Why I don't really give a fuck about "assault rifles"...

[Humanist_Activist]

Generally speaking, I really don't care about gun ownership unless there is a demonstrated risk to society at large. If, for example, gun ownership, and high rates of gun ownership, have been demonstrated to reduce crime rates, then great, show the evidence for that. If, however, there is no correlation or demonstrated link, then perhaps we should reexamine the utility of gun ownership of certain types of guns.

Now, a couple of things, one is I'm constantly annoyed by gun control advocates who demonstrate a myopia towards guns, they seem mostly interested in restricting the ownership of "assault" rifles, while not really demonstrating why we should do so for larger society. I will say that thankfully, crimes such as the mass shooting in Orlando are relatively rare, and in general, homicides committed from rifles(of any sort) only takes up a fraction of homicides in this country. Same for shotguns.

Now, this doesn't mean that rifles should be completely unregulated, instant background checks, national registries, magazine restrictions to about 10 rounds, further restricting semi-auto and fully-auto gun ownership all seem reasonable. However, hardly anyone really talks about handgun ownership restriction. I'm not likely to be robbed by someone who is carrying a 30.06, but 1911, sure. I may date myself with some of these references, lol.

Rifles and shotguns have many utilities, hunting, target shooting, etc. Even home defense(reference above) etc. I'm not really interested in restricting ownership of said guns from the general public. It seems unnecessarily restrictive.

Handguns, on the other hand, are another thing entirely. I would be hard pressed to find a way to justify why the general public should have access to handguns at all given current evidence. The issue is that we need to do a cost-benefit analysis on gun usage in this country, try to have as many controls as possible, but, unfortunately, it appears this is very difficult to do.

For example, on the Benefit side, a lot of people cite Kleck and others on Defensive Gun Use, but there are two problems with this, first, the estimates on the survey results vary drastically, from up to 2.5 million DGUs done annually to as few as 60 thousand or so. The high estimate means there are a lot more DGUs done than violent crime in that same year. Seems rather unrealistic. Even the low end of around 60 thousand DGUs a year relies on self reporting on surveys, which can be unreliable. Unfortunately, not a whole lot of resources are invested into this issue, when it should. It seems reasonable to conclude that, at best, the idea that DGUs are effective is inconclusive.

At this time, much of the evidence is pointing to gun accessibility appearing to be a leading risk factor in becoming a victim of gun crime or being able to complete a suicide. This is important, guns generally don't cause crimes, but they appear to increase the lethality of assaults by a large factor. This seems rather simple, it takes a lot more effort to kill someone without a gun than with one. Same goes for yourself as well, people are much more likely to succeed in taking their own life using a gun compared to other methods. Even worse, this isn't by a small factor, it can't simply disappear into statistical noise.

Given the evidence so far, I would say a reasonable response would be to reexamine handgun ownership, distribution and manufacturing to the general public entirely, increase and allow funding to aid in hopefully coming up with a medical and scientific consensus on the issue, one way or the other, etc. In the meantime, we should find ways to close loopholes on background checks, create a national registry for firearms, magazine restrictions, etc.

[tonyt53]

1. The ONLY people pushing evidence of a reduced crime is the NRA. No police-provided evidence.

[Oneka]

16. Police provided evidence

https://ucr.fbi.gov/ucr-publications

Year by year crime reports. From the POLICE.

This evidence suggests that crime has seen a precipitious drop over the last quarter century, even as gun carry laws have been liberalized throughout most of the nation.
The evidence is right there, some just don't want to see it, or pretent things are getting worse, when clearly, the opposite is the case.

[tonyt53]

19. Yes, there has been a drop in crime, but no direct correlation to open carry or concealed carry.

None.

[beevul]

41. But it breaks the 'more guns more crime' talking point, just the same. N/T

[Squinch]

2. Why is this in GD?

[Humanist_Activist]

3. I mostly posted this as a response to the "question about guns" post, which is again...

with a lot of replies over the most pedantic shit when it comes to gun control.

[Eleanors38]

4. It is where gun posts go? Gobs of 'em. Seems obvious.

[DonP]

5. Well there is the 2013 Report by the CDC directed by the White House

Last edited Wed Jul 20, 2016, 05:20 PM - Edit history (1)

Here's a summary from Slate, but the entire report is available online.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2013/06/handguns_suicides_mass_shootings_deaths_and_self_defense_findings_from_a.html

Funny how nobody ever talks about this CDC Research?

[maxsolomon]

6. because its not new information

it is a survey of existing research. much of that research is "controversial".

and you didn't provide any links.

[Humanist_Activist]

12. Yeah, a lot of that research I reference in my post, and my conclusions are much the same as the...

CDC's, more research is needed, more data is needed, and we need to try to control for self-reported surveys.

[Humanist_Activist]

8. The reports conclusions are, quite literally, that more research is needed before a consensus can...

be reached because the data available is to varied as to be useful.

I'm going to go ahead and reference myself, I've already addressed this in the past.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027418360#post27

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1289523

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1289534

[anoNY42]

7. I'm not sure I agree

You point out that rifles/shotguns are good for home defense, but why leave out handguns? An AR-15 is actually pretty weak for home defense, considering the size of the rounds. The AR-15 was created for accuracy at longer ranges, which is not something necessary for home defense (unless a band of thieves is charging across your lawn at you, I suppose).

On the other hand, a large-caliber handgun would be much better for home defense, which generally involves short range and the need for stopping power.

Now, a shotgun might blow both of those away for home defense, though...


That said, handguns are definitely way more prevalent in crimes, and I agree that they should be controlled more strictly.

[NickB79]

9. On the flip side, handgun rounds are more likely to penetrate through the house's walls

If you miss the bad guy, rounds from an AR-15 will likely fragment in the drywall and wood of a typical home due to their high velocity and light construction.

A solid, heavy slug from a .45 handgun, though, can keep going with plenty of energy until it hits the NEIGHBOR'S house

That said, a 5.56mm round fired indoors without ear protection would fucking hurt.

[anoNY42]

14. A couple things

1.) what about hollow-point handgun rounds

2.) 5.56 would not fragment in drywall unless it hit a stud. These things go right through kevlar helmets at close range.

[Old Codger]

27. Try Glasers

designed to fragment on impact with anything

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Glaser+Ammunition+Review&&FORM=VDVVXX

[Waldorf]

46. Fullet metal jackets, yes, will go thru walls. That is what the military has to use.

For civilians, ballistic tips are used quite a bit (they are designed for varmint use) and basically fragment into pieces upon impact. They will penetrate the first wall but fragment (explode) and not go thru the wall on the other side of the room. A hollow point handgun round will continue thru the walls because if thought it has expanded its still a solid mass.

edit: spelling.

[oneshooter]

73. The ready mag in my go to gun has 20 rds od 40grJHP varment rounds.

Accurate enough out to 50 yards or so. Explosive impact.

[NickB79]

71. Handgun hollowpoints tend to clog and not open when going through dry materials

You need hydrostatic expansion (ie blood and guts) to get the hollowpoint to open reliably. Even shooting through a heavy leather jacket can impede a handgun round's ability to expand.

With regard to 5.56mm, hitting the first panel of drywall will initiate the "yaw and tumble" characteristic it is known for. After that, it will be hitting subsequent objects sideways, often breaking up along the way or shedding velocity rapidly.

[doc03]

29. Here we go with the AR-15 is a gun needed for home defense. I recently

saw a post in the RKBA forum where someone asked for expert advise on the best weapon for home defense.
I was surprised to see after over 50 posts with people recommending all kinds of handguns and shotguns but not one
single person recommended the AR-15. Myself I really don't care much about people owning the AR-15. I just think ALL
gun sales should require the background check, it only takes a few minutes.

