Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Tellemurius]

People can only stand so much bullshit. If you ban them outright, shit's gonna get Nasty

They did in D.C. to kill the crime, didn't really change much.

D.C. is a pretty tiny place. It's really pretty obvious why it would still be really easy for anyone to get guns there.

The point i was making was gun related incidents went down but crime rate was still high...
EDIT: (at this point im going silent as drugs are kickin in and i have no idea wtf im saying anymore)

[G-Flex]

That's not actually remotely what you said, but okay.

[scriver]

There is no responsible ownership without a responsible use. Name a single responsible use for an assault rifle.

We've already had a number of people mention that they use AR's for hunting in this thread.

But seriously guys, SB249? Thoughts?

I don't see how you could consider hunting with assault rifles responsible use any more than hunting with missile launchers or fishing with dynamite. Sure, you can hunt with them, but that doesn't make it responsible or a good reason to be allowed to do it.

[Sensei]

There is no responsible ownership without a responsible use. Name a single responsible use for an assault rifle.

We've already had a number of people mention that they use AR's for hunting in this thread.

But seriously guys, SB249? Thoughts?

I don't see how you could consider hunting with assault rifles responsible use any more than hunting with missile launchers or fishing with dynamite. Sure, you can hunt with them, but that doesn't make it responsible or a good reason to be allowed to do it.

Can you say why this is? I sure hope to god you don't think AR-15's are fully automatic...

Once again for the record; SB249 will outlaw a specific magazine (clip) release that allow people to use their AR-15's legally. However, they can also use any other semiautomatic rifle (you know, like what you possibly used that boy scout camp), including AR-15's with a modified grip- and the modified grip isn't just exploiting a small loophole, it's a major part of California's specific assault weapons bill.

And all this over a weapon that's legal in all 49 other states- not just, say, Texas and Alaska or something.

[sneakey pete]

Depends on what hunting and what assault weapons you're talking about.

The whole issue here seems to be on definitions, i don't think there's actually any people using fully automatic weapons, to hunt. Some claims stated are that certain semi automatic weapons classify as assault weapons based on what other accessories are on the gun (eg, flash suppressor or grip, i think someone said). In the end that means for two guns that are for all intents and purposes the same may be classified differently. that is indeed an issue.

There are legitimate reasons for wanting a semiautomatic centre fire rifle for hunting. I do think its an issue that you have no way to limit magazine size though, there aren't really legitimate hunting types where you need more than a 10 round magazine or so.


overall i think what is needed is a clean slate of sorts. Something to force AR style weapons aswell as all others to have a smaller magazine size than 10 would be benificial, and certainly things need to be done to prevent guns like that from being converted. I doubt that either is practical or cheap, unfortunatly. You should probably go the whole way and do what we have down under and limit semi automatic rifles only to primary producers, but i doubt that'd ever happen in the US.

tldr? stuffs stuffed, nothing will change, dangerous weapons will stay in the hands of people for illegitimate reasons.

[Sensei]

I suppose you could certainly need more than 10 rounds if you are a terrible hunter. :P

Also, for the record, even though it was linked earlier, it looks like we need the existing California assault weapons bill up again.

Notwithstanding Section 30510, "assault weapon" also
means any of the following:
(1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to
accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:
(A) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action
of the weapon.
(B) A thumbhole stock.
(C) A folding or telescoping stock.
(D) A grenade launcher or flare launcher.
(E) A flash suppressor.
(F) A forward pistol grip.
(2) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine
with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
(3) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an overall length
of less than 30 inches.
(4) A semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a
detachable magazine and any one of the following:
(A) A threaded barrel, capable of accepting a flash suppressor,
forward handgrip, or silencer.
(B) A second handgrip.
(C) A shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely
encircles, the barrel that allows the bearer to fire the weapon
without burning the bearer's hand, except a slide that encloses the
barrel.
(D) The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location
outside of the pistol grip.
(5) A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the
capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
(6) A semiautomatic shotgun that has both of the following:
(A) A folding or telescoping stock.
(B) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action
of the weapon, thumbhole stock, or vertical handgrip.
(7) A semiautomatic shotgun that has the ability to accept a
detachable magazine.
(8) Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder.

The bits really relevant to Senate Bill 249 have been highlighted. Currently, people have been using "bullet buttons" to circumvent the detachable magazine bit, because it requires a "tool" to detach your magazine (just a bullet). Senate Bill 249 will simply outlaw bullet buttons. People will immediately use rifle grips on their AR-15's instead of pistol grips. They also can't have things like a foregrip or flash suppressor in California, pejoratively referred to by California gun enthusiasts as "evil parts", because they make your gun illegal without actually changing its functionality.

A standard AR-15: This one has a pistol grip


A California "Featureless" AR-15: I think this one actually has an "evil" flash suppressor, funny enough it's OK to have a rifle silencer though. But the important part is that the grip is different.


See for comparison the Ruger 10-22: This fires every time you squeeze the trigger just like the AR-15, it's functionally very similar* (IE; you only care the difference if you're actually using it, not if you're worried about being on the other end of it). It's fine because it has no "evil" features common to the AR-15 such as a pistol grip. If however you attached a foregrip to it, suddenly it becomes "evil" and illegal in California. But I digress.

(I'm pretty sure the Ruger shown here is not controversial because it is not colored black, frankly.)

