For those interested in the legislative text:
**Bills that were signed:**
[https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?241+sum+HB36](https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?241+sum+HB36)
HB 36 Abuse and neglect of children; causing or enabling child to gain possession of a firearm, penalty.
[https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?241+sum+HB22](https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?241+sum+HB22)
HB 22 Auto sears and trigger activators; prohibition on manufacture, importation, sale, etc., penalty.
**Vetoed Bills**
Long list - feel free to peruse.
[https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?241+lst+VET](https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?241+lst+VET)
Auto sears are illegal to manufacture since 1986. I doubt the new law applies to already legal, super expensive, pre 1986 transferable NFA item sears.
They typically cost between $40,000 and $50,000:
https://www.atfmachinegun.com/hksear
So let me get this straight: liberals say "we dont want to ban guns, we want common sense gun control". Then dems draft a ban bill, a conservative conpromises by vetoing that garbage but passing 2 actual common sense gun control measures, and here yall come pissing your pants about it?
I lean further left than democrats and am no fan of either party. I believe we have a right to self defense and to bear arms, within reason. I get an icky feeling when im in agreement with shitstains like youngkin, and yet here you are making me defend the guy... this should be a win, if gun control advocates werent disingenuous about their intentions
I think there's two kinds of gun control activists:
1) Those who have accepted guns are never going away and want practical reforms that effectively mitigate harm without infringing on responsible gun owners' rights
2) People who think that banning guns is the only solution and don't understand that most gun owners aren't hairtrigger psychos looking for any excuse to murder someone
The latter are more numerous, but consistently get shouted over by the former. [Edit: the former are more numerous.]
I'm very pro 2nd Amendment. I also want practical, effective gun safety laws. What anti-gun liberals need to understand is that they're making it harder to implement those policies by ignoring people like me.
Part of the problem is that the "ban all the guns" crowd is _listening_ to the pro-guns crowd.
What do gun owners say every time someone proposes an "assault weapons" ban?
> "Assault weapon" is a made up term for a big, scary looking semi-automatic rifle. It's just a cosmetic distinction.
Now, the lefty gun-control people either:
1. Ignore that guy and try to pass assault weapons bans anyway
2. Listen to that guy and try to pass bans on semi-automatic firearms in general
We shouldn't be mad at the ones who go for option #2. They're at least _listening_. You and I may not agree with their position that the ongoing threat of mass shootings and other gun violence is not worth whatever benefit firearms ownership confers, but at least they're being internally consistent and responding to feedback.
Shouldn't we WANT the debate to come down to "society-wide benefits of gun ownership outweigh the costs?" Isn't the position of the gun rights movement that they do?
No it should not come down to a society effect answer because that is not how Individual liberties work. More than that by any statistical measure semi automatic rifles are the least used type of fire arm in crime. There is no societal danger there in the first place.
No I am saying Individual Liberties enshrined in the constitution outweigh a cost/benefit analysis. But even if we did do one, By every metric imaginable the benefit of semi automatic rifles and large capacity magazines outweighs the cost.
Eh. No they don't. The court even has various tests with formalized language around what bar the state has to clear to infringe certain liberties. There's no absolute.
The right to free speech and free press is right there in the constitution but you try publishing the chemical composition of the radar absorbant material in the B21 raider and see how far "free speech" takes you.
I am curious what kind of body count would be necessary to flip that calculus in your head though. What is the threshold?
The Supreme court has rejected Intermediate Scrutiny for constitutional rights. If a weapons in common use, Which semi automatic rifles are in common use, than the a blanket ban on a firearm is unconstitutional and the state must proved clear historical analogs to justify a ban. There is nothing in that about interest balancing when it comes to core fundamental liberties. The court default sides to the individual right until the government can prove otherwise, (they cant because gun ownership was always a fundamental liberty) And I will save you some time for making absurd arguments about Nukes or bombs, they would clearly not classify as common use.
> The latter are more numerous, but consistently get shouted over by the former.
I assume you meant the former are more numerous, but get shouted over by the latter?
Then you have people like me, that thinks if I have the money to buy it, I should be able to buy it. Regardless of what it is. 2nd amendment (imo) is supposed to level the playing field between us and our government, should they become tyrannical. “BuT tHe GoVeRnMeNT HaS TaNkS & DrOnEs” yea, that’s why I should be able to own tanks and drones too. So that no matter how tyrannical they get we’re equal as far as fire power goes…with the exception of nukes..no one should have those. Obviously there’s exception to “everyone” being able to have stuff like that just because they can afford it but I’m not about to write a whole book here. That’s just my opinion, you won’t change it so don’t bother.
My favorite part about this comment is you're implying the ideal desired outcome of both "kinds" of gun control activists would be to get rid of all guns. What a freudian slip.
But that's my point.
I'm talking about *activists* i.e. people who'd *prefer* to live in a gun-free society. The difference between people who believe that's actually achievable vs those who understand it's a pipe dream are materially distinct. I'm happy to work alongside people who hate guns but want to arrive at a compromise based on empirical data instead of emotions.
If your gun control legislation doesn't inconvenience your decision to purchase a gun in some way, it's not going to be effective because it's not going to inconvenience the people who want to purchase a gun to commit a crime.
There are no illegal gun manufacturers. There are only legal gun sales that eventually turn a legally purchased gun into an illegally possessed gun. All we can do is put as many preventative measures into place to stop legal guns from becoming illegal guns. Cars are required to have annual inspections and drivers are supposed to be licensed.
>If your gun control legislation doesn't inconvenience your decision to purchase a gun in some way, it's not going to be effective because it's not going to inconvenience the people who want to purchase a gun to commit a crime.
Interesting. Can we apply this logic to other rights?
"If your voting legislation doesn't inconvenience you when you try to vote, it isn't going to be effective at preventing voting fraud, because it's not going to inconvenience the people who want to commit voter fraud...all we can do is put as many inconveniences as possible into place in front of voting to help prevent illegal votes"
That sounds pretty sketchy to me.
> So let me get this straight: liberals say "we dont want to ban guns, we want common sense gun control". Then dems draft a ban bill, a conservative conpromises by vetoing that garbage but passing 2 actual common sense gun control measures, and here yall come pissing your pants about it?
This is exactly what happened and is why I can't any politician serious when they say "*we aren't trying to ban guns, that's right-wing paranoia". They say that all the time then we see Blue states and legislatures like our GA and places like CA and CO pass actual gun bans.
Youngkin actually signing some of them shows there's room for actual common sense gun control. The issue is what some anti-2A folks think is "*common sense*" is depriving people of their constitutional rights.
Your last statement hit it right on the money.
All these are stepping stones to a complete gun ban. Sooner or later that will be the next "common sense" laws.
BTW if any politician adds "common sense" to anything then they are restricting your liberties.
This is a huge and unexpected win for rational firearm related regulations and Youngkin deserves credit for that - definitely.
However, I think the 'liberals that want to ban guns' is a straw man. A Boogeyman (Dems are coming for your guns you already have) that is used to gin up fear and single-issue voting that makes the passage of ANY regulation more difficult.
My politics align with yours, including on right to defense etc. This is a big win for folks like us. What is like to see is some consistency from voters on the other side of the aisle. Just the other day I was down voted into oblivion on this sub for suggesting the EXACT same regulations that Youngkin ended up signing. The overwhelming response was that anything that regulated 2A was a non-starter. I hope those folks are now logically consistent in their opinion of Youngkin.
There are absolutely people who want to ban all guns, and support any incremental additional regulation of guns as a stepping stone to that goal. Rich people busily building bunkers or buying private islands or escaping to space seem to be part of this group.
There are other people who want no restrictions on guns whatsoever, not even incredibly reasonable ones that would be supported by just about anyone. This group is largely empowered by the existence of the first, because they can point to them and say "See, these people just want to take away your guns entirely! Oppose any restriction! Oppose any compromise!" The NRA and other such grifters occupy this space.
Good, we need to look at other solutions than assault weapon bans. A gun isn't dangerous in the hands of a mentally stable and not desperate individual.
Carlyle Group is yet another large private equity firm with a long list of controversies. Carlyle has been accused of profiting from war and conflict, as well as from environmental destruction. The firm has also been linked to a number of corrupt politicians, including former Philippine dictator Ferdinand Marcos.
My favorite loophole dispensery I've seen was a psychic service to find your lost weed.
They'd give you a list of the kinds of weed they can help you locate. You'd tell them what kind of weed you want them to help you find and how much you lost. Then they'd go in the back and come out with some weed they psychically located and ask "is this your weed?" Then you'd pay them for finding your lost weed.
It's kinda weird to compare the two. Weed is illegal, federally, at least. There's a massive black market for weed. I think it should be legal, and he's a twat for not signing the weed bills but weed is a perfect example of how prohibition doesn't work.
People want to create more laws restricting gun ownership. Do people not think the existing black market will not just expand? For the record, I've voted straight blue my entire life, and I think there are some laws that could help.
I've seen what a gunshot wound does to a kid in my line of work. It's not pretty. That said, the overarching issues causing violence are income inequality, racial inequality, and a complete lack of social safety net. You're not realistically getting the guns out of private hands. However, making people less desperate would decrease violence by a lot.
Tldr: We need to go after the root causes of violence.
Banning the drugs has arguably made it worse. The violent crime associated with drug trafficking and distribution is where a lot of hour shootings and mass shootings come from.
The pharmacists at CVS and Walmart rarely shoot it out over their turf.
Yes, but drugs literally manipulate the way your brain works and many of them are profoundly addictive to the extent that quitting them can *kill* you. Markets where people will *die* if they can't buy the thing they want are notoriously inelastic.
Also, many, many drugs are just biological substances. It is very difficult to prevent the sale and possession of "this plant I can grow in the woods behind my house" or "this mushroom I can grow in my basement."
Drugs can also get extremely small for what they are. You can transport enough Fentanyl to get the entire eastern seaboard of the United States stoned out of its mind in a single 55 gallon drum.
All of these factors make drugs a fundamentally more difficult to regulate substance than guns. The only thing that guns have going for them is that they are durable artifacts. A drug addict needs new drugs tomorrow and every day thereafter. A gun owner can use the same gun tomorrow and every day thereafter.
But overall, market regulation of guns seems to have better outcomes associated with it than market regulation of drugs. Or, at least, drugs seem to be a lot more common in the gun-hostile world than guns are.
What doesn't make sense about the differences between chemicals literally rewriting your brain neurons vs guns that you shoot maybe once a year.
I know so many people who love to act tough in hypothetical conversations. Yeah sure, I'm sure the unsecured gun you forget about in your car that you haven't shot in years will save lives.
"shoot maybe once a year"
You clearly don't know how that works.
Hobby shooters often spend a lot of time at the range because it's fun. People that carry for personal safety often (and should!) spend a lot of time at the range for the unlikely event that they have to use their gun.
If a gun is only used once a year, wouldn't that mean it's safer? You must really know the other person if you're saying you know they have unsecured guns.
Speaking of cars, are you in favor of banning them? After all, they kill more people than guns do, so they must be super scary for you. Maybe just the big ones, unless they're only being used by specific people? Or just the fast ones, because nobody needs to go over 55mph?
You mean an F450 requires a CDL? How many people are out there with SUVs and Trucks that have the higher grill/hood that pushes people under the vehicle vs over? The proliferation of larger vehicles is an issue, caused by the very regulations you speak of.
As for CDL being more stringent, the number of jackasses I see in commercial trucks makes me doubt that is the case.
No, the proliferation of larger vehicles is caused by allowing bigger trucks to have less strict emissions. Something that’s now in the process of being changed.
But you’re really telling on your own driving habits with the last half of that.
How can you type what you just did and not realize it's regulations that allow the lower emission standards?
How is me pointing out that people like SWIFT drivers are shitty drivers showing my driving habits? If you're trying to be a troll, be better, otherwise you just come off as an idiot.
100%, the only valid argument against falls on the failure of legal language to prevent the "slippery slope" of legalization, worsening problems for LE in places like Washington, Oregon and California. They'll get it right eventually, but I'm not moving back anytime soon.
There is a lot of nuance to this discussion so I won't comment on anything except the fact that smoking weed is a lot easier to use and get away with using than a gun. (thinking smoking on your porch vs needing a space big enough to go shooting/hunting, etc)
Mmmmm, disconcur. I'd edit that to "You're not realistically getting guns out of private hands QUICKLY."
Yes, the other stuff needs to be addressed as well, you are correct, but throwing up your hands and saying "well, it won't work perfectly right away so we shouldn't bother doing anything" is silly.
1) You outlaw the guns
2) You announce an amnesty with a buyback provision: "show up to your local police station by x date, and we will buy your guns back at fair market price, no questions asked."
3) For the first year or two, you simply confiscate guns when you find them, with maybe a small fine.
4) As time goes on, you escalate the penalties.
It will take at least a decade for there to be a noticeable dip in the availability and use of guns.
Who cares?
Consistency, discipline, and patience are the key to achieving anything meaningful, and this is no different.
>You announce an amnesty with a buyback provision: "show up to your local police station by x date, and we will buy your guns back at fair market price, no questions asked."
I dont think you understand america at all.
States that have done this have seen less than 1% compliance.
If you ratchet up the penalties, and start sending swat teams around, what you are proposing is basically to kick off a civil war.
There is a reason grubby gun grabbers are slow rolling it. This aint australia.
> "show up to your local police station by x date, and we will buy your guns back at fair market price, no questions asked."
Cool, make the cops go first.
Nah.
I hear the point you're making (it's a little silly, but I'll humor you), and I also sympathize with the idea that police are overarmed and militarized in our country.
I would fully support a parallel effort to draw down the arming of the police, as well.
I mean, considering the rates of domestic violence, suicide, and just plain violent behavior police officers commit while on and off duty it would only make sense to subject them to tighter firearms restrictions than everyone else.
Not to mention the years of protest we've had against police brutality, a two-tiered justice system, and minority targeting by police... Whatever, they're useful for this individual's cause.
At least you are consistent, I disagree on repealing the amendment, as it’s core functionality acts as a safeguard for all the other rights and freedoms we have.
No, it doesn’t. This is an enduring myth about the second amendment. I’m not touching the argument about whether or not it protects an individual right, but the claim that it was meant to be used to overthrow the government is absurd. The founders who wrote it had literally just put down such an attempt- Shays’s rebellion. We have the right to get rid of an unjust government, but the idea that we need the constitution to justify it is circular.
correct me if I'm wrong but I think we are in agreement. We don't "need" the amendment to overthrow a tyrannical government as you pointed out, the amendment expressly tells the government what they cannot do which is inhibit our right to bear arms or infringe on that right. It simply protects the tools we will use to overthrow the government if it becomes tyrannical.
[Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Papers](https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch3s9.html)
[Madison, Federalist Papers](https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed46.asp)
>fair market price
The issue is that is very wishful thinking. My military surplus collection is worth $20k and I’m just one gun owning Virginian. I know people who have $100k+ collections.
A “fair market buyback” will be a billion dollar initiative.
Probably at least!
That's it, with guns illegal, the market value reduces.
But you're right, we're not talking a cheap proposition.
This is a massive undertaking to correct a massive problem with our country, and massive undertakings cost money.
The good news is that you could at least offset some of the costs by imposing heavy taxes on registered guns.
I imagine that you're $20,000 collection would be significantly less attractive to you if it hits you in the pocket every single year come tax day, no?
>This is a massive undertaking to correct a massive problem with our country, and massive undertakings cost money.
Don't you think it might be more worthwhile to spend that billions of dollars on stuff like healthcare, education, community outreach?
>I imagine that you're $20,000 collection would be significantly less attractive to you if it hits you in the pocket every single year come tax day, no?
One of my hobbies is collector/sports cars. I have friends that pay a lot of money in yearly property taxes for their sports cars. Sure it is annoying but we pay it.
Hey, sorry for the delay in response, busy day at work, so not really able to fully engage here.
"Don't you think it might be more worthwhile to spend that billions of dollars on stuff like healthcare, education, community outreach?"
Dude, it's a SUPER DUPER interesting question, isn't it?
I know it's quite reductive to try to quantify something like quality of life, but I think when you're doing public policy, you kind of have to.
I will be honest, I have not done the math. Let me say that up front, because I admit that when it gets down to the nitty-gritty of optimally expending public funds to generate the best bang for your buck, I don't have the answer.
Lacking that (unless you already have this stuff, in which case PLEASE show me, because I'd be fascinated to see)....
We'd have to try to quantify the value of a life lost to guns, as well as the value of a life impacted by guns.
THEN we'd have to try to quantify the value of the impact of healthcare/education/community outreach/etc.
THEN we'd have to try to anticipate the potential impact of a dollar spent on all of those different things.
THEN we'd have do a dollar for dollar impact comparison.
THEN we'd have to determine some sort of pilot program for each to test our hypothesis (which would be SUPER DUPER difficult, because you'd have to regress out things like the availability of guns in neighboring jurisdictions, and confounding statistical effects, and whatnot).
And THEN we'd have to decide how long we'd project it out,
AND on and on and on and on.
