NationStates

Washington Resistance Army wrote:

Arlenton wrote:I wonder how a Justice Kavanaugh on the USSC will benefit gun rights. Looking forward to finding out.

He'll strike down assault weapons bans at least.

And maybe other restrictions too.

Watching New York and Mass freak out with the inevitable AWB-ban ban will be mildly amusing.

Kernen wrote:Watching New York and Mass freak out with the inevitable AWB-ban ban will be mildly amusing.

The state houses and urban liberals will no doubt freak out, but outside of that there will be quite a few people in those states who will be quite happy to see that.

Northeast American Federation wrote:

Kernen wrote:Watching New York and Mass freak out with the inevitable AWB-ban ban will be mildly amusing.

The state houses and urban liberals will no doubt freak out, but outside of that there will be quite a few people in those states who will be quite happy to see that.

Nobody cares what the hill people think. That's how the SAFE Act got passed.

Kernen wrote:

Northeast American Federation wrote:The state houses and urban liberals will no doubt freak out, but outside of that there will be quite a few people in those states who will be quite happy to see that.

Nobody cares what the hill people think. That's how the SAFE Act got passed.

The SAFE Act got passed because NYC has an outpost in Albany, through which it runs the rest of the state. Cut the city off the state and the rest of the state will look more red than you might think(and I don't mean communism).

Kernen wrote:Watching New York and Mass freak out with the inevitable AWB-ban ban will be mildly amusing.

Probably because it'll make it easier for gangs in New York and Boston to get those weapons.

Valrifell wrote:

Kernen wrote:Watching New York and Mass freak out with the inevitable AWB-ban ban will be mildly amusing.

Probably because it'll make it easier for gangs in New York and Boston to get those weapons.

Man do I have some bad news for you about weapon proliferation.

Len Hyet wrote:

Valrifell wrote:
Probably because it'll make it easier for gangs in New York and Boston to get those weapons.

Man do I have some bad news for you about weapon proliferation.

I never said it was impossible now, just that making it easier to get guns will make it easier to get guns.

Valrifell wrote:

Len Hyet wrote:Man do I have some bad news for you about weapon proliferation.

I never said it was impossible now, just that making it easier to get guns will make it easier to get guns.

Frankly, gangs in NYC and Boston don't want long guns. They want handguns. Nice, concealable, never-banned handguns. That's why handguns are some... I forget the exact number but around 80% of gun crime.

Valrifell wrote:

Kernen wrote:Watching New York and Mass freak out with the inevitable AWB-ban ban will be mildly amusing.

Probably because it'll make it easier for gangs in New York and Boston to get those weapons.

Well darn...

Telconi wrote:

Valrifell wrote:
Probably because it'll make it easier for gangs in New York and Boston to get those weapons.

Well darn...

Come on, this feels phoned in. You can do better, I believe in you.

Valrifell wrote:

Telconi wrote:
Well darn...

Come on, this feels phoned in. You can do better, I believe in you.

Please don't

Len Hyet wrote:

Valrifell wrote:
I never said it was impossible now, just that making it easier to get guns will make it easier to get guns.

Frankly, gangs in NYC and Boston don't want long guns. They want handguns. Nice, concealable, never-banned handguns. That's why handguns are some... I forget the exact number but around 80% of gun crime.

Methinks that something about making a point and style will drive up those sales anyway.

Valrifell wrote:

Len Hyet wrote:Frankly, gangs in NYC and Boston don't want long guns. They want handguns. Nice, concealable, never-banned handguns. That's why handguns are some... I forget the exact number but around 80% of gun crime.

Methinks that something about making a point and style will drive up those sales anyway.

It hasn't in Chicago, New Orleans, Indianapolis, Detroit, or Orlando, to name a few.

Valrifell wrote:

Kernen wrote:Watching New York and Mass freak out with the inevitable AWB-ban ban will be mildly amusing.

Probably because it'll make it easier for gangs in New York and Boston to get those weapons.

Into all lives some rain must fall. Better somebody else gets soaked than I get damp.

Law enforcement deals with armed street gangs with widespread weapon proliferation already. Forgive me if I believe that law abiding citizens' rights trump a negligible difference in police SOP.

Valrifell wrote:

Len Hyet wrote:Frankly, gangs in NYC and Boston don't want long guns. They want handguns. Nice, concealable, never-banned handguns. That's why handguns are some... I forget the exact number but around 80% of gun crime.

Methinks that something about making a point and style will drive up those sales anyway.

Not sure what you are trying to say, but lets go on why an AWB is useless, and does nothing to fight crime.

