At least the guns are okay

[bigb]

Interesting this was a 1994 ban, yet a tec-9 was used at Columbine 6 years later. And some version of an AR-15 style gun was used at damn near every mass shooting since. It is almost as if bad guys will get bad guns regardless of their legality status. Nah, can't be that. Must be some other explanation.

This ban is all but meaningless in terms of weapons used in mass shootings. Guns can be modified by the user almost endlessly. When I was in high school a couple of friends and me modified a remington semi-auto 22 LR rifle to fire full auto. It jammed like crazy but when it worked it unloaded the clip fast. It was a tube feed and held like 15 rounds or something. We got it to unload the entire thing in a few seconds. Not hard to add stuff or modify stuff or whatever to do what most of this is trying to stop. And frankly, looking at the guns the person used in the Christian school shootings a couple look to have been modified accordingly.

The bigger problem to me is that both sides look at all or nothing solutions for the most part. The right wants all the guns, the left wants none of the guns, and neither side is trying to find middle ground to build on to actually get us somewhere. In the battle for the Next Great Soundbite (NGSB™) they just spout "NO MORE GUNS", or "EVEN MORE GUNS" and never really discuss anything else (remember it is about getting re-elected, none of these people give a flying **** about any plebes that might get shot, they just use these opportunities to rile up their base and make it through the next election cycle to continue to line their pockets and build their power). It is a meaningless fight with no real outcome in sight. Really I think we are more likely to see a dramatic increase in armed officers of some kind stationed at vulnerable locations, like schools and churches, before we see meaningful gun regulations that actually have an impact on restricting ownership for high-risk individuals.

Does anybody else notice that like just about every arrest made involving the suspect having a firearm one of the charges is “restricted person in possession of a firearm”. Sure sounds to me like criminals that aren’t supposed to have a gun seem to find a way to get guns. It’s almost like barring people from having guns doesn’t work.

Disagreed on the 'bad guys get guns' bit above. These folks don't have non-legal methods to acquire these weapons (for the most part), they're not hardened gangsters, they're people that have snapped.

Question for the pro-2A folks - What's a scenario in the modern US where one could realistically need a semi automatic weapon?

I can see some fringe scenarios for folks in rural Alaska and similar where they still have real mega fauna and it feels like a bit of a stretch, but I guess. What else?

Hunting. Sure, a bolt action rifle or a pump shotgun can be used; but a semi auto works better. Especially against an animal that fights back when it’s wounded.
Even hiking. I hike quite a bit in areas where mountain lions and other wild cats (bobcats most likely) are often seen. I sure wouldn’t want to come across a mountain lion with a revolver or other single action handgun. I’m a pretty good shot, while standing in a controlled environment aiming at a paper target. Put me in a position where the only thing between my kids and a mountain lion is me and my 9mm? My hands would probably be shaking beyond belief. I’d want to be able to put as many rounds at that thing as quickly as possible.

 

[Gameface]

Interesting this was a 1994 ban, yet a tec-9 was used at Columbine 6 years later. And some version of an AR-15 style gun was used at damn near every mass shooting since. It is almost as if bad guys will get bad guns regardless of their legality status. Nah, can't be that. Must be some other explanation.

This ban is all but meaningless in terms of weapons used in mass shootings. Guns can be modified by the user almost endlessly. When I was in high school a couple of friends and me modified a remington semi-auto 22 LR rifle to fire full auto. It jammed like crazy but when it worked it unloaded the clip fast. It was a tube feed and held like 15 rounds or something. We got it to unload the entire thing in a few seconds. Not hard to add stuff or modify stuff or whatever to do what most of this is trying to stop. And frankly, looking at the guns the person used in the Christian school shootings a couple look to have been modified accordingly.

