For Those Wanting More Firearm Laws

[Audie]

Hi Audie, I think perhaps this discussion of assault weapons and “weapons of war” is about semantics and is missing the point.

Let’s take an example. At the Orlando night club mass shooting that killed nearly 50 people, the suspect bypassed security guards who engaged him, then killed dozens of people in the first two minutes using a SIG MCX. This is a high caliber weapon capable of 900 RPM, compact, only weighs 6 lbs and has a 30 round magazine.

At the Aurora movie theater shooting, a Smith and Wesson M&P15 (an AR15) with a 100-round drum was used at the outset. 100 rounds. Think about that - 100 rounds. Fortunately the drum jammed after 70 rounds or so and he switched to other weapons. In about 9 minutes, he killed and injured 70 people.

At the Stoneman Douglas high school shooting, a M&P15 Sport II (an AR-15) was used. These are gas operated, lightweight, high caliber (although light caliber options are available), 30-round magazine weapons. In just six minutes, he shot 17 people and all 17 died.

At Newtown, 26 people (mostly children) were killed in just 5 minutes. Primary weapons: Bushmaster XM15: again high caliber, 30 round magazine, gas operated, 45 RPM at a muzzle velocity over 3,000 feet per second.

Sutherland Springs church: Ruger SR556. High caliber, gas operated, 30-round magazine. 11 minutes, nearly 50 injured and dead.

There are more examples but you get the point. You can say it’s not a “weapon of war” but semantics aside, this is a lot of killing power. It’s unclear why a civilian needs this unless they plan to do a lot of killing. It’s also good if you want to be able to outgun first responders.

I say this, by the way, as someone who has fired “assault” weapons while hunting hog (without much luck) and for fun. I enjoy firing assault weapons. I would be willing to give that up even if it “only” saved a hundred or so people per year from mass shootings. To do otherwise, is to ignore we have a mass shooting problem in this country and just not even try to reduce it.

Tnx.
Our would-be philosopher is all emotion, insults
and falsehoods. Nice see reasoned opinions with
attached facts.

I'd say though the difference is a whole lot more
than just semantics, considering the
harsh penalties associated with actual
assault weapons. And, of course, their
preferred status with armed forces.

If I try to say more I'd have to learn it myself,
first.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Tnx.
Our would-be philosopher is all emotion, insults
and falsehoods. Nice see reasoned opinions with
attached facts.

I'd say though the difference is a whole lot more
than just semantics, considering the
harsh penalties associated with actual
assault weapons. And, of course, their
preferred status with armed forces.

If I try to say more I'd have to learn it myself,
first.

You are welcome, and thanks.

A question for your consideration: under current law, fully automatic weapons are not allowed for civilian ownership (I believe there are various exceptions, for example it is still possible to go to a gun range and use one). Do you think we should repeal this law, and allow fully automatic?

 

[McBell]

This post was ignored by me because it's intends to create an endless diversion into legal minutia so as to avoid the real issues.. I have explained quite clearly how I think we should regulate gun ownership and use, and saw no reason to chase down this pointless rabbit hole of ineffective legal misdirection.

Ah...
Back peddling.

 

[McBell]

You are welcome, and thanks.

A question for your consideration: under current law, fully automatic weapons are not allowed for civilian ownership (I believe there are various exceptions, for example it is still possible to go to a gun range and use one). Do you think we should repeal this law, and allow fully automatic?

The only legal means of owning a full y automatic fire arm is via a FFL, which is expensive and monitored rather heavily. At least here in my neck of the woods.

Yes, there are firing ranges where you can fire fully automatic weapons.
But if you take your illegal fully automatic weapon in, you can pretty much guarantee LEO will make a showing. Again, here in my neck of the woods.

I see nothing wrong with how the law is set for fully automatic.
I mean, other than the fact that criminals completely ignore it when gunning down others.
But that is an enforcement issue of the law, not the law itself.

Of course, I see all manner of people jumping up and down wanting more laws, but no one wants to enforce the laws actually on the books.