[Eleanors38]

45. I agree with you on the UBC. Even if it were open for "voluntary" compliance...

by anyone selling a gun, IMO this would increase the number of people going through the process -- or backing off from a purchase. I would support Requiring a BG check, or perhaps a state-initiated BG clearance on all driver's liscense or official i.d. for all those wishing that certification. Above all, there is no reason why a delay occurs when a finding or verdict is entered by a judge and sent to the NICS system.

[oneshooter]

72. Having a Texas State PTC I do not need to go through the BGC.

Texas state BGC includes both state and federal so the feds exempt Texas PTC holders from the phone call.

There are, I believe, four other states were this happens.

[Eleanors38]

79. Several state plans hold the key for UBCs. We need a "model law" or reciprocity.

[Humanist_Activist]

11. I never said that any gun is good for home defense, where did you get that idea?

I said some guns are designed for home defense, like a Mossberg Defender. Statistically speaking, having a gun in the home will make it more likely you will be a victim of a crime, usually with that gun, than being able to protect yourself with it at least with the tentative data we have available now. I don't know how that breaks down with the type of gun in the home, that's something that should be studied.

[anoNY42]

13. Right here

"Rifles and shotguns have many utilities, hunting, target shooting, etc. Even home defense(reference above) etc"

"Handguns, on the other hand, are another thing entirely. I would be hard pressed to find a way to justify why the general public should have access to handguns at all given current evidence."

Contrast your statement about rifles with that about handguns.

I agree that some guns are better than others for home defense, and I agree that gun usage should be studied. I am just pointing out that you stated rifles are ok partly due to home defense use, while you seem blind to the fact that some handguns are also good for that use.

[Humanist_Activist]

17. I was referencing designed and utility, not whether they are actually good at it, my mistake for..

not being clear. I edited this from a much larger post that rambled way too long about my personal history in selling long guns and shotguns at Wal-Mart.

[SCantiGOP]

10. 95% of DU agrees there should be more controls

But every thread on guns is pounced on by the RKBA crowd, who use misinformation, and constantly demand links for every assertion in order to control the dialogue.

[beevul]

40. " the RKBA crowd, who use misinformation,"

" the RKBA crowd, who use misinformation,"

Do lets don't pretend that the other side of the debate doesn't pump out their own disinformation like so much LA smog:

"gun show loophole"

"military grade"

"weapon of war"

"battlefield weapons"

"murder machines with no other purpose"

and constantly demand links for every assertion

The HORROR people like me, asking people like you to substantiate an assertion.

How dare we!

[SCantiGOP]

56. Not a Horror at all

But the guy on DU that told me last week that there are up to 150,000 cases of defensive gun uses a year that save lives is most certainly pumping out misinformation.

[beevul]

58. How many were there then?

But the guy on DU that told me last week that there are up to 150,000 cases of defensive gun uses a year that save lives is most certainly pumping out misinformation.

How many were there then? This is what is called substantiation. You made an assertion. Will you substantiate it?

[SCantiGOP]

64. No, I will not

Not playing your games. Every gun-related discussion eventually includes demands for Links and Substantiation.
If you've ever had a logic course you know the burden of proof is on the person making the assertion, not the person doubting it.
Have a nice evening. Bye.

[beevul]

68. Of course you wont.

Every gun-related discussion eventually includes demands for Links and Substantiation.

Every discussion on almost any topic eventually includes demands for Links and Substantiation. This is only a bother for those who make assertions that they can not substantiate.

If you've ever had a logic course you know the burden of proof is on the person making the assertion, not the person doubting it.

Yes, and heres your assertion:

But the guy on DU that told me last week that there are up to 150,000 cases of defensive gun uses a year that save lives is most certainly pumping out misinformation.

The burden of proof is on you, by your own words.

[Marengo]

60. Like the misinformation you were peddling about the founders intending that people...

possess only hunting rifles?

