Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 160

Thread: Gun policy analysis thread.

  1. #1
    Senior Member dneal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    2,976
    Thanks
    1,275
    Thanked 1,194 Times in 687 Posts
    Rep Power
    11

    Default Gun policy analysis thread.

    Chuck noted the bi-partisan framework agreed to in the Senate - which looks to focus on mental health, red flag laws, and juvenile criminal history being included in background checks.

    The debate will be in the news for the next few weeks at least, and those other two threads are their own messes.

    Perhaps we could start with a clean sheet for the articles and analysis?

    It's amazing how much panic one honest man can spread among a multitude of hypocrites.
    - Thomas Sowell

  2. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to dneal For This Useful Post:

    ethernautrix (June 13th, 2022), Lloyd (June 12th, 2022), Pendragon (June 19th, 2022)

  3. #2
    Senior Member dneal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    2,976
    Thanks
    1,275
    Thanked 1,194 Times in 687 Posts
    Rep Power
    11

    Default Re: Gun policy analysis thread.

    This one from the WSJ is informative, from the perspective of practical political machinations; and relatively free of "opinion".

    Why Congress Won’t Ban Assault Weapons
    Republican opposition and a Justice Department study showing the 1994 ban’s limited effects leave Democrats reluctant to try to revive it.

    President Biden and parents who recently buried their children are again pleading for a federal assault-weapons ban, after AR-15-style rifles again were a weapon of choice in mass shootings.
    But the Democratic-led Congress isn’t seriously considering any such proposal, and even gun-control advocates have stopped pursuing it as a top priority.

    The reasons behind shelving the ban are both political and practical: Passing such legislation in a closely divided Senate, when Republicans as a party have for years opposed nearly all gun legislation, isn’t feasible. A Justice Department study of the decadelong ban that ended in 2004 also showed its effectiveness was limited. And there are 20 million AR-style rifles in America and little public appetite for seizing them.

    As thousands of Americans prepare to attend March for Our Lives rallies in Washington and across the country Saturday, a nationwide ban on the sale of assault weapons has become less popular. Half of registered voters favor it, while 45% oppose it, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released this week—the lowest level of support since Quinnipiac first asked the question in 2013.

    “I would love to have an assault-weapons ban. Nobody should be running around with an AR-15,” said Sen. Mazie Hirono (D., Hawaii). “However, I’m very clear also in the need—and the urgent need—to enact some kind of legislation that will provide more gun safety than we have now. And I have to say it’s a pretty low bar, but we need to at least get to that point.”

    The Democratic-controlled House didn’t include an assault-weapons ban in a gun-control package that passed this week just hours after the mother of 10-year-old Lexi Rubio, a victim of the Uvalde, Texas, mass killing, tearfully asked for it in a congressional hearing. Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) has promised a separate hearing on an assault-weapons ban, but she hasn’t committed to bringing legislation to the floor for a vote by the full House.

    Bills to ban semiautomatic weapons like AR-15 style rifles haven’t come close to passing since the federal ban expired in 2004.
    The political landscape has shifted dramatically since 1994, when former President Bill Clinton, along with a coalition of Democrats, police leaders, and moderate suburban Republicans, outmaneuvered the National Rifle Association to push the ban through as part of a broad anticrime bill.

    Now, Republicans almost uniformly oppose such a ban, while law-enforcement groups spend their time lobbying on other issues. Meanwhile, gun-control groups still support a ban but are placing a priority on less-divisive measures such as red-flag laws, which allow law enforcement, and sometimes family members, to petition courts to take guns temporarily from people deemed dangerous to themselves or others.

    The 1994 law banned the manufacture of 19 weapons by name, including Colt’s AR-15. It prohibited semiautomatic rifles—guns that can fire one shot after another with each squeeze of the trigger—that had detachable ammunition magazines and at least two military-style features, such as a pistol grip or a bayonet mount. New magazines holding more than 10 rounds also were outlawed. Guns and magazines that were already in circulation before the ban were grandfathered in.

    Gun makers quickly figured out how to produce similar weapons without the prohibited features and sold their guns under new names. Colt called its post-ban rifle the Match Target.

    The post-ban guns looked a little different, and they were sold with 10-round magazines instead of 30-round magazines. But they still fired the same bullets as fast as a shooter could pull the trigger. By 1999, multiple gun makers were producing more AR-15s than ever before.

    It's amazing how much panic one honest man can spread among a multitude of hypocrites.
    - Thomas Sowell

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to dneal For This Useful Post:

    Lloyd (June 12th, 2022)

  5. #3
    Senior Member Empty_of_Clouds's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    2,980
    Thanks
    828
    Thanked 2,435 Times in 1,233 Posts
    Rep Power
    11

    Default Re: Gun policy analysis thread.

    [22.1140-1140/44.13.6]

    data retrieval complete

    preliminary analysis complete

    2nd amendment is subject to change through constitutional process


    consensus is achieved at acceptable level

    will to change is absent

    rationale for resistance based on flawed reasoning

    rationale for resistance based on venal considerations


    synthetics lack emotional affect / we see the problem in context objectively

    organics speak of free will

    targeted narratives demonstrate that organics are easily controlled by units with resources
    There is no subject so old that something new cannot be said about it.

  6. #4
    Senior Member dneal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    2,976
    Thanks
    1,275
    Thanked 1,194 Times in 687 Posts
    Rep Power
    11

    Default Re: Gun policy analysis thread.

    That article referenced and linked this essay from 2021, also in the WSJ; which is very informative from a history perspective.

    I was familiar with most of it, but was surprised at the exponential increase in AR15 style rifles pre and post ban. 400k to 20M? Did the ban have the opposite effect, and generate more desire and ownership?

    America’s Failed Attempt to Ban Assault Weapons
    As President Biden calls for new gun laws in the wake of mass shootings, the federal ban passed in 1994 offers a reminder of how difficult it is to craft an effective prohibition.

    As the U.S. begins to make progress against Covid-19, a different tragedy has returned to the headlines: mass shootings. On March 16, a gunman killed eight people at spas and massage parlors in the Atlanta area. Days later, another gunman killed 10 at a supermarket in Boulder, Colo.

    With the tragedies have come renewed calls from Democratic leaders, including President Joe Biden, to authorize a new federal ban on assault weapons. “We can ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines in this country once again,” Mr. Biden said the day after the Boulder shooting. “I got that done when I was a senator. It passed. It was law for the longest time, and it brought down these mass killings. We should do it again.”

    But the history of the federal assault-weapons ban, passed in 1994 after an epic political battle on Capitol Hill, offers a cautionary tale about the difficulty of constructing an effective and politically acceptable ban. Mr. Biden, then the powerful chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, was a key supporter of the ban as part of a major anticrime bill pushed by President Bill Clinton. When Mr. Clinton signed the law in September 1994, he touted it as a major victory over the National Rifle Association, declaring, “We will finally ban these assault weapons from our streets that have no purpose other than to kill.”

    Yet the Democratic Party paid a political price, losing its House majority in that fall’s elections for the first time in four decades. When the ban came up for reauthorization in 2004, it failed to get the necessary votes in Congress, even though then-President George W. Bush, a Republican, said he would sign it if it came to his desk.

    Today, gun-rights advocates and many gun-control advocates view the ban as ineffective and politically destructive. Above all, these critics argue, it didn’t do what it set out to do: limit sales of the weapons it purported to ban. In fact, sales of weapons like AR-15-style rifles rose during the era of the assault-weapons ban and skyrocketed when it was lifted.

