View Full Version : New York Times Opinion: Too Late to Ban Assault Weapons
Doc Safari
08-09-19, 11:51
Boom Chaka Laka (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/09/opinion/ar15-assault-weapon-ban.html)
It’s Too Late to Ban Assault Weapons
The half-life of military-style rifles ensures they’ll be with us for many generations. Time to deal with the world as it is.
With proper care and maintenance, an AR-15 rifle manufactured today will fire just as effectively in the year 2119 and probably for decades after that.
There are currently around 15 million military-style rifles in civilian hands in the United States. They are very rarely used in suicides or crimes. But when they are, the bloodshed is appalling.
Acknowledging the grim reality that we will live among these guns indefinitely is a necessary first step toward making the nation safer. Frustratingly, calling for military-style rifles bans — as I have done for years — may be making other lifesaving gun laws harder to pass.
President Trump on Wednesday — touring two mass shooting sites in Ohio and Texas — said that “there is no political appetite” for a new ban of assault weapons. Never mind that a majority of Americans support such a ban.
Short of forced confiscation or a major cultural shift, our great-great-great-grandchildren will live side-by-side with the guns we have today and make tomorrow. That also means that we’re far closer to the beginning of the plague of mass public shootings with military-style weapons than we are to the end. Little wonder that major companies are now including mass shootings in their risk to shareholder filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Not only is confiscation politically untenable — the compliance rates of gun owners when bans are passed are laughably low. The distribution of these weapons across society makes even their prohibition nearly impossible. In 1996, Australia launched a mandatory gun buyback of 650,000 military-style weapons. While gun ownership per capita in the country declined by more than 20 percent, today Australians own more guns than they did before the buyback. New Zealand’s leaders, in the wake of the Christchurch massacre, launched a compulsory buyback effort for the tens of thousands of military-style weapons estimated to be in the country.
For context: In 2016 alone, more than one million military-style weapons were added to America’s existing civilian arsenal, according to industry estimates.
Not only are the number of total guns in America orders of magnitude larger than other nations, the political imagination is far less ambitious. Consider a federal assault weapons ban that Democrats introduced this year. It is purely a messaging bill since there was no chance it will win support from Republicans and become law. Yet even this thought experiment falls far short: The bill bans military-style weapons, except for the millions of military-style weapons already in circulation.
My take: Can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. So, shoot your AR's all you want, there's plenty more where they came from.
Meanwhile, lots of news of "Republicans" talking AWB...
FromMyColdDeadHand
08-09-19, 14:35
Meanwhile, lots of news of "Republicans" talking AWB...
Yes, because it won’t happen- therefore it’s politically safe. Or it is like the start of WWI and we’ll stumble into a bloodbath.
The caveat is this is true at the federal level, not do the states.
"the compliance rates of gun owners when bans are passed are laughably low."
I remember it being embarrassingly high during the 94 ban. Douche bags milling off bayo studs, and ARs with no threaded barrels, etc.
None of my ARs were compliant. Eff that crap!
Doc Safari
08-09-19, 14:57
"the compliance rates of gun owners when bans are passed are laughably low."
I remember it being embarrassingly high during the 94 ban. Douche bags milling off bayo studs, and ARs with no threaded barrels, etc.
Who was doing that? AFAIK only the manufacturers were coming out with ban-compliant rifles.
If anything I remember people buying surplus Chicom AK furniture and putting it on instead of the thumbhole stock. Gun shop owners would generally have a hissy fit if you walked in with a "modified" MAK-90, but I did see a couple in gun racks at stores where the owner couldn't GAF.
There was quite a hoopla over the fact that some MAK-90's had angle-cut receivers so you couldn't do just that. Later ones had the proper straight-backed receiver and those were selling at a premium. I bet ultimately 90% of MAK-90's were illegally converted to the original pistol grip and stock. This was before US-made 922(r) compliant AK's, parts, and furniture with the proper stock and P-grip so it's a case of manufacturers finally catching up with what people were doing anyway.
It's another testament to "pass all the laws you want; they will be ignored."
