A strong speech by Obama touched on many important points — ideology, war, and communications, among others — but these two paragraphs redefined gun safety, which up until now has been largely considered a matter of domestic politics, into a matter of anti-terrorism and national security:
To begin with, Congress should act to make sure no one on a no-fly list is able to buy a gun. What could possibly be the argument for allowing a terrorist suspect to buy a semiautomatic weapon? This is a matter of national security.
We also need to make it harder for people to buy powerful assault weapons like the ones that were used in San Bernardino. I know there are some who reject any gun safety measures. But the fact is that our intelligence and law enforcement agencies — no matter how effective they are — cannot identify every would-be mass shooter, whether that individual is motivated by ISIL or some other hateful ideology. What we can do — and must do — is make it harder for them to kill.
In the context of the San Bernardino Daesh-inspired terrorist attack, arguments for weak gun safety legislation become arguments that enable domestic terrorism and make the GOP a soft party unwilling to take action to keep the country safe in the face of modern threats. Massachusetts residents have to consider: to the degree he is unwilling to take action to strengthen the Commonwealth’s gun safety laws, is Charlie Baker — a Republican as much as the fanatics who voted to arm domestic terrorism suspects last week — able to keep the state safe?
In 2013, he appeared to oppose a ban on assault weapons. I would hope he supports Rep. Ehrlich’s bill that would keep guns out of the hands of people on the terrorist watch and no-fly lists. That would seem to be a litmus test of basic sanity.
at the federal level.
What is your definition of the difference between an assault weapon, a machine gun and a semi-automatic hunting rifle?
an assault weapon, a machine gun and a semi-automatic hunting rifle?
…a military-grade assault rifle (such as a M-16/M-4) only fires three-round bursts or single shots.
A machine gun is fully automatic. It fires until the trigger is released or it runs out of ammunition. This is also true for submachine guns or machine pistols. (Some machine guns have settings for limited bursts.)
A semi-automatic hunting rifle fires one bullet per trigger squeeze.
That said, (illegal) conversion kits can make some semi-automatic rifles (such as the various civilian-grade M-16 variants) into full-automatic weapons.
If that’s the definition of a hunting rifle, then is the next level down all the way to 18th century muskets that you have to plunge each ball down the barrel before firing?
Lever-action and bolt rifles require specific action to advance individual bullets into the chamber and cock the gun’s hammer; hence they’re not automatic, semi or otherwise.
The same applies to revolvers.
Many hunting rifles are either lever-action of bolt fed.
I’m not at all a gun expert. I think I would have to be shown how all of these work in order to really understand.
Let me know and I would be glad to take you to the range and let you try out some.
I have a visceral reaction to guns, starting with I can’t stand the noise. It’s to the point that if I ever became POTUS I’d be tempted to ban 21-gun salutes in my presence.
It’s not as loud a regular gun.
…and your right, hardly any sound. That was what we shot at Webelos camp, but Boy Scouts used actual rifles so I stayed away at that point. Plus, between that and archery I was a terrible shot anyway.
I wear ear plugs under my hearing protectors… and if they were legal, I would use a silencer.
I worked in a machine shop for about 10 years and that really hurt my hearing (it was when I was young, indestructible, and OSHA was not closely watching)
And your first two definitions are already very restricted in the US. Any gun that fires more than 1 bullet with one pull of the trigger cannot be bought in the US without a federal license which is very hard to get.
The term “assault rifle” that is used in the press is just a military “looking” rifle. If you said “we should make any rifle that fires more than one bullet at a time almost impossible to get”, every pro-gun person will tell you that is already the case.
I guess that explains why so few people die at the hands of assault weapons, because they’re so hard to get. Being illegal and all.
I also guess that NRA and its sycophants are really just posturing when they object to limits on high-capacity magazines and such. I mean, since there are so few assault weapons around, who would use them?
If I knew what you meant by “assault weapon”, maybe I could respond. I have not heard of anyone dying at the hands of a military select fire assault rifle.
I mean any weapon that “fires more than 1 bullet with one pull of the trigger”. The ones you claim are so hard to get. The ones that kill so many of us, especially kids in schools.
Feel free to call the weapon whatever you like.
Have mass shootings involved guns that fire more than one bullet per pull of the trigger? My impression was that the weapons used in these shootings are what Paul refers to as semi-automatic – that is, one bullet per trigger pull, and no additional action required to advance another bullet into the chamber.
I did some checking, it seems that the weapons of choice for our mass murderers are semi-automatic, one round per trigger pull. I have been under the impression that most of the shooters had modified weapons to allow multiple-rounds per trigger pull.
Frankly, it doesn’t matter to me. I think we have too many guns, too many high-capacity magazines, and too few restrictions on guns, magazines, and ammunition. US manufacturers produced more than ten million NEW guns in 2014, and we are the world’s largest exporter of guns.
I apologize to chilipepr for my snark, I was mistaken about the type of weapons used by our epidemic of mass shootings.
Where did you get that stat? 10 million seems low.
I posted cites to this information in my comment last Friday, to which you replied. Here is the relevant paragraph (with links):
The source for the 10M/year is the federal government (ATF), by the way.
Part of getting good sensible gun laws is everyone being able to at least communicate about it and understand what each other is talking about.
I have held a Mass concealed carry permit and have been an active competition shooter for almost 30 years. The issue a lot of “NRA” members have is when someone says “Assault weapons should be outlawed!!” their first question is “what does that mean since anything that fires more than one bullet with one pull of the trigger is already almost impossible to get.”
The current “Assault Weapon” laws all outlaw rifles on how they look, not how they operate. TV makes you believe a lot of things that are not true. Ho load do you think a silence rifle is? From TV I would think it is about as load as opening a can of soda, in reality it is probably louder than any clap you can make with your hands.
Almost all gun owners do want sensible gun laws, but when people talk about an assault weapon ban, they know that the law is not what people think it is.
Most gun owners believe that the ultimate goal is to completely outlaw guns and if they compromise, the next year will be another restriction. If we came out with sensible gun laws goals I believe that there would be agreement. But I also believe that gun owners would want a balance. If I was “king for a day”, I would recommend:
– Every state would establish a permitting system, that requires a background check and safety course that would have to go through to get one. This would be for open or concealed carry.
– Unless the police chief can show an documented reason why not (Arrest, non-voluntary psych hold, drugs, drunk driving…) the license must be granted (not wanting to give them out is not a reason)
– Every gun transfer must be accompanied by a background check that can be done at the polices station or any gun store for a cost of <$10 (Stores in Mass already do it on every purchase)
– any license immediately grants you the same right in all states
– National database on all gun serial numbers
– Federal minimum jail time for anyone using a gun in a crime
– 10 year moratorium on new gun laws
I am not saying it would be unanimous and nobody would be completely happy, but I think you would have a super majority of the people agreeing.
There are currently more than 300 million guns in the US, and the vast majority of guns used in crimes are not legally obtained, so these laws would be obeyed mostly by people who would never commit a crime.
Just my thoughts…..
So your optimism seems unfounded. A more likely effect of the current radicalism of gun safety opponents — voting, for example, to arm terrorist suspects — is that the other side will be radicalized and enact prohibition ala Australia and Scotland when they gain the majority, just as you fear. US history is full of rapid shifts like that — for example, women’s suffrage, the end of the gold standard, and the fall of legalized racial segregation.
It’s not belief in isolation that determines public policy, but the intensity and organization of the belief’s adherents. Gun rights advocates are, as a class, more motivated and better organized; hence more politically effective than their opponents in matters of national policy.
Australia and Scotland aren’t useful test cases because both their political systems are (top-down) parliamentary. In the United States, on the other hand, the NRA exercises bottom-up power in sufficient Congressional and state legislative Districts to exercise considerable veto power with minimal opposition.
Consider the law in Vermont, with the following criteria for gun ownership and concealed carry:
I strongly oppose the gun fetish politics I see on the Right, but this is the current political reality: Supporters of gun prohibition (even if that were Constitutionally allowable) have nowhere near the depth and breadth of political support, nor the political skill, they would need; and that ain’t gonna change in the foreseeable future.
Vermont does have lenient gun laws, but they are consistently ranked #1 or #2 in the lowest violent crime in the US.
How do you convince Vermont to change their laws when what they have is clearly working for them? Hence the difference between Senators Clinton and Sanders on gun control.
is here.
I note, with interest, the following (from your link, emphasis mine):
According to my inflation calculator, the $200 “making and transfer taxes” corresponds to $3,549.82 inflation-adjusted dollars.
The simple expedient of revising that tax so that it reflects, in 2015, its intent when passed in 1934 would generate THIRTY FIVE BILLION DOLLARS in government revenue (based on the ten million guns per year cited cited by the ATF) — or perhaps make a significant dent in this home-grown industry of death.
I wonder — did American citizens of 1934 believe this act deprived them of a fundamental constitutional right? Or did they, perhaps, want to stop the slaughter?
The NFA primarily concerns military ordinance or that associated with organized crime (including, among other things, short-barreled shotguns, silencers, and grenades). The weapons used in most mass shootings aren’t covered by federal statute. One exception was the Tech 9 machine pistol employed in the 1999 Columbine shootings: the weapon was banned under the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban (since expired).
More importantly, gun control (in the sense of registration, background checks, etc.) didn’t use to be controversial. New York’s Sullivan Act was passed in 1911.
Finally – the Great Depression notwithstanding – the culture wasn’t as full of existential fear as it is now. Consider the underlying politics: the broad-based cultural climate is such that mass shooting increase gun purchases. and share prices go up for firearms manufacturers.