    The 1994 law prohibited the manufacture of 19 weapons by name, including Colt’s AR-15. It banned semiautomatic rifles—guns that can quickly fire one shot after another with each squeeze of the trigger—that had detachable ammunition magazines and at least two military-style features, such as a pistol grip or a bayonet mount. New magazines holding more than 10 rounds also were outlawed. Guns and magazines that were already in circulation before the ban were grandfathered in.

    Those rules, which also applied to what the law called “assault pistols,” would have prohibited the AR-style pistol used by 21-year-old Ahmad Al Aliwi Alissa, the accused shooter in Boulder, but not the 9mm handgun used by the alleged Atlanta shooter, Robert Aaron Long, also 21. Semiautomatic weapons with high-capacity magazines were used in about a quarter of the 170 mass shootings in which four or more people were killed in a public place between 1966 and 2020, according to the Violence Project, a mass shooting database founded by criminology professors Jillian Peterson and James Densley.

    The term “assault rifle” originated in the military to describe weapons used in combat. In the 1980s, gun makers producing semiautomatic versions of military weapons embraced the term to market their firearms to wannabe warriors. By the end of that decade, however, gun-control groups were using it to label guns they wanted banned. When the federal assault-weapons ban was passed in 1994, both gun-rights and gun-control supporters believed it would severely limit civilian ownership of assault rifles.

    But that didn’t happen. Gun makers quickly figured out how to make similar weapons without the prohibited features, such as the bayonet mount. A frequent joke in the gun world was that the ban greatly reduced the number of drive-by bayonettings. Prohibiting Colt’s AR-15 by name didn’t deter gun makers from selling AR-15 style weapons under different names; Colt called its post-ban rifle the Match Target. The post-ban guns looked a little different, and they were sold with 10-round magazines instead of 30-round magazines. But they still fired the same bullets as fast as a shooter could pull the trigger. By 1999, multiple gun makers were producing more AR-15s than ever before.

    A 2004 report for the Justice Department found that the ban’s “effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement.” That year Congress let the ban lapse without much debate. Since then sales of weapons prohibited under the ban have soared, spurred by periodic calls to ban them again, and in the past year by fears over the pandemic and rioting. Before the 1994 ban, Americans owned approximately 400,000 AR-15s, according to government estimates; today, there are approximately 20 million AR-15 style rifles or similar weapons in private hands, according to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, which represents the gun industry.

    Over the same period, mass shootings have also increased in frequency and deadliness, according to the FBI. One of the authors of the 2004 report, Christopher Koper, an associate professor of criminology at George Mason University, wrote in 2020 that “It is reasonable to argue that the federal ban could have prevented some of the recent increase in persons killed and injured in mass shootings had it remained in place,” mainly because of its restrictions on magazine capacity. Investigators are probing whether the Boulder shooter used an illegal 30-round magazine; Colorado state law limits new magazines to 15 rounds.

    But efforts to reinstate an assault weapons ban haven’t come close to passing Congress, and even activist groups have moved it lower down on their agendas. Instead, their lobbying has been focused on other proposals, such as mandatory background checks for all gun sales and red flag laws, which allow authorities to temporarily seize guns from people considered to be a danger to themselves or others. Gun-rights groups have spent much of their energy lobbying Congress and state legislatures on allowing gun owners to carry weapons in public spaces. Neither side really expected another federal assault-weapons ban.

    Now Mr. Biden and other Democratic leaders, including former President Clinton, have resurrected the idea. And a better-financed gun-control movement, including groups like Everytown for Gun Safety, is eager to push for new laws following the recent mass shootings. At the same time, gun-rights groups have been bolstered by new support. Last year saw record-breaking gun purchases, including an estimated 8.4 million new gun-owners, many purchasing weapons like the AR-15 that Mr. Biden says he wants to ban.

    If a new assault-weapons ban does come before Congress, it may once again create a fierce political brawl while doing little to make America safer, leaving both gun-control and gun-rights backers disillusioned and angry.
    -----------------
    Mr. McWhirter and Mr. Elinson are reporters at The Wall Street Journal and are writing a book about the history of the AR-15 rifle.

