Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumThank you Diane Feinstein
Maybe some of you have seen the "This major new report on gun deaths should shock us all" post currently climbing up the Greatest Page:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2018/03/02/this-major-new-report-on-gun-deaths-should-shock-and-anger-us-all/?utm_term=.4119042fd01e
The new report from Rand reveals what a depraved dereliction of responsibility doing nothing yet again will really amount to. The report represents a serious effort to fill huge holes in our empirical knowledge about gun policy — holes that are there by choice, in part because Congress has badly underfunded research and data collection on the topic. The Rand report undertook a comprehensive review of an enormous amount of recent studies on more than a dozen gun policies — then whittled that down to around five dozen that passed its methodological standards, and summarized the conclusions.
The key findings, for purposes of the current debate, are as follows:
There is credible evidence that policies implementing background checks do reduce firearm homicides and suicides, and there is reason to believe expanding these checks would have a similar effect.
There is credible evidence that gun prohibitions associated with mental illness reduce firearm violence (though there’s more limited evidence that they reduce firearm suicides).
There is more solid evidence that child-safety measures reduce unintentional injuries and deaths.
Rand did find that the evidence on the efficacy of other policies — such as bans on assault-style weapons and raising the minimum age for purchases — is inconclusive.
So, background checks work. Keeping crazy and violent people from having firearms works. Bans on guns because of their looks - not so much.
In other shocking news, water is wet, fire is hot, kittens are cute.
THANK YOU DIANE FEINSTEIN!
After Sandy Hook there was widespread bipartisan support for genuine and meaningful action on keeping bad people from having access to firearms.
Right now we could have a robust, secure, nationwide background check system in place, linked to reliable and timely information about whether or not a prospective purchaser (or transferee) was a prohibited person.
The political will was there - but NOOOOOoooooo! Diane Feinstein had to lard up the bill with her signature pet ideology BAN ASSAULT WEAPONS! Poof! There goes your bipartisan support and the bill fails.
How many lives have been lost because we don't have a universal and up to date background check system in place? Can you say Devin Patrick Kelley, Dylann Roof, Nikolas Cruz?
Most of us here know that despite what half of your Facebook feed is trying to convince you, assault weapons bans don't work. The 1994 ban did little more than cost Democrats in the mid-terms. The intensity and fervor of anti "assault weapon" memes suggests to me that an outside actor (Russia?) was primed and ready to take full advantage of the next gun tragedy and use it to give the Left every opportunity to shoot itself in the foot. I mean no disrespect to the Parkland students and their efforts, but their movement blew up really big and really fast - almost as if it was given a "push" by a foreign actor whose chief interests are not school safety and gun control but to blunt the momentum of the Democrats in November.
The Trump kleptocracy/kakistocracy/regime is the most dangerous, destructive, disaster to happen to the United States since the Civil War.
We need to focus on winning seats.
Background checks, reliable reporting on prohibited persons, closing the "gun show loophole" are winnable solutions.
Banning some of the most popular firearms because of their looks - is a losing proposition.
So thank you Diene Feinstein, for once again giving the Democrats a prime opportunity to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
50 Shades Of Blue
(10,899 posts)
shraby
(21,946 posts)
Eliot Rosewater
(32,537 posts)Hortensis
(58,785 posts)whose author uses association with WaPo to give it fake credibility.
Needledriver, I notice you only joined in February, but your various posts about Diane Feinstein sound very familiar notes. Have we met before?
Eliot Rosewater
(32,537 posts)the agents of our enemy have to be laughing their asses off how we tolerate what we tolerate
msongs
(70,229 posts)Me.
(35,454 posts)that slaughtered the little children in Sandy Hook. How selfish of her to have signature pet ideology that no one else wants.
Eliot Rosewater
(32,537 posts)It is orchestrated.
Me.
(35,454 posts)Wwcd
(6,288 posts)Thanks Elliot.
gibraltar72
(7,629 posts)no favor with that giddy display the other day. I lose faith in anyone who in any way acts as if anything Trump says has truth anywhere in it. That was just plain stupid her pointing and clapping. Jesus that looked like a nursing home thing.
aikoaiko
(34,204 posts)Two things to remember about AWBs and Sandy Hook.
1. The Lanza rifle was legally owned and Connecticut had a state level AWB that was equivalent to the federal AWB. It was an AWB approved rifle.
2. The Lanza rifle would have been made legal under the 2014 "improved" AWB by installing a different grip with a screwdriver or Hex key.
