2013 Feinstein Assault Weapons Ban

[Cylinder]

Originally Posted by Kestrel

If you were collecting out of production rare and historic firearms, it wouldn't need the quotes.

The existing pristine examples of the Colt Single Action Army got to us how? How about an early 40s matching Garand that didn't get retooled for Korea?

Disagree with ownership all you want but some of this is getting ridiculous.

[triforcharity]

Some????

[Dcdrac]

while still not understanding why a private citizen feels the need to be armed with military level weapons, a total ban on assault guns is not practical, however tightening up the controls on them is and can be done, what rational, responsible gun owner can be against that..

[rwguinn]

Originally Posted by Dcdrac

while still not understanding why a private citizen feels the need to be armed with military level weapons, a total ban on assault guns is not practical, however tightening up the controls on them is and can be done, what rational, responsible gun owner can be against that..

Still looking for a definition of Assault gun...

[DGM]

Originally Posted by Dcdrac

while still not understanding why a private citizen feels the need to be armed with military level weapons, a total ban on assault guns is not practical, however tightening up the controls on them is and can be done, what rational, responsible gun owner can be against that..

What's your suggestion? The laws are already pretty tight. In fact, I don't see how any new law could have prevented the last two events.

[DGM]

Originally Posted by Dcdrac

responsible gun owner can be against that..

I know it's been said that pro-gun people have not presented any solutions.

I'll put one out. How about tough penalties for gun owners whos weapons are stolen and used in connection with a crime? This would encourage safe storage of guns. I doubt many gun enthusiasts would have a real problem with this.

[rwguinn]

Originally Posted by DGM

I know it's been said that pro-gun people have not presented any solutions.

I'll put one out. How about tough penalties for gun owners whos weapons are stolen and used in connection with a crime? This would encourage safe storage of guns. I doubt many gun enthusiasts would have a real problem with this.

Sure-
As long as you advocate and PASS tough penalties for people who have car alarms, lock their cars, and have them stolen anyway.

[DGM]

Originally Posted by rwguinn

Sure-
As long as you advocate and PASS tough penalties for people who have car alarms, lock their cars, and have them stolen anyway.

I'm not sure how that follows.

If you have guns (and I do) and they are not secured in compliance with law, you could be charged with a crime. I'd have no problem with this because I would (and do) secure them properly.

I'm in peoples houses all the time that just leave them lying around. That's wrong, make it a crime to not be responsible.

[Autolite]

Originally Posted by DGM

How about tough penalties for gun owners whos weapons are stolen and used in connection with a crime? This would encourage safe storage of guns. I doubt many gun enthusiasts would have a real problem with this.

Canada has an interesting twist on that.

Many are quick to vilify legitimate gun owners in that country for possessing firearms that could be stolen and used in a criminal manner. Yet these same people will support the law that MAKES IT ILLEGAL for a Canadian to employ force for the protection of property.

I'm sure that many if not most American gun owners are responsible, conscientious people who store their firearms in a safe and secure manner. However, these security efforts can be compromised by having their names and addresses published in the media.

Those advocating for tighter gun controls should not be afforded credibility if they continue to pro-actively facilitate the criminals' use of firearms...

[Ranb]

Originally Posted by DGM

If you have guns (and I do) and they are not secured in compliance with law, you could be charged with a crime. I'd have no problem with this because I would (and do) secure them properly.

I'm in peoples houses all the time that just leave them lying around. That's wrong, make it a crime to not be responsible.

Not all homes are equal. Take for example my home. The guns could be laying about all over the house (they are not) but still be considered to be locked up as there are only adults in my house both of whom are permitted to own firearms and my doors are always locked whether I am home or not. On the other hand my car is always outside (doors locked) and out in the open just waiting for any thief or drunken fool (with a forklift, tow truck, slimjim, crowbar) to steal and mow someone down with on their joyride.

As far as I know WA does not have a safe storage law but are considering one. If they pass one that prohibits unsafe storage around children, I am still good to go especially as I keep most of my guns in a secure area outside of the house anyway.

