HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » Gun laws: Good, bad and u...

Mon May 23, 2022, 09:26 AM

Gun laws: Good, bad and ugly

Starting with the good, we need a provision for universal background checks. Right now in more than half of the states it is impossible for a private sale to include the same background check a buyer would have to pass if s/he were buying a gun from a licensed dealer.


A bad law we have now is the one making suppressors (silencers for you TV and movie fans) almost impossible to get. A typical suppressor reduces a gunshot from 140 dB or more by about 25 dB. A suppressor will make a gunshot about as quiet as a leaf blower at best. (See the picture below.)


The ugly is the idea of an "assault weapons ban". The definition of these items has changed over time and varies from state to state among states that have these types of bans. There is a type of rifle known as an "assault rifle". Assault rifles are select fire meaning that a single trigger press can fire a single shot, a multi-round burst or full-auto. Examples would include an M-16 and an MP-5. Assault weapons have been defined as semi-auto (one trigger pull = one shot) along with features like a folding stock or bayonet lug. The assault terminology serves only to confuse the matter. The group of folks who believe all guns are bad and all restrictions are good will argue for any AWB. Other folks who disagree with the idea that having telescoping stock or accessory rail makes a gun deadlier will oppose laws that include an AWB. Political fights over things that make no difference cause credibility to suffer.


7 replies, 1175 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 7 replies Author Time Post
Reply Gun laws: Good, bad and ugly (Original post)
discntnt_irny_srcsm May 23 OP
AndyS May 23 #1
discntnt_irny_srcsm May 23 #2
discntnt_irny_srcsm Jun 12 #5
AndyS Jun 12 #6
discntnt_irny_srcsm Jun 12 #7
ManiacJoe May 24 #3
discntnt_irny_srcsm May 24 #4

Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Original post)

Mon May 23, 2022, 10:28 AM

1. Might surprise you to hear that I agree with you on all three points you make.

Universal BG checks are a no brainier, only the most hard core second amendment absolutists agree that UBGs are a good thing. The chief argument against them is enforce-ability but most people are by nature rule following particularly if there are penalties involved.

Suppressors are just another way for the gun industry to fleece gun buyers so I don't really care one way or another. As you said they don't really protect hearing (only over the ear protection can do that) so what do I care??

Assault weapons bans are, as you said, problematic for any number of reasons. Although the 10 year AWB had a marked affect on mass shootings (seems mass shooters often buy just before committing a massacre) no matter how they are defined the gun culture will change it to evade the intent of said ban.

Where I suspect we differ is in what is banned. Ban the feature, not the name. The features that make 'assault weapons' so lethal is rate of fire and ease of reloading. Therefore I would ban all semi auto (shoot as fast as you can pull the trigger) with feeding devices (reload in seconds). If we can't prevent shootings, at least make them less lethal.

BTW, where are you on your research into safe storage legislation? Have you found any you will support?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AndyS (Reply #1)

Mon May 23, 2022, 11:29 AM

2. Well, not a complete surprise but good.

UBCs
Maybe we differ here, but for any states that don't already have a mandatory requirement, I'd accept voluntary access because anything is better than no access.


Suppressors
I actually didn't say that they don't really protect hearing. I do agree that they don't protect hearing enough at least for the shooter.


AWBs
Problematic for sure.
Mass shooters... IMO rate-of-fire and magazine restrictions will probably be contentious until both sides accept the idea of negotiation as not giving up to "the enemy".


TBH I lost track of looking for info several weeks ago. I would say that I'm not opposed. Feel free to field your thoughts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AndyS (Reply #1)

Sun Jun 12, 2022, 10:21 AM

5. re: safe storage

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1172211817

There are listed 26 school shooting events that qualify as mass shootings (4 or more people shot).
Of those, in 12 cases the weapons used were taken from a parent or close relative. >> How about safe storage laws?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #5)

Sun Jun 12, 2022, 10:36 AM

6. I've been working on that for at least 10 years.

Writing to congress critters, donating to gun violence activist organizations (Mom's Demand Action has a whole plank in the platform for just this) and talking about it.

What have you done?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AndyS (Reply #6)

Sun Jun 12, 2022, 11:22 AM

7. Not as much as you

Bravo, you win.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Original post)

Tue May 24, 2022, 05:53 AM

3. An easy fix to the background checks

would be to remove the federal prohibition on private sellers using the NICS checks that are required for the dealers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ManiacJoe (Reply #3)

Tue May 24, 2022, 12:45 PM

4. I'd prefer to have a local LE office do the check. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread