240
Personally I don't use anything smaller than .30 caliber. (The AR-10 is a .308 instead of it's smaller sibling's .223)


That's why you don't see the AR-15 used against big game. If you do see it, call the cops. But make sure you know the difference between an AR-10 and a AR-15.

[better]

143. This is a very good argument for understanding

exactly what characteristics of a firearm render it capable of causing such mass casualties. The problem with the AWB, as written, is that it bans firearms on the basis of characteristics that don't have any such impact on lethality, instead of focusing on characteristics that do have such impact.

Hands down, the most effective way to reduce the amount of damage a weapon can do is to regulate its capacity. A bump stock or other modification that lets you fire 10 rounds a second is pretty useless if the weapon holds so little ammo that using one means reloading literally every second.

Long story short, the problem is not that people can own an AR-15.
It's that they can fire too many bullets before having to reload, and reloading is too quick.

Ban high capacity and/or detachable magazines, and you fix that problem across the board.

[Straw Man]

51. The ammunition that goes with it ...

... is this:



... which also goes with this:



... and this:



Why would you want to ban it?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

12. The 1994 ban only banned the sale of new ones

Folks that already had existing firearms that were banned from new sales could keep their guns.
Cars don't require a background check nor a license. Registrations and insurance are needed only to take them in public.

[poli-junkie]

18. Dems should point to past ban

And build on it. As far as comparing car vs. gun licensing: add background checks to getting a gun permit. I think most people don’t know there WAS AN ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN before 2004. The media NEVER mentions this. Why?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

25. re: " I think most people dont know there WAS AN ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN...

...before 2004. The media NEVER mentions this. Why?"

The media mentions it but it's not a popular topic. Bill Clinton points to it as a bad idea that was counter productive. If you mean that folks in their 20s aren't familiar with it, I guess you're correct. They would have been less than 5 years old when it was passed and in high school at most when it expired.

Banning certain semi-auto rifles because they have a pistol grip and a flash suppressor or bayonet lug is unproductive. Pushing the idea that a "scary" looking black rifle is to blame for some bastard going on a murder spree is an example of a type of thinking that will keep a subset of Americans voting for trump-a-likes who otherwise might vote for a good person.

[krispos42]

21. The ban was and remains a dumb idea.

It boosted sales of AR-15s and AK-47s and other tactical rifles, only they were not "assault weapons" because they didn't have the necessary "assault features".

Remember, folks, an AR-15 may not may not be an "assault weapon".

The ban did, however, help put democrats out of power and boost gun sales generally.

[SunSeeker]

27. Nope. The ban did not boost gun sales. Your own graph proves it.

It dipped down after the 1994 implementation of the AWB, pretty much plateaued then exploded up after the Republicans let the AWB expire in 2004.

The ban is not the reason Bush became president. A corrupt Supreme Court majority is. Obama favored gun control and the AWB, and he won 2 terms.

[krispos42]

31. I said "tactical rifles".

As the country becomes more urban and less rural, "traditional" sporting gun sales have slipped while "tactical" guns have climbed.

And what was Bush''s margin in Florida? <540 votes, if memory serves.

And most governors and state legislative houses are Republican, about 2:1.

[SunSeeker]

32. Gore got more votes than Bush in Florida, SCOTUS just didn't let them count all of Gore votes.

Never heard of Bush v. Gore?

[krispos42]

46. And why was it so close? why was is close enough to steal?

And Gore lost his home state.

And, Republicans have governorship and state legislatures 2:1 over us.

Face it, it's not a hardware problem. Pretending that taking off bayonet mounts and flash supressors will some how have the slightest affect on crap like this is foolishness. But it will get America destroying conservatives in office.

[SunSeeker]

47. No, pretending to be like conservative gun nuts will not get us elected.

[krispos42]

52. I didn't say that, did I?

Nice straw man. However, it's pretty obvious that behaving like liberal anti-gun nuts isn't working either.

People that don't own guns and never will aren't gong to turn out on huge numbers and single-issue-vote on making guns harder to get. But people that do own guns will... And will vote against Democrats.

Previous iterations of "assault weapon" bans are bullshit PR stunts. Read how "assault weapon" was defined:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

It's crap. It means that the gun used at Sandy Hook elementary was NOT an assault weapon, but a fully legal rifle in a state (my state) that had an AWB continuously in place since 1993.

It's bullshit. Having two pistol grips on an AR-15 makes it an assault weapon, but only one turns it into a legal rifle? Really?

It's PR, and ineffective PR at that.

If you're really serious about this, then ban all semi-automatic long guns, without exception.

But don't insult my intelligence and the intelligence of other people that read DU with this AWB crap.

[SunSeeker]

56. Assualt weapons themselves are a "bullshit PR stunt" sold to insecure men.

With ads like this:



The micro-dick gun nuts out there buy those things because they think it makes them a big he-man Rambo soldier, because they are way too cowardly to actually enlist and stand in the line of fire for their country.

All the cosmetic features of the AR-15 that you feel are so silly to ban are exactly what sells them to these fucking idiots. Not only that but the features are of course in and of themselves dangerous to have on a civilian weapon. That is why the assault weapons ban makes sense. That and the AR-15 is an essential ingredient in the typical unhinged mass shooters' fantasy scenario.

No sane civilian should want that thing.

[Straw Man]

58. Just checking ...

All the cosmetic features of the AR-15 that you feel are so silly to ban are exactly what sells them to these fucking idiots. Not only that but the features are of course in and of themselves dangerous to have on a civilian weapon.

... but are you saying that AR-15s are dangerous because of the way they look? Because that's what you seem to be saying.

[SunSeeker]

59. You highlighted it, yet you can't see it?

Here, let me bold it for you:

All the cosmetic features of the AR-15 that you feel are so silly to ban are exactly what sells them to these fucking idiots. Not only that but the features are of course in and of themselves dangerous to have on a civilian weapon.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

60. Which features are dangerous?

Common attributes used in legislative definitions of assault weapons include:

Semi-automatic firearm capable of accepting a detachable magazine
Folding or telescoping (collapsible) stock, which reduces the overall length of the firearm
A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon
Bayonet lug, which allows the mounting of a bayonet
Threaded barrel, which can accept devices such as a flash suppressor, Suppressor, compensator or muzzle brake or a grenade launcher
Barrel shroud, which prevents burning of shooter's arm or hand as a safety device.

I'd estimate half of all firearms sold today accept a detachable magazine.

I've not heard of anyone being killed with an adjustable stock. I can't imagine how a fixed stock could mitigate that problem if it exists.

A pistol grip provides a firmer and more stable hold on rifle which I see as improving the general safety.

I've not heard or read about a rash of civilian killings using fixed bayonets either.

The news in my area has very silent on drive-by grenadings but perhaps you have a few links to stories in other areas.

A barrel shroud is also a safety device.

[SunSeeker]

61. The whole package. nt

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

62. Excellent answer; completely devoid of facts and details

Thanks

[SunSeeker]

63. I gave you facts. You chose to ignore them. I'm not going to play that game. Bye.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

64. Have a nice life

[Straw Man]

65. Thanks for the confirmation.

So you ARE saying that the appearance of the AR-15 is what makes it dangerous, which is, of course, ludicrous.

