If...

[FakeAndyStuart]

First machine guns and rocket launchers aren't lawful to own by ordinary citizens.

Immigrants aren’t getting free phones, if you want to argue and nitpick.

Second, please describe what you mean by the term "assault rifle." Do you mean a rifle used to assault people or are you referring to a rifle that is semi authentic? Or possibly a rifle that looks scary?

I’ll take the description in the 1994 Crime Act, passed by voice vote in the House and Senate.

I find it hard to believe the US or State government has skilled out trillions of dollars in lawsuits over private citizen mass shootings. Do you have numbers to back that up?

One incident, the Las Vegas music festival shooting, created an $800 million dollar settlement paid out of funds from the resort that would have been taxed. Add in the cost of all the police, fire, ambulance, hospital, morgue.. won’t take too long to get to “real money”

And if you are in fact in favor of saving lives, I would submit that keeping criminals that aren't already here from entering the country would be a good idea.

So shut down EVERYONE just to keep the criminals out. Here, we actually agree. But that means creating the means and resources to discover with ones ARE criminals before you let them in. That means creating a robust immigration system that protects the oppressed and those who need our help. That means spending time with both sides of the issues to figure out a solution. Something that the Senate tried AGAIN and failed due to “partisan politics”.

Finally, I am all in favor of removing guns from the hands of people that shouldn't have them. Stop and Frisk brought about a major drop in the murder rate in the City of New York when implemented. Maybe it should be revisited.

Stop and Frisk ended years ago, and the murder rate in NYC is down even further.

Here’s the bottom line, please correct me if I’m wrong. I’m in favor of a robust, resourceful border policy that can protect and serve. I’m also in favor of common sense gun laws that can protect both the the lawful gun owner and the unsuspecting victim. In your comments, I see a potential for common ground. Am I wrong

[Bryce]

Here’s the bottom line, please correct me if I’m wrong. I’m in favor of a robust, resourceful border policy that can protect and serve. I’m also in favor of common sense gun laws that can protect both the the lawful gun owner and the unsuspecting victim. In your comments, I see a potential for common ground. Am I wrong

On those points we are in agreement. I'm guessing though we may disagree on the methods used to achieve them.

[FakeAndyStuart]

Here’s the bottom line, please correct me if I’m wrong. I’m in favor of a robust, resourceful border policy that can protect and serve. I’m also in favor of common sense gun laws that can protect both the the lawful gun owner and the unsuspecting victim. In your comments, I see a potential for common ground. Am I wrong

On those points we are in agreement. I'm guessing though we may disagree on the methods used to achieve them.

We certainly would. However, I believe in the third solution process. One where both sides of an issue get bother and work on an actual solution. One that might not exactly please either (or both) sides, but actually fixes the problem. To accomplish that, we have to go back to actual common sense legislators, and cast off the MTG and AOC “only interested in making noise” elements. How do we do that?

And, congrats on keeping this conversation civil. Doesn’t happen very often on this forum.

[Bryce]

Second, please describe what you mean by the term "assault rifle." Do you mean a rifle used to assault people or are you referring to a rifle that is semi authentic? Or possibly a rifle that looks scary?

I’ll take the description in the 1994 Crime Act, passed by voice vote in the House and Senate.

So, I took a look at the description of rifles, and pistols, along with magazines that were covered in the 1994 act. As I suspected, many of the firearms and features listed were purely cosmetic. These cosmetic features didn't increase the capability of the particular firearm, but simply made them look scary to people unfamiliar with how firearms work. Sort of like if you put a rear spoiler on a Honda Civic, it doesn't make it a race car.

The other items covered in that ban were what they referred to as "large capacity ammunition feeding devices" An LCAFD was defined as "any magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device manufactured after the date [of the act] that has the capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition." Personally, I don't consider a magazine that holds 10 rounds to be "large capacity." Except for my wheel guns (revolvers) and my Walther PPK, the firearms I regularly conceal carry have magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.

FWIW...

Research regarding the effects of the 1994 ban is limited and inconclusive. There is insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of the ban on reducing the overall homicide rate as well as the total firearm homicide rate. The ban was in effect for a limited period and the vast majority of homicides were committed with weapons which are not covered by the FAWB.

