• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Obama Supports New Bid To Ban Assault Weapons, Close Gun Show 'Loophole'

Status
Not open for further replies.
How does preventing law abiding citizens from buying semi-automatic weapons legally, stop criminals from acquiring and using them illegally.

Why not tackle this in a more logical way? Let's work on RFIDs, Biometrics, better background checks, mental health records.

Upping campus / school ground security (think of a US Marshall on planes kind of deal); arming and training teachers does not count.

and better handling of violent occurrences by the media for three.
 
I consider myself "conservative" and I have no problem with an assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole. We never should have let the previous ban expire. In fact we should take things a step further and limit the purchasing of ammo (though I'm not sure how we would do this). Also some sort of metal health requirement for a gun license. So maybe I'm not conservative.
 
I hear this argument a lot. And my response is always the same. If a shooter can do just as much damage just as effectively without 'military-like' rifles, then why the fuck do the military waste their money on military rifles?
And nobody could give you a decent answer yet? I'll help you with that.

1.) Rifles serve multiple purposes. In particular, most small arms combat the military finds itself in is medium/long range combat types. Rifles excel at that for multiple reasons that I won't get into here. Suffice it to say, if you're shooting at a target further than 15 feet away, rifles become the preference thanks to the higher accuracy and consequently, they represent multi-role efficiency in the most common combat scenarios.

2.) Military-grade rifles come in automatic varieties (burst fire, constant). Handguns generally do not.

3.) Assault Rifles can hold more ammo before requiring a mag/clip switch-out. This is beneficial for obvious reasons.

4.) Assault Rifles (military or otherwise) have more rails that can handle more attachments. Lasers, tactical lights, scopes, suppressors.

5.) Assault Rifles generally give less "kick" (recoil) than handguns. Important for obvious reasons. When you have to shoot in rapid succession, less recoil means greater accuracy.

and that said, all soldiers carry a normal handgun for close quarters fighting. They are generally a better choice in those situations, as smaller size provides its own advantages. HK Mk 23 SOCOM is still the handgun of choice for our special forces, as far as I'm aware (a very expensive brand of pistols and typically considered the best brand of handgun, btw).

As for the general point you were replying to, let us all recall that the Virginia Tech shooter killed 32 people (+17 wounded) with a pair of 9mm handguns. No assault rifle was required in the biggest massacre of this type in US history. I think that was his point. Yes, this guy used an assault rifle, but he could (and would) have arrived at the same results if he had used his 2 stolen pistols instead. He may have even done it faster since he would have had a gun in each hand. Either way, his point remains and hopefully your question has been answered.

I consider myself "conservative" and I have no problem with an assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole. We never should have let the previous ban expire. In fact we should take things a step further and limit the purchasing of ammo (though I'm not sure how we would do this). Also some sort of metal health requirement for a gun license. So maybe I'm not conservative.

Being "conservative" doesn't mean being automatically opposed to common sense legislation. Being dumb is not a pre-requisite of conservatism.
 
What? How do you come to this conclusion? If a military power was here enforcing the populace it wouldn't matter how many guns your neighbors have. It won't do a thing to a trained military force.

Ragtag resistances all over the middle east have confounded our own army, which is the most powerful in the world.

If there were somehow a foreign power on this soil, every step they took would be in terror of hidden snipers, and guerrilla assaults using homemade bombs and all kinds of horrible shit.
 
Is it not possible to, in addition to the mandatory back ground check, have potential gun owners also be screened by mental health experts?
 
Crazy in this case was just short hand for "someone deluded enough to think their views or whatever McVeigh's actual reasons were are more important than human lives"
I'd submit that the insane paranoia propagated by groups like the NRA and the Tea Party are in the same ideological family as the aims espoused by McVeigh.
 



Mental health is a large part of the problem.

The problem with that argument, today, is ignoring that we have people who think communism means universal healthcare. There are several places that need to be attacked to solve this issue...

Everyone in this thread agrees we need to address healthcare.

Everyone in this thread can't agree that certain weapons are also the problem.

Magazines are more of a problem than the weapons themselves, and would be MUCH easier to regulate(as they have been in the past).

As a gun owner, I'd be perfectly fine with outlawing beta-mags(100rnd mags) and pistol mags above 15rnds.
 
You want to argue that something isn't in the constitution while you basically take an amendment completely out of historical context for your own benefit. You want it both ways, keep going.

Yeah 'ive been trolled too many times by you before. I'm done. DY told me whats up.
We both know you will just run to IRC to ask a mod to ban me, right?

Have fun with your faux-outrage.
 
I'd submit that the insane paranoia propagated by groups like the NRA and the Tea Party are in the same ideological family as the aims espoused by McVeigh.

with one very (very) important distinction, they haven't yet decided that blowing people up is a good way to achieve those ideological goals.
 
How does preventing law abiding citizens from buying semi-automatic weapons legally, stop criminals from acquiring and using them illegally.

Where do you think criminals get semi-automatics from? Honest question, where, between manufacturing and criminal possession, do you believe the weapons go?
 
So has anyone presented a good argument against this yet?

Eh. Sure you can add it. Just makes things slightly more inconvenient. Instead of me having 5 30 round magazines. I'd just have to buy more of the smaller type I guess. They're very simple and quick to change.

It's frivolous, feel good stuff that really doesn't matter. The only main effect would be increasing prices of pre-ban magazines thus allowing re-sellers to make more money.
 
I'd submit that the insane paranoia propagated by groups like the NRA and the Tea Party are in the same ideological family as the aims espoused by McVeigh.

You kidding they are the same group. The Oklahoma City bombing was in response to Ruby Ridge and WACO. Far right groups getting pissy about the government intrusion and killing of their own when the gov feel they posed a threat. Where the government fucked up was killing kids and it lead to a resurge of the militia movement.


Yeah 'ive been trolled too many times by you before. I'm done. DY told me whats up.
We both know you will just run to IRC to ask a mod to ban me, right?

Have fun with your faux-outrage.

Oh what a surprise no actual rebuttal just a bunch of shit talking.
 
This is just as bad as the liberals who argue for a strict constructionist reading of the 2nd Amendment.

The Constitution does in fact guarantee the right to an abortion via the Fourteenth Amendment. That's what the Supreme Court said and so that's what the document says. You might disagree, but if we're reading the text charitably, that's what it says, and if we're not reading the text charitably, then we get to have lots of arguments over how well-regulated your militia is.

Here's the 14th Amendment for reference:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
 
Magazines are more of a problem than the weapons themselves, and would be MUCH easier to regulate(as they have been in the past).

As a gun owner, I'd be perfectly fine with outlawing C-mags(100rnd mags) and pistol mags above 15rnds.

Or go even further and return to the de facto Federal Assault Weapon Ban limits of 10 rounds for assault rifles and 5 for shotguns.
 
lol OK.

If you just want to fire a gun in a firing range, that's cool, keep the guns secure inside the range and ban them from all public places.

I'd be for this. Get rid of concealed carry nationwide. Get rid of open-carry outside of rural areas.

-National registration
-National law requiring reporting of lost/stolen firearms
-Nation law stating firearms must be locked in a safe if anyone other than the homeowner lives in the house.
-Revamped electronic background checking system.
-Tackling the stigma on mental health and providng every man, woman and child with affordable and vital mental health services.

And to be honest...the government can't do it all for us. We as a society need to be more responsible. I'm sorry this woman lost her life but the notion she didn't keep her guns in a bolted safe in her closet just boggles me.

I know many here just want to ban guns. I don't and considering 47% of American households have a legal firearm in them there are plenty that utilize their second amendment rights. I want sensible gun laws. An assault weapons ban won't help. And like I said, I'm already subject to it in NY so I have no dog in this fight. I'm not arguing to protect my stuff. It's already compliant. And even if they add more, it doesn't apply to stuff made prior to the ban.

All this nonsense does is boost gun sales. Grats.



That's not going to happen. That's not realistic and I see no point in the mental masturbation of "Ban all guns, yeah!"

Get rid of the bolded and I'm with you. Even if you live alone you should have a gun safe. You can have friends over, you can be victim of a home intrusion. Always always always a safe. Also, add a mandatory reexamination ever X years (four? five?) to make sure you're still fit to own a gun.
 
with one very (very) important distinction, they haven't yet decided that blowing people up is a good way to achieve those ideological goals.
I said the ideas are related.

When these ideas fester in society, you get right wing hate groups, a resurgence in state "militias," extremist political parties like the Tea Party, the "prepper" movement (which is largely a right wing phenomenon), and on the extreme fringes of these movements are the dangerous types like McVeigh.

I do find it quite ironic that Lanza's mother was murdered by the same weapons she was so sure would protect her.
 
How does preventing law abiding citizens from buying semi-automatic weapons legally, stop criminals from acquiring and using them illegally.

Why not tackle this in a more logical way? Let's work on RFIDs, Biometrics, better background checks, mental health records.

Upping campus / school ground security (think of a US Marshall on planes kind of deal); arming and training teachers does not count.

and better handling of violent occurrences by the media for three.

And so what was Adam Lanza before that day last week?
Was he a criminal?

Your view is flawed. It only takes a small mental imbalance or a breakdown or an emotional upset to turn a 'law abiding citizen' into a mass murderer - and in continuing to have such easy access to powerful assault weapons, the death toll will not fall.
 
Where do you think criminals get semi-automatics from? Honest question, where, between manufacturing and criminal possession, do you believe the weapons go?

My point is that there are faaaaar too many in circulation for this ban to be effective NOW. Capiche?

Hey, these weapons are illegal now guys. You think criminals are going to be first in line to give them up?
 
I like this talk about tackling mental health...

...after we've already systematically cut down state and national support through the 70s and 80s, putting the burden on the prison systems to deal with the mentally ill (see: Chicago, IL).
 
My point is that they are faaaaar too many in circulation for this ban to be effective NOW. Capiche?

Hey, these weapons are illegal now guys. You think criminals are going to be first in line to give them up?

things break.

when they are illegal they become immensely more valuable.
 
How does preventing law abiding citizens from buying semi-automatic weapons legally, stop criminals from acquiring and using them illegally.

Well for one the numerous studies showing less guns equals less gun violence. The stats backing it. The proof of many countries that have done the same thing. The fact that mass shootings have doubled since the ban Clinton brought in expired.
 
That's not going to happen. That's not realistic and I see no point in the mental masturbation of "Ban all guns, yeah!"

I'm thinking long term. If you take a small percentage of guns off the street and out of homes per year, you'd eventually get the job done.

I'm not even for banning all guns. The idea that it wouldn't work is odd to me though. Given enough time, I think it would.
 
Is it not possible to, in addition to the mandatory back ground check, have potential gun owners also be screened by mental health experts?

It's not impossible. Expensive, though. It would also require quite a bit of time to develop a standardized protocol with which to make such a system work properly. It also doesn't address the 310,000,000 guns already on the market, or their owners.

But it could be done, IMO. And because it can be done, it should be in this case.
 
I like this talk about tackling mental health...

...after we've already systematically cut down state and national support through the 70s and 80s, putting the burden on the prison systems to deal with the mentally ill (see: Chicago, IL).

Adam Lanza had access to all the mental health resources you could reasonably expect.

There is no reason to expect any policy changes will prevent incidents like these from recurring.
 
I hear this argument a lot. And my response is always the same. If a shooter can do just as much damage just as effectively without 'military-like' rifles, then why the fuck do the military waste their money on military rifles?

But they're not the same. For one, military weapons are automatic, have large magazines and are more effective at long range. I fully support the banning of automatics and large-capacity magazines.

I get that the general public looks at an over-the-counter AR-15 and goes "jesus, look at that huge killing machine!". I get it. They're mean looking and look very ultra-military. But when it comes to putting a bullet through the barrel it's not a whole lot different from any other gun.

I still think it's the sheer number of guns that we need to be looking at, and at making ownership harder.
 
I am so sick of the "criminals will get guns" argument.

how many times has it turned out it was an average Joe or a kid with a mental problem? its not master criminals that are going on shooting spree's.
 
I wish we'd stop tossing around "crazy" as a blanket descriptor for people like McVeigh or Adam Lanza.

These people are obviously not normal and were delusional to some extent, but McVeigh was an extremist who had very specific (and obviously misguided) political aims. He's the very definition of a domestic terrorist. He might have subscribed to terrible ideologies, but dismissing him as simply "crazy" is hopelessly simplistic.

As for Lanza, it's obvious that mental illness played a role, as did environmental factors--including easy access to semiautomatic weapons.

But I absolutely abhor the "crazy people will always do crazy things" argument. It's the argument of a simple-minded person.

Reminds me of this article

THE MENTAL ILLNESS OF TIMOTHY MCVEIGH
Victor Bloom MD

At a noontime lunch Monday, just hours after Timothy McVeigh's execution, I told my friend I was thinking of writing another article about Timothy McVeigh. He said that everything that could be said about him has already been said. I replied that I didn't think so.

Here's what I had in mind. In all the talk about Timothy McVeigh, about his major act of terrorism, about the death toll, the number 168 dead, so many more wounded and psychologically damaged, that they were men, women and children, that it was a Federal building, that it had to do with Ruby Ridge and Waco, that in his mind it was an act of war against the federal government, that the casualties were anticipated 'collateral damage,' there was not much mentioned about his being out of his mind.

By his own report, he thought about it long and carefully, he had a rationale, that it included the fear and expectation that the government was going to confiscate all weapons, that they had no right to do this, that the government was getting out of hand and needed to be stopped. In his own mind he was a courageous hero for an honorable cause, and he had a small circle of believers and followers. It would seem that his mind was working fine--- he was methodical, systematic, organized and logical. He could not have carried out the ultimate act without his mind working like a Swiss watch.

He must have insisted to his defense attorneys that they not use the insanity defense. He did not want his act to be dismissed as 'crazy.' He knew he committed a crime by the rule-books, he was caught, convicted and ready to take his punishment. He wanted to go down in history as a martyr for a noble cause. He had no further statements in the end because he wanted the act to speak for itself. Further words would merely sully the purity of his act.

His previous published words said it all quite succinctly. In a letter to Robert Popovich, a former neighbor of Terry Nichols, McVeigh wrote:

"It was at this time, after waiting for nonviolent checks and balances to correct ongoing federal abuses and seeing no results, that the assault-weapons ban passed, and rumors subsequently surfaced of nationwide Waco-style raids scheduled for the spring of 1995 to confiscate firearms. It was in this climate then that I reached the decision to go on the offensive, to put a check on government abuse of power, where others had failed in stopping the federal juggernaut run amok."

His own words and actions fit the definition of first-degree murder--- he committed murder with malice aforethought, knew the difference between right and wrong, knew the consequences of his actions and freely chose, decided in his 'right mind' that he was going to do what he wanted to do. He had a vision, a Big Picture, that in the long run, what he did would be a good thing--- he would get the Federal Government to think twice about confiscating weapons.

What he did was based on a couple of government bungled attempts to prevent the accumulation of serious weapons, arsenals of ammunition and bombs, in the hands of those who could potentially do a lot of damage. The government was trying to do its job of assuring domestic tranquillity. And then, fed by a rumor of a government 'juggernaut' which would disarm his local militia, he took it upon himself to wage war on--- the government, snarlingly dismissed by its opponents as the 'gummint.' Some people believe the 'gummint' has no right to assess income tax. During Prohibition it was fair game to shoot 'revenuers.'

What we have here is not schizophrenia. McVeigh probably did not hallucinate, but his thinking bordered on 'delusional.' Some would argue that his belief was not delusional, that there was a grain of truth to it, but every delusion has a grain of truth. His thinking was somewhat paranoid--- 'they are plotting against me.'

Hinckley, who shot president Reagan, was judged to be schizophrenic, and so he was deemed to be 'not responsible, by virtue of mental illness.' And so he has been hospitalized ever since then, in effect incarcerated for life, as a warning to other schizophrenics, that you cannot commit an egregious crime and expect to get away with it. Even if you are mentally ill, you have to obey the law. The Japanese man who massacred a bunch of schoolkids recently with a butcher knife was diagnosed with schizophrenia. Every now and then an obviously mentally ill person commits destructive acts out of deranged thinking, but it is relatively rare.

We must face the fact that the danger of serious destructiveness is greater in those not considered mentally ill, than those who are. These people's mental illness is much more subtle and hard to discern. They do not have obvious symptoms; they are clever in their ability to mask extreme degrees of underlying emotional turmoil. There is no easy answer to the solution of this problem. What we do have to do is eradicate stereotypical and simplistic thinking about the workings of the mind and what constitutes mental illness. We must learn to look under the surface to see the depth and complexity of the human condition.

Dr Bloom is Clinical Associate Professor of Psychiatry, Wayne State University School of Medicine. He is a member of the American Academy of Psychoanalysis and on the editorial board of the Wayne County Medical Society.
http://www.victorbloom.com/detail.php?id=1825

Was he delusional? Yep. Was he fit to stand trial? Yep. Was he "crazy"? Depends really.
 
Thank you :)

Prohibition won't work is the point. Period. So I doing see the point in the "Ban all guns" nonsensical rhetoric.

I agree with this, basically. And I agree that the assault weapons ban as previously drafted is basically a waste of time and I don't want Obama pushing it. I think it's conceivably possible to put together a ban that would make a difference, though, although it would probably have to be somewhat more stringent. There's majority support for banning all semiautomatic weapons, but that might be excessive -- but semiautomatic rifles and shotguns could probably be limited to a greater degree than the ban accomplishes.
 
Adam Lanza had access to all the mental health resources you could reasonably expect.

There is no reason to expect any policy changes will prevent incidents like these from recurring.

If he had gone to a store and tried to buy a gun, chances are he'd have passed a background check. That is one thing that needs to change rapidly.

I agree with this, basically. And I agree that the assault weapons ban as previously drafted is basically a waste of time and I don't want Obama pushing it. I think it's conceivably possible to put together a ban that would make a difference, though, although it would probably have to be somewhat more stringent. There's majority support for banning all semiautomatic weapons, but that might be excessive -- but semiautomatic rifles and shotguns could probably be limited to a greater degree than the ban accomplishes.

I really don't think this is true.
 
So why not ban handguns Obama, you POS. He was found with an assault rifle and TWO HANDGUNS.

BAN KNIVES. BAN VEHICLES. BAN FOODS THAT LEAD TO HEARTATTACKS. Fuck this world, I want off.
 
My point is that they are faaaaar too many in circulation for this ban to be effective NOW. Capiche?

Hey, these weapons are illegal now guys. You think criminals are going to be first in line to give them up?
So because it's hard we shouldn't bother tackling it?

Too many legally acquired weapons have been used in shootings this year and in past years. I don't think we as a society are content to consider mass shootings the cost of gun ownership.
So why not ban handguns Obama, you POS. He was found with an assault rifle and TWO HANDGUNS.

BAN KNIVES. BAN VEHICLES. BAN FOODS THAT LEAD TO HEARTATTACKS. Fuck this world, I want off.
...whoa.
 
Well for one the numerous studies showing less guns equals less gun violence. The stats backing it. The proof of many countries that have done the same thing. The fact that mass shootings have doubled since the ban Clinton brought in expired.


I'll believe you if you show me a situation where a country had as many firearms in circulation to begin with before banning. Closest I can think of is the buy back program in Australia.
 
So go hire a gun at the fucking range. Why do you need one under the bed?

Because that is a sub-optimal experience. It's similar to being a car enthusiast and only being able to rent cars. People like putting custom rims, exhaust systems and filters in their cars, right? Maybe do a chip mod to extract stronger performance and/or gas mileage. All to enhance their experience. In the same way, gun owners like to do trigger modifications, sight modifications, purchase different types of barrels, and buy attachments (which are generally weapon type-specific) to enhance their enjoyment.

You don't have to like the answer, of course, but that's the answer to your question. You can't do a lot of the things that make gun ownership entertaining and interesting for gun owners.

So why not ban handguns Obama, you POS. He was found with an assault rifle and TWO HANDGUNS.

BAN KNIVES. BAN VEHICLES. BAN FOODS THAT LEAD TO HEARTATTACKS. Fuck this world, I want off.
A bit more nuance is needed here. When you're ready to communicate like an adult, we'll be ready to listen.
 
I'd be for this. Get rid of concealed carry nationwide. Get rid of open-carry outside of rural areas.



Get rid of the bolded and I'm with you. Even if you live alone you should have a gun safe. You can have friends over, you can be victim of a home intrusion. Always always always a safe. Also, add a mandatory reexamination ever X years (four? five?) to make sure you're still fit to own a gun.

I don't agree about getting rid of OC or CC. But I'd concede the safe part. But how do we handle the logistics of reexamaning half of American households every X years?
 
I really don't think this is true.

gun-control-policies.jpg


This is back in August. That's 57%.
 
So because it's hard we shouldn't bother tackling it?

Too many legally acquired weapons have been used in shootings this year and in past years. I don't think we as a society are content to consider mass shootings the cost of gun ownership.

...whoa.


Or you can stop jumping off the deep fuckig end and listen to some of the reasonable proposed solutions in this thread. Not banning all fucking assault weapons does not equal "not tackling it"
 
I'll believe you if you show me a situation where a country had as many firearms in circulation to begin with before banning. Closest I can think of is the buy back program in Australia.

Australia isn't good enough? It's suicide rate dropped, gun assaults are 30 times lower than America, had several mass shootings before, zero after the ban. Destroyed 1/3 of it's guns after the ban can into place.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom