Biden to seek assault weapons ban in waning days of Dems’ control of Congress

[dogs4thewin]

Some of them seemed very keen to join in on an insurrection to support their favourite politician who lost a free and fair election.

An armed population leads to a very high gun death rate as they go around killing each other, especially wives and girlfriends.

Actually, two in three gun deaths are by the person's own hand that is not killing wives and girlfriends. There is another group where the death is caused in connection with another crime. Note I am NOT saying that people do not kill wives, girlfriends or other family with guns.

 

[dogs4thewin]

It’s been done before and is a step in the right direction. Let’s go Biden!

and it did not last. Moreover, there were STILL shootings with them.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Something to remember is that really few gun deaths ( as a percentage are committed with high power assault weapons. Therefore, between that fact and the fact that people who kill people with them do not care I am unsure how many lives tis would really save. Are those lives worth losing our freedom as a percentage. There are a number of things that directly or indirectly cause FAR more deaths that assault weapons each year.

 

[Tuur]

This reminds me of a news story where someone was said to have used a high powered rifle in a crime. The rifle turned out to be a 30-30, not what we'd locally call a high powered rifle. Now, a 30-30 is sufficient for game like deer, but would feel uneasy using it for hog or bear. Locally, high powered rifles started with the venerable 30-06 and went up. There are places in the world where the 30-06 might be considered a light round.

The .223 doesn't strike me as all that high powered a round. An uncle came to prefer a smaller than usual round for deer hunting because of less damage to the meat and I don't know if it was a .223, only that it was in a bolt action and he was a good enough shot to make it work.

Anyway, found this information from the FBI on types of weapons used in violent crime in 2019: Table 20

 

[stevil]

Actually, two in three gun deaths are by the person's own hand that is not killing wives and girlfriends. There is another group where the death is caused in connection with another crime. Note I am NOT saying that people do not kill wives, girlfriends or other family with guns.

Yip I agree, its a large problem on many fronts.
But the argument for guns for self protection is a false argument, especially for females, when the household has a gun in it then the woman is more likely to be murdered, not less likely. If you want to protect the females, then make sure there are no guns at home.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Yip I agree, its a large problem on many fronts.
But the argument for guns for self protection is a false argument, especially for females, when the household has a gun in it then the woman is more likely to be murdered, not less likely. If you want to protect the females, then make sure there are no guns at home.

Still does not change the fact that when you are talking about assault weapons very few of the gun deaths are committed with assault weapons , so banning them would have less of an impact than people seem to want to believe.

 

[stevil]

Still does not change the fact that when you are talking about assault weapons very few of the gun deaths are committed with assault weapons , so banning them would have less of an impact than people seem to want to believe.

If we just want to focus on assault weapons or any weapon with an automatic fire mechanism, I'd have to ask what use are they to civilians?
You don't go hunting dear or boar or goats with a machine gun. If you are doing sports, there is not much call for machine guns.
For "self protection" you're walking around with a machine gun, really?

However, if you want to kill lots of people, quickly, these types of guns may be quite useful.

Since there really is no useful civilan situation for a gun with automatic firing capabilities, then why are we arguing the point? Why are we wasting time trying to argue that the government should let civilians buy these guns?

I understand that most gun deaths in USA aren't via this class of gun. But still, removing this particular gun class will provide some benefit for the safety of society. So why not remove it? Some benefit is better than none, doing something is better than doing nothing. Putting your effort into trying something is better than putting your effort into arguing for the status quo in a situation where Americans are killing themselves well beyond the rates of what is happening in other civilised democratic countries.

 

[dogs4thewin]

If we just want to focus on assault weapons or any weapon with an automatic fire mechanism, I'd have to ask what use are they to civilians?
You don't go hunting dear or boar or goats with a machine gun. If you are doing sports, there is not much call for machine guns.
For "self protection" you're walking around with a machine gun, really?

However, if you want to kill lots of people, quickly, these types of guns may be quite useful.

Since there really is no useful civilan situation for a gun with automatic firing capabilities, then why are we arguing the point? Why are we wasting time trying to argue that the government should let civilians buy these guns?

