Assault Weapons Ban is Red Herring, will make it harder to pass Gun Control laws.

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by PracticalMac, Mar 1, 2013.

  1. PracticalMac macrumors 68030

    PracticalMac

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #1
    Pursuing an AWB (class of semi-automatic rifle) is a surefire way to destroy good gun control legislation. While I tend to side with Obama policies, this is a perfect example of how incredibly stupid and inept Obama can be.

    The evidence is perfectly clear, almost all rampage shootings were cause by emotionally and mentally troubled people.

    Would an "Assault Weapon Ban" have stopped the Aurora and Newtown shooters?

    No.
    In both horrific attacks, the shooter also had hand guns and shotguns and used one or other. Remeber the Columbine tragedy was accomplished with handguns and shotguns.

    The data is unfortunately incomplete, but Wikipedia says
    Ratio of Handgun vs Rifle (which includes "Assault Weapons") murders is 17:1.
    Since Assault weapons could be (pure gestimate) 1/10th of that, the ratios is more like 170:1, or 0.59% of all murders by semi-auto rifle firearm.

    Also research of the AWB act of 1994 did not prove the law decreased crime, or even provided enough data to make a determination.
    IOW, it was so rare to begin with and so rare during, the professors could not produce a scientifically supported studies (more then one).

    Obama's continued support for an AWB makes it much, Much, easier for opponents to rally support and undermine the broader gun control measures. Obama is giving the NRA and others a bull horn on a silver platter to shout him down. What a moron.


    Mental Heath Screening will by far the do most good, catch most of the people and prevent them from getting a gun. Has strong bipartisan support.


    Background checks and Straw Laws are good, will make it much harder for criminals to get, but mentally ill from getting guns MUST have the MHS (above) to be effective.

    Gun safety education. This is something even the NRA likes.

    Gather more statistical evidence on gun injuries (all types)?
    Information is good to make better policy (although some say invasion of privicy)

    Registration?
    In invasion of Privacy issues, however Safety Qualifications for perspective gun owners may be good.

    Magazine limits?
    Tens of millions of magazines over 10 exist, many handguns (9mm for instance) can load over 10 rounds. A ban on 11+ magazines will make millions of Americans "criminals", and very likely unconstitutional. Likely dead.


    The strategy Obama should be taking is clear, but his continued insistence to go after an AWB proposals even fellow Democrats say is dead makes it obvious he is trying to get a feather in his cap.
    Instead he is further dividing America and undermining good laws.


    For the record, while I legally can own a firearm, but do not have one.
     
  2. Sydde macrumors 68020

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #2
    They feel that they need to look like they are trying to do something.
     
  3. xShane macrumors 6502a

    xShane

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2012
    Location:
    United States
    #3
    It's not necessarily unconstitutional. The Second Amendment only states that it's your right to bear arms. However, to what extent? It doesn't say anything about which firearms, ammo, or magazines. The Founding Fathers tried to future-proof the US Constitution as much as possible by letting the courts further interpret and decide.
     
  4. PracticalMac thread starter macrumors 68030

    PracticalMac

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #4
    Courts apply law, not make law.
    I probably not following what you are saying.
     
  5. zioxide macrumors 603

    zioxide

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #5
    Obama? Dianne Feinstein is the one leading the charge towards bringing back the AWB.

    Your statistics are good though and support what I said along time ago: the real thing we should be focused on banning is handguns. For people in rural areas, rifles have legitimate uses for defense against bears, wolves, mountain lions, etc. A hand gun's only use is killing people.

    You claimed that a ban on hi-cap magazines would be unconstitutional, which it clearly wouldn't. Arms doesn't mean you get to own everything under the sun. Select-fire guns are already banned. RPGs are already banned. Nuclear bombs are already banned. Hicap magazines could easily be banned without infringing on the right to bear arms whatsoever.
     
  6. xShane macrumors 6502a

    xShane

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2012
    Location:
    United States
    #6
    Actually, you're somewhat wrong. It's up to the judicial branch to interpret the constitution, or even change laws altogether through judiciary review.
     
  7. PracticalMac thread starter macrumors 68030

    PracticalMac

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #7
    Biden and Obama are very vocal about AWB, and their position carriers much more weight then a grouchy lady (although I understand why she is so anti-gun).


    What I think why a large magazine restriction unconstitutional is just the sheer numbers in wild, millions of them.
    Then the infrequency of large magazines at crimes (all times).
    And a argument can be made if you restrict at 10, then restrict it to 7, then 4, and finally 1.

    Besides, citizens can own machine guns, cannons, and use high explosives with very through background checks.

    Gotcha, I though you meant criminal courts.
     
  8. elistan macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2007
    Location:
    Denver/Boulder, CO
    #8
    It might be worthwhile for everybody to read the actual Obama/Biden proposal:

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/wh_now_is_the_time_full.pdf

    FWIW, the only ownership restrictions proposed are for military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Handguns are never mentioned (except for a tiny bit about how they can use high-capacity magazines.)

    Good for appealing to traumatized citizenry, not anything significant to reduce total amount of violence and number of deaths.

    Most of the rest of it seems to have merit.

    Beyond that though, some attempt to restrict handguns would have to be attempted. I don't think the body politic would support that however.
     
  9. iMikeT macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Location:
    California
    #9


    I disagree with you in regards to the Supreme Court to change laws.

    If the judiciary were the end-all-be-all in regards to laws, then we'd have some sort of monarchy and there would be no need for the legislative and executive branch of our government. Our democratic system would be completely useless to us. In practice, this has become a reality and perhaps a nightmare in comparison to the dream that the founders envisioned.

    This is what I wrote about the Supreme Court in another thread and its role in the checks and balances system in our government:

    The Supreme Court is supposed to be the weakest branch of our government. The hard-right crazies on the Supreme Court have twisted judicial review and turned it into judicial activism for the last decade.
     
  10. Menel macrumors 603

    Menel

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    #10
    Our founding fathers had just won their freedom from 'Tyranny' by fighting a war. A war formed from colonial militias, whose members brought the firearms commonly owned at the time from their home, for militia duty.

    Firearms, like the rifled bore Kentucky Rifle, that outclassed the smooth bore muskets the British Empire's Army carried.

    If you go by the intent of the Founding Fathers, the Constitution is intended to guarantee the people's right to own weapons that outclasses whatever the most powerful military carries.

    This historical aspect of the Constitution was stripped way by the National Firearms Act of 1934 which effectively banned Assault Rifles.

    The current legislation and media push is a misnomer. They are looking to ban small caliber sport rifles that are cosmetically modeled after assault rifles. Actual assault rifles have long been out of reach. It looks like to many people to be effectively a push by a bunch of old white men in congress trying to keep firearms out of women's hands.

    My girl can effectively wield and shoot my little .223 AR15, it's collapsible stock, light weight make it easy for her to handle. Compared to my .30-06 bolt action, or 12 gauge which nearly knocks her butt to the ground due to it's incredible firepower, she won't touch it.
     
  11. fat jez macrumors 68000

    fat jez

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2010
    Location:
    Glasgow, UK
    #11
    I would question what value an AR15 or similar has outside of the range? It's calibre is too small to go hunting deer and it's unlikely to do more than make a bear angry and an assault rifle is too cumbersome for home defence - a pistol would be a better choice as in the home would be close range and is more manoeuvrable and is why anti-terrorist forces use shorter MP-5 sub machine guns than rifles.
     
  12. Menel macrumors 603

    Menel

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    #12
    I won't argue, as that's pretty much my use. Handgun home, AR15 range.

    It's not humane to use something as small as .223 for anything larger than coyote. But really it's a varmint round.
     
  13. macquariumguy macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2002
    Location:
    Sarasota FL
    #13
    When the zombie apocalypse happens, then you'll see.

    But seriously, there doesn't need to be any value outside the range (and I'm not saying there isn't). That is sufficient in itself.
     
  14. zioxide macrumors 603

    zioxide

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #14
    Then why can't we require them to be kept in lockers at a range and only shot on range property?

    We don't need people walking around the cities and suburbs with AR-15s. Anyone who really thinks they need one of those things is paranoid and should probably go see a shrink to get their head checked out. Normal people don't feel the need to own military-style weapons.
     
  15. eric/ Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
    #15
    Because you can't tell me what to do with my stuff.

    We don't need people not walking around cities and suburbs with AR-15s.

    I'm normal. I want to own military-style weapons. They're fun to shoot. :D
     
  16. macquariumguy macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2002
    Location:
    Sarasota FL
    #16
    You keep using that word, "need", over and over. In America, we don't allow things because they are needed or disallow things because they are not needed. That's 100% pure totalitarianism right there and we don't want to go down that path.
     
  17. zioxide macrumors 603

    zioxide

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #17
    Your fellow citizens have been telling you what you can and can't do much longer than you have been alive.

    Go try walking down the street without any clothes on and see how far you get before you end up in jail and in a sex offender registry.



    hahahahah

    Yeah we do, it's been going on as long as this country has been around. You don't have absolute freedom. Never had and never will.
     
  18. eric/ Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
    #18
    And it's not right. Just like you shouldn't support banning same sex marriage,




    compelling argument


    Examples?

    And isn't that sad? Maybe we should ban free speech.

    You don't have absolute freedom. Never had and never will.

    ----------

    Who knows.

    How is anybody in a position to determine what somebody else needs?

    You don't need a 100000 square foot house.

    You don't need a new pair of shoes

    etc.. etc..

    silly, just silly
     
  19. zioxide macrumors 603

    zioxide

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #19
    For the 867th time, discrimination against a specific demographic group is not even close to imposing regulations on something that the ENTIRE POPULATION has to abide by to help make society safer for all.

    Read my last post, I gave you one there that you deleted when you quoted me.

    Even free speech has its limits there dude. See libel, slander, yelling fire in a crowded theater, etc.

    Open your mind and try having a debate for once without thinking about you, yourself, and your needs. You're one of like 320 million people in this country, it's not all about you.

    It's not a single person trying to determine what someone else needs. It's your fellow citizens trying to determine what's best for our country and the entire population as a whole. If the majority determines that increased regulations or even banning guns is the best solution for the country (not YOU) then that's what will happen. This is how all laws are supposed to work (when there's no corruption involved at least). If you don't like living in a civilized country with government and laws you're free to buy your own deserted island, move their, and start your own micro-nation.

    Gun owners are a vocal minority. The majority of the people in this country don't own or want to own a gun, and many of them would feel safer if their wack job neighbor down the street didn't own one either.

    The way some people freak out as soon as someone mentions anything regarding gun control you would think you were asking them to stick their junk in a wood chipper.
     
  20. eric/ Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
    #20
    But it is the same thing. The demographic is just gun owners.


    Only one you got?


    But that's because those hurt people. Me owning a gun doesn't hurt anybody.


    Well it is about me if you and a few other people are trying to initiate force against me when I've done nothing to you.

    Ok, so more than one person. It doesn't matter. It's some people trying to tell other people what they "need".

    Ok, sure, that's what will happen. Doesn't mean it's right.


    Love it or leave it fallacy.

    Ok, and religious people would feel safer if people of the same sex weren't allowed to marry.
     
  21. jrswizzle macrumors 603

    jrswizzle

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2012
    Location:
    McKinney, TX
    #21
    Wrong - there's a huge distinction between hating the SIN and hating the SINNER that most liberals/anti-religious folks conveniently forget/ignore. I'm free (and in fact called by Jesus) to love everyone I meet....which includes homosexuals.....that doesn't mean I condone their behavior.

    IMO, people should be free to marry whomever they wish....if its all for love, why not allow a daughter to marry her father. Or better yet, a son marry his father. Or an Aunt marry her cousin.....if they love each other, who's to stop them....just don't ask why our society is as messed up as it is when moral ambiguity reigns supreme.

    Another argument for another thread.

    As for this current issue, just look at the cities with the highest incidents of gun violence.....then compare it with which cities have the strictest gun laws.....then compare it with a voting map from, say the 2012 or 2008 elections.....

    I'll spell it out....the cities with the strictest gun laws have higher incidents of gun violence, and these cities/districts tend to vote Democrat. Infer what you will....
     
  22. Moyank24 macrumors 601

    Moyank24

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Location:
    in a New York State of mind
    #22
    Just because you believe it's a sin doesn't make it so....I don't "condone" learning morality from an ancient fictional book, but I have chosen to forgive your ignorance.

    But, yes, another argument for another thread.

    Concerning your other point:

    New York City has very strict gun laws. Where do they rank in terms of gun violence / homicides? Your point would be better spelled out with a source.

    There are many studies that have shown a correlation between cities with a large amount of unemployed and gun violence - I'm not sure I've seen any studies about the correlation between Democratic voters and gun violence though.
     
  23. xShane macrumors 6502a

    xShane

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2012
    Location:
    United States
    #23
    Start watching at 2:40.

     
  24. rdowns, Mar 6, 2013
    Last edited: Mar 6, 2013

    rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #24

    What a crock of ****. The fact is, Nevada, Arizona, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Arkansas have the highest number of gun deaths per 100K people. Last I looked, these were states with the least stringent gun laws and are red states.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/01/the-geography-of-gun-deaths/69354/
     
  25. eric/ Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
    #25
    Oh hey there:

    Link

    There are more factors than just gun laws at play.
     

Share This Page