[SunSeeker]

67. Nope. The whole package. You'll have to find someone else to be your straw man, Straw Man. nt

[Straw Man]

73. I guess you need to be reminded of what you said.

Nope. The whole package. You'll have to find someone else to be your straw man, Straw Man.

The "whole package"? That's not what you said. I quote (italics mine):

All the cosmetic features of the AR-15 that you feel are so silly to ban are exactly what sells them to these fucking idiots. Not only that but the features are of course in and of themselves dangerous to have on a civilian weapon.

Surely you don't mean to claim that the "features" to which you refer in the second sentence are not the same "features" to which you refer in the first. There no interpretation of the syntax of either sentence that would support such a claim.

"The whole package"? No points for rhetorical revisionism. Did you or did you not say that the cosmetic features are what makes the AR-15 dangerous? A few posts back, you were pretty insistent that you did.

[SunSeeker]

74. No, you need to stop ignoring words. What part of "Not only that..." do you not understand?

The AR's features are both cosmetic and functional. I had discussed how the cosmetic features (its looks) are a problem. Then I pointed out,

Not only that but the features are of course in and of themselves dangerous to have on a civilian weapon."

So it is how an AR looks (since it attracts nutbags to fulfill their he-man murder fantasies) AND the ARs danger (it enables these nutbags to kill lots of people quickly) that are a problem. The whole fucking package.

My point was to address the gunner argument that it is pointless to ban cosmetics (how an AR looks).

I find your defense of ARs morally abhorrent. Your quarrels with my "syntax" are just silly.

Please find another hobby.

[Straw Man]

75. You can keep digging, but you won't find a way out of your hole.

You never mentioned functionality until you were called on your nonsense. You referred to "the features" with no other context than a discussion of the "COSMETIC features." It's there in plain black and white. Your "not only that" was a reference to their appeal to certain types of people, and a bridge to your contention that aforesaid cosmetic features are dangerous in and of themselves. Please show me in here where there is any reference to functionality:

The micro-dick gun nuts out there buy those things because they think it makes them a big he-man Rambo soldier, because they are way too cowardly to actually enlist and stand in the line of fire for their country.

All the cosmetic features of the AR-15 that you feel are so silly to ban are exactly what sells them to these fucking idiots. Not only that but the features are of course in and of themselves dangerous to have on a civilian weapon. That is why the assault weapons ban makes sense. That and the AR-15 is an essential ingredient in the typical unhinged mass shooters' fantasy scenario.

No sane civilian should want that thing.

Now you're trying in vain to deny it and pretend you were saying something else. Do you or do you not think that an AR's cosmetic features make it more dangerous? If you do not, then it truly IS pointless to ban cosmetics. And if you do, then you are making an absurd argument that, if followed to its logical conclusion, would mean that we could make AR's less lethal by painting them blue and putting ribbons on them.

I'm very comfortable with my morality. I don't lie, and I don't distort facts. I don't claim a spurious moral high ground in order to advocate for meaningless, emotion-driven legislation.

[SunSeeker]

76. You're being intentionally obtuse. nt

[Straw Man]

79. No, actually, I'm not.

You're being intentionally evasive.

[SunSeeker]

80. Actually, choosing not to play your diversion game is the opposite of evasive. nt

[Straw Man]

81. Diversion? What am I "diverting" from?

You still haven't answered the central question: Do you believe that cosmetic features increase the lethality of the AR-15? You said it once. Now it's time to either defend or withdraw it.

[SunSeeker]

82. That the cosmetic features of the AR-15 are exactly what sells them to murderous nuts.

These cosmetic features that you think are so silly to ban are dangerous in the same way the Joe Camel ads are dangerous. It attracts the worst possible person to an already dangerous product. https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=205754

I keep saying the above over and over but you keep diverting to the typical bullshit NRA argument of trying to isolate specific operational features rather than looking at the product as a whole and how it is marketed. Your arrogant NRA talking point mansplaining is a diversion from the big picture. I'm not playing that game.

Get another hobby.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

83. I get advertising sells

I love the energizer bunny and the Santander piggy. Maybe the AR features are analogous to those of the 1975 Trans Am.

Maybe advertising with bayonet lugs or grenade mounts goes away. Maybe those specific features are banned for civilians.

Maybe certain murderous and unstable folks are attracted to the look of some or all of those. I don't see removing grips or telescoping stocks as those have valid and safety impacting functionality.

Maybe ARs without those features will be less "pretty" for the aforementioned murderous and unstable folks. To play devil's advocate, do you really believe those murderous and unstable folks will refrain from killing? Do you believe that the absence of those images of those maybe more M-16 like features will inspire fewer folks to become murderous and unstable?

BTW, I equate these aggressive power obsessed murdering nuts (whose names I don't use) to rapists and child molesters.

[SunSeeker]

84. Playing tag team eh? Enough with the GOP talking points.

Maybe certain murderous and unstable folks are attracted to the look of some or all of those. I don't see removing grips or telescoping stocks as those have valid and safety impacting functionality. 

Fuck the idiots buying these abominations. I care about the safety of their victims.

To play devil's advocate, do you really believe those murderous and unstable folks will refrain from killing? 

That has got to be the lamest NRA talking point of all. No, just like speeders will always speed and robbers will always rob. But that is no reason to end speed limits or theft prohibitions. They may not stop everyone but they do stop some. That is good enough for me.

Do you believe that the absence of those images of those maybe more M-16 like features will inspire fewer folks to become murderous and unstable? 

Yes.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

85. Thanks for the polite answer

I care about the safety of their victims.

IMHO these "idiots" will progress on to the (in their minds) second most visually attractive weapon. Make no mistake, there will always be a second most visually attractive weapon.

No, just like speeders will always speed and robbers will always rob. But that is no reason to end speed limits or theft prohibitions.

I agree. Would you agree that speed limits and theft prohibitions don't end speeding and theft? Laws act as guidelines for the just and criteria for the courts. They don't really work as controls.

Yes. (... the absence of those images of those maybe more M-16 like features will inspire fewer folks to become murderous and unstable.)

IDK maybe we can work with that as well. Any ideas that aren't simply based on an eye like that of Justice Potter?

[SunSeeker]

87. Laws work as controls. That's why we have laws.

And as gun manufacturers create new abominations to evade existing bans, we should pass laws to ban those too. And repeal the PLCAA (which established special gun manufacturer immunities). That alone could stop marketing of insane civilian weapons.

You should be ashamed for repeating bullshit NRA talking points here.

[Straw Man]

90. And laws have to have specific goals ...

... and establish clear guidelines in order to achieve those goals. None of which you're doing here.

And as gun manufacturers create new abominations to evade existing bans, we should pass laws to ban those too.

So let's just cut to the chase and pass a law against "abominations." That should work.

Gun owners fear a slippery slope that will ban more and more types of firearms until they're back to early 19-century technology. You have just clearly confirmed that theirs is a realistic fear, and that, going forward, any talk of "common sense" and "compromise" is hypocritical cant.

