Can we please just admit that maybe gun control is a good idea finally?

Here in Canada there's no need for background checks since every gun license holder already went through that process by the RCMP. As such, private sales of Non-Restricted (most shotguns and long-barrel rifles) requires the buyer to show that he/she has a gun license (last spring the Conservative federal government struck down the Long Gun Registry, which means Non-Restricted firearms no longer need to have their serial numbers registered with the RCMP's database). Quebec still requires the registration of Non-Restricted firearms even though firearms and explosives is a federal jurisdiction (Quebec's laws are based on Napoleonic Code rather than Canada's English Common Law and their decision is being appealed by the federal government).

FactCheck.org takes a look at the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and see how effective it was.

Depends on your definition. If you want to be pedantic and say it's only an assault rifle if it has select fire then yes, it's supposed to be pretty damn hard to do legally. However, such an argument is more semantic than functional, since most militaries encourage the use of semi-automatic firing modes on select fire weapons anyways, and there's quite a number of other design features that go into that package.

Only six states require the purchaser to have a gun permit/license to buy a handgun at a gun show.

Seriously, the holes in our laws are HUGE.

The state-to-state differences in gun laws baffle me. I don't know why it's not mandated on a federal level since you already have the ATF and federal gun laws already.

Three words:

National Rifle Association.

Depending on who you talk to, it's either STATES RIGHTS or SECOND AMENDMENT = NO REGULATION or HURTS SMALL BUSINESSES (drop in sales because fewer people would be qualified to make purchases). Take your pick.

And it's not like we haven't been trying.

That 1986 law is pretty interesting to read about. Keep in mind it was Reagan who signed it into law. The ban on automatic fire weapons was a late amendment to the bill and was controversially approved by the House. The bill as a whole was about reducing what were viewed as ATF abuses of power in how they investigated FFL dealers and also made interstate travel with guns easier since it protected owners from local and state laws while they were traveling through and area with different gun laws then their home state.

As noted, assault rifles are not defined in the US simply by having automatic fire. The 1994 assault weapons ban came up with a list of features and said any gun with two of those was banned under the law. One of those features was the pistol grip, but the other stuff were things like bayonet mounts, collapsible stocks, and so on. So military style rifles were still produced. The Feinstein proposal says any one of those features would make a gun illegal, not that her bill is going to pass.

On the magazine size issue, the problem there is that even if new larger capacity mags are made illegal to produce and sell, there are a ton of them floating around already. There was some talk about not allowing the resale of larger capacity mags, but that ideas seems have completely died. So even if a mag cap is set again, nothing is going to stop someone from getting larger cap mags in the used market if they want them and are willing to pay for them.

True as that may be, most people in the US don't care about non-US shootings. Those cases almost never are brought up here, even by gun control advocates.

Well, by definition assault rifles have selective fire (with full auto capability). The politicians' definition of an "assault weapon", as you mentioned, is purely cosmetic

The banning of "assault weapons" based on furniture and how "evil" it looks is stupid.

Both of these rifles are Ruger Mini-14s but the top one would be illegal because it has a collapsible stock and a pistol grip even though the actions are completely the same as the bottom rifle.

I noticed that the prices of magazines have gone up about $10 each and a lot of gun manufacturers are several months backlogged in orders now. Ironically the gun control advocates have made it very profitable for the gun making industry.

Okay, so tell me why the M16 assault rifle, which in both it's most modern and most common incarnations does not have full automatic capability; is not an assault rifle. Or: citation needed.

The furniture isn't purely cosmetic. It's the result of about a century of dudes deciding that a lightweight frame with firm, often adjustable, points of contact and provisions to mount accessories makes for an ideal military rifle. Deal with it.

I don't think this has been posted yet, but it is an interesting article that further highlights how bat f*ing insane the NRA is...

http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...aca_and_states.single.html#pagebreak_anchor_2

I don't think guns need to be banned, but I believe that our society has a huge problem with gun violence that we have to own up to. Laws like this are a hindrance on open discussion.

This thread is now about Eric and Paco masturbating their gun hobby all over each other, disguised as "useful advice" for the rest of you but really it's like one of those physics threads where two people are talking about quantum fluctuations while everyone else just wants to know when they'll be able to teleport fast food onto their coffee tables.

