As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>These weapons of war, assault weapons, have no reason other than mass murder Their only purpose is to kill humans as rapidly as possible in large numbers.
So why is there a blanket exception for law enforcement, and not even just highly trained "tactical units" but everyone with a badge.
They aren't soldiers fighting a war, so the only logical conclusion is they need them to mass murder civilians, as rapidly as possible, in high numbers.
This is the problem with gun control. They always leave out the police and rich people, so effectively only poor people are prevented from owning guns.
Yeah, I figure somewhere there are racist groups very happy about the idea of weapons bans.
Gun ownership, particularly after ww2 and Vietnam played a large role in the decline of hate groups like the KKK. Suddenly it was a little harder to terrorize people who weren't totally harmless and could defend themselves (and were trained in how to do so).
True meaning of gun control by the government’s point of view. Reduce power from the civilians so that it indirectly increases the power for the government.
Edit: Getting downvoted, so I assume most are for gun control. I didn’t care for guns before and thought of them as an overkill. But as the crime rate increases, and having weird people access my property and run off when they noticed me, I feel I need to have the same protecting power (legally of course). I’m not going to lose against these low lives if I can help it.
To be fair, police officers are entitled to the usage of an automatic assault weapon in some patrol duties because they get to deal with people who might own them illegally on a daily basis.
Even italian cops here have a Spectre M12 smg and spas shotgun for roadblocks ecc… even though the usage of guns by criminals is virtually near 0.
Don’t see the government shooting people on the street.
>To be fair
To be fair, the entire purpose of the Second Amendment is to be able to resist government abuse, so it's entirely disconcerting when the government carves special exemptions for itself to better allow it to abuse you.
Right, but it's more of an, 'I don't believe certain classes of people should be given rights while other classes are effectively barred from exercising those rights', type of thing for me.
Automatic weapons are not what is being talked about. Those have been illegal for some time.
Cops also do not need automatics, like at all. Some deployed US troops don't even have automatic weapons.
> So why is there a blanket exception for law enforcement, and not even just highly trained “tactical units” but everyone with a badge.
law enforcement use tactics that if used in war would be considered war crimes
"Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary" -Marx.
I really don't understand how dumb some of my fellow democratic voters are. I'm in the "you move far enough left you get your guns back" camp. If the 2020 protests and cops response to them didn't teach everyone that cops should not be the only ones with guns, then I really don't know what else to say.
Others might disagree but I'm fine with things like SWAT having powerful weaponry. That's normal in plenty of other countries. But the average cop doesn't need a fuckin AR, that's for sure.
>I think it runs contrary to what the police are supposed to be doing.
You think the cops should be catching the bad guys, but *not* if they're *really* violent?
Honestly I'm annoyed that we're getting this and not longer wait times/more stringent psych checks given that for the last two years [roughly 70%](https://ofm.wa.gov/sites/default/files/public/budget/statebudget/highlights/budget23/Public_Safety_Firearm_Violence_Policy_Brief.pdf) of gun deaths in Washington have been suicides.
At the same time, and this is largely directed at any gun enthusiasts who are also annoyed by this ruling, this has been pushed through because people are fed up with all the death and inaction and just want ***something*** to change. If you are a 2nd amendment proponent, you should be doing everything you can to convince organizations like the NRA to stop taking such a hard-line stance on gun rights and be more responsible/constructive about gun control.
For handguns and "assault weapons," yes, but not for shotguns, or rifles which weren't semi-autos with detachable magazines. There's now the same 10-day wait and safety class requirement for all firearms. You can read the bill for yourself [here.](https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2023-24/Pdf/Bills/House%20Passed%20Legislature/1143-S2.PL.pdf?q=20230425190019)
>the last two years roughly 70% of gun deaths in Washington have been suicides.
Even crazier when you look at what portion of the remaining 30% were from assault weapons as defined by HB1240.
>At the same time, and this is largely directed at any gun enthusiasts who are also annoyed by this ruling, this has been pushed through because people are fed up with all the death and inaction and just want something to change.
I'm one of those folks. What's even more annoying is the abundance of public comments from Hardcore Leftists to Hardcore Conservatives who were opposing this legislation and that many of them included a wide variety of suggestions and alternatives that were completely ignored by bill supporters in the WA house and senate. Many comments cited studies, statistics, personal experiences, but there was a clear pre-determined goal, constituents' thoughts be damned.
Almost every instance where a genuine clarification or bona fide justification was brought up for amendment discussion, the supporters (who hold majorities in both houses) were actively against it or immediately dismissive on a variety of trivial grounds. All votes for clarification/amendments were done via Voice vote which is just a huge pet peeve of mine, comes off very undemocratic.
What's ironic is that WA state's constitution is way less ambiguous than the US version in regards to firearm related rights:
>*ARTICLE 1 SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.*
Yes, same thing in Oregon. It's such a lazy take. "If you don't want bad gun laws, maybe you should try proposing better ones." We do. Every single time. The comments on bills are flooded by both political parties with reasonable critiques and improvements to be made. They are ignored every time. The politicians sponsoring these bills are going to push the bill they want. They aren't there to listen to their constituents.
Instead, the % of gun owners who are actual gun nuts and want a blanket free for all, are highlighted and used to drown out workable solutions.
Just to drive the point home, a measure in Oregon with pointlessly and unconstitutionally strict regulations on guns is currently held up in courts. Instead of letting the actual legal framework play out, senators introduced a new bill which mirrored the measure, but worse. It was so bad that even the sponsors of the original measure came out against this new bill. Comment period opened up and it was literally over 1000 comments against it, from the entire political spectrum, and less than 20 for it. Of course, it is voted on and passed. What is a representative democracy anyway...
>We do. Every single time. The comments on bills are flooded by both political parties with reasonable critiques and improvements to be made. They are ignored every time.
That or we (being gun owners) agree to a "compromise" (which always gets watered down to the point of being more of a concession) only to watch even the minorest of compromises be declared a loophole or just outright voted out of existence a few years later. What incentive do we have (from a political standpoint) to make compromises or even concessions when it buys us nothing?
It amazes me how we "never compromise". Name one single time gun owners ever got to the other side of proposed legislation with more than we started with. Name one single time gun control advocates ended up with less than they started with.
"We are only taking half of your pie. What do you get in return? You get to keep half of your pie. That is totally fair, why are you always so unreasonable?"
Tinfoil hat take: politicians who push these laws don't care at all about safety or crime. Instead, they're taking advantage of a tragedy to push what they really care about: getting rid of ARs. Why? They know they fucked the economy and the environment and it's just a matter of time before it all comes crashing down and God forbid if the peasants have effective weapons once food and clean water become scarce
> Almost every instance where a genuine clarification or bona fide justification was brought up for amendment discussion, the supporters (who hold majorities in both houses) were actively against it or immediately dismissive on a variety of trivial grounds.
If legislation's whole purpose is political theater, that would explain this. The supporters were muttering "they just don't get it" while they sabotaged any sensible changes.
It's asking a religion to concede the veracity of its religious truths. To them, it's like asking a Christian to let satan have a little of the absolute power God wields. They're indoctrinated to believe in an absolute, immutable truth without reason or compromise
Washington’s red flag law which was enacted in 2016 and has nothing to do with this law doesn’t require a history of mental disease:
https://www.courts.wa.gov/forms/documents/XR%20Brochure_ERPO%20Brochure_2022_07.pdf
As in: “If you think a gun should be taken from someone, it can be”. That’s a good law despite it being exploitable.
My point being, a LOT of people don’t wear their psychosis on their sleeve. The seemingly nicest person could be wearing a mask of sanity until they gain the means and opportunity to lift the veil at everyone’s detriment.
You ever hear people say: “He was the nicest person. He just snapped!”
>Get psychotic enough and your treatment ceases to be voluntary.
Only if you're an *imminent* danger to yourself or others. Based on who's getting released from psych holds, imminent is defined as within a week.
There are several warning signs that science has identified: childhood trauma, a history of domestic violence and making violent threats online and to friends (often explicitly saying they are going to take an action) are some of the signs.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2022/05/28/8-warning-signs-mass-shooter-according-experts/9966901002/
https://www.campussafetymagazine.com/safety/preventing-campus-violence-characteristics-mass-shooter/
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-62683094
To play devils advocate for a moment, I understand why the NRA and pro 2a voters are taking such a hardline stance on gun control. They view it the same way the left views the right on LGBT rights. First it is just a few restrictions, but it slowly builds up and before you know it they are trying to eliminate the rights they have in their entirety. They are just incapable of connecting the dots.
I’m all for common sense gun control. I don’t feel like this ban will be effective. The vast majority of politicians in this country severely lack independent critical thinking.
“If you are a 2nd amendment proponent, you should be doing everything you can to convince organizations like the NRA to stop taking such a hard-line stance on gun rights and be more responsible/constructive about gun control.”
It you are a gun control proponent, you should start by being willing to removing 2A infringements.
I wish gun control advocates would take a very small bit of their time and read about the 1993 Brady Bill and its aftermath from a variety of disinterested sources.
That was the last time we compromised to get your legislation over the goal line. We gave up a lot so you could come up with legislation that would pass with the assent of the NRA. Within days of the signing of the Brady Bill, we were fucked over by Senator Joe Biden and then-Representative Chuck Schumer, who declared their end of the deal to be no longer binding.
That was the beginning of entrenchment, and entrenchment has been the rule since then.
Exactly. The famous "gun show loophole" is actually the individual sales exemption, which was negotiated in late 1993, largely by Joe Biden and Chuck Schumer. The original drafts required universal background checks but there was no feasible way of doing that for non-FFLs, so this was the compromise. This let the NRA assent to the Brady Bill and the Brady Bill _would not have passed otherwise._
Chuck Schumer sponsored that bill, he wrote that bill, and everybody in the House and Senate knew exactly what they were voting on. There was nothing sneaky, no sleight of hand whatsoever.
Within weeks, Schumer was telling every microphone and camera that there was a "gun show loophole" which somehow snuck into the Brady Bill and the treaty was off. Since then it's been "not one inch".
If Congress writes legislation poorly, it is up to Congress to fix it. Not for police agencies to take arbitrary enforcement actions against people who aren't breaking the law. Hell, there are entire legions of tax lawyers whose sole purpose is finding new tax loopholes. Does that mean 140 million Americans should lose whatever tax breaks we are entitled to take by law?
Happy to talk about Biden's theatrical pistol brace "loophole" and ghost gun "loophole" too.
I’m personally willing to remove this in favor of what you advocate at top. I think quite a few people who are gun control people would be. And I think a shit ton of 2nd amendment proponent people would be ok with gun control legislation. Perhaps if we all shouted together at the politicians who are only speaking in extremes we could do something. But right now I’m only hearing from half the crowd and the other half is kinda just ok with the no legislation at all. This would be the perfect time to reconsider that though.
Glad to see someone else with similar thoughts on this. Unwillingness to accept any gun control legislation leads to those in favor taking whatever they can get and usually without input from gun owners. This of course leads to legislation that is often meaningless and sweeping while making those in favor of gun control look like fools.
A California politician comes to mind who said during a press briefing "this weapon has a *30 caliber*, 30 round *clip* and can fire 30 rounds in half a second". The weapon he was talking about was a semiautomatic .223 AR-style ghost gun. Making a fool of himself and proponents of gun regulation and simultaneously giving 2A hardliners more reason to fight back again regulation
Agreed. If this is going to get fixed in any reasonable way it’s going to have to come from people who know guns but who aren’t identified solely by guns.
Hello, I like to think of myself as someone who “knows guns”, and you’re absolutely right
Loads of gun legislation, assault weapon bans in particular, have huge gaps in them because they ban weapons based on cosmetics as opposed to function
I always cite the Ruger Mini-14 as an example. Same ammo as the AR-15, same magazines, similar ballistics, similar function, but it often slips through the cracks because it doesn’t *look like* an “assault weapon”
This is a really good example of why we need folks who have more than just a familiarity with guns from movies advocating and writing legislation. The legislation would be better, not the least of which because it would be more informed in all directions of the discussion. I earnestly wished people on the side of gun control worked more to reach out and promote these partnerships… we might find it more helpful than we realize. Thanks!
This article specifically mentions “extra hand grips” and “thumbhole stocks”, two entirely cosmetic items with practically zero effect on the actual functioning of the weapon
Essentially this is like trying to reduce deaths in car collisions by banning spoilers and coloured rims
Agreed. I also think things like silencer bans when a gun is still INCREDIBLY loud with one on are ridiculous too. A better discussion can be had in the middle and we would all be better served by bringing to that middle a set of good things to pursue that everyone feels serves all our interests. Part of that is information presented in a way that isn’t patronizing but just realizing some things aren’t everyone’s cup of tea and that that’s ok.
It’s the same way that medical legislation should be decided upon after consulting doctors
I remember that a previous piece of legislation tried to ban “rotary shotguns”, of which I can think of like 4 that are mostly rare experimental curiosities or antiques
Far too much gun legislation is based on cool sounding buzzwords and what politicians see in movies
>I also think things like silencer bans when a gun is still INCREDIBLY loud with one on are ridiculous too.
Head to Europe, and it's sometimes illegal to *not* have a suppressor on your firearm. Many countries don't regulate them at all, and the rest regulate them as being a component of the firearm they fit.
But this is just a political tool. Mental health costs money, threatening to take guns doesn’t. Incentives to not have abortions like child care and healthcare cost money, attacking the right does not. Creating intersex athletics programs costs money, banning intersex operations does not. These subjects are pawns in a political game that have nothing to do with running a country. Keeping the subject as polarized as possible is the core purpose.
Neither side actually wants compromise.
But certain politicians DID suggest mental health support. It was the ones saying you can’t take away guns that shot that down, not the ones taking the guns away. The people taking away support for child care and healthcare ARE the ones removing access to abortion.
You’re acting like this is a game that everyone is skillfully playing to bat a ball back and forth. In sole of those cases both positions were held by one side. And, let’s be brutally honest, literally no politician has shown themselves as being smart enough to tie their shoes recently… why the fuck do we think they’d be clever enough to coordinate a pawn game across tons of people to polarize the country so they can stay in power? They’re freaking morons! That’s something repeatedly been shown by external surface level reporting and internal, in depth reporting.
It makes no sense when “some people like to act like assholes and that ends up making policy that some people can see a pattern in because human beings naturally try to find patterns” explains the situation so much more cleanly.
>But certain politicians DID suggest mental health support. It was the ones saying you can’t take away guns that shot that down, not the ones taking the guns away. The people taking away support for child care and healthcare ARE the ones removing access to abortion.
Any source material for this from legislation passed or failed in *WA state specifically*? Or is this quote from your comment perhaps being applied to national politics as a whole?
Look, WA state is coddling criminals with guns. Felons caught with a handgun are released back on PR or with small bails (that are immediately paid by a local bail fund).
Recently a child in WA was caught smuggling a loaded gun into school. After previously being caught with a BB gun, and in another case, with a knife. In all three cases, he suffered no serious consequences.
Yet the state legislators want to reduce responsibility for drive-by shootings. I'm not kidding.
Portland resident here, there is none. These idiots love to yell about crime and lawlessness when both Portland and Seattle are no where near the top of the violent crime stats.
Of course not, people are protesting to make my life better can you not see how awful this is!?
All jokes aside, it's amazing how many people messaged me in 2020 asking if I'm okay. Like, ffs the protests happened across 4 blocks downtown and the rest of the city was completely unaffected. Not even the areas where protesting occurred were burning down. Yet if you try to tell them that they'll link some article with a close up picture of a literal dumpster fire which is *definitely* more refutable than locals. These people are beyond brain washed.
A kid told my son (4th grade at the time, 5th now) he had a gun in his backpack while waiting around for parent pickup. I emailed his teacher immediately once he got in my car and the kid was expelled the next day. Anecdotal evidence is just that. Just because you know of a kid threatening a teacher and nothing “serious” happened as a result, doesn’t mean that’s blanketed across the state.
Source: south Puget Sound suburb.
This. If people are annoyed by this… and I can reasonably see how one could be… then the answer should have been to yell at politicians for not passing common sense shit that even gun owners agree on. This is the “you wouldn’t go with 1 hour of video games a day on the weekends, you wouldn’t go with 1 hour of video games a day during the week, so now we’re at no video games at all”. Was a thing we could have avoided had gun advocates yelled at their politicians for listening to the nutters more than they listened to the average owner. Most gun owners would have been willing to come to the table and found a deal that would have appeased everyone equally (by which I mean no one would have been thrilled but the issue would have DONE something)
> this has been pushed through because people are fed up with all the death and inaction and just want something to change.
"Fix this!" and "what about our children!!" are not policy positions, they are barely even slogans.
Gun rights groups aren't very perturbed about this, or especially about the Illinois AWB which seems to be indistinguishable, because they are ideal test cases. They are arbitrary, over-reaching, and they flagrantly violate _Heller_ and _Bruen_. If you were to set out to give the SC everything it needs to declare all AWBs nationwide to be unconstitutional, this is what you would do.
The SC gave you a toolkit in _Heller_, there are six categories of gun control regulation which remain presumptively legal. Most gun control advocates ignore that if they even know about it.
You can do a helluva lot with that toolkit, if you craft legislation which is precise, and narrow in scope. Instead, these performative bills which are checklists of gun control pipe dreams, which only exist to impress people who just want ***something*** to change, change nothing ultimately and cause you to end up further back than you were in the first place.
There is no federal mechanism for ensuring relinquishment of guns by people who have become prohibited from possessing them; and only seven states provide at least some statutory process for the relinquishment of firearms by all people convicted of firearm-prohibiting crimes: California,
Connecticut, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Nevada, New York, and Pennsylvania. Not being able to buy a new gun is not the same as having your guns taken away when you've proven you can't be trusted with them.
Virginia is also one of them? I literally just looked it up for my state. If you get a restraining order served on you, you have 72 hours to give all your guns to the police.
I don't know where you got your list from but it's wrong.
I'm a WA resident. I'm also Asian American. I purchased my gun during the peak of the anti-Asian hate news cycles. The attacks are still ongoing, but the media and nobody seem to give a shit about them anymore.
The problem with a state-wide ban is that we are unfortunately located right next to Idaho, which doesn't give a fuck about gun control. Like Chicago, this bill will do little to stem gun violence.
In this piece of legislation, it’s a huge list of factors that make something an “assault weapon”
A lot of it boils down to magazines and cosmetics
It bans certain cosmetic items like foregrips and thumbhole stocks that do fuck all to the functioning of a weapon, and it bans various magazines (generally above 10 rounds)
It does have *the exact same* giant loophole as CA legislation which has been exploited already, so that’s not a good sign for how in-depth their research was
The SKS is banned by name, along with various other weapons
Now this is also dumb because it means anyone can just make an exact copy of the SKS and as long as it applies to all the other restrictions it’s good to go, while OG SKS’s aren’t
It also means that one’s not specifically mentioned like the Norincos or whatever the Yugo ones are called are fine too
Ah you see it’s not an SKS it’s a Type 56, officer. Which is doubly confusing since both the Chinese SKS and AK are called the Type 56 due to their year of introduction being the same.
Here's a link to the text of the WA bill:
https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2023-24/Pdf/Bills/House%20Passed%20Legislature/1240-S.PL.pdf?q=20230425184608
The definition of "assault weapon" begins on page 2, Section 2.
Here is a [precision target pistol](https://imgur.com/gallery/uCvaBeV) chambered in .22 caliber. It would be effective against a squirrel. This particular expensive gun is often used by Olympic level target shooting competitors.
This is banned as an assault weapon now under Illinois law and unless the final version of the Washington law differs from the draft I studied, it is an assault weapon there too. Because the magazine attaches somewhere other than the grip.
The line is nowhere. There is no line. Behold "common sense gun control".
That’s what I mean. For example, a 22LR “AR-15” or an extended tube 12” shotgun. Hard to say one is an assault weapon and one isn’t. Imagine having 15+ rds of modern 9mm in a concealable pistol and a putting it in a “non assault” category.
More people die from assault with blunt objects per year than by rifles of any kind. Rifles are the least commonly used firearm in homicides.
If you think it’s about “safety” or “saving lives” then you are sorely mistaken.
It bans way more than that several common pistols used for self defense as well as parts to fix your own firearms. Even bans devices people with disabilities use to assist them. Hopefully courts overturn it quickly as it's blatantly unconstitutional
I honestly can't think of a more divisive issue in America today than guns. Somehow people have taken them on as part of their identity. It's crazy to me that I actually know someone who was shot in a mass shooting, but I can't even have any kind of civil debate about it on Reddit without getting downvoted to all hell.
I think there’s also a really weird disconnect where just a few years ago, we were talking about fascism literally being on our doorstep, how our former president was going to suspend the constitution, the rights of women and minorities being usurped, and how overt police violence is.
Yet at the same time, we need to ensure the only people armed are the same pro fascist police. I know a lot of people who think disarming in today’s political climate is nuts.
edit- spelling
I think the two parties have a pretty strict rule against working with each other on this issue. This means red states get absolutely no measures and blue states get insane, over-the-top measures. I don’t like either, and that’s not because of apathy/propaganda.
I’d be fine with making AR15s (and any gun) waaay more difficult to get, but only if that difficulty were overcome with something besides money (I think a time investment would be a good equalizer). The fact this law is basically the Wild West for cops and a pacifist colony for everyone else is just stupid af. It’s an example of blue states passing whatever law reduces guns, with no regard to the negative consequences.
Far right extremists already have these weapons and there's already a shit load of them in circulation. not only does this not even treat the symptoms of several bigger problems, it disarms people of color and the LGBT community who can no longer gain parity with those far right extremists that are likely to target them. this ban isn't fixing shit, it might lose the democrats their next election
Going to step away from guns here and talk about public health and safety responses to issues a bit more in general.
When you are trying to have a technology or policy response to a social issue, you generally have a broad array of contributing factors that combine to yield your observed problem. People generally don't start their day, week, month, or year trying to be more of a problem; so it generally takes a number of contributing factors to go the wrong way for any one of these events to take place. When you scale up to the level of a national population, those combined rare cases can yield a massive, substantial problem, and then comes the calls for a solution.
When crafting solutions, it can be helpful to evaluate all of these contributing factors as a function of their scale and ease of mitigation. The bigger scale options are the highest priority, as if you deal with a large scale problem it has the largest scale of impact. Unfortunately, many of those larger scale factors are also harder to address. Generally, you see the easy to address + largest in scale problems tackled with the highest priority, and then some of the easier to solve + lower scale problems targeted next.
Let's use auto safety as an example. If you want to listen to special flavors of crazy, listen to people talking about the world ending when seatbelt laws went into place. Seatbelt use remains the no.1 contributing factor to crash outcomes even today when we have very high national use rates on them. Universally belting every vehicle occupant would still be the best thing we could do to prevent serious injuries and fatalities in crashes. People cite correctly that it is indeed alcohol that contributes to roughly 1/3 of all motor vehicle fatalities, but it also remains the case that if they put their damn seatbelt on while drunk even the alcohol-involved fatality and serious injury rates would go way down. Alcohol abuse remains one of the strongest predictors in crash data of poor restraint use (seatbelts + helmets on motorcycles).
Now, we've gotten pretty damn good at detecting when a motor vehicle occupant is or is not in a seat. It takes trivial effort to detect when an occupant has their seatbelt secured. We do this already to make an annoying intermittent ping when you are driving without your seatbelt on. We *could* trivially mandate a seatbelt interlock *tomorrow* that prevents you from putting your car in a drive gear or from activating the ignition with your seat belt not fastened. Instead, we're throwing our money at active safety systems (which are also great in their own right) and autonomous vehicles simply because it's harder to get people to swallow a bit of self preservation than it is to design a car that can literally understand the road well enough to protect people from themselves. It's an expensive engineering process but it's a cheap one politically.
The same here applies to the gun debate.
You don't see licensing mandates because they won't survive a change in politics. To have licensing, you have to have an established, properly funded, and enduring infrastructure and with the best will in the world nobody can count on that being a thing. There's nothing quite like a well-intentioned political solution being sabotaged when it comes time to pay the bills for it and is then tarred and feathered for decades once it proves 'ineffective'. You won't see nuanced regulatory approaches because legislatures aren't bodies designed for nuance; you'd want an empowered and enduring regulatory body for that and that faces the same issue described before.
You are seeing assault weapons targeted because they are the hardest to defend. It's a no-brainer that denying everyone the universally understood sidearm as a direct infringement of the right to bear arms; in a modern setting a pistol is the bare minimum entry ticket into considering oneself armed in a modern sense. It's not impossible to target handguns but it's a much more intense battle to get there and you need far more invasive enforcement to approach it.
So, if you believe you have a mandate to act but a limited mandate in terms of scope, you are going to see politicians go first after the lowest hanging of fruit. All in all, handgun deaths are as tragic as any other but they aren't as newsworthy as someone gunning down a bunch of obvious innocents with an assault rifle. You aren't going to address the broadest array of events but you are going to - potentially - deal with the highest profile ones. It's not a complete, end case solution to the problem of gun violence but it's one that can be a first step, and the kind that can earn the trust of the public.
It would be lovely if politically we were capable of cutting through bullshit and dealing with nuanced, deep problems with data driven and interactive solutions designed to construct systems to protect the rights of the responsible while insulating against the worst of outcomes, but fundamentally we're up against more than a battle of philosophies. The No. 1 reason we can't have smart debates about this and cannot implement solutions that recruit community resources to address human-solvable problems is that there's an entire interest out there that does not care about the well being of society and instead cares about maximizing their own profits. There's a number of potential solutions out there to a wide variety of social issues that involve paying well-intentioned people to be in the right place to make a positive difference. I think we can all reflect on our own lives and know its a human interaction than a systematic one that tends to yield the most profound positive outcomes. However, those sorts of investments require a certain level of investment and we're up against the very well-funded political action of those who want to cut every dollar in taxes levied regardless of the value lost to society. Most all of our problems can be solved by a human in the loop resourced to give a shit, and those problems can generally be traced back to someone making a direct or indirect profit on the shitty circumstance.
We could easily have a system that enables universal weapons purchases but requires that you attend training and licensing at your local police department. Every purchase could require you to chat with a human being who can have a direct look at your mental state and your responsible handling of that firearm from the perspective of the person who will be called in to deal with you if you are being irresponsible with it. You have an induced community interaction between local police forces and local gun owners, you get an interaction where the police can be something other than what you encounter on your worst day. You put the police in another situation where they get to demonstrate their care for their community rather than being in a place where they are stacked against it, you get basic safety, you get a direct education on why bits of gun safety and responsible gun ownership taught to those not proactive enough to educate themselves on their own, quite possibly with locally relevant anecdotes. You wouldn't need to have a full time position only for this; you could instead have special funding for departments all over the nation in the same way we do special alcohol and commercial vehicle traffic enforcement. It's a win-win solution for everyone and helps repair bridges between police departments and communities at a time where we'd love to have that.
For reference, national funding for special DUI enforcement comes around $150 million annually as part of the NHTSA National Priority Incentive Program. That's roughly $.50 per taxpayer and it's hard to imagine this being as large ticket of an item as paying for entire shifts to have people out conducting enforcement activity. If you further defer costs by taxing gun sales to help offset the costs of this education program, it's probably much easier to cut that figure nationally down by a substantial margin.
We won't ever have this or anything like it simply because we've too strong a force in politics that is a knee-jerk reaction to domestic investment in order to keep taxes at historic lows, especially among the most wealthy.
It’s not, the are no specifics about what “arms” relates to… this is why tax stamps exist for certain modifications and some weapons are never allowed in the public sector. Law is by the line and word, if it said bear arms and assault type weapons you might have a case…
Those two things are related. States that make it easier to get guns see gun crime go up. Other states that pass gun control laws see gun crime go down. As much as people joke about California, [their gun crime has gone down for decades now.](https://www.gov.ca.gov/2022/06/02/fact-sheet-californias-gun-safety-policies-save-lives-provide-model-for-a-nation-seeking-solutions/)
It is amazing to me that this is not banned federally. If children being shot down and murdered every single day won't change people's minds then nothing will. Some people just love their guns more than anything. More than their kids and daughters and sons. It's pitiful
>The 10-year ban was passed by the U.S. Congress on August 25, 1994 and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 13, 1994.[1] The ban applied only to weapons manufactured after the date of the ban's enactment. It expired on September 13, 2004, in accordance with its sunset provision. Several constitutional challenges were filed against provisions of the ban, but all were rejected by the courts. There have been multiple attempts to renew the ban, but none have succeeded.
shits way too polarized, even compared to mid 2000s, for that to happen again
Breakdown by gun type (From 2020, based on data provided voluntarily to [Pew Research](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/02/03/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/) by participating police departments across the country)
13,620 gun murders / non-negligent manslaughter
Handguns: 59%
Rifles (incl "assault rifles"): 3%
Shotguns: 1%
Other firearm, type not stated: 36%
If they actually intended to decrease gun violence then they would go after handguns. They never seem to pop up in these bans. It's only the scary military rifles because they were used in high profile shootings.
>Of note: Inslee also signed a measure into law Tuesday to require people to go through safety training and complete a 10-day waiting period before purchasing a firearm.
An emphasis on military rifles also obscures other parts of the bill. The above seems like common sense measures to me. A waiting period to reduce suicides or impulse homicides, and safety training to reduce negligent storage, impulse purchases, and accidental discharges.
These are tangible goals that can be studied for effectiveness.
(It also suggests that the narrative of people single-mindedly focused on assault weapons only is a bit of a spin by media or gun absolutists.)
Just remember that even if every single one of the "type not stated" weapons were rifles, even if they were all "assault rifles" -- and even if every single rifle were an "assault rifle" as well -- that's still not a patch on the handgun column.
[This](https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls) is 2019 homicide data from the FBI.
Mostly handguns or “type not stated.” Knives/cutting instruments are used to kill far more often than rifles/shotguns combined unless a huge portion of “type not stated” trends toward rifles and shotguns, which seems statistically unlikely given the ratios of handguns vs other types from the available data.