    It's amazing how much panic one honest man can spread among a multitude of hypocrites.
    - Thomas Sowell

  7. #5
    Senior Member Empty_of_Clouds's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    2,980
    Thanks
    828
    Thanked 2,435 Times in 1,233 Posts
    Rep Power
    11

    Default Re: Gun policy analysis thread.

    [22.1149-1149/12.13.6]

    data retrieval complete

    primary analysis complete

    2nd amendment is subject to change through constitutional process


    consensus is achieved at near-complete level

    will to change is absent

    rationale for resistance based on flawed reasoning

    rationale for resistance based on venal considerations
    There is no subject so old that something new cannot be said about it.

  8. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    3,539
    Thanks
    1,602
    Thanked 1,668 Times in 1,038 Posts
    Rep Power
    13

    Default Re: Gun policy analysis thread.

    just goes to show how sick with guns America is

    addiction is hard to break

  9. #7
    Senior Member dneal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    2,976
    Thanks
    1,275
    Thanked 1,194 Times in 687 Posts
    Rep Power
    11

    Default Re: Gun policy analysis thread.

    Can we please leave the vitriol in the other threads?

    It's amazing how much panic one honest man can spread among a multitude of hypocrites.
    - Thomas Sowell

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to dneal For This Useful Post:

    Lloyd (June 12th, 2022)

  11. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    3,539
    Thanks
    1,602
    Thanked 1,668 Times in 1,038 Posts
    Rep Power
    13

    Default Re: Gun policy analysis thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by Empty_of_Clouds View Post
    [I]

    2nd amendment is subject to change through constitutional process


    consensus is achieved at near-complete level

    will to change is absent

    rationale for resistance based on flawed reasoning

    rationale for resistance based on venal considerations
    agree on all points

  12. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    3,539
    Thanks
    1,602
    Thanked 1,668 Times in 1,038 Posts
    Rep Power
    13

    Default Re: Gun policy analysis thread.

    changes for America:

    1) Revise 2nd Amendment

    2) 50-year buyback program funded by taxes and fees on gun purchases

    3) Mandatory insurance program included with mandatory licensing process to cover costs to society for presence of these lethal weapons



    Changing the relationship between Americans and guns will take decades of work. So let's get started. It's time for America to get its head out of its ass and believe in the value of long-term commitment to change. To take the mantra from the Civil Rights movement, we must keep our eyes on the prize.

  13. #10
    Senior Member dneal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    2,976
    Thanks
    1,275
    Thanked 1,194 Times in 687 Posts
    Rep Power
    11

    Default Re: Gun policy analysis thread.

    Yeah, none of that is going to happen. Democrats won’t support it, and they’ll happily blame it’s lack of being on the table on Republicans.

    It's amazing how much panic one honest man can spread among a multitude of hypocrites.
    - Thomas Sowell

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to dneal For This Useful Post:

    Lloyd (June 12th, 2022)

  15. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    3,539
    Thanks
    1,602
    Thanked 1,668 Times in 1,038 Posts
    Rep Power
    13

    Default Re: Gun policy analysis thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by TSherbs View Post
    just goes to show how sick with guns America is

    addiction is hard to break
    repeat, so EoC bot can enter the appropriate data

    /organicformerlyknownasthemarlboroman

  16. #12
    Senior Member dneal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    2,976
    Thanks
    1,275
    Thanked 1,194 Times in 687 Posts
    Rep Power
    11

    Default Re: Gun policy analysis thread.

    Ohio GOP Gov. DeWine signs bill allowing teachers to carry gun after 24 hours training


    Under the new law, local school boards still have the ability to prohibit firearms on their campuses

    Ohio GOP Gov. Mike DeWine signed a bill Monday making it easier for teachers to carry guns in schools, capping the required training to no more than 24 hours.

