Support NeoGAF

[GK86]

Link.

A federal appeals court on Tuesday upheld Maryland's ban on assault rifles, ruling gun owners are not protected under the U.S. Constitution to possess "weapons of war," court documents showed.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit decided 10-4 that the Firearm Safety Act of 2013, a law in response to the massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, by a gunman with an assault rifle, does not violate the right to bear arms within the Second Amendment.

"Put simply, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protection to the weapons of war," Judge Robert King wrote, referring to the "military-style rifles" that were also used during mass shootings in Aurora, Colorado, San Bernardino, California, and Orlando, Florida.

 

[kmax]

Good. I hope other states follow them. Maryland is setting an example.

 

[Master Yoshi]

Finally some good news.

 

[le.phat]

complete misread. ignore pls. OH GOD.

 

[AuthenticM]

fan-fucking-tastic

 

[Yaboosh]

States rights except if they go against our beliefs. Then federalism.



(This post assumes that most Republicans are against this ruling)

 

[Stinkles]

In b4 a clip is not a magazine and pictures of "normal" rifles

 

[Apdiddy]

Can't wait for Trump to tweet about it and NRA to raise a stink about "Second Amendment rights."

According to the twisted logic of the NRA, I should be able to own a grenade, bazooka or a tank in my driveway because of Second Amendment.

 

[Messofanego]

It's usually assault rifles used in mass shootings, right? What's the data on that? I could see handguns not being very effective for mass killings. Welp, this is a dark thought process.

 

[ahoyhoy]

Maryland stays winning.

Also just realized our state anthems opening lyrics "The despot's heel is at your door, Maryland!" is finally true.

 

[Somnid]

This is really weird interpretation because "weapons of war" is exactly the type of arm the second amendment was designed to include. It would be far better to say that the type of modern weapons we have today were not thought of, but going war with your arms absolutely was.

 

[SlimySnake]

It's usually assault rifles used in mass shootings, right? What's the data on that? I could see handguns not being very effective for mass killings. Welp, this is a dark thought process.

Nope. most of the mass shootings are done by handguns.

Banning ARs might prevent high body counts in crowded places like the Orlando nightclub, but hand guns can still kill dozens as we have seen before.

 

[Horns]

Exactly as it should be. There's no practical need for these types of guns. It's extremely rare that they are used for self defense.

 

[Stinkles]

Nope. most of the mass shootings are done by handguns.

Banning ARs might prevent high body counts in crowded places like the Orlando nightclub, but hand guns can still kill dozens as we have seen before.

Most shootings, period, are handguns. Mass shootings are defined as Data should be adjusted to account for that. It would also be useful to include rounds fired without reloading etc.

the definition of mass shooting is basically four people, but it starts to break down into specific factors:

A mass shooting is an incident involving multiple victims of gun violence.[1] The United States' Congressional Research Service acknowledges that there is not a broadly accepted definition, and defines a "public mass shooting"[2] as one in which four or more people selected indiscriminately, not including the perpetrator, are killed, echoing the FBI definition[3][4] of the term "mass murder". Another unofficial definition of a mass shooting is an event involving the shooting (not necessarily resulting in death) of four or more people with no cooling-off period.[5]

Point being that statistically handguns are OF COURSE the number one weapon for the phenomenon, for roughly the same reason that convertibles are not the most common vehicle in accidents.

Oh and the CDC is prevented from gathering data to help us have this conversation, because Congress has banned funding for that research because they are good, wise, thoughtful people and not craven pieces of shit.

 

[zelas]

This is on the heels of our courts saying the bail bonds system needs to be overhauled. No more jailing poor people for being poor. Shout out to John Oliver for helping get that ball in the goal.

You're next Hogan!

 

[Madness]

It's usually assault rifles used in mass shootings, right? What's the data on that? I could see handguns not being very effective for mass killings. Welp, this is a dark thought process.

Not necessarily. While assault rifles are more known because of how quick they can inflict damage, a lot of spree killings happen by handguns. But this is sensible. No American need to really own an AR-15 if they aren't in the military or some kind of high level SWAT response team. Your ability to hit lot of skeet shooting targets does not outweigh the danger against Americans by terrorists or sociopaths getting their hands on a rifle and blowing away 20 kids etc. Never known why you need more safety than a hunting rifle, handgun or even shotgun for home self defense. Let's see how it holds up when it goes to inevitable supreme court with Gorsuch on the bench.

 

[Piggus]

Unsurprisingly, people here are immediately happy about this despite the fact that a nationwide assault weapons ban lasting ten years was found to be completely ineffective in stopping/reducing mass shootings or gun crime in general.

Do some research, inform yourself about what the AWB actually does, and use common sense. Most of us are democrats who value logic and reasoning, and that needs to apply to ALL issues. A fucking flash hider or collapsible stock is not going to make someone less effective in their ability to murder people. A gun that looks "scary" isn't automatically more deadly. How did the AWB work out for people who lost their lives at Columbine or Virginia Tech, where the shooters made up for lack of magazine capacity with more magazines? In both cases, guns that were legal under the AWB (including a 9mm carbine without the "scary" features that the ban prohibs) were used.

Nobody should be celebrating ineffective, feel-good legislation that serves no purpose other than to make people think, falsely, that a serious problem has been addressed. That's no better than complacency.

 

[Yaboosh]

Unsurprisingly, people here are immediately happy about this despite the fact that a nationwide assault weapons ban lasting ten years was found to be completely ineffective in stopping/reducing mass shootings or gun crime in general.

Do some research, inform yourself about what the AWB actually does, and use common sense. Most of us are democrats who value logic and reasoning, and that needs to apply to ALL issues. A fucking flash hider or collapsible stock is not going to make someone less effective in their ability to murder people. A gun that looks "scary" isn't automatically more deadly. How did the AWB work out for people who lost their lives at Columbine or Virginia Tech, where the shooters made up for lack of magazine capacity with more magazines? In both cases, guns that were legal under the AWB (including a 9mm carbine without the "scary" features that the ban prohibs) were used.

Nobody should be celebrating ineffective, feel-good legislation that serves no purpose other than to make people think, falsely, that a serious problem has been addressed. That's no better than complacency.

Many here would say ok ban all guns.

I'm guessing that wasn't the point of your post though.

 

[Piggus]

Many here would say ok ban all guns.

I'm guessing that wasn't the point of your post though.

Well, many people are incredibly ignorant when it comes to gun laws/ownership/legislation. So maybe people should practice what they preach and inform themselves about these issues.

Not necessarily. While assault rifles are more known because of how quick they can inflict damage, a lot of spree killings happen by handguns. But this is sensible. No American need to really own an AR-15 if they aren't in the military or some kind of high level SWAT response team. Your ability to hit lot of skeet shooting targets does not outweigh the danger against Americans by terrorists or sociopaths getting their hands on a rifle and blowing away 20 kids etc. Never known why you need more safety than a hunting rifle, handgun or even shotgun for home self defense. Let's see how it holds up when it goes to inevitable supreme court with Gorsuch on the bench.

PERFECT example. Skeet shooting with an AR? Really? Way to make yourself look knowledgeable about how guns like the AR-15 are actually used.

 

[iRAWRasaurus]

Not necessarily. While assault rifles are more known because of how quick they can inflict damage, a lot of spree killings happen by handguns. But this is sensible. No American need to really own an AR-15 if they aren't in the military or some kind of high level SWAT response team. Your ability to hit lot of skeet shooting targets does not outweigh the danger against Americans by terrorists or sociopaths getting their hands on a rifle and blowing away 20 kids etc. Never known why you need more safety than a hunting rifle, handgun or even shotgun for home self defense. Let's see how it holds up when it goes to inevitable supreme court with Gorsuch on the bench.

I mean I want to own an AR-15 just because reasons.

 

[Horns]

Unsurprisingly, people here are immediately happy about this despite the fact that a nationwide assault weapons ban lasting ten years was found to be completely ineffective in stopping/reducing mass shootings or gun crime in general.

Do some research, inform yourself about what the AWB actually does, and use common sense. Most of us are democrats who value logic and reasoning, and that needs to apply to ALL issues. A fucking flash hider or collapsible stock is not going to make someone less effective in their ability to murder people. A gun that looks "scary" isn't automatically more deadly. How did the AWB work out for people who lost their lives at Columbine or Virginia Tech, where the shooters made up for lack of magazine capacity with more magazines? In both cases, guns that were legal under the AWB (including a 9mm carbine without the "scary" features that the ban prohibs) were used.

Nobody should be celebrating ineffective, feel-good legislation that serves no purpose other than to make people think, falsely, that a serious problem has been addressed. That's no better than complacency.

You mean the research that said gun crimes involving assault weapons declined?

http://www.factcheck.org/2013/02/did-the-1994-assault-weapons-ban-work/

The final report concluded the ban's success in reducing crimes committed with banned guns was ”mixed." Gun crimes involving assault weapons declined. However, that decline was ”offset throughout at least the late 1990s by steady or rising use of other guns equipped with [large-capacity magazines]."

Ultimately, the research concluded that it was ”premature to make definitive assessments of the ban's impact on gun crime," largely because the law's grandfathering of millions of pre-ban assault weapons and large-capacity magazines ”ensured that the effects of the law would occur only gradually" and were ”still unfolding" when the ban expired in 2004.

What about the research showing high-capacity magazines confiscated by the police were reduced during the ban?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/inve...abac85e8036_story.html?utm_term=.3fba4a046f69

 

[Mammoth Jones]

OK. Just buy the same rifle without a pistol grip.

 

[ahoyhoy]

This is on the heels of our courts saying the bail bonds system needs to be overhauled. No more jailing poor people for being poor. Shout out to John Oliver for helping get that ball in the goal.

You're next Hogan!

Does that mean no more yellow Big Boyz Bail Bond pens in liquor stores?

And the way it looks now Hogan will probably be reelected. He's kept his nose clean and hasn't done a whole lot to really piss off black voters more than any given conservative.

 

[Piggus]

You mean the research that said gun crimes involving assault weapons declined?

http://www.factcheck.org/2013/02/did-the-1994-assault-weapons-ban-work/



What about the research showing high-capacity magazines confiscated by the police were reduced during the ban?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/inve...abac85e8036_story.html?utm_term=.3fba4a046f69

Declined, then offset. Again, show me a case in which a mass shooting was deterred by the ban. Not only that, but crimes involving these types of guns were and always have been minuscule to begin with. Where's the outrage and fear surrounding handguns, which are used in nearly 90% of all gun crimes?

OK. Just buy the same rifle without a pistol grip.

Bu bu but the gun won't look as scary! Why would you want to murder people if you gun doesn't look as menacing as before?!

 

[Coriolanus]

Tbf the dude has a point: the real problem is handgun violence. This, while better than nothing, is pretty god damn close to nothing.


Also if dudes MUST carry a firearm, id rather they carry something not easily concealable. Fuck concealed carry, i wanna be able to identify the crazies.

 

[Messofanego]

Nope. most of the mass shootings are done by handguns.

Banning ARs might prevent high body counts in crowded places like the Orlando nightclub, but hand guns can still kill dozens as we have seen before.

Didn't know that, thanks.

247 guns
Shooters brought an average of four weapons to each shooting; one carried seven guns. We don’t know how all the guns were acquired, but of the ones we know, 141 were obtained legally and 39 were obtained illegally.

9mm

Shooters in the two deadliest mass shootings in U.S. history carried models of the country’s most popular types of weapons. The gunman who killed 32 students and teachers at Virginia Tech on April 16, 2007, used a 9mm semiautomatic Glock 19 (and a .22-caliber Walther P22, another popular caliber). These guns, used by many law enforcement officers, are generally light, inexpensive, easy to conceal and require little strength to control. In this tally of weapons, 9mm semiautomatic handguns show up more than any other weapon.​

There's a big gun infographic for each of the mass shootings.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/mass-shootings-in-america/

 

[Stinkles]

Declined, then offset. Again, show me a case in which a mass shooting was deterred by the ban.

Look, I am pro gun - I shoot targets, I'm OK with sensible hunting and I absolutely understand that ranchers and so on actually need very high powered weapons and so on. In fact, I'm OK with everything up to Rocket Launchers IF the person can demonstrate a need, and IF the person can demonstrate competency and IF the person can demonstrate responsibility - and the state can enforce it. But your post is silly. You can't prove a negative.

Every sane, rational adult prepared to secure their weapons sensibly should be allowed to apply for a gun and a license is a great way to approach that.

Australia showed it can be done.

 

[killer rin]

Well, many people are incredibly ignorant when it comes to gun laws/ownership/legislation. So maybe people should practice what they preach and inform themselves about these issues.

Or you know, we come from countries with moderate to strict gun laws and we can see first hand how they affected our societies for the better. Not all gun regulations are terrible

 

[Horns]

Declined, then offset. Again, show me a case in which a mass shooting was deterred by the ban. Not only that, but crimes involving these types of guns were and always have been minuscule to begin with. Where's the outrage and fear surrounding handguns, which are used in nearly 90% of all gun crimes?

You want to talk about minuscule, show me how many instances an assault rifle has been used in an instance of defense gun use. Then I'll show you a much larger number of people shot with assault rifles. Far more people are hurt with them than they help.

I'm OK with guns, but gun regulation, accountability, and barriers save lives. That goes for regulated handguns further also. If you're so confident in your position, you should support unrestricted federal gun research. If you're not for it then you know it's because science will prove your positions wrong.

 

[Hickbilly Deluxe]

According to the twisted logic of the NRA, I should be able to own a grenade, bazooka or a tank in my driveway because of Second Amendment.

You can, actually. You can own damn near anything if you can get all the proper permits and signatures needed. Even grenade launchers and cannons are perfectly okay if you can swim through the red tape ocean (mobile weapons have to be unfirable however). Hell even flame throwers, outlawed by international law for use in war, are legal in the US.

 

[AuthenticM]

Possession and commerce of any firearm but hunting rifles should be outlawed.

 

[Piggus]

Look, I am pro gun - I shoot targets, I'm OK with sensible hunting and I absolutely understand that ranchers and so on actually need very high powered weapons and so on. In fact, I'm OK with everything up to Rocket Launchers IF the person can demonstrate a need, and IF the person can demonstrate competency and IF the person can demonstrate responsibility - and the state can enforce it. But your post is silly. You can't prove a negative.

Every sane, rational adult prepared to secure their weapons sensibly should be allowed to apply for a gun and a license is a great way to approach that.

Australia showed it can be done.

I'm not saying I don't want stricter regulation, because I do, even as a gun owner. I think the current buying process is ridiculous. But singling out guns based on features that people deem scary isn't stricter regulation in any meaningful way. It's a nuisance that serves no purpose other than to rally gun owners against any an all legislation, which was certainly not the intensional of the law. It causes people to go out and buy up guns and ammo en masse out of fear that it's their only chance to own those types of guns. To your point, most people who wouldn't be able to demonstrate a need for a handgun wouldn't be able to demonstrate a need for ANY gun, including an assault rifle. So why is the assault rifle singled out? Who determines what a gun's "purpose" is? Is an AR built specifically for match target shooting still a weapon of war? Furthermore, a "weapon of war" could encompass anything from an assault rifle to a WWII bolt action rifle to a civil war-era musket. The problem is if you want to ban a certain type of weapon, you have to very specifically define it, and that's where the AWB falls flat. It's unable to accurately define what an assault weapon is without banning countless other guns and thus facing insurmountable legal challenges.

Or you know, we come from countries with moderate to strict gun laws and we can see first hand how they affected our societies for the better. Not all gun regulations are terrible

I never said all gun regulations are terrible. I'd happily accept regulations that improve the screening process and deter people who buy guns on impulse. I'd happily accept licensing or better tracking measures so guns don't illegally exchange hands so easily. What I DONT accept is politically motivated regulations that have already been tried and proved to be virtually completely ineffective. If the AWB was such a success, why did the government let it expire? And why was it so soundly rejected by both democrats and republicans alike when it was proposed after Newtown?

You want to talk about minuscule, show me how many instances an assault rifle has been used in an instance of defense gun use. Then I'll show you a much larger number of people shot with assault rifles. Far more people are hurt with them than they help.

I'm OK with guns, but gun regulation, accountability, and barriers save lives. That goes for regulated handguns further also. If you're so confident in your position, you should support unrestricted federal gun research. If you're not for it then you know it's because science will prove your positions wrong.

I do support unrestricted federal gun research. Guess who came to the conclusion that the AWB didn't work? The government, during their postmortem.

Also, you're assuming the only reason people own these types of guns is for defense. People own guns for many reasons, and it's not up to you to determine whether those reasons are "legitimate" or not. Most people don't own ARs for defensive purposes. They own them because they're extremely versatile and fantastic target shooting or hunting rifles with the added benefit of being much more effective as a defensive weapon than a typical hunting rifle. The AR is by far the most popular rifle sold today, which isn't really surprising. But despite that, it's still handguns that remain the biggest problem by far when it comes to crime.

You can, actually. You can own damn near anything if you can get all the proper permits and signatures needed. Even grenade launchers and cannons are perfectly okay if you can swim through the red tape ocean (mobile weapons have to be unfirable however). Hell even flame throwers, outlawed by international law for use in war, are legal in the US.

It's worth noting that while all of that may sound outrageous, the NFA laws in place that ensure that kind of stuff is only used by enthusiasts/collectors are very effective. There are only two recorded cases of someone using a legally registered machine gun to murder someone, and that was long before the Hughes Amendment caused machine prices the skyrocket.

 

[diehard]

Good post, Piggus.

 

[Dr. Benton Quest]

It's handguns that need to go.

An out right ban on firearms would be more effective though.

 

[Piggus]

It's handguns that need to go.

An out right ban on firearms would be more effective though.

Of course it would be. It would also require repealing the second amendment, which would require ratification from two thirds of the states. Considering the vast majority of all Americans support at least some form of gun ownership (even if we disagree on specific gun laws), the 2A is here to stay.

Handguns really need to be better regulated, but banning them outright would also be extremely difficult.

 

[TS-08]

Of course it would be. It would also require repealing the second amendment, which would require ratification from two thirds of the states. Considering the vast majority of all Americans support at least some form of gun ownership (even if we disagree on specific gun laws), the 2A is here to stay.

Handguns really need to be better regulated, but banning them outright would also be extremely difficult.

Ratification actually requires 3/4ths of the states, just FYI.

 

[Hades Hotgun]

You want to talk about minuscule, show me how many instances an assault rifle has been used in an instance of defense gun use. Then I'll show you a much larger number of people shot with assault rifles. Far more people are hurt with them than they help.

I'm OK with guns, but gun regulation, accountability, and barriers save lives. That goes for regulated handguns further also. If you're so confident in your position, you should support unrestricted federal gun research. If you're not for it then you know it's because science will prove your positions wrong.

Nothing you posted actually addresses what the poster said though, let alone counters it. Assault weapons (i.e. black rifles, since full auto assault rifles are already highly restricted) are not a major problem in the US. Period. Full stop.

This is a feel good issue, with no meaningful impact on gun crime in the US.

Gun violence is overwhelmingly tied to handguns. Of course more sensible gun laws would help this problem, but we are never gonna get there when one side is brainwashed in to thinking "Obama's gonna terk muh gerns" and the other side is hamstrung by blind ignorance to the relevant facts.

Getting indignant because your knowledge of an issue is challenged does not help to promote your cause, no matter how just you may think it is.

Possession and commerce of any firearm but hunting rifles should be outlawed.

So an AR-15 is okay, but you wanna take my shotgun? Seriously, know something about the subject before takingon a ridiculous position.

 

[Hands of Stone]

Maryland stays winning.

Also just realized our state anthems opening lyrics "The despot's heel is at your door, Maryland!" is finally true.

Yeah, MD is a pretty nice place to live.

 

[BigBeauford]

Yeah buddy! I am glad I bought a Mini-14 when I did. Those are going to skyrocket in value!

 

[stryker1138]

Piggus knows what's up.

 

[Elandyll]

Thank god. Loving Maryland here.

 

[Water]

Or you know, we come from countries with moderate to strict gun laws and we can see first hand how they affected our societies for the better. Not all gun regulations are terrible

This particular gun regulation is random nonsense. It doesn't have a purpose beyond pissing off gun owners or would-be gun owners, and getting an opportunist politician some votes from people irrationally afraid of guns. Even if your stance was that public health / safety / whatever benefits warrant banning all firearms, you should be championing solid regulation of that nature that is based on evidence of actual effects, and if the regulation banned guns selectively, the selection criteria should be based on the evidence as well. No one rational should be defending this:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/17/miller-here-are-81-specific-gun-models-banned-mary/

I'm from Finland, we have quite strict gun regulation and not all of it sensible. But at least ours isn't based on "does this gun look scary to voter target group A".

 

[TheRedSnifit]

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u....s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

I see that their priorities are in the right place.

"Assault rifle" bans are pure nonsense devised purely for political hand-wringing. Dems can go home and say they've achieved so much on gun reform, while Republicans get to go home and tell people how those dumb liberals got taken to the woodshed with an empty bill. Win-win for everyone! Except you know, all those people who keep dying on the streets daily from handguns.