It seems that somebody discovered that to violate 922(r) you had to be caught making the modifications. There is evidently no prohibition against actually possessing a rifle that had been illegally converted to violate 922(r) with all foreign parts.
Nowadays nobody cares, but it was a point of contention back in the day.
You could buy ban-featured weapons and hi-cap mags in 94-04, but rarely did anyone want to sell them out of their personal stash. My LGS had pre-ban stuff on the wall for RIDICULOUS prices and they eventually sold.
Yeah, the genie has been out of the bottle for far to long with semi-auto pistols,rifles and hi-cap mags Having a few extra bolts would be smart along with having enough affordable ammo. Ammo will be key, especially if at some point you will need some type of card or license to buy it.
Doc Safari
08-09-19, 15:48
Back in the 1990's so-called "assault weapons" were "niche" firearms. I can't tell you how many times I was asked, "What do you need a gun like that for?"
My favorite was: "Those are man-killers. What do you want that for?"
My response: "You just said it."
Can't tell you how many times I watched the blood drain from someone's face after I said that.
But my all-time, never gets old favorite is:
When the subject of Fifty-caliber sniper rifles comes up and some Fudd says, "What do you hunt with that?"
My answer was always, "Semi's."
JOKING....JOKING.
I wish I could bath myself in the tears of disgust that dripped from every word of that NYT article. Glorious.
Sent from my SM-J727T using Tapatalk
militarymoron
08-09-19, 16:21
I couldn't find it in a search, but this article points out that regulating the type of weapon to reduce gun violence doesn't work:
http://www.bu.edu/articles/2019/state-gun-laws-that-reduce-gun-deaths/
Doc Safari
08-09-19, 16:30
I couldn't find it in a search, but this article points out that regulating the type of weapon to reduce gun violence doesn't work:
http://www.bu.edu/articles/2019/state-gun-laws-that-reduce-gun-deaths/
To me, this was the meat of the article:
Tight regulation of who has access to firearms, rather than the type of firearms that are allowed, differentiates states with the lowest rates of homicides. What surprised us the most was that in states that enacted a combination of universal background-check laws, laws prohibiting the sale of guns to people with violent misdemeanors, and concealed carry permit laws, the homicide rates were 35 percent lower than in states with none of those three kinds of laws. The practice of keeping guns out of the hands of people who are at the greatest risk for violence—based on a history of violence—appears to be the most closely associated with decreased rates of firearm homicide.
Laws regulating the sale of assault weapons are unlikely to have a large impact on homicide rates, because these weapons are used in only a very small proportion of homicides. The vast majority of firearm homicides in the United States are committed with handguns. In contrast, laws that restrict access to firearms among those people who are at the greatest risk for violence—namely, people with a history of violence—are intervening among a subpopulation of people who are likely to commit crimes. In other words, you are intervening in the most focused way possible—that is, in high-risk situations.
Although I completely understand the desire to ban assault weapons, I just don’t see empirical evidence that such bans have any substantial impact on homicide rates. These bans are most often based on characteristics of guns that are not directly tied to their lethality. In contrast, requiring universal background checks in all 50 states could have a substantial impact on gun violence because it would essentially set a minimum standard across the nation—that standard being very simply that people purchasing a gun need to be checked to see if they have a history that puts them at high risk for violence.
But if the Democrats take both House and Senate, and the White House . . . ?
But if the Democrats take both House and Senate, and the White House . . . ?
Like they had in 2008?
They will be to busy with amnesty, medicare for all and college tuition forgiveness. GC will be farther down the list AFTER they shoot their wad. Sadly, I am MORE afraid of RINOs helping to pass and Trump getting his hands on a GC bill.
To me, this was the meat of the article:
First quote- yes, prohibiting violent people from buying guns prevents gun violence... but does it affect violence?
Whenever they put “firearms violence” they loose credibility.
How many reports discuss reducing vehicle violence? Unarmed violence?
The_War_Wagon
08-09-19, 17:19
There are currently around 15 million military-style rifles in civilian hands in the United States. They are very rarely used in suicides or crimes. But when they are, the bloodshed is appalling.
Yeah, because you can't hurt ANYBODY with anything LESS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Texas_tower_shooting)...
You GOTTA sensationalize the weapon, because a lesser atrocity won't net you anything better than section C of the newspaper coverage (https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/the-latest-police-block-off-roads-for-stabbing-investigaton/2019/08/08/02b3a8d6-b9f3-11e9-8e83-4e6687e99814_story.html). :rolleyes:
Like they had in 2008?
They will be to busy with amnesty, medicare for all and college tuition forgiveness. GC will be farther down the list AFTER they shoot their wad. Sadly, I am MORE afraid of RINOs helping to pass and Trump getting his hands on a GC bill.
I think we are in a different place now than 2008. The ComDems have gone full retard, out of the closet gun control, baby killing, open borders, all-white-people-are-murderous-racists, America hating and Commie-loving. They are darn proud of it today when in 2008 they kept it on the down low because they knew they would never get elected by spouting it out to everyone. Today 50% +/- of the country would vote for their madness.
PatrioticDisorder
08-09-19, 18:51
Meanwhile, lots of news of "Republicans" talking AWB...
Red Coat Republicans
Dr. Bullseye
08-09-19, 18:54
Red Coat Republicans
Perfect. Gun control Republicans are Red Coat Republicans.
Non-compliance would be epic. About on a percentage level with how much the Federal ban on marijuana is complied with!
I know some of you guys poo-poo anyone talking defiantly about any future AWB...."Yeah right, you'll line up to turn 'em in like everyone else." I don't think so; that is significantly underestimating the "up yours", "fvck off", rebellious attitude Americans are known for. What would be turned in would be a tiny fraction of what is out there. Now what is ultimately done with those contraband weapons might be a matter of debate, but I guaran-freaking-tee you actual compliance with such a law would be very minimal. The pols would know it too, and have egg on their faces. At that point they either declare victory and move on or attempt to crack down. If it's the latter then, well......
"the compliance rates of gun owners when bans are passed are laughably low."
I remember it being embarrassingly high during the 94 ban. Douche bags milling off bayo studs, and ARs with no threaded barrels, etc.
None of my ARs were compliant. Eff that crap!
Folks still stay up at night worrying about how many 922r parts are in their guns.
LowSpeed_HighDrag
08-09-19, 19:34
Non-compliance would be epic. About on a percentage level with how much the Federal ban on marijuana is complied with!
I know some of you guys poo-poo anyone talking defiantly about any future AWB...."Yeah right, you'll line up to turn 'em in like everyone else." I don't think so; that is significantly underestimating the "up yours", "fvck off", rebellious attitude Americans are known for. What would be turned in would be a tiny fraction of what is out there. Now what is ultimately done with those contraband weapons might be a matter of debate, but I guaran-freaking-tee you actual compliance with such a law would be very minimal. The pols would know it too, and have egg on their faces. At that point they either declare victory and move on or attempt to crack down. If it's the latter then, well......
True...but that doesn't stop them from enacting the law. Compliance with Colorado's gun laws of 2013 has been next to nil....and yet....it could still land you a felony if you get caught. Dems don't care about the initial compliance, gun control is a long game. New guns won't be sold, old guns will eventually be weeded out. In fact, the non-compliance matter to them isa wet dream, because it just pushes for the need to confiscate.
True...but that doesn't stop them from enacting the law. Compliance with Colorado's gun laws of 2013 has been next to nil....and yet....it could still land you a felony if you get caught. Dems don't care about the initial compliance, gun control is a long game. New guns won't be sold, old guns will eventually be weeded out. In fact, the non-compliance matter to them isa wet dream, because it just pushes for the need to confiscate.
And as I mentioned, that may indeed be what is decided. That, however, is a decision that if actively enforced, would be a decision the American government and people would soon rue. It doesn't take much upsetting of the apple cart these days to make society quite uncomfortable. If you think it takes 3 million gun owners to accomplish that you are deluding yourself. There are enough folks with attitudes on "our" side of the bench to do just that, especially if their choice is prison/death or shooting some motherfvckers. That one douchebag out in LA a couple years back (Dorner) created quite the scrum, didn't he? Imagine that x 1,000+, all over the place. Remember, it doesn't take many and America is a BIG country.