"NRA talking points" accusations are the Trumpian "fake news" response of the hardline gun controller: a statement meant to end discussion rather than having to rebut a point.

[SunSeeker]

99. The old AWB kept mass killings below half of what they are today.

It was clear enough.

[Straw Man]

107. Do tell.

It had nothing to do with the economy or who's President or the state of the mental health system or social media copycats, or any of that, right? You just know that there's a direct causal link because ... Why was that, again? You haven't really explained. And not everyone seems to be as convinced as you are, even in middle-of-road media outlets:

https://www.factcheck.org/2013/02/did-the-1994-assault-weapons-ban-work/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/12/17/everything-you-need-to-know-about-banning-assault-weapons-in-one-post/

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-winkler-folly-of-assault-weapon-ban-20151211-story.html

Arguably, the AWB boosted the AR-15's popularity far beyond what it had been before (forbidden fruit, doncha know), just as a spike in AR sales occurs every time there's talk of a new ban. More of them are in circulation than ever before, due in part to fear of bans. Manufacturers of AR-15s are very grateful to people like you -- you are their best salespeople.

Columbine happened during the ban, so clearly there are other weapons that will suffice for those of a homicidal bent. Derrick Byrd in the UK killed 12 people with a double-barreled shotgun and a bolt-action .22 rifle, all of which are completely legal there. Anders Breivik in Norway killed 69 people with a Ruger Mini-14 rifle and Glock 34 pistol, neither of which has ever been classified anywhere as an "assault weapon." What makes you think that someone with the urge to kill won't pick another weapon of opportunity?

Correlation does not equal you-know-what.

[SunSeeker]

113. Well, at least you admit there is correlation.

Baby steps. Baby steps.

[Straw Man]

117. Correlation can be meaningless: mere coincidence.

But you knew that.

[SunSeeker]

119. Not a "mere coincidence" when AWB's work in every developed country.

Every developed country with an AWB does not have the mass shooting hell we endure. Are stats are literally off the charts compared to the rest of the civilized world.

But you knew that.

[Straw Man]

124. Since when was Norway kicked out of the developed world?

Breivik's spree in 2011 surpassed even our Las Vegas bump-stock wacko. Breivik shot and killed 69 people without an "assault weapon." We have more incidents, but the death toll from that single incident obviates the lethality of the weapon as the determining factor in the overall, cumulative death toll. The frequency of our incidents points to issues of culture and mental health rather than to simplistic demonizations of a particular weapon. Why is nobody asking why more Americans want to blow away mass number of their fellow human beings? The answer is not "Because they can."

That's what I know.

[SunSeeker]

125. You have to reach back all the way to 2011 for a Norway's one mass shooting.

Australia has had none since their ban. These countries don't have to live in fear of going to school or the movie theater. Such a dishonest argument you make. Sheesh.

[Straw Man]

128. And you missed the point again.

Norway has fewer incidents, but their death toll for that one incident surpasses any one of ours. And that was without an assault weapon. Yet you persist in identifying the weapon as the reason for our overall death toll. If all our incidents were as deadly as Breivik's spree, our cumulative death toll would be much, much higher. The question is why we have these sprees. You won't end them by banning ARs. You won't even make them less deadly.

Australia actually has had eight mass killings -- using the FBI's definition -- since the ban, one of which was a shooting. The rest were predominantly arson attacks.

Guess what -- I don't live in fear of going to school or the movie theater. Do you?

[SunSeeker]

134. No, I didn't miss the point. All those countries have the same societal problems we do.

Yet they don't have mass shootings like we do. Australia has had no mass shootings in the 20 years since their ban. The other countries have the odd incident or terrorist attack, but no mass shootings like we do. Not even close. Norway's one horrific incident has a US connection. Breivik bought ten 30-round magazines for for his semi-automatic carbine rifle from a United States supplier. He ended up killing 69 at a youth camp and injured 110. That was Norway's 9-11, they memorialize it every year. Nothing like that had happened there before or since, unlike in the US.  The massacre last October in Las Vegas killed 58 people and wounded 489, and we've already forgotten about it, shocked into distraction by the current gun massacre.  

What is the obvious difference between us and the other countries? Unlike them, we are awash in guns, and anyone can buy an AR.

Guess what, I do live in fear of my gun nut neighbors shooting me. I do live in fear of my 14 year old getting shot at school. I do live in fear of my kid going over to a friend's house whose gun nut parents have guns lying around and someone getting accidentally shot. I had a high school friend who was accidentally shot, and another who committed suicide with the family gun. Because the guns were there. I have two in-laws who survived the Vegas shooting and are now suffering from PTSD.

You should be ashamed of yourself for defending this status quo and being comfortable with it.

[Straw Man]

165. Wrong.

All those countries DO NOT have the "same societal problems" we do. That's a serious misrepresentation. Look at income disparities, extreme racial division (abetted and exploited by politicians), dwindling health resources, lack of social services ... the list goes on and on. We are declining toward Third World status, and you think it's all because of guns? I'm not defending THAT status quo.

The obvious difference between us and other countries? Try culture, history, economics, and politics, for starters. Your facile comparison games require blinders to the reality of the comparisons.

You seem to think the an AWB would solve the problem of murderous violence in America. I'm telling you that it wouldn't amount to more than a molecule of H2O in the proverbial bucket. Your myopia on the nature of the illness facing America is shocking. You've rolled the whole problem up into one fetishistic totem, the AR-15. The reality is much more complex. Do you really think that school shootings would stop if ARs disappeared? If you do, you are dangerously deluded

I am not ashamed of my beliefs. You do not have the moral high ground here.

[MichMan]

105. Murderers already violate laws against murder; why would they obey others?

[MichMan]

106. What about the laws that have been on the books for centuries making murder illegal?

[SunSeeker]

114. The gun fan tag team gets bigger! So, MichMan, should we legalize murder?

[MichMan]

115. What new laws would people that murder decide to obey ?

[SunSeeker]

116. Criminals don't obey laws so why have any laws, eh MichMan?

Well, if you want to live in a liberterian utopia with no pointless pesky laws, I suggest you move to Somalia.

The rest of us civilized folks will continue to live under a rule of law here in the civilized world, as minimal a deterrent as it may provide to the those with evil intent.



Good grief.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

162. We need to get a few things straight

>>I HAVE NO CONTACT WITH THE NRA:
I don't read their site.
My opinions are my own.

>>I respect the rule of law:
I may not always agree with individual laws but I recognize that working to change those laws through proper and Constitutional means is best for everyone.

>>I respect the opinions and expressions of others:
That's especially true here on DU because I believe virtually all useful political change will arise from this party not the Republicans. I view Republicans as the party of non-change. They resist any change 9 times out 10 and that 1 in 10 change isn't usually for the better.


To the point of the matter, I would very much prefer to civilly discuss options for change and improvement of the current circumstances with fellow Democrats. Gun manufacturers, gunsmiths, dealers and distributors are in business to do what they do. They are profit motivated and I can't blame them for that. I can't blame the tobacco companies for doing what they do. When particular products are outlawed, as alcohol was last century and as recreational drugs are now, the production usually goes underground and a criminal black market results.