Let us start with the FBI crime statistics. Using 2014 we will see 8,124 homicides reported with 5,562 Handguns, 248 Rifles, 262 shotguns, 93 other, and 1,959 not stated. A simple analysis shows that rifles only represent 3% of homicides. Even throwing in all of the not stated number only brings the rifles up to 27%, however I find it more likely that unstated probably follows the general trend seen for the stated type of firearm.

Problems with this: Not all rifles fall under an AWB and not all "assault weapons" are rifles. This largely has to do with the problem of defining "assault weapon," which is a meaningless phrase for pushing laws.

Luckily the BJS has done some work on this. Page 13
2-3% of inmates used "military style" semi automatics or fully automatic firearms in the commission of a crime. This is of 15-17% who used a firearm at all. That would put "military style" firearms at 11-20% of firearms crime. While higher than the other number we have arrived at, it still isn't a major share of crime.

Another study by the BJS. Page 6
8% of ATF traces involved "assault weapons," 16% of New York city homicides used "assault weapons" (using a broader definition), a Virginia study found slightly over 1% of homicides involved an "assault weapon," and only about 1% of criminals interviewed said they had carried an "assault weapon" during a crime, though 10-20% had owned one.

Now there is the question of, are "assault weapons" any more dangerous? If assault weapons become just as easy to get as firearms already available, will that make a difference to crime?

Answer: Not really. Why? Well that gets back to the definition of assault weapons, one of the big ones is magazine acceptability and capacity. Problem here is that most crimes involve 4-5 shots fired, which a 6 shot revolver can hold, and is no only half the 10 shots that is the normal definition. Second once you have the ability to accept detachable magazines, the size of the magazine hardly matters. People will be able to reload it more than fast enough to make little difference.

The other defining features make even less sense, pistol grips increase comfort, barrel shrouds protect your hands, if you have a gun you are unlikely to be bayoneting people, a folding or adjusting stock still has to be above the minimum length to not be a SBR, magazine placement does little to change the guns shooting, etc.

So to sum up, "assault weapons" are not hugely common in crime, nation wide, and provide no extra capabilities to criminals to make them more dangerous.

EDIT: Oh yeah and average time to crime from a gun store is measured in years, so it isn't even likely that any change in law will have an immediate or noticeable effect.

I like to imagine you all have these posts lined up in case someone like me strolls in and says that thing I said.

Thanks for the replies.

Valrifell wrote:I like to imagine you all have these posts lined up in case someone like me strolls in and says that thing I said.

Thanks for the replies.

Have them pre-written? No, have a bunch of sources saved to my browser for easy source citing? Yes. Plus we have all seen many of the same argument brought up, so we know what we want to say in reply.

Valrifell wrote:

Kernen wrote:Watching New York and Mass freak out with the inevitable AWB-ban ban will be mildly amusing.

Probably because it'll make it easier for gangs in New York and Boston to get those weapons.

Considering that most gun crimes are with shotguns and pistols I doubt it'll make a difference. "Assault weapon" is frankly a bullshit term.

Sovaal wrote:

Valrifell wrote:
Probably because it'll make it easier for gangs in New York and Boston to get those weapons.

Considering that most gun crimes are with shotguns and pistols I doubt it'll make a difference. "Assault weapon" is frankly a bullshit term.

Assault weapon = something scary and black, sometimes with rails, that fires fully semi-automatic military grade ammo that only exist to shoot schools and public gatherings.
Not to be confused with "assault rifle", which is an actual term with a meaning that doesn't change based on what Everytown decides is evil this week.

Looks like FBI data for 2017 is up and going, for those who might be interested.

FOIA reveals the ATF was not allowed to examine the internals of the weapons that the Vegas shooter used.

Just a bit of interesting news. A number of people believe that the shooter also performed ghetto full auto modifications to a few of the guns (ie bailing wire in an AK) and used them more than the bump stocked guns (a theory which has at least some credence imo, especially since he's on record as having sought out internal full auto parts) but alas we can't even let the ATF look apparently.

The Vegas shooting still has a lot of ongoing questions, a year after the fact. I guess it doesn't help that some of the questions aren't being allowed to be looked at. If anything, I find it pretty odd that they weren't allowed to look. But whatever, who cares. Gotta get those bump stock bans going.

Nobody tell the grabbers that you can bumpfire without a bump stock.

Speaking of the vegas thing.
A judge tossed the lawsuit against slide fire, and trump is saying that bump stocks will be gone in 2-3 weeks as the batfe(and really big fires) is close to doing so.

Raising the age to buy firearms to 21 is unconstitutional and should be grounds to depose and tried Jerry Brown and his cronies for treason.