Print

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

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[Owlbread]

You know there is a legal definition alright? Lemme pull it up. Assault rifles are not illegal, assualt weapons are, which have a more specific definition regarding it's automatic nature.

I'm sorry, this is completely wrong. The definition of an "assault weapon" varies from state to state. In New York I believe they have their own definition that is very restrictive, but in general it has less to do with the gun's "automatic nature" (they won't be "automatic" they'll be "semi automatic") and more to do with things like magazine capacity, the looks of the gun, the characteristics and so on. Nothing that really matters in other words.

These guns are not "illegal" either in most states. They are just regulated, as "assault rifles" are and other fully automatic firearms. Those are separate from "assault weapons", though occasionally a gun that is fully automatic would be considered an assault weapon by a particular state.

[Chaoswizkid]

I am seriously surprised that anyone would call the M16 "a version of the AR15 that has selective fire." It's much more like an AR15 is a civilian version of an M16. That's usually the mindset taken when talking about those guns.

How about instead we get all empirical up in here, fo shizzle. What evidence is there linking the rate and type of gun ownership to various crimes, both gun crimes and non-gun crimes.

Well, I tried doing that in this very thread, but it was disregarded out-of-hand for reasons that were stated ("your sources are biased!") but never clarified (no substantial explanation was given other than "biased because I said so!"), so I don't feel like doing it again. Essentially, what I brought up was that in instances of gun bans in the US, violent crime committed with firearms increased in ways that did not mesh with the average rate of violent crime committed with firearms in the US as a whole. When those bans were lifted, the violent crime yaddayadda dropped.
This suggests that, for the US, as gun ownership increases, violent crime yaddayadda decreases, but it doesn't fully support that, all it actually supports is that as gun ownership (of potentially specific types) decreases, violent crime yaddayadda increases.

[Owlbread]

I am seriously surprised that anyone would call the M16 "a version of the AR15 that has selective fire." It's much more like an AR15 is a civilian version of an M16. That's usually the mindset taken when talking about those guns.

I tend to take that approach as well, though didn't Eugene Stoner call his original rifle "AR-10", then he created the rifle he called the AR-15? Then the military bought it and called it an M16? You could say it it all comes under the AR-15 platform.

[Max White]

-Doom was released for MS-DOS. (Well...you can't exactly kill people when you're spending all your time playing video games, so maybe.)

But if that logic checked out then as more violent games were released the rates of crime would continue to drop, and as we all know the youth of today are insubordinate hoodlums with no respect for authority, unlike back when I was young, and violent crimes are on the rise!

It is clear that video games cause violent behavior, because I believe it to be true!

[misko27]

They are just regulated, as "assault rifles" are and other fully automatic firearms.

I challenge you to count the states where regulation occurs. This list has each state and their laws, or lack thereof, regarding "assault weapons".

Secondly, all the states that have any rules refer back to the Fed's definition in some capacity, and Massachusetts actually simply have that law on the books.

NINJA-EDIT:Counted it for you. There are only 7 states that have any laws whatsoever regarding "assault weapons", long guns or hand guns, and 1 of which is a minor regulation regarding pistols, though most have laws restricting them from minors. The rest are more substantial, and the other 43 states have nothing. Many in fact allow additions of dubious intent, such as silencers and suppressors, and machine guns, which are in fact legal in a plurality of states.

Actually look up what you are talking about before making claims. There are no "regulations" on assault rifles in most states, the ones that do have to be staunchly anti-gun to overcome the Gun Lobby.

[Owlbread]

Assault rifles are regulated in every state on a federal level. You cannot import them into the country, nor can you buy them without a 200 dollar tax stamp and compulsory registration. I think your local chief of police or county sheriff or something has to approve it as well.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Assault rifles are regulated in every state on a federal level.

If 'regulated' = not having mandatory background checks [and instead cursory 'guidelines' for gun dealers], then no wonder why anything is over-regulation.

[Owlbread]

Even in places like Georgia though I hear when you buy a gun of any sort, you have to sign a declaration claiming that you have never, for instance, had a charge of domestic assault/abuse. There were a few other things on the form that I can't recall.

"Regulated" in this case (regarding the assault rifles) means the guns are registered, there's extra taxation and you have to have permission from your sheriff or police chief. Basically, buying an assault rifle in the USA is like buying any gun in the UK.

[Max White]

Even in places like Georgia though I hear when you have to buy a gun you have to sign a declaration claiming that you have never, for instance, had a charge of domestic assault.

Really? That is the standard for regulated?

Look in all fairness, I wouldn't say that is really being robbed of ones civil liberties.

[Owlbread]

Really? That is the standard for regulated?

Look in all fairness, I wouldn't say that is really being robbed of ones civil liberties.

For all guns, yes, that is the regulation. Whether it's a .22 bolt action hunting rifle, a .45 handgun or an AR-15. Regardless of whether or not it's "assault". If, however, the gun is an assault rifle or sub machine gun or similar then come the requests for permission, tax stamps and so on.

In general the regulation for assault rifles is what I would be comfortable with for all guns, just as long as nothing is outright banned and importation is legal, and the intention of buying guns to shoot them on your own land for fun should be acceptable.

[Frumple]

No history record of mental illness*, no felonies (misdemeanors are fine, though, iirc.), should a background check be done. Is generally what I've seen, I think, for general firearm stuff. Was what was on the papers to be sent in for the concealed carry background check, anyway, which is currently as far back as I can remember.

Mind you -- there's nothing else. They don't, like, check for mental illness (just record thereof), or any warning signs or whathaveyou. Just any administrative records. Crazy as a goddamn bedbug and yelling at the moon every monday night, having years of struggle with not-officially-diagnosed PTSD or whatever... eh. Not on the books, have your hundred yard death dealer.

Incidentally, I've known more than a few people that have avoided mental health assistance for basically that exact reason, keeping an official record of it from existing. Not necessarily for the purpose of gun ownership, but yeah.

*Though this isn't absolute, I don't believe. Either that or their records aren't very good and one of the people I know, who's had a long and storied history of prescribed psychoactives for various reasons, lied on their concealed carry papers. Also possible!

[misko27]

Assault rifles are regulated in every state on a federal level. You cannot import them into the country, nor can you buy them without a 200 dollar tax stamp and compulsory registration. I think your local chief of police or county sheriff or something has to approve it as well.

My mistake. "Assualt weapons". And Federal regulations, while actually existing as opposed to most states, are not very strict.

Regardless, the debate turned to legal semantics, which is both highly boring and incredibly inapplicable to the world at large. As such, it would do to move it to a more practical point. The US does not over-regulate assault weapons currently, or any other class of gun. It can be safely said the US has some of the loosest laws of the Western world on this. In addition, the US has the highest gun ownership rate on the planet. 60% of US murders involve a shooting, 26th highest in the world (exceeding those of other looser nations, such as Finland). I state there is likely some benefit to gain from changing the US Gun Obsession and increasing restrictions.

Sources will be handed out if asked for.

Even in places like Georgia though I hear when you buy a gun of any sort, you have to sign a declaration claiming that you have never, for instance, had a charge of domestic assault/abuse. There were a few other things on the form that I can't recall.

"Regulated" in this case (regarding the assault rifles) means the guns are registered, there's extra taxation and you have to have permission from your sheriff or police chief. Basically, buying an assault rifle in the USA is like buying any gun in the UK.

First, I would like to point out that many laws in the US regarding these aren't enforced, and so laws are misleading. Second, online laws are looser, so subversion often occurs.

Further, referring solely to the AR15, the wiki is very blunt:

There are no federal restrictions on the ownership of AR-15 rifles in the United States.

If you are thinking of actual assault rifles as used by professionals, and yes I think this is a comparison of how bad it is, it is comparable to buying a gun in Britain.