Me.
(35,454 posts)is just to lay down and do nothing, give up, not try and point fingers at those who do.
aikoaiko
(34,204 posts)AWBs, no matter who sponsors them, is a political problem for other more possible gun control and a false gun violence reduction policy.
Me.
(35,454 posts)Belongs to those of you who contend that any effort to ban these weapons is at fault even though when there was a ban, deaths were in the decline. And I wonder if the kids in Parkland would agree with you and the OP.
spin
(17,493 posts)that will reduce tragedies like school shootings by those with severe mental issues and even an attack launched by terrorists.
1) Improve physical school security.
8 Ways to Improve School Entrance Security
March 23, 2017 Randy Atlas, Ph.D., FAIA, CPP
By adopting these elements, you’ll be able to prevent the entry of unauthorized individuals or delay their access until law enforcement can be summoned.
Many school and university buildings in the United States have been constructed to achieve an inviting and open campus style, with multiple buildings, multiple entrances and exits, big windows and many opportunities for privacy.
Unfortunately, these design configurations are not conducive to security and lockdown. To address these protection challenges and deter broken windows, burglary and vandalism, school architecture went through a period of fortressing that resulted in schools with almost no windows and produced fortress-like enclaves.
Incorporating the principles and practices of crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) in the design and remodeling of schools can contribute to the safety of the campus while reducing the target hardening and fortressing effects of a bunker mentality.
https://www.campussafetymagazine.com/hospital/8_ways_to_improve_school_entrance_security/
2) insure that adequate well trained armed security are present on campus. Such security should enter a building if necessary rather than take cover outside. Police should also provide cover EMTs when they both arrive on the scene as the EMTs may be able to save some victims from dying.
3) Identify and treat those who have severe mental issues that make them a danger to others. Input the names of such individuals into the NICS background check system so they can’t legally purchase firearms.
4) Make sure data about those who have a violent criminal record are entered into the NICS background check system in a timely manner.
FBI's gun background-check database is missing records of millions of cases
by Devlin Barrett, Sandhya Somashekhar, Alex Horton
Washington Post
The FBI's background-check system is missing millions of records of criminal convictions, mental illness diagnoses and other flags that would keep guns out of potentially dangerous hands, a gap that contributed to the shooting deaths of 26 people in a Texas church this week.
Experts who study the data say government agencies responsible for maintaining such records have long failed to forward them into federal databases used for gun background checks - systemic breakdowns that have lingered for decades as officials decided they were too costly and time-consuming to fix.
As the shooting at a Texas church on Sunday showed, what the FBI doesn't know can get people killed. In that case, the gunman had been convicted at a court-martial of charges stemming from a domestic violence case. Officials say the Air Force never notified the FBI of his conviction, so when he purchased weapons at a retail store, he cleared the background check.
The FBI said it doesn't know the scope of the problem, but the National Rifle Association says about 7 million records are absent from the system, based on a 2013 report by the nonprofit National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics. That report determined that "at least 25% of felony convictions . . . are not available" to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System maintained by the FBI.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-fbi-gun-background-check-system-missing-records-20171110-story.html
5) Insure that when somebody is busy waving red flags and is reported to the authorities that the report is taken seriously and investigated. Advising citizens that they “See something, say something” is useless unless such reports are taken seriously. Of course this applies to the authorities at both the local and national levels.
Of course gun control advocates can and will push for a new Federal Assault Weapons Ban but realistically it would take a miracle to pass such legislation in a Congress controlled by Republicans and with a President who has a concealed carry license and views NRA members as patriotic.
The last attempt to pass a new AWB failed in 2013 on a Senate vote of 40 to 60 and that Senate had a Democratic majority.
The bottom line is we need to do what we can to reduce the number of mass shootings. Simple measures can save lives.
sharedvalues
(6,916 posts)And it's a GOP/NRA talking point to boot.
You're basically saying: "Because one gun law didn't work perfectly, we should give up on all gun laws forever! Just lay down and give up!"
That argument (not you) is just dumb. The obvious answer: PASS A BETTER ASSAULT WEAPON BAN that would have stopped Lanza. CLOSE THE LOOPHOLES that allowed Lanza to buy his gun.
The NRA wants loopholes in gun bans. We should work to stop those loopholes.
