Politics Gun violence in CT

ok lets say they pass a law outlawing assault weapons and high capacity magazines. what is the procedure to actually get the guns turned in? to me this sounds like a very risky proposition considering the government knows who is currently owning them legally. it sounds like much more violence would occur from banning them at this point. there are so many of them out there.

 

they're close to passing the magazine ban over 10 rounds. It's already been noted that purchases before this law goes in effect are not covered.

In other words, I'm free to keep my larger clips as well as my wife doing the same.

To argue assault vs. sporting is asinine and moronic semantics. I'm pretty sure that if you need a bushmaster or ar-15 to hunt, you're doing it wrong.

I *like* assault weapons...I just don't see the point in owning one. :shrug:

 

Current ownership would likely be grandfathered in, much like the '94 assault weapon ban. There is little that can be done about that.

What can be done is prohibiting future purchases, particularly high capacity clips.

Personally, I think that closing the gun show loopholes (that the NRA says is not a loophole) is more important, given that as much as 40 percent of gun purchases occur w/o a background check.
--- merged: Dec 19, 2012 at 10:44 AM ---
Requiring background checks for all gun sales is supported by 3 out of 4 NRA members:

Does the NRA represent its members or just the extremists who buy into their propaganda?

 

these measures would have done nothing to stop the current massacre which is the reason we are having this debate. considering there are even more scary rifles and high capacity mags since the last ban, all it would is increase the prices a bit.

 

Background checks are not required for private gun sales, either. However, I don't see how anything can be done about that without an accurate and effective register (which doesn't exist).

I doubt, however, that the political will to start to control guns exists. If it does, a register would be a good starting place.

As far as "assault rifles" are concerned, the manufacturers will simply adjust the spec so the product avoids the definition and address the existing market. It will be, imo, cosmetic.

 

The reason we are having this debate is to prevent future Newtowns and Auroras and Va Techs.

 

once again, a primer on the myriad ways in which the conservative interpretation of the 2nd amendment is a crock of shit wrapped in a cloud of self-congratulation:

To Keep and Bear Arms by Garry Wills | The New York Review of Books

 

I agree we'll continue to see "assault weapons" is some form regardless of any future ban which is why the focus on ammunition is more important.

And an accurate register of ALL gun sales, which has widespread support, is not difficult to develop or administer. If there is high cost, impose a tax on gun sales.

 

To be fair, I don't think these measures will prevent anything. Are they a step in the right direction? Sure. Will it make it harder to purchase new weapons? Sure. Will it prevent anything? No.

It has been mentioned in this thread a multitude of times. Even if you close the gun show loophole, make the assault ban more comprehensive and put a ban on magazines over 10 rounds, privates sales still exist and the black market still exists. Those make it impossible to pretend that these things will be prevented just because a ban is in place.

I don't need the pile-on like before. I'm just trying to be honest here. I've stated over and over these steps are good and the right direction...but I'm not so naive to think it's the be all end all of mass shootings.

Alistair - Freedom Works et al already did this in regards to "cosmetic" features. Guns that were on the ban list by certain states were available for purchase because they would drop the pistol grip, shroud etc. This is why an extensive model list should be made with language stating if a weapon is capable of a certain range/rate of fire, it is considered assault. I wouldn't be too happy with that sort of thing because it opens up too many areas for total gun bans, but there isn't much I could do about it either.

 

back to the same argument: laws prohibiting murder do not prevent all murders so what's the point?

any law is a step toward attempting to limit forms of damage that are ethically and politically unacceptable.
so to say that it is unlikely that a given set of restrictions on weapons transfers will not end all weapons-related violence is simply to restate the obvious.

 

yes, but does it not appear that the government as a whole is blind to the most obvious of things?

All I'm saying is people shouldn't be complacent thinking that if some action is taken that they expect things to end. I never said there wasn't a point to these laws did I? I sure hope you aren't pull an ace.

 

I dont think anyone is claiming gun control is the panacea rather than just one important piece of a more comprehensive solution to gun violence.

But it is the one piece that has the loudest and most active resistance based in large part on fear and loathing of a non-existent threat to responsible gun owners.

 

this reminds me of the illegal immigration debate in regards of attempting to deport 10's of millions of illegals. it's just not feasable. likewise it's not feasable to do anything about the current number of guns in america. more backgrounds checks and ending sales of new high cap mags and assault rifles will only be a speed bump to the illegal activity that is occuring with guns. cho passed background checks and adhered to the 30 day waiting period which did nothing. he used small caliber handguns and shotguns if i recall. this current shooter didn't have to pass a background check to get his guns.

the legislation isn't going to be effective in ending crime or mass shootings and will only harm law abiding citizens.

 

I don't see how it harms law abiding citizens...

I mean if you're law abiding then you won't have an issue abiding by this law either.

and in case you missed it... Lanza committed matricide and the school shooting with his mother's guns. You don't need a BG check in order to use another person's gun. i.e. he basically stole them from the mother that he killed. That doesn't really bolster an anti-BG check argument. It hurts it.

 

I dont expect that the hard core right will ever consider minimal new gun controls (background checks on all sales, better and more effective registry, banning sale of high capacity magazines).

The hope is that after this latest horrific event, the 75-80% of the rest of the country who do believe it is part of a comprehensive solution will prevail over the well funded NRA fear mongering.

 

Glory's Sun there seem to be recurrent types of argument in these debates.

one is that tightening regulation will not stop all gun-related violence so there's no point. and the estimated 300 million guns already in circulation in the united states is certainly an obstacle. sooner or later, something will have to be done to at least change patterns of storage and/or usage in the main. but i imagine this would follow from the failure of other, more modest forms of regulation in the face of that number.

a second pattern is the absolutist claim as to rights of almost anybody to accumulate as many weapons systems as they like. this is based mostly on an arbitrary reading of the 2nd amendment buttressed with bad history and weaker methodologies....but it comes up all the time anyway. in what used to be militia-world, this was the lynchpin for that laughable confusion that having a gun makes you free.

a third is the attempt to proactively bog down a discussion by appealing to the detail of an imaginary piece of legislation--it's a standard feature of these things, with people who like to like automatic weapons attempting to delegitimate anyone else by parading around their technical knowledge of the automatic weapon and looking to portray any attempt to regulate any weapon type as incoherent with the aim, typically, of trying to either (a) stop any discussion that they can't control or (b) create the conditions for a slippery-slope counter-argument.

sometimes i think it'd be easier to simply be able to point out which version of argument is being invoked, so as to more easily move off onto something else.

so sometimes i try it.

the approach doesn't always work.

 

(I did say this is a good first step...)

anyway,

what is the problem? Fuck if I know. I think it's most likely just a perfect storm of economics, military grade weapons and mental issues/care. At least everyone can agree that a variety of issues need to be addressed.

roachboy fair enough. I just didn't want what I was saying to be used in a manner it wasn't intended. It is ok to point out the obvious on occasion I think.