Tuesday, February 27, 2018

Assault Weapon Trade Off

One of my gun loving FB Friends linked to the following image.  Of course it is incorrect because there are legal definitions of Assault Weapons.  Common attributes used in legislative definitions of assault weapons include:
  • Semi-automatic firearm capable of accepting a detachable magazine
  • Folding or telescoping (collapsible) stock, which reduces the overall length of the firearm
  • A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon
  • Bayonet lug, which allows the mounting of a bayonet
  • Threaded barrel, which can accept devices such as a flash suppressor, Suppressor, compensator or muzzle brake
  • Barrel shroud, which prevents burning of shooter's arm or hand as a safety device.
  • Grenade launcher


Now I can understand how gun lovers would enjoy owning one of these Rambo looking bad ass weapons.  What I can not understand how they feel having them readily available in our society is worth the lives of young children, concert goers, etc.  My point is that each weapon has an optimal purpose.  The first two rifle styles are perfect for most hunting and personal defense. I am even fine with them being semi-automatic with a ~10 round clip.


The last "rifle" is only really good for shooting a lot of bullets very quickly in a general direction while rarely reloading.  There is very little use for this when hunting or defending...  It may be fun once in awhile, but my friends who would own these are too stingy to shoot it often. (ie bullets are expensive)


 The big question to me is... Is that occasional thrill really worth the lives of children, women and men who are killed when they get into the wrong persons hands?  Because the ultimate reality is that no one in the USA would be murdered by an "assault weapon" if they were not present and readily available in our society


For comparison:  Canada Laws      Swiss Laws

55 comments:

Anonymous said...

This isn't going to happen. The gunning down of our children is the price we have as a society agreed to pay so that people can have assault weapons. That deal is done.

--Hiram

jerrye92002 said...

what part of "This is just a rifle" do you not understand?

John said...

This Howitzer has a rifled barrel... Does that mean it is a rifle we should all have the right to purchase?

John said...

Food for thought from Merriam Webster

rifle
a : a shoulder weapon with a rifled bore
b : a rifled artillery piece

I guess that is why the pistol grip makes assault weapons a bit different from a rifle.

jerrye92002 said...

"rifle" is a noun. "Assault" is a verb.

If you continue to insist that a rifle with a grenade launcher but no grenades is deadlier than the same rifle without a grenade launcher, then your reputation as a "rational moderate" becomes seriously suspect.

Does a pistol grip on a pistol make it an assault rifle? How about with a standard clip of 17?

isn't the first step in solving a problem to define the terms used? "Assault rifle" has no meaning in this discussion.

John said...

Merriam Webster disagrees with you...

assault (noun)
a : a violent physical or verbal attack

b : a military attack usually involving direct combat with enemy forces ·an assault on the enemy's air base

c : a concerted effort (as to reach a goal or defeat an adversary) ·an assault on drug trafficking

John said...

What makes "Assault Weapons / Rifles" more dangerous than "Hunting / Defense" rifles is the clip size and their ability to be bump fired by hand or with the assistance of a bump stock.

So if we figure out how to disable those features on these weapons, you can keep the grenade launcher and bayonet mount...

John said...

It is pretty easy to stay the "rational moderate" when the anti-gun tribe and the pro-gun tribe are so irrational and divided... :-)

John said...

Some related links:

CNN How the NRA Beat the Kids Again

Wall Street and Gun Companies

Remington Files for Bankruptcy

Maybe capitalism will fix our problem...

Laurie said...

your so called rational moderate position has much more in common with what the dems in congress are proposing related to gun safety than with the pro gun- no gun laws GOP.

I searched for an example of something dems in congress are proposing that is not rational and moderate and couldn't find anything.

your positioning yourself in the rational middle between two extreme groups really has no basis in reality. the dems already occupy the rational moderate space

jerrye92002 said...

perhaps Democrat gun control measures will fix the problem. Obama was the best gun salesman ever. Once everybody has one, crime will go down substantially.