The bigger problem to me is that both sides look at all or nothing solutions for the most part. The right wants all the guns, the left wants none of the guns, and neither side is trying to find middle ground to build on to actually get us somewhere. In the battle for the Next Great Soundbite (NGSB™) they just spout "NO MORE GUNS", or "EVEN MORE GUNS" and never really discuss anything else (remember it is about getting re-elected, none of these people give a flying **** about any plebes that might get shot, they just use these opportunities to rile up their base and make it through the next election cycle to continue to line their pockets and build their power). It is a meaningless fight with no real outcome in sight. Really I think we are more likely to see a dramatic increase in armed officers of some kind stationed at vulnerable locations, like schools and churches, before we see meaningful gun regulations that actually have an impact on restricting ownership for high-risk individuals.

The AWB was flawed in so many ways. It had a grandfather cluse that was beyond what you'd think a grandfather clause would be. Anything manufactured before the law went into effect could still be sold wholesale, retail and private party to private party. So you could walk into a gun store and get "banned" items after the law went into effect so long as they were manufactured before the ban.

I don't think any future restrictions would have that flaw. Buying, selling and trading should be restricted from the day the law goes into effect.

 

[fishonjazz]

Does anybody else notice that like just about every arrest made involving the suspect having a firearm one of the charges is “restricted person in possession of a firearm”. Sure sounds to me like criminals that aren’t supposed to have a gun seem to find a way to get guns. It’s almost like barring people from having guns doesn’t work.

Hunting. Sure, a bolt action rifle or a pump shotgun can be used; but a semi auto works better. Especially against an animal that fights back when it’s wounded.
Even hiking. I hike quite a bit in areas where mountain lions and other wild cats (bobcats most likely) are often seen. I sure wouldn’t want to come across a mountain lion with a revolver or other single action handgun. I’m a pretty good shot, while standing in a controlled environment aiming at a paper target. Put me in a position where the only thing between my kids and a mountain lion is me and my 9mm? My hands would probably be shaking beyond belief. I’d want to be able to put as many rounds at that thing as quickly as possible.

I have read studies that bear mace is more effective than a gun against bears and cougars
Also lighter and less dangerous to the human

 

[LogGrad98]

I have read studies that bear mace is more effective than a gun against bears and cougars
Also lighter and less dangerous to the human

And more fun at parties!

 

[LogGrad98]

Disagreed on the 'bad guys get guns' bit above. These folks don't have non-legal methods to acquire these weapons (for the most part), they're not hardened gangsters, they're people that have snapped.

Question for the pro-2A folks - What's a scenario in the modern US where one could realistically need a semi automatic weapon?

I can see some fringe scenarios for folks in rural Alaska and similar where they still have real mega fauna and it feels like a bit of a stretch, but I guess. What else?

You can disagree with it, but we continually see them with guns, many obtained legally, some not. There are a ton of ways to get a firearm that the law really doesn't touch on, like private sale, borrowing, stealing, getting it as a gift, buying one from random dude on the street, gun show, etc. etc. But in the end, if someone with the inclination wants to get a gun, even a specific one, there are precious few barriers to do anything to even slow it down, let alone stop it. So yes, bad people can get bad guns. It is just a fact.

 

[LogGrad98]

I have read studies that bear mace is more effective than a gun against bears and cougars
Also lighter and less dangerous to the human

When I used to backpack extensively in heavy bear territory, like in Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, etc. I carried bear mace, or the earlier equivalent, and a .44 revolver on my hip. No taking chances when you are 50 miles by foot to the nearest hint of civilization and no one else is anywhere around. We actually found that air horns were highly effective to just scare them away. They hated the noise. Came back to camp one day after fishing and found 2 brown bears nosing around the campfire, where we isolated all the cooking and food so it was away from our tent area, and 2 blasts from the air horn sent them flying. One ran right between us and never even looked at us. But if I ran into an angry bear I wanted my mace in one hand and my Redhawk in the other.

 

[TheGoldStandard]

Why? Guns have been regulated before without a constitutional amendment.