Hells bells, as we have seen in this thread, no one wants to actually learn what laws are currently on the books....
Nope, just an outcry for more laws that wont be enforced....

 

[Audie]

You are welcome, and thanks.

A question for your consideration: under current law, fully automatic weapons are not allowed for civilian ownership (I believe there are various exceptions, for example it is still possible to go to a gun range and use one). Do you think we should repeal this law, and allow fully automatic?

As a Chinese citizen, not a US resident, what laws America
should have is not really my affair.

That said, do we have a "slippery slope" argument going
here?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

As a Chinese citizen, not a US resident, what laws America
should have is not really my affair.

That said, do we have a "slippery slope" argument going
here?

Thanks. What I am trying to do is get past semantics and have a productive discussion. These gun debates often devolve into one “guns good” camp and another “guns bad” camp. I am trying to move beyond that.

Specifically, what I was trying to illuminate with that question is that there exist sensible gun laws today that restrict - to take one example - ownership of fully automatic weapons. Why? Because they have extremely high human killing power and not much other use (other than just for fun).

My argument here would be the same. In the mass shootings I cited the firearms were legal. Why are they legal? Why ban a machine gun, but protect a weapon that has a 100-round drum that can fire hundreds of rounds per minute? These weapons conform to the letter, but not the spirit of the law, in my view.

If the US didn’t have such an appalling rate of mass shootings I might see it differently - but we do. Admittedly many mass shootings are not carried out with assault rifles ... still, we need action, not prayers, in my view.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

The only legal means of owning a full y automatic fire arm is via a FFL, which is expensive and monitored rather heavily. At least here in my neck of the woods.

Yes, there are firing ranges where you can fire fully automatic weapons.
But if you take your illegal fully automatic weapon in, you can pretty much guarantee LEO will make a showing. Again, here in my neck of the woods.

I see nothing wrong with how the law is set for fully automatic.
I mean, other than the fact that criminals completely ignore it when gunning down others.
But that is an enforcement issue of the law, not the law itself.

Of course, I see all manner of people jumping up and down wanting more laws, but no one wants to enforce the laws actually on the books.

Hells bells, as we have seen in this thread, no one wants to actually learn what laws are currently on the books....
Nope, just an outcry for more laws that wont be enforced....

Thanks.

If I concede your point that we ought to enforce existing gun laws, will you admit that we should also consider sensible new laws? I believe in every mass shooting I cited earlier, there was no unenforced law we can blame; the weapons were legal.

Do you think it should be legal to own a high caliber weapon that can fire 100’s of RPM with a 100-round drum? I feel like addressing the problem is hard, but banning that, for starters, would be low-hanging fruit.

Do you think bump stocks should be legal? All this time after the Vegas shooting, and Congress still can’t pass a law against that. Trump - to his credit - banned them by executive order. Isn’t it sad that we don’t even have the political will to ban bump stocks?

Tangentially, while I agree that existing laws should be enforced, I sense this is a convenient gun-lobby talking point. Not that you would deliberately promulgate that. It just feels like a way of seeming to address the issue of gun violence while under-cutting any discussion of sensible gun laws (like bringing back the previous assault weapon ban, universal background checks, etc) There’s no reason a need to enforce existing gun laws ought to be an argument *against* sensible gun laws ... yet, that’s the way it’s being used.

 

[McBell]

Thanks.

If I concede your point that we ought to enforce existing gun laws, will you admit that we should also consider sensible new laws? I believe in every mass shooting I cited earlier, there was no unenforced law we can blame; the weapons were legal.

I do not have a problem with new gun laws that will actually address the problems.
bans do not address the actual problems.
They are nothing more than a knee jerk reaction to make the ignorant think something is being done.

Do you think it should be legal to own a high caliber weapon that can fire 100’s of RPM with a 100-round drum? I feel like addressing the problem is hard, but banning that, for starters, would be low-hanging fruit.

What high caliber weapon, that is not already illegal with out an FFL, fires "hundreds of rounds per minute"?
Even with a thousand round drum, you cannot get "hundreds of rounds per minute" out of an AR-15, even with a bump stock.
Not to mention in the real world 100 round drums jam more often than not right around the 20-30 round shot.

Do you think bump stocks should be legal? All this time after the Vegas shooting, and Congress still can’t pass a law against that. Trump - to his credit - banned them by executive order. Isn’t it sad that we don’t even have the political will to ban bump stocks?

A knee jerk reaction law to make the ignorant feel like something has been done.
Bump Stocks are not the "fully automatic" loop hole that the ignorant and the media make them out to be.

Tangentially, while I agree that existing laws should be enforced, I sense this is a convenient gun-lobby talking point. Not that you would deliberately promulgate that. It just feels like a way of seeming to address the issue of gun violence while under-cutting any discussion of sensible gun laws (like bringing back the previous assault weapon ban, universal background checks, etc) There’s no reason a need to enforce existing gun laws ought to be an argument *against* sensible gun laws ... yet, that’s the way it’s being used.

My problem is that no one wants to actually do something that will make an actual difference.
Knee jerk reactions to give the ignorant a false sense of purpose is completely useless in the long run.
At least in the real world.

What is the point in passing new laws when they cant even enforce the laws already on the books?
If they can not enforce what is already on the books, what makes anyone think the new laws are going to be enforced?
And since the new laws are all but worthless outside of making the ignorant feel good....

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I do not have a problem with new gun laws that will actually address the problems.
bans do not address the actual problems.
They are nothing more than a knee jerk reaction to make the ignorant think something is being done.


What high caliber weapon, that is not already illegal with out an FFL, fires "hundreds of rounds per minute"?
Even with a thousand round drum, you cannot get "hundreds of rounds per minute" out of an AR-15, even with a bump stock.
Not to mention in the real world 100 round drums jam more often than not right around the 20-30 round shot.


A knee jerk reaction law to make the ignorant feel like something has been done.
Bump Stocks are not the "fully automatic" loop hole that the ignorant and the media make them out to be.


My problem is that no one wants to actually do something that will make an actual difference.
Knee jerk reactions to give the ignorant a false sense of purpose is completely useless in the long run.
At least in the real world.

What is the point in passing new laws when they cant even enforce the laws already on the books?
If they can not enforce what is already on the books, what makes anyone think the new laws are going to be enforced?
And since the new laws are all but worthless outside of making the ignorant feel good....

Thanks.

You say a ban is a knee jerk reaction. In that case, should we un-ban automatic weapons? Why or why not?

Note that no automatic weapons were used in the mass shootings I cited, only legally owned assault rifles. Doesn’t that kind of go against your argument that (1) the problem is existing laws aren’t enforced and (2) banning those weapons wouldn’t help? If assault rifles had not been legal it is likely other, less deadly, legal weapons would have been used in those specific cases (admittedly, each case is different). For the same reason more deadly, fully automatic weapons were not used.

I would argue that un-banning assault rifles in 2004, after they had been banned for 10 years prior to that, was the knee-jerk reaction. That didn’t protect our second amendment rights more, or make us safer. 7 of the 10 deadliest shootings in US history have occurred since that ban was lifted, using semi-automatic rifles. Four of those since 2016.

You really don’t think bump stocks should be banned? Let me ask you a question: why do you think the Las Vegas shooter used bump stocks? Was he ignorant / taken in by the media hype about bump stocks? He was able to shoot over 400 people in 10 minutes. Let that sink in.

You say “no one wants to do something that will make an actual difference”. My concern is this is an idea promoted by the gun lobby, and it becomes a self fulfilling prophesy. It’s a “can’t do” attitude ... which I fear is the goal. Please tell me: what do you want to do that will make an actual difference in the mass shootings I cited? Enforcing existing laws wouldn’t have mattered in those cases because they were legal firearms.

