HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Do we really need an Assa...

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 06:34 PM

Do we really need an Assault Weapon Ban?

I think Representative Carolyn McCarthy-NY(D) makes a good point here.

“If you take away the large magazines it’s not going to make any difference what kind of a gun you have because you’ll have less bullets into it,” she said. An assault-weapons ban “is more symbolic.”


McCarthy Backs Piecemeal Gun-Control Strategy in Congress

A ban on high-capacity gun magazines has a good chance of passing the Republican-led U.S. House if it’s offered as a stand-alone bill, said Representative Carolyn McCarthy, a New York Democrat.

With opposition in Congress to an assault-weapons ban, advancing a broad package of firearms restrictions could imperil President Barack Obama’s initiative to curb gun violence, McCarthy said today at a Bloomberg Government breakfast. She said a ban on the high-capacity devices that feed bullets and expanded background checks have support among lawmakers and could be approved.

Democrats initially had wanted to advance one major legislative package, including a ban on assault weapons, in the aftermath of the Dec. 14 shootings that killed 20 children and six adults in Newtown, Connecticut. Now, McCarthy says she’s “come around to thinking” a piecemeal approach is best.

“I was one that wanted a comprehensive package,” said McCarthy, whose husband was killed in a 1993 shooting on a Long Island Rail Road train. “I’m not going to derail everything.”

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-02-14/mccarthy-backs-piecemeal-gun-control-strategy-in-congress

29 replies, 2036 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 29 replies Author Time Post
Reply Do we really need an Assault Weapon Ban? (Original post)
SecularMotion Feb 2013 OP
immoderate Feb 2013 #1
frazzled Feb 2013 #2
newfie11 Feb 2013 #3
Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2013 #24
Puzzledtraveller Feb 2013 #4
hack89 Feb 2013 #5
pscot Feb 2013 #6
Ruby the Liberal Feb 2013 #7
SecularMotion Feb 2013 #9
cherokeeprogressive Feb 2013 #16
one_voice Feb 2013 #20
Ruby the Liberal Feb 2013 #23
bhikkhu Feb 2013 #8
madville Feb 2013 #10
petronius Feb 2013 #11
jmg257 Feb 2013 #15
petronius Feb 2013 #18
NightWatcher Feb 2013 #12
krispos42 Feb 2013 #13
SecularMotion Feb 2013 #14
krispos42 Feb 2013 #19
spanone Feb 2013 #17
Dr_Scholl Feb 2013 #21
Zoeisright Feb 2013 #22
lynne Feb 2013 #25
bowens43 Feb 2013 #26
bemildred Feb 2013 #27
NNN0LHI Feb 2013 #28
Progressive dog Feb 2013 #29

Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 06:44 PM

1. She is right. The AWB is all about cosmetics.

The only thing that makes a difference in lethality is magazine capacity.

I don't care for the 10 shot limit. I favor limiting the magazine size to what fits in the grip. Maybe 10 shots will work for external magazines. I would allow 13 because my gun holds 13, and I want to be fair.

--imm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 07:01 PM

2. Yes

It's time; or so the following groups and individuals think. But who am I to say? Look over the list yourselves:

Endorsements for the

Assault Weapons Ban of 2013



Law Enforcement

International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators
International Association of Chiefs of Police
Major Cities Chiefs Association
National Association of Women Law Enforcement Executives
National Law Enforcement Partnership to Prevent Gun Violence
National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives
Police Executive Research Forum
Police Foundation
Women in Federal Law Enforcement
Chaska, Minn., Police Chief Scott Knight, former chairman of the Firearms Committee, International Association of Chiefs of Police
Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca
Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck
San Diego Police Chief Bill Lansdowne
Health care

American Academy of Nursing
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
American Medical Association
American Public Health Association
Doctors for America
National Association of School Nurses
National Physicians Alliance
San Francisco Mental Health Association
Society for the Advancement of Violence and Injury Research
Education and child welfare