[DGM]

Originally Posted by Ranb

Not all homes are equal. Take for example my home. The guns could be laying about all over the house (they are not) but still be considered to be locked up as there are only adults in my house both of whom are permitted to own firearms and my doors are always locked whether I am home or not. On the other hand my car is always outside (doors locked) and out in the open just waiting for any thief or drunken fool (with a forklift, tow truck, slimjim, crowbar) to steal and mow someone down with on their joyride.

As far as I know WA does not have a safe storage law but are considering one. If they pass one that prohibits unsafe storage around children, I am still good to go especially as I keep most of my guns in a secure area outside of the house anyway.

I'm from MA, we do have some of the tougher laws but, I'm really not sure what the laws are for securing the weapons (I'm sure I'm well above the statutes). Maybe a specific standard for "secured" would be in order.

I agree that it would be hard to enforce but, I don't believe much enforcement would be necessary. If people know they are responsible for what happens with thier guns if they are stolen, maybe the might take more precautions to prevent this in the first place. If they are secured in compliance, then responsible owners have nothing to fear.

This type of laws, in my opinion will go much further than any feel good bans I've seen so far.

[Unabogie]

Originally Posted by DGM

I know it's been said that pro-gun people have not presented any solutions.

I'll put one out. How about tough penalties for gun owners whos weapons are stolen and used in connection with a crime? This would encourage safe storage of guns. I doubt many gun enthusiasts would have a real problem with this.

I believe that I wrote this same proposal in another thread and I agree. Other suggestions I've read include licensing guns like we do cars, and requiring yearly safety and competency checks where guns would be surrendered for failure to pass until you fixed whatever is wrong. I would propose a gun/ammo tax to cover any costs. You get to keep your guns, but we make it subject to much more oversight.

[DGM]

Originally Posted by Unabogie

I believe that I wrote this same proposal in another thread and I agree. Other suggestions I've read include licensing guns like we do cars, and requiring yearly safety and competency checks where guns would be surrendered for failure to pass until you fixed whatever is wrong. I would propose a gun/ammo tax to cover any costs. You get to keep your guns, but we make it subject to much more oversight.

What do you mean by the bold part?

[Unabogie]

Originally Posted by DGM

What do you mean by the bold part?

Sure. We already agree that it's constitutional to deny gun ownership to select people, like felons and the mentally ill. I think we should treat gun owners like car drivers. You buy a gun and you get a gun license. Every year, you have to show up with every gun registered to you and demonstrate that you do can operate the guns safely, and that you do not have any disqualifying offenses. I'm not sure what the parameters of those offenses should be. DUI? Maybe, I don't know. Lost guns? Maybe if you lose a gun you have to give up your other guns for a year. Certainly people with restraining orders would be good candidates. People with ongoing mental health issues would be another.

If your gun isn't properly maintained or you can't demonstrate that you know how to use it safely, or you can't prove that you have a proper gun safe (that one I'm not sure how you'd enforce), it stays there until you get some training and come back to pass your test.

I can already anticipate people with "collections" of 30 guns squawking at this, but no one says you need to collect a giant arsenal to protect your house or go sport shooting. If you owned 30 cars, you'd have to bring all 30 in for a smog inspection. I would like to see gun ownership treated AT LEAST as seriously as a car, motorcycle, or scooter.

I'd pay for all of this with a tax on gun ownership. If you lapse your license fees, you can't own a gun, period.

I'm not stuck on the details, but that's the gist of where I'd go.

[rwguinn]

Originally Posted by DGM

I know it's been said that pro-gun people have not presented any solutions.

I'll put one out. How about tough penalties for gun owners whos weapons are stolen and used in connection with a crime? This would encourage safe storage of guns. I doubt many gun enthusiasts would have a real problem with this.

Originally Posted by DGM

I'm not sure how that follows.

If you have guns (and I do) and they are not secured in compliance with law, you could be charged with a crime. I'd have no problem with this because I would (and do) secure them properly.

I'm in peoples houses all the time that just leave them lying around. That's wrong, make it a crime to not be responsible.

Did you read what you wrote?
If my guns are inside my house. locked away, and someone steals them, your original statement was that I should be penalized.
No caveats, no exceptions were mentioned by your statement. Just penalties for l"letting" them be stolen.