Oh, and this:

(The domestic abuse law) bans shipment, transport, ownership and use of guns or ammunition by individuals convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, or who are under a restraining (protection) order for domestic abuse in all 50 states. The act also makes it unlawful to knowingly sell or give a firearm or ammunition to such persons.

Restraining orders and convictions. I would ask as a personal matter that you don't contest this one.

I could go on and on, but I do have things to do, and it isn't as if either the pros or the cons would actually convince someone.

[Max White]

All these checks and balances each time you want to buy anything seem rather convoluted. Over here you just need a gun license.
Although the type of licence will require certain conditions to be met, but it seems better than running a gauntlet every time you want a purchase.

[Owlbread]

Regardless, the debate turned to legal semantics, which is both highly boring and incredibly inapplicable to the world at large. As such, it would do to move it to a more practical point.

Legal semantics are very important when they will prevent or allow mass murderers to own guns.

The US does not over-regulate assault weapons currently, or any other class of gun.

"Assault weapon" is a politically charged, invented expression that doesn't really mean anything. Certain states that do keep the assault weapon ban do over-regulate because they outright ban the guns, which I disagree with.

It can be safely said the US has some of the loosest laws of the Western world on this.

Yes, but it's loose and tight in all the wrong areas.

In addition, the US has the highest gun ownership rate on the planet. 60% of US murders involve a shooting, 26th highest in the world (exceeding those of other looser nations, such as Finland). I state there is likely some benefit to gain from changing the US Gun Obsession and increasing restrictions.

Making firearms such a strong political issue (i.e. talking about gun control as soon as a shooting happens) has only led to firearms and ammo purchasing skyrocketing. People have been buying so many guns and ammo to stock up in case there's some kind of ban that certain kinds of ammo were almost completely unavailable.

It is actually counterproductive in some ways to approach gun control like this, in a knee jerk way. AR-15s are more popular at this minute than they have ever been, and the companies keep getting richer every time there's a shooting and elements of the media/gun control lobby get on their soap boxes. For months the companies that make them couldn't keep up with the demand.

It should be done slowly and carefully and, as I said before in greater detail, I support universal gun control as long as nothing is banned and people can have fun at their own homes or on ranges.

First, I would like to point out that many laws in the US regarding these aren't enforced, and so laws are misleading. Second, online laws are looser, so subversion often occurs.

I'm referring specifically to walking into a gun shop and buying a gun of any kind.

Further, referring solely to the AR15, the wiki is very blunt:

There are no federal restrictions on the ownership of AR-15 rifles in the United States. If you are thinking of actual assault rifles as used by professionals, and yes I think this is a comparison of how bad it is, it is comparable to buying a gun in Britain.

Yes, I have stated many, many times that I am taking about actual assault rifles. I only used the AR-15 as an example of a "normal gun" or whatever that is subject to that form, as you go on to describe:

Oh, and this:

(The domestic abuse law) bans shipment, transport, ownership and use of guns or ammunition by individuals convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, or who are under a restraining (protection) order for domestic abuse in all 50 states. The act also makes it unlawful to knowingly sell or give a firearm or ammunition to such persons.

Restraining orders and convictions. I would ask as a personal matter that you don't contest this one.

I won't, and you wouldn't think I would if you had been reading what I said very carefully.

[RedKing]

More terrifying, I read here that a shooting occurred, and I actually treated it the same way I would a regular event, like a court ruling or something. No worrying, no obsessive news-checking, none of the stuff I do when an "emergency" occurs.

The Onion actually made a decent point about this back during the Boston Bombing.

Another relevant Onion article.


I'm not even going to involve myself in this one. I've decided that the gun-control debate is pointless in this country because we will NEVER regulate guns sufficiently. I think mass shootings are just part of our culture now, like baseball and apple pie. Being gunned down by a paranoid schizophrenic with a semiautomatic is just an environmental hazard of living in the United States, like obesity.