20 Children
American Federation of Teachers
California Teachers Association
Child Welfare League of America
Children’s Defense Fund
Every Child Matters
MomsRising
National Association of Social Workers
National PTA
National Education Association
San Diego Unified School District
Gun safety

Arizonans for Gun Safety
Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
Ceasefire Oregon
Coalition to Stop Gun Violence
Hoosiers Concerned About Gun Violence
Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence
Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence
Mayors Against Illegal Guns
Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence
One Million Moms for Gun Control
Protect Minnesota
Violence Policy Center
Washington CeaseFire
Wisconsin Anti-Violence Effort
Religious

African Methodist Episcopal Church
Alliance of Baptists
American Baptist Churches of the South
American Baptist Home Mission Societies
American Friends Service Committee
Baptist Peace Fellowship of North America
Camp Brotherhood
Catholic Charities USA
Catholic Health Association
Catholic Health Initiatives
Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good
Catholics United
Church of the Brethren
Church Women United, Inc.
Conference of Major Superiors of Men
Disciples Home Missions, Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
Dominican Sisters of Peace
Faiths United To Prevent Gun Violence
Franciscan Action Network
Friends Committee on National Legislation
Health Ministries Association
Heeding God’s Call
Hindu American Foundation
Interfaith Alliance of Idaho
Islamic Society of North America
Jewish Council for Public Affairs
Jewish Reconstructionist Movement
Leadership Conference of Women Religious
Mennonite Central Committee, Washington Office
National Advocacy Center of the Sisters of the Good Shepherd
National Council of Churches
National Episcopal Health Ministries
NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby
Pax Christi USA
PICO Network Lifelines to Healing
Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Office of Public Witness
Progressive National Baptist Convention
Rabbinical Assembly
Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism
San Francisco Interfaith Council
Sikh Council on Religion and Education, USA
Sisters of Mercy of the Americas
Sojourners
Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations
United Church of Christ
United Methodist Church
United Methodist Women
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development
United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism
Washington National Cathedral
Women of Reform Judaism
Other organizations

Alliance for Business Leadership
American Bar Association
Black American Political Association of California
Center for American Progress Action Fund
Grandmothers for Peace International
National Parks Conservation Association
Sierra Club
TASH
VoteVets.org
Washington Office on Latin America
Localities

U.S. Conference of Mayors
National League of Cities
Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors
San Francisco Board of Supervisors
San Luis Obispo County Supervisor Bruce Gibson
Ventura County Board of Supervisors
Oakland Unified School District Superintendent Anthony Smith
Boston City Council
Former governors

Former California Governor George Deukmejian
Former Secretary of Homeland Secretary Tom Ridge

http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons-ban-endorsements

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frazzled (Reply #2)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 07:04 PM

3. Agreed nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frazzled (Reply #2)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 07:46 AM

24. Finally! The LAPD is getting some good press.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 07:05 PM

4. If that's where we end up putting all our eggs then it's our fault

if nothing gets done. IMO

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 07:09 PM

5. Better some smaller victories than one massive defeat. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 07:38 PM

6. Yes

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 07:50 PM

7. Do we really need high capacity assault weapons?

Not for any reason I can conjure up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ruby the Liberal (Reply #7)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 08:07 PM

9. That's the point

It's the high capacity magazines that makes the weapon more lethal. If we take away the high capacity magazines, is it really necessary to ban the weapon?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #9)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 09:15 PM

16. Here's how I see it going down...

10 round magazines become the only legal ones.

Some sick bastard kills a bunch of people using only 10 round magazines.

Then...

Not only does some politician somewhere recommend an AWB, but stretches it into a question of "Why does anyone need...?" You can write in any kind weapon you don't think the general public can be trusted with.

I'm all for banning high-cap mags. I'm all for universal background checks. I'm all for closing every "loophole". In fact, I'm all for writing laws making gun owners accountable for their guns to the point of charging them as accessories to crimes committed with their guns should they be stolen. I think that's the ONLY possible way to force gun owners to keep their guns in safes rather than nightstand drawers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ruby the Liberal (Reply #7)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 10:13 PM

20. Zombie apocalypse...

comes to mind.