    Teachers and other school employees previously were required to complete the same basic training as law enforcement, which took over 700 hours.

    Under the new law, local school boards still have the ability to prohibit firearms on their campuses. Cleveland Mayor Justin Bibb said last week his school district intends to ban non-security personnel from carrying on campuses.

    DeWine after signing the bill thanked the Legislature for "passing this bill to protect Ohio children and teachers." And he made clear: "This does not require any school to arm teachers or staff,” he said. “Every school will make its own decision."
    Agree or not, this does seem to comport with Justice Brandeis' notion that: "a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country."

    Some may claim there is increased risk. Some may claim there is increased security. Mass school shootings are actually so statistically rare that we'll probably never know. It does seem reasonable that local communities, through their elected school boards, may choose the policy that affects their children - as opposed to some federal diktat.

    It's amazing how much panic one honest man can spread among a multitude of hypocrites.
    - Thomas Sowell

  17. The Following User Says Thank You to dneal For This Useful Post:

    Lloyd (June 13th, 2022)

  18. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    3,688
    Thanks
    446
    Thanked 706 Times in 520 Posts
    Rep Power
    6

    Default Re: Gun policy analysis thread.

    Ironically no training was required for the Texas shooter.

    Only if the teachers have extra-capacity assault rifes and whereby the teen mass shooter must give a ten minute warning prior to entering the class room.

    The stupidity of the law comes from the recent incident from Uvalde where the police's weaponry was outmatched by the shooter. Imagine teaching and suddenly a shooter storms the back door.

    The simple solution is either ban assualt type weapons for citizen or required age, training, background checks, and a 30 day waiting person.

  19. #14
    Senior Member Lloyd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,164
    Thanks
    1,661
    Thanked 560 Times in 344 Posts
    Rep Power
    12

    Default Re: Gun policy analysis thread.

    Using Mental Health Team, Not Cops, on 911 Calls Lowers Crime

    https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/...src=RSS_PUBLIC

    Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™
    M: I came here for a good argument.
    A: No you didn't; no, you came here for an argument.
    M: An argument isn't just contradiction.
    A: It can be.
    M: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
    A: No it isn't.
    M: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.
    A: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
    M: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'
    A: Yes it is!
    M: No it isn't!

  20. The Following User Says Thank You to Lloyd For This Useful Post:

    dneal (June 15th, 2022)

  21. #15
    Senior Member dneal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    2,976
    Thanks
    1,275
    Thanked 1,194 Times in 687 Posts
    Rep Power
    11

    Default Re: Gun policy analysis thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck Naill View Post
    Ironically no training was required for the Texas shooter.
    Fair point on the irony.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck Naill View Post
    Only if the teachers have extra-capacity assault rifes and whereby the teen mass shooter must give a ten minute warning prior to entering the class room.
    Chuck, you have a conditional statement with an antecedent but no consequent. What is the "then" to your "if"?

    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck Naill View Post
    The stupidity of the law comes from the recent incident from Uvalde where the police's weaponry was outmatched by the shooter. Imagine teaching and suddenly a shooter storms the back door.
    The police's weaponry was equivalent to the shooter. They both had ARs. Police also had pistols and shotguns, indicating the police's weaponry was actually superior to the shooter. Their motivation and determination did appear to be outmatched.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck Naill View Post
    The simple solution is either ban assualt type weapons for citizen or required age, training, background checks, and a 30 day waiting person.
    "Assault weapons" have only had cosmetic criteria when written into law, rendering the rest of the argument moot.

    See: Winchester Model 1907, it's functional characteristics and availability, date of origin, etc... Semi-automatic rifles in civilian usage arguably predate military usage.

