Summary of Feinstein's Gun Bill coming in January

[Beet]

Another thing is, someone who is tampering with a soda machine or trying to treat a horse, or driving a car for that matter, is taking some positive action to put themselves in danger. People who have never come close to a gun can still be killed with one. That's part of what makes it a public health issue, and not just the concern of those who have them.

[dead0man]

Which aspect of it do you think will lead to a reduction in crime?

All aspects. The harder it is to procure a powerful gun, the less likely that it will be used to commit a crime.

Do you know how many people in Maryland were murdered by someone using one of these "powerful guns"?  2.  That is, two.  Do you know how many were murdered with hands and feet? 17 ALMOST NINE TIMES AS MANY!  How about knives? 75!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then why not make it 8? or 3? Do you know how long it takes to reload a magazine?  Not very.  Do you know how many people are killed by that 11th and 12th round in 12 round magazines?  I don't, but I bet it's pretty freaking small.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Indeed a couple of those might actually do something to slow down crime (that is already awfully slow), but banning rifles of any kind is as stupid as invading Iraq after a bunch of Saudis flew planes into buildings.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course you do, you know it won't help much, but hey, we've got to do something!

[Beet]

Which aspect of it do you think will lead to a reduction in crime?

All aspects. The harder it is to procure a powerful gun, the less likely that it will be used to commit a crime.

Do you know how many people in Maryland were murdered by someone using one of these "powerful guns"?  2.  That is, two.  Do you know how many were murdered with hands and feet? 17 ALMOST NINE TIMES AS MANY!  How about knives? 75!

By this logic, I shouldn't care about those in Sandy Hook because they don't live in Maryland (?). I'm not under the illusion that something that can happen in Arizona, Oregon, California, Virginia, Connecticut, and Colorado can't happen in Maryland.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then why not make it 8? or 3? Do you know how long it takes to reload a magazine?  Not very.  Do you know how many people are killed by that 11th and 12th round in 12 round magazines?  I don't, but I bet it's pretty freaking small.[/quote]

It's not small if you're one of those people. Yes, 10 is an arbitrary number somewhat, but it's better than infinity.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But it'll help. And yes, we've got to do something.

[dead0man]

By this logic, I shouldn't care about those in Sandy Hook because they don't live in Maryland (?). I'm not under the illusion that something that can happen in Arizona, Oregon, California, Virginia, Connecticut, and Colorado can't happen in Maryland.

Except the numbers concerning the "powerful guns" are the same in all these places.  Very very few people are murdered by rifles, period.  Banning rifles of any stripe is going to restrict millions of regular Americans for the benefit of almost nothing.  It was stupid last time and it's stupid this time.

[Beet]

By this logic, I shouldn't care about those in Sandy Hook because they don't live in Maryland (?). I'm not under the illusion that something that can happen in Arizona, Oregon, California, Virginia, Connecticut, and Colorado can't happen in Maryland.

Except the numbers concerning the "powerful guns" are the same in all these places.  Very very few people are murdered by rifles, period.  Banning rifles of any stripe is going to restrict millions of regular Americans for the benefit of almost nothing.  It was stupid last time and it's stupid this time.

Not one American flying has been killed by a person who put a bomb in their shoe, yet millions of of regular Americans have to take off our shoes.

[dead0man]

and that's effing stupid too, just like AWB2 would be and the AWB was.

[Franzl]

I'm beginning to think that this is a little like healthcare, war, Roman style occupations of other countries, and now guns. I keep reading that assault weapons and high magnitude rifles are selling like cups of mocha on a cold winter night out of "fear" of gun bans. Which is absurd,

Indeed, almost as absurd as infringing on the rights of millions of to go after weapons that only kill 500 Americans a year.

"Rights" that, ideally, shouldn't exist in general.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

Another thing is, someone who is tampering with a soda machine or trying to treat a horse, or driving a car for that matter, is taking some positive action to put themselves in danger. People who have never come close to a gun can still be killed with one. That's part of what makes it a public health issue, and not just the concern of those who have them.

'kay, how about smoking, then?

[Beet]

Another thing is, someone who is tampering with a soda machine or trying to treat a horse, or driving a car for that matter, is taking some positive action to put themselves in danger. People who have never come close to a gun can still be killed with one. That's part of what makes it a public health issue, and not just the concern of those who have them.

'kay, how about smoking, then?

What about it? Secondhand smoke is taken quite seriously, even though breathing in secondhand smoke is preferable to even a 0.5% chance of getting shot. Smoking, in general, is taken quite seriously. Every year new smoking bans go into effect. Btw, this thread reminds me that I live in Virginia now.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

Another thing is, someone who is tampering with a soda machine or trying to treat a horse, or driving a car for that matter, is taking some positive action to put themselves in danger. People who have never come close to a gun can still be killed with one. That's part of what makes it a public health issue, and not just the concern of those who have them.

'kay, how about smoking, then?

What about it? Secondhand smoke is taken quite seriously, even though breathing in secondhand smoke is preferable to even a 0.5% chance of getting shot. Smoking, in general, is taken quite seriously. Every year new smoking bans go into effect. Btw, this thread reminds me that I live in Virginia now.

I didn't mean whether smoking is being restricted, but whether it should.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The old AWB was stupid, and the new one, if based on it would also be stupid, and an utterly meaningless piece of legislation. An actually effective AWB would have a tough time getting through a Democratic House, much less the current one.

But the argument that the AWB at least prevented murders committed with the covered weapons is silly (assuming it's even true, murders with them were rare before, during and after the ban.) Let's imagine a parallel universe where for whatever reason the government has banned red cars. Go outside and see how many red cars you can find. Now in this case, does that mean the owners of the red cars wouldn't drive cars at all? No, they would just drive different colored cars. That's the case with the AWB. If someone couldn't get ahold of the banned weapon, they'd just use one that looks differently but is just as powerful.

Now as said above, I'll admit that an actual far reaching ban (say ban everything except for small handguns and basic hunting rifles) might be effective in stopping things like the Connecticut shooting (I've always held that gun control is useless as far as organized crime is concerned, and still do, though lately I've come to hold that there's a lot more in play here than just organized crime and thus gun control could be effective in some respects.) but we all know how easy passing and enforcing that would be. Passing some half-assed ineffective bill in its lieu to make ourselves feel good is not a good strategy.