As a side note, not that long ago, a LEO friend of mine pulled over a 16-year-old in an edge suburb. Located in his vehicle was an AR with a 30 round clip (magazine). I'm here to tell you he wasn't on his way to a range. Now, although I think it's reasonable to limit magazine sizes on the surface, the sticking point I have is if "Large Capacity Magazines" are going to become illegal, do you think that would prohibit that particular 16-year-old from having it? It was already illegal for that firearm to be in the passenger compartment with him to begin with.

So, I propose the most logical step in reducing gun violence is to focus on the 2% (estimated percent of the population that are gang members) of the population that is responsible for the vast majority of the gun murders in our county. The LEO's on the street know who the gang members are. The ability to search any known gang member, at any time, would go a long way to reducing gun murders. In a perfect world, that would also apply to anyone that is a known convicted felon. By law, they aren't allowed to posses any firearm at all and yet many do.

Later, as time permits, I will post some ideas on how to have immigration reform that keeps the criminals out.

[Rate This]

Second, please describe what you mean by the term "assault rifle." Do you mean a rifle used to assault people or are you referring to a rifle that is semi authentic? Or possibly a rifle that looks scary?

I’ll take the description in the 1994 Crime Act, passed by voice vote in the House and Senate.

So, I took a look at the description of rifles, and pistols, along with magazines that were covered in the 1994 act. As I suspected, many of the firearms and features listed were purely cosmetic. These cosmetic features didn't increase the capability of the particular firearm, but simply made them look scary to people unfamiliar with how firearms work. Sort of like if you put a rear spoiler on a Honda Civic, it doesn't make it a race car.

The other items covered in that ban were what they referred to as "large capacity ammunition feeding devices" An LCAFD was defined as "any magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device manufactured after the date [of the act] that has the capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition." Personally, I don't consider a magazine that holds 10 rounds to be "large capacity." Except for my wheel guns (revolvers) and my Walther PPK, the firearms I regularly conceal carry have magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.

FWIW...

Research regarding the effects of the 1994 ban is limited and inconclusive. There is insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of the ban on reducing the overall homicide rate as well as the total firearm homicide rate. The ban was in effect for a limited period and the vast majority of homicides were committed with weapons which are not covered by the FAWB.

As a side note, not that long ago, a LEO friend of mine pulled over a 16-year-old in an edge suburb. Located in his vehicle was an AR with a 30 round clip (magazine). I'm here to tell you he wasn't on his way to a range. Now, although I think it's reasonable to limit magazine sizes on the surface, the sticking point I have is if "Large Capacity Magazines" are going to become illegal, do you think that would prohibit that particular 16-year-old from having it? It was already illegal for that firearm to be in the passenger compartment with him to begin with.

So, I propose the most logical step in reducing gun violence is to focus on the 2% (estimated percent of the population that are gang members) of the population that is responsible for the vast majority of the gun murders in our county. The LEO's on the street know who the gang members are. The ability to search any known gang member, at any time, would go a long way to reducing gun murders. In a perfect world, that would also apply to anyone that is a known convicted felon. By law, they aren't allowed to posses any firearm at all and yet many do.

Later, as time permits, I will post some ideas on how to have immigration reform that keeps the criminals out.

Oh hi… here’s a challenge… give me a rational explanation why a gun that can blow the head clean off of a 6 year old ala Uvalde as if you had dropped a watermelon out a second story window should be legal. Who needs a gun like that and for what purpose? And no the second amendment blah blah blah is not a reason. Why should someone be permitted to own a gun that leaves the only way to identify an individual as dental records and a torso lying there on the floor or by the clothes on their backs because their parents dropped them off in the morning? I’ll hang up and wait for your well thought out and heartfelt explanation.

[craig11152]

Oh hi… here’s a challenge… give me a rational explanation why a gun that can blow the head clean off of a 6 year old ala Uvalde as if you had dropped a watermelon out a second story window should be legal. Who needs a gun like that and for what purpose? And no the second amendment blah blah blah is not a reason. Why should someone be permitted to own a gun that leaves the only way to identify an individual as dental records and a torso lying there on the floor or by the clothes on their backs because their parents dropped them off in the morning? I’ll hang up and wait for your well thought out and heartfelt explanation.

I think "the second amendment blah blah blah" is in fact the reason.
And I get the argument that back in 1791 people were shooting muskets. They also didn't have computers, the Internet and cell phones with respect to the first amendment. The press consisted of local newspapers. So should we clamp down on the 1st amendment because times have changed?
I am all in favor of stricter gun laws with respect to acquiring a gun. But if we ban "assault rifles" what comes next? Hand guns actually kill more people than the guns you want to ban. So why would I not assume that is next on the list?
Then once "assault rifles" and handguns are taken away from law abiding citizens what are the chances they will be imported from elsewhere like drugs?

[Rate This]

Oh hi… here’s a challenge… give me a rational explanation why a gun that can blow the head clean off of a 6 year old ala Uvalde as if you had dropped a watermelon out a second story window should be legal. Who needs a gun like that and for what purpose? And no the second amendment blah blah blah is not a reason. Why should someone be permitted to own a gun that leaves the only way to identify an individual as dental records and a torso lying there on the floor or by the clothes on their backs because their parents dropped them off in the morning? I’ll hang up and wait for your well thought out and heartfelt explanation.

I think "the second amendment blah blah blah" is in fact the reason.
And I get the argument that back in 1791 people were shooting muskets. They also didn't have computers, the Internet and cell phones with respect to the first amendment. The press consisted of local newspapers. So should we clamp down on the 1st amendment because times have changed?
I am all in favor of stricter gun laws with respect to acquiring a gun. But if we ban "assault rifles" what comes next? Hand guns actually kill more people than the guns you want to ban. So why would I not assume that is next on the list?
Then once "assault rifles" and handguns are taken away from law abiding citizens what are the chances they will be imported from elsewhere like drugs?

You realize that is indirect approval or at best acceptance that things like Uvalde will happen and by this logic nobody can do anything about it right? This despite it only happening here. It’s pretty tortured logic.

[Bryce]

Oh hi… here’s a challenge… give me a rational explanation why a gun that can blow the head clean off of a 6 year old ala Uvalde as if you had dropped a watermelon out a second story window should be legal. Who needs a gun like that and for what purpose? And no the second amendment blah blah blah is not a reason. Why should someone be permitted to own a gun that leaves the only way to identify an individual as dental records and a torso lying there on the floor or by the clothes on their backs because their parents dropped them off in the morning? I’ll hang up and wait for your well thought out and heartfelt explanation.

I think "the second amendment blah blah blah" is in fact the reason.
And I get the argument that back in 1791 people were shooting muskets. They also didn't have computers, the Internet and cell phones with respect to the first amendment. The press consisted of local newspapers. So should we clamp down on the 1st amendment because times have changed?
I am all in favor of stricter gun laws with respect to acquiring a gun. But if we ban "assault rifles" what comes next? Hand guns actually kill more people than the guns you want to ban. So why would I not assume that is next on the list?
Then once "assault rifles" and handguns are taken away from law abiding citizens what are the chances they will be imported from elsewhere like drugs?

I guess it boils down to, do you want to prevent mass shootings or take steps to save the maximum amount of lives. Getting guns out of the hands of the easily identifiable 2% would save MANY more lives than prohibiting the manufacture of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. If you do prohibit those, it won't take long for someone to set up manufacturing plants in Mexico and bringing them across with the fentanyl. Is fentanyl illegal? Banning something isn't COTUS protected isn't working so good is it?

[Rate This]

Oh hi… here’s a challenge… give me a rational explanation why a gun that can blow the head clean off of a 6 year old ala Uvalde as if you had dropped a watermelon out a second story window should be legal. Who needs a gun like that and for what purpose? And no the second amendment blah blah blah is not a reason. Why should someone be permitted to own a gun that leaves the only way to identify an individual as dental records and a torso lying there on the floor or by the clothes on their backs because their parents dropped them off in the morning? I’ll hang up and wait for your well thought out and heartfelt explanation.

I think "the second amendment blah blah blah" is in fact the reason.
And I get the argument that back in 1791 people were shooting muskets. They also didn't have computers, the Internet and cell phones with respect to the first amendment. The press consisted of local newspapers. So should we clamp down on the 1st amendment because times have changed?
I am all in favor of stricter gun laws with respect to acquiring a gun. But if we ban "assault rifles" what comes next? Hand guns actually kill more people than the guns you want to ban. So why would I not assume that is next on the list?
Then once "assault rifles" and handguns are taken away from law abiding citizens what are the chances they will be imported from elsewhere like drugs?

I guess it boils down to, do you want to prevent mass shootings or take steps to save the maximum amount of lives. Getting guns out of the hands of the easily identifiable 2% would save MANY more lives than prohibiting the manufacture of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. If you do prohibit those, it won't take long for someone to set up manufacturing plants in Mexico and bringing them across with the fentanyl. Is fentanyl illegal? Banning something isn't COTUS protected isn't working so good is it?

So how exactly are we supposed to know in advance who is gonna snap and mow down a bunch of folks with this object that has the SOLE PURPOSE OF MOWING THINGS DOWN QUICKLY AND EFFICIENTLY? Because you are suggesting it’ll be easy peasy to pick which one falls into the 2% and which one doesn’t and so the other 98% can buy these things Willy nilly and it’ll be no problem.

As for them getting shipped across illegally instead… the folks that commit these things don’t exactly look like they move in the same circles as folks trafficking fentanyl…

[craig11152]

You realize that is indirect approval or at best acceptance that things like Uvalde will happen and by this logic nobody can do anything about it right? This despite it only happening here. It’s pretty tortured logic.

Actually my willingness to have stricter gun control makes more sense than your unsaid idea to repeal the 2nd amendment.
Did you say you wanted to repeal the 2nd amendment? Not directly but you ignored my comment about hand guns being next.
And your "it only happening here" comment is not only untrue but in fact it happened yesterday in Russia.

[Rate This]

You realize that is indirect approval or at best acceptance that things like Uvalde will happen and by this logic nobody can do anything about it right? This despite it only happening here. It’s pretty tortured logic.

Actually my willingness to have stricter gun control makes more sense than your unsaid idea to repeal the 2nd amendment.
Did you say you wanted to repeal the 2nd amendment? Not directly but you ignored my comment about hand guns being next.
And your "it only happening here" comment is not only untrue but in fact it happened yesterday in Russia.

That’s one time… we have had hundreds of these and the situations were quite different… one was terrorism… these others are mainly people snapping.

As for banning handguns… no I don’t want to ban handguns and I ignored you because slippery slope arguments are disingenuous rhetorical trash. “Whats next?!” Isn’t an argument it’s a scare tactic.

[craig11152]

As for banning handguns… no I don’t want to ban handguns and I ignored you because slippery slope arguments are disingenuous rhetorical trash. “Whats next?!” Isn’t an argument it’s a scare tactic.

So explain why you want to ban so called assault rifles when hand guns kill more people?
According to Pew Research FBI statistics say

In 2020, the most recent year for which the FBI has published data, handguns were involved in 59% of the 13,620 U.S. gun murders and non-negligent manslaughters for which data is available. Rifles – the category that includes guns sometimes referred to as “assault weapons” – were involved in 3% of firearm murders. Shotguns were involved in 1%. The remainder of gun homicides and non-negligent manslaughters (36%) involved other kinds of firearms or those classified as “type not stated.”

It’s important to note that the FBI’s statistics do not capture the details on all gun murders in the U.S. each year. The FBI’s data is based on information voluntarily submitted by police departments around the country, and not all agencies participate or provide complete information each year.

Even if "type not stated" were all assault rifles they wouldn't come close to handguns.
So again why are you focused on the smaller issue rather than the bigger issue?

[Rate This]

As for banning handguns… no I don’t want to ban handguns and I ignored you because slippery slope arguments are disingenuous rhetorical trash. “Whats next?!” Isn’t an argument it’s a scare tactic.

So explain why you want to ban so called assault rifles when hand guns kill more people?
According to Pew Research FBI statistics say

In 2020, the most recent year for which the FBI has published data, handguns were involved in 59% of the 13,620 U.S. gun murders and non-negligent manslaughters for which data is available. Rifles – the category that includes guns sometimes referred to as “assault weapons” – were involved in 3% of firearm murders. Shotguns were involved in 1%. The remainder of gun homicides and non-negligent manslaughters (36%) involved other kinds of firearms or those classified as “type not stated.”

It’s important to note that the FBI’s statistics do not capture the details on all gun murders in the U.S. each year. The FBI’s data is based on information voluntarily submitted by police departments around the country, and not all agencies participate or provide complete information each year.

Even if "type not stated" were all assault rifles they wouldn't come close to handguns.
So again why are you focused on the smaller issue rather than the bigger issue?

Because hand guns may kill more people but it’s mostly DOMESTIC or gang and drug related. Random mass killings are in the near exclusive purview of these other guns.