[DGM]

Originally Posted by Unabogie

Sure. We already agree that it's constitutional to deny gun ownership to select people, like felons and the mentally ill. I think we should treat gun owners like car drivers. You buy a gun and you get a gun license. Every year, you have to show up with every gun registered to you and demonstrate that you do can operate the guns safely, and that you do not have any disqualifying offenses. I'm not sure what the parameters of those offenses should be. DUI? Maybe, I don't know. Lost guns? Maybe if you lose a gun you have to give up your other guns for a year. Certainly people with restraining orders would be good candidates. People with ongoing mental health issues would be another.

If your gun isn't properly maintained or you can't demonstrate that you know how to use it safely, or you can't prove that you have a proper gun safe (that one I'm not sure how you'd enforce), it stays there until you get some training and come back to pass your test.

I can already anticipate people with "collections" of 30 guns squawking at this, but no one says you need to collect a giant arsenal to protect your house or go sport shooting. If you owned 30 cars, you'd have to bring all 30 in for a smog inspection. I would like to see gun ownership treated AT LEAST as seriously as a car, motorcycle, or scooter.

I'd pay for all of this with a tax on gun ownership. If you lapse your license fees, you can't own a gun, period.

I'm not stuck on the details, but that's the gist of where I'd go.

Seems like a lot of hoops for not much gain (other than collecting money). I have no problem with certifying the owner is still competent but, how do you regulate people that are not licensed and under the same house hold (like in the CT case)?

We're looking for laws that will actually reduce the cases of crime, not creating hoops for the law abiding.

[DGM]

Originally Posted by rwguinn

Did you read what you wrote?
If my guns are inside my house. locked away, and someone steals them, your original statement was that I should be penalized.
No caveats, no exceptions were mentioned by your statement. Just penalties for l"letting" them be stolen.

Yes, I do. Do you consider just locked in your house safe storage of your guns?

I propose guidelines for this safe storage. If you comply with these guidelines and you can prove it you have no problem. You might want to read again where I wrote:

Originally Posted by DGM

If you have guns (and I do) and they are not secured in compliance with law, you could be charged with a crime. .

What's the issue?

[Unabogie]

Originally Posted by DGM

Seems like a lot of hoops for not much gain (other than collecting money). I have no problem with certifying the owner is still competent but, how do you regulate people that are not licensed and under the same house hold (like in the CT case)?

We're looking for laws that will actually reduce the cases of crime, not creating hoops for the law abiding.

Good question. I think if you have people in the house who are not licensed, then they either have to get licensed (and pass those same tests) or you have to show proof of the items being locked up and away from those people. I also don't think kids should be allowed to fire guns, just as kids can't drive. That eight year old who blew his head off at a gun show is a travesty and should never have happened.

And my concern is not about hoops. We have hoops for most everything: cars, homes, raising kids, going to the doctor, running a business.

I see that as the cost of freedom. If you want the freedom to own guns that potentially affect others, there should be ways of making sure that's done safely, or at the very least, as safely as possible, and does not threaten me or people I love. I don't want to raise revenue just to raise it, but I want to pay for whatever is necessary through taxes on gun owners, yes.

[Information Analyst]

Originally Posted by Polaris

I was only being a little bit facetious. I get the inkling that if Lanza had murdered 26 adults instead of 20 children and 6 adults there wouldn't be the amount of emotion.

What about 20 adults and six kids?

But let's not be facetious...

[Quad4_72]

Found an excellent article about the ridiculousness of an "Assault Weapons" ban. I really recommend everyone read it, both anti gun and pro gun:
http://kontradictions.wordpress.com/...-ill-tell-you/

Quote:

I’m just going to submit this uncomfortable truth to both camps up front, with the vain hope that it will not sound callous:
Mass shootings are a tiny, tiny problem. Which isn’t to say that they aren’t utterly horrifying in more than one way. People’s lives are destroyed, both literally and figuratively. What I mean to say is that if we were to prioritize our political attention to topics according to how many lives were at stake, mass shootings wouldn’t even be on the radar.

Quote:

The fallacy of misleading vividness is when the thought, imagery or reality of something is so emotionally potent – positively or negatively – that you begin to overestimate the likelihood and frequency of its occurrence. This is why many people are afraid to fly. They can understand intellectually that crashes almost never happen, and that airplanes are statistically the safest way to travel, but the idea of being torn apart mid-air, or knowing that they’re about to die for a full two minutes in freefall, or being dragged under the ocean while stuck inside the cabin is so vivid and disturbing, that they actually experience intense fear about a process that is safer than their drive to the airport.
This is what happens to us collectively as a nation when mass shootings occur. Yes, it is terrible, for both the person who was so disturbed and all the people they harmed. It puts on graphic display the absolute worst aspects of our culture, which is painful to watch.
However, it is also an incredible statistical deviation from the norm, objectively inflicting far less suffering and death than many other ways that people are far more likely to die. This is an important point. When our policy becomes based on emotional content rather than facts, we are heading in the wrong direction.

Quote:

When the ban expired in 2004, everyone was anxious to study the results. Had it reduced crime? How could it have?
The National Institute of Justice found that the ban hadn’t reduced gun crime or crime involving “high capacity” magazines, and that the effects of renewing the ban were “likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement.” It then added: “Assault weapons were rarely used in gun crimes even before the ban.”[9]
The Center for Disease Control released a study of gun control legislation, including the assault weapons ban and found “insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence.”[10]
The National Research Council noted that all of the studies they had looked at “did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence” and noted “due to the fact that the relative rarity with which the banned guns were used in crime before the ban … the maximum potential effect of the ban on gun violence outcomes would be very small…”[11]

I quoted a little bit from the article, but there is a lot more good stuff to read in it. Again, highly recommended.

[Newtons Bit]

Originally Posted by rwguinn

Still looking for a definition of Assault gun...

^ Assault Gun. Useful for assaulting fortified positions and infantry defending urban environments - less useful for hunting wholly impractical for self-defense and of limited use to light infantry constituting a militia.

[DGM]

Originally Posted by Unabogie

Good question.

Thanks, Every once in a while I get some wood on the ball.

Originally Posted by Unabogie

I think if you have people in the house who are not licensed, then they either have to get licensed (and pass those same tests) or you have to show proof of the items being locked up and away from those people.

I have no problem with this except why would you really need to show proof? The vast majority of instances of ownership with no problems prove this is unnecessary. This would be a feel good hoop that would likely yield no gain. Also, how would you avoid stigmatizing/ excluding people with mental handicaps that are of no threat?

Originally Posted by Unabogie

I also don't think kids should be allowed to fire guns, just as kids can't drive. That eight year old who blew his head off at a gun show is a travesty and should never have happened.

If you want me to take you seriously you need to stop these strawman arguments, K?

Lets stick to what's workable not the ideology.

[rwguinn]

Originally Posted by DGM

Yes, I do. Do you consider just locked in your house safe storage of your guns?

Considering that you didn't read the "locked away" part of what I wrote, it seems that you are merely looking to piss on other's ideas/thoughts

also--since there are only my wife and I, guns stored in a drawer, locked in the house, with the alarm on is as secure as anything else. But I also own a safe where all but the .40 reside.

Quote:

I propose guidelines for this safe storage. If you comply with these guidelines and you can prove it you have no problem. You might want to read again where I wrote:



What's the issue?

There are already laws about that. You want a new one, the enforcement of which would require violations of several other parts of the Constitution?
eTa: The OP and Feinstein law do NOTHING towards what you mention. I don't think it'sw necessarily a bad idea you have, but it does need work.
Many of us "gun lovers" have said similar things.

[DGM]

Originally Posted by rwguinn

Considering that you didn't read the "locked away" part of what I wrote, it seems that you are merely looking to piss on other's ideas/thoughts

also--since there are only my wife and I, guns stored in a drawer, locked in the house, with the alarm on is as secure as anything else. But I also own a safe where all but the .40 reside.

There are already laws about that. You want a new one, the enforcement of which would require violations of several other parts of the Constitution?
eTa: The OP and Feinstein law do NOTHING towards what you mention. I don't think it'sw necessarily a bad idea you have, but it does need work.
Many of us "gun lovers" have said similar things.

This would not violate the Constitution at all.

If you secure your guns in compliance, you have no problems. There would be no inspections to insure compliance. If a gun that you register (which you already have to do) is stolen, all you need to do is show that it was secured in compliance with the law. This is not universal in the US to date (it is in MA).

Make it known, secure your guns. I'd be willing to bet it would cut down on theft.

[Unabogie]

Originally Posted by DGM

If you want me to take you seriously you need to stop these strawman arguments, K?

Lets stick to what's workable not the ideology.

Care to explain? What's unserious about restricting gun use to people over 18 years old? Are you saying parents don't take their kids shooting, or is there a different point I'm missing?

[DGM]

Originally Posted by Unabogie

Care to explain? What's unserious about restricting gun use to people over 18 years old? Are you saying parents don't take their kids shooting, or is there a different point I'm missing?

Perhaps I did miss-understand. I've always been with my kid when he was shooting. I teach gun safety and have my own range. Maybe I was confused by your reference to the child that was killed at a range with an Uzi.

I've fired the same weapon and I wouldn't let anyone that has not had significant gun experience do so. This incident was a serious lapse of judgement on the parent and the instructors part. No need to bring this into the discussion.

[Information Analyst]

Originally Posted by Newtons Bit

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...f48c77a8c8.jpg

^ Assault Gun. Useful for assaulting fortified positions and infantry defending urban environments - less useful for hunting wholly impractical for self-defense and of limited use to light infantry constituting a militia.

I've always wanted one of these, but they're a bit rare, and I don't have off-street parking here...

[DGM]

Originally Posted by Information Analyst

I've always wanted one of these, but they're a bit rare, and I don't have off-street parking here...

http://www.nickcooper.org.uk/lifrance/images/b12257.jpg

If you could afford it you wouldn't be worried about the parking. Funny how that works.

If you want to buy it you could park it in my yard, no one would complain.

[triforcharity]

Originally Posted by DGM

I know it's been said that pro-gun people have not presented any solutions.

I'll put one out. How about tough penalties for gun owners whos weapons are stolen and used in connection with a crime? This would encourage safe storage of guns. I doubt many gun enthusiasts would have a real problem with this.

Actually, I'm somewhat against that. There'd have to be some kind of gross negligence. Like, leaving a gun in an unlocked car, with the windows down, and in full view.

If someone breaks into my house, (I have unsecured guns in my house) and steals them, I shouldn't be responsible.

But, I like the idea, but only to a point.

[triforcharity]

Originally Posted by Unabogie

I believe that I wrote this same proposal in another thread and I agree. Other suggestions I've read include licensing guns like we do cars, and requiring yearly safety and competency checks where guns would be surrendered for failure to pass until you fixed whatever is wrong. I would propose a gun/ammo tax to cover any costs. You get to keep your guns, but we make it subject to much more oversight.

So, you mean unreasonable search and seizure, and excessive taxation. Gotcha. We already pay higher taxes when we purchase our ammo and guns.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally Posted by DGM

We noticed you didn't address the fact Adam was a gun thief, why's that? Tell us how these laws would have stopped this?

His mother would not have had the gun for him to steal. Duh.

[triforcharity]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

His mother would not have had the gun for him to steal. Duh.

So, what about the handguns?

[Quad4_72]

Man I am shopping around for an AR-15 style rifle (Not specifically an AR-15, because I don't like their operating system), and everywhere is sold out! Man people are definitely right when they say that Obama is the best gun salesman out there lol.

[Unabogie]

Originally Posted by DGM

Perhaps I did miss-understand. I've always been with my kid when he was shooting. I teach gun safety and have my own range. Maybe I was confused by your reference to the child that was killed at a range with an Uzi.

I've fired the same weapon and I wouldn't let anyone that has not had significant gun experience do so. This incident was a serious lapse of judgement on the parent and the instructors part. No need to bring this into the discussion.

I don't understand this part. You're basically trying to use a variation of the No True Scotsman argument. The issue of gun violence (and accidental discharges) is at the very heart of this debate, so no, that's not off limits and I'm not going to spot you points to make it easier. The problem is that once again, up until he let his kid fire that uzi, he was part of that group of "responsible gun owners" we keep hearing about. And then he wasn't. And in this case, he lost his own kid. But the kid could have easily killed someone else, like your kid, or your wife, or your mother. And that's because guns are deadly, and we don't have laws that say "you can't let your damn eight year old fire an uzi". So I don't grant your parameters, sorry.

[Unabogie]

Originally Posted by triforcharity

So, you mean unreasonable search and seizure, and excessive taxation. Gotcha. We already pay higher taxes when we purchase our ammo and guns.

Tough! Your hobby puts my life at risk. Gun violence causes massive financial, emotional, and physical damage to society, so if it costs money to hire guards to protect against shooters, or costs money to do more background checks, or it costs money to set up a better licensing system and to enforce that system, or it costs money to buy back the glut of guns on the streets, you have to pay. Smokers pay for their burden on society. Drinkers pay for theirs. You have to pay for yours.

Freedom isn't free, buddy. Enjoy your guns, just be prepared for the consequences.

[BStrong]

Originally Posted by Quad4_72

Man I am shopping around for an AR-15 style rifle (Not specifically an AR-15, because I don't like their operating system), and everywhere is sold out! Man people are definitely right when they say that Obama is the best gun salesman out there lol.

Late is too late.

You young guys haven't gone through all the buying panics from '68 on, so you can't be blamed too much, but I've been telling friends from the 70's on that if you want a firearm, and it's available now at or below retail, buy it.

I've received Emails from people I do business with that they're out, not accepting orders, and will not be returning E's or phone messages for the immediate future - Ebay buyers are going nuts with pricing, so over-the-top it's unreal.

I have always followed my own advice, and bought cheap and stacked deep.

[triforcharity]

Originally Posted by Unabogie

Tough! Your hobby puts my life at risk.

The only way you're at risk from my guns, is if you're trying to rob someone or put a bullet into someone, or harm someone or myself.

My guns have NEVER put anyone else's life at risk, with one single exception. And it was absolutely justified.

Originally Posted by Unabogie

Gun violence causes massive financial, emotional, and physical damage to society,

So, go after the gun abusers.

Originally Posted by Unabogie

so if it costs money to hire guards to protect against shooters, or costs money to do more background checks, or it costs money to set up a better licensing system and to enforce that system, or it costs money to buy back the glut of guns on the streets, you have to pay.

Nope, that's why I pay taxes. I don't mind slight increases if a service is rendered (for instance, the $5 I pay when I purchase a firearm to complete the NCIC background check) I'm ok with that.

Originally Posted by Unabogie

Smokers pay for their burden on society. Drinkers pay for theirs. You have to pay for yours.

Lol!! Keep going, this is hilarious!!

Originally Posted by Unabogie

Freedom isn't free, buddy. Enjoy your guns, just be prepared for the consequences.

You mean the consequences of other people who disobey the law? Awesome.

You're on a roll, keep going....

[Noztradamus]

Originally Posted by Unabogie

I believe that I wrote this same proposal in another thread and I agree. Other suggestions I've read include licensing guns like we do cars, and requiring yearly safety and competency checks where guns would be surrendered for failure to pass until you fixed whatever is wrong. I would propose a gun/ammo tax to cover any costs. You get to keep your guns, but we make it subject to much more oversight.

Can we do similar with computers and other devices capable of connecting to the iNet?

[thaiboxerken]

Originally Posted by Quad4_72

Man I am shopping around for an AR-15 style rifle (Not specifically an AR-15, because I don't like their operating system), and everywhere is sold out! Man people are definitely right when they say that Obama is the best gun salesman out there lol.

Actually, the spree shooters are the best gun salesmen out there. It doesn't matter who is in office, sales greatly increase after these incidents. The NRA and gun manufacturers have got to be loving it.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally Posted by triforcharity

So, what about the handguns?

She may have had those to steal. So now we have a spree killer with only hand guns, able to deal out a little less death. Instead of 26 dead, maybe 12 dead. Still a tragedy, but not as much.