I understand that most gun deaths in USA aren't via this class of gun. But still, removing this particular gun class will provide some benefit for the safety of society. So why not remove it? Some benefit is better than none, doing something is better than doing nothing. Putting your effort into trying something is better than putting your effort into arguing for the status quo in a situation where Americans are killing themselves well beyond the rates of what is happening in other civilised democratic countries.

actually machine guns are illegal already. I believe they are exceptions, but your average Joe cannot just go into a store and buy a machine gun, nor a gun that can shoot in busts. I am pretty sure and I know bump stocks are banned.

 

[Desk trauma]

Since there really is no useful civilan situation for a gun with automatic firing capabilities, then why are we arguing the point? Why are we wasting time trying to argue that the government should let civilians buy these gun

Because you chose to muddy the waters by conflating weapons with an automatic fire option, that is hold down the trigger and get continuous fire, that are already heavily regulated with a very high bar of entry to ownership, with semi-automatic ones.

 

[stevil]

Because you chose to muddy the waters by conflating weapons with an automatic fire option, that is hold down the trigger and get continuous fire, that are already heavily regulated with a very high bar of entry to ownership, with semi-automatic ones.

So are we talking about assault weapons or semi automatics?

 

[Desk trauma]

So are we talking about assault weapons or semi automatics?

Semi-auto weapons of certain types are what was targeted by the expired assault weapon ban and what would be targeted by the new legislation as automatics weapons have already been placed out of the reach of all but a few.

 

[stevil]

Semi-auto weapons of certain types are what was targeted by the expired assault weapon ban and what would be targeted by the new legislation as automatics weapons have already been placed out of the reach of all but a few.

Oh, OK.
If we are to discuss or debate the ban of certain types of semi automatic weapons then we ought to discuss what those types are and why civilians feel they need them despite the dangers they bring and why other civilians feel that society doesn't need them.

I can think of the prospect of a gun with a very large magazine, capable of holding 20 or more rounds.
Why would a hunter, a sport shooter or a person wanting "protection" need 20 or more rounds without having to go to the effort to reload?

 

[Larniavc]

and it did not last. Moreover, there were STILL shootings with them.

Better stop treating cancer. All that money andyet people STILL get cancer.

Do you see, now?

 

[dogs4thewin]

Better stop treating cancer. All that money andyet people STILL get cancer.

Do you see, now?

that makes no sense

 

[Tuur]

I can think of the prospect of a gun with a very large magazine, capable of holding 20 or more rounds.
Why would a hunter, a sport shooter or a person wanting "protection" need 20 or more rounds without having to go to the effort to reload?

Thinning out herds of wild hogs comes to mind. Seriously. They've become a destructive pest in parts of the US.

Semi-automatic long arms simply load the firearm without you having to remove your hand from the vicinity of the trigger. Revolvers do the same. Pump actions (where you slide the front of the firearm back) can do the same thing. So why not use pumps actions? Because semi-automatics can also dampen the perceived recoil, particularly with shotguns.

If you think that rapid fire is only a semi-automatic thing, look for the intro of The Rifleman. Of course, that rifle was rigged, and I think would be technically considered a machine gun in the US, but the rate of fire is real.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

While I'm on-board with adding some common sense gun control measures (which puts me at odds with a lot of my fellow gun owners), one thing that I don't support are some of these kinds of semantically charged proposals that will accomplish nothing, and highlight how people who don't know a lot about guns seem to have a lot of opinions about them, and aren't restrained by their ignorance.

"Semi-automatic" defines most guns...yet it's used in a context to imply that it means "full-auto adjacent"
The AR-15 a person buys at the local gun store isn't a "weapon of war", nor is it functionally equivalent to what the military uses
"AR" doesn't mean "Assault Rifle"
"High powered Assault rifle" is just semantic game


If we wanted to seek out a gun control package that would actually work for a country like ours (that has a gun culture and a constitutional provision for gun ownership), we should be looking to the Czech Republic as an example, not trying to mimic what the UK or Australia did.

 

[stevil]

Thinning out herds of wild hogs comes to mind. Seriously. They've become a destructive pest in parts of the US.