The Bruen case turns a lot of it on its head.

Semi auto rifles account for a tiny fraction of gun deaths. The large majority occur from semi auto pistols. I don't want to get shot, but would take a 5.56 round from an AR over getting hit with a 10mm hollow point from a pistol.

If we really want to save lives, then it has to be a robust effort on mental health, storage laws, combating drugs (fentanyl deaths alone are staggering), increase punishment for drunk driving, etc.

We can save lives on multi fronts where the constitution and case laws won't hamper the effort.

Mag bans do nothing. I can shoot using 10 round mags at almost the same rate as a 30 round (shoot 9 rounds keeping one in the chamber and drop and insert and repeat. State bans won't stop a shooter from driving over a border to buy mags in a non-restricted state.

i don't think a confiscation ban would hold up. I do think robust background checks (and not just a one time check, it could be a system that constantly checks), storage laws, training, etc. And have harsh punishment for providing easy access to guns used in shootings with protection if you lock your guns up.

The Nashville shooter would not have been able to own guns if there were robust (repeat robust) red flag laws (needs to be nationally implemented).

When you realize that the staggering supermajority of mass shootings are done by people with mental issues, why is that not the focus? Keep guns out the hands of deranged people.

With the number of guns in this country, a semi auto rifle ban will do nothing to save lives.

I don't see the problem ever getting solved, but there is a lot we can do to make it very difficult for people with mental issues from getting guns.

 

[Gameface]

And more fun at parties!

 

[TheGoldStandard]

I have read studies that bear mace is more effective than a gun against bears and cougars
Also lighter and less dangerous to the human

Simply not true. It won't deter a determined bear, and then pray it isn't really windy.

In actual incidents, handguns (all calibers from 9mm up) were 97% effective while bear spray is 92% effective. I've done a large number of backcountry excursions in grizzly country in WY, MT and AK, and the majority of guides prefer shotguns with a high power pistol as backup. A high capacity shotgun with buck would be the worst thing to face in a school shooting. They scare me more than most guns.

An AR15 would be a poor choice against a grizzly but an AR10 in 308 would work.

I carry bear spray and a 10mm pistol in grizz country. Perhaps a bit underpowered, but after I season myself with pepper spray for the bear I have 16 rounds to shoot myself before the bear eats me.

 

[Gameface]

The Bruen case turns a lot of it on its head.

Semi auto rifles account for a tiny fraction of gun deaths. The large majority occur from semi auto pistols. I don't want to get shot, but would take a 5.56 round from an AR over getting hit with a 10mm hollow point from a pistol.

If we really want to save lives, then it has to be a robust effort on mental health, storage laws, combating drugs (fentanyl deaths alone are staggering), increase punishment for drunk driving, etc.

We can save lives on multi fronts where the constitution and case laws won't hamper the effort.

Mag bans do nothing. I can shoot using 10 round mags at almost the same rate as a 30 round (shoot 9 rounds keeping one in the chamber and drop and insert and repeat. State bans won't stop a shooter from driving over a border to buy mags in a non-restricted state.

i don't think a confiscation ban would hold up. I do think robust background checks (and not just a one time check, it could be a system that constantly checks), storage laws, training, etc. And have harsh punishment for providing easy access to guns used in shootings with protection if you lock your guns up.

The Nashville shooter would not have been able to own guns if there were robust (repeat robust) red flag laws (needs to be nationally implemented).

When you realize that the staggering supermajority of mass shootings are done by people with mental issues, why is that not the focus? Keep guns out the hands of deranged people.

With the number of guns in this country, a semi auto rifle ban will do nothing to save lives.

I don't see the problem ever getting solved, but there is a lot we can do to make it very difficult for people with mental issues from getting guns.

The mental health issue is complex and not a solution, really.

First, voluntary mental health care will likely not be reported. Second, if your (voluntary) mental health care provider is required to report you for various things that would restrict firearm ownership people would either avoid dealing with those specific issues or would avoid treatment altogether, making overall mental health care worse.