I don't see guns as equivalent to pot but there are some similarities about where the manufacture of them would go if made illegal. One of the deadliest school incidents is the Virginia Tech shooting. The weapons used were handguns with standard capacity stock magazines.

At this point I believe the two of us have exhausted the possibilities for progress in the scope of this discussion. My sticking points are as follows:
assault weapons are not definable; what you cannot define, you cannot outlaw
many people are suggesting outlawing all semi-auto rifles; there are likely about 90,000,000 of them...
many people are suggesting outlawing ARs; there are around 9,000,000 of them...
I would have a problem with a house to house search

My suggestions include:
improve background checks
allow everyone selling a gun to have a local sheriff or PD run a BGC on their buyer
legalize many recreational drugs (many shootings arise from drug trafficking)
subsidize local law enforcement for hiring more officers and civilian assistants
stop dropping the prosecution of gun possession by prohibited persons
subsidize metal detectors for schools public and private

Thanks for the discussion.

[friendly_iconoclast]

133. "GOP (NRA) talking point(s)" are the Left version of "fake news": thought-terminating cliches

Last edited Tue Feb 20, 2018, 02:02 AM - Edit history (2)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clich%C3%A9#Thought-terminating_clich.C3.A9

Thought-terminating cliché

In his 1961 book Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism: A Study of "Brainwashing" in China psychiatrist Robert Jay Lifton introduced the term "thought-terminating cliché".[15] This refers to a cliché that is a commonly used phrase, or folk wisdom, sometimes used to quell cognitive dissonance. Though the clichéd phrase in and of itself may be valid in certain contexts, its application as a means of dismissing dissent or justifying fallacious logic is what makes it thought-terminating.

Lifton wrote:

"The language of the totalist environment is characterized by the thought-terminating cliché. The most far-reaching and complex of human problems are compressed into brief, highly reductive, definitive-sounding phrases, easily memorized and easily expressed. These become the start and finish of any ideological analysis."[15]

In George Orwell's 1949 novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, the fictional constructed language Newspeak is designed to eliminate the ability to express unorthodox thoughts.[16] Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World society uses thought-terminating clichés in a more conventional manner, most notably in regard to the drug soma as well as modified versions of real-life platitudes, such as "A doctor a day keeps the jim-jams away".[17]

In her 1963 book Eichmann in Jerusalem, Hannah Arendt described Adolf Eichmann as an intelligent man who used clichés and platitudes to justify his actions and the role he played in the Jewish genocide of World War II. For her, these phrases are symptomatic of an absence of thought. Arendt wrote, "When confronted with situations for which such routine procedures did not exist, he [Eichmann] was helpless, and his cliché-ridden language produced on the stand, as it had evidently done in his official life, a kind of macabre comedy. Clichés, stock phrases, adherence to conventional, standardized codes of expression and conduct have the socially recognized function of protecting us against reality, that is, against the claim on our thinking attention that all events and facts make by virtue of their existence."

Or, as another DUer called them it:

"Uttered by everyone who wants to reduce complex discussions to the level of secular Bible-quoting."

[Straw Man]

86. You're going to have to do better than that.

If your argument held water, we should be able to solve the problem by making cosmetic changes so that the AR-15 no longer has that appeal. That wouldn't help, and you know it. Why do you persist in this ludicrous line of reasoning?

Common sense is not an "NRA argument." That invocation has about as much validity as the Trumpian "fake news" bleat.

If you want to craft meaningful legislation, you need clarity. You have none.

This is not a "hobby." It's an attempt to direct the national conversation in meaningful direction -- one that could potentially arrive at a practical solution that is acceptable to both sides. You'd rather do the Two Minutes Hate. That's not a solution -- it's part of the problem.

[SunSeeker]

88. You do not want an AWB, so spare me your concerns about what would "help." nt

[Straw Man]

89. And you want an AWB even if it wouldn't help.

Spare us your moral grandstanding. You're obviously less interested in effective solutions than you are in ideological absolutism.

[SunSeeker]

95. Not me. You're projecting. "Ideological absolutism" is the NRA's game. nt

[Straw Man]

101. Now we're just playing "Are not!/Are too!" games.

Is that the best you can do?

[SunSeeker]

102. More projection. You must have a lot of time on your hands. nt

[Straw Man]

108. Run out of counter-arguments?

Am not! Are too!

(That only took about 10 seconds.)

[SunSeeker]

112. You offered no argument to counter. Just diversion and insults. nt

[Straw Man]

118. I have offered several arguments, with evidence to support them.

And nowhere have I insulted you personally -- merely attacked your assertions. Apparently to you that constitutes "diversion." Quel cop-out ...

[SunSeeker]

120. Diversionary NRA talking points are not arguments to the point I made. nt

[Straw Man]

122. "NRA talking points" is a Trumpian "fake news" accusation designed to deflect and avoid.

It's tantamount to an admission that you have no counterargument.

[SunSeeker]

123. No, NRA talking points are how you avoid addressing the fact that ARs are marketed to nuts. nt

[Straw Man]

126. Doubling down on the deflection, eh?

Last edited Tue Feb 20, 2018, 01:28 AM - Edit history (1)

And you think that the marketing is what makes they're dangerous? I asked before, but you didn't answer: If we kept the functionality but altered the appearance -- to be, say, less appealing to "nuts" -- would that make them safer?

[SunSeeker]

127. More projection. Again, it is the whole package, function and form. nt

[Straw Man]

130. And again and again ...

... you fail to support your contention. I'll ask again: If the AR had the same function and a less attractive form, would it be as dangerous? If the law required ARs to be purple paisley and garlanded with flowers, would they be less marketable to "nuts"?

[AtheistCrusader]

94. Some of the features you are referring to make the rifle much safer to use.

[SunSeeker]

98. Well thank GOD mass murderers can slaughter us safely.

[AtheistCrusader]

144. 9+ million of them in circulation.

I am glad they can and are used, daily, safely.

None of those features are intended to prevent, curb, or otherwise impact unlawful/criminal mis-use of the weapon.
We can certainly talk about ADDING features, like registration, maybe smart gun technology, safe storage laws, etc, that would speak to the ability to mis-use the weapon, if you would like.

[OhNo-Really]

141. one popular feature is it is easy

to customize. read that on wikipedia I think.

Just for fun research

3 Gun Competitions. The AR-15 is one of the three the kids are using in these shooting sports

[krispos42]

66. And, there we go. Micro-dick jokes. "These fucking idiots". "Rambo".

And some really convoluted reasoning. Apparently, the Madison Avenue marketing firms using normal and expected gender-directed advertising is now somehow turning men into micro-penised cowardly Rambo idiots. Gee, good thing I didn't ask you your opinion about pickup trucks or Jeeps, isn't it?

"...the features are of course in and of themselves dangerous to have on a civilian weapon". Really? So... getting a good grip on a gun is a bad thing? Being able to adjust the gun to fit your stature and your clothing is a bad thing?

Really?

So in this world of everything being adjustable and customizable, this is not only unreasonable but extra-deadly and worthy of being banned?