Just in case

I can't think of any reason we need them either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to one_voice (Reply #20)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 07:26 AM

23. There is that.

You win.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 07:53 PM

8. Piecemeal is fine, and something is better than nothing

In any case, I think even a comprehensive package would have to be "tuned" as we go along. Lawmakers need to grow a pair, and get used to actually having to regulate the domestic weapons industry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 08:22 PM

10. Makes sense

If you get the magazine capacity ban there really is no point in pursuing a new assault weapons ban. Magazine capacity is the major issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 08:39 PM

11. She's right. Magazine capacity and detachability are logical things

for discussion in this context, most of the rest (barrel shrouds, pistol grips, bayonet lugs, etc) is irrelevant.

The original AWB was framed around the invented scare-word "assault weapon", but then they were in the trap of having to identify what an 'assault weapon' is. Rather than admit it's a pointless buzzword, AWB proponents flailed around to try and make it mean something. The result is what you get when people go for knee-jerk and feel-good legislation rather than thoughtful construction.

Background checks I think should be job 1. Magazine restrictions will be irrelevant in 99%+ of gun-related crimes, but may help with mass murder attempts and can be crafted without actual infringement (although a proper limit and effectiveness can be debated)...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to petronius (Reply #11)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 09:09 PM

15. Back then, 'assault weapon' did mean something...those in the

Gun trade used it to refer to semi- auto versions of military assault rifles and battle rifles. It wasn't invented to scare, & more likely to describe, associate, and sell this family of guns.

These semiauto assault rifles are the guns that were targeted. 1st via the ATF 'sporting purposes only' restriction on imports of "assault type rifles" in '89, then via the 1994 ban.

So-called cosmetics were common elements many of these rifles had, and were needed to be identiified and enumerated in a valid attempt to separate these weapons, including domestically produced, from more traditional arms. This was done by the gun trade, then the ATF, and then in legislation.

True - It wasn't all that effective bill...mostly because the ability & willingness to circumvent the AW intent of the law was underestimated. Grandfathering also didn't help much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #15)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 09:41 PM

18. So it was marketing jargon intended to convey 'cool, badass, military-looking',

that was co-opted by AWB proponents on the belief that it meant 'particularly dangerous'? Same result, though - the AWB was in the trap of trying to define a class of firearms based on characteristics that were/are irrelevant in terms of crime and public safety. When included firearms are functionally identical to non-included firearms, the ban becomes an exercise in feel-good politics.

Far better to scrap the term entirely from legislative discourse, and try to craft something that is narrowly and accurately focused only on the aspects that really matter - magazines are really the only part I can see a logical case for...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 08:44 PM

12. Better do something soon or drop it altogether

People are hoarding weapons and ammo ahead ifs perceived gun ban. Most gun stores are back ordered on ammo, assault rifles, handguns, and some accessories. The gun sellers are making a ton off the assumption that there will be a ban.

So do it now or stop talking about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 08:52 PM

13. No.

It's pandering. It's ineffective. The weapon used in Newtown was not an assault weapon, yet the incident is being used to either reinstate the previous ban, or to make the definition broader so that it is, ex post facto, an assault weapon.

The politicians want to pass a ban so they can have the appearance of doing something instead of having to address the real issues surrounding murder.

I wish the democrats took on legalizing recreational drug use or the prison industry with the same vigor as so called "assault weapons"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #13)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 09:03 PM

14. It's one or the other

Either an Assault Weapon Ban or just a ban on high capacity magazines, but I'm not sure both are necessary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #14)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 10:09 PM

19. Exactly the problem

It's like terrorism. We're allowed to have a moral panic over the issue, to thump our chests and foolishly pronounce "never again!" and pass all kinds of laws and such, but we're not allowed to say "hey, they're attacking us because we support oppressive and brutal Middle Eastern governments as long as they keep the oil flowing".

So rather than spend $300 billion a year for a few years on getting off the fucking oil permanently, we spend that $300 billion decade after decade after decade on otherwise-unneeded military equipment and actions. But you can't mention that fact, because then you're a fucking terrorist-loving, America-hating traitor. Nobody listens to you, you get kicked off of any major media platform, and the opposite side feeds off of your downfall like a vampire.


Well, same shit, different topic.

A big chunk of deaths are directly or indirectly related to the illegal drug trade or use. But rather than address that issue, the politicians (almost all of them Democrats) are telling me that sorry, either we have to ban semiautomatic rifles fed from detachable magazines IF and ONLY IF they have certain exterior features, or we have to accept a brain-dead, arbitrary limit on magazine capacities. FUTURE magazine capacities, with nothing being done about the hundreds of millions of already-existing ≥11 magazines out there.


It's complete and utter bullshit.


I don't know if you saw this, but our mass-murder rate is trending downwards, starting from the mid 70's.





And in the 70's, the tactical rifle wasn't popular and handguns rarely had double-stack magazines. Ammo wasn't as good, either.

Somehow, despite the proliferation of handguns with double-stack magazines and tactical semiautomatic rifles, the mass-murder rate (whether you consider it to be 4+ or 5+) is trending downwards.

And yet, there's a crisis that we need to make PROCLAMATIONS ABOUT and TAKE ACTION ON. So, hey, we have the term already, "assault weapon", so let's just flog that pony and hope nobody notices that we're vilifying a gun used in maybe 250 homicides a year because we don't want to, you know, actually do anything.

Universal single payer healthcare would lower the homicide rate. Legalizing recreational drugs would lower the homicide rate. Not only would they lower the homicide rate, there would be many, incalculable positive benefits to pretty much everybody.

Lower prison spending. Better overall physical and mental health for everybody from infants to the elderly. Making small businesses more prosperous. Freeing innovators from the health-insurance shackles of corporate employment. Hemp products replacing wood, cotton, corn, pharmaceutical, and petroleum products. Less murder, abuse, and violence. Less "police state" activities like SWAT raids and financial reporting and police stops and fingerprinting & DNA databases.

But, we can't have that. So we have to panic about hardware instead.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 09:15 PM

17. yes. new...town.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 10:49 PM

21. She's delusional

 

If she thinks a ban on high cap mags has a good chance of passing the Republican controlled House.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 11:08 PM

22. Yes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 07:56 AM

25. No ban will make a difference until we address mental health -

- the recent case of Alice Boland is so bizarre I first thought it was an Onion piece. A little research confirmed it's true. If this case doesn't demonstrate that we need to address mental health as well as have mental health incidents entered into a Federal database so they will show up in the background check, then I'm not sure what will prove the point.

Alice Boland threatened G. W. Bush in 2005. She threatened him again to the Secret Service. She was sent to Federal court, found mentally ill, then sent to a mental health facility. Eventually released, she was able to legally purchase a gun - she passed the background check - and went to a school with intent to kill. Thankfully, she didn't know how to use it.

A timeline of her case is here> http://www.scribd.com/doc/125350089/Alice-Boland-Gets-A-Gun-Timeline

I've no clue why there isn't more media attention to this story.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lynne (Reply #25)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 08:04 AM

26. Mental health issues are not present in all cases of gun violence but guns are....

the whole 'mental health' thing is a smoke screen to cover the real issue, the easy availablity of guns and ammunistion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 08:14 AM

27. Mandatory bolt-action for all guns, that will fix it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 08:31 AM

28. Yes, and .50-caliber sniper rifles as well

Guns capable of bringing down an airplane should be regulated heavily. Right up there with machine guns.

Don

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 08:41 AM

29. Yes we do

Either these weapons have a use that other weapons do or they don't. If they don't, then banning them for the symbolic value becomes imperative.
Think about it.
We are being told that these weapons can be identified by certain features that have no use while the same people tell us that they need to have and are willing to pay for these features that have no use.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread