Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Grizzly Willy]

I'll just go put my foot back in my mouth.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

I was answering a question regarding stuff that is banned because of its potential to cause harm without any proof that it will be used for harm. As far as I'm aware no Main Battle Tank has ever been used by a civilian against other civilians, but it is still illegal to own one that can fire, as well as have live munitions for it.

If I could build my own tank in the US, would it be legal for me to own it?

[obdigore]

If I could build my own tank in the US, would it be legal for me to own it?

I'm not sure. That would be a question for the ATF.

Edit -> Did a little research, anything with a bore over an inch are considered artillery pieces and most likely would be illegal (unless you get special dispensation) as is any kind of explosive ammunition.

[PhaelixWW]

Certain modifications, such as pistol grips or folding stocks, increase concealment or the operational efficiency of the firearm, making them particularly useful for combat type situations, as evidenced in their use by military and SWAT personnel.

The concealment part really isn't a factor. The military and SWAT aren't concerned with any putative increased concealability of their tactical rifles.

My question for you specifically, Deadvolcanoes, as a proponent of the argument about the effectiveness of the assault weapon features, is this: What if the federal government adopted California's view on SBS's and SBR's? That is, the "length" of the firearm is determined by the shortest configuration, rather than the longest configuration. If that were the case, then any adjustable stock would never allow the firearm to be shorter (or therefore more concealable) than and already-allowed standard rifle stock could be. Would that, in your opinion, take adjustable stocks off the list of "evil" features?

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

I'm not sure. That would be a question for the ATF.

Edit -> Did a little research, anything with a bore over an inch are considered artillery pieces and most likely would be illegal (unless you get special dispensation) as is any kind of explosive ammunition.

Very interesting. Thank you.

[Eroginous]

The manufacture of assault rifles for civilian purposes has been banned.

There were never any assault rifles manufactured for civilian purposes. They've always been exclusively available to military personnel only, and civilians who have them have to have military qualifications in order to possess them. They aren't technically 'banned,' they just require specific documentation most gun owners are not able to obtain.

What!? What!?

Assault rifles are selective fire. Semi auto and full. Not "and or."

It's scary how wrong you are here, considering you served.

I'm sorry but the select fire feature isn't the only characteristic which defines an assault rifle:

It must be an individual weapon with provision to fire from the shoulder (i.e. a buttstock);
It must be capable of selective fire;
It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle;
Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable magazine rather than a feed-belt.
And it should at least have a firing range of 300 meters (1000 feet)

Firearms that have some of these features (but not all) are not technically considered an assault rifle. Furthermore, the 1994 assault weapons ban defined assault weapons as a firearm which possess two or more of the following features:

a folding or telescoping stock
a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon
a bayonet mount
a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor
a grenade launcher

Conveniently, most firearms come with at least one of these features and/or can be modified to include any of these features, even ordinary pistols or rifles. The problem with this definition (and why it is not applicable), is that it fails to distinguish between different kinds of firearms. You can hold up a military issue M16A1 and a civilian issue AR15, where the only difference in the attached hardware is the lower receiver, and only an expert will be able to distinguish them from each other. Calling the AR15 an 'assault weapon' does not serve to distinguish it from other firearms in a meaningful way, just like calling an M16A1 an 'assault weapon' does not.

The other problem is that the 'assault rifle' definition encompasses a list of features that distinguish the practical use of such a firearm from other firearms. The 'assault weapon' definition does not. It basically lumps a great many weapons together based on cosmetic features that don't necessarily alter the function of the firearm. It's an absurd definition and anyone with a sliver of common sense can see that it's a pitiful attempt at putting most guns under an umbrella for the sake of a ban. An assault rifle is not defined by any single characteristic, but rather by a host of characteristics which must all be present to qualify it as an assault rifle.

If it doesn't have a detachable magazine, it's not an assault rifle. If it doesn't have a stock so that it can be fired from the shoulder, it's not an assault rifle. If it doesn't fire a medium sized round, it's not an assault rifle. These features are built into the design of the gun. But when it comes to 'assault weapons,' the things it lists are all optional features that in many cases are detachable and can be removed temporarily to change the definition of the firearm. It then becomes a situation where it's impossible to distinguish a firearm as an 'assault weapon' until it possesses two or more of the listed features, and that's a huge problem.

An assault rifle comes off the assembly line with all it's distinguishing features attached to the gun. They cannot be taken off and substituted for features that change the characteristics of the gun to be something other than an assault rifle, and still function as an assault rifle. Any 'assault weapon' can have its parts taken off and substituted for other parts that change its characteristics to something other than an 'assault weapon' and still function as an assault weapon.

It's not only a dishonest term, but it's a non-applicable one.

[PhaelixWW]

As many of us have predicted, national polls are showing a decline in gun control enthusiasm. For support on stricter gun control legislation, the poll reports 39% support in 11/12, followed by a high of 57% in 12/12, then declining numbers of 54% in 1/13, 53% in 2/13, and now only 47% in 3/13.

And those are the numbers from a news agency that would tend to be biased towards the left, if anything.

[Daelak]

As many of us have predicted, national polls are showing a decline in gun control enthusiasm. For support on stricter gun control legislation, the poll reports 39% support in 11/12, followed by a high of 57% in 12/12, then declining numbers of 54% in 1/13, 53% in 2/13, and now only 47% in 3/13.

And those are the numbers from a news agency that would tend to be biased towards the left, if anything.