I disagree with your premise that the problem can be attributed entirely to existing laws which aren’t enforced and therefore, new laws can’t help. Of the ten deadliest mass shootings in US history, none of them were carried out with automatic weapons, which are banned. So that ban seems to have doe its job. Yet 7 were done with semi-automatic rifles, which have been un-banned. In fact I don’t think any of the shootings were done with firearms that should have been taken away but for a lapse of enforcing existing laws .. I believe they were all legal firearms.

I was talking about rate of fire, not how many rounds you can actually discharge in one minute. A SIG MCX like the one used in Orlando will fire as fast as you can pull the trigger. Like playing chopsticks on a piano. That means at least a few if not several times per second, which means unloading a 30-round magazine in perhaps 15 seconds. The rate of fire, combined with high caliber, is part of how the Orlando shooter was able to kill dozens in what is believed to have been the first two minutes.

You say new laws are about making the ignorant feel good. Could you support this assertion with relevant facts to educate the “ignorant”? I have tried to back up my arguments with facts, as much as I can, I hope you will return the favor.

 

[PureX]

The only legal means of owning a full y automatic fire arm is via a FFL, which is expensive and monitored rather heavily. At least here in my neck of the woods.

"At least in my neck of the woods", meaning that the laws are not uniform, nor uniformly enforced. Also, it's easy to buy a semi-automatic assault weapon and then buy the parts to convert it into an automatic, separately. Which is what most of the people who want to own automatic assault weapons, do. And there is no consequence for it. Nor is there a consequence when any type of firearm is not properly managed resulting in it falling into the hands of others. This is not hyperbole, this is fact. The laws we have are not working because they are not uniform, not enforced, and not comprehensive enough.

I see nothing wrong with how the law is set for fully automatic.
I mean, other than the fact that criminals completely ignore it when gunning down others.
But that is an enforcement issue of the law, not the law itself.

It is ineffective law if it results in people owning automatic weapons, illegally, period. Banning the weapons but not selling the parts to create them is ineffective. Banning the weapons but not enforcing the ban is likewise ineffective. It's not just a lack of enforcement. It's a lack of effective regulation. And that's why people are calling for; effective regulation. The whole "more laws " accusation is irrelevant, except to the fools who think any law is bad law if it infringes on their own personal desire to play with military-style weapons. And that is all they can do with them, is play. Because they have no real purpose but to kill humans in wartime.

Of course, I see all manner of people jumping up and down wanting more laws, but no one wants to enforce the laws actually on the books.

This is hyperbole. No one is "jumping up and down", and no one just wants "more laws". So before you go accusing others of such emotional and biased foolishness, maybe you ought to check yourself.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If they can not enforce what is already on the books, what makes anyone think the new laws are going to be enforced?

Which laws do you think aren't being enforced?

 

[esmith]

Which laws do you think aren't being enforced?

False information on ATF Form 4473

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

False information on ATF Form 4473

First hit on Google:

A convicted felon has been found guilty by a federal jury for making false statements on federal background check form ATF 4473 and for illegally possessing firearms. U.S. Attorney D. Michael Dunavant announced the guilty verdict today.

Convicted Felon Found Guilty of Making False Statements on Federal Background Check Form and for Illegally Possessing Firearms | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

And here's a press release about an ATF program in 2019 specifically targetting people who provided false information in an attempt to obtain firearms:

U.S. Attorney and ATF Target Those who “Lie-And-Try” to Purchase Firearms

So apparently that gun rule is being enforced. Are your concerns addressed?

 

[esmith]

First hit on Google:


Convicted Felon Found Guilty of Making False Statements on Federal Background Check Form and for Illegally Possessing Firearms | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

And here's a press release about an ATF program in 2019 specifically targetting people who provided false information in an attempt to obtain firearms:

U.S. Attorney and ATF Target Those who “Lie-And-Try” to Purchase Firearms

So apparently that gun rule is being enforced. Are your concerns addressed?

