Semiautomatic rifles to be Assault Weapons in CA

[Free Soviets]

i think the real issue when it comes to success or failure in regulation is how easy the regulations are to get around and how inherently 'worth it' people think the thing being regulated is. booze and minor drugs have a huge amount of inherent worth, and its not hard at all to make them. however, other drugs are more complicated to make, and those are correspondingly harder to get.

making guns harder to get is pretty damn easy, if a nation decides to do it. at least if it is generally capable of handling standard government functions and isn't being opposed by some powerful group outright supplying them to people. that's where most of the countries that have both restrictive laws and large amounts of gun laws fall down.

Fire arms are fairly easy to make, most certainly easier than meth or LSD, and once you account for the vast fields of pot you need I would say making a fire arm is easier than pot. The parts for a firearms have so many other applications that purchasing them does not set off alarm bells like the purchase of precursors for meth and LSD. Marijuana requires space to grow either inside in which case electricity usage will set off alarm bells with local law enforcement or outside in which case DEA satellite and fly overs will set off alarm bells.

The next part of your equation is the 'worth it' factor. Firearm ownership is at ~35%, only 11.5% of people 12 and older have used marijuana in the last year. So we look at a relatively high worth it factor say roughly 3 times marijuana. So in the US no a near complete ban by your logic would be less effective than current marijuana prohibition.

nah. you are mistaking raw usage numbers with valuation of that usage. owning, let alone making, guns illegally in places without ready access to them (and hence not being able to do anything other than fondle them quietly in a windowless room) just doesn't strike many people as worthwhile. this is radically different from the joys of getting high.

we have the rest of the world to look to for data. and out there, countries have routinely decreased the number of weapons available in them - including nigh-total disarmament. the ones with functioning governments simply do not see a spike in illegally manufactured weapons.

[Imperializt Russia]

It does not state that.

Consider it shortsighted if you want.

In some ways, extremely short-sighted. In others, extremely long-sighted.

When the FFs drafted the Constitution, they did so under enormous pressure from both Federalist and anti-Federalist camps, from their own consciousness and from outside groups.

They drafted the Constitution to both get it out of the way as quickly as possible without ruffling any feathers (hence it's incredibly nebulous language) and to be clarified at a later date.

Up until 2008, the SCOTUS upheld the right of the government to regulate firearms because the Constitution said nowhere that it's citizens had a right to arm themselves except to form a militia to protect themselves from oppression.

Only, the Supreme Court considers the right to bear arms to apply to regular citizens.

[Free Soviets]

Furthermore, there have only been two confirmed homicides committed with legally owned fully-automatic weapons...

...after we started registering and tightly regulating them. if you'll recall, we started doing that after al capone and pals got a little bit too easy with the tommy guns.

so this strikes me as an excellent argument in favor of strict background checks, highly regulated manufacture and sales, and gun registration. we know for an absolute fact that it works.

[Sevvania]

we have the rest of the world to look to for data. and out there, countries have routinely decreased the number of weapons available in them - including nigh-total disarmament. the ones with functioning governments simply do not see a spike in illegally manufactured weapons.

But according to the current trends of gun crime in the United States itself, gun crimes have been declining even after the Federal Assault Weapons Ban was lifted in 2004. Why would there be need for disarmament in the United States if gun crimes are decreasing from previous years?

[Big Jim P]

we have the rest of the world to look to for data. and out there, countries have routinely decreased the number of weapons available in them - including nigh-total disarmament. the ones with functioning governments simply do not see a spike in illegally manufactured weapons.

But according to the current trends of gun crime in the United States itself, gun crimes have been declining even after the Federal Assault Weapons Ban was lifted in 2004. Why would there be need for disarmament in the United States if gun crimes are decreasing from previous years?

Because guns make some people wet their pants.

[Nazeroth]

But according to the current trends of gun crime in the United States itself, gun crimes have been declining even after the Federal Assault Weapons Ban was lifted in 2004. Why would there be need for disarmament in the United States if gun crimes are decreasing from previous years?

Because guns make some people wet their pants.

true, people have always had a fear of things they don't understand.