The government doesn't give a shit about you leaving your pistol on your nightstand so your daughter can pick it up and blow her head off. Also the government isn't going to fucking "tyrannize" your shitty house and neighborhood, no one cares, literally no one cares about your guns, and they were never in danger of being taken.

[oblivionx]

Yikes....

Do you know what makes a regular ranch rifle an "assault weapon?"

The modifications.

In other word, you don't "modify an assault weapon." It's the modifications that make it, by definition, an assault weapon.

I kinda feel like you need to study it out...

I'm pretty sure there is nothing you can do to a "regular ranch rifle" to make it an assault weapon unless you are playing the change definitions game.

[Jaxi]

The government doesn't give a shit about you leaving your pistol on your nightstand so your daughter can pick it up and blow her head off. Also the government isn't going to fucking "tyrannize" your shitty house and neighborhood, no one cares, literally no one cares about your guns, and they were never in danger of being taken.

That was never the point for me. Some people do believe that, but then again some people on the opposing side believe in repealing the second amendment entirely, so I guess those sentiments balance out.

[Grizzly Willy]

The government doesn't give a shit about you leaving your pistol on your nightstand so your daughter can pick it up and blow her head off. Also the government isn't going to fucking "tyrannize" your shitty house and neighborhood, no one cares, literally no one cares about your guns, and they were never in danger of being taken.

You really should settle down. Nothing he said warrants this.

[Nadev]

The government doesn't give a shit about you leaving your pistol on your nightstand so your daughter can pick it up and blow her head off. Also the government isn't going to fucking "tyrannize" your shitty house and neighborhood, no one cares, literally no one cares about your guns, and they were never in danger of being taken.

Apparently you care. A lot.

[Daelak]

You really should settle down. Nothing he said warrants this.

I'm fine, and it wasn't directed at him, it was directed at people who think there is going to be brown shirts at their doorstep taking their pistols. That Obama's civilian army is going to conscript the Christ-loving Bald Eagle patriot to fight for Cuba.

[oblivionx]

I'm fine, and it wasn't directed at him, it was directed at people who think there is going to be brown shirts at their doorstep taking their pistols. That Obama's civilian army is going to conscript the Christ-loving Bald Eagle patriot to fight for Cuba.

So I take it you think the left wants the guns to protect us?

That's so noble of them.

[Daelak]

So I take it you think the left wants the guns to protect us?

That's so noble of them.

The "left" (whatever the hell that means) probably doesn't care what you do with your time, they are too busy protecting your rights.

[Deadvolcanoes]

The concealment part really isn't a factor. The military and SWAT aren't concerned with any putative increased concealability of their tactical rifles.

My question for you specifically, Deadvolcanoes, as a proponent of the argument about the effectiveness of the assault weapon features, is this: What if the federal government adopted California's view on SBS's and SBR's? That is, the "length" of the firearm is determined by the shortest configuration, rather than the longest configuration. If that were the case, then any adjustable stock would never allow the firearm to be shorter (or therefore more concealable) than and already-allowed standard rifle stock could be. Would that, in your opinion, take adjustable stocks off the list of "evil" features?

I'm not a "proponent of the effectiveness of assault weapon features." You can't really make an argument that certain modifications don't increase the operational efficiency. They added pistol grips to rifles for a reason. I'm just stating facts.

And to address your other issue, I don't consider adjustable stocks "evil." I'm not sure what the point of an adjustable stock would be if it can only adjust to the length of an already standard rifle stock. Adjustable stocks are really just for storage purposes, but they have the added effect of increasing concealment and I suppose you could make the argument that they increase close quarters combat.

[PhaelixWW]

The government doesn't give a shit about you leaving your pistol on your nightstand so your daughter can pick it up and blow her head off. Also the government isn't going to fucking "tyrannize" your shitty house and neighborhood, no one cares, literally no one cares about your guns, and they were never in danger of being taken.

I'm sorry, but... what the hell does that have to do with what I posted?

The poll was about popular support for new gun control legislation in general, not anything in specific. Your hyperbole has no place in this particular topic.

Please don't quote me then toss out insulting rhetoric that doesn't even have anything to do with what you quoted. Thanks.

[Daelak]

I'm sorry, but... what the hell does that have to do with what I posted?

The poll was about popular support for new gun control legislation in general, not anything in specific. Your hyperbole has no place in this particular topic.

Please don't quote me then toss out insulting rhetoric that doesn't even have anything to do with what you quoted. Thanks.

It wasn't directed at you, it was directed towards people who ignore the rights of their fellow citizens. Even if it was 90% support, the gun lobby, and the gun owning minority would be like a rat in a corner.

[PhaelixWW]

I'm fine, and it wasn't directed at him, it was directed at people who think there is going to be brown shirts at their doorstep taking their pistols. That Obama's civilian army is going to conscript the Christ-loving Bald Eagle patriot to fight for Cuba.

So, since nobody here has said anything like that, you figured you'd just quote me instead?

Yeah, that's rational.

Or maybe it's because you thought that that statement, out of the blue, would be worthy of an infraction, and that quoting someone, regardless of the content of the quote, makes it seem like it's contributing to the discussion (which it's not)?

Don't use me to prop up your straw-man arguments.

[oblivionx]

It wasn't directed at you, it was directed towards people who ignore the rights of their fellow citizens. Even if it was 90% support, the gun lobby, and the gun owning minority would be like a rat in a corner.

I don't think gun owners are actually a minority.