[ronnie624]

15. No one really *needs* to hunt or target shoot in the US.

The only people for whom firearms are a "utility", are police officers and soldiers.

[Humanist_Activist]

18. True, but they get touchy about you calling their hobby a hobby. n/t

[hack89]

21. I call it a hobby - and a civil right

many activities we do are not necessary but are still protected by the constitution.

[Humanist_Activist]

22. True, doesn't mean its relevant in today's world...

that's why I would like for us study it more as a public health issue. Just like Jarts, guns may prove to be too dangerous to sell, at least handguns, and if so, we should be free to ban their sale and possession of them.

ON EDIT: If that requires a constitutional amendment to overturn the 2nd amendment, so be it, may only need us to return to the old way the Supreme Court used to interpret the 2nd before 2008.

[hack89]

24. There are no "old" Supreme Court rulings that would significantly change things

Heller was the very first definitive ruling on the 2A. Lets not forget a simple fact - there has never been a time in American history when private ownership of guns outside of militia service was not legal or common. So I am not sure what you think returning to the "old ways" will achieve. We have a lot more gun control now then we did back then.

[Humanist_Activist]

28. There was, and actually still might be, a ban on sawed off shotguns, the fact is...

there there isn't a whole lot of precedent on the constitutionality and 2008 interpretation of the 2nd amendment is tentative and could be overturned with a new precedent set in the future.

[hack89]

30. But the 2A is not an impediment to strict gun control right now.

All Heller said is that you have the right to own a handgun in your home for self defense. That is it. It also specifically said that the 2A allows strict control of guns.

AWBs, registration, restrictions on open/concealed carry, magazine size limit, etc are all perfectly constitutional right now. The problem that gun control has is not the 2A - it is a lack of broad public support.

[Humanist_Activist]

34. To a certain extent you are correct, but what if those are useless in lowing the firearms crime...

rate in the future?

We already are at the lowest level for violent crime at this time, but our murder rate is still several times that of most other developed nations that have handgun bans. The question is, if research shows that handgun circulation and possession increases the risk of those weapons being used in crime at rates larger than being marginal. Would that be enough to support a ban on such weapons?

[jmg257]

42. I'd be hard pressed to support such a ban, when it is fairly easy to identify the <1% responsible

for 70-80% of the gun violence. Cities like Chicago and Richmond CA, Albany, Cincinnati, Newark, etc have been quite successful in identifying those most likely to be involved in unlawful use of handguns.

They also have and can identify programs that have been shown to work to remedy the situation.

They need REAL legislative and judicial support to deal with it.

[Humanist_Activist]

43. Considering the amount of gun violence Chicago has been rocked with lately, I would say...

it hasn't been very effective.

I would be interested in us reducing risk factors, such as ending the drug war, which has failed, and increasing the social safety net, but what then?

I mean, can we lower the murder rate to be as low as, for example, the UK's, do you think that's a realistic outcome while allowing the general public access to handguns?

[jmg257]

47. You hit the nail on the head - Chicago has not gotten the support.

"In a city of 2.7 million people, about 1,400 are responsible for much of the violence, Mr. Johnson said, and all of them are on what the department calls its Strategic Subject List.
...
“We are targeting the correct individuals,” Mr. Johnson said. “We just need our judicial partners and our state legislators to hold these people accountable.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/24/us/armed-with-data-chicago-police-try-to-predict-who-may-shoot-or-be-shot.


While Richmond has had better luck:

"Only recently, Richmond, Calif., had among America’s highest per capita rates of gun violence. In 2009, there were 47 homicides among 100,000 residents. Officials there theorized that a few bad actors caused most of the problem. As it turned out, 70 percent of their gun violence in 2008 was caused by fewer than 1 percent of the city’s residents. This isn’t unique: in Cincinnati, less than 1 percent of the city’s population was responsible for 74 percent of homicides in 2007.