What makes assault rifles dangerous is their clip size, you say. Yet you do not object to handguns with clip sizes of 17 or 19? They are very common and they are semi automatic, just like the rifles. And Trump has just banned bump stocks, though they were not used in Florida so you can quit arguing as if they were. once again, you are proposing gun-control measures that would have absolutely no effect on the tragedy du jour or any repeat of it.

jerrye92002 said...

Laurie, I guess I am missing something in the definition of "rational." to me passing legislation in the heat of the moment usually amounts to doing the wrong thing – an emotional rather than rational reaction – and in this particular case most of the Proposals being floated are things that would make absolutely ZERO difference to school shootings like this one. To think otherwise is simply wishful thinking. We had an assault weapons ban in this country for 10 years. The FBI could not find any evidence of a change in the crime statistics. It has been illegal to carry a gun onto school property for many years, and yet these gun free zones seem to be the most tempting of targets.

John said...

Jerry,
It is a LONG way from a 9mm handgun with 15 rounds in the clip.

to an AR15 with 50 to 100 rounds in it's cartridge.

John said...

For comparison... The popular handgun round is 9 mm vs a 223 bullet in an AR15.

John said...

As for Bump Stocks... First of all, one apparently does not need one to Bump Fire an AR15.

Second, Trump may be powerless to ban bump stocks.

John said...

Jerry,
Now you do realize I hope that you are the only one here who believes this...

"things that would make absolutely ZERO difference to school shootings like this one"


For convenience... My list of simple improvements that still allow people to own their guns.

- Limiting clip sizes to 15 or fewer bullets

- Banning modifications that enable semi-automatic weapons to perform as an automatic

- Mandatory back ground checks for every gun purchase or transfer. Eliminate gun show / internet sales loop hole

- Mandatory confiscation of guns from people with anger issues / restraining orders

- A national database to track who has loss their right to own a gun (ie felony, mental illness, restraining order, etc) Improve State and Agency reporting.

- Mandatory Gun Registration (especially for hand guns and semi-automatic rifles)

- Severe penalties for ANYONE holding a gun that is NOT registered, that should be.

- Allow law suits against people who allow their guns to be stolen, especially if they have not reported the theft.

John said...

The question is what to do about those millions of 15+ bullet cartridges we have allowed to flood our country?

And what to do about the fact that AR15 type weapons can be bump fired without a modification?

John said...

The first thing to do is to make our schools secure, since the mess we have created will take a long time to fix.

Of course that still leaves people as sitting targets when they attend concerts, go to county fairs, go to church, are leaving school, etc... :-(

John said...

And by people I mean our children, our Parents, our siblings, etc.

Now for you Dirty Harry's out there... With a guy bump firing into your family reunion from cover...

How many family members do you think could be killed before anyone can take him out?

John said...

I am guessing the management of Dicks Sporting Goods considered many of the questions I raise above...

Dicks to Stop Selling Assault Weapons and Large Cartridges

jerrye92002 said...

You aren't paying attention. First words out of the man's mouth are that this test will be in "full auto." That is an illegal weapon except for a few highly regulated collectors. You can't buy one. None of the other shooters we are trying to "stop" had one. You are clinging to an illusion of control that is wholly unrealistic.

And which is easier to carry, 1 AR-type rifle and 4 10-round clips, or two Glock-19 pistols with 38 rounds, one in each hand? Which fires faster?

jerrye92002 said...

As for my family reunion, let me ask: How many will be killed if none of us fires back? How many will be killed if everybody fires back?

John said...

Not sure about the one video or how he converted the gun "illegally".

But these are just normal AR15's using the bump fire technique. Can you tell a difference, I don't think Grandma or the Kids will.
Video 1
Video 2
Video 3

Please remember that I am fine with Grandma having a glock in her purse if she has been trained /licensed and has a registered gun.

jerrye92002 said...

So how does requiring Grandma to be trained, licensed, registered and required to keep her gun in a safe stop ANYTHING that a nutbar like this guy might do? Laws are for the law-abiding.

John said...

To slowly but surely remove the illegal guns from our society...

We need to identify and confirm "what" are legal guns, and who are responsible and capable gun owners...

And we need to stop legal guns from moving into the illegal market...


I mean how will we take guns away from the people who go crazy or become very angry if we do not know he owns a gun?

Our goal is to ensure that trained, responsible people can keep and carry their hunting and self defense weapons. While these weapons are removed from the homes of scary angry, insane and general irresponsible people.


The second part of my list is focused around this basic need.

- Mandatory back ground checks for every gun purchase or transfer. Eliminate gun show / internet sales loop hole

- Mandatory confiscation of guns from people with anger issues / restraining orders

- A national database to track who has loss their right to own a gun (ie felony, mental illness, restraining order, etc) Improve State and Agency reporting.

- Mandatory Gun Registration (especially for hand guns and semi-automatic rifles)

- Severe penalties for ANYONE holding a gun that is NOT registered, that should be.

- Allow law suits against people who allow their guns to be stolen, especially if they have not reported the theft.

John said...

Jerry,
By the way, do you now finally acknowledge that there is little difference between an AR15 being bump fired and an M16 on automatic?

RIchard Eagan said...

I think we need to more clearly define the weapons. Is an AR15 a rifle or a carbine? What would be the barrel length of a rifle vs a carbine? As I understand the rifle is for long distance hunting and the carbine is better for denser brush areas and close in hunting. One can argue either way for self defense but somehow that is being taken out of the issue. I would offer that this is an individual choice and the present laws are more than adequate. More laws does nothing towards enforcement of existing laws. This last, and other, shooting(s) had multiple laws broken and yet no charges or action brought against those that broke those laws.

John said...

Welcome Richard, We rarely get new voices. :-)

I personally am indifferent to barrel length or if it is called a carbine or rifle. I am more concerned about:
- rate of fire
- duration of fire
- and possibly accuracy range

John said...

I have come up with no good reason that any normal citizen needs a bump fireable, 100 round gun that can hit targets from long distances...

Well other than for the "fun" of it. And to me that "fun" is not worth the death of hundreds of innocent people and children each year. Or the fear of us sending our children to public venues where someone can shoot off 100 rounds before anyone can even respond... Even if they are carrying a handgun.

John said...

One of the most inadequate laws has to do with this...

Mandatory confiscation of guns from people with anger issues / restraining orders

Did you know that as it stands, all a judge can do today in most States right now is put a violent offender or high risk person on the "No Buy" list?

Even if they had identified these shooters as high risk to the general public and our children... They would have been unable to confiscate their guns...

How does that make any sense to gun rights advocates?

John said...

WAPO 5 States

Reuters Gun Restraining Order May have Saved FL Kids

jerrye92002 said...

About that 10-round magazine limit.... The Parkland shooter had.... 10 round magazines. The police had 17-round clips. Advantage: shooter.

RIchard Eagan said...

I think my only issue is that this is really up to the states. If a state wants to change their gun laws, change their gun laws. The federal government has no business in this other than protecting our rights if any state oversteps its bounds.
John, I understand your indifference but we really need to define what we are talking about to cut off the fear mongers. They are throwing about terms interchangeably that are not even similar to the true facts. Every time we rebut we should start with the definition, then the rebuttal. That really stops them.

John said...

Jerry,
So are making the argument that it could have been much worse if the kid had a bigger duffle bag? That does not reassure me.

Richard,
The problem with your logic is that guns move across state lines too easily. NYT Where Chicago's guns came from.

WAPO Guns Via the Mail

John said...

Richard,
You have read my factors / definition...
- rate of fire
- duration of fire
- accuracy range

What would yours be?

Finally, if your child, spouse or parent is killed by a mass shooter in public place with a rapid fire weapon that came from out of state... Will that in some way help you make sense of it?

I am happy to support conceal/carry, hunting weapons, etc... But bump fire big clip poorly tracked guns do not have a practical use in our society. Especially if the cost is dead, injured and/or severely traumatized children.