Get a thread, you fucks.

It's early, but I can't figure out what you're getting at here. The M16 is always capable of full-automatic fire. It's a select-fire version of the AR-15 platform. So it is an assault rifle, whereas a semi-auto only AR-15 isn't. Eric is getting at the fact that there are two terms that keep getting mixed up. "Assault rifle" has a very specific meaning and while a US citizen may own one, it is under very strict guidelines, a very long background check/waiting period, and significant cost. "Assault weapon" is a rather nebulous distinction created by legislation and is based on cosmetic/functional features, whose dangerousness are debatable.

The M-16 is the military version of the civilian semi-automatic AR-15, so that means that the M-16 has select fire between semi- and fully-automatic. I own two AR-15s and they are neither assault rifles nor "assault weapons."

Let me repost this video again...

Rails are cosmetic. They don't affect the function of the firearm (ie. rate of fire, optimal distance, blah blah blah). And those accessories don't change the function of the firearms but rather they make it more comfortable for the individual user. Some people like vertical foregrips while other people (like me) don't care for them. Others think removing the original wood stock with a "tactical" polymer stock makes them "bubba rifles."

Below is a "Bubba'd" SKS with after market polymer stock and pistol grip. So according to the AWB it would be banned



This is what the original Soviet Bloc surplus SKS looks like (it's very popular due to millions were produced and sold for less than $200 and abundance of cheap surplus ammo).

What Eric and Paco are doing are pretty different things.

This is now not a thread about gun legislation?

This is the thread.

I have talked about gun control laws... at least in Canada. Overall I have no problem with the Canadian gun control laws (there are aspects that irritate me but I digress).

I don't talk about 2nd Amendment rights because I'm not an American.

I talk about firearms because I like them and I get irritated when people don't use the proper terminology. If people are going to talk about gun control laws they need to use the proper terminology because laws require specifics.

Also, I don't like fast food.

If we are ever going to have a decent discussion about gun violence, we will have to engage gun enthusiasts, public health experts and society in general. There is nothing inherently wrong with owning and enjoying guns, the same way that there is nothing wrong with owning and enjoying fast cars. Each require responsibility.

However, we can not go on like this where it seems like there is a major shooting daily. Last week there was the girl who sung at Obama's inauguration, the prosecutor in Texas, the lawyer in Arizona (who was a HighSchool classmate of one of my college roommates).

I for one like Eric's posts, he owns guns, he enjoys them - he is describing how Canada's gun regulations work (in my opinion - pretty good).

Ugh

Ewwww

NNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooooooo

Ex-Navy sniper killed at Texas gun range
http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/03/justice/texas-sniper-killed/index.html

What the heck. Another guy was killed also. The shooter was promptly caught.

A little googling turned up a tangentially-related fact I had never heard: it's not unheard of for people to go to gun ranges to commit suicide. That's a potential consequence of waiting periods I never considered.

Yeah, a lot of ranges won't rent a handgun to you if you don't already have your own, or if you are alone. It's also not unheard of for someone to walk into a gun store, ask to hold a particular gun, and quickly load a single round they brought themselves and commit suicide. I don't think this is as common as renting at a range, however.

According to other articles the shooter may be suffering from PTSD and Kyle was trying to help him.

I've seen a few "Live by the sword, die by the sword" comments in other news articles about this shooting.

A few years ago a mother, apparently suffering from mental illness, took her son to a range and rented some pistols. She shot her son in the back of the head before shooting herself. Her suicide note said that she wanted to save her son.

Since they rented firearms there's no background check.

At the one indoor range here in Vancouver I believe there's a Range Officer with people who rent their firearms for the safety of the renters and those around them.

At my range there's no firearms rental. Everyone brings their own firearms. Members can bring guests but they have to be next to them whenever the guests are up shooting to make sure they don't do anything unsafe. (I once saw a female guest enter a live range without either ear or eye protection then was given a shotgun. She was immediately thrown out and the member had one strike against him.)

Personally I'm tired of the gun violence debate because a lot of the arguments (on both sides) aren't based on facts. Gun advocates think that the anti-gun advocates are bleeding heart liberals. The anti-gun advocates think the gun advocates are mouth breathing conservatives. I'm a social progressive who happens to like firearms.

Here in Canada owning firearms is not an inherent right. As such Canadian gun owners know that our firearms can be re-classified and confiscated so we are very careful with the perception of our guns to the general public (for example, when buying a new firearm at a gun store we hide it in a gun bag or wrap it up in brown paper even though Non-Restricted firearms like shotguns and long-barrel rifles can be legally carried in public as long as they're unloaded). The difference is also a cultural one -- Canadians seem to be more trusting of authority than Americans (not surprising considering the US was born from a civil war).

To me as a Canadian this is a sad thing about American culture. People seem to accept the daily shootings. They don't seem to react until there's a mass shooting. The mass shootings are outliers -- as horrific as they are, they are rare blips in the 30,000 gun-related deaths in the US. Why not address the reasons for all those other deaths? Apparently half of those deaths are suicides while thousands are accidental shootings. Addressing mental health doesn't seem like a priority in the US when people call "Obamacare" an evil socialist program. Accidental shootings in the home can be lowered dramatically if gun owners obeyed the simple fundamental gun safety rules and properly lock their firearms, especially if there are children in their household.

If anti-gun advocates want to "think of the children" why haven't they address the issue of gun safety and security in the home? If the NRA wants to paint gun owners as responsible they should be pushing for gun safety courses. Gun violence isn't a black and white issue despite what both sides' lobbyists are trying to make it out to be.

I guess it's my personality type (ISTJ) that I only want facts in a discussion or argument. I see points made based on emotions with no evidence to back them up ("The government will take away our guns!" or "Think of the children!") as irrelevant.This is why I keep harping in my posts about gun control advocates need to learn the proper terminology (like saying "clips" when they mean "magazines") when discussing gun control laws -- laws need specifics -- and you would look like an idiot who didn't spend a few minutes doing some research online.

It's true that people who don't know the difference between semi-automatic and fully-automatic are too confused to make particularly clear judgements, and your post is a clear demonstration of that. But you can see how gun enthusiasts saying "look, this AR-15 is exactly the same as the military M-16 aside from not having select fire" isn't entirely comforting, given that as I understand it fully-automatic sees little use in a military context. You're effectively saying that your rifles have exactly the same design and capability as military rifles when using the fire mode which the military relies on in most situations.

Non-gun enthusiasts are primarily interested in the varying potentials for harm caused by weapons, not in semantic distinctions, which is why I think terms like "assault rifles" and "assault weapons" are a bit unhelpful. A common-sense interpretation of "assault rifle" is a military-style rifle which is effective for offensive operations. Gun enthusiasts point out that the real definition is about select fire; non-gun enthusiasts wonder why that's so important when many soldiers go through tours of duty on the front line without ever using fully-automatic.

Except the M16A2 and M16A4. You know, the only models of M16 in US arsenals to see extensive use since Vietnam. If you read your own links, you would know that.

Don't forget that alot of militaries still use select fire rifles, but of a different type. Instead of just single fire and full auto, they either come with single fire and burst fire (2 or 3 rounds burst) or sing fire, burst fire, and full auto options. Burst fire is still pretty popular in the military if I am remembering correctly, and is also up there with generally being illegal just as full auto is for civilians.

For the magazines, there is one company that makes the most popular and generally seen as the most reliable for 30rd AR-15 magazines, and that is Mag-Pul. Of their most recent Gen3 version of the magazines, they had over 1 million on backorder as of early January. That is ONE single company that manufactures AR-15 magazines out of dozens. From what I have read, in the past your general AR-15 30rd magazine was around $8 or $9 on average, it wasn't until years after the 1994 AWB went in that those prices "skyrocketed" up to $25 per magazine for the grandfathered market, which still makes them easily affordable by pretty much anyone.

But both of those still feature select fire, and "Burst Fire" is still illegal based on the 1986 ban and is thus considered an Assault Rifle due to it having a Burst Fire option.

Okay, I should have said "burst fire" instead of "fully automatic." You're point is? They still are selective fire. Burst fire mode is banned to civilian firearms in the US and Canada (AFAIK Canada has banned devices that help do bump fire).

The M16A2 has selective fire: safe, semi-automatic and three-round bursts.
The M16A4 has selective fire: safe, semi-automatic and three-round bursts (some versions has full auto instead of burst).

A lot of the rifles used in the US military are M4, which has selective fire: safe, semi-automatic, three-round bursts, and full automatic (M4A1 only). The M16s have been more-or-less regulated to support troops.

Which for the purposes of my argument is irrelevant, because my contention from the start was that any definition of assault rifle that requires fully automatic modes of operation is fucking stupid. In fact, when I first started talking about assault rifles I was very careful to specify select-fire, because that is a very unambiguous description, only to be corrected by the internet gun experts that apparently the M16A2/A4 isn't an assault rifle after all.

My point is: I was careful to use clear terminology from the start.

And no, the M16A2/A4 isn't a relegated to being a support weapon. Fucking lawl. You see how fast their infantry weapon R&D programs move?

Also, my personality type is Super Saiyan.


EDIT: And to reiterate from where I started; the hardware and form factor of an assault rifle is a big deal, possibly more so than select fire:

"But Sheepherder, he said the M4 is the primary weapon of the US Army way back in 2007!" you say?

LINK

Collapsible stock is more of a comfort thing, as Eric pointed out. They really don't collapse all that much, it's more a few small adjustment settings which are geared towards comfort depending on how long your arms are.

The biggest thing here is the shortened barrel on the M4 which makes it a bit better for close quarters situations. So we are talking about a shortened barrel, that is too short for civilian rifles, and would be considered a "Short Barreled Rifle". Thus would be in the same Class III section of rifles that full auto machine guns are.

Can't help but chuckle at this picture as well with regards to Feinstein's delusional definitions for what makes something a miltary/assault rifle:
https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/14884_10151396398884614_1633185091_n.jpg

According to her AWB bill:

Pistol Grip: Comfort
Forward Grip: Comfort
Telescoping Stock: Comfort
Detachable Stock: ??? There are rifles with no stock, or pistols that shoot rifle rounds, no big deal IMO
Grenade Launcher: All civilian grenade launcher type attachments are fit to fire things like smoke grenade rounds. You wouldn't be able to find or purchase explosive grenades
Rocket Launcher: Wait what? No such thing, unless you count a simple metal pipe for which to fire a rocket out of, or a skid of some sort I suppose
Barrel Shroud: Meant to protect the shooter if he were to touch a hot barrel, and No it is not a "shoulder mounted thingie" as Feinstein once called it when someone questioned her knowledge
Threaded Barrel: No real nefarious use here, Silencers are illegal and are in the same Class III as Short Barreled Rifles and Machine Guns. Besides that, silencers were generally made so one could shoot firearms in their back yard without disturbing their neighbors, not for super sleek assassins to make silent kills (hint, the guns still really aren't all that silent). Threaded Barrels are generally used to attach flash suppressors which are more geared to redirecting the blast of the gun upwards so as to reduce recoil a bit.

And these are the people leading the gun control debate. These are the propositions put forward to protect the people in America. Heck, I'm surprised that "black in color" wasn't one of the things on the list. If the only thing you know about firearms is what you have seen in Hollywood films, then these things probably make sense to you. For everyone else, well....

Gee, wouldn't be nice if an entity which was well-versed in guns, call 'em the National Rifleowners Organizataion or something, would lead the charge for responsible gun control instead.

There's no question Feinstein is a terrible advocate for her points. You, though, are not doing much to acquit yourself in comparison. Many of the items (collapsible buttstock, short barrel) are factored in under the rubric of concealability, just as a sawed-off shotgun is, and the point of a T handle or forward grip is precisely to enable CQB, not "comfort". Beyond that I can't even tell if you're arguing for grenade launchers and rocket launchers or if in fact you are just being the worst Gun Pedant on the planet.

Regardless, what you seem to be missing is that fundamental problem of assault rifles is the capability they represent. Beyond that, it's just a question (because of the way laws are written prescriptively and narrowly) of finding comprehensive indicators that are easy to work with. I'm not in favor of an assault weapons ban as currently or previously enacted, but it's bullshit to try to gun nerd them away, especially sloppily. Either the data on spree shootings supports measures against them or not, but the NRA and gun industry advocates (and their useful idiots) still bear the bulk of the responsibility for depriving us of the data and analysis necessary to make informed decisions.

I really should have finished my post with what I had thought of later. But no, I would not want the NRA in charge of making gun control decisions. In truth, I like them only slightly more than I do Feinstein. And no, I am not a member, nor have I ever been a member of the NRA.

Again, collapseable buttstock, do you have any clue what those are actually like or are you just generalizing based on the name? Civilian rifles still have overall length requirements. In reality, these things are more comfort based, than they are to be made concealable. By U.S. law, the overall length of a rifle has to exceed 26inches. In turn, the length of the barrel must exceed 16inches. So most rifles are 26.5inches and 16.5inch barrel to be safe.

To interject: Lizard_King was in the armed forces, and presumably has more than a passing familiarity with firearms, just as Houngan has more than a passing familiarity.

Forgot to mention, that the T-handle grip, IMO at least, is more for comfort. I personally like them on certain firearms, others however prefer to just grip the firearm by it's more natural protrusion of the magazine well. Both serve the same purpose of stabilizing your grip on the firearm. What you prefer is more of a personal thing. Besides that, if we are talking about gun safety, shouldn't we be arguing in favor of responsible and safe gun owners that use their firearms in a defense situation to have the most control over their firearm so as to prevent missing their targets and hitting unintended ones?

Do I have any clue? Yes, having used collapsible buttstocks on both the 16 inch barrel and 14 inch barrel variants of the M16, across a number of significantly different tactical scenarios in Iraq, I think I have a pretty good grasp on the performance issues associated with them (along with the T-handle, which I eschew for reasons of personal preference and body structure even within the confines of CQB, but have seen effectively employed and have used extensively myself). I also own a full equipped m16 with rails and a collapsible stock, just because it is so clearly optimal and there was no reason at the time I purchased it to do otherwise. In terms of the functionality of the weapon, especially for a military scenario, these are significant and not cosmetic upgrades. It is precisely civilians looking to generate those military-type scenarios that should be targeted by good spree shooter legislation.

Again, that is not why they are cited in the law. They are looking for easy identifiers for an assault type weapon with assault type capabilities that enable high efficiency spree shooting. Because people that might refine their criteria are either actively hired out to the gun industry lobby in some form or busy crossing their arms and sneering yet goddamn again about how they won't call a clip a magazine, we have the blind being argued against by the willfully disingenuous.

The point is all of that detail doesn't matter. Ultimately, Feinstein trying to get as much impact for her poorly-thought-out legislation as possible, but more than that she is trying to plant a flag so that when it fails and some other asshole ices a school with an M16 she has a vantage point of moral high ground that is only possible because the gun lobby is the most flatly mendacious corporate lobby since cigarettes and Big Defense. We need good data on interventions that will reduce the harm possible from spree shooters and ordinary criminals alike; the NRA is in the way of that data; people arguing bullshit from their bullshit wikipedia expertise of the guns they stockpile out of the perennial "got mine" anxiety of the American white middle class need to shut the fuck up for a while and concentrate on getting access to the data that we all need.

You can't freely conflate what makes guns safe for the public at large (good gun safety precautions, controlled access) and what makes guns more accurate. They aren't the same, and it's complete bullshit to claim otherwise.

For once, well probably not the first time really, I agree with you. I'm all for getting the data out there and research being done to prevent, not just the marginal spree shooter, but also for U.S. murder rate in general. This is one, among many other reasons, I'm not a huge fan of the NRA. They are just a bit too.... zealous for me I suppose.

The one thing that still bothers me. Let's say a major sweeping AWB gets passed through, and they axe all magazines over 10rounds and get rid of military style rifles, regardless if it is a actual performance related or scary looks related feature.

Then someone pulls a VA Tech style shooting with a handful of pistols and a buttload of 10round magazines. Then where does that leave us after that transpires? Wouldn't the next logical step be to further the ban list and re-adjust what is considred an "assault weapon" to cut magazines down to 5 or 6 rounds? Also getting rid of things like 8-shot revolvers? I'd like to think this is a valid question, and not some doomsday conspiracy theory about the disarmament of the U.S.