Richmond developed an innovative, controversial program: They identified the 50 people most likely to shoot someone and engaged with them, even paying them to participate.
...From 2007 to 2012, the city experienced a 61 percent reduction in homicides."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/07/14/forget-new-gun-laws-heres-what-could-really-keep-people-from-shooting-each-other/

Newark has identified drug-related issues as a big cause for their uptick in gun violence.

"Shootings have increased by nearly half this year in Newark, bucking a trend of declining gun violence across many of New Jersey’s most crime-ridden cities....
In Newark, drug trafficking, particularly of marijuana and prescription pills, is the main cause of the uptick in gun violence, said Eugene Venable, director of the Newark Police Department."

http://www.wsj.com/articles/shootings-in-newark-surge-1439945824



Anyway, I am not sure of the exact numbers, but I do know dropping 50-75% is huge chunk that seems doable, without worrying about bans, the USSC, etc.

[Humanist_Activist]

52. I'm not opposed to any methodology that can reduce violent crime, I just don't want us...

to remove options from the table due to political reasons.

[hack89]

54. Public support is the only support that matters

it doesn't matter what the research says - you can't force a ban on the American people if they refuse to support it in great numbers. It is their choice.

[Humanist_Activist]

55. True, an interesting statistic is that gun ownership seems to continue to drop...

and it seems generational as well. Perhaps in the next 20 years or so, far less Americans will be as emotionally invested in the idea of gun ownership to make gun bans more palpable.

[hack89]

57. It is more likely that the issue will devolve to the state level

don't forget that many states have constitutions that mimic the 2A. The notion that a single law that universal support in every state is pretty far fetched.

[Old Codger]

26. So

What do you do when the bear is after your cows/horses/kids? If you live in downtown not a problem but go for those of us in rural places it can be interesting..

[ronnie624]

50. Is the risk from bear attacks greater than the risk from the general ownership of firearms?

I don't know with certainty. I would guess not. In the US the risk from wild animal attacks is probably only marginally greater for a rural dweller than someone who lives in the city.

[Old Codger]

66. Do you speak

From experience, do you actually live in a rural mountainous area?Do you regularly have bears around your house? How about around where your children/pets are playing? Have you looked out your window and seen a cougar walking across the filed near your playing children? If not then all you have to go by is statistics and statistics are actually a large load of used food and can be bent and/or presented to show anything about anything...Where I live I see bears and cougars fairly regularly, they generally stay away from humans but when the one comes along that doesn't it needs to be handled by us,any law enforcement or such is at least a 2 to 3 hour wait and if you do call them they will tell you to handle it yourself if you can... same exact thing they will say of it is a human threat.. A gun is a tool and that is all it is, it is meant for one thing only and when used in a safe manner it is a very very handy tool... same as a hammer or any other tool you may have use for.. It does need to be regulated in a sane and safe manner and owners should be required to meet stringent training and safety requirements...But the reality is that that will probably never happen and there is no realistic way to get rid of them completely in this country.. So they wil remain the problem that they are until the powers that be decide they really want to do something about it that is doable and makes sense

[ronnie624]

67. I've always found statistics to be much more reliable for assessing risk. n/t

[Old Codger]

69. Actually

if you don't live with it you know nothing about it...and statistics are as I said "used food". I believe Samual Clemons was the one who said " There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."
Have taken statistics in college and agree entirely with that

99.9% of all people who die from cancer have eaten pickles.
100% of all soldiers have eaten pickles.
96.8% of all Communist sympathizers have eaten pickles
99.7% of the people involved in air and auto accidents ate pickles within 14 days preceding the accident.
93.1% of juvenile delinquents come from homes where pickles are served frequently.

Evidence points to the long term effects of pickle eating.
Of the people born in 1839 who later dined on pickles, there has been a 100% mortality.