Keep in mind, the "bullet button" AR-15's are considered fixed magazine and may only have 10 rounds. However, the funny-grip AR-15's have a detachable magazine which usually have 30 rounds- but if somebody invented a 100-round barrel mag for them, I'm pretty sure that would be legal too.

Now, think: Exactly what does SB249 accomplish? Certainly nothing to do with most of the debate going on in this thread.

*The Ruger pictured is actually a rimfire rifle, before someone calls me on it. There are centerfire rifles like it. I just fucking love my 10-22, I guess.

[Capntastic]

See it's cool when someone actually states their case and explains things and goes through the issues point by point rather than simply going "UGH GUYS THIS IS AWFUL [image macro] OH YOU DON'T AGREE WITH ME WELL THEN I'M LEAVING"

So thanks, Sensei, for an honest attempt at making the thread better.

[kingfisher1112]

Good job mate.

[Bauglir]

Regulating guns is good. Banning certain categories of guns can be good. In neither case is the 2nd amendment violated, anymore than slander laws violate the 1st. The existing California legislation is not good, and the video link earlier about barrel shrouds indicates that it was designed based on terrible design standards - "What is currently popular?" They should have based it on "What causes problems, and why?" Unfortunately, I'm under the impression that the law was purely reactionary, and as a consequence makes about as much sense and impact as airport security procedures. Much of the press opposing the new law, which is primarily problematic because of the existing law, uses poor choices of language and (likely unintentional) misinformation, such as claims of an ex post facto implementation of the law, which make it unfortunately easy to dismiss the problems that actually exist.

Is there any part of this post that is controversial?

[Funk]

so it is a law to pach a hole in the past law.
but will it change anything?
yes and no

yes joe public will not have such weapons so thay will be less of then around.

but as it is only a local ban such weapons will still be out there for any one willing to leave the state and brake the law .

[kingfisher1112]

Regulating guns is good. Banning certain categories of guns can be good. In neither case is the 2nd amendment violated, anymore than slander laws violate the 1st. The existing California legislation is not good, and the video link earlier about barrel shrouds indicates that it was designed based on terrible design standards - "What is currently popular?" They should have based it on "What causes problems, and why?" Unfortunately, I'm under the impression that the law was purely reactionary, and as a consequence makes about as much sense and impact as airport security procedures. Much of the press opposing the new law, which is primarily problematic because of the existing law, uses poor choices of language and (likely unintentional) misinformation, such as claims of an ex post facto implementation of the law, which make it unfortunately easy to dismiss the problems that actually exist.

Is there any part of this post that is controversial?

Regulation is good, outright banning is bad. Liscences good, banning bad. So many dudes will own now illeagal guns, and they will not be happy that a significant amount of money went poof. Assault rifles are expensive dammit.

[RedKing]

Actually, no. All they have to do is take off the after-market addons, and voila! Not an assault rifle anymore.

So they're out maybe $50 instead of several hundred.

[Bauglir]

I feel that if you're going to render existing objects newly illegal, you need a trade-in program that pays better-than-market value for the equipment and a several year span of operation for that program. If nothing else, the onus is on the government to make obeying new laws an attractive option. Nevertheless, I do still maintain that there are versions for which there is no practical use worth legislating exceptions - but I don't think anybody here is arguing in favor of something like civilians having roof-mounted anti-aircraft guns or surface-to-surface missiles. Assault rifles, in my opinion, fall under "Regulate more heavily than we currently do", not "Outright ban", and the regulations I want have less to do with what you're allowed to do with them and more to do with who's allowed to have them.

[Kilroy the Grand]

See it's cool when someone actually states their case and explains things and goes through the issues point by point rather than simply going "UGH GUYS THIS IS AWFUL [image macro] OH YOU DON'T AGREE WITH ME WELL THEN I'M LEAVING"

So thanks, Sensei, for an honest attempt at making the thread better.

I actually got quite annoyed, it also didn't help that every time I tried to post, 7 or 9 other things had been posted. After my vacation I fully intend to respond.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

I wonder, do you know what a strawman is?

[RedKing]

I feel that if you're going to render existing objects newly illegal, you need a trade-in program that pays better-than-market value for the equipment and a several year span of operation for that program. If nothing else, the onus is on the government to make obeying new laws an attractive option. Nevertheless, I do still maintain that there are versions for which there is no practical use worth legislating exceptions - but I don't think anybody here is arguing in favor of something like civilians having roof-mounted anti-aircraft guns or surface-to-surface missiles. Assault rifles, in my opinion, fall under "Regulate more heavily than we currently do", not "Outright ban", and the regulations I want have less to do with what you're allowed to do with them and more to do with who's allowed to have them.

Law of unintended consequences -- If you know that passage of a gun ban and an associated trade-in program are imminent, you're going to see a spike in guns sales and thefts as people snap up guns to turn them in and cash in. Similar problems with gun trade-in programs in inner cities: gun thefts skyrocketed even as the trade-in program itself was highly successful.

Think of it like a patch to an MMO: if there's a gold exploit that allows people to net millions of gold, and you're going to fix and rebalance but do some kind of "fair" conversion for the people who weren't exploiting, then the exploiters have a huge incentive to exploit MORE in advance of the patch.

Also when the Federal Assault Weapons Ban went into effect, it was noted that there was a spike in reported gun thefts *prior* to the ban. I know from personal experience that more than a few of those "thefts" were an excuse for people to get their own weapons off the books before they cached them away somewhere.