[Free Soviets]

we have the rest of the world to look to for data. and out there, countries have routinely decreased the number of weapons available in them - including nigh-total disarmament. the ones with functioning governments simply do not see a spike in illegally manufactured weapons.

But according to the current trends of gun crime in the United States itself, gun crimes have been declining even after the Federal Assault Weapons Ban was lifted in 2004. Why would there be need for disarmament in the United States if gun crimes are decreasing from previous years?

crime in general is decreasing, thanks to us banning lead from paint and gasoline.

but we're decreasing from a ludicrously horrific level of gun violence down to one that is merely ridiculously awful. why should we settle for mere improvement? why should we put up with the unceasing tragedy, given that we know how to end it and nothing of value will be lost?

[Nazeroth]

But according to the current trends of gun crime in the United States itself, gun crimes have been declining even after the Federal Assault Weapons Ban was lifted in 2004. Why would there be need for disarmament in the United States if gun crimes are decreasing from previous years?

crime in general is decreasing, thanks to us banning lead from paint and gasoline.

but we're decreasing from a ludicrously horrific level of gun violence down to one that is merely ridiculously awful. why should we settle for mere improvement? why should we put up with the unceasing tragedy, given that we know how to end it and nothing of value will be lost?

You just think it's bad because it's thrown all over the news

if the front cover of news was of people choking on food there would be massive outcry for laws that people would think would prevent choking. It's simple mass sheep knee jerk reaction that's all it is.

I wouldn't be surprised if you were more likely to be hit by lighting than be shot by a firearm.

[Spirit of Hope]

But according to the current trends of gun crime in the United States itself, gun crimes have been declining even after the Federal Assault Weapons Ban was lifted in 2004. Why would there be need for disarmament in the United States if gun crimes are decreasing from previous years?

crime in general is decreasing, thanks to us banning lead from paint and gasoline.

but we're decreasing from a ludicrously horrific level of gun violence down to one that is merely ridiculously awful. why should we settle for mere improvement? why should we put up with the unceasing tragedy, given that we know how to end it and nothing of value will be lost?

I'll note that if you read the law it is registration of a gun that has a detachable box magazine that can except more than ten rounds, even if it requires a tool to remove said magazine. I hardly see how this is going to cut down on gun crimes, it is just another way for the great state of california to shit on me, a legal citizen who likes to go to the gun range and shoot my legally owned and purchased rifle and/or pistol, because I find it is fun.

Also as a fun side not England the country that is heavily disarmed, has a high victimization rate. As in close to 1/2 of its citizenry has been a victim of a crime.

[Sevvania]

Furthermore, there have only been two confirmed homicides committed with legally owned fully-automatic weapons...

...after we started registering and tightly regulating them. if you'll recall, we started doing that after al capone and pals got a little bit too easy with the tommy guns.

so this strikes me as an excellent argument in favor of strict background checks, highly regulated manufacture and sales, and gun registration. we know for an absolute fact that it works.

For fully automatic weapons, sure. Most people generally agree (even gun owners) that no one really needs a fully-automatic gun. They were also very expensive, even when they were legal: the Thompson submachine gun, cost $200 in 1921. This is roughly $2,000 dollars in today's money. The Browning Automatic Rifles associated with Bonnie and Clyde were stolen from National Guard armories; not obtained on the civilian market. Even the Colt Monitory, the non-military variant of the BAR, only saw a production of about 125 units. Of these 125 units, 90 were purchased by the FBI, 11 went to the U.S. Treasury Department, and the rest went to various state prisons, banks, security companies, and police departments.

Semi-automatics, on the other hand, have been available for civilian purchase since ~1900. Semi-automatic weapons have had over a hundred years of legal production, while the iconic fully-automatic criminal weapon of choice, the Tommy Gun, was only legal in it's fully-automatic form for thirteen years (to my knowledge, the Thompson was the first fully-automatic weapon available to civilians in the United States).

Today, one can purchase a semi-automatic rifle for $300 or less, which further contributes to how widespread they've become. Banning fully-automatics worked because it was reasonable, and they were too expensive for most people to afford to begin with. The rationale behind banning semi-automatics is highly debatable, and would result in the ban of weapons that are not hyper-lethal cop-killing machine guns, but may be as simple as .22 caliber target rifle.