I don't want to live in a world where I will be forced to get evaluated for mental health issues for various things based on unproven allegations or the vague suspicion of a police officer.

If mental health is going to be used to solve firearm violence then it needs to be tired directly to firearm ownership and/or firearm presence in the household. That would mean that a specific evaluation would need to be done on every member (let's say over 13 years old) of a household where there are firearms, and these evaluations would need to happen regularly, let's say once a year, or as a result of any incident determined to be related to increased risk. So, if you get in a fight that requires a police response, you become unemployed, domestic violence (more on that later), road rage, any mishandling or misuse of firearms, bankruptcy, and basically anything involving violence or abuse, negligence, recklessness.

It could get really messy, honestly. It seems like you'd almost need a Chinese level social credit score, but focused on violence and unpredictability.

I could see a lot of abuse of the system. If a person knows you're a gun owner they could blow small things out of proportion and get police involved specifically to have your gun privileges taken away.

 

[Eminence]

You can disagree with it, but we continually see them with guns, many obtained legally, some not. There are a ton of ways to get a firearm that the law really doesn't touch on, like private sale, borrowing, stealing, getting it as a gift, buying one from random dude on the street, gun show, etc. etc. But in the end, if someone with the inclination wants to get a gun, even a specific one, there are precious few barriers to do anything to even slow it down, let alone stop it. So yes, bad people can get bad guns. It is just a fact.

Have we heard of anyone pulling any of those private sale etc methods with an actual illegal weapon? (eg an unmodified full auto?) I'm sure someone could do it (higher end gangs, rich individuals, folks with notable military ties), I seriously doubt your average high school shooter could.

Of course it's easy to acquire something that is legal and for sale within a couple hours drive (the current situation).

 

[Gameface]

The Bruen case turns a lot of it on its head.

Semi auto rifles account for a tiny fraction of gun deaths. The large majority occur from semi auto pistols. I don't want to get shot, but would take a 5.56 round from an AR over getting hit with a 10mm hollow point from a pistol.

If we really want to save lives, then it has to be a robust effort on mental health, storage laws, combating drugs (fentanyl deaths alone are staggering), increase punishment for drunk driving, etc.

We can save lives on multi fronts where the constitution and case laws won't hamper the effort.

Mag bans do nothing. I can shoot using 10 round mags at almost the same rate as a 30 round (shoot 9 rounds keeping one in the chamber and drop and insert and repeat. State bans won't stop a shooter from driving over a border to buy mags in a non-restricted state.

i don't think a confiscation ban would hold up. I do think robust background checks (and not just a one time check, it could be a system that constantly checks), storage laws, training, etc. And have harsh punishment for providing easy access to guns used in shootings with protection if you lock your guns up.

The Nashville shooter would not have been able to own guns if there were robust (repeat robust) red flag laws (needs to be nationally implemented).

When you realize that the staggering supermajority of mass shootings are done by people with mental issues, why is that not the focus? Keep guns out the hands of deranged people.

With the number of guns in this country, a semi auto rifle ban will do nothing to save lives.

I don't see the problem ever getting solved, but there is a lot we can do to make it very difficult for people with mental issues from getting guns.

I want to ask you about what you think should change about DUI enforcement in particular? Enforcement is not lax at the moment and we're winning the DUI war, as drunk driving rates are dropping, drunk driving accidents are dropping, drunk driving deaths are dropping.

What should the punishment be for driving with a 0.05 BAC first offense, no other driving infraction?

What should the punishment be for a person holding their phone in one hand while having a voice conversation (shown to have impairment equivalent to a 0.14 BAC)?

What should the punishment be for a person who is speeding up and slowing down, not driving with the flow of traffic, not maintaining their lane, failing to notice the traffic light has changed to green, erratic jerking driving motions... found to have been texting while driving?