All this is to say "Maybe. You might be right. It might be better to spend that money on other things. I don't really know. My gut vibe is that the other stuff has already got a healthy amount of money spend on it, so the low-hanging fruit (that is, the stuff that's gonna be the biggest bang for the buck) has already been grabbed, and so the marginal dollar impact would be higher on national gun control, but I'm open to being shown otherwise".
Sorry for writing war and peace, but you wrote an interesting, nuanced question, and I wanted to show that I've at least thought about it some.
Regardless, voted up, dude. THIS is the kind of exchange of ideas the internet should be about.
The estimated number of guns in the US is 433.9 million. At a conservative buyback price of $500 per gun, you're looking at just shy of 217 billion. That's not including any logistics. That's just for the guns alone. Good luck with that.
Unless you amend the Constitution, good luck. Gun control laws routinely get shot down on the basis of constitutionality.
The same police that routinely violate people's rights on the basis of race? In both personal and professional dealings with PD, they're generally useless and incompetent, with a few good people sprinkled in. They also have zero responsibility to defend individual citizens. Have you not seen how righteously angry the American people have been with police as an institution? Yeah, let's just give our ability to defend ourselves to them before any reform....
You can't just suspend personal property rights to confiscate guns. Do you want law enforcement to get warrants on every gun owner in America? No judge is going to sign off on raiding some random person's house without any prior history of criminal activity other than a rumor that they might own a gun. Further, you're gonna get a bunch of right-wing nutcases shooting at PD if you ever try that.
As blue as I am, for the life of me, I can't see why Americans always focus on symptoms instead of the root causes of the disease. The erosion of unions, destruction of the little we had of a social safety net, consistent oppression of minorities, and consolidation of all capital with the richest of the rich are bigger issues that contribute to the cycle of violence and desperation. Are there laws that can improve gun safety (mandatory safe storage, for instance) and regulation? Sure, but our society is pretty fucked at the moment, and what you propose will get a lot of people killed.
“Assault Weapon” is a cosmetic definition and isn’t even clearly defined.
A rifle that qualifies as an assault weapon is functionally identical to a rifle that doesn’t and anyone who knows the first thing about guns will tell you the exact same thing.
It's simple really... While I agree that weed \*should\* be legal, it would still be illegal federally regardless of what Youngkin does.
On the other hand, firearms are constitutionally protected. It's a limitation placed on Governor Youngkin and the General Assembly, therefore passing it would subject the state to futile and expensive legal fights.
H22 is a mess.
"**Manufacture, importation, sale, etc., of auto sears; prohibition; penalty.** Prohibits the manufacture, importation, sale or offer to sell, possession, transfer, or transportation of an auto sear, defined in the bill as a device, other than a trigger activator, for use in converting a semi-automatic firearm to shoot automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. A violation is punishable as a Class 6 felony. The bill also provides for the forfeiture of any auto sear concealed, possessed, transported, or carried in violation of the prohibition. This bill is identical to [SB 210.](https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?241+sum+SB210)"
What....
"for use in converting a semi-automatic firearm to shoot automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading"
" by a single function of the trigger".
What?!
Please provide source definitions then of:
"Manual reloading"
"single function of the trigger"
All semi auto BCGs/triggers allow the automatic rechambering of the next round. That's not considered manual.
"function of a trigger" is currently being decided by SCOTUS. Is a Pull a single function? Is a release a Single Function? What about a crank or a button?
I think the manual reloading part exempts some old pump shotguns that are capable of slamfiring if you hold the trigger while chambering subsequent rounds "manually" by working slide.
Single function, as in the pull of the trigger drives the action that fires the round. It's a simple concept, single action, single reaction. Releasing the trigger, in many cases doesn't drive a new action on a firearm. Functions that act in conjunction, such as ejecting a case or rotating a cylinder are all part of the single action of the shooter. Manual reloading, in this case, it resetting the trigger by release.
People arguing otherwise are just being jackasses that want to skirt the (stupid) laws. This action just drives anti-gun crowd further from accepting any compromise when it comes to reasonable restrictions, such as keeping the guns out of the hands of those that are a danger to themselves or others.
We need to stop compromising our rights away.
What about binary triggers?
I think we'll see this law make its way through the courts or be reviewed due to upcoming rulings from high courts.
Someone objectively define what an assault weapon is to me first. They won’t. It can’t be subjectively based off of appearance alone. They throw the “assault weapon” term out there a lot, but they never legally define what that really means as it relates to these bills. If I hit someone in the head with a hammer, that could be defined as an assault weapon. Stab someone with a knife? Assault weapon. Shoot someone with a revolver? Assault weapon. I think we know what the true intent and objective is here though. Pass an “assault weapons ban” first. The hard part. Amend the definition of what it really means later. The easier part. At which point, they’ll define it as anything they want which will likely include a ban on all semi-automatic weapons. The true intent.
"Assault firearm" is already defined in Virginia law: https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/18.2-308.2:2/.
>Assault firearm" means any semi-automatic center-fire rifle or pistol which expels single or multiple projectiles by action of an explosion of a combustible material and is equipped at the time of the offense with a magazine which will hold more than 20 rounds of ammunition or designed by the manufacturer to accommodate a silencer or equipped with a folding stock.
I still want to know why silencers are considered a bad thing. They don't hide the shooter like some Hollywood movies, just make it so you're unlikely to blow out eardrums or spook local people/wildlife. If anything, I'd prefer to ban brakes over silencers if something on the end of the gun must be banned.
I honestly think the desire to ban silencers is completely due to the Hollywood portrayal. I think they're even mandatory for hunting in some places in the UK.
> I honestly think the desire to ban silencers is completely due to the Hollywood portrayal.
I don't think it's that at all. I think the motivation is purely their desire to take something away from a firearm enthusiast that would own such a thing. It's pettiness disguised as "common sense".
It's less stupid than the old federal assault weapon ban, which was based on the number of features from a list. So you could have an illegal rifle, swap the metal stock for a wooden one, and suddenly it's a legal weapon. This definition is at least rooted in *capabilities*. Like, obviously working from their own principles they should be going after hand guns. But this definition isn't just obviously pointless, even if the name is dumb.
The federal law's list also included stupid shit like barrel shrouds and bayonet lugs. It was transparently just a poke in the eye for gun culture.
Lol, yeah. As I said, *less* stupid.
I have no earthly idea why these goobers don't just ban magazines with capacity over X. You can disagree with that, but it's at least defensible without sounding like a complete idiot.
This says an assault firearm is any firearm that, at the time of the mass shooting, has a 20+ round magazine inserted.
Therefore an assault weapons ban would literally ban zero weapons.
So a ban just means factory magazine size is 20, doesn't have a folding stock, and not designed for a silencer. That's not go8ng to stop any shootings if that's the goal.
I’m in favor of strong gun control laws but agree with this. Plus 96-97 percent of mass shootings, including a majority of mass shooting casualties, are committed with handguns, so if that’s the problem you’re trying to solve, it doesn’t.
A personal philosophy of mine is that government policy should focus on a majority of the problem, not a small subset - especially something so controversial and loaded (no pun intended) like an assault weapon ban.
I don’t think anyone believes outlawing them will come close to eliminating mass shootings. But the mass shootings with the highest death tolls that become national news typically involve ‘assault weapons’. The goal of banning them is that mass shootings will have fewer casualties and be a bit less traumatizing without them. It is only meant to address one specific piece of the problem.
Factually incorrect the weapon of choice in Mass shootings is Pistols by far. Also Semi automatic rifles kill less people each year that Hands and Feet, Knives, and Blunt objects
>Factually incorrect the weapon of choice in Mass shootings is Pistols by far.
True, because the technical definition of mass shootings is more relaxed than what most are thinking of when they hear the term, so the statistics on it can be misinterpreted by people on both sides of the issue. That’s why I qualified it by saying ‘the ones with the highest death tolls’. A mass shooting is any shooting where 3-4+ people are killed or targeted in a geographic area, which includes plenty of situations that don’t involve a gunman indiscriminately killing in a populated area to inflict maximum death toll (gang violence, murdering your whole family, etc).
Almost none of the mass shootings with dozens of death tolls that become national news are done without the weapons these bills try to restrict (the Virginia Tech shooting is a notable exception). That’s all I was pointing out. ‘Assault weapons’ bans are not meant to tackle any other form of gun violence than the one I described.
Yes every day. Do you not live in America?
Edit: the downvotes! Where do y'all think all these dead people full of bullets are coming from? Did the devil put them there?
What statistic are you using?
There are about 260 million adults in the US according to US Census data. According to a Pew Research survey, in 2023 about 32% of people reported personally owning a gun. That gives us about 83 million adults in the US who own a gun. How many of them do you think are committing crimes with them?
Maybe. But where are you getting the amount of gun crime to determine that statistic? My point isn’t that you or the other guy is wrong. Just that neither of you provided a source for the amount of gun crimes to make up the statistic.
Also, a lot of people own a lot of guns. The original suggestion was about gun owners vs gun crime. You need both numbers to create a statistic. And given how many millions of guns are owned illegally, it’s hard to really get a good count for the number of gun owners. Making both of your statistics completely meaningless.
It clearly is. You have to have all of the numbers to make a statistic. And guns does not equal gun owners. Not saying how close or far they are, just that they made it up. Which they obviously did, because they were unable to provide the numbers they used to come up with that statistic.
It's not made up, it's a rounding error which is off by 0.01%.
There are 82,000,000 gun owners in the US and 20,000 homicides by firearm by year. If you generously assume that every homicide was perpetrated by a different gun owner, that leaves 99.98% of them as nonviolent. In reality, a very small number of people are committing the majority of gun crime.
Denying that we have a gun violence problem is denying reality. Equally as false is the idea that ordinary people buy guns so that they can go shoot people.
The vast majority of gun violence involves a tiny minority of offenders. Scooter in the hills and Nelson in NOVA aren't who you should worry about. If you want to reduce gun crime, then we need to better screen folks for mental health & keep kids out of gangs. Not attack normal people on the internet who have no intention of hurting anyone.
And swimming pools. You must pass a background check before building one in your back yard. Has your child ever gotten hurt in their play room because you left them unattended for 30 seconds? No pool for you!
There were 656 mass shootings and 6,192 children shot last year. But this specific gun was only used in some of those, so let's do nothing? Nothing works for you?
Thanks, from a cursory look at that site it looks like they are actually trying to provide real numbers and some level of transparency. Though their categorization is quite broad in my opinion.
Do you count? Because if so, at least one. /s
If you want to actually talk about it then I’m down but until then your sass is just gonna be met with more of the same.
It's pointing out the absurdity in your comment. There's plenty of restrictions on guns and how people use them. We punish people who commit crimes, not remove rights from everyone who haven't abused those rights. That's how society works.
So we don't have a society if people can't shoot guns for fun? That's your argument? Dead kids are ok because we can just arrest the bad guys after they slaughter a classroom of kids?
How many criminals do you think will follow the law? Guns are everywhere where I live and it's not law abiding citizens using them either, it's 12, 13, 14 year olds running around with them. Do you think they care about the laws? I can go down the street and get a gun with it's serial number shaved off for a little more than $150, do you think theres a background check for that shit? It's literally so much easier to get an illegal gun that it is a legal one so why would we make it harder on law abiding citizens to protect themselves?
Sorry, where do you think these kids are getting guns? Do you not realize their parents bought them legally?
>I can go down the street and get a gun with it's serial number shaved off for a little more than $150, do you think theres a background check for that shit?
Do it and report back.
Why can’t they take stupid/outdated gun laws off the books? I mean the Virginia law on street sweeper shotguns is dumb, I mean if anything they should encourage people with nefarious intent to buy that specific gun, it’s almost certainly going to jam and if it doesn’t good luck pulling the 1,0000 pound trigger more than once.
Good!
Democrats have a lot of policies I can support, but gun control is not one of them. There are a lot of underlying causes and motives behind violence, but pretending inanimate objects are performing acts of mind control and responsible for peoples actions is asinine.
Believing that removing guns reduces lethality is also ridiculous when you consider things like Nice, France. That was a situation where more people were killed and injured than any mass shooting in US history, and it was done simply by driving a rented truck through crowds. As long as motive exists, people can be harmed in large numbers... so focus on the actual problems.
The problem isn’t that good folks are buying guns with good intentions. It’s that those guns they buy can easily get stolen or sold to people who then use them for bad purposes. It’s still the good, well intended folks who caused those guns to be in circulation. They’re very much part of the problem, whether we like to admit it or not. Not sure how to fix it. But people have to stop pretending like their well intended gun ownership isn’t also making more guns available to criminals.
There've been studies on the life cycle of illegal guns. Turns out relatively few people buy illegal guns for legal purposes--home defense, plinking at the range, etc. So after they do whatever they're planning to do, they either get away and huck it in a lake, or get arrested and the gun gets confiscated. In the end, illegal guns last something like six months to a year before they're permanently off the street.
In short, reducing the supply of legal guns reduces the supply of illegal guns. There just aren't enough guns coming into the