Shooting rabbits is also a thing that you might need lots of bullets for. BUT, you don't need such large magazines. Sure it is inconvenient to load up the magazines but, for such a small inconvenience it removes the risk of people using it on a crowd of people.

I would hope you don't keep shooting at a bunch of hogs or boar or rabbits that are furiously running away. You really ought to try and get clean kills. Reloading a magazine while the animals settle down, isn't a bad thing.

Semi-automatic long arms simply load the firearm without you having to remove your hand from the vicinity of the trigger.

And allows you to keep trying to aim (once the kickback is over)
I'm actually all for getting in rid of magazines entirely and just use bolt action. But of course in USA where you deem guns to be for self defence, that wouldn't work. You would need pistols/handguns with probably 6 rounds to be effective.
Although my argument would be that people are safer without guns than with. They won't have the confidence that comes with carrying so instead they will be more careful, also they can't have their own gun used against them, also the less guns in circulation means the "bad" guys will be less likely to have them, AND police will be able to take guns off people, if they are in public with loaded guns.

If you think that rapid fire is only a semi-automatic thing, look for the intro of The Rifleman. Of course, that rifle was rigged, and I think would be technically considered a machine gun in the US, but the rate of fire is real.

Good luck with being accurate with shooting while doing that.
My problem isn't the semi-auto mechanism, but the large magazines and even detachable magazines where preloaded ones can be quickly swapped back in. And I have seen those gadgets where they can have 6 rounds in a device and use that the quickly reload a 6 round revolver.
BUT, while people are reloading, then that gives others an opportunity to stop them or shoot at them or run away...

 

[Tuur]

Shooting rabbits is also a thing that you might need lots of bullets for. BUT, you don't need such large magazines. Sure it is inconvenient to load up the magazines but, for such a small inconvenience it removes the risk of people using it on a crowd of people.

I would hope you don't keep shooting at a bunch of hogs or boar or rabbits that are furiously running away. You really ought to try and get clean kills. Reloading a magazine while the animals settle down, isn't a bad thing.


And allows you to keep trying to aim (once the kickback is over)
I'm actually all for getting in rid of magazines entirely and just use bolt action. But of course in USA where you deem guns to be for self defence, that wouldn't work. You would need pistols/handguns with probably 6 rounds to be effective.
Although my argument would be that people are safer without guns than with. They won't have the confidence that comes with carrying so instead they will be more careful, also they can't have their own gun used against them, also the less guns in circulation means the "bad" guys will be less likely to have them, AND police will be able to take guns off people, if they are in public with loaded guns.

Good luck with being accurate with shooting while doing that.
My problem isn't the semi-auto mechanism, but the large magazines and even detachable magazines where preloaded ones can be quickly swapped back in. And I have seen those gadgets where they can have 6 rounds in a device and use that the quickly reload a 6 round revolver.
BUT, while people are reloading, then that gives others an opportunity to stop them or shoot at them or run away...

Hogs, being quite sensible creatures, tend to scatter when they come under fire. They also tend to travel in herds. Semi-automatics are also popular with bird hunters for quick follow-up shots.

You say "good luck being accurate" with rapid fire, and that's true. So why then are semi-automatics even an issue here, especially since the technology has been around about a century now?

 

[stevil]

Hogs, being quite sensible creatures, tend to scatter when they come under fire. They also tend to travel in herds. Semi-automatics are also popular with bird hunters for quick follow-up shots.

You say "good luck being accurate" with rapid fire, and that's true. So why then are semi-automatics even an issue here, especially since the technology has been around about a century now?

Again, I hope people are just spraying bullets at hogs. That is incredibly cruel. Take a steady head shot, or none at all.

For birds, I hope you are saying they are taking a quick follow up with a shot gun. I certainly don't have any problem with double barrelled shot guns.

Why are semi-automatics even an issue??? Really???
I am not saying that a general semi automatic with a small magazine is that much of a problem. (although again I'd prefer people use bolt action with small magazines)
But a hunter does not need 20+ rounds in a magazine, and giving a concession on this may mean that mass shooters cannot then get easy access to this.

 

[Larniavc]

that makes no sense

My point exactly.