Besides, it'll never go down that way. A few examples made, but a nationwide door-to-door? Nah. Just wait it out. Ex-wives, jilted girlfriends, disgruntled teens, nosey libtard neighbors, etc. will narc you out. Father Time (i.e. The Grim Reaper) will also help over the years. Sure, in some locales (like mine) you'll still be able to shoot occasionally. The local folks and LEO's won't GAF. In most areas you'll have to be very discreet.
It'll never happen that way anyway, unless they are stupider than I think they are.
LowSpeed_HighDrag
08-09-19, 20:03
And as I mentioned, that may indeed be what is decided. That, however, is a decision that if actively enforced, would be a decision the American government and people would soon rue. It doesn't take much upsetting of the apple cart these days to make society quite uncomfortable. If you think it takes 3 million gun owners to accomplish that you are deluding yourself. There are enough folks with attitudes on "our" side of the bench to do just that, especially if their choice is prison/death or shooting some motherfvckers. That one douchebag out in LA a couple years back (Dorner) created quite the scrum, didn't he? Imagine that x 1,000+, all over the place. Remember, it doesn't take many and America is a BIG country.
Besides, it'll never go down that way. A few examples made, but a nationwide door-to-door? Nah. Just wait it out. Ex-wives, jilted girlfriends, disgruntled teens, nosey libtard neighbors, etc. will narc you out. Father Time (i.e. The Grim Reaper) will also help over the years. Sure, in some locales (like mine) you'll still be able to shoot occasionally. The local folks and LEO's won't GAF. In most areas you'll have to be very discreet.
It'll never happen that way anyway, unless they are stupider than I think they are.
I'm a cop, and a veteran, I understand how impossible confiscation is. But I also understand that they do not care. They can pass that law, and then confiscation can be used selectively. Again, this is not some end-of-the-world scenario, it's a long game. They don't need to be enforceable laws, or laws that make sense, to pass them. They operate under the motto of, "We have to do SOMETHING."
I'm a cop, and a veteran, I understand how impossible confiscation is. But I also understand that they do not care. They can pass that law, and then confiscation can be used selectively. Again, this is not some end-of-the-world scenario, it's a long game. They don't need to be enforceable laws, or laws that make sense, to pass them. They operate under the motto of, "We have to do SOMETHING."
Not disagreeing at all. Just stating that, as is the case I guess with some laws, this would [potentially] create many more problems than it solved. Sure, they ARE that stupid. But if they eventually get their stupid ways handed to them, exactly what will they do with it? Each escalating step has an escalating response, a tit-for-tat. I doubt the far-lefties think it through (or over-rely on the assumed lockstep of the authoritahs) but someone in their midst will hopefully do so. The NY Times article mentioned in another thread is a good example. They might still want to see gun ownership die (especially over time) but they aren't willing to go as far as others would.
The song "Bitter and Twisted" by Roger Daltry comes to mind for those who would feel cornered or backed-against-the-wall......:rolleyes:
MountainRaven
08-09-19, 21:24
Perfect. Gun control Republicans are Red Coat Republicans.
It occurred to me yesterday (probably not for the first time) that if there were a Second American Civil War, the two chief belligerent factions would likely be nicknamed the, "Blue Army," and the, "Red Army." And the Blue Army would be the left-leaning/Democrat faction.
Which will undoubtedly confuse the crap out of kids learning about it five hundred years after the fact when they're learning about the armies of the Red and White Roses, the Blue and the Grey, the Red and White Russians, Red and White Finns, &c.
It occurred to me yesterday (probably not for the first time) that if there were a Second American Civil War, the two chief belligerent factions would likely be nicknamed the, "Blue Army," and the, "Red Army." And the Blue Army would be the left-leaning/Democrat faction.
Which will undoubtedly confuse the crap out of kids learning about it five hundred years after the fact when they're learning about the armies of the Red and White Roses, the Blue and the Grey, the Red and White Russians, Red and White Finns, &c.
Just so in the process Killdozers are made great again I’d say that’s an acceptable difficulty I’m willing to let future generations shoulder the brunt of. Lol
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Belmont31R
08-09-19, 22:56
The debate isn't wether or not gun control works but if they can get us to give them up so the resistance to socialist/communist takeover is easy or hard.
People have no idea how divided things are right now, and its not just one side saying it. Even relatively easy to find people who aren't outside whacko's are talking about armed insurgencies and we have nothing in common anymore...the divide between red and blue went from a trickle to the same differences that have caused wars.
First this might be a clever new ploy from the Times to send gun owners into cardiac arrest by actually stating some truths.
But honestly this is just an opinion piece and nothing more, it doesn't represent the default editorial bias of the times. Even this op ed piece stated "President Trump on Wednesday — touring two mass shooting sites in Ohio and Texas — said that “there is no political appetite” for a new ban of assault weapons. Never mind that a majority of Americans support such a ban." which simply isn't true and one of the reasons Trump is actually President.
Belmont31R
08-09-19, 23:57
First this might be a clever new ploy from the Times to send gun owners into cardiac arrest by actually stating some truths.
But honestly this is just an opinion piece and nothing more, it doesn't represent the default editorial bias of the times. Even this op ed piece stated "President Trump on Wednesday — touring two mass shooting sites in Ohio and Texas — said that “there is no political appetite” for a new ban of assault weapons. Never mind that a majority of Americans support such a ban." which simply isn't true and one of the reasons Trump is actually President.
There really isn't a difference between their editorial board and the opinion section. If there was a meaningful difference these 'newspapers of record' would actually try to educate people on how different types of guns actually operate and what different laws would actually mean. Instead their editorial pieces intentionally obfuscate the facts and try to rile people up to support leftist agendas.
I think we are in a different place now than 2008. The ComDems have gone full retard, out of the closet gun control, baby killing, open borders, all-white-people-are-murderous-racists, America hating and Commie-loving. They are darn proud of it today when in 2008 they kept it on the down low because they knew they would never get elected by spouting it out to everyone. Today 50% +/- of the country would vote for their madness.
This is true. In 2008 we had not experienced as many mass shootings as we have now. Also, with the Parkland shooting, the whole anti-military style semi gun thing turned into a social movement. The left loves social movements. I am afraid there is a social contagion effect, in that the more mass shootings there are the more that certain twisted people will be motivated to do it. The result, I fear, will be a greater growth of the social movement.
Regarding the NY Times editorial, I can't get to it since it is behind a paywall, but I suspect it is just one person writing something that is published in the editorial section and not an editorial that reflects the views of the paper.
I would not expect the NY times to let up on their anti-gun editorials or the biased way that they cover firearms. You won't see them mention any defensive gun uses, while they will maximize negative coverage, both in how they word the headlines, article titles, how the articles are written, etc.
The real point of banning assault rifles has nothing to do with safety. It’s a political classification designed to sound ominous even though they are rarely used in crime. The goal is to get a ban into law so that wider bans in the future will be accepted by the public. They are on record talking about this in the late 1980s. Same reason they support ANY type of regulation that makes gun ownership cumbersome. They really just want less gun owners. The long game is to condition the public for an eventual total gun confiscation or repeal if the second amendment. Maybe not now but in 50-100 years.
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/sunday-review/the-assault-weapon-myth.html
The real point of banning assault rifles has nothing to do with safety. It’s a political classification designed to sound ominous even though they are rarely used in crime. The goal is to get a ban into law so that wider bans in the future will be accepted by the public. They are on record talking about this in the late 1980s. Same reason they support ANY type of regulation that makes gun ownership cumbersome. They really just want less gun owners. The long game is to condition the public for an eventual total gun confiscation or repeal if the second amendment. Maybe not now but in 50-100 years.
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/sunday-review/the-assault-weapon-myth.html
It has been said before but the howls from the Fudds when the talk turns to banning “sniper rifles” will be something to see.
Doc Safari
08-10-19, 09:38
I don't think anything gets written in the NYT without approval from on high. I'm still debating the motivation for the opinion piece. Maybe part of being "woke" is realizing that token gun bans ain't gonna stop NYT editors from dying in mass shootings. ;)
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.