The Politics Thread

[Solo]

I don't think concealed carry laws would be effective at preventing shootings so much that the current gun free laws are laughably ineffective at doing their job that their existence is as pointless as a broken pencil.

But now that you're back, I must ask, did you read my spiel on "military weapons"?

[Libertad]

Libertad, I must apologize for skipping something, the issue of guns in schools. I assume that you are referring to the NRA press conference in which it was suggested that police officers be stationed in schools, which is something already being done on many schools across the country. Indeed, my highschool had an police officer assigned to the school. This is a program that was started under the Clinton administration and signed into law by President Clinton himself, though the efficacy is somewhat debated.

The other thing you could possibly be referring to is the idea of either repealing or reforming the "Gun Free Schools" act, which makes it a crime to bring a gun within a certain distance of a school and which has been ineffective in preventing school shootings for obvious reasons. The proposals I am most familiar with in the news are intended to allow people who have obtained a permit to carry a concealed weapon carry said weapons on school grounds.

Perhaps you could clarify which you were talking about?

I was talking about the implementation of laws in states which allow citizens (non-police, non-military) to be able to carry firearms on school grounds.  The NRA leader suggested the hiring of security guards instead of more police.  This will not necessarily make things safer, as bullets will still be flying everywhere if a madman comes to the place with murder in his heart.  Even worse, many small-time security guards do not have police training or are skilled in firearms use.  There are security guards with tazers and metal detecters in many US inner city schools, and they're still dangerous places due to gang activity.

Just because guns are omnipresent doesn't mean that the current laws should be done away with (like the NRA wants).  If anything, they need to be made stronger.

Current gun control laws are ineffective at preventing gun-related crimes due to many reasons; the NRA's involvement just makes things worse.  Assault weapons bans will save lives, because it's much harder to kill people with a pistol which holds 8 rounds or less and can only fire one shot at a time than an AK-47 with 30 bullets.

If background checks made it just a little bit harder for seriously deranged people to get guns, and the best that they can get is a pistol instead of an automatic rifle, that's good in the long run.  There's too many deaths already.

[Solo]

Assault weapons bans will save lives, because it's much harder to kill people with a pistol which holds 8 rounds or less and can only fire one shot at a time than an AK-47 with 30 bullets.

I find it odd that you say this, as to the best of my knowledge, the Sandy Creek shooting involved two 9mm pistols, as did the Virginia Tech shooting.

If you remember, the governor of Virginia commissioned a panel to study the incident. In their report, they state that:

The panel also considered whether the previous federal Assault Weapons Act of 1994 that banned 15-round magazines would have made a difference in the April 16 incidents. The law lapsed after 10 years, in October 2004, and had banned clips or magazines with over 10 rounds. The panel concluded that 10-round magazines that
were legal would have not made much difference in the incident.

Chapter VI - Gun Purchase and Campus Policies (pdf, 111kb)
http://www.governor.virginia.gov/TempContent/techPanelReport.cfm

Incidentally, did you know that Connecticut already has an assault weapon ban?

Actually, interesting thought; the 1994 Federal Assault Weapon Ban expired in 2004, and as the site you yourself linked to, gun crime continued to decrease afterwards. So you could say we are safer despite there legalization of assault weapons.

At this point, I feel I should ask if you know what an assault weapon is. Would you kindly humor me with the definition of an assault weapon?

[Jackinthegreen]

Keep in mind there is a difference between an assault weapon and an assault rifle.

[dman11235]

Solo, you're right, violence has continued to decrease after the legalization.  But it's not that legalization has improved safety, it's that legalization hasn't done anything to safety.  I don't think you can bring that without a look as to what the laws actually did, and how effective they were.  And I don't think they really mattered.

I know you asked Libertad, but I will say that I don't know what the definition is for an assault rifle.  I know what they tend to look like, and I know what kind of rounds they fire, and I can differentiate between an assault rifle, a hunting rifle, and most major types of guns.  I would like to be educated please, if you do know what the definition is.

Now, Libertad, I don't think you know what an assault rifle is.  While I mostly agree with your sentiment (or at least the intent that I got from it), I think you are being overly sensationalistic in your condemnation of guns.  While clip size is important (reloading takes a long time, in a firefight), the power of the gun is more important (low power=low chance of killing, due to low penetration and energy transfer), and accuracy is most important.  Longarms are very accurate, typically, and as such can have well placed killing blows, where as pistols are very inaccurate typically, and thus harder to get killing blows off on targets, especially moving ones.  And believe it or not, being shot in the arm is pretty survivable.  Being shot anywhere but the head or heart is pretty survivable, actually, assuming you get attention quick enough.  Also: most assault rifles are used semi-auto, not full auto.

[Jackinthegreen]

Assault rifles.
Assault weapons.

[Solo]

I know you asked Libertad, but I will say that I don't know what the definition is for an assault rifle.  I know what they tend to look like, and I know what kind of rounds they fire, and I can differentiate between an assault rifle, a hunting rifle, and most major types of guns.  I would like to be educated please, if you do know what the definition is.

Here is a quick video explaining the relevant firearms terms.

While clip size is important (reloading takes a long time, in a firefight)

That somewhat depends on your skill level.

Also: most assault rifles are used semi-auto, not full auto.

An assault rifle by definition must capable of automatic fire. The majority of rifles owned by civilians in the US are semi-automatic, so they cannot be assault rifles by the definition of the term.

[dman11235]

"most assault rifles are used semi-auto, not full auto"

Sorry bout the confusion.  I knew a lot of them (most) had multiple settings, including full auto, and now I know why, but most are indeed not used full auto.  LMGs and machiine guns are used full auto.  Assault rifles are used burst or semi-auto.

But yeah, I haven't been confusing "assault rifle" with "assault weapon".  I just didn't know what the actual definition was.

In that video?  He seems to forget that the action of the gun isn't the only part.  The "cosmetics" actually change how the gun is used.  The pistol grip changes how you hold it, the bipod changes how you aim it.  The material doesn't matter much, right (aside from weight I guess), but the shape does.

EDIT: remember though, I don't actually want to ban assault weapons even.  I just want to keep them away from certain people and possibly out of the public.  I don't know.  I haven't formed a full opinion on that part, so I try not to discuss it.  I only discuss and correct facts and provide observations.

[Solo]

In that video?  He seems to forget that the action of the gun isn't the only part.

Legally, what makes a machine gun is dependent on the receiver. This is the most important part of a gun, and the part that is legally considered to be the "firearm".

The "cosmetics" actually change how the gun is used. The pistol grip changes how you hold it, the bipod changes how you aim it. The material doesn't matter much, right (aside from weight I guess), but the shape does.

A bipod has never been part of the definition of assault rifle, weapon, or what have you. (And they are commonly found on target and hunting rifles anyway.)

I find your comment on pistol grips interesting. Yes, they change how you handle the gun. It makes the gun more comfortable for some people and less comfortable for others. Now, let me ask you a question: does it make a gun more deadly? Because that is the only reason I would see to worry about them at all.

[dman11235]

It depends on the gun.  For smaller guns, yes, because you can hold them in a way better suited for CQB.  For larger guns, no, because at that point it doesn't matter.  Try holding that hunting rifle without a stock close to your chest.  Not gonna happen.

As for the definition, that wasn't the point I guess.  He said "they're the same gun, just cosmetically different".  Which is only partially true.  It's misleading is what I'd say.  They do actually function differently because of those changes.  I wasn't trying to imply that those changes made the gun deadlier or anything, only that they did change the way the gun functions.

[Solo]

It depends on the gun.  For smaller guns, yes, because you can hold them in a way better suited for CQB. For larger guns, no, because at that point it doesn't matter.  Try holding that hunting rifle without a stock close to your chest.  Not gonna happen.

Fortunately, short barrel rifles must be registered with the ATF and are rather heavily regulated.

Incidentally, I am curious, do you have much experience with using firearms in the manners described above?

As for the definition, that wasn't the point I guess.  He said "they're the same gun, just cosmetically different".  Which is only partially true.  It's misleading is what I'd say.  They do actually function differently because of those changes.  I wasn't trying to imply that those changes made the gun deadlier or anything, only that they did change the way the gun functions.

Forgive me for being pedantic, but that's rather like saying changing an iPhone casing changes the way the device functions. While some casings make it easier to use, harder to drop, more impact resistant, and etc, it's still going to have the same data transmission rate, memory capacity, processing speed, and battery life no matter what casing you put on.

[dman11235]

Not really.  I've used them a long time ago (at least 10), and they were rifles.  I can't remember what kind (other than hunting), but it was at a shooting range.  Low caliber, definitely.  Started with BBs that day, and eventually moved up to actual bullets.

Forgive me for being pedantic, but that's rather like saying changing an iPhone casing changes the way the device functions. While some casings make it easier to use, harder to drop, more impact resistant, and etc, it's still going to have the same data transmission rate, memory capacity, processing speed, and battery life no matter what casing you put on.

No, it's more like....optional features in your car.  Things like getting a turbo, or larger brakes.  Sure it'll function without those just fine, and with them it'll function the same (gas pedal in, go forward), just differently (more power, better handling).  Only that's not a good analogy....I can't think of any good ones right now....Basically, the different cases on the gun let you be able to use the gun in different ways.  A gun with a tripod is going to be good for stable, accurate, stationary firing.  A gun with a small size and a pistol grip is going to be better suited for CQB and fast paced motion, due to an easier time lining it up.  The way you hold a gun can change how you use it, same as any other tool.  And the casing affects how you use it.  As well as other things like attachments.  Heck, some cases even allow for easier reloading and larger magazines.  That's a definite difference in function.  Look at ammo.  A lot of ammo is pretty much the same, but used in different guns, you get different results.  Use the same caliber but different grain, and you'll get different results.  There's a lot of different things you can do with ammo.  NOt changing the gun at all, but even the same sized bullet can get you different results.

[Solo]

I feel obligated to point out that a lot of your statements are more hypothetical than actual at this point. (I personally tend to distrust reasoning based on "it seems reasonable" as that is why people originally thought that objects of differing weights would fall at different rates in a vacuum.)

In my personal experience, I have not noticed much of a difference in handling between the two that cannot be put down to personal preference and anatomic variation in the human body.

[Libertad]

This thread is getting off-topic.  Split it off into a "firearms" thread, guys!

Back on topic:

Conservative newspaper turns against the NRA due to LaPierre's speech.

[Solo]

My apologies. I forgot we were supposed to be badmouthing the NRA.

I don't suppose there are any points of your's that I addressed that you'd like to clear up before we move on?

[Libertad]

Criticism and linking to news articles does not necessarily equal "badmouthing."  It's significant because previously the GOP wouldn't dare criticize the NRA.  The New York Post is being sensationalist (labeling him a "gun nut") in this case, but the point of my post was to show how even Republicans are backtracking from the lobbying group.

Now, Libertad, I don't think you know what an assault rifle is.  While I mostly agree with your sentiment (or at least the intent that I got from it), I think you are being overly sensationalistic in your condemnation of guns.  While clip size is important (reloading takes a long time, in a firefight), the power of the gun is more important (low power=low chance of killing, due to low penetration and energy transfer), and accuracy is most important.  Longarms are very accurate, typically, and as such can have well placed killing blows, where as pistols are very inaccurate typically, and thus harder to get killing blows off on targets, especially moving ones.  And believe it or not, being shot in the arm is pretty survivable.  Being shot anywhere but the head or heart is pretty survivable, actually, assuming you get attention quick enough.  Also: most assault rifles are used semi-auto, not full auto.

I don't suppose there are any points of your's that I addressed that you'd like to clear up before we move on?

I realize I was misinformed on my definition of assault weapons.  I'll clarify my statement: I'm against fully automatic weapons being readily available for sale to citizens.  They're unnecessary for hunting (a rifle will do) and home defense (shotgun is optimal), and their main function is to kill large numbers of people in a short amount of time.

[bhu]

This thread is getting off-topic.  Split it off into a "firearms" thread, guys!

Back on topic:

Conservative newspaper turns against the NRA due to LaPierre's speech.

La Pierre lost me when he started blaming the violence on heavy metal lyrics

[Solo]

I realize I was misinformed on my definition of assault weapons.  I'll clarify my statement: I'm against fully automatic weapons being readily available for sale to citizens.  They're unnecessary for hunting (a rifle will do) and home defense (shotgun is optimal), and their main function is to kill large numbers of people in a short amount of time.

Then you should be heartened to know that automatic weapons are regulated under the 1934 National Firearms Act, and require a lot of paperwork in order to obtain. Since the start of the NFA regulations, there have been only two or three recorded instances of legally owned automatic weapons being used in violent crimes. So you get what you want (less crimes) and people who want automatic weapons get what they want (automatic weapons).

[InnaBinder]

I fully recognize that the sources of this data are generally considered "liberal" within the American political spectrum.  That said, here are a couple of articles on gun violence in the US:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/12/gun_death_tally_every_american_gun_death_since_newtown_sandy_hook_shooting.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/nine-facts-about-guns-and-mass-shootings-in-the-united-states/

If some of you have articles showing the above data is inaccurate beyond their own statements of incompleteness, I look forward to reading them.

[Halinn]

I fully recognize that the sources of this data are generally considered "liberal" within the American political spectrum.

Tangential rant: liberal in American politics is seriously far off from here in Denmark. The most liberal party in the country is considered to be practically insane for wanting income tax to be lowered to 40% flat, compared to the current rate of 42.76 to 62.76 (depending on income bracket and municipality).