You're outdated. You have this antiquated vision of guns, and expect them to stay stuck in, say, 1925 or something, where they're all one-size-fits-all, made from steel and wood, manual-action, and only have iron sights on them. That image is outdated, yet you seem to cling to this conservative (dictionary, not political) view of guns. "Guns shouldn't change! They should be the way they used to be! We need to return to a simpler time!"

Have you ever even shot a gun? Or do you just irrationally hate them without ever touching one?

I mean, think about this: do you think laser sights and flashlights should be banned from being mounted on guns?

Why or why not?

I mean, why isn't mounting a laser sight or a flashlight on a gun considered an "assault weapon" feature?

[SunSeeker]

68. Nope, I am all for the most modern deadly ARs for our military.

If you want to use them, join the military.

[krispos42]

69. So, no actual response then.

You're angry and lashing out and, from your position of plenty of emotion and few facts, you're latching onto the bandwagon without really understanding anything from either a practical or intellectual point of view.

Nice thing about that is that you'll always have something to be outraged about because even if you get what you want it won't make a drop of difference in the body count that you claim you're trying to fix. But you'll always be able to berate gun owners and demand more guns laws, no matter how much your approach fails.

Good day to you.

[SunSeeker]

70. I won't play the AR deflection game.

Good day.

[krispos42]

71. Right, because when the emotional rhetoric fades, the facts hurt.

Toodles.

[SunSeeker]

72. Gunners hope the horror of lives needlesly lost will fade. But it won't. nt

[AtheistCrusader]

93. The Military doesn't use the AR. They mostly use the M-4.

If you handed a soldier an AR-15 and said 'here's your M-16', they'd tell you that the rifle is broken.
No military in the world uses the AR-15.

[SunSeeker]

96. The AR was originally designed for military use, not civilian use.

Last edited Mon Feb 19, 2018, 08:14 PM - Edit history (1)

AR-15 Inventor's Family: This Was Meant to Be a Military Weapon

"He would have been horrified and sickened as anyone, if not more by these events."

http://time.com/4371452/orlando-shooting-ar-15-military-civilian-family/


It is designed to kill lots of people quickly. It has no business in civilian hands, whether our military currently uses that particular model or not.

[Straw Man]

121. The AR was designed to be a FULL-AUTO military weapon.

When it was adopted by the Army, it was renamed the M16. Colt subsequently marketed the AR-15 civilian SEMI-AUTO variant.

With all due respect to Eugene Stoner's descendants, he had been dead for 19 years when they made that statement. Leaving aside the obvious fact that any decent person would be horrified and sickened by those events, making statements about what the dead would have thought if they were alive really adds nothing to the conversation. It sounds to me as though they were deflecting collateral blame from the current demonization of the AR-15, which, by the way, was approved as a semi-auto for civilian sales by the ATF before Stoner's original full-auto version was adopted by the Army.

[SunSeeker]

129. Bump stocks and easily acquired auto sears make your assertions pure sophistry.

The Vegas victims they were killed by a full auto AR, for all intents and purposes.

[friendly_iconoclast]

131. Pious fraud-"easily acquired auto sears" no longer exist. The Feds cracked down on them in 1986

Leave that shit to Trumpolini and his claque

[Straw Man]

132. So ban bump stocks. I have no problem with that.

Your "easily acquired auto sears" are an urban myth. Any modern AR can't be modified without substantial work by a skilled machinist, and even then, the sear itself and the rifle it was installed in would become instantly highly illegal.

The Vegas killer, with his AR and his bump stock, still didn't kill as many as Anders Breivik did with a stock Ruger Mini-14: non-adjustable wooden stock, no pistol grip, no bayonet lug, no flash hider, none of the AR features that you think are so heinous.

[friendly_iconoclast]

135. I, too have no problem with banning bump stocks. A ban would be Constitutionally sound, as...

Last edited Tue Feb 20, 2018, 01:37 PM - Edit history (1)

...they are (arguably) unusual, not in common use (definitely), and dangerous (inarguably-
they send accuracy to hell when used).

So yeah, ban them.

As for the second part of your post- that whole perfervid schtick about the importance of what guns look like
is straight out of the Violence Policy Center's website:

http://www.vpc.org/studies/awaconc.htm

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.

[SunSeeker]

136. No, auto sears are not urban myths.

I knew a gun nut who got one for his AR. He said it was easy. He got it off some guy outside a gun show.

You love bringing up Breivik like that somehow disproves the danger of ARs. It doesn't. First, he did try to buy an AR, but was unsuccessful. So he got something similar, a .223-caliber Ruger Mini-14 semi-automatic carbine and bought ten 30-round magazines for the rifle from a United States supplier. Breivik killed 69 and injured 110 at the Norwegian youth camp. The massacre in Las Vegas killed 58 people and wounded 489. Maybe a few less died in Vegas, but HUNDREDS more were shot, so it is sick to suggest it was somehow a lesser tragedy.

I'm going to bed. You can keep posting your bullshit. I'm not going to let you waste any more of my time.

[Straw Man]

138. Ah, yes, ...

No, auto sears are not urban myths.

I knew a gun nut who got one for his AR. He said it was easy. He got it off some guy outside a gun show.

... the "I knew a guy" evidence. He said it was easy? To buy? That was his first felony. To install? That was his second felony.

So let me get this straight: You personally know of someone who committed two felonies to create an illegal full-auto weapon and you didn't report him? And yet somehow you think you're part of the solution?

Unless, of course, it was a registered pre-1986 drop-in auto sear, in which case your gun-nut friend needed an ATF stamp and about $20,000, as well as some M16 fire-control parts in his AR. Was that the case? Was it a $20,000 transaction with "some guy outside a gun show"? You have some interesting friends. I know a lot of "gun nuts," and I've never been offered an auto sear, or even heard of anyone who had one.

Yes, I consider fewer deaths to be a lesser tragedy. I don't know how you don't. Besides, I've already said I'm fine with banning bump stocks.

Have a nice night.

[friendly_iconoclast]

142. Indeed, no mention was made of diming out the guy. That means one of four things:

1. They simply forgot to mention turning him in.

2. The "gun nut" was bullshitting SunSeeker, presumably before Sunny got 'that old-time (antigun) religion'
and so did not turn GN in.

3. SunSeeeker is attempting to bullshit *us*, and GN never existed.

4. SunSeeker let a felon illegally trading in gun parts get away, thus demonstrating themselves to be
(as I termed it upthread) a Limbaugh-grade hypocrite- "Do as I say, not as I do"

[friendly_iconoclast]

139. "I knew a gun nut who got one for his AR." You helped enable a felony, *if* you didn't call the ATF

You did call the ATF, right? I hope so- because if you didn't, the phrase
'Limbaugh-grade hypocrite' comes to mind.

[AtheistCrusader]

149. You called the cops right?

Cool story, bro.

[SunSeeker]

156. No. It was 1989, he had a dealer's license and said it was legal for him to have it.

I was a teen at the time and had no reason to doubt him. He may have gotten it before 1981 when they weren't even regulated. He had been going to gun shows for years and had amassed quite an arsenal (he died shortly thereafter, God knows where all that shit went to).