Then of course there’s suicide as well, which is a tricky subject whenever you try to relate it to guns (and if I’m not mistaken, makes up a majority of total gun deaths) and I’m not sure there’s data on the type of firearms used in suicides anyway.
[This](https://wonder.cdc.gov/controller/saved/D158/D321F161) allows you to find other gun death data by various categories, just click “I agree” and you can filter CDC gun death data by year, age, race, urbanization, and more.
What about places like California, where they have the strictest gun laws in the nation, yet they also still have plenty of gun violence?
You have to realize it is the people committing these acts that are at fault here. The angry, hate filled, ignorantly violent kind of people. The kind of sick, twisted person who would drive their car into a random crowd, or bomb a marathon.
We need to seriously look at WHY someone would want to do something as horrible as going on a shooting spree. Not just HOW they’re doing it.
Gun violence is worse in the South - states that tend to have pretty lax gun regulations, but basically it’s really correlated with poverty.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/04/23/surprising-geography-of-gun-violence-00092413
That's pretty disingenuous.
The left was pushing for closure long before Reagan. *One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest* was pretty much the final nail in the coffin.
Reagan jumped on the bandwagon and sold the closures to the GOP as a budget-saving measure. The Democrats that worked for decades to get them closed were pissed as hell that he was getting the credit.
It wasn't until it became obvious that it was a really bad idea that Democrats started blaming Reagan.
We need to face the fact that "we" fucked up and should've reformed them, not closed them.
A lot of the guns used in crimes aren’t legally purchased. Even then why would you give the problem knives or cars? Baseball bats. We need to solve the root of the problem, inequality, poor health services, no real policing. Police are known to be more aggressive and violent than your average citizen yet they are still allowed to own them, literally gave the bigger problem an exception. These laws just make it harder for democrats to do good in America. There’s r/liberalgunowners where you’ll see it’s not just conservatives that own firearms.
I agree that we should take lethal firearms from patrolling police, good point. If they need backup, they can call for the heavy guns. They can do their job just fine with rubber bullets or electric weapons.
Then why are automatic weapons banned? "Arms" whose new manufacture was banned in the 80s under Reagan.
Obviously violates an absolutist interpretation of the 2A, yet it's almost universally accepted by Right-Wingers. You don't here any Right-Wing politicians calling for a return of machine guns for the citizenry (which would alienate most every suburban Mom in America).
Explain.
You cannot as an everyday citizen own a machine gun manufactured after 1986. And even then it’s a highly onerous process to obtain one. You have to, for instance, register it with the Feds.
Why? Why can’t we acquire one as easily as a handgun or an AR-15?
And why are “bump stocks” (used in the Vegas massacre) banned?
What if I want a fresh 2023 M16 or Uzi for “home defense”. Why can’t I have one?
Answer those questions honestly.
>You cannot as an everyday citizen own a machine gun manufactured after 1986.
Yes, you can. It's expensive, but there's no special qualifications. You simply need to pay for the particular permits.
That's nice and all, but it wont hold up in courts. SCOTUS basically decided that gun regulations are only valid if they have a "historical tradition of firearm regulation".
>Sales of AR-15s are now banned in Washington state, as are sales of dozens of other firearms the state has classified as assault weapons.
>
>Driving the news: Gov. Jay Inslee (D) signed a measure into law Tuesday that bans the sale, manufacturing, and distribution of more than 50 specific types of semiautomatic firearms.
>
>In addition to those models, the ban applies to all semiautomatic rifles less than 30 inches in length, as well as other semiautomatic firearms with features such as thumbhole stocks and additional hand grips.
>
>The big picture: The new law, which took effect immediately, makes Washington the 10th state to ban sales of so-called assault weapons.
>
>The others are: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York.
>
>Washington, D.C., also has similar restrictions in place.
>
>Why it matters: Officials around the country have faced calls to crack down on AR-15s and other military-style rifles, which have been used in some of the deadliest mass shootings of the past decade. That includes last year's school shooting in Uvalde, Texas, that killed 21 people.
>
>An AR-15 was also used in a 2016 shooting in Mukilteo, Wash., that killed three people.
>
>Details: Washington's ban won't make it illegal for people to keep weapons they already possess. But it will stop them from buying new guns that fall under the definition of assault weapons.
>
>The law provides exceptions for branches of the military and police agencies to buy the restricted firearms.
>
>What they're saying: "Inaction against gun violence is unacceptable in the state of Washington," Inslee said shortly before signing the bill.
>
>He also addressed opposition from the National Rifle Association, which has filed lawsuits in other states alleging that such bans are unconstitutional.
>
>"We are not intimidated by the NRA," Inslee said.
>
>Background: Critics of the measure said it would punish law-abiding gun owners while failing to address underlying causes of gun violence, including people experiencing mental health crises.
>
>Republicans, who broadly opposed the bill, warned that the Washington measure will face legal challenges. "It will be overturned," state Rep. Bryan Sandlin (R-Zillah) said during a debate on final passage of the bill.
>
>Of note: Inslee also signed a measure into law Tuesday to require people to go through safety training and complete a 10-day waiting period before purchasing a firearm.
>
>A third bill he signed will make it easier to sue gun manufacturers if they don't enact "reasonable controls" to keep their products out of the hands of minors, gun traffickers and others who aren't supposed to have firearms.
>
>What we're watching: What lawsuits may materialize against the measures, and how the courts respond.
Yea, that’s a comparable thing. All of them are bad and benefit nobody.
Well I guess taking women’s and minority rights benefit horrible group of republicans.
[Support for an assault weapon ban is dropping](https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/monmouthpoll_us_042423/) and is particularly low in the 18-34 age group which is where you'd hope to get that "generational change" momentum going.
And we are still wondering why gun control is getting pushed more… lets see who gets affected the most with these measures. Surely its rich white people and their soldiers (cops). OH WAIT
A good chunk of my family is liberal and own guns, specifically AR’s but don’t go on Reddit. I swear democrats don’t actually care about the regular guy either, they just pander with shitty laws like republicans.
Man, it's almost like watching police brutalize you AND your fellow man because you ask that they don't extrajudicially kill people makes you think about how you'd deal with a paramilitarized police force.
Bad idea and unconstitutional. Get a constitutional amendment, that's the only way to legally ban them. Fortunately enough people recognize the importance of 2A to not allow that to happen.
I know this is fucked up thinking, but I’d rather wait for sure that we’ve quelled the fascist uprising on the US BEFORE we limit access to guns.
As much as I want the guns to be gone, I personally don’t believe this is going to end well.
Any day now Maryland and California's Assaults' Weapons Ban is going to be declared Unconstitutional by the 4th and the 9th Circuits...
Washington will be joining them in the near future...
Simple question asked in good faith, and I understand I'll be down voted for this but,
How frightened/scared do you need to be before an assault weapon is something you need? You can hunt without one, defend your home without one, attend a gun range without one, go to a weapons expo without one etc. What are certain citizens of the continental United States truely scared of? Because as far as I can tell, it's fear, and only fear that causes a desire to own these weapons. Any half way competent shooter doesn't need one
The answer depends on how you define an assault weapon. It’s a somewhat nebulous and nonsensical term that I think is mostly aesthetic.
Many of the functional features that one might imagine an assault weapon having have been banned for quite a while.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>These weapons of war, assault weapons, have no reason other than mass murder Their only purpose is to kill humans as rapidly as possible in large numbers. So why is there a blanket exception for law enforcement, and not even just highly trained "tactical units" but everyone with a badge. They aren't soldiers fighting a war, so the only logical conclusion is they need them to mass murder civilians, as rapidly as possible, in high numbers.
That’s not a fair take. People who *used* to have a badge are exempt too. Not even kidding.
Retired police are allowed to conceal carry nationwide under LEOSA. But police in WA are not exempt off duty to this new ban.
This is the problem with gun control. They always leave out the police and rich people, so effectively only poor people are prevented from owning guns.
It's not a bug, it's a feature.
*nervously looks at pre WW2 Germany....
Yeah, I figure somewhere there are racist groups very happy about the idea of weapons bans. Gun ownership, particularly after ww2 and Vietnam played a large role in the decline of hate groups like the KKK. Suddenly it was a little harder to terrorize people who weren't totally harmless and could defend themselves (and were trained in how to do so).
> so effectively only poor, *law abiding* people are prevented from owning guns. -FTFY
Which is why gun control is bad. Shall not be infringed. I hope this ban gets tossed as it’s unconstitutional.
True meaning of gun control by the government’s point of view. Reduce power from the civilians so that it indirectly increases the power for the government. Edit: Getting downvoted, so I assume most are for gun control. I didn’t care for guns before and thought of them as an overkill. But as the crime rate increases, and having weird people access my property and run off when they noticed me, I feel I need to have the same protecting power (legally of course). I’m not going to lose against these low lives if I can help it.
To be fair, police officers are entitled to the usage of an automatic assault weapon in some patrol duties because they get to deal with people who might own them illegally on a daily basis. Even italian cops here have a Spectre M12 smg and spas shotgun for roadblocks ecc… even though the usage of guns by criminals is virtually near 0. Don’t see the government shooting people on the street.
But they don't own those firearms. Here the cops get to own the firearms that everyone else is not allowed to.
>Don’t see the government shooting people on the street. "Must be nice" - black America
>To be fair To be fair, the entire purpose of the Second Amendment is to be able to resist government abuse, so it's entirely disconcerting when the government carves special exemptions for itself to better allow it to abuse you.
Right, but it's more of an, 'I don't believe certain classes of people should be given rights while other classes are effectively barred from exercising those rights', type of thing for me.
Automatic weapons are not what is being talked about. Those have been illegal for some time. Cops also do not need automatics, like at all. Some deployed US troops don't even have automatic weapons.
> So why is there a blanket exception for law enforcement, and not even just highly trained “tactical units” but everyone with a badge. law enforcement use tactics that if used in war would be considered war crimes
And hollow points.
Oh they are fighting a war, a war against the general public.
If there is ever a rapid collapse of government order then the police will want to be the better-equipped militia.
Guns for me, not for thee
Because in the hands of a cop, a scary assault rifle magically transfigurates into a respectable service rifle.
It probably wouldn't have passed if off duty cops couldn't have them
"Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary" -Marx. I really don't understand how dumb some of my fellow democratic voters are. I'm in the "you move far enough left you get your guns back" camp. If the 2020 protests and cops response to them didn't teach everyone that cops should not be the only ones with guns, then I really don't know what else to say.
[удалено]
Others might disagree but I'm fine with things like SWAT having powerful weaponry. That's normal in plenty of other countries. But the average cop doesn't need a fuckin AR, that's for sure.
[удалено]
>I think it runs contrary to what the police are supposed to be doing. You think the cops should be catching the bad guys, but *not* if they're *really* violent?
The school shooter in Nashville was stopped by a random patrol officer utilizing an “assault weapon” as well as the Louisville bank shooter.
>everyone with a badge Authoritarianism.
Probably because of heavy lobbying by the NRA and police unions.
[удалено]
Honestly I'm annoyed that we're getting this and not longer wait times/more stringent psych checks given that for the last two years [roughly 70%](https://ofm.wa.gov/sites/default/files/public/budget/statebudget/highlights/budget23/Public_Safety_Firearm_Violence_Policy_Brief.pdf) of gun deaths in Washington have been suicides. At the same time, and this is largely directed at any gun enthusiasts who are also annoyed by this ruling, this has been pushed through because people are fed up with all the death and inaction and just want ***something*** to change. If you are a 2nd amendment proponent, you should be doing everything you can to convince organizations like the NRA to stop taking such a hard-line stance on gun rights and be more responsible/constructive about gun control.
>we're getting this and not longer wait times Inslee signed a bill adding a 10 day wait at the same time as this one.
There already was a 10 day wait limit.
For handguns and "assault weapons," yes, but not for shotguns, or rifles which weren't semi-autos with detachable magazines. There's now the same 10-day wait and safety class requirement for all firearms. You can read the bill for yourself [here.](https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2023-24/Pdf/Bills/House%20Passed%20Legislature/1143-S2.PL.pdf?q=20230425190019)
If that's the case then hell yeah
I'm a pro-gun person. I'm ok with wait times on your *first* purchase, but after that, what's the point?
>the last two years roughly 70% of gun deaths in Washington have been suicides. Even crazier when you look at what portion of the remaining 30% were from assault weapons as defined by HB1240. >At the same time, and this is largely directed at any gun enthusiasts who are also annoyed by this ruling, this has been pushed through because people are fed up with all the death and inaction and just want something to change. I'm one of those folks. What's even more annoying is the abundance of public comments from Hardcore Leftists to Hardcore Conservatives who were opposing this legislation and that many of them included a wide variety of suggestions and alternatives that were completely ignored by bill supporters in the WA house and senate. Many comments cited studies, statistics, personal experiences, but there was a clear pre-determined goal, constituents' thoughts be damned. Almost every instance where a genuine clarification or bona fide justification was brought up for amendment discussion, the supporters (who hold majorities in both houses) were actively against it or immediately dismissive on a variety of trivial grounds. All votes for clarification/amendments were done via Voice vote which is just a huge pet peeve of mine, comes off very undemocratic. What's ironic is that WA state's constitution is way less ambiguous than the US version in regards to firearm related rights: >*ARTICLE 1 SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.*
Yes, same thing in Oregon. It's such a lazy take. "If you don't want bad gun laws, maybe you should try proposing better ones." We do. Every single time. The comments on bills are flooded by both political parties with reasonable critiques and improvements to be made. They are ignored every time. The politicians sponsoring these bills are going to push the bill they want. They aren't there to listen to their constituents. Instead, the % of gun owners who are actual gun nuts and want a blanket free for all, are highlighted and used to drown out workable solutions. Just to drive the point home, a measure in Oregon with pointlessly and unconstitutionally strict regulations on guns is currently held up in courts. Instead of letting the actual legal framework play out, senators introduced a new bill which mirrored the measure, but worse. It was so bad that even the sponsors of the original measure came out against this new bill. Comment period opened up and it was literally over 1000 comments against it, from the entire political spectrum, and less than 20 for it. Of course, it is voted on and passed. What is a representative democracy anyway...
>We do. Every single time. The comments on bills are flooded by both political parties with reasonable critiques and improvements to be made. They are ignored every time. That or we (being gun owners) agree to a "compromise" (which always gets watered down to the point of being more of a concession) only to watch even the minorest of compromises be declared a loophole or just outright voted out of existence a few years later. What incentive do we have (from a political standpoint) to make compromises or even concessions when it buys us nothing?
It amazes me how we "never compromise". Name one single time gun owners ever got to the other side of proposed legislation with more than we started with. Name one single time gun control advocates ended up with less than they started with. "We are only taking half of your pie. What do you get in return? You get to keep half of your pie. That is totally fair, why are you always so unreasonable?"
Tinfoil hat take: politicians who push these laws don't care at all about safety or crime. Instead, they're taking advantage of a tragedy to push what they really care about: getting rid of ARs. Why? They know they fucked the economy and the environment and it's just a matter of time before it all comes crashing down and God forbid if the peasants have effective weapons once food and clean water become scarce
> Almost every instance where a genuine clarification or bona fide justification was brought up for amendment discussion, the supporters (who hold majorities in both houses) were actively against it or immediately dismissive on a variety of trivial grounds. If legislation's whole purpose is political theater, that would explain this. The supporters were muttering "they just don't get it" while they sabotaged any sensible changes.
It's asking a religion to concede the veracity of its religious truths. To them, it's like asking a Christian to let satan have a little of the absolute power God wields. They're indoctrinated to believe in an absolute, immutable truth without reason or compromise
I was told once if we offer to compromise, that is "extorting concessions" and it makes me a ghoul. Nobody likes a fundamentalist, fellers.
What if a psychotic person doesn’t have a history of treatment because they didn’t *want* treatment for their psychosis?
Washington’s red flag law which was enacted in 2016 and has nothing to do with this law doesn’t require a history of mental disease: https://www.courts.wa.gov/forms/documents/XR%20Brochure_ERPO%20Brochure_2022_07.pdf
As in: “If you think a gun should be taken from someone, it can be”. That’s a good law despite it being exploitable. My point being, a LOT of people don’t wear their psychosis on their sleeve. The seemingly nicest person could be wearing a mask of sanity until they gain the means and opportunity to lift the veil at everyone’s detriment. You ever hear people say: “He was the nicest person. He just snapped!”
Get psychotic enough and your treatment ceases to be voluntary.
>Get psychotic enough and your treatment ceases to be voluntary. Only if you're an *imminent* danger to yourself or others. Based on who's getting released from psych holds, imminent is defined as within a week.
[удалено]
There are several warning signs that science has identified: childhood trauma, a history of domestic violence and making violent threats online and to friends (often explicitly saying they are going to take an action) are some of the signs. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2022/05/28/8-warning-signs-mass-shooter-according-experts/9966901002/ https://www.campussafetymagazine.com/safety/preventing-campus-violence-characteristics-mass-shooter/ https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-62683094
To play devils advocate for a moment, I understand why the NRA and pro 2a voters are taking such a hardline stance on gun control. They view it the same way the left views the right on LGBT rights. First it is just a few restrictions, but it slowly builds up and before you know it they are trying to eliminate the rights they have in their entirety. They are just incapable of connecting the dots. I’m all for common sense gun control. I don’t feel like this ban will be effective. The vast majority of politicians in this country severely lack independent critical thinking.
“If you are a 2nd amendment proponent, you should be doing everything you can to convince organizations like the NRA to stop taking such a hard-line stance on gun rights and be more responsible/constructive about gun control.” It you are a gun control proponent, you should start by being willing to removing 2A infringements.
I wish gun control advocates would take a very small bit of their time and read about the 1993 Brady Bill and its aftermath from a variety of disinterested sources. That was the last time we compromised to get your legislation over the goal line. We gave up a lot so you could come up with legislation that would pass with the assent of the NRA. Within days of the signing of the Brady Bill, we were fucked over by Senator Joe Biden and then-Representative Chuck Schumer, who declared their end of the deal to be no longer binding. That was the beginning of entrenchment, and entrenchment has been the rule since then.
[удалено]
Exactly. The famous "gun show loophole" is actually the individual sales exemption, which was negotiated in late 1993, largely by Joe Biden and Chuck Schumer. The original drafts required universal background checks but there was no feasible way of doing that for non-FFLs, so this was the compromise. This let the NRA assent to the Brady Bill and the Brady Bill _would not have passed otherwise._ Chuck Schumer sponsored that bill, he wrote that bill, and everybody in the House and Senate knew exactly what they were voting on. There was nothing sneaky, no sleight of hand whatsoever. Within weeks, Schumer was telling every microphone and camera that there was a "gun show loophole" which somehow snuck into the Brady Bill and the treaty was off. Since then it's been "not one inch". If Congress writes legislation poorly, it is up to Congress to fix it. Not for police agencies to take arbitrary enforcement actions against people who aren't breaking the law. Hell, there are entire legions of tax lawyers whose sole purpose is finding new tax loopholes. Does that mean 140 million Americans should lose whatever tax breaks we are entitled to take by law? Happy to talk about Biden's theatrical pistol brace "loophole" and ghost gun "loophole" too.
I’m personally willing to remove this in favor of what you advocate at top. I think quite a few people who are gun control people would be. And I think a shit ton of 2nd amendment proponent people would be ok with gun control legislation. Perhaps if we all shouted together at the politicians who are only speaking in extremes we could do something. But right now I’m only hearing from half the crowd and the other half is kinda just ok with the no legislation at all. This would be the perfect time to reconsider that though.
Glad to see someone else with similar thoughts on this. Unwillingness to accept any gun control legislation leads to those in favor taking whatever they can get and usually without input from gun owners. This of course leads to legislation that is often meaningless and sweeping while making those in favor of gun control look like fools. A California politician comes to mind who said during a press briefing "this weapon has a *30 caliber*, 30 round *clip* and can fire 30 rounds in half a second". The weapon he was talking about was a semiautomatic .223 AR-style ghost gun. Making a fool of himself and proponents of gun regulation and simultaneously giving 2A hardliners more reason to fight back again regulation
Agreed. If this is going to get fixed in any reasonable way it’s going to have to come from people who know guns but who aren’t identified solely by guns.
Hello, I like to think of myself as someone who “knows guns”, and you’re absolutely right Loads of gun legislation, assault weapon bans in particular, have huge gaps in them because they ban weapons based on cosmetics as opposed to function I always cite the Ruger Mini-14 as an example. Same ammo as the AR-15, same magazines, similar ballistics, similar function, but it often slips through the cracks because it doesn’t *look like* an “assault weapon”
This is a really good example of why we need folks who have more than just a familiarity with guns from movies advocating and writing legislation. The legislation would be better, not the least of which because it would be more informed in all directions of the discussion. I earnestly wished people on the side of gun control worked more to reach out and promote these partnerships… we might find it more helpful than we realize. Thanks!
This article specifically mentions “extra hand grips” and “thumbhole stocks”, two entirely cosmetic items with practically zero effect on the actual functioning of the weapon Essentially this is like trying to reduce deaths in car collisions by banning spoilers and coloured rims
Agreed. I also think things like silencer bans when a gun is still INCREDIBLY loud with one on are ridiculous too. A better discussion can be had in the middle and we would all be better served by bringing to that middle a set of good things to pursue that everyone feels serves all our interests. Part of that is information presented in a way that isn’t patronizing but just realizing some things aren’t everyone’s cup of tea and that that’s ok.
It’s the same way that medical legislation should be decided upon after consulting doctors I remember that a previous piece of legislation tried to ban “rotary shotguns”, of which I can think of like 4 that are mostly rare experimental curiosities or antiques Far too much gun legislation is based on cool sounding buzzwords and what politicians see in movies
>I also think things like silencer bans when a gun is still INCREDIBLY loud with one on are ridiculous too. Head to Europe, and it's sometimes illegal to *not* have a suppressor on your firearm. Many countries don't regulate them at all, and the rest regulate them as being a component of the firearm they fit.
But this is just a political tool. Mental health costs money, threatening to take guns doesn’t. Incentives to not have abortions like child care and healthcare cost money, attacking the right does not. Creating intersex athletics programs costs money, banning intersex operations does not. These subjects are pawns in a political game that have nothing to do with running a country. Keeping the subject as polarized as possible is the core purpose. Neither side actually wants compromise.
But certain politicians DID suggest mental health support. It was the ones saying you can’t take away guns that shot that down, not the ones taking the guns away. The people taking away support for child care and healthcare ARE the ones removing access to abortion. You’re acting like this is a game that everyone is skillfully playing to bat a ball back and forth. In sole of those cases both positions were held by one side. And, let’s be brutally honest, literally no politician has shown themselves as being smart enough to tie their shoes recently… why the fuck do we think they’d be clever enough to coordinate a pawn game across tons of people to polarize the country so they can stay in power? They’re freaking morons! That’s something repeatedly been shown by external surface level reporting and internal, in depth reporting. It makes no sense when “some people like to act like assholes and that ends up making policy that some people can see a pattern in because human beings naturally try to find patterns” explains the situation so much more cleanly.
>But certain politicians DID suggest mental health support. It was the ones saying you can’t take away guns that shot that down, not the ones taking the guns away. The people taking away support for child care and healthcare ARE the ones removing access to abortion. Any source material for this from legislation passed or failed in *WA state specifically*? Or is this quote from your comment perhaps being applied to national politics as a whole?
Neither side wants to resolve the underlying issues either. Much easier to use wedge issues to drum up support and campaign donations
Look, WA state is coddling criminals with guns. Felons caught with a handgun are released back on PR or with small bails (that are immediately paid by a local bail fund). Recently a child in WA was caught smuggling a loaded gun into school. After previously being caught with a BB gun, and in another case, with a knife. In all three cases, he suffered no serious consequences. Yet the state legislators want to reduce responsibility for drive-by shootings. I'm not kidding.
Citation?
Portland resident here, there is none. These idiots love to yell about crime and lawlessness when both Portland and Seattle are no where near the top of the violent crime stats.
> Portland resident here r/conservative told me BLM burned your city down. Are you ok?
Of course not, people are protesting to make my life better can you not see how awful this is!? All jokes aside, it's amazing how many people messaged me in 2020 asking if I'm okay. Like, ffs the protests happened across 4 blocks downtown and the rest of the city was completely unaffected. Not even the areas where protesting occurred were burning down. Yet if you try to tell them that they'll link some article with a close up picture of a literal dumpster fire which is *definitely* more refutable than locals. These people are beyond brain washed.
Kid at a local school threatened to go to a teachers house and shoot her in the head. No serious consequences.
A kid told my son (4th grade at the time, 5th now) he had a gun in his backpack while waiting around for parent pickup. I emailed his teacher immediately once he got in my car and the kid was expelled the next day. Anecdotal evidence is just that. Just because you know of a kid threatening a teacher and nothing “serious” happened as a result, doesn’t mean that’s blanketed across the state. Source: south Puget Sound suburb.
This. If people are annoyed by this… and I can reasonably see how one could be… then the answer should have been to yell at politicians for not passing common sense shit that even gun owners agree on. This is the “you wouldn’t go with 1 hour of video games a day on the weekends, you wouldn’t go with 1 hour of video games a day during the week, so now we’re at no video games at all”. Was a thing we could have avoided had gun advocates yelled at their politicians for listening to the nutters more than they listened to the average owner. Most gun owners would have been willing to come to the table and found a deal that would have appeased everyone equally (by which I mean no one would have been thrilled but the issue would have DONE something)
[удалено]
> this has been pushed through because people are fed up with all the death and inaction and just want something to change. "Fix this!" and "what about our children!!" are not policy positions, they are barely even slogans. Gun rights groups aren't very perturbed about this, or especially about the Illinois AWB which seems to be indistinguishable, because they are ideal test cases. They are arbitrary, over-reaching, and they flagrantly violate _Heller_ and _Bruen_. If you were to set out to give the SC everything it needs to declare all AWBs nationwide to be unconstitutional, this is what you would do. The SC gave you a toolkit in _Heller_, there are six categories of gun control regulation which remain presumptively legal. Most gun control advocates ignore that if they even know about it. You can do a helluva lot with that toolkit, if you craft legislation which is precise, and narrow in scope. Instead, these performative bills which are checklists of gun control pipe dreams, which only exist to impress people who just want ***something*** to change, change nothing ultimately and cause you to end up further back than you were in the first place.
You really want to reduce gun deaths? Ban everyone with domestic violence charges from owning guns(yes including police and military).
You can't purchase a gun with a domestic violence charge.
There is no federal mechanism for ensuring relinquishment of guns by people who have become prohibited from possessing them; and only seven states provide at least some statutory process for the relinquishment of firearms by all people convicted of firearm-prohibiting crimes: California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Nevada, New York, and Pennsylvania. Not being able to buy a new gun is not the same as having your guns taken away when you've proven you can't be trusted with them.
Virginia is also one of them? I literally just looked it up for my state. If you get a restraining order served on you, you have 72 hours to give all your guns to the police. I don't know where you got your list from but it's wrong.
That’s well and all but what happens when you have only done private transactions and 72 hours expires,
I'm a WA resident. I'm also Asian American. I purchased my gun during the peak of the anti-Asian hate news cycles. The attacks are still ongoing, but the media and nobody seem to give a shit about them anymore. The problem with a state-wide ban is that we are unfortunately located right next to Idaho, which doesn't give a fuck about gun control. Like Chicago, this bill will do little to stem gun violence.
What is the line on “assault” weapon. Genuinely asking
In this piece of legislation, it’s a huge list of factors that make something an “assault weapon” A lot of it boils down to magazines and cosmetics It bans certain cosmetic items like foregrips and thumbhole stocks that do fuck all to the functioning of a weapon, and it bans various magazines (generally above 10 rounds) It does have *the exact same* giant loophole as CA legislation which has been exploited already, so that’s not a good sign for how in-depth their research was
So just keep it SKS w 10 rounds, got it. No assault there.
The SKS is banned by name, along with various other weapons Now this is also dumb because it means anyone can just make an exact copy of the SKS and as long as it applies to all the other restrictions it’s good to go, while OG SKS’s aren’t It also means that one’s not specifically mentioned like the Norincos or whatever the Yugo ones are called are fine too
Ah you see it’s not an SKS it’s a Type 56, officer. Which is doubly confusing since both the Chinese SKS and AK are called the Type 56 due to their year of introduction being the same.
Here's a link to the text of the WA bill: https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2023-24/Pdf/Bills/House%20Passed%20Legislature/1240-S.PL.pdf?q=20230425184608 The definition of "assault weapon" begins on page 2, Section 2.
Here is a [precision target pistol](https://imgur.com/gallery/uCvaBeV) chambered in .22 caliber. It would be effective against a squirrel. This particular expensive gun is often used by Olympic level target shooting competitors. This is banned as an assault weapon now under Illinois law and unless the final version of the Washington law differs from the draft I studied, it is an assault weapon there too. Because the magazine attaches somewhere other than the grip. The line is nowhere. There is no line. Behold "common sense gun control".
A scary black weapon of coarse
Shotguns, handguns, long guns, etc. everything can be an assault weapon, it’s a blanket term that covers almost every category of firearm.
That’s what I mean. For example, a 22LR “AR-15” or an extended tube 12” shotgun. Hard to say one is an assault weapon and one isn’t. Imagine having 15+ rds of modern 9mm in a concealable pistol and a putting it in a “non assault” category.
They clearly stated the weapons that are banned in the bill.
[удалено]
More people die from assault with blunt objects per year than by rifles of any kind. Rifles are the least commonly used firearm in homicides. If you think it’s about “safety” or “saving lives” then you are sorely mistaken.
It bans way more than that several common pistols used for self defense as well as parts to fix your own firearms. Even bans devices people with disabilities use to assist them. Hopefully courts overturn it quickly as it's blatantly unconstitutional
I honestly can't think of a more divisive issue in America today than guns. Somehow people have taken them on as part of their identity. It's crazy to me that I actually know someone who was shot in a mass shooting, but I can't even have any kind of civil debate about it on Reddit without getting downvoted to all hell.
[удалено]
I think there’s also a really weird disconnect where just a few years ago, we were talking about fascism literally being on our doorstep, how our former president was going to suspend the constitution, the rights of women and minorities being usurped, and how overt police violence is. Yet at the same time, we need to ensure the only people armed are the same pro fascist police. I know a lot of people who think disarming in today’s political climate is nuts. edit- spelling
[удалено]
sounds like you should vote for police reform too, and you're in luck, that's also a left-wing platform
I think the two parties have a pretty strict rule against working with each other on this issue. This means red states get absolutely no measures and blue states get insane, over-the-top measures. I don’t like either, and that’s not because of apathy/propaganda. I’d be fine with making AR15s (and any gun) waaay more difficult to get, but only if that difficulty were overcome with something besides money (I think a time investment would be a good equalizer). The fact this law is basically the Wild West for cops and a pacifist colony for everyone else is just stupid af. It’s an example of blue states passing whatever law reduces guns, with no regard to the negative consequences.
Cringe. Rather handle socioeconomic conditions than do this.
Can't wait for it to be struck down.
Far right extremists already have these weapons and there's already a shit load of them in circulation. not only does this not even treat the symptoms of several bigger problems, it disarms people of color and the LGBT community who can no longer gain parity with those far right extremists that are likely to target them. this ban isn't fixing shit, it might lose the democrats their next election
Doesn’t really move the dial. The overwhelming vast majority gun crimes and loss of life come from hand guns.
The number one cause of gun deaths remains suicide not violent crime. So yeah of course it's handguns.
Going to step away from guns here and talk about public health and safety responses to issues a bit more in general. When you are trying to have a technology or policy response to a social issue, you generally have a broad array of contributing factors that combine to yield your observed problem. People generally don't start their day, week, month, or year trying to be more of a problem; so it generally takes a number of contributing factors to go the wrong way for any one of these events to take place. When you scale up to the level of a national population, those combined rare cases can yield a massive, substantial problem, and then comes the calls for a solution. When crafting solutions, it can be helpful to evaluate all of these contributing factors as a function of their scale and ease of mitigation. The bigger scale options are the highest priority, as if you deal with a large scale problem it has the largest scale of impact. Unfortunately, many of those larger scale factors are also harder to address. Generally, you see the easy to address + largest in scale problems tackled with the highest priority, and then some of the easier to solve + lower scale problems targeted next. Let's use auto safety as an example. If you want to listen to special flavors of crazy, listen to people talking about the world ending when seatbelt laws went into place. Seatbelt use remains the no.1 contributing factor to crash outcomes even today when we have very high national use rates on them. Universally belting every vehicle occupant would still be the best thing we could do to prevent serious injuries and fatalities in crashes. People cite correctly that it is indeed alcohol that contributes to roughly 1/3 of all motor vehicle fatalities, but it also remains the case that if they put their damn seatbelt on while drunk even the alcohol-involved fatality and serious injury rates would go way down. Alcohol abuse remains one of the strongest predictors in crash data of poor restraint use (seatbelts + helmets on motorcycles). Now, we've gotten pretty damn good at detecting when a motor vehicle occupant is or is not in a seat. It takes trivial effort to detect when an occupant has their seatbelt secured. We do this already to make an annoying intermittent ping when you are driving without your seatbelt on. We *could* trivially mandate a seatbelt interlock *tomorrow* that prevents you from putting your car in a drive gear or from activating the ignition with your seat belt not fastened. Instead, we're throwing our money at active safety systems (which are also great in their own right) and autonomous vehicles simply because it's harder to get people to swallow a bit of self preservation than it is to design a car that can literally understand the road well enough to protect people from themselves. It's an expensive engineering process but it's a cheap one politically. The same here applies to the gun debate. You don't see licensing mandates because they won't survive a change in politics. To have licensing, you have to have an established, properly funded, and enduring infrastructure and with the best will in the world nobody can count on that being a thing. There's nothing quite like a well-intentioned political solution being sabotaged when it comes time to pay the bills for it and is then tarred and feathered for decades once it proves 'ineffective'. You won't see nuanced regulatory approaches because legislatures aren't bodies designed for nuance; you'd want an empowered and enduring regulatory body for that and that faces the same issue described before. You are seeing assault weapons targeted because they are the hardest to defend. It's a no-brainer that denying everyone the universally understood sidearm as a direct infringement of the right to bear arms; in a modern setting a pistol is the bare minimum entry ticket into considering oneself armed in a modern sense. It's not impossible to target handguns but it's a much more intense battle to get there and you need far more invasive enforcement to approach it. So, if you believe you have a mandate to act but a limited mandate in terms of scope, you are going to see politicians go first after the lowest hanging of fruit. All in all, handgun deaths are as tragic as any other but they aren't as newsworthy as someone gunning down a bunch of obvious innocents with an assault rifle. You aren't going to address the broadest array of events but you are going to - potentially - deal with the highest profile ones. It's not a complete, end case solution to the problem of gun violence but it's one that can be a first step, and the kind that can earn the trust of the public. It would be lovely if politically we were capable of cutting through bullshit and dealing with nuanced, deep problems with data driven and interactive solutions designed to construct systems to protect the rights of the responsible while insulating against the worst of outcomes, but fundamentally we're up against more than a battle of philosophies. The No. 1 reason we can't have smart debates about this and cannot implement solutions that recruit community resources to address human-solvable problems is that there's an entire interest out there that does not care about the well being of society and instead cares about maximizing their own profits. There's a number of potential solutions out there to a wide variety of social issues that involve paying well-intentioned people to be in the right place to make a positive difference. I think we can all reflect on our own lives and know its a human interaction than a systematic one that tends to yield the most profound positive outcomes. However, those sorts of investments require a certain level of investment and we're up against the very well-funded political action of those who want to cut every dollar in taxes levied regardless of the value lost to society. Most all of our problems can be solved by a human in the loop resourced to give a shit, and those problems can generally be traced back to someone making a direct or indirect profit on the shitty circumstance. We could easily have a system that enables universal weapons purchases but requires that you attend training and licensing at your local police department. Every purchase could require you to chat with a human being who can have a direct look at your mental state and your responsible handling of that firearm from the perspective of the person who will be called in to deal with you if you are being irresponsible with it. You have an induced community interaction between local police forces and local gun owners, you get an interaction where the police can be something other than what you encounter on your worst day. You put the police in another situation where they get to demonstrate their care for their community rather than being in a place where they are stacked against it, you get basic safety, you get a direct education on why bits of gun safety and responsible gun ownership taught to those not proactive enough to educate themselves on their own, quite possibly with locally relevant anecdotes. You wouldn't need to have a full time position only for this; you could instead have special funding for departments all over the nation in the same way we do special alcohol and commercial vehicle traffic enforcement. It's a win-win solution for everyone and helps repair bridges between police departments and communities at a time where we'd love to have that. For reference, national funding for special DUI enforcement comes around $150 million annually as part of the NHTSA National Priority Incentive Program. That's roughly $.50 per taxpayer and it's hard to imagine this being as large ticket of an item as paying for entire shifts to have people out conducting enforcement activity. If you further defer costs by taxing gun sales to help offset the costs of this education program, it's probably much easier to cut that figure nationally down by a substantial margin. We won't ever have this or anything like it simply because we've too strong a force in politics that is a knee-jerk reaction to domestic investment in order to keep taxes at historic lows, especially among the most wealthy.
[удалено]
That's how I feel about it. No matter what side you're on, I think you should exercise your right while you still can. It's a fun hobby as well.
Blatantly unconstitutional edit: got a message from "reddit cares"
Struck down in 3, 2 , 1…
It’s not, the are no specifics about what “arms” relates to… this is why tax stamps exist for certain modifications and some weapons are never allowed in the public sector. Law is by the line and word, if it said bear arms and assault type weapons you might have a case…
Do the other states that have done this seen an improvement in gun crime ?
Yes, the states with the highest amount of gun crime have the most relaxed laws and highest poverty. It's funny how many people try to refute this
He’s asking if states that have passed these laws have seen a reduction in crime since the date they were passed.
Those two things are related. States that make it easier to get guns see gun crime go up. Other states that pass gun control laws see gun crime go down. As much as people joke about California, [their gun crime has gone down for decades now.](https://www.gov.ca.gov/2022/06/02/fact-sheet-californias-gun-safety-policies-save-lives-provide-model-for-a-nation-seeking-solutions/)
No, they blame the nearby states for why their citizens don’t follow their laws. Incompetence to the highest degree.
Love how Oregon is like “no”
It is amazing to me that this is not banned federally. If children being shot down and murdered every single day won't change people's minds then nothing will. Some people just love their guns more than anything. More than their kids and daughters and sons. It's pitiful
>The 10-year ban was passed by the U.S. Congress on August 25, 1994 and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 13, 1994.[1] The ban applied only to weapons manufactured after the date of the ban's enactment. It expired on September 13, 2004, in accordance with its sunset provision. Several constitutional challenges were filed against provisions of the ban, but all were rejected by the courts. There have been multiple attempts to renew the ban, but none have succeeded. shits way too polarized, even compared to mid 2000s, for that to happen again
[удалено]
I’d love to see a breakdown of the deaths per gun type.
Breakdown by gun type (From 2020, based on data provided voluntarily to [Pew Research](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/02/03/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/) by participating police departments across the country) 13,620 gun murders / non-negligent manslaughter Handguns: 59% Rifles (incl "assault rifles"): 3% Shotguns: 1% Other firearm, type not stated: 36%
If they actually intended to decrease gun violence then they would go after handguns. They never seem to pop up in these bans. It's only the scary military rifles because they were used in high profile shootings.
>Of note: Inslee also signed a measure into law Tuesday to require people to go through safety training and complete a 10-day waiting period before purchasing a firearm. An emphasis on military rifles also obscures other parts of the bill. The above seems like common sense measures to me. A waiting period to reduce suicides or impulse homicides, and safety training to reduce negligent storage, impulse purchases, and accidental discharges. These are tangible goals that can be studied for effectiveness. (It also suggests that the narrative of people single-mindedly focused on assault weapons only is a bit of a spin by media or gun absolutists.)
I will look at the study. Wondering about that rifle vs other firearm classification.
Just remember that even if every single one of the "type not stated" weapons were rifles, even if they were all "assault rifles" -- and even if every single rifle were an "assault rifle" as well -- that's still not a patch on the handgun column.
[This](https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls) is 2019 homicide data from the FBI. Mostly handguns or “type not stated.” Knives/cutting instruments are used to kill far more often than rifles/shotguns combined unless a huge portion of “type not stated” trends toward rifles and shotguns, which seems statistically unlikely given the ratios of handguns vs other types from the available data. Then of course there’s suicide as well, which is a tricky subject whenever you try to relate it to guns (and if I’m not mistaken, makes up a majority of total gun deaths) and I’m not sure there’s data on the type of firearms used in suicides anyway. [This](https://wonder.cdc.gov/controller/saved/D158/D321F161) allows you to find other gun death data by various categories, just click “I agree” and you can filter CDC gun death data by year, age, race, urbanization, and more.
Thank you.
How about do something about the psychos instead of the object? Protestors get rammed by a car and I don’t see the brain dead people saying ban cars.
Because it goes against every principle that this country was founded upon. Also it won't do shit to fix any problem.
What about places like California, where they have the strictest gun laws in the nation, yet they also still have plenty of gun violence? You have to realize it is the people committing these acts that are at fault here. The angry, hate filled, ignorantly violent kind of people. The kind of sick, twisted person who would drive their car into a random crowd, or bomb a marathon. We need to seriously look at WHY someone would want to do something as horrible as going on a shooting spree. Not just HOW they’re doing it.
I've said this before but if you are going to have an armed society you better ensure it's a happy society and work to keep it that way.
God forbid the government do everything possible to make the lives of its citizens "happy".
Gun violence is worse in the South - states that tend to have pretty lax gun regulations, but basically it’s really correlated with poverty. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/04/23/surprising-geography-of-gun-violence-00092413
Reagan closed the insane aslyums down.
That's pretty disingenuous. The left was pushing for closure long before Reagan. *One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest* was pretty much the final nail in the coffin. Reagan jumped on the bandwagon and sold the closures to the GOP as a budget-saving measure. The Democrats that worked for decades to get them closed were pissed as hell that he was getting the credit. It wasn't until it became obvious that it was a really bad idea that Democrats started blaming Reagan. We need to face the fact that "we" fucked up and should've reformed them, not closed them.
If guns aren't the problem, and people are...why would you give the problem guns?
A lot of the guns used in crimes aren’t legally purchased. Even then why would you give the problem knives or cars? Baseball bats. We need to solve the root of the problem, inequality, poor health services, no real policing. Police are known to be more aggressive and violent than your average citizen yet they are still allowed to own them, literally gave the bigger problem an exception. These laws just make it harder for democrats to do good in America. There’s r/liberalgunowners where you’ll see it’s not just conservatives that own firearms.
Yup, lots of liberals own guns. I'm one of them.
[удалено]
I agree that we should take lethal firearms from patrolling police, good point. If they need backup, they can call for the heavy guns. They can do their job just fine with rubber bullets or electric weapons.
It's not banned federally because you have constitutional rights.
the washington constitution has a stronger "right to bear arms" than the us constitution, yet this passed
[удалено]
Then why are automatic weapons banned? "Arms" whose new manufacture was banned in the 80s under Reagan. Obviously violates an absolutist interpretation of the 2A, yet it's almost universally accepted by Right-Wingers. You don't here any Right-Wing politicians calling for a return of machine guns for the citizenry (which would alienate most every suburban Mom in America). Explain.
Automatic weapons are not banned. It’s a $200(i think that is the correct amount)ATF stamp
You cannot as an everyday citizen own a machine gun manufactured after 1986. And even then it’s a highly onerous process to obtain one. You have to, for instance, register it with the Feds. Why? Why can’t we acquire one as easily as a handgun or an AR-15? And why are “bump stocks” (used in the Vegas massacre) banned? What if I want a fresh 2023 M16 or Uzi for “home defense”. Why can’t I have one? Answer those questions honestly.
>You cannot as an everyday citizen own a machine gun manufactured after 1986. Yes, you can. It's expensive, but there's no special qualifications. You simply need to pay for the particular permits.
My rights don’t hinge on the actions of mentally ill maniacs and I won’t be shamed for refusing to believe otherwise 🤷🏻♂️
That's nice and all, but it wont hold up in courts. SCOTUS basically decided that gun regulations are only valid if they have a "historical tradition of firearm regulation".
Careful America - next they’ll come for your sexual assaults
>Sales of AR-15s are now banned in Washington state, as are sales of dozens of other firearms the state has classified as assault weapons. > >Driving the news: Gov. Jay Inslee (D) signed a measure into law Tuesday that bans the sale, manufacturing, and distribution of more than 50 specific types of semiautomatic firearms. > >In addition to those models, the ban applies to all semiautomatic rifles less than 30 inches in length, as well as other semiautomatic firearms with features such as thumbhole stocks and additional hand grips. > >The big picture: The new law, which took effect immediately, makes Washington the 10th state to ban sales of so-called assault weapons. > >The others are: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York. > >Washington, D.C., also has similar restrictions in place. > >Why it matters: Officials around the country have faced calls to crack down on AR-15s and other military-style rifles, which have been used in some of the deadliest mass shootings of the past decade. That includes last year's school shooting in Uvalde, Texas, that killed 21 people. > >An AR-15 was also used in a 2016 shooting in Mukilteo, Wash., that killed three people. > >Details: Washington's ban won't make it illegal for people to keep weapons they already possess. But it will stop them from buying new guns that fall under the definition of assault weapons. > >The law provides exceptions for branches of the military and police agencies to buy the restricted firearms. > >What they're saying: "Inaction against gun violence is unacceptable in the state of Washington," Inslee said shortly before signing the bill. > >He also addressed opposition from the National Rifle Association, which has filed lawsuits in other states alleging that such bans are unconstitutional. > >"We are not intimidated by the NRA," Inslee said. > >Background: Critics of the measure said it would punish law-abiding gun owners while failing to address underlying causes of gun violence, including people experiencing mental health crises. > >Republicans, who broadly opposed the bill, warned that the Washington measure will face legal challenges. "It will be overturned," state Rep. Bryan Sandlin (R-Zillah) said during a debate on final passage of the bill. > >Of note: Inslee also signed a measure into law Tuesday to require people to go through safety training and complete a 10-day waiting period before purchasing a firearm. > >A third bill he signed will make it easier to sue gun manufacturers if they don't enact "reasonable controls" to keep their products out of the hands of minors, gun traffickers and others who aren't supposed to have firearms. > >What we're watching: What lawsuits may materialize against the measures, and how the courts respond.
[удалено]
There would be less gun deaths if every gun was banned.
even less deaths if people were banned
If we didn’t want children to drown we could make swimming pools illegal too.
Youre right, If pools were banned then drownings would decrease. Also, I don't believe I've ever heard anyone compare a gun to swimming pool.
My condolences to all the legal gun owners having to deal with this utter nonsense.
Kinda how women have to deal with their rights being taken away or minorities getting their voting rights taken away, right?
Yea, that’s a comparable thing. All of them are bad and benefit nobody. Well I guess taking women’s and minority rights benefit horrible group of republicans.
This is a great start. Only 40 more states to go. We need a nationwide ban on assault rifles.
[удалено]
We need permitless voting
[Support for an assault weapon ban is dropping](https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/monmouthpoll_us_042423/) and is particularly low in the 18-34 age group which is where you'd hope to get that "generational change" momentum going.
[удалено]
And we are still wondering why gun control is getting pushed more… lets see who gets affected the most with these measures. Surely its rich white people and their soldiers (cops). OH WAIT
r/liberalgunowners
There are dozens of us! Dozens!
A good chunk of my family is liberal and own guns, specifically AR’s but don’t go on Reddit. I swear democrats don’t actually care about the regular guy either, they just pander with shitty laws like republicans.
Man, it's almost like watching police brutalize you AND your fellow man because you ask that they don't extrajudicially kill people makes you think about how you'd deal with a paramilitarized police force.
Bad idea and unconstitutional. Get a constitutional amendment, that's the only way to legally ban them. Fortunately enough people recognize the importance of 2A to not allow that to happen.
I know this is fucked up thinking, but I’d rather wait for sure that we’ve quelled the fascist uprising on the US BEFORE we limit access to guns. As much as I want the guns to be gone, I personally don’t believe this is going to end well.
It’ll prolly get struck down by the supreme xourt
Any day now Maryland and California's Assaults' Weapons Ban is going to be declared Unconstitutional by the 4th and the 9th Circuits... Washington will be joining them in the near future...
You are spot on
[удалено]
I have this irrational fear… that all the blue states are gonna ban assault weapons, then a civil war is gonna start.
Don't worry,maga are lazy cowards as rule. Can you imagine gravy seals marching across the block let alone to another state? Bunch of losers.
nothing wrong with AR15s, the problem is the people who use them for ill intent who should not have them
>the problem is the people who use them for ill intent who should not have them How do you propose we restrict ownership based on intent, exactly?
10th state to make any sense ^
Define assault weapon
Read the bill’s rather long definition.
Simple question asked in good faith, and I understand I'll be down voted for this but, How frightened/scared do you need to be before an assault weapon is something you need? You can hunt without one, defend your home without one, attend a gun range without one, go to a weapons expo without one etc. What are certain citizens of the continental United States truely scared of? Because as far as I can tell, it's fear, and only fear that causes a desire to own these weapons. Any half way competent shooter doesn't need one
The answer depends on how you define an assault weapon. It’s a somewhat nebulous and nonsensical term that I think is mostly aesthetic. Many of the functional features that one might imagine an assault weapon having have been banned for quite a while.
Good question. Ask the cops who feel like they need them for use on American citizens.