Yes some do get prosecuted but the vast majority do not.
Law Enforcement: Few Individuals Denied Firearms Purchases Are Prosecuted and ATF Should Assess Use of Warning Notices in Lieu of Prosecutions
In fiscal 2017, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives referred about 12,700 denied purchases to its field divisions for investigation. As of June 2018, U.S. Attorney’s Offices prosecuted 12 of these cases.

 

[Audie]

Thanks. What I am trying to do is get past semantics and have a productive discussion. These gun debates often devolve into one “guns good” camp and another “guns bad” camp. I am trying to move beyond that.

Specifically, what I was trying to illuminate with that question is that there exist sensible gun laws today that restrict - to take one example - ownership of fully automatic weapons. Why? Because they have extremely high human killing power and not much other use (other than just for fun).

My argument here would be the same. In the mass shootings I cited the firearms were legal. Why are they legal? Why ban a machine gun, but protect a weapon that has a 100-round drum that can fire hundreds of rounds per minute? These weapons conform to the letter, but not the spirit of the law, in my view.

If the US didn’t have such an appalling rate of mass shootings I might see it differently - but we do. Admittedly many mass shootings are not carried out with assault rifles ... still, we need action, not prayers, in my view.

"The letter but not the spirit". That is how things work. Forget the
"spirit". Lawyers do "letter". And for a very very good reason.

The two sides see the "spirit" as quite different entities.

As something of an outsider looking in at the USA and having
tried to learn American history and culture-

The army was vilified after Vietnam.

Whoever however whatever the campaign to
turn that around have been very successful.

Camo, "tactical", etc, "thank you for your service"
and so on, is everywhere. AR 15 guns.

When I got a handgun for self defense, years ago,
and went to the range to practice, all I saw was
"assault rifles". ( the guys were so happy to have
me "here try this" shoot, like an AK and etc.)

Well, that is all irrelevant I guess.

But consider what I said about how
slippery slope applies to the question of what to ban.

100 round bad, 50 good? 20? Etc.

 

[Audie]

"
.
This is hyperbole. No one is "jumping up and down", and no one just wants "more laws". So before you go accusing others of such emotional and biased foolishness, maybe you ought to check yourself.

Emotional and biased foolishness? Hyperbole?

They're called ASSAULT WEAPONS, fool! What do you think they were designed for? Assaulting deer?

And long guns were always bought and used for hunting. So pretending they were originally created and sold as war weapons is just stupid.

Hiding stupidity behind the Constitution's inability to predict the future is a pretty sad debate tactic.

own lots of assault weapons that they need to defend themselves against the horde of imaginary .

We note how you decline to in any way acknowledge that you
are entirely incorrect in your claims about "long guns",
or what is an "assault weapon" (among other things)
and go fot ALL CAPS as you call others"stupid"
"hyperbolic" and "emotional".

 

[Mr Spinkles]

"The letter but not the spirit". That is how things work. Forget the
"spirit". Lawyers do "letter". And for a very very good reason.

The two sides see the "spirit" as quite different entities.

As something of an outsider looking in at the USA and having
tried to learn American history and culture-

The army was vilified after Vietnam.

Whoever however whatever the campaign to
turn that around have been very successful.

Camo, "tactical", etc, "thank you for your service"
and so on, is everywhere. AR 15 guns.

When I got a handgun for self defense, years ago,
and went to the range to practice, all I saw was
"assault rifles". ( the guys were so happy to have
me "here try this" shoot, like an AK and etc.)

Well, that is all irrelevant I guess.

But consider what I said about how
slippery slope applies to the question of what to ban.

100 round bad, 50 good? 20? Etc.

Yes, lawyers focus on the letter of the law. That’s why I think we need to change the letter of the law. The automatic weapons ban exists because these are weapons with extremely high killing power that have little other purpose; assault weapons should be banned (as they were before) for the same reason.

I don’t know how many bullets should be allowed in magazines. I don’t think we need to have a theoretical debate about that. Instead, we should let the evidence of experience be our guide about whether our gun laws are restrictive enough, or not.

The evidence suggests that our gun laws are not restrictive enough. The US has a mass shooting problem, moreso than most countries. A third of all mass shootings in the past 50 years or so occurred in the US. We have more than any other country. Since 2012 we have had approximately one mass shooting per day. Think about that.

Many of those shootings involve “only” 4 victims and handguns. So now think about the worst mass shootings. Seven of the past 10 worst shootings in US history occurred since the assault weapon ban expired, using assault weapons. These involved from 20, to 50, to over 400 victim injured or killed in one event. Four of those shootings occurred in the last three years alone. In all of these cases, most of the killing occurred in less than 10 minutes. In multiple cases, first responders were already on scene at the outset, or arrived within minutes.

Let this fact pattern be our guide. Does this suggest, to you, that we should increase or decrease the number of bullets allowed in most magazines? Wouldn’t it make sense, given this experience, to take action and try lowering that number - rather than “thoughts and prayers”?

If it weren’t for all the mass shootings, I would say, great, let’s have 30 high caliber rounds in a magazine that can be fired in 15 seconds with a lightweight assault rifle. Sounds fun. But to ignore all the mass shootings is like ignoring a fire alarm ... it means the status quo isn’t working.

 

[Audie]

Yes, lawyers focus on the letter of the law. That’s why I think we need to change the letter of the law. The automatic weapons ban exists because these are weapons with extremely high killing power that have little other purpose; assault weapons should be banned (as they were before) for the same reason.

I don’t know how many bullets should be allowed in magazines. I don’t think we need to have a theoretical debate about that. Instead, we should let the evidence of experience be our guide about whether our gun laws are restrictive enough, or not.

The evidence suggests that our gun laws are not restrictive enough. The US has a mass shooting problem, moreso than most countries. A third of all mass shootings in the past 50 years or so occurred in the US. We have more than any other country. Since 2012 we have had approximately one mass shooting per day. Think about that.

Many of those shootings involve “only” 4 victims and handguns. So now think about the worst mass shootings. Seven of the past 10 worst shootings in US history occurred since the assault weapon ban expired, using assault weapons. These involved from 20, to 50, to over 400 victim injured or killed in one event. Four of those shootings occurred in the last three years alone. In all of these cases, most of the killing occurred in less than 10 minutes. In multiple cases, first responders were already on scene at the outset, or arrived within minutes.

Let this fact pattern be our guide. Does this suggest, to you, that we should increase or decrease the number of bullets allowed in most magazines? Wouldn’t it make sense, given this experience, to take action and try lowering that number - rather than “thoughts and prayers”?

If it weren’t for all the mass shootings, I would say, great, let’s have 30 high caliber rounds in a magazine that can be fired in 15 seconds with a lightweight assault rifle. Sounds fun. But to ignore all the mass shootings is like ignoring a fire alarm ... it means the status quo isn’t working.

I can go with "suggests" the laws are not restrictive enough.

And of course, laws should be written in a competent way
so they can actually effect their purpose.

One detail in the "how -to" of preventing mass murders
that gets little attention is the "law of unintended consequences".

This is such a bad topic that I dont care to give any details
of where that leads.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes some do get prosecuted but the vast majority do not.

Isn't that true for virtually any law?

Law Enforcement: Few Individuals Denied Firearms Purchases Are Prosecuted and ATF Should Assess Use of Warning Notices in Lieu of Prosecutions
In fiscal 2017, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives referred about 12,700 denied purchases to its field divisions for investigation. As of June 2018, U.S. Attorney’s Offices prosecuted 12 of these cases.

So the law is being enforced, but just not in a manner that you find satisfactory... right?

 

[esmith]

Isn't that true for virtually any law?


So the law is being enforced, but just not in a manner that you find satisfactory... right?

You know, I really don't care if they do or don't.......however what I do care about are those that want more laws that have no idea what they are talking about.