His point in showing me the thing was to demonstrate how simple it was, a machined piece of metal smaller that a walnut, and how silly it was to ban full auto weapons. Pretty much the argument you guys make about how silly it is to ban ARs. I've since grown up and learned how sick all that shit is.

All those auto sears floating around in the 80s didn't just disappear. Plus now with bump stocks legal, you don't even need an auto sear for essentially full auto firing.

Dont you have anything better to do than mock people who call for AR bans?

[AtheistCrusader]

157. Auto Sears have been regulated as a Machine Gun and registered since 1934.

I am EXTREMELY skeptical of your story, or details are missing that would have made such a transaction legal or even likely to have occurred. I'm a firearm enthusiast. A Washington Arms Collectors member (the main Gun Show in Washington State). Guns have been prolific in my family all my life. Not once in any setting has anyone offered to show me, sell me, claimed to have purchased, or made, an auto sear or any other components that might potentially allow a firearm to fire more than once per pull of the trigger. Not once. Not people who sorta knew me. Not people who enjoyed the loose tongue of anonymity. Not people who explicitly trust me with their lives.

As has been pointed out to you, an Auto Sear is no use in any AR pattern rifle made after 1986. It either won't fit/work, or if you force it, the whole damn thing will jam, with damage, or worse, explode in your hands/face.

So those 'auto sears floating around' are as far as I can tell, a myth. If they exist at all, they are a felony, just to have one in your hand, carrying a $10,000 fine and up to 10 years in federal prison. Per sear.

In many states like WA, even being a dealer would be no defense if caught in possession of an auto sear for any reason.

[SunSeeker]

159. No, pre-11-1-81, drop-in auto sears for AR-15s weren't regulated.

On November 1, 1981, by ATF Ruling 81-4, ATF declared that they consider these items to be machine guns in themselves, as they were "a combination of parts designed and intended for use in converting a weapon to shoot automatically more than one shot." Prior to November 1, 1981, so called drop-in auto sears for AR-15 type semi-automatic rifles were not considered by ATF to be regulated under the National Firearms Act.

Like I said, it was a simple piece of machined metal. All someone needs is an AR and decent machine shop skills (a drill press and a jig) to fulfill their school massacre fantasy.

A simple Google search confirms this:

Or, they could just buy a cheap and legal bump stock. And cheap and legal 30-round magazines. The key is having an AR.

Again, don't you have anything better to do with your time than mock people calling for an AR ban?

[AtheistCrusader]

160. After that date, they are retroactively Machine Guns. Any rifle that had one installed is also retro

actively a machine gun.

“With respect to the machinegun classification of the auto sear under the National Firearms Act, pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 7805(b), this ruling will not be applied to auto sears manufactured before November 1, 1981.  Accordingly, auto sears manufactured on or after November 1, 1981,

will be subject to all the provisions of the National Firearms Act, and 27 C.F.R. Part 179

.”

Then the BATFE started using DIAS sales records from previously legal manufacturers to go back and confiscate older DIAS components from people who had legally purchased them before 1981.

Once an NFA firearm, always an NFA firearm. If you bought a legal pre-1981 DIAS, and dropped it into an AR, it's now a machine gun for legal purposes, even if you remove the DIAS and it goes back to semi-auto only.



You also didn't address my point about all post-1986 GOPA/Hughes Amendment AR pattern rifles.

I will admit, I did not know pre-1981 DIAS components were not registered under the NFA law. They are, however, not lawful to possess. Based on the info above and your point, the only DIAS components that are legal to possess were manufactured between 1981 and 1986, and they were lawfully registered into the NFA registry.

[friendly_iconoclast]

161. You left out the part where ARs *that they would fit into* were regulated at the same time...

...and such rifles are now considered machine guns by the ATF whether or not they actually have an auto-sear
fitted and are regulated accordingly.

Don't believe me? Try finding a pre-1981 (it might be 1986) AR for sale in an online ad without the transfer tax and/or
local law enforcement endorsement mentioned. If you *do* find one, it'll either be a scam or a sting.

All someone needs is an AR and decent machine shop skills (a drill press and a jig)
to fulfill their school massacre fantasy.

Examples, please- it's been 30+ years since *any* rifle one could do that with was available to
someone not already able to get a real fully-automatic firearm.

If you have media accounts to hand of someone actually doing what you claim is possible,
now would be a good time to provide them.

Again, don't you have anything better to do with your time than mock people calling for an AR ban?

AC is doing no such thing- they are correcting misinformation. They are not responsible if
someones' feelings get hurt when it is pointed out that they are providing misinformation.

[oneshooter]

171. I have 3 AR rifles that I inhereted from my Dad.

They were bought from Colt in 1967. At the time Colt only had one production line for both the AR and and the M-16 rifles. What Colt did was to pull receivers off of the M-16 line, and mark them for AR receivers. Installed a semi-auto FCG, but used full auto bolts and springs.

Dad died 15 years ago and T took the rifles and ut them into my safe. Took them out once to confirm the operation and sights. All were A1 uppers, one "as issue" with triangle hand guard, one was a HB with the same hand guard, and one was a carbine with a 18" barrel. 10 years ago I got a visit from the BATFE about the rifles. The law had changed in 1968, and the rifles were now considered to be "Full-Auto" even though they had been built, and sold, as semi-autos. It had taken the feds that long to go through Colts records and track them down. I was given a choice, either I submit the paper work for legal ownership of the rifles, and pay the $22 each tax, or I lose the rifles. They gave me the forms, and signed a receipt for the rifles. Two months later I received the stamps and went to the local BATFE office and filled out the forms to receive the rifles.

I still have those rifles, and will not surrender them.

[AtheistCrusader]

158. This is the kind of catastrophic failure an AR can experience if you try to install an auto sear

in a post-1986 AR pattern rifle.



We lovingly refer to this scenario as a 'kaboom', or a 'kb', or a 'kB!'. It can happen for other reasons, but full-auto or burst firing is EXTREMELY timing sensitive. Post 1986 bolt, bolt carrier, and receiver tolerances are modified, by law, to be unable to accept a readily available supply of parts that can convert it to full auto. They don't add metal. They remove it. Things are wider. Pins are missing or in different places. The bolt and bolt carrier are about an inch shorter, again, missing metal. The hammer is missing the tang that engages the auto sear.

If you disturb the timing of cycle, and the firing pin hits the round while the bolt face is out of battery, you get a result like the photo above. You get chunks of metal in your arm, and face. Some of them at similar velocities as a bullet exiting the barrel would normally have. It is a life-threatening failure.


I would also note, on the subject of 'auto sears floating around since the 1980's' (a supposition I flatly reject, because they were regulated all the way back to 1934), the shithead in the Las Vegas shooting didn't use auto sears. He used slide stocks (bump firing).

He used a thing that is only legal because the BATFE licked it's finger, determined which way the wind was blowing, and issued a legally binding opinion that the slide stock is legal. He somehow didn't acquire any auto-sears. Did he? (I know the investigation is STILL not complete, but I've seen no claim that he did. I'm open to correction on that point if I am wrong.)

He had the money. He had the means. He had the complete and utter disregard for human life, and his own future. Didn't get any. Went with a legal thing instead.


Want to ban slide stocks? I got your back, home skillet. Let's do this. They should be illegal for the same reason a grenade is a Destructive Device and not protected by the 2nd amendment. (indiscriminate fire) I've seen other 'gunners' in this group express similar support. Do it. Let's do it together. I'm down.

[Puha Ekapi_2]

179. We have a range here...

...where the BIA cops train mostly, but it is available to tribal members. Couple years ago I was out there tuning up a old M70 30-06 that I hadn't used in a few years. I like using the range for that with marked yardages, but mostly I shoot out back of my place. A guy I know showed up with his AR, he'd just done some work on it and wanted to test drive it. Pops in a mag, draws a bead on the target and BRRRRRPPPP! it rock and rolls a half dozen rounds and then jammed. He forgot to put the disconnect spring in it. There were 3 BIA cops there shooting, and one turns and gives him a thumbs up, hahaha! Fucked his rifle up pretty good though, had to get a new BCG and upper. The upshot is, if your AR isn't properly built as a full auto, running it full auto is a pretty iffy proposition.

[AtheistCrusader]

181. Wow, he's lucky he wasn't arrested, or at the least the rifle confiscated.

There was a case in California where a primer got loose inside the receiver, and jammed a part resulting in a runaway. He was prosecuted and the gun was forever determined to be a machine gun, despite it malfunctioning.

[Puha Ekapi_2]

182. Eh, this is on the rez...

...and the BIA cops, even though they are Federal agents, are NDNs first and last. They aren't going to arrest another NDN who unintentionally made an error that harmed no one.

[AtheistCrusader]

183. That's actually pretty cool.

Law enforcement should have the discretion to determine that something is an error or an accident and 'enforce' appropriately in that context.

[Puha Ekapi_2]

184. Our tribal cops...

...are probably some of the best social workers around. They go to great lengths to avoid arresting someone when there could be another (and usually better) way to rectify the situation. They understand what happens to native people within the penal system, how destructive it has been to our culture. Say a kid gets caught stealing. Tribal cop is as likely to mediate between the family of the kid and the victim, and see if there is a way to make it right. Everyone knows everyone on the rez, and everyone is related to half of the community by blood or marriage, even the cops. Whenever possible we prefer to deal with things "in house" so to speak. Of course with serious crimes there is really no choice, violence, drug dealing and others, expect to have the boom lowered on your ass.

[AtheistCrusader]

185. That's how it should be everywhere.

Thank you for sharing that!

[friendly_iconoclast]

163. You were conned, Sunny- and that post deserves a fisking. So here it is:

Pretty much the argument you guys make about how silly it is to ban ARs.

Please show us where such an argument was made- and provide links, if you would be so kind.

Leave exaggerated, evidence-free claims to the one who likes to show off his 'white gun owner porn'
collection at every occasion- it's the *other* thing he's notorious for.

I've since grown up and learned how sick all that shit is.

That's simply an opinion, and you are perfectly free to express it.

All those auto sears floating around in the 80s didn't just disappear.

However many were or are around, ISTR a distinct *lack* of media reports of someone using
them to jury-rig their own fully automatic ARs in the ensuing 30 years.
Again, if you know of any such reports/links, please relay them to us.

This may be due to the fact that doing so is one gun law violation that the Feds come
down *very* hard on.

Would that they were as vigilant about prosecuting straw purchases and Form 4473
shenanigans...

Plus now with bump stocks legal, you don't even need an auto sear for essentially full auto firing.

So ban them already- I've absolutely no problem with that, and have said so upthread:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=205920

I, too have no problem with banning bump stocks. A ban would be Constitutionally sound, as
they are (arguably) unusual, not in common use (definitely), and dangerous (inarguably-
they send accuracy to hell when used).

So yeah, ban them.

The disinterested reader will note that Straw Man, AtheistCrusader, and several other 'progun' posters have also
called for a ban on bump stocks.

That should be heartening news to anyone who isn't a member
of the "no loaf is better than half a loaf" school of gun control advocacy.

Dont you have anything better to do than mock people who call for AR bans?

Pointing out misinformation isn't 'mocking' - you are perfectly entitled to your own opinion.
You are *not* entitled to your own reality.

[SunSeeker]

167. My name is not "Sunny." You just can't help the mocking I guess.

If you guys really wanted a bump stock ban, you wouldn't spend your time mocking gun control advocates on DU.

[AtheistCrusader]

168. I've supported a slide stock ban for years.

I have expressed that idea clearly and frequently with all the actual gun enthusiasts within my sphere of influence, and I have talked a couple people out of acquiring one because they didn't understand how they worked, and it was a simple matter of explaining the loss of accuracy to convince them.

Nobody likes spray and pray. Not anyone I know anyway.

What I can't do, is take up the possibility of a ban with the NRA. I'm not a member. I've refused to be a member for a good 15 years, so I don't have any more voice with them than you do. Best I can do is talk to the NRA members I personally know, and I do.

What have you done? You realize that being a gun control advocate ON DU isn't worth much either right? We all come from generally the same place here. We share pretty much the same values. What productivity do you think there is to be gained by coming into the 'gungeon' and arguing with Democrats that use and own guns? There's only a 20%/22% ownership delta between republicans and Democrats on firearms.

[SunSeeker]

169. I canvas and phone bank. I got into this thread to support the OP.

You guys are the ones who swarmed this thread to argue with the OP and his supporters, mansplain and call me silly names.

[AtheistCrusader]

172. I've called you nothing. I've mansplained nothing to you.

Careful with the "You Guys" stuff.

The AWB was terrible, and didn't help, and cost us politically. We need to try something else. Maybe a different kind of ban. Whatever. But re-instating the old AWB isn't workable.

[SunSeeker]

173. You derisively said "Cool story, bro" to me.

Friendly Iconoclast dismissively called me "Sunny." And all of you jumped into this thread to arrogantly argue with supporters of what is stated in the OP.

You basically said I didn't know what I was talking about and the I was lying. That is really offensive.

[AtheistCrusader]

174. You don't get to characterize it as 'jumping on' when the thread literally advertises itself in

the gungeon. That's the point of posting something, is it not? You just want to attach a negative connotation to people... responding to a thread.. that was posted for comment.


Yes, I said 'cool story bro'. It's an internet meme that says 'I don't believe you'. I don't believe that story for the reasons I already specified. Not knowing what you are talking about isn't a gender issue. My wife could have explained all the same things to you. Your gender is irrelevant to me. I made no assumptions about it. If you are female, and your account identifies you as such, that's nice, I didn't look at your profile. Untill you mentioned 'mansplaining', I was unaware. Now I'm aware, and I don't care. You're a voter. We are equals on this issue. (And mostly on the same side of the fence, despite our disagreement on specifics.)

If you don't like it when someone doesn't believe you, consider others don't like it when you don't acknowledge technical points, like the fact that a DIAS can't be installed successfully in a post-1968 AR-15 without extreme risk to the user, and likely malfunction. They are no longer compatible. Entire components that the DIAS relies upon are shaped differently, or missing entirely. You didn't even acknowledge that. I showed you what happens when there is a timing malfunction in the firing cycle of an AR. No acknowledgement. I pointed out that recent shooters haven't used auto sears. Not even the las vegas shithead that had enough money to actually buy a M-16 in a state where they are legal.

No acknowledgement. Consider that it is frustrating to another person, to talk to a wall.

[SunSeeker]

175. I never called anyone a liar in this thread. You can't say the same. nt

[AtheistCrusader]

176. I didn't call you a liar.

I don't believe that account. The person you said you talked to may have lied to you and mischaracterized what happened.

Try with all your might, you cannot quote me calling you a liar in this thread.

[SunSeeker]

178. There is no other way to read your "Cool story, bro" reply to me.

It was directed at me, after I said I knew a guy with an auto sear.


This is pointless. Bye.

[AtheistCrusader]

180. You're wrong.

Insist there's no other way all you like, but you're wrong.

And no, I'm still not calling you a liar when I say you are wrong.

Bye.

[AtheistCrusader]

177. By the way, the 7th Circuit Court invalidated the BATFE's grandfathering of pre1981

DIAS. They did allow it, but the courts said they can't, so technically the DIAS has been regulated by the 1934 NFA since inception. Just, nobody registered any DIAS during that time. Therefore they are all illegal today, except the narrow set registered between 1981 and 1986.

[friendly_iconoclast]

170. I stand corrected, SunSeeker-however, everything else I said still applies

If you guys really wanted a bump stock ban, you wouldn't spend your time mocking gun control advocates on DU.

We don't "spend our time mocking gun control advocates on DU", we mock misinformation and/or disinformation.
Honest gun control advocates need fear no ridicule.

For that matter, why do you need help from "us guys"? I been repeatedly informed at DU that we are a loud, racist minority
of GOP/NRA/Putinist trolls (with genitalia issues) who are vastly overrepresented in the various legislatures.

No doubt the vast, sweeping tide of gun control that will sweep the nation Real Soon Now
will bring about a bump stock ban. You don't actually *need* us, do you?

In any event, it's been fun but I need to get back to planning my retirement on the Black Sea and brushing up
on my Russian grammar.

удачи with your quest!

[AtheistCrusader]

152. Bump stocks are legal, and available. Auto sears are tightly controlled, expensive, and not availabl

e.

All it takes to make Bump Stocks, Slide Stocks, and trigger cranks illegal, is an opinion letter from the BATFE.
About 5 years ago, the BATFE issued an opinion that they were legal. They can reverse that with a stroke of the pen.

[AtheistCrusader]

147. The production model supplied to the military was the M-16.

The AR is the civilian non-full-auto/burst version of that.

It is not the first, nor the last civilian-legal semi-auto variant of a military weapon.
Almost every single firearm I own, INCLUDING bolt-action rifles, were originally designed as military weapons, with the goal of being able to kill as many people as possible at the time.

[PoliticAverse]

29. The ban was a big factor in the making that type of weapons popular.

And it didn't actually ban what most people seem to think it did - it really just banned cosmetic features of
certain types of guns and manufacturers just modified the guns to get around the ban.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

33. What's an "assault weapon"?

Please define that so we can all know what it is we're discussing.

[Straw Man]

36. You have a fundamental error of fact.

In 2004 GW Bush had the opportunity to renew the Assault Weapons Ban BUT HE DIDN'T.

The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban had a sunset clause. It was up to Congress to reauthorize it in 2004. They didn't. Bush is on record saying that he would have signed it if they had.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/08/us/irking-nra-bush-supports-the-ban-on-assault-weapons.html

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

77. To be fair

I am pretty certain GWB said he would sign it knowing full well it would never reach his desk.

[Straw Man]

78. I'm don't think that's a fair assumption.

Despite those concerns, the White House says Mr. Bush supports the extension of the current law -- a position that has put him in opposition to the N.R.A. and left many gun owners angry and dumbfounded.

[leanforward]

103. I'm with you.

Ban them and the magazines more than 10. All of those items classed in the previous ban need to be melted down. Maybe the list needs to be expanded.

I'm for more. Expended background checks including the gun shows and private sales.

[sharedvalues]

104. More. Ban handguns. Like the UK, Canada, and Australia .

And before you argue about Canada’s handgun ban, please read their law. They ban handguns for all except a very very few workers who need a handgun for their jobs. Canada has a handgun ban, with a tiny number of exceptions.


If America, like most other western nations, banned handguns, many fewer Americans would be killed each year. (And if you don’t live in a city, check out where those handgun deaths happen - mostly in cities. That’s why so many big city mayors are in favor of handgun bans.)

[Straw Man]

110. Wrong again.

And before you argue about Canada’s handgun ban, please read their law. They ban handguns for all except a very very few workers who need a handgun for their jobs. Canada has a handgun ban, with a tiny number of exceptions.

In Canadian law, handguns with a barrel of over 105mm (about four inches) are restricted but not prohibited. Anyone can own restricted firearms with the appropriate license, which has nothing to do with your occupation. You're confusing PAL (Possession and Acquisition License) with ATC (Authorization to Carry).

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/form-formulaire/pdfs/5592-eng.pdf

[sharedvalues]

187. Banned in public. You can have them in your house IF trigger locked.

Canada's federal laws severely restrict the ability of civilians to transport restricted or prohibited (grandfathered) firearms in public. Section 17 of the Firearms Act makes it an offence to possess prohibited or restricted firearms other than at a dwelling-house or authorized location (with a few practically quite limited exceptions).

Canada has effectively banned handguns, which are restricted firearms.

Canadians can have them in their houses, after taking two courses, registering the gun, and undergoing a background check and interview. But it's illegal to transport them except under a very few conditions.


But for the purposes of the gun ban debate:

Canada effectively bans handguns. Which is why they have fewer handgun deaths than America. We should do the same.

[Straw Man]

188. Do you know what "ban" means?

You stated that handguns were banned in Canada. Now you're back-pedaling.

Banned in public. You can have them in your house IF trigger locked.

You can also possess them at a range for competition. You can transport them there by getting an ATT (Authorization to Transport), which can be issued for a one-time use or for regular use for a period of up to five years.

Perhaps what you meant to say is that carry of handguns is restricted to a few professions in Canada. This, of course, means nothing to those who carry them illegally for illegal purposes.

Handguns are not banned in Canada. Please do not disseminate misinformation.

[yagotme]

189. Goal posts moved again... nt

[gopiscrap]

137. Ban ALL fucking weapons

[friendly_iconoclast]

140. Start with easy stuff like sticks, rocks, and boards with nails through them

We'll also have to ban fists, feet, and hands as more people are killed with them than rifles:

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/table-12

Setting up the mass amputations might take a while...

[AtheistCrusader]

153. The idea of mixing fucking with weapons is puzzling.

Normally I do not point a weapon at anything I am unwilling to destroy.

[yagotme]

186. A butcher knife is a weapon.

A golf club is a weapon. A car is a weapon. Just depends on how you use it.

[sfwriter]

151. That's a good start!

I'm for making manufacturers and owners responsible for damages from semiautomatic weapons.