For Those Wanting More Firearm Laws

[esmith]

What about in your state? I’m asking whether you think assault rifles, bump stocks and 100-round drums should be legal, and it feels like you don’t want to answer. Why?

No. Not necessary.
Bump stocks no longer can be sold. You do know that don't you?

 

[esmith]

Weird position. Is it that you think accidental discharge only ever kills or wounds the legal owner of the gun, or do you just not think that these bystander victims are worth doing anything about?


Sounds good as a goal. Are you actually proposing anything that would make progress toward this goal?

Subsidized mental health care? Some sort of outreach program to identify people who are at risk of suicide in order to connect them to care?

Oh - I know: a voluntary program where gun shops print the suicide hotline at the bottom of their receipts.

You do have something in mind for this, right? Otherwise, this is just another thing where you're proposing the status quo (along with all the deaths that this entails).


Well, hang on: that would be a change to the law. Earlier, you said you were against changing firearms laws.

Regardless, can you point to any time - not just for guns, but for anything - where increasing mandatory minimums actually caused a change in how much illegal activity was happening?


One ineffective change to the law and no action on everything else? You tell me: do you think I should consider this "good enough?"

But the whole idea of "good enough" suggests that there's some number of firearm deaths that we should find acceptable. What number do you find acceptable?

Even though the measures you're proposing range from ineffective to nothing at all, it seems like you are on board with the idea that the US currently has too many firearm deaths.

Balancing all the concerns you care about, how many deaths per year is an acceptable number for you?

Please give a specific number.

Discussion over until you present your ideas for the new laws citing what purpose would they serve and how you would enforce them.

 

[Audie]

Weird position. Is it that you think accidental discharge only ever kills or wounds the legal owner of the gun, or do you just not think that these bystander victims are worth doing anything about?


Sounds good as a goal. Are you actually proposing anything that would make progress toward this goal?

Subsidized mental health care? Some sort of outreach program to identify people who are at risk of suicide in order to connect them to care?

Oh - I know: a voluntary program where gun shops print the suicide hotline at the bottom of their receipts.

You do have something in mind for this, right? Otherwise, this is just another thing where you're proposing the status quo (along with all the deaths that this entails).


Well, hang on: that would be a change to the law. Earlier, you said you were against changing firearms laws.

Regardless, can you point to any time - not just for guns, but for anything - where increasing mandatory minimums actually caused a change in how much illegal activity was happening?


One ineffective change to the law and no action on everything else? You tell me: do you think I should consider this "good enough?"

But the whole idea of "good enough" suggests that there's some number of firearm deaths that we should find acceptable. What number do you find acceptable?

Even though the measures you're proposing range from ineffective to nothing at all, it seems like you are on board with the idea that the US currently has too many firearm deaths.

Balancing all the concerns you care about, how many deaths per year is an acceptable number for you?

Please give a specific number.

"Good enough" is how things are.
In all aspects of life.
If all cars were outfitted like NASCAR racers, and
nobody could go over say 5 mph, fatalities would be
minimal. But there would be a few.
No airplanes allowed to fly, period.

Do we need more examples of compromise between
perfection and reasonable?

What number of auto-related injuries and deaths do you find
acceptable?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

No. Not necessary.
Bump stocks no longer can be sold. You do know that don't you?

Yes, bump stocks can no longer be sold. My understanding is that is because of an executive order, i.e., a federal restriction that imposes this restriction on your state. Sounds like you’re okay with that after all, in this case - is that correct?

I am hearing you do not support banning assault weapons or 100-round drums in your own state. I find that remarkable, but let’s move on.

Do you support the existing federal ban on fully automatic weapons? Or should that be repealed?

 

[esmith]

Yes, bump stocks can no longer be sold. My understanding is that is because of an executive order, i.e., a federal restriction that imposes this restriction on your state. Sounds like you’re okay with that after all, in this case - is that correct?

I am hearing you do not support banning assault weapons or 100-round drums in your own state. I find that remarkable, but let’s move on.

Do you support the existing federal ban on fully automatic weapons? Or should that be repealed?

No I do not support the ban on bump stocks, I think it was a knee jerk reaction. However, if a State wants to ban them I have no issue with them doing so.
You are correct about the so called "assault weapon" statement.
I can purchase a fully automatic firearm if I had the money to do so, as a matter of fact anyone that can legally purchase a firearm, if they can get the required approvals, can purchase a fully automatic firearm. So I do not see any problem with the law.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Discussion over until you present your ideas for the new laws citing what purpose would they serve and how you would enforce them.

No need. I'm fine with leaving this as we did: pointing out that you aren't actually supporting any substantial changes from a status quo that kills 40,000 per year.

I think that many deaths per year is worth doing something about; that's why most of my professional life is about road safety. You've made it clear that you don't think it's worth doing something about. It's you who's going to have to live with that.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

No I do not support the ban on bump stocks, I think it was a knee jerk reaction. However, if a State wants to ban them I have no issue with them doing so.
You are correct about the so called "assault weapon" statement.
I can purchase a fully automatic firearm if I had the money to do so, as a matter of fact anyone that can legally purchase a firearm, if they can get the required approvals, can purchase a fully automatic firearm. So I do not see any problem with the law.

New fully automatic weapons sales to civilians are banned by the Firearm Owners Protection Act (except for manufacturers and dealers). Should we repeal this ban?

 

[esmith]

New fully automatic weapons sales to civilians are banned by the Firearm Owners Protection Act (except for manufacturers and dealers). Should we repeal this ban?

Sure why not. What is the difference between say a Colt Fleming AR15 SP1 in .223 caliber and a M16 in 5.56mm
image of the AR15.

Oh by the way if you want to purchase this one is goes for about. $21,999.95

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Sure why not. What is the difference between say a Colt Fleming AR15 SP1 in .223 caliber and a M16 in 5.56mm
image of the AR15.

The reason why not is because un-banning them would make them cheaper and more widely available, and make mass shootings even more deadly than they are currently. This does not seem to be of much concern to you, however, which I acknowledge - just wanted to answer your question. Again, few (I think zero) mass shootings in the US in the last 30 years were carried out with a fully automatic weapon, which seems to be attributable largely to the fact that they are banned (/ expensive / hard to get except in special circumstances).

Oh by the way if you want to purchase this one is goes for about. $21,999.95

Is this capable of fully automatic? My understanding is that the reason the price of fully automatic weapons is so high in the US is because of the ban on new automatic weapon sales, excepting manufacturers and dealers, which limits supply and therefore greatly increases the price. Un-banning them would increase supply and therefore reduce the price and make them more widely available. It stands to reason that more mass shootings (more than almost none / zero we have seen in recent years) would involve fully automatic weapons instead of the semi-autos we have seen. You're good with that? Just asking.

 

[esmith]

The reason why not is because un-banning them would make them cheaper and more widely available, and make mass shootings even more deadly than they are currently. This does not seem to be of much concern to you, however, which I acknowledge - just wanted to answer your question. Again, few (I think zero) mass shootings in the US in the last 30 years were carried out with a fully automatic weapon, which seems to be attributable largely to the fact that they are banned (/ expensive / hard to get except in special circumstances).

As a matter of fact fully automatic would probably reduce the number of casualties since the spray-and-pray method has been found wanting by most in the military. In actuality one would probably inflict more causalities in the semi-auto mode since one is considerably more accurate in semi-auto. How about 3 round burst you ask...well that would allow one to pull the trigger 10 times before the magazine was empty vs 30 times in semi-auto. A M4 has a rate of fire of around 700-950 rounds per min or 11.6 to 15.8 rounds per sec. In other words you would go through a 30 round magazine in about 2 sec in full auto. I remember reading that a 20 year veteran of which 15 was in the Delta Force fired a 30 round mag at a target and only put 6 rounds on target.

Is this capable of fully automatic? My understanding is that the reason the price of fully automatic weapons is so high in the US is because of the ban on new automatic weapon sales, excepting manufacturers and dealers, which limits supply and therefore greatly increases the price. Un-banning them would increase supply and therefore reduce the price and make them more widely available. It stands to reason that more mass shootings (more than almost none / zero we have seen in recent years) would involve fully automatic weapons instead of the semi-autos we have seen. You're good with that? Just asking.

Yes the Colt Fleming AR15 SP1 in .223 caliber is a fully automatic rifle.
You are probably right about if they were legal as any other firearm, the price would drop down to the cost of the current available rifles. However, I would rather have a semi-auto if I wanted to do some serious damage. Of course there are idiots that rely on video games and Hollywood for their information.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

As a matter of fact fully automatic would probably reduce the number of casualties since the spray-and-pray method has been found wanting by most in the military. In actuality one would probably inflict more causalities in the semi-auto mode since one is considerably more accurate in semi-auto. How about 3 round burst you ask...well that would allow one to pull the trigger 10 times before the magazine was empty vs 30 times in semi-auto. A M4 has a rate of fire of around 700-950 rounds per min or 11.6 to 15.8 rounds per sec. In other words you would go through a 30 round magazine in about 2 sec in full auto. I remember reading that a 20 year veteran of which 15 was in the Delta Force fired a 30 round mag at a target and only put 6 rounds on target.


Yes the Colt Fleming AR15 SP1 in .223 caliber is a fully automatic rifle.
You are probably right about if they were legal as any other firearm, the price would drop down to the cost of the current available rifles. However, I would rather have a semi-auto if I wanted to do some serious damage. Of course there are idiots that rely on video games and Hollywood for their information.

Thanks.

I am skeptical that the spray and pray method that doesn’t work great on the battlefield, is equally ineffective in a crowded nightclub at close range.

I also think your suggestion that the availability of fully automatic weapons could actually make mass shootings LESS deadly, is quite a stretch. Full auto capability, at a minimum, increases optionality. If it’s not effective in a particular situation, a shooter doesn’t have to use full auto. Right now, a shooter doesn’t have the optionality to do full auto even if the situation called for it. What you’re saying would, at an absolute bare minimum, give them that enhanced optionality. I assume the military prefers to have that optionality in their weapons for a reason.

I’ll leave it there. I think it’s fair to say that your view on this matter - let’s not only keep assault rifles but un-ban fully automatic machine guns - is way, way on the extreme end on the spectrum of opinion on this issue. That doesn’t mean you are wrong of course - but I think it means we are way too far apart from each other for there to be much left to discuss.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What number of auto-related injuries and deaths do you find
acceptable?

Zero deaths and serious injuries.

What is Vision Zero?

 

[Audie]

Zero deaths and serious injuries.

What is Vision Zero?

That would require eliminating all automobiles.
Do you have a realistic idea?

 

[Audie]

Thanks.

I am skeptical that the spray and pray method that doesn’t work great on the battlefield, is equally ineffective in a crowded nightclub at close range.

I also think your suggestion that the availability of fully automatic weapons could actually make mass shootings LESS deadly, is quite a stretch. Full auto capability, at a minimum, increases optionality. If it’s not effective in a particular situation, a shooter doesn’t have to use full auto. Right now, a shooter doesn’t have the optionality to do full auto even if the situation called for it. What you’re saying would, at an absolute bare minimum, give them that enhanced optionality. I assume the military prefers to have that optionality in their weapons for a reason.

I’ll leave it there. I think it’s fair to say that your view on this matter - let’s not only keep assault rifles but un-ban fully automatic machine guns - is way, way on the extreme end on the spectrum of opinion on this issue. That doesn’t mean you are wrong of course - but I think it means we are way too far apart from each other for there to be much left to discuss.

I looked it up. Machine guns are not banned. They are regulated.
There is little to discuss if one does not stick to facts.

 

[Audie]

As a matter of fact fully automatic would probably reduce the number of casualties since the spray-and-pray method has been found wanting by most in the military. In actuality one would probably inflict more causalities in the semi-auto mode since one is considerably more accurate in semi-auto. How about 3 round burst you ask...well that would allow one to pull the trigger 10 times before the magazine was empty vs 30 times in semi-auto. A M4 has a rate of fire of around 700-950 rounds per min or 11.6 to 15.8 rounds per sec. In other words you would go through a 30 round magazine in about 2 sec in full auto. I remember reading that a 20 year veteran of which 15 was in the Delta Force fired a 30 round mag at a target and only put 6 rounds on target.


Yes the Colt Fleming AR15 SP1 in .223 caliber is a fully automatic rifle.
You are probably right about if they were legal as any other firearm, the price would drop down to the cost of the current available rifles. However, I would rather have a semi-auto if I wanted to do some serious damage. Of course there are idiots that rely on video games and Hollywood for their information.

Are you then suggesting that the machine gun would run
out of ammunition and thus be less dangerous?

 

[esmith]

Are you then suggesting that the machine gun would run
out of ammunition and thus be less dangerous?

Not necessarily.
The point is that a fully auto weapon is less accurate than a semi-auto, thus one would have to carry more ammunition thus more magazines to do as much damage as a semi-auto.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That would require eliminating all automobiles.

No, it actually wouldn't.

 

[Audie]

No, it actually wouldn't.

You are being ridiculous.

 

[Audie]

Not necessarily.
The point is that a fully auto weapon is less accurate than a semi-auto, thus one would have to carry more ammunition thus more magazines to do as much damage as a semi-auto.

I am pretty sure they use machineguns in war because they
work better for killing people.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You are being ridiculous.

Oslo made the news last year for almost achieving their target of zero road traffic deaths:

How Did Norway Achieve the Lowest Traffic Fatality Rate in the World? | Road Safety at Work

They're almost there, and Norway as a whole is well on its way: it halved its fatal collisions in a decade and last year had 107 for the whole country.

Cars are still permitted in both Oslo and Norway in general.