I know from your other posts you're a logical thinker. Please realize you're echoing a talking point from the NRA that's encouraging the country to do nothing.
aikoaiko
(34,204 posts)What I'm saying is that the premise of AWBs is to get the military-style semi-autos without getting the semi-auto hunting rifles with detachable magazines and when you do that you always create loopholes just as the first AWB did and current proposals do.
This is why calls for a ban on all semi-auto rifles would actually do what you want them to do, but then you'd have the serious hunter and target shooter crowd unhappy and lose support.
In the meantime, trying to pass AWBs mobilizes the RW and places any Republican incumbent who votes for it in jeopardy of being primaried. And that's why they won't vote for them. This will only be overcome by achieving a Democratic supermajority.
Thanks for calling me a logical thinker. That's one of the nicest things a DUers has ever said about me.
I think there are other laws that can be achieved and save some lives.
sharedvalues
(6,916 posts)Leave single shot rifles in citizens' hands. Because assault rifles are killing Americans. So if you can't figure out how to stop mass shootings with a good assault rifle ban, let's just ban all semi-autos.
It's on gun people: come up with a good assault rifle ban that will stop mass shootings. Or else we're going to have a ban on all semiautos.
aikoaiko
(34,204 posts)even if Democrats hold 60 seats.
You might save more lives by concentrating on other things like improving NICS, universal background checks, and Red Flag laws with a meaningful due process.
sharedvalues
(6,916 posts)The NRA is on the wrong side of history. Let's all stand up on the right side.
aikoaiko
(34,204 posts)But time will tell.
sharedvalues
(6,916 posts)It's gun deaths that reduce civil liberties. Because they end life. And so they end liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Guns make us have to put our toddlers through shooter drills. Guns snuff out young lives, destroying those people's lives and rights.
Your ability to swing your fist stops at my nose. Have as many semi-autos as you want at gun ranges. Have single-shot hunting rifles. But do not flood the nation with assault rifles and handguns that put me and my kids at risk, reducing our civil rights.
aikoaiko
(34,204 posts)But yes we do have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
And yes it is true that the right to swing a fist stops at my nose, but you would have us cut off people hands so that no one could be punched in the nose.
Threats of banning all semi-autos are counter productive. Let's work in common ground.
Wwcd
(6,288 posts)..before the last recess bell.
NO ONE NEEDS A RAPID FIRE RIFLE.
NO ONE.
aikoaiko
(34,204 posts)Obviously.
That right matters to me whether mass killings happen with a standard AR, an AR that is AWB compliant, two handguns, or even a bomb.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,593 posts)...many things that I could name such as a car to can exceed twice the legal speed limit anywhere in the country.
I don't think rights depend on needs.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,593 posts)We would be standing on the right side, the side which will keep any candidates from the left from getting elected.
About 40% of the population owns a gun or lives in home with a gun owner. They are not all on the right and they are not all hunters.
My support for candidates is not one dimensional nor do I see firearms as a candidate filter. (I do not dismiss candidates not pro-RKBA.) I think Obama was an excellent example of leader and father. I think trump is about as far from a good leader as I've seen in my lifetime.
BTW: The NRA-ILA is on the money side. They just want to get money in the form of donations. I've not seen much evidence to the contrary.
samir.g
(836 posts)needledriver
(836 posts)sometimes known as the Gungeon, where Democrats who respect all of the rights in the Bill of Rights may discuss issues relating to the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
aikoaiko
(34,204 posts)
brer cat
(26,405 posts)I'm sure it was an oversight and not because it fails to support the claims you are making.
Rand did find that the evidence on the efficacy of other policies — such as bans on assault-style weapons and raising the minimum age for purchases — is inconclusive.
But, while that last point will draw a lot of attention and spin, the report actually confirms that this conclusion reflects the lack of quality research on gun violence, which itself bolsters the case for more action, in the form of greater investments in more research and data collection.
Indeed, the report importantly concludes that there has been a shocking dearth in funding on those fronts, compared with research funding for other leading causes of deaths in the United States.
snip
“The fact that we didn’t find a lot of evidence either for or against many of these policies and their effects doesn’t say anything about whether the policies are effective,” Morral told me. “It’s a comment about how well developed the science is.”
There, I fixed it for you.
needledriver
(836 posts)It does not change the original premise - that overreach on gun control yields Democrats nothing, no gun laws get passed, and red state types get to hang the "gun grabber" yoke around otherwise viable candidates.
You can't pass gun laws if you don't have representatives to vote for them!
brer cat
(26,405 posts)of Russians pushing and red state types calling us names, maybe you should just stay home and forget about enacting any laws period. As for "overreach" on guns, that has yet to be established as the article made abundantely clear without your editing.
needledriver
(836 posts)This isn't supposition, it's history. The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban did the exact opposite of its intention, drove the sale of millions of guns, had a negligible effect on public safety, and cost the Democrats heavily at the polls.
If the goal is to get enough Democrats elected to Congress so that gun violence studies can be funded, and gun control laws passed, and healthcare saved, and corrupt politicians impeached, we need to pick and choose and push for what is possible - and not try to push an assault weapons ban though a Republican congress! We will fail, look stupid, and drive away votes.
BTW I am not terrified, I am pissed off.
spin
(17,493 posts)the shooters at the pistol range I went to were using revolvers. In a couple of years most more shooting semiautomatic pistols. Although during the ban the firearms sold were limited to 10 round magazines most shooters spent a small fortune to buy high capacity magazines. Such magazines were legal as long as they had been manufactured prior to a certain cut off date.
During the first Assault Weapons Ban rifles such as the AR-15 became popular. Prior to the ban the AR-15 had a reputation as an underpowered, unreliable firearm that tended to jam and wasn’t all that accurate. Few shooters had any interest in owning one. The ban caused some to buy one out of curiosity and they reported they actually were quite reliable and accurate. Soon almost every member at my pistol range owned an AR-15 and of course a couple of 20 or 30 round magazines.
The first Assault Weapons Ban really was largely responsible for making semi-automatic firearms as popular as they are today.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)
George II
(67,782 posts)needledriver
(836 posts)I've heard that politics is the art of the possible. After Sandy Hook it was possible that some sort of meaningful, worthwhile gun control might have been enacted. But Diane Feinstein took what was possible and made it impossible - by reaching for too much.
The Democrats are doing it again. It may feel good to try for everything on the gun control agenda, but it's results that count. Look at the news - Congress is already walking away from gun control. The Democrats are going to end up with nothing, look worse for it, and suffer at the polls.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)All her, according to you.
Nothing else, circumstances, math...
Got it.
needledriver
(836 posts)Diane Feinstein had focused her considerable influence, legislative skills, seniority, and moral authority on passing legislation that would help keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them (i.e. universal background checks, timely reporting of persons moved to a forbidden category), in light of the widespread bipartisan support for an effort to do something to prevent the horror of Sandy Hook, we might very well have had legislation in place since then which would have prevented Devin Patrick Kelley, Dylann Roof, and Nikolas Cruz from acquiring the weapons they used.
But she's didn't. She used her considerable influence, legislative skills, seniority, and moral authority to try to get assault weapons banned. It failed.
Now, we are in the same situation again. Parkland was a horror that engendered a widespread bipartisan support for gun control legislation - and the Democratic establishment, as led by Diane Feinstein, has collectively said "Let's pass an assault weapons ban!".
I leave it to you to figure out what it's called when you do the same thing and expect different results.
Combined number of the House & Senate but let's just blame 1 member, a female SEnator, for the lack of gun control in this country.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)I hear Goody Proctor saw her strike a white millennial straight male impotent with a glance...
Bet DiFi is a reincarnation
spin
(17,493 posts)that killed it.
Of course since she is once again pushing for another Assault Weapons Ban, AR-15s are flying off the gun store shelves.
Bump stock, AR-15 sales up
POSTED 5:56 PM, FEBRUARY 27, 2018, BY ANDREW ELLISON, UPDATED AT 06:45PM, FEBRUARY 27, 2018
HORN LAKE, Miss. - - A device used to fire a semi-automatic rifle faster is flying off store shelves. It's called a bump stock, and it's something President Trump is trying to ban.
We went to check on sales in our area, and found that there seems to be another item that's selling even faster.
At Bullfrog Corner Pawn and Gun, AR-15's are selling like hot cakes. The shop is averaging ten sales a day, and sold more than $30,000 worth this past Saturday alone....emphasis added
http://wreg.com/2018/02/27/bump-stock-ar-15-sales-up/
Me.
(35,454 posts)because of the NRA driven fear, them saying they're going to take your guns away has nothing to do with it. And do let's blame all the propaganda on her. Nice twisted way of viewing this.
spin
(17,493 posts)
Brady Campaign
***snip***
The Brady Campaign was founded in 1974 as the National Council to Control Handguns (NCCH). From 1980 through 2000 it operated under the name Handgun Control, Inc. (HCI). In 2001, it was renamed the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, and its sister project, the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, was renamed the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.
***snip***
Mark Borinsky founded the National Council to Control Handguns in 1974. He served as Chair until 1976. Charlie Orasin was a key player in the founding and growth of Handgun Control (HCI). He worked at HCI from 1975 until 1992.[9]
Nelson "Pete" Shields became the organization's chairman in 1978 and retired in 1989.
***snip***
In July 1976, Shields estimated that it would take seven to ten years for NCCH to reach the goal of "total control of handguns in the United States." He said: "The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second is to get handguns registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition – except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors – totally illegal."[15] In 1987 Shields said that he believed "in the right of law-abiding citizens to possess handguns... for legitimate purposes.".[16] In November 2008, Brady president Helmke, a former Republican mayor of Fort Wayne, Indiana, endorsed the American Hunters and Shooters Association saying, "I see our issues as complementary to theirs." He said, "The Brady Campaign is not just East Coast liberal Democrats."[17]...emphasis added
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_Campaign
Obviously a lot of time, effort and money has been spent in the attempt to ban classes of firearms. In some blue states there has been some success but little or nothing at the national level. The reason for that is the congressional representatives from gun friendly states realize pushing for a gun ban is political suicide as they will be voted out of office.
Now I will admit times change and possibly at some date in the future we may see the passage of federal gun laws similar to those in Great Britain or Australia. I seriously doubt that Congress will take the first step by creating a new Federal Assault Weapons Ban this year or even in the next decade.
In my opinion we can do a lot to stop gun violence and mass shootings by improving our existing gun laws and by better enforcing them. If we continue to do nothing these tragedies will continue to happen. Of course this approach will not totally eliminate all gun violence or mass shootings but it could result in far fewer incidents.
We should also be able to improve our background check system for firearms with ease. It should also be possible to improve and better enforce our existing laws against the straw purchase of firearms and the smuggling and sale of such weapons. Improving school security will largely be up to the individual states but the federal government can help provide money for such efforts. Obviously we do need a better mental healthcare system in our nation but that could be a contentious issue tied in with the effort to improve our existing healthcare system.
It seems more logical to push for the possible rather than the unachievable in order to actually save lives.
What exactly would that be
spin
(17,493 posts)1) Improve the NICS background check system to insure information about those who should not be allowed to purchase a firearm is accurate and input into the data base in a timely manner.
2) Insure that if someone notifies a law enforcement agency about a potentially dangerous individual it is not ignored.
3) When an individual is busy waving as many red flags as the recent high school shooter has over the last few years make sure he isn’t armed to the teeth and get him some good mental health counseling and treatment. It seems EVERYBODY involved at the local level was well aware this guy was a serious risk.
4) Improve school security by limiting access points to a few checkpoints. implement chipped ID cards and readers. Insure schools have adequate well trained armed security present. While this would mainly be done at the local and state level, the federal government might supply funding.
None of these ideas would be impossible to implement and they could be accomplished in a reasonable time frame. Of course there are other solutions to consider but they would be controversial and most would be hard to pass in Congress. Consequently they would not happen overnight.
Nothing is impossible, not even AWB, but as long as the NRA is in control nothing will happen and the slippery slope argument will be used. Instead of jumping all over DiFi for wanting killer guns off the streets how about using that same energy to go after the NRA and members of Congress.
spin
(17,493 posts)starter.
While you have enough money to get a new starter you want a new car preferably a very expensive luxury sedan. Unfortunately you don’t have a job and since you live in a rural area you need a car to travel to apply for jobs. What do you do?
Obviously you first get the starter replaced. You then have the ability to look for a job and the means to get to work once you do. Of course you are not satisfied but at least you have taken some action to address your immediate problem. Somewhere down the line you may be able to purchase your dream car and make the payments on it.
The problem we have today is school shootings. Obviously at some time in the future we may be able to enact gun laws similar to those in Great Britain. However it makes good sense to take measures that would reduce the number of such tragedies now.
Realistically we may never be able to enact draconian gun control but we can save lives while we try.
In passing I am not a strong gun control advocate by any means but I do respect the views of those who are.
Banning evil looking assault style rifles or all semi-automatic rifles would not stop school shootings. Handguns and shotguns have been used in the past by those individuals who commit mass shootings. Even if every firearm in our nation was banned and successfully confiscated (unlikely at the best) those with severe mental issues would use explosives or drive vehicles into a crowd.
Bath School disaster
The Bath School disaster, sometimes known as the Bath School massacre, was a series of violent attacks perpetrated by Andrew Kehoe on May 18, 1927, in Bath Township, Michigan, which killed 38 elementary schoolchildren and six adults and injured at least 58 other people.[Note 1] Kehoe killed his wife and firebombed his farm, then detonated an explosion in the Bath Consolidated School before committing suicide by detonating a final device in his truck.
***snip***
Kehoe murdered his wife Nellie sometime between May 16 and the morning of May 18, 1927; she had just been discharged from the hospital with an undefined illness. He then detonated various incendiary devices on his homestead on the morning of May 18 at about 8:45 a.m., causing the house and other farm buildings to be destroyed by the explosives' blasts and subsequent fires.
Almost simultaneously, an explosion devastated the north wing of the Bath Consolidated School building, killing 36 schoolchildren and two teachers. Kehoe had used a timed detonator to ignite hundreds of pounds of dynamite and incendiary pyrotol, which he had secretly planted inside the school over the course of many months. As rescuers began working at the school, Kehoe drove up, stopped, and used a rifle to detonate dynamite inside his shrapnel-filled truck, killing himself, the school superintendent, and several others nearby, as well as injuring more bystanders. During rescue efforts at the school, searchers discovered an additional 500 pounds (230 kg) of unexploded dynamite and pyrotol connected to a timing device set to detonate at the same time as the first explosions; the material was hidden throughout the basement of the south wing. Kehoe had apparently intended to blow up and destroy the entire school.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster
Really. While you're wasting your time kicking around a Senator who is trying to do what her constituents want and getting beat up for it why not go after that Hammer woman and the real villains in this sorry tale. Guess she's just the easy target.
spin
(17,493 posts)I want to see at least some improvements to our current gun laws pass in this Congressional session. If Sen. Dianne Feinstein tries to add another Assault Weapons Ban to the current legislation in process it will ruin any chance of passage. History does often repeat itself.
I’m not attacking DiFi was much as I am pointing out that if she pushes for a new AWB at this time it will be counterproductive. There are times when I support some of her ideas for new gun control laws. For example:
Sen. Feinstein introducing bill to ban bump stocks after Vegas shooting
By ALI ROGIN
Oct 4, 2017, 11:17 AM ET
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a longtime advocate of stricter gun control measures, introduced a bill Wednesday that would ban the sale and possession of bump-stock equipment and other devices that essentially turn a semiautomatic weapon into an automatic one.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/sen-feinstein-introducing-bill-ban-bump-stocks-vegas/story?id=50276506
I’ve had some experience with fully automatic assault weapons in the military and in civilian life. (Some will tell you that you can’t own a fully automatic firearm in this nation but that is false. Such weapons are tightly regulated and outrageously expensive to purchase.)
While shooting a firearm in the fully automatic mode is to some “fun” I find it wastes ammo and unless fired in short bursts the weapon will climb dramatically so you will effectively end up shooting butterflies.
A bump stock makes a semiautomatic rifle act somewhat similar to a fully automatic rifle. Since I see little use for a fully automatic rifle I see no real use for a bump stock.
It might occur to you some where down the road that is exactly what's she doing by getting rid of a weapon that kills dozens in a minute but you keep on...thankfully so will she.
spin
(17,493 posts)I seriously doubt that any such legislation will pass any time soon if ever.
However legislation could pass this year that will better secure our schools and also make it more difficult for people who should not be allowed to own firearms find it much more difficult to legally buy them. I don’t want to see this legislation fail because Democrats insisted on a new AWB.
While this will not prevent all mass shootings or criminal gun violence it would help to prevent reduce some of these tragedies. Any progress on this issue is better than none.
Realistically if you want to remove “weapons that can kill dozens in a minute” you would be better off searching for a magician with a spell and a wand that would make all such weapons disappear than try to get a new AWB pass this year with a Republican controlled Congress and a President who has a concealed carry license and views the NRA as patriots.
Me.
(35,454 posts)It's counterproductive
spin
(17,493 posts)Last edited Mon Mar 5, 2018, 12:14 AM - Edit history (1)
You rarely get everything you want. In the short run it is often wise to settle for what you can get and work to achieve more over time.
Perhaps in a decade or two or perhaps three or four laws will pass banning the civilian possession of all firearms or perhaps just semiautomatic firearms. Perhaps the most a licensed citizen may be permitted to own will be one bolt action single shot rifle and one shotgun that holds no more than two rounds. No handguns will be legal to own. Of course only one box of ammo would be allowed per firearm.
Of course passing such laws would be the easy part. Confiscation would be the hard part.
Response to Me. (Reply #19)
sl8 This message was self-deleted by its author.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)In what way did the 1994 Assault weapons ban fail?
It passed, and deaths were reduced.
You imply that she personally, singlehandedly killed any attempt at legislating universal background checks and timely reporting of people moved to a forbidden category?
How did she do that? Please share.
Response to ehrnst (Reply #20)
Post removed
Me.
(35,454 posts)
sheshe2
(87,877 posts)Me.
(35,454 posts)to have answered
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)
Me.
(35,454 posts)With an emphasis on the Fem. Never hear the same carping on issues on Biden, Sanders or even Grassley who is the majority member on judiciary and the same age as she.
still_one
(96,779 posts)increased significantly after that ban ended.
As for your hypothetical that she lost the "political momentum" that would have resulted in more reasonable legislation, ignores the fact that the republicans had the majority in BOTH houses in 2014, and were not going to have ANY gun control legislation get through.
It is pretty clear that it isn't going happen this time either.
Negotiating between two parties starts when both sides present their positions, and then work to find a middle ground. That applies to anything, including gun legislation. There was nothing wrong with what Senator Feinstein attempted to do. The problem was dealing with a party that was UNWILLING to compromise on anything related to gun legislation.
This is just another side effect of the contribution made by those self-identified progressives who refused to vote for the Democratic nominee by either voting third party or not voting
It really does help to have the majority in both Houses of Congress, and a Democrat in WH, and while it may be easy to setup a scape goat in Senator Feinstein blaming her on the lack of gun legislation, it is bullshit
needledriver
(836 posts)polling in the 80 to 90 percent approval range with American voters, while an assault weapons ban polls in the 60 percent range, that the Democrats, led by Diane Feinstein, should push for the less popular, less effective gun control option as a negotiating tactic?
You call bullshit on me blaming my senior Senator for focusing on a failed gun control tactic AGAIN over gun control measures that would actually help keep guns out of the hands of people who should not have them. Are you really that invested in your uncompromising position that you would rather come up empty handed on gun control?
still_one
(96,779 posts)gun control measures getting through Congress, I didn't call bullshit on you
You also avoided my main point regarding the republican majority in Congress.
In 2004 when the assault weapon ban had expired, republicans had the majority in the House, and they weren't going to renew the assault weapon ban.
In 2008 when President Obama had the WH and Congress, healthcare was the main issue, and they had a very small window to get something through, or there would be nothing, and the results of the midterm demonstrated that calculation was right.
Of course with the 2016 election, not only is the ACA in danger of being destroyed, but so is almost every progressive issue from Civil Rights, Woman's rights, Worker's rights, the environment, etc, and in this landscape there is no way that any gun legislation is going to occur. Even if we regain the majority in both houses in 2018, what the madman in the WH will do is anyone's guess.
You want to single out Feinstein, how about the other 99 Senators?
There is no doubt in my mind that if any Senator or Representative was able to get background checks brought up in a bill, and it made it to the floor for a vote, Senator Feinstein would be voting for it, but the reality is, that isn't going to happen
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)in fact in the past month. But remember, most people who act out their anxiety against one name don't know any others.
Pelosi is, of course, another female Democratic leader most of those expressing their anxiety like to fling it at, but then she's in the house, not the senate.
I'd like to put in a word for Needledriver here, in spite of this behavior. Needledriver's OWN words in an older thread:
Good for Americans.
Good for the environment.
Good for the world.
Or the Russians wouldn't put so much effort into making sure Democrats are not elected."
Absolutely agree 100%.
for that post. Even if Needledriver somehow imagines this is in spite of Senator Feinstein's many years as a Democratic Party leader, it's not nothing.
And yes, "thank you, Diane Feinstein," for your substantial contributions to this reality. The Kremlin may not know my name, but it's their business to know everything they can learn about you.
still_one
(96,779 posts)semi-automatic AK-47 rifle. In 1993 there was a mass shooting in San Francisco, at 101 California street, where 23 were killed and 27 were wounded were major factors why Senator Feinstein authored the Assault Weapons Ban. That bill was in effect until 2004 when it failed to be renewed.
Going after Senator Feinstein because she reintroduced legislation where she was instrumental in passing the first time, with the argument that it doesn't have popular support, so the Senator should stick to something less is a specious argument.
Assault Rifles with large clips have to capacity to kill a large number of people at one time. The Las Vegas massacre was evidence of that.
While banning Assault rifles will not completely eliminate mass killings, it WILL make obtaining those weapons more difficult, and that in itself is a worthy goal.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)so extremely well known. It must have been misunderstanding, or even a simple a mistake. Like a typo.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Not sure where you are getting your information, but a general angst about Feinstein among some seems to be making many push right wing misinformation on the ban.
Link to tweet
/photo/1
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,593 posts)Murders may actually be prevented by some better background checks. But if the only barometer that matters is not seeing a story about carnage that makes national news, then banning guns is your answer. The Virginia Tech Killer used handguns with standard magazines. The Glock was 9mm holding 17 rounds, the Walther was a .22 holding 10 rounds.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)are not very effective.
Is that clearer?
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,593 posts)and most effectively enforced at ADX Florence. 
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)that would have not only not been "doomed" (had an expiration date) but would TOTALLY have passed.
Again, it's amazing the "legislative skills, seniority and moral authority" she has, and yet failed to see what was totally clear to needledriver.
Sounds like armchair quarterbacking.
Squinch
(53,038 posts)Sophia4
(3,515 posts)At the least, we need to keep them out of homes, out of the hands of people who are under 21 and out of our schools, hospitals, hotels, restaurant and other public places.
sharedvalues
(6,916 posts)Assault rifles kill Americans in mass shootings.
Handguns kill Americans in daily homicides.
Shotguns, non-semiauto rifles, and other single-shot weapons kill many many fewer Americans than those two types of guns. We should ban assault weapons and ban handguns (like basically all other Western countries: Aus, UK, Canada.) (and before the gun fetishists complain: Canada effectively has a handgun ban, because it is EXTREMELY DIFFICULT to carry a handgun in Canada.)
Always Right
(84 posts)An assault weapon ban can never work. That is because so called assault weapons are only cosmetically different than any other semi-auto gun as they are all functionally the same. There is no way to describe an assault weapon that would not include plain old guns used for hunting, thus there will always be a loophole in the law that allows cosmetic changes which would unban any targeted assault weapons.
Look at all of the state level AW laws and even the last Federal AWB, nothing was really banned. Instead guns were divided into pre and post ban.
The only way to really ban your so called assault weapons is ban all semi auto guns. Of course those same guns could be made in semi auto versions and that is already happening... so much for your ban. I know it may come as a shock but non-semi-auto guns can be fired at nearly the same rate at semi-auto guns.
As for handguns, you already made it clear that you want to ban those too, so basically you do in deed want to take away all the guns but are willing to do it a little bit at a time.
Even a complete ban won't work either as guns are not difficult to make. Semi-auto guns have been made for over a hundred years using manual equipment and hand tools. It would be foolish to think that they couldn't be made with today's table top computer controlled milling machines and 3D printers.
You mention Australia... a complete ban has been in place there for 22 years, yet they recently had an amnesty where 57,000 illegal guns were turned in, including thousands of machine guns. Yes, actual assault weapons, not your so called semi auto assault weapons. That is because it is actually easier to make a home made machine gun than a home made semi-auto gun and additional parts are needed to stop the gun from firing between shots. As for the repeated lie that Australia has had no mass shootings since the ban, well that isn't true as there have actually been 3 mass shootings.
sharedvalues
(6,916 posts)If you can't construct a good ban that would have stopped Sandy Hook, there is another option: ban all semi-autos.
It's on gun people: figure out a good ban that will stop mass shootings. Or ban all semiautos.
AzureCrest
(65 posts)sharedvalues
(6,916 posts)AzureCrest
(65 posts)Why wasn't anything passed in 2013, after Sandy Hook?
sharedvalues
(6,916 posts)We're going to get the votes. Take back the house in 2018.
And let's all stand up for WHAT'S RIGHT: stopping American gun deaths.
AzureCrest
(65 posts)Get back to me on that.
sharedvalues
(6,916 posts)Stand up for what's right: stopping American gun violence.
AzureCrest
(65 posts)Let's find a solution that a majority of Americans will actually support.
Response to sharedvalues (Reply #60)
Post removed
Wwcd
(6,288 posts)
thanks
undercover_redneck
(5 posts)"The Trump kleptocracy/kakistocracy/regime is the most dangerous, destructive, disaster to happen to the United States since the Civil War."