All pickle eaters born between 1849 and 1859 have wrinkled skin, have lost most of their teeth, have brittle bones and failing eyesight if the ills of pickle eating have not already caused their death.
Even more convincing is the report of a noted team of medical specialists: rats force fed with 20 pounds of pickles per day for 30 days developed bulging abdomens. Their appetites for WHOLESOME FOOD were destroyed.

In spite of all the evidence, pickle growers and packers continue to spread their evil. More than 120,000 acres of fertile U.S. soil are devoted to growing pickles. Our per capita consumption is nearly four pounds.
Eat orchid petal soup. Practically no one has as many problems from eating orchid petal soup as they do with eating pickles.

[Old Codger]

70. Also

What exactly is your definition of "rural dweller"?

[bighart]

31. Hunting in the sense of a sole source of sustenance

is all but a thing of the past.
That said hunting also serves a purpose for wildlife population control.

Animals like deer and rabbits can, and do, overpopulate an area leading to disease and stress on the entire population.
Some like to eat wild game, I am not one of them, and hunting serves two purposes, providing population control and food for the hunter. Other animals like feral hogs are not so much good to eat but their populations none the less need to be controlled and hunting provides an avenue to achieve that without the expense to the state of doing it.

Additionally farmers and ranchers do need guns for protection of livestock and crops from animals, I say crops because feral hogs and armadillo will tear the hell out of a field, so in that sense guns are a necessary utility tool for some as well.

Disclaimer I am not now nor have I ever been a gun owner or hunter and have no plans to become either at this point.

[Ghost in the Machine]

44. Really?? Have you ever been deep in the country, in the South, North or Mid-West, where there are a

LOT of poor, and working poor, who DEPEND on hunting to survive? Not to mention the fact that even Game Wardens, Wildlife Officers and Conservationists will tell you that hunting is the most effective means of herd control/cultivation. Have you ever read about "chronic wasting disese" and herd die-offs because there were too many deer, and not enough food for them. It's just as brutal and agonizing for an animal to starve to death as it is for a human being....

I also remember back some time between 1998 to 2002 when they had a special deer hunt on Hilton Head Island, which never permitted hunting, because the herds had gotten so big and out of control that they were causing way too many traffic accidents, as well as damages to golf courses and landscaped areas foraging for food.

Hunting is a vital source of food on the table/nutrition to millions of Americans, from Alaska to Florida, and Texas to Maine...

In answer to the question that usually gets asked when the subject of poor people hunting comes up, which is "How do they afford all the gear and guns and accessories all the time?"... they DON'T! Many of them have had the same rifles/shotguns for 20, 30 or more years, and don't need all of the fancy gear because they actually know HOW to hunt! Sometimes all they spend is enough for one box of shells, and that may last them a couple of seasons, and can have several hundreds of dollars worth od meat in the freezer for the cost of 2 or 3 shells.

No one really *needs* to hunt or target shoot in the US.

What, exactly, makes you qualified to know the *needs* of EVERYONE in this Country?? Thanks in advance.....

Peace,

Ghost

[ronnie624]

59. Only for my entire life;

Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Alabama, Georgia. Never have I known anyone who had to hunt to eat, and I'm skeptical that you have either.

[Ghost in the Machine]

65. Be as skeptical as you want, but yes, I have known families, and still do, who would not have enough

food to sustain their families if they didn't hunt and fish. I live in a very rural area of East Tennessee. I am originally from Miami, FL, and moved here when I was 13. It was total "culture shock"! From 1976 to 1981, when I graduated, I would say that at least 75% of the roads were unpaved, and I went to school with kids who lived in houses/farms that were handed down from their grandparents that still didn't have electricity or indoor plumbing. There are still quite a few today, and they are NOT Amish, either.

I moved back to Miami a week after I graduated. I came back to visit a few times between '81 & '83, then never came back until 2002. It hadn't changed much, and I had no problem finding places I hadn't been to in 20 years. It has changed more in the last 14 years than it had in probably the past 30 years before that, but that was due to a lot of changes in the people who ran the County as they finally retired, or just died off. Elected offices ran uncontested for years and years and even more years! There were a few "monied" families who owned, and ran, just about everything here.

Peace,

Ghost

[UnFettered]

74. That might be some what true, but

I do know there are a lot of poor people in rual areas that do depend on meat from hunting. They may not need to kill something to exactly eat, but if they get a freezer full of meat from a deer.
That is one less thing the family has to spend there limited resources on. If a family is say on assistance or a fixed income I could see saving money on meat is a big deal. Also even in this day and age not everybody has access to a store close to where they live. Some might not even have transportation.

Then I will throw out there most wild game is a lot healthier than cheap store bought meat. It's lean and it's not pumped up with hormones and antibiotics.

I will also add hunting is moot point in gun control because most weapons used. In most cases would be legal in even a stict gun control country. They do still have hunting in Europe,UK, Australia even in Russia

[former9thward]

75. The Bill of Rights was not based on "needs".

[ronnie624]

76. Of course it was.

People need freedom and security. Owning a firearm was a necessity to that, at that time. The risks outweigh the benifits now, however. It's time for a reassessment of the second amendment.

[former9thward]

77. It was based on rights not needs.

The benefits far exceed the "risks" now. Sorry you do not understand that.

[ronnie624]

78. Risk is assessed according to the number of people killed and injured,

and by the financial cost to society at large. You would be hard pressed to demonstrate that a society with a lack of firearms is more risky than a society that is inundated by them.

And I think people do indeed need rights (real rights, that enable political, intellectual and artistic freedom). Why else would they be willing to die for them?

[Little Star]

20. Take this to the Gungeon.

[Waldorf]

48. Fine. Does that mean every anti-gun thread needs to go to bansalot? n/t

[Eleanors38]

49. Why? GD has stuffed its gun on Guns Discussion for weeks, now...

plenty of opportunity to re-legitimize "ammosexual," "gun-humpers," and "penis" as measured and polite terms. Here in the New DU.

[Recursion]

23. I think the focus on assault weapons is moronic, but it's where the energy is so you go with that

Does it actually matter if we pass the law that regulates the grip shape of a semi-automatic rifle? No, not even a tiny bit. And for that matter it's both useless as policy and politically damaging. But sometimes you just have to accept that that's where the majority of the party is at, grit your teeth, and run with it.

In maybe 20 years the Democratic party can come to its senses, give up the assault weapon idiocy, and finally focus on handguns. Until then, we just kind of have to watch.

[Humanist_Activist]

33. It is aggravating, and the problem is that handgun violence is normalized, it happens every day...

Just yesterday a 13 year old girl in my area shot and critically injured a 70 year old couple.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/girl-surrenders-in-double-shooting-at-bellefontaine-neighbors-beauty-supply/article_a3416b25-b9bb-588e-a05b-2a410a81602d.html

And what fancy weapon did she use? A revolver.

[jmg257]

35. You may be happy to see the latest from Mass...the AG directive expanding their AWB to include

"copies and duplicates"

"Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey said Wednesday she was cracking down on the sale of guns that, she said, were designed to skirt a state law banning assault weapons."

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2016/07/20/mass-attorney-general-says-she-crack-down-assault-weapons/8xmuDyW6DR1tkt7mBNncRK/story.html

[Humanist_Activist]

37. Its political theater, so they can claim they are "doing something" that actually does little to...

reduce firearm use in criminal activity.

[Igel]

25. Some target shooting involves handguns.

And many hunters I knew carried handguns for personal safety but also for finishing off wounded deer. (This was Oregon, '80s, and the BLM issued warnings because of pot plantations on BLM land.)

Also had a roommate who was vaguely paranoid, but not unreasonably so. He drove an armored car. There had been a rash of assaults on armored car drivers, and he didn't want to be the next one. His concern was that he could be nabbed on the way to work, as he entered the premises, or even at home. He was always upset that his employer provided rifles for use while riding shotgun in the back. But when you got out of the truck and were filling an ATM or hauling cash in or out your buddy stayed with the car while you went inside. He couldn't guard you and the truck, and the company provided no handguns. So he had a variety, with a CWP (which wasn't so useful when he biked to work in the summer without a jacket).

[jmg257]

32. The justification for handguns lies in the vast amount that are used by millions of lawful citizens.

"The Supreme Court noted that “handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home", the “quintessential self‐defense weapon".

"The Second Amendment protects only “the sorts of weapons” that are (1) “in common use” and (2) “typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.”

The USSC has ruled that attempts to ban handgun ownership in DC and Chicago are unconstitutional, so it will be a definite that any attempts to severely restrict access to them will be struck down, or at the least be held to heightened levels of scrutiny.

"heightened scrutiny is triggered only by those restrictions that (like the complete prohibition on handguns struck down in Heller)
operate as a substantial burden on the ability of law‐abiding citizens to possess and use a firearm for... lawful purposes"

US Court of Appeals for the 2nd Ciruit
https://www.scribd.com/document/285910758/Shew-v-Malloy-207-1-Opinion-CCDL


Assault Weapons are a lower-hanging fruit, and more likely to have restrictions/bans upheld.

[Humanist_Activist]

36. Not saying there aren't challenges, but precedents can be and have been overturned...

it is notable that this precedent is recent, and the handgun bans were allowed to stand for a number of years before a conservative Supreme Court overturned them. In the future, with a different Supreme Court, the results may be different.

[Hoyt]

62. That argument got snuffed out with cigarettes, why not guns.

[jmg257]

63. No argument, if enough of a difference can be made. And some studies show the number of gun owners

on the decline. At the same time, the number of handgun owners is rising dramatically.

Tough call.

[Angel Martin]

38. I prefer that people use handguns and shotguns

for home defence in any urban or suburban area due to limited range.

Some common handgun ammunition is cheaper than rifle or shotgun ammunition - so people can improve their shooting skills at much less cost.

Handgun ammunition is also much easier and cheaper to reload

[Humanist_Activist]

39. Handguns are also much more likely to be used in crime, as they are easily concealed...

also, tentative evidence suggests that neither are good for "home defense", the benefits don't outweigh the risks.

[okieinpain]

51. the rounds they use frighten the shit out of me. n/t.

[MichiganVote]

53. Ok, let me know when you get hired into a school setting.

[Hoyt]

61. George Zimmerman killing T Martin is considered a Defensive Gun Use, showing what BS that stat is.

So is some yahoo pulling his pistol when he see a bunch of "scary" kids.

But, I do like the idea of banning pistols, but I think semi-auto rifles need to go too, no matter how loudly gun fanciers whine.

[malthaussen]

80. I feel much the same way about Concealed Carry laws.

What possible reason there could be for CC evades me. The weapon is clearly not being justified under any sort of "deterrence" argument.

Some people do use handguns for hunting, though. But I doubt there is any way to statistically justify that this rather specialized function outweighs all other social needs.

-- Mal

[jmg257]

81. "What possible reason there could be for CC evades me." Don't underestimate fear

and the desire for so many to want to have a ready means to provide for their own defense.

2 hours ago a guy just arbitrarily opened fire on a sidewalk in Munich with a pistol. Plenty of people likely feel trying to run away isn't always the best option.

[malthaussen]

82. Which does not present an argument for concealment.

In fact, one could reasonably argue that openly carrying a weapon would serve better in personal defense, by providing (marginal) deterrent value.

-- Mal

[jmg257]

83. Tough call on that. Many states will only allow concealed. I think concealed keeps one from being

an obvious target from someone who may want your gun, keeps one from undue attention, and for getting the police called because your "suspicious guy with a gun" - quite deadly these days.

Maybe if open carry becomes the norm, instead of the outlier?