A question for those who support the outlawing of tactical rifles, such as the AR-15

[Redflag]

On December 31, 1959, there were basically two (2) federal gun laws:
1) The "National Firearms Act ("NFA") (1934): Taxes the manufacture and transfer of, and mandates the registration of Title II weapons such as machine guns, short-barreled rifles and shotguns, heavy weapons, explosive ordnance, silencers, and disguised or improvised firearms"; And 2) The "Federal Firearms Act of 1938 ("FFA"): Requires that gun manufacturers, importers, and persons in the business of selling firearms have a Federal Firearms License (FFL). Prohibits the transfer of firearms to certain classes of persons, such as convicted felons."

I should also note that the 1950s was a decade of exceedingly low levels of gun violence.

Fast-forwarding to today we find there to be more than 20,000 federal and state gun laws, all the while levels of gun violence is exceedingly high especially when juxtaposed to the 1950s.

So my question is, what exactly is it that causes you to think that yet more gun laws up to and including the prohibition of tactical rifles/"assault rifles" would serve to diminish gun violence?

Thank you.

 

[WillyPete]

On December 31, 1959, there were basically two (2) federal gun laws:
1) The "National Firearms Act ("NFA") (1934): Taxes the manufacture and transfer of, and mandates the registration of Title II weapons such as machine guns, short-barreled rifles and shotguns, heavy weapons, explosive ordnance, silencers, and disguised or improvised firearms"; And 2) The "Federal Firearms Act of 1938 ("FFA"): Requires that gun manufacturers, importers, and persons in the business of selling firearms have a Federal Firearms License (FFL). Prohibits the transfer of firearms to certain classes of persons, such as convicted felons."

I should also note that the 1950s was a decade of exceedingly low levels of gun violence.

Fast-forwarding to today we find there to be more than 20,000 federal and state gun laws, all the while levels of gun violence is exceedingly high especially when juxtaposed to the 1950s.

So my question is, what exactly is it that causes you to think that yet more gun laws up to and including the prohibition of tactical rifles/"assault rifles" would serve to diminish gun violence?

Thank you.

No one reasonable thinks that change will have that effect, but it is (for them) preferable to do something, even if only symbolic, rather than actually work on realistic solutions, which are complicated, untidy, and expensive.

 

[Praxas]

On December 31, 1959, there were basically two (2) federal gun laws:
1) The "National Firearms Act ("NFA") (1934): Taxes the manufacture and transfer of, and mandates the registration of Title II weapons such as machine guns, short-barreled rifles and shotguns, heavy weapons, explosive ordnance, silencers, and disguised or improvised firearms"; And 2) The "Federal Firearms Act of 1938 ("FFA"): Requires that gun manufacturers, importers, and persons in the business of selling firearms have a Federal Firearms License (FFL). Prohibits the transfer of firearms to certain classes of persons, such as convicted felons."

I should also note that the 1950s was a decade of exceedingly low levels of gun violence.

Fast-forwarding to today we find there to be more than 20,000 federal and state gun laws, all the while levels of gun violence is exceedingly high especially when juxtaposed to the 1950s.

So my question is, what exactly is it that causes you to think that yet more gun laws up to and including the prohibition of tactical rifles/"assault rifles" would serve to diminish gun violence?

Thank you.

I don't agree with this argument, but the argument has always been "If people don't have guns, there will be no gun violence". And they are absolutely correct of course, but they don't know the scale needed for that to ACTUALLY happen. For that to happen, All guns in the world would have to be all simultaneously destroyed. Won't happen obviously and no, I don't agree with it either. I am actually a very strong 2nd amendment supporter and don't believe in gun bans.

That is how they "rationalize" AR-15 gun bans. Take away the AR-15 and there won't be violence committed by an AR-15. It's silly IMO because the AR-15 is but just one weapon type.

 

[Redflag]

No one reasonable thinks that change will have that effect, but it is (for them) preferable to do something, even if only symbolic, rather than actually work on realistic solutions, which are complicated, untidy, and expensive.

Likely so, WillyPete. Likely so. I will take it a step further by saying that, in my opinion, gun control advocates also wish to address the symptoms of gun violence while ignoring its cause.
Finally, WillyPete, what, to you, are the "complicated, untidy and expensive" solutions?

Thank you, sir.

 

[Redflag]

I don't agree with this argument, but the argument has always been "If people don't have guns, there will be no gun violence". And they are absolutely correct of course, but they don't know the scale needed for that to ACTUALLY happen. For that to happen, All guns in the world would have to be all simultaneously destroyed. Won't happen obviously and no, I don't agree with it either. I am actually a very strong 2nd amendment supporter and don't believe in gun bans.

That is how they "rationalize" AR-15 gun bans. Take away the AR-15 and there won't be violence committed by an AR-15. It's silly IMO because the AR-15 is but just one weapon type.

"For that to happen, All guns in the world would have to be all simultaneously destroyed."

Indeed. And that would not happen. So too would firearm prohibition in the U.S. create an enormously profitable black market for overseas firearm capitalists just as surely as it would cause domestic firearm capitalists to relocate overseas, thereby taking thousands of jobs with them.
In short and to be sure, firearm prohibition would be even less successful than drug prohibition has been.

 

[sangha]

On December 31, 1959, there were basically two (2) federal gun laws:
1) The "National Firearms Act ("NFA") (1934): Taxes the manufacture and transfer of, and mandates the registration of Title II weapons such as machine guns, short-barreled rifles and shotguns, heavy weapons, explosive ordnance, silencers, and disguised or improvised firearms"; And 2) The "Federal Firearms Act of 1938 ("FFA"): Requires that gun manufacturers, importers, and persons in the business of selling firearms have a Federal Firearms License (FFL). Prohibits the transfer of firearms to certain classes of persons, such as convicted felons."

I should also note that the 1950s was a decade of exceedingly low levels of gun violence.

Fast-forwarding to today we find there to be more than 20,000 federal and state gun laws, all the while levels of gun violence is exceedingly high especially when juxtaposed to the 1950s.

So my question is, what exactly is it that causes you to think that yet more gun laws up to and including the prohibition of tactical rifles/"assault rifles" would serve to diminish gun violence?

Thank you.

Since there do not seem to be very many murders using the weapons referred to, that law seems to be working

 

[Rucker61]

Since there do not seem to be very many murders using the weapons referred to, that law seems to be working

There aren't that many murders with "assault weapons", on average. Since 1999, water has been used to murder more people.

 

[sangha]

There aren't that many murders with "assault weapons", on average. Since 1999, water has been used to murder more people.

The question in the op was not limited to banning assault weapons

 

[Lovebug]

I don't agree with this argument, but the argument has always been "If people don't have guns, there will be no gun violence". And they are absolutely correct of course, but they don't know the scale needed for that to ACTUALLY happen. For that to happen, All guns in the world would have to be all simultaneously destroyed. Won't happen obviously and no, I don't agree with it either. I am actually a very strong 2nd amendment supporter and don't believe in gun bans.

That is how they "rationalize" AR-15 gun bans. Take away the AR-15 and there won't be violence committed by an AR-15. It's silly IMO because the AR-15 is but just one weapon type.

The follow up question to "If people don't have guns, there will be no gun violence" should be "will there be no violence?"

 

[Rucker61]

The question in the op was not limited to banning assault weapons

The subject of the post is tactical rifles, which tend to be synonymous with "assault weapons".

 

[sangha]

The subject of the post is tactical rifles, which tend to be synonymous with "assault weapons".

And your op indicates that bans do have the desired effect of reducing murders using the banned weapons

 

[Praxas]

The follow up question to "If people don't have guns, there will be no gun violence" should be "will there be no violence?"

And that's something I point out to folks who want to ban guns. If someone is mad at you enough to shoot you, do they think the person will just go "Oh, well since I don't have a gun, I'm all calm now"?

 

[Praxas]

"For that to happen, All guns in the world would have to be all simultaneously destroyed."

Indeed. And that would not happen. So too would firearm prohibition in the U.S. create an enormously profitable black market for overseas firearm capitalists just as surely as it would cause domestic firearm capitalists to relocate overseas, thereby taking thousands of jobs with them.
In short and to be sure, firearm prohibition would be even less successful than drug prohibition has been.

And that's why instead of banning guns as a "guaranteed to fail" gun control, the best thing to do is get rid of the war on drugs and increase penalties/punishment for those that commit a crime with a firearm. THAT'S gun control IMO.

 

[Rucker61]

And your op indicates that bans do have the desired effect of reducing murders using the banned weapons

I didn't see that. We do know that in 2004 after the AWB expired that there were 393 homicides with rifles of all types, including "assault weapons", and ten years later, with 5 to 10 million more "assault weapons" in the hands of citizens and no ban the number of homicides with rifles of all types fell to 256.

 

[B'smith]

On December 31, 1959, there were basically two (2) federal gun laws:
1) The "National Firearms Act ("NFA") (1934): Taxes the manufacture and transfer of, and mandates the registration of Title II weapons such as machine guns, short-barreled rifles and shotguns, heavy weapons, explosive ordnance, silencers, and disguised or improvised firearms"; And 2) The "Federal Firearms Act of 1938 ("FFA"): Requires that gun manufacturers, importers, and persons in the business of selling firearms have a Federal Firearms License (FFL). Prohibits the transfer of firearms to certain classes of persons, such as convicted felons."

I should also note that the 1950s was a decade of exceedingly low levels of gun violence.

Fast-forwarding to today we find there to be more than 20,000 federal and state gun laws, all the while levels of gun violence is exceedingly high especially when juxtaposed to the 1950s.

So my question is, what exactly is it that causes you to think that yet more gun laws up to and including the prohibition of tactical rifles/"assault rifles" would serve to diminish gun violence?

Thank you.

While I agree that additional gun laws will do nothing to lower our homicide rate, please allow me to point out one flaw in your Post:

levels of gun violence is exceedingly high especially when juxtaposed to the 1950s.

According to the FBI, there are more guns in America than ever before in our nation's history, however, our homicide rate is at a 51 year low.
It is especially noteworthy that homicides plummeted by 49% AFTER the Clinton era Assault Weapons Ban expired in 2004.
Therefore, the guns are not the problem, the streets are not awash in blood & the sky is not falling.


"FBI: US Homicide Rate at 51-Year Low"
https://mises.org/wire/fbi-us-homicide-rate-51-year-low
Public Unaware that Homicide Rates Have Fallen
EXCERPT "As Pew has reported in recent years, in fact, the American public is "unaware" that the homicide rate in the United States has fallen by 49 percent over the past twenty years. And while Pew doesn't report on it, it's also a safe bet that the public is also unaware that homicide rates have collapsed as total gun ownership in the United States has increased significantly."CONTINUED


Thanks

 

[Redflag]

Since there do not seem to be very many murders using the weapons referred to, that law seems to be working

Relative to their numbers, there aren't that many murders committed with tactical rifles - so-called "assault rifles," either. Sawed off shotguns, are seldom used in crimes because they are horribly ineffective weapons, not because of any law.

So do you think that gun violnce would be greatly reduced in the wake of all guns being outlawed, sangha?

 

[Redflag]

I wrote: "So too would firearm prohibition in the U.S. create an enormously profitable black market for overseas firearm capitalists just as surely as it would cause domestic firearm capitalists to relocate overseas, thereby taking thousands of jobs with them.
In short and to be sure, firearm prohibition would be even less successful than drug prohibition has been."

In response, Praxas wrote:

And that's why instead of banning guns as a "guaranteed to fail" gun control, the best thing to do is get rid of the war on drugs and increase penalties/punishment for those that commit a crime with a firearm. THAT'S gun control IMO.

But how is it that penalities for gun-related crimes are not already rather draconian?

 

[Redflag]

While I agree that additional gun laws will do nothing to lower our homicide rate, please allow me to point out one flaw in your Post:


According to the FBI, there are more guns in America than ever before in our nation's history, however, our homicide rate is at a 51 year low.
It is especially noteworthy that homicides plummeted by 49% AFTER the Clinton era Assault Weapons Ban expired in 2004.
Therefore, the guns are not the problem, the streets are not awash in blood & the sky is not falling.


"FBI: US Homicide Rate at 51-Year Low"
https://mises.org/wire/fbi-us-homicide-rate-51-year-low
Public Unaware that Homicide Rates Have Fallen
EXCERPT "As Pew has reported in recent years, in fact, the American public is "unaware" that the homicide rate in the United States has fallen by 49 percent over the past twenty years. And while Pew doesn't report on it, it's also a safe bet that the public is also unaware that homicide rates have collapsed as total gun ownership in the United States has increased significantly."CONTINUED


Thanks

I quite agree, B'smith. In fact, even the number of mass shootings have declined since the '90s http://https://theintercept.com/2018/03/01/school-shooting-statistics-parkland-florida/. And the 1950s, which ended some 59-years-ago was a decade of even lower levels of gun-related crime complete with, to say the very least, far fewer gun-related laws.

 

[WillyPete]

Finally, WillyPete, what, to you, are the "complicated, untidy and expensive" solutions?

Secure schools. Pay the cost to have restricted access, armed guards, monitored surveillance, etc. I'm not opposed to arming teachers if they are functioning as part of an overall school security plan, though I think it is mainly a distraction.

Provide the necessary resources to enforce existing law. Too many felons have guns because not enough cops are breaking their balls. Felons should be hounded, and felons that don't follow the rules should be bounced back immediately. California in particular is going the wrong direction on this.

Improved mental health care. I'd support a series of mental health care screenings of school age children (the pros would need to tell us how many passes and when.) Ideally, they'd be opt-in, but a pre-req for firearms purchase, though that's probably an overreach. Expensive? You bet!

Clearly, none of these polices would fix anything on their own, but I believe it would improve the situation over time, particularly for schools.

 

[sangha]

I didn't see that. We do know that in 2004 after the AWB expired that there were 393 homicides with rifles of all types, including "assault weapons", and ten years later, with 5 to 10 million more "assault weapons" in the hands of citizens and no ban the number of homicides with rifles of all types fell to 256.

you are comparing apples to oranges. Rifles <> assault weapons

 

[sangha]

Relative to their numbers, there aren't that many murders committed with tactical rifles - so-called "assault rifles," either. Sawed off shotguns, are seldom used in crimes because they are horribly ineffective weapons, not because of any law.

So do you think that gun violnce would be greatly reduced in the wake of all guns being outlawed, sangha?

I do not answer leading questions. If you have a point make it.

 

[Rucker61]

you are comparing apples to oranges. Rifles <> assault weapons

In the FBI UCR records, "assault weapons" are a subset of rifles. In real life, "assault weapons" are rifles. Rifled barrel, rifle cartridge, etc.

 

[sangha]

In the FBI UCR records, "assault weapons" are a subset of rifles. In real life, "assault weapons" are rifles. Rifled barrel, rifle cartridge, etc.

Which means, they are not the same things.

 

[Rucker61]

Which means, they are not the same things.

The total number of rifle homicides reported by FBI UCR included homicides by "assault weapon" and homicides by all other types of rifles combined into numbers by state.

 

[TurtleDude]

And your op indicates that bans do have the desired effect of reducing murders using the banned weapons

really? handgun murders went UP in Chicago for many years following the ban on handguns in that city