RIchard Eagan said...

And I do not disagree with your definitions.
however, we need to be together on this. I am an old man and have fixed many things in my life. In each case nothing could be done until all parties agreed on the definition of the problem and then debated its causation's. We, as a country and a people do not know what we are talking about regarding weapons. We, it seems cannot even talk about the problem; School Security. We are focusing all of our conversations on the vehicle and not the causes or the solution.
What is the quick fix? My experience is you need a quick fix while working on the long term solution.
What problem are we solving?
What are the causation's?
Can they be solved or is deterrence the answer?
Our representatives appear to have no desire to fix this and we are just wagging our tails in subservience to them by following their obfuscations.

John said...

Unfortunately both the gun lovers and gun haters seem pretty well dug in.

And according to this piece the Gun Lovers are hesitant to let us do a thorough review of the problem.

My background is in the areas of engineering, business management and process / problem solving. In fact I spent ~6 years of my life a Sigma Black Belt. So I am big supporter of problem statements, goals, data based decision making, etc. Now who is going to approve and fund non-partisan research and resolution?

RIchard Eagan said...

Good question. My answer is that it needs to be done locally. I again agree with you. Everyone is dug in because they all have their agendas. Somewhere the conversation needs to be directed towards school safety and that is locally. The gun lovers are hesitant to let us do a thorough review is pure garbage. there is no way to stop any serious review. The article you attached is sadly lacking, by its own admission, any factual evidence either way.
Again, the issue is School Safety. The argument against any weapon is purely obfuscation. Why don't you start that conversation?

jerrye92002 said...

Doesn't this "solution" have to make sense at a fundamental level? The laws against murder are clear and stringent. Yet people are killed every day by handguns, knives, fists, baseball bats, automobiles, bombs and poisons. Oh, and in a few cases, by "ugly guns" that are functionally exactly like normal hunting/target rifles. If you cannot stop murder, how are you going to stop murder?

John said...

Richard meet Jerry. I think you two will fit together like 2 peas in a pod.


Now turning the schools into armed fortresses may keep the kids safe for some of the day... But what about when they are going out to the bus? Or gathering at Caribou to study? Or going to dance class? Or when playing soccer?

I think you really need to think bigger...

"Our goal is to ensure that trained, responsible people can keep and carry their hunting and self defense weapons. While these weapons are removed from the homes of scary angry, insane and generally irresponsible people."

John said...

An addition...

"Goal: To minimize the death, injury and/or trauma to the innocent citizens of the USA when the system fails and a scary angry, insane and generally irresponsible person does not have their weapons confiscated."

Because the reality is that systems and people fail at times.

RIchard Eagan said...

Well John thank you. I see you have moved to the personal. I have not given any position other than we need to define the argument and that the decisions need to be made at a local level. I have said nothing about "Armed Fortresses" or legal weapons in the schools.
You know nothing about me, yet you say Jerry and I are two peas in a pod. However, I have said nothing that comes close to Jerry's statement. You cannot know if I agree with him or not. His statement is factually correct. I do agree with his statement, until the last question because that does not further any discussion on school security.
Your goal could be met by placing a sign outside every school that read something like: "There are staff and faculty armed and trained in the use of deadly force. They have been authorized to utilize their skills in any event they deem necessary." Radical probably. However, that alone would "minimize the death, injury and/or trauma to the innocent citizens of the USA..." as well as any other people in the facility.

John said...

Richard,
Sorry if I offended you, I meant no insult. Just trying to have a little fun. :-)

I am fine with putting up signs and letting Teachers conceal and carry, however it is treating a symptom and not treating the problem.

Do you really think a near suicidal person will care if the Teachers are carrying guns?

How do you think it will help if they move their attacks to school parking lots?

How do you think it will protect from a Las Vegas style attack at a HS footbal game?

John said...

Here is some more background regarding the resistance by some to study gun violence

RIchard Eagan said...

You did not offend me, I just made an observation. With your questions, I think you missed your own point: "minimize the death, injury and/or trauma to the innocent citizens of the USA...". There cannot be any law that prevents every contingency. However, some may minimize them. When in Viet Nam we had guards on moving overlapping sentry duty and the bad guys still got in.
This is what I know:
1. It is apparent that many required to report are not.
2. Laws are being broken by the bad guys and the enforcers.
3. The Federal Government is gigantic.
4. More good happens locally.
5. It is not the weapon but the individual that creates the crime and the laws are intended to stop.
And I can go on. More deaths happen by various accidents than any other method. This is more of a mental health problem than anything else. Most of the gun deaths are suicides. All of these mass shooters had major anti social issues and had been identified prior to the incident they initiated. Even this last one, they opened the gates to the school twenty minutes before school let out. That alone erased all security processes they had employed.
Here is my question: What law would stop these shootings? I think the answer is the same as the answer to your three questions.

jerrye92002 said...

Richard does not need to agree with me. I will agree with him. A recent study found that 98% of all mass shootings occur in gun free zones. Is anyone willing to suggest that the anti-gun laws establishing gun free zones may be a "contributing factor" to the carnage?

John said...

Good Morning Guys,
We will need to agree to disagree.

Though I agree that doing what you say makes sense, I do not think your proposed solutions will have any measurable impact on the number of gun deaths in America.

We will continue to sacrifice children, women and men in public settings so that Americans can continue to obtain very dangerous weapons very easily, and can keep them even when they are identified as high risk owners. That is a trade off that I am not comfortable with.

And as Moose notes... 100% of mass shootings occur because an unhinged gun owner has access to a very dangerous weapon.

jerrye92002 said...

Tee-hee. I have just realized that "agree to disagree" is the endpoint of someone on the indefensible side of the argument. Over the last few months I have realized that a lot of people are absolutely certain that they are right on an issue, but cannot offer a rational defense of that position. They take their position as an article of faith and you cannot debate that.

OF COURSE this step will have "no measurable impact on the number of gun deaths in America." What it may do is reduce or eliminate the 98% of mass shootings – a negligible fraction of all – that occur in gun free zones. These knee-jerk gun control proposals are like fretting over a Paper cut while a saber protrudes from the body. For example, twice as many teens killed in "gun free" Chicago last month as were killed in Parkland.

John said...

Believe what you wish to believe. Personally I think I am just tired of this string and the go no where discussion.

Anonymous said...

How can we agree on a solution when we can't even get the two sides to agree that a person without a gun cannot shoot someone? If the pro-gun side cannot stoop to the level of basic logic, then the massacre of our children will continue...until and unless the majority of our population wakes up and recognizes the corrupting influence of the Russian-entangled NRA on our elected representatives, and then does something about it.

Moose

RIchard Eagan said...

Two things. The conversation went where it was led.
I have not seen anyone ever say anything even close to someone disagreeing with "a person without a gun cannot shoot someone." Absurd comment with no basis in fact.
I had hoped this would be the one to seriously talk to and about School Safety and Security. Sadly, I was wrong...

John said...

Richard,
Actually the title of the post was "Assault Weapon Trade off"... So that somewhat drives the direction of the comments.

I have now written one just for you. Keeping Kids Safe 6 Hours per Weekday... :-)

It seems you are not too interested in how to keep them safe during the way to/from school, or when they are elsewhere.

Anonymous said...

With all due respect, Richard, this conversation has been going on a lot longer than since you showed up here. My comment is not out of line with the ongoing conversation.

Moose

jerrye92002 said...

Moose, the conversation is not advanced by facile comments that are worthless in the real world. Nobody can be shot in a gun-free zone, either. But it happens, or do you wish to deny that reality as well?

John said...

Jerry,
Now that is just silly.

Moose,
Don't rise to their bait, I have given them a new post where they can help us understand their perspective better.

We know this is true.

"100% of mass shootings occur because an unhinged gun owner has access to a very dangerous weapon."