I’m not a gun expert. I shouldn’t have to be. That’s what subject matter experts are for when creating laws. Get some gun experts, former military would be good, tell them the types you want banned. Like, specific makes and models. Ask them to come up with language that distinguishes those guns. It might be in the form of fire arms with any of x number of listed characteristics. You get that law passed with a companion that prohibits additional firearms listed in the rules of the ATF, as adopted under the usual federal register rules. Then you pass the rules, using the usual process.
Then we get the ban we need on the most egregious types of firearms and a way to legally expand that ban for the shit some asshole comes up with next. Federal rules of agencies are made to address the nitty-gritty. The long ass lists of stuff that cannot be imported, for example.
I am not a gun expert but I do not believe for a second that we cannot create a law that bans the mass shooter guns without banning everything a legitimate hunter can use to hunt.
As virtually every developed country besides the US has done already. It’s not hypothetical, we have real world examples to study from and adapt to here.
I do take action. I write to my reps, senators and governor to support gun reform. I talk with my gun-owning friends to try to find areas we can agree on. I agree the NRA is pretty useless. When there is a shooting, they came out and lay lots of blame. When those of use who want to make reforms offer reforms in the areas the blame, they find reason to say our approach isn’t acceptable. I have long said that they need to stop being nay-sayers and tell us what they would agree were steps THEY would back to deal with what they state are the sources of these mass shootings that would be agreeable to them. My main “self aggrandizing” response was really meant to be a reply to the person that wrote to me (DukeTrout). I clearly don’t know how to shoot a personal IM to that person and not blast the board. Sorry for that. I led with a description of my political beliefs because no one here knows me or has any reason to believe I am trying to actually find a way to pull people together, but I accept that trying to convince you where I stand politically is not a good way to go about it. I will continue to try to make a difference locally, which is probably the arena I will do best in. Thanks for taking the time to reply, even if it include the sarcastic comments about Encyclopedia Britannica. That brought back fond memories of my growing up when I actually tried to read EB Junior (red cover) from cover to cover growing up, because I wanted to learn as much as I could! I couldn’t tackle the full EB, it was just too big.
The NRA has long since demonstrated that they no longer deserve a seat at the table when it comes to drafting gun policy, if indeed there ever was a time when a seat was warranted.
You’re wasting your time writing to the Republican ones. The death-cult party still follows the lead of the NRA on gun control. Better to put effort into voting those politicians out than into trying to reason with them.
The NRA itself is a far-right organisation. Expecting it to behave reasonably is also a foolish waste of time.
And how has every other rich country in the world managed to do it?
I refuse to believe that the United States, alone amongst all its global peers, is simply too incompetent to restrict use and ownership for certain kinds of weapons. We don’t do it because we haven’t been able to muster the political will to do it.
“ Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited,” Scalia wrote as he laid out certain exceptions. History demonstrates, Scalia said, “the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
Heinlein might have been misquoting Bernard Mandeville
Those that rail at duelling do not consider the benefit the society receives from that fashion; if every ill-bred fellow might use what language he pleased without being called to an account for it, all conversation would be spoiled. Some grave people tell us that the Greeks and Romans were such valiant men, and yet knew nothing of duelling but in their country’s quarrel. This is very true, but for that reason the kings and princes in Homer gave one another worse language than our porters and hackney coachmen would be able to bear without resentment.
Would you hinder duelling, pardon nobody that offends that way, and make the laws as severe as you can, but do not take away the thing itself, the custom of it. This will not only prevent the frequency of it, but likewise, by rendering the most resolute and most powerful cautious and circumspect in their behaviour, polish and brighten society in general. Nothing civilizes a man equally as his fear, and if not all (as my lord Rochester said), at least most men would be cowards if they durst. The dread of being called to an account keeps abundance in awe; and there are thousands of mannerly and well-accomplished gentlemen in Europe who would have been insolent and insupportable coxcombs without it…
If we were crawling on gun control, that would be something to celebrate, because it would mean we were at least making forward progress. But we’re not crawling, we’re gradually sliding backwards into hell.
Oh, there was a time, in way-back, that they actually supported gun control and firearm education. Before they became a money-laundering operation for the Russian spy networks, you know.
Beau actually suggested taking an opposite approach to the 1994 ban. Rather than trying to ban “all assault-style rifles,” banning all semiautomatic firearms and then add some “except for’s” specifically so that farmers can have their varmint rifles and such. There is no rational explanation for high capacity magazines, though. Although, with only a little practice, changing the magazine can be done in a matter of a couple seconds, so it only really makes it less easy and convenient to mow down many many humans. But in my mind, that is still a good thing.
The magazine thing is also important for distinguishing a weapon useful for mass murder and a hunting rifle. Most public hunting grounds don’t allow guns with magazines that can carry more than 5-10 rounds. This is for the safety of other hunters. Because you can never be sure who might also be in the area.
Never really understood that. The report from the first shot would announce to all critters present that there are humans here trying to kill you, causing them to skedaddle post haste. Most hunters I know carry bolt-action rifles, the only kind I have ever used for that. Being able to rip off gobs of shots rapidly is not a terribly useful hunting skill.
See my six points of draft legislation upthread. (I never tire of repeating myself.)
The difference is that I don’t see a need for any exemptions. Unless varmints are attacking in waves, the time necessary to aim makes the time to operate a manual action insignificant. We do expect the farmers to aim, right? Ammunition is expensive.
Removable magazines of any capacity also need to be banned.
It also alerts fellow hunters to be careful about where they are going. Hunters are supposed to take heed of their surroundings and use their weapons sparingly because you don’t necessarily know what is 50+ yards past your target.
Its also pretty dangerous for fellow hunters. Since it gives them no time to react.