    It's amazing how much panic one honest man can spread among a multitude of hypocrites.
    - Thomas Sowell

  22. #16
    Senior Member dneal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    2,976
    Thanks
    1,275
    Thanked 1,194 Times in 687 Posts
    Rep Power
    11

    Default Re: Gun policy analysis thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lloyd View Post
    Using Mental Health Team, Not Cops, on 911 Calls Lowers Crime

    https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/...src=RSS_PUBLIC

    Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™
    Kind of turns into a different topic I've been interested in, that revolves around the idea in Radley Balko's The Rise of the Warrior Cop. There are many instances of police responding to clear mental health crises which end up fatal to the citizen.

    There seems to have been a shift in a few things: The first is the psych exam (and there are a few different ones used). I can't recall the specific axis, but it related to psychopathy and conscientiousness, and was a high bar. That has been lowered over the years - a mix of not enough recruits and police unions. An example question was "would you rather chase down a bank robber or help an old lady change a tire". The tire change was the "correct" answer.

    The second revolves around training. "officer safety" and "compliance" are considered critical, and have replaced "verbal judo" to deescalate. My uncle is a recently retired highway patrolman, and we talk about military and police differences and similarities. One conversation was about the news video of a black preacher undergoing threat training with simunition guns. The role-player doesn't comply and the preacher eventually shoots. That's used as justification of just how dangerous it is "out there" and why shootings are justified. I pointed out it was bad training that created and reinforced unnecessary escalation. Tell the "bad guy" role-player that the preacher has live ammunition, and see if he is still as quick to disregard commands and rush the preacher playing police officer... He laughed, and said "yeah, that probably would change things a little bit..."

    It's amazing how much panic one honest man can spread among a multitude of hypocrites.
    - Thomas Sowell

  23. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    3,688
    Thanks
    446
    Thanked 706 Times in 520 Posts
    Rep Power
    6

    Default Re: Gun policy analysis thread.

    The condition would be to allow teachers to arm themselves.

    Your last statement is too vague to appreciate your point. If your point is an assault rifle is one that looks like one, that’s not what I am addressing. In context, most Americans have an idea of what constitutes an assault rifles.

  24. #18
    Senior Member dneal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    2,976
    Thanks
    1,275
    Thanked 1,194 Times in 687 Posts
    Rep Power
    11

    Default Re: Gun policy analysis thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck Naill View Post
    The condition would be to allow teachers to arm themselves.

    Your last statement is too vague to appreciate your point. If your point is an assault rifle is one that looks like one, that’s not what I am addressing. In context, most Americans have an idea of what constitutes an assault rifles.
    Thanks. I understand your point to be "if teachers have high-capacity assault rifles, and shooters give a 10 minute warning, then we could allow teachers to be armed." Let me know if I didn't get that right.

    For the second point, it is the vagueness that is the problem. "Assault rifle" usually is defined by characteristics that don't have anything to do with functionality.

    Senator Feinstein is usually at the front of these bans. Her proposals are summarized on her senate website

    Let's look at the first one.

    All semiautomatic rifles that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: pistol grip; forward grip; folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; barrel shroud; or threaded barrel.
    Note that a semiautomatic rifle with a detachable magazine, but without one of the other features, remains legal in her proposal. This is where the Winchester 1907 of that same year, or current the current production Ruger Mini 14 referenced in another thread, are unaffected.

    No one can explain how a threaded barrel, barrel shroud or pistol grip, for example, affects the "deadliness" of an "assault rifle". That's kind of the problem alluded to in the other thread(s). When the proposals don't make any sense to those who actually understand firearms, those advocates of the proposals lose a lot of credibility. The military does have a grenade launcher (M203, for example) that attach to an M16, but all grenade launchers are already categorized as destructive devices by the ATF. By the time you get to "rocket launcher", the proposal is ridiculous. Those are specific weapon systems, and not attached to small arms even in the DOD.

    Here are her proposals for shotguns:

    All semiautomatic shotguns that have a folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; pistol grip; fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 5 rounds; ability to accept a detachable magazine; forward grip; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; or shotgun with a revolving cylinder.
    So basically a plain-old semiautomatic shotgun is just fine. A pump shotgun can have a fixed (tube) magazine of more than 5 rounds? The DOD doesn't even have shotguns with grenade launchers.

    A 12 gauge shotgun is just as lethal without a pistol grip or without.

    It's amazing how much panic one honest man can spread among a multitude of hypocrites.
    - Thomas Sowell

  25. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    3,688
    Thanks
    446
    Thanked 706 Times in 520 Posts
    Rep Power
    6

    Default Re: Gun policy analysis thread.

    I can appreciate now what you’re saying. I think what most of us want are restrictions for potential lethal capacity, no weapon that could outmatch military or police, a waiting period, and required training to use legally.

    If we consider the Second Amendment in purpose, a civilian might be able to protect their family and others, but to engage in war, those privileges need to be supported and supplied by police and military infrastructures.

  26. The Following User Says Thank You to Chuck Naill For This Useful Post:

    Lloyd (June 15th, 2022)

  27. #20
    Senior Member dneal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    2,976
    Thanks
    1,275
    Thanked 1,194 Times in 687 Posts
    Rep Power
    11

    Default Re: Gun policy analysis thread.

    So a couple of things. First is the overarching point that those who ask everyone come together for "common sense" gun reform often end up proposing "nonsense" gun reform. I harp on this point because the gun-control side undermines its potential support, then gets more vocal which further undermines potential support.

    Here are two Mossberg semiautomatic shotguns. One would be illegal simply because of the pistol grip. That's really just an ergonomic thing, and I actually prefer a traditional grip.

    MossbergStandard.jpgMossbergPistol.jpg

    Second, it is completely unambiguous that the 2nd Amendment was intended to provide the citizens the ability to fight both foreign and domestic powers. The Army is mentioned in the original document, and the militia is referred to in the amendments. It is clear that they are two different things. But even if one was to cede your argument that Heller was a new interpretation - and you'll find that there are no real previous rulings about what it meant until Heller - "Well regulated" didn't mean "lots of regulations". Its meaning is better considered in terms of a "well regulated" clock. Efficient. Effective.

    There is precedent for citizens needing to come together to defeat an over reaching government. See: "Battle of Athens". Firearms that match the police and military are important, even if it doesn't seem so in today's society.

    Even if one cedes there would never be a tyrannical government (a harder claim with each day, and both parties love to disregard the 4th and 5th amendments, and now the 1st, as is convenient to them), how would you fight an invader if you didn't have some sort of parity?

    Lastly, hypothesize that you eliminate nearly all legally owned weapons in the United States. One only needs to look at Mexico to see the danger of well-funded, ruthless, criminal organizations and the ease with which a government can fight one. Keep going. Honduras. Colombia. El Salvador. There's more than one reason we have so many people fleeing here - aside from economic reasons.

    You could argue that sort of criminal activity would be easily quashed by U.S. police and/or military. I would point you to our "successes" in Viet Nam and Afghanistan. An insurgency, whether ideological or criminal, is nearly impossible to defeat.

    Yes, guns are a problem. But before you spend all the mental effort on which ones should be outlawed and why, it's beneficial to spend some time considering the consequences. Military planners consider a "most likely" course of action, but also a "most dangerous" one. These examples of Central and South American countries aren't impossible, or even improbable. Look at the trouble we already have with cartel funded gangs, like MS13.

    You have no idea the resources we already dedicate in the NORTHCOM (responsible for Mexico) and SOUTHCOM (responsible for central and South America) AOR's - and that's just the DOD. Add in the FBI, CIA, State Dept, DEA, etc... See: Joint Interagency Taskforce South (JIATF-S).
    Last edited by dneal; June 15th, 2022 at 12:14 PM. Reason: fixed links

    It's amazing how much panic one honest man can spread among a multitude of hypocrites.
    - Thomas Sowell

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •