HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » benEzra » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 49 Next »

benEzra

Profile Information

Gender: Male
Hometown: Eastern North Carolina
Home country: United States
Current location: Eastern NC
Member since: Wed Dec 1, 2004, 04:09 PM
Number of posts: 12,148

Journal Archives

Those aren't toys. Your link has law-enforcement training replicas, and

replicas made for collectors (popular in Japan and a handful of other nations where collecting actual firearms is hard), and inexpensive movie props (much cheaper than blank-firing guns, and you can dub in muzzle flashes in post-processing).

15 USC 5001 covers all toys, but exempts both non-toys (like training replicas and collectibles) and actual weapons (e.g. airguns).

And yes, a Daisy Red Ryder is not a toy; it is a .177 caliber air rifle firing a projectile capable of causing serious injury if misused. They are trainers for real guns, and should be treated the respect afforded real guns, even if the consequences of an accident are sublethal. My son had one when he was younger, and I kept it in the safe and ensured he followed the Four Rules as if it were a .22.

As to *criminals* painting toys to look real or buying realistic looking replicas in order to carry out crimes, we could bring our murder rate down if we convinced more criminals to use nonfiring replicas, no? Yes, it presents an occupational hazard that the criminal using one for robberies might get himself shot in the belief that it was real, but if a career criminal is going to commit armed robbery then I'd much rather they do it with a fake gun than with a knife or an actual firearm. Not many innocent people a year are murdered with nonfiring replicas or Airsofts, and even the suicides-by-cop via replicas are a tiny fraction of suicides by firearms, falls, hanging, or blades, no?

They don't. That's *ALREADY* the law, since 1988 (15 U.S. Code 5001).

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/5001

15 U.S. Code § 5001 - Penalties for entering into commerce of imitation firearms

Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)

(a) Acts prohibited

It shall be unlawful for any person to manufacture, enter into commerce, ship, transport, or receive any toy, look-alike, or imitation firearm unless such firearm contains, or has affixed to it, a marking approved by the Secretary of Commerce, as provided in subsection (b).

(b) Distinctive marking or device; exception; waiver; adjustments and changes

(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2) or (3), each toy, look-alike, or imitation firearm shall have as an integral part, permanently affixed, a blaze orange plug inserted in the barrel of such toy, look-alike, or imitation firearm. Such plug shall be recessed no more than 6 millimeters from the muzzle end of the barrel of such firearm.

(2) The Secretary of Commerce may provide for an alternate marking or device for any toy, look-alike, or imitation firearm not capable of being marked as provided in paragraph (1) and may waive the requirement of any such marking or device for any toy, look-alike, or imitation firearm that will only be used in the theatrical, movie or television industry.

(3) The Secretary is authorized to make adjustments and changes in the marking system provided for by this section, after consulting with interested persons.

(c) “Look-alike firearm” defined

For purposes of this section, the term “look-alike firearm” means any imitation of any original firearm which was manufactured, designed, and produced since 1898, including and limited to toy guns, water guns, replica nonguns, and air-soft guns firing nonmetallic projectiles. Such term does not include any look-alike, nonfiring, collector replica of an antique firearm developed prior to 1898, or traditional B–B, paint-ball, or pellet-firing air guns that expel a projectile through the force of air pressure.

(d) Study and report

The Director of the Bureau of Justice Statistics is authorized and directed to conduct a study of the criminal misuse of toy, look-alike and imitation firearms, including studying police reports of such incidences and shall report on such incidences relative to marked and unmarked firearms.
(c) [1] Technical evaluation of marking systems

The Director of [2] National Institute of Justice is authorized and directed to conduct a technical evaluation of the marking systems provided for in subsection (b) to determine their effectiveness in police combat situations. The Director shall begin the study within 3 months after November 5, 1988, and such study shall be completed within 9 months after November 5, 1988.

(f) Effective date

This section shall become effective on the date 6 months after November 5, 1988, and shall apply to toy, look-alike, and imitation firearms manufactured or entered into commerce after November 5, 1988.

(g) Preemption of State or local laws or ordinances; exceptionsThe provisions of this section shall supersede any provision of State or local laws or ordinances which provide for markings or identification inconsistent with provisions of this section provided that no State shall—

(i) prohibit the sale or manufacture of any look-alike, nonfiring, collector replica of an antique firearm developed prior to 1898, or

(ii) prohibit the sale (other than prohibiting the sale to minors) of traditional B–B, paint ball, or pellet-firing air guns that expel a projectile through the force of air pressure.

(Pub. L. 100–615, § 4, Nov. 5, 1988, 102 Stat. 3190.)


What you're advocating is to take the rules for toys and apply them to *non* toys, e.g. BB guns, collector's replicas, and Airsoft replicas, by repealing the exemption for non-toys in 15 U.S. Code § 5001(c). Talking about "toy guns" when talking about expanding the toy rules to non-toys is a bad-faith bait and switch.

Is that sarcasm/Poe, or are you serious?

Because gun ranges are not only legal everywhere in the United States, but also legal in Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom, and every nation in Europe.

I suppose "the entire planet except for Japan and a couple other nations" counts as "some places", making that statement technically true, but it doesn't capture the scope of it.

It's not people like you who are pushing to enact crap like the NY SAFE Act.

It's mostly urban elites who don't know a semiauto from a machinegun, or a .223 from a .45-70, and who either aren't aware of the issue's nuances or don't care.

How about stop trying to ban the most popular guns/magazines? That is a huge turnoff where I live.

Such ban proposals have been one of the biggest albatrosses around the party's neck in the last couple of decades in rural and semi-rural areas, including my neck of the woods in eastern NC.

For what it's worth, a pro-gun Dem (Roy Cooper) just won the governorship here, winning a majority of the *same voters* that rejected Clinton. There were a lot of issues in play, but the ill-advised ultimatums to gun owners early in the primary were repeated over and over and over here throughout the general campaign and hurt HRC here, just as they did elsewhere.

And FYI, if you advocate banning modern-looking rifle handgrips, and magazines over 10 rounds, you are (perhaps unintentionally) advocating for "banning people's guns", since such bans are aimed squarely at the most popular guns in U.S. homes. Most gun owners don't hunt, so the issue is primarily not about deer rifles.

On the contrary, there is really no other basis for harassing a cohort

who commit violent crimes at less than 1/5th the rate of the population at large and 1/2 the rate of police officers. Especially given the gun control lobby's ostensible support for licensure and training.

By reflexively attacking licensed concealed carry, gun control advocates demonstrate that they are much more concerned with criminalizing gun possession by the trained, vetted, and nonviolent than they are about addressing misuse by the criminal or irresponsible.

What's *daft* is the gun control lobby's obsession with criminalizing the least misused guns and harassing the most thoroughly vetted owners, IMHO.

Actually, all surveys but the non-anonymous GSS have shown steady ownership or recent increase.

Pretty much the *only* survey reporting a long-term decline has been the General Social Survey conducted by the University of Chicago, which is expressly non-anonymous, conducted via in-person interviews, funded by gun control advocates (Joyce), and run by a gun control advocate. Ownership rates assessed by Pew, Gallup, and others in anonymous surveys are much higher, and actual hard data (e.g. firearms possession licenses, in states that require them like IL and MA) show increases, not decreases.

Boston Globe - Gun licenses on the Rise in Massachusetts

Illinois FOID License Holders Up 33% 2009-2013



FWIW, the FOID numbers have kept rising; I believe the number of active Illinois FOID cards as of 12/15/2015 was 1,942,008, which would be a 54% increase in FOID cards since 2009, if I have that number right. And since FOID cards correlate 1:1 with on-the-books legal ownership in IL, a 33% (or 54%) increase in valid FOID's is a commensurate increase in licensed ownership---in the GSS's own backyard.

I'll point out that these are both heavily Dem, deep-blue states, but the same trends are at work in other blue states, as well as purple swing states and red states, whether you look at all the available proxies for ownership or at anonymous self-reported ownership.

As of 9/2016, a Pew Research Center poll put the number at 44% admitting to a gun in the house, 51% saying no gun, and 5% refusing to answer the question. A 1/2016 CNN poll put the numbers about the same, with 40% saying yes and 9% refusing to answer.

Carry licensure, which isn't correlated 1:1 with ownership but is still loosely correlated, has more than doubled since 2007 and IIRC roughly quadrupled since 1999.

WSJ - Permits Soar to Allow More Concealed Guns

Here in eastern NC, my local shooting range is now jam-packed every time I go there, when it used to be fairly sparse years ago, and I have a lot of coworkers and friends who bought their first gun within the last few years, including a longtime coworker who bought his first two months ago.

It is an article of faith among gun control advocates that the GSS is the only reliable measure of gun ownership, but if you look the totality of the metrics, including hard license data, overall ownership trends do not appear to be moving in the prohibitionists' favor. And it is incontrovertible that the styles of guns people have been buying in the last 25 years are not favorable to gun control advocates' handgrip-shape and magazine-capacity crusades, either. As I mentioned upthread, the market has been moving strongly away from larger calibers and straight stocks, toward the modern-looking centerfire .22's and double-stack 9mm's that the gun control lobby wishes to ban or severely restrict.

Perhaps it is hard to see from within the cloistered DC/NY/CA bubble, but Bloomberg et al are trying to outlaw guns and magazines that are legal in Canada and much of Europe, the banning of which would be considered a serious violation of the social contract across much of the United States. If your bans have gotten only 5% to 10% compliance among owners in New York and Connecticut, just how well do you expect those bans to play in NC, WV, Texas, Ohio, Tennessee, Florida, or Michigan? It is hard to express just how repellent the NY SAFE Act and similar crap is in states with a strong culture of lawful ownership.

FWIW, there were warnings of the flaws in the current approach in Virginia's 2015 state senate races, which IIRC handed control of the Virginia legislature to the repubs:

Washington Post - Did gun control cost McAuliffe and Democrats the Virginia election?

Too bad no one inside the bubble was listening.

I didn't realize it was produced by the same people who did the Taken series. Geez.

"Guns are bad, unless I can make a bunch of money portraying their use by vigilantes and revenge killers, then the more the better." It's people like that that make me wish California wouldn't exempt VIPs and the entertainment industry from its rifle handgrip and magazine bans.

I liked the original Taken OK, except for the "wantonly torture your enemies and smile about it" part (!), and Taken 2 had its moments, but I didn't like Taken 2 well enough to watch Taken 3. Especially since any movie that starts by killing off Famke Janssen does not sound like one that would be entertaining to me; I'd rather go rewatch Tron. Or, heck, Wild Zero.

I noticed the ads my local NPR affiliate for this film completely suppressed the gun angle,

knowing that mentioning it would be a huge turn-off. Even most fence-sitters wouldn't be too interested in paying $40 to sit through two hours of preaching.

IIRC, the ad portrayed as a "high-powered lobbyist decides to buck the establishment" story, which it most certainly isn't.

A point that is applicable to any other parking garage in any other place.

As I've mentioned elsewhere, to get an NC license, I had to pass a Federal background check, state background check, FBI fingerprint check, mental health records check, take a class on self-defense law and tactics, and pass a shooting qualification on a range, live fire. For those of us who have passed that bar, there is no rational basis to say that it's OK to carry when transiting to/from a bus-station parking garage or a train-station parking garage, but not an airport parking garage, when picking up a friend late at night or whatever.

Your position comes down to "I despise gun owners and especially carry license holders, and I want to screw with them as much as possible." Pragmatically, one downside of that approach is that it makes gun owners oppose even common-ground positions like carry licensure (if you want to know why Vermont-style permitless carry is spreading across the country, look back at how you treat carry licensure). Expressing contempt for background checks, training, and licensure undermines any common ground you might otherwise try to achieve on background checks, training, and licensure, doesn't it?

The other downside is that "I hold you in contempt and I don't want your kind in my country" is a bummer of a campaign message when 15+ million voters have carry licenses, and as the Attorney General of Virginia found out the hard way last year, a whole heck of a lot of them are Democrats. And the thing is, that contempt-signaling doesn't gain you *anything* in terms of violence reduction; of the 13,500 murder victims in the United States annually, approximately 0 were shot between airport parking garages and terminals by holders of carry licenses.

Here in NC, there are between 550,000 and 600,000 holders of carry licenses, or three times Clinton's margin of loss in NC. Obviously carry licensure wasn't the issue driving the train here (there are also ca. 2 million "assault weapon" and over-10-round magazine owners here, and 4-5 million gun owners total, out of 10.5 million), and the Dem governor we just elected is a strong supporter of carry licensure, but the whole "Licensed Killers" meme is still asinine and counterproductive nationally. The demographics and political trends are both running strongly in the opposite direction.

Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 49 Next »