[Imperializt Russia]

crime in general is decreasing, thanks to us banning lead from paint and gasoline.

but we're decreasing from a ludicrously horrific level of gun violence down to one that is merely ridiculously awful. why should we settle for mere improvement? why should we put up with the unceasing tragedy, given that we know how to end it and nothing of value will be lost?

You just think it's bad because it's thrown all over the news

if the front cover of news was of people choking on food there would be massive outcry for laws that people would think would prevent choking. It's simple mass sheep knee jerk reaction that's all it is.

I wouldn't be surprised if you were more likely to be hit by lighting than be shot by a firearm.

Not quite.

It's about one in a quarter million rifles or shotguns used to kill a person every year.
Significantly higher for handguns.

Chance of lightning strike is about half that.

[Nazeroth]

You just think it's bad because it's thrown all over the news

if the front cover of news was of people choking on food there would be massive outcry for laws that people would think would prevent choking. It's simple mass sheep knee jerk reaction that's all it is.

I wouldn't be surprised if you were more likely to be hit by lighting than be shot by a firearm.

Not quite.

It's about one in a quarter million rifles or shotguns used to kill a person every year.
Significantly higher for handguns.

Chance of lightning strike is about half that.

that's still not good for a gun-control argument, it's absurdly low chance of being killed by a firearm and yet people think it's this huge problem when really it's almost non existent.

[Spirit of Hope]

Not quite.

It's about one in a quarter million rifles or shotguns used to kill a person every year.
Significantly higher for handguns.

Chance of lightning strike is about half that.

that's still not good for a gun-control argument, it's absurdly low chance of being killed by a firearm and yet people think it's this huge problem when really it's almost non existent.

My favorite is the guns kill kids accidentally. At about 48 dead kids in the entire United States due to accidental discharge. When 200-300 die in pools each year, with like 20 times as many guns as pools. So sure regulate my fire arm, but not my pool.

[Nazeroth]

that's still not good for a gun-control argument, it's absurdly low chance of being killed by a firearm and yet people think it's this huge problem when really it's almost non existent.

My favorite is the guns kill kids accidentally. At about 48 dead kids in the entire United States due to accidental discharge. When 200-300 die in pools each year, with like 20 times as many guns as pools. So sure regulate my fire arm, but not my pool.

that's what im saying

[Sevvania]

But according to the current trends of gun crime in the United States itself, gun crimes have been declining even after the Federal Assault Weapons Ban was lifted in 2004. Why would there be need for disarmament in the United States if gun crimes are decreasing from previous years?

crime in general is decreasing, thanks to us banning lead from paint and gasoline.

but we're decreasing from a ludicrously horrific level of gun violence down to one that is merely ridiculously awful. why should we settle for mere improvement? why should we put up with the unceasing tragedy, given that we know how to end it and nothing of value will be lost?

The majority of gun violence is committed by handguns, not semi-automatic rifles. Over five times as many people were killed by a knife or cutting instrument in 2011 than were killed by a rifle of any kind, semi-automatic or otherwise. Over twice as many people were physically beaten to death by an unarmed attacker than were killed by a rifle of any kind. If you're wanting to decrease "ludicrously horrific levels" of gun violence, starting with the class of weapon that accounts for the fewest gun crimes, that has the most non-killing-people-related uses, is not a good approach. If you want to reduce gun crime by any degree other than "ludicrously horrific down to ridiculously awful", look to handguns.

[Personal Defense Force]

Reposting for those that believe removing guns in the US reduces crime in any way. Post up your questions, I'm more then happy to argue my point.

Oh, and the supreme courts decision on the 2nd amendment is all the way at the bottom, read up mates.

I'm a bit ashamed to say I'm more of a liberal then a conservative, being that I despise both sides arguments on gun control as the lefties enjoy quoting statistics that don't exist and the righties enjoy using arguments that don't make sense.


So just for giggles, not that I think it's going to change anyones mind about any of this thing, I'll quote some statistics that actually do exist and give my own lil argument that I'm sure you guys will be more then happy to tear apart of your own free will.

1. Culture
2. Crime in the US over the past decade
3. Gun crime in areas with high gun control
4. Final Thoughts

[1]

The very first thing I have to say right now is to those that are citizens of foreign countries and believe "Because Gun-Control works here, it will work in the US". That would be a very sound argument if there wasn't such a substantial culture difference inbetween the US and a majority of this countries of this lovely world in terms of political and individual ideology. Things as how our government operate all the way down to how each individual person acts is substantially adverse compared to a majority of the nations.

For those that have had to switch inbetween living inbetween the US and a European or Asian nation such as myself, almost as a certainty you would notice how difficult it is to assimilate into the opposite cultures. This wouldn't be the case if you were say, a European moving to another European country, as the culture shock isn't as bad if at all as a majority of the European countries have similar customs. Although I do apologize for how poorly written this paragraph may seem to some of you I'm sure that those that like to exhibit some forms of intelligence will be able to appreciate what I am trying to say. The differences inbetween the cultures prevents certain actions or laws from being effective or useful in other cultures or countries.

[2]

The second thing I have to say is to those that state "Here in the US, the more gun control we have the less crime there is".

The first statistic I will quote is this:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cr ... ta-table-8

This is a table I saw down below that will nicely demonstrate my first point

With the recent expiration of the assault weapons bill and the Supreme court ruling that handgun bans where unconstitutional in any state (Including DC) people assumed that gun crime would rise due to the increased availability of weapons in the US that were considered "Dangerous" just a few years ago. What happened instead is...

Absolutely nothing.

There was no increase in gun crime in the US of any degree whatsoever, rather the previous trend of a decrease in gun related crime continued, with an annual decrease inbetween 5% and 7% every year that has been happening ever since the 90's. Even looking at non-governmental statistics you can see the same trend happening on a yearly basis for much longer.

Even with the increase of mass shootings happening being added to the crime statistic, it still falls way short of previous years violent crimes

If anything, crime in the US is decreasing at a surprising rate as shown by this next table:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cr ... es/table-1

Over the past two decades this trend has been continuing constantly in the US, and shows that even if we sit here with our thumbs up our butts and do nothing it will continue to decrease. No pro or against gun control law has had anything to do with the decrease of national crime, and no substantial evidence proving that there is any correlation with any law to the decrease in crime in general. The Culture of the US is simply shifting to a far less violent society then our predecessors.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/self- ... -1993.aspx

This is, as statistics show, despite the fact the amount of households reporting gun ownership to there respective states has risen to the highest point it has ever been in the past two decades.

This brings me to the next point...

[3]

There will be those that say that culture across the US is substantially different (which again supports my first argument above), which in its essences is true but in this part I'll show you that the difference is about as relevant as the differences inbetween the European nations.

The point I'm trying to make here is simple, places with higher gun control suffer greater amount of crime then those that don't.

Example 1:
http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/07/manda ... wo-cities/

Keenesaw is the first place in the entire country that has mandated gun ownership within its limits where the population is required to have a firearm with ammunition inside its residence. With a population of 30,000 people and an unemployment rate around the national average, as well as being located on the east coast (An area generally stereotypes with being more liberal, despite Keenesaw's location in the south). In all essence it is a stereotypical town that an argument can be made towards its representation of a majority of US towns of that size.

Ever since it made gun ownership mandatory 31 years ago they have had 3 murders in there town, one of them was on the city limits and the other two where in a "Gun-free" zone outside of the local school, areas where the citizens wouldn't have firearms.

Example 2:
http://www.justfacts.com/images/guncont ... s-full.png
http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/ ... eckdam.pdf

Chicago was the subject of much dispute a few years ago with there handgun ban and the supreme court ruling that was discussed above changing said ban.

The main argument against the ban was the above statistic, the fact that once the ban was implemented the gun related crime there skyrocketed and can, unlike the above decrease in crime stated in bracket 2, directly correlated with a gun control law. The moment that the gun control law was struck down and law abiding citizens could buy handguns again the gun related crime dropped, and as it sits is just marginally higher then the national average (Mainly to do with the fact it is the subject of gangs and is a large city).

Example 3:
Uniform Crime Reporting Program, District of Columbia, 1960-2008." Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services Division
Any washington DC time lapse crime statistics

During the years in which the D.C. handgun ban and trigger lock law was in effect, the Washington, D.C. murder rate averaged 73% higher than it was at the outset of the law, while the U.S. murder rate averaged 11% lower.

Conclusion:
The conclusion? Gun control in the US does nothing to hamper crime in the US, rather it increases it by making it harder for law abiding citizens to gain access to guns and allowing those that legally or illegally purchased there weapons and have decided to use there weapons for illegal purposes to do as they wish unhampered. Now this may be an assumption but a better argument can be made for that then against it

[4]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... -frequent/
http://www.secretservice.gov/ntac_ssi.shtml

We have no fucking clue (Pardon my language) what the "Shooter" profile is. The only thing that has been true between the shooters is the presence of mental issues that borderline insanity. Ignoring the media's description of 'Shooters" (Which only correctly describe less then half of the shooters that have existed since the 90's), the only thing we can legitimately do is require a background check

The only problem I have with that is the 7 day waiting period that is required for said background checks in the states that require them. In the day and age of the internet where the entire background check system is online and available for anyone to use by request for any variety of reasons and can be instantly checked, why in the world can't the clerk do it in store? IT's not any less effective then having a police officer do so and the clerk can make his/her own decision on whether or not the mental health of the person that is purchasing the firearm is in fact in question on the spot, unlike the officer that is possibly a hundred miles away with no idea what the person they are approving for a firearm is actually like.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_o ... _v._Heller

For those that believe the second amendment is only for state militias, the Supreme court already ruled that the second amendment is the for the average man, and not the state militias.

That is all, good day sirs, use this post as you wish.

[Confederated Southern States]

*Sigh*

The lefties in congress just want to scrap the 2nd amendment, don't they?

[Spirit of Hope]

*Sigh*

The lefties in congress just want to scrap the 2nd amendment, don't they?

As a note this is a California exclusive law, and does not extend to other states.

[Chernoslavia]

Why the fuck should a civilian own a gun in the first place?

Because I feel like having one.

[South East Europe]

As far as I'm concerned, all weapons should be restricted to the use of trained professionals who have been proven not to be suffering from any mental or physical impairments that would put the lives of others at risk. In all countries where guns are restricted there is virtually no gun-violence.

[Nazeroth]

As far as I'm concerned, all weapons should be restricted to the use of trained professionals who have been proven not to be suffering from any mental or physical impairments that would put the lives of others at risk. In all countries where guns are restricted there is virtually no gun-violence.

ban pools, they present an unnecessary risk and have caused more deaths due to drowning.

[Spirit of Hope]

As far as I'm concerned, all weapons should be restricted to the use of trained professionals who have been proven not to be suffering from any mental or physical impairments that would put the lives of others at risk. In all countries where guns are restricted there is virtually no gun-violence.

Excuse me, I can't think of a single country that has no gun violence. Also as has already been stated some countries with strict gun control have higher crime rates.

[Chernoslavia]

I think I'm beginning to support gun control just so I can see the gun crowd bitch and moan. It's entertaining.

Us gun crowd? bitching? Maybe you should see the look at Obama's face when we shot down the Universal Background Check bill. I enjoyed it so much I played it over 5 times.

[South East Europe]

As far as I'm concerned, all weapons should be restricted to the use of trained professionals who have been proven not to be suffering from any mental or physical impairments that would put the lives of others at risk. In all countries where guns are restricted there is virtually no gun-violence.

Excuse me, I can't think of a single country that has no gun violence. Also as has already been stated some countries with strict gun control have higher crime rates.

I didn't say no gun-violence, i said virtually no-gun violence which means almost no gun-violence. That is inaccurate that they have higher crime rates. Compare the UK to the US. 400 gun-related crimes in the UK versus 10,000 gun-related crimes in the US. If you want me to back it up with facts that I have rather than the myths that others have stated, I will gladly supply you with them.

[South East Europe]

As far as I'm concerned, all weapons should be restricted to the use of trained professionals who have been proven not to be suffering from any mental or physical impairments that would put the lives of others at risk. In all countries where guns are restricted there is virtually no gun-violence.

ban pools, they present an unnecessary risk and have caused more deaths due to drowning.

Pools cause a few dozen deaths a year, Guns cause a few thousand deaths a year. So, your point is moot.