Skip to main content

View Diary: Why the "Styling" of Assault Weapons Matters: Think Baseball Bats (30 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Do You Honestly Believe This? (4+ / 0-)
    When an unstable person wants to go on a gun rampage, he picks up an assault rifle. That's reason enough to ban them.
    So it follows in your world that if that same disturbed person got the same urge but couldn't get an "assault rifle" they would instead... knit a pair of socks?

    Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.

    by The Baculum King on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 09:40:12 AM PST

    •  He's correct, to a point . . . (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ichibon

      The people collecting "black guns" are making a statement not about the gun's capability, but about their own state of mind.  Which is somewhere between "not a full deck" and "tending towards crazy".  Despite our different backgrounds I suspect our experience tells us both the same thing . . . that the only practical "civilian" use of a pistol grip and a 30 round magazine on a rifle is to identify the owner as a nut case requiring, at a minimum, close psychiatric observation.

      But while the pistol grip is just an "indicator" and hardly matters one way or the other in practice limiting magazine size would at least slow them down a little, and offers one substantial benefit in real "gun control": if, in addition to simple prohibition there is a significant mandatory minimum for possession (criminal intent) and confiscation of all other firearms owned by the person it would both get the crazies into treatment and get the weapons most likely to be abused off the street.

      And a 10 round limit on magazine size would essentially eliminate the most common criminally abused handguns as well.

      Fake Left, Drive Right . . . not my idea of a Democrat . . .

      by Deward Hastings on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 10:26:36 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The Baseline Problem Nobody Addresses (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Deward Hastings, BlackSheep1, ancblu

        I can tell you in a nutshell why any meaningful gun control is almost certainly doomed to failure.

        Gun folks don't trust those who want gun control. They are absolutely convinced that if they give up ANYTHING it is merely the start, and that the "gun grabbers" would immediately be back for more, and they are probably right.

        Taking magazine capacity as an example, IF magazines were limited to ten rounds (is that new manufacture or does it include existing equipment, because making it retroactive would represent a "taking" under the Constitution and the Government would have to buy them all), then as soon as some nutjob killed 15 people at a daycare center by changing magazines the call would be to limit magazines to 5.

        Just look at the microcosm of DailyKos. Some here want "assault weapons" banned and confiscated, some want all semiautomatic rifles B&C, some want all semiautomatic ANYTHING B&C, some want all handguns...

        From the gun folks' viewpoint, if the Assault Weapon Banners get their way, the Semiautomatic Banners will just step up to be next in line, and there's no stopping point.

        Until some way is found to get that issue resolved I don't expect anything meaningful to happen.

        Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.

        by The Baculum King on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 10:49:46 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'll just quote (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          The Baculum King, BlackSheep1, ancblu

          three of my previous comments (in other threads) . . .

          Slippery slope

          Most of the gun owners that I know think that the AR-15/AK-47/TEC-9  crowd are simply nuts . . . but will (reluctantly) defend them because they don't believe that "gun control" advocates intend to stop there . . .

          Collective punishment

          The single most common objection that I hear from (particularly rural) gun owners is "you want to take my rifle because of what somebody else did (on the other side of the Country, to boot)?  Are you crazy ? ? ?"

          Address the real problem

          If you can figure out a way to get guns out of the hands of criminals before you try to get them out of the hands of the law abiding the remaining "details" of gun control will be a cakewalk.

          Doing it the other way around produces the resistance you see now . . .

          Fake Left, Drive Right . . . not my idea of a Democrat . . .

          by Deward Hastings on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 11:09:10 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  On What Point Are They Wrong? (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            BlackSheep1, ancblu, Neuroptimalian

            And there's a WIDE spectrum of people who own and use "black" rifles, and most of them aren't particularly nuts. The nuts just get the publicity by walking around town with them.

            Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.

            by The Baculum King on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 11:12:52 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I suspect that almost all the sane ones (0+ / 0-)

              don't find the pistol grip all that useful, and would accept the following (which I've never seen proposed before, although I'm sure it's been thought of) "modification":

              A magazine guard perminantly fixed to the gun that loops under the magazine and locks the trigger mechanism when open.  The essential functions would be:

              1) to prevent operation of the firearm after the insertion of "oversize" or "high capacity" magazines, and

              2) to slow, by adding an additional operational step, the exchange of full for spent magazines.  

              Fake Left, Drive Right . . . not my idea of a Democrat . . .

              by Deward Hastings on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 11:36:56 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  So how do we stop the (0+ / 0-)

              nuts from being able to legally intimidate us, such as the recent idiot in Utah?

              Severely Socialist

              by ichibon on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 11:41:40 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  I concur about #2 and #3 ... (0+ / 0-)

            but #1 is not my experience.  

            Owners all have their distinct preferences in choice of firearm and cartidge for x intended use or purpose ... and much debate, both pissy and friendly, occurs around this inevitable and always present question.

            However, as a near constant (and really only with the exceptions here on DK by admitted owners/control advocates), most other owners/rights advocates outside this cloistered progressive world feel pretty strongly that one's particular choice is part of the bigger "Right" and would defend another's choice (however suitable or misguided that choice might be in one's own better judgment).

        •  It doesn't matter what they don't trust (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Boreal Ecologist

          It doesn't matter who they or you trust. It doesn't matter what you think. All that matters is whether we can get a majority in various legislatures, and eventually in Congress.

          Because of the recent school massacres, a majority of voters now support increasing gun regulation. That is primarily on manufacture and sale of new weapons.

          If people have certain delusional ideas that this is gun grabbing, it won't matter because they will be overruled in the democratic process and hopefully eventually calm down when they realize they were suffering from delusions of the slippery slope.

          •  I Don't Think So (3+ / 0-)

            Without some compromise, nothing with any meaning will be enacted. Even a revival of the largely useless AWB is pretty iffy at this point, and anything more simply won't pass.

            And even if some way was found to ram something through, the damage caused by the Resulting Republican majority in both Houses would FAR outweigh anything that was gained.

            And the bottom line is nothing would change in any case: criminals will still be as armed as they wish to be and deranged people who decide their life and death will acquire meaning ONLY by killing a bunch of innocents will kill a bunch of innocents on the way out.

            Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.

            by The Baculum King on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 12:05:13 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  The Baculum King: Absolutely. I've been told here (3+ / 0-)

          at DKos within the last 10 days that the banners need to proceed in just exactly the same fashion as the anti-choicers have chipped away at women's rights since Roe V. Wade.

          They even used the term, "baby steps."

          At this moment there's an FP diary declaiming that the goal is to eliminate all private ownership of guns.

          LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

          by BlackSheep1 on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 12:27:24 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Would a "taking" of weapons ... (0+ / 0-)

          even be constitutionally permissible?  They wouldn't qualify under eminent domain laws, I wouldn't think.

          "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the universe." -- Albert Einstein

          by Neuroptimalian on Mon Jan 21, 2013 at 12:01:00 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  No one is proposing "taking" (0+ / 0-)

            What is being proposed is regulating. Strong regulation may make a piece of equipment worthless.

            For example there are some states that take hunting as sport seriously and allow hunters to use magazines with only a few bullets. Suppose state or federal regulation make it illegal to hunt with a magazine of more than say 5 cartridges, illegal to fire a weapon at a practice range with more than 5 cartridges, illegal to carry a weapon in public, or transport it with more than 5 cartridges, and so on.

            If a person has a magazine that can hold 10 cartridges, no one has taken it away, but it has in effect become a worthless piece of junk that he can't attach to his gun except in the privacy of his own home, and this provides pretty strong incentive to toss it in the trash.

      •  Magazine sizes are arbitrary (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ichibon

        I'd rather see the focus on firearms that can accept detachable magazines in the first place:

        When it comes to potential bills that could be introduced in Congress in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, Diaz says it's crucial to focus on this question of magazine capacity. Lawmakers must ask, Diaz says, "What actually are the design features? What are the real functions of assault weapons? ... Can you put a high-capacity magazine into this gun that will hold 20, 40, 60, 100, 110 rounds of ammunition? And, if that's true, then it's an assault rifle and we will not allow their manufacture or import."
        So-called "sporting" weapons, conversely, should be restricted to non-removable magazines with a very small capacity - say, three rounds.

        "Federal law limits me to 3 shells when duck hunting, but no law limiting assault magazines. We have more protections for ducks than people." - Rep. Mike Thompson (CA-5)

        by radabush on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 10:50:54 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  calling for a ban (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          BlackSheep1, ancblu, Neuroptimalian

          on perhaps 99% of the rifles in the country today sort of makes TBC's point.  It will have the effect of uniting essentially every gun owner in America, including those who would otherwise support substantial and effective restrictions, against any gun control at all.

          Fake Left, Drive Right . . . not my idea of a Democrat . . .

          by Deward Hastings on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 11:15:48 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Sporterized rifle stocks have (0+ / 0-)

        different degrees or forms of the "pistol" grip.  Look at the Anschutz and Monte Carlo stocks with near vertical grip and low heel, for example, and also those with the thumbhole style.

        With these comparisons in mind ... at what point is the black rifle "pistol" grip a valid policy or regulatory distinction?

        •  that's a good question, (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ancblu

          particularly from the point of how to write "regulation".  It is very difficult to codify "intent".  But we both know that the purpose of those modifications is to improve accuracy of aimed fire, not to encourage rapid or "spray' shooting.  That is to say they "sporterize" rather than "weaponize" the gun (but they do nothing to discourage snipers).

          We also know what people actually do . . . all those 18 1/8 inch barrel shotguns might give a hint what the legal  "sawed off" limit is.

          But I'm not so sure about adopting the "no regulation is possible" position . . . because the alternative, which has been realized in many places, is outright ban.  That's the downside of the "the differences are merely cosmetic" argument . . . the obvious rejoinder is "then don't ban the cosmetic changes, ban anything that can accept the cosmetic changes".  It seriously bothers me to see that Ruger is now selling "cosmetic kit" to make what should be a clear case of "reasonable hunting rifle" into "one of those things".  The "right" to make anything and everything look like (and perhaps occasionally work like) military hardware is not a hill that I want to . . . well, you know . . .

          Fake Left, Drive Right . . . not my idea of a Democrat . . .

          by Deward Hastings on Mon Jan 21, 2013 at 08:37:28 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site