Motherfuckers always got a reason why something won't work to curb gun violence.

Had my shotgun 20 years still use it the same way.

The true gun crazed crowd will come up with a reason to but any new weapon. Most won't buy but lay on "at least I have a right to"

Really.

pissed me off

I suspect some of them would write off the death of a loved one as "God's will" rather than ascribe it to the proliferation of guns.

but there are some narrow situations wherein the arguments against a proposal may have merit and be worth considering. Case in point, how "assault weapon" is defined.

As "any weapon that fires more than x rounds per minute or holds more than y rounds at a time", most sane gun owners would agree has a legitimate bearing upon how dangerous the weapon is. It might not work to prevent every situation, but in a significant number of situations, it could, and it makes sense to regulate weapons on such a basis because that kind of definition actually does apply to how a weapon operates, not how it looks.

Banning any weapon that has a pistol grip or a telescoping stock, on the other hand, would arguably not work, because what type of grip or stock a weapon has does not have any bearing upon how dangerous the weapon is (with the obvious exception of things like bump fire stocks, that change the rate of fire), and it creates the appearance of banning dangerous weapons, when in reality it only bans dangerous weapons having a particular appearance. It doesn't even consider the parts of a firearm design that actually are dangerous.

It will be very informative to see whether or not a ban on bump fire stocks receives the same opposition that the previous assault weapon bans have received, given that a ban on bump fire stocks actually does exclusively regulate something that changes rate of fire, which the vast majority of gun owners I know will readily agree makes it legitimate to regulate.

If we are able to get that done, and I hope we are, that will be a good signal that banning "assault rifles" may indeed be possible, as long as we properly define what makes a rifle an assault rifle.

Bottom line, semi-auto plus bump stock = 600-900 rounds a minute.
Semi-auto plus pistol grip = 45-60 rounds per minute.

One of those makes a great deal of sense to regard as an assault weapon.
The other one doesn't, especially if it's limited to small capacity magazines.

You are going to buy your 16 year old one of two cars.

Either this one:



or this one:



They are both Honda Civics. Now, before you pick apart the specific examples (in which there may be some performance parts), the point is that you can make a pretty dull Honda Civic "look like" a race car with purely cosmetic changes.

Now, I keep hearing that "guns don't kill people, people kill people". Okay, that's fine. But the way that people ideate and behave is influenced by a range of psychological influences, INCLUDING HOW THINGS LOOK. You cannot deny that the appearance of an object, how it is designed, to whom it appeals, and what use it suggests, are elements that go into the way that people use them, what sort of people seek to use them, and what they believe the object's appropriate use may be.

To say that "the problem is human behavior" while also saying "but these changes are purely cosmetic" is trying to have your cake and eat it too.

Yes, human behavior with technology is influenced by "purely cosmetic" factors.

Can any kid go nuts in any car? Sure.

But if we are looking at statistical harm reduction, then psychological factors - i.e. how things look - do matter.

What is the extent of your background in product design and user psychology?

....and then kill myself!" The way someones gun is styled won't take you down that road, they have far deeper issues.

It also means that regulating the appearance does no particular harm to anyone either, so why is it important to you that they be able to have a certain cosmetic appearance?

That's what I don't get.

.....will budge the homicide rate even one little bit.

I think doing things that will actually work would be better.

IMO there should be a blackout on the name and picture of anyone who goes on a mass killing spree, make sure they get no fame and will be anonymous forever, that would help more then changing the appearance of the stock or grip.

And while I can get the objection to military styled weapons at least on the psychological level, here's where I have a problem with the way assault weapons are defined...

By the definition of the most recently proposed federal Assault Weapons Ban, as well as by the definition of the current laws of the State of New York, this is an "assault weapon"...




So's this....



Even though these are .22's. Even limited to 10 rounds.
Because they have a thumb-hole in common with this...



If we insist on banning certain cosmetics because of what they suggest, we should at least do it well.
Or in gun nut terms, get better at not hitting things we weren't aiming for.

THEY ARE FUCKING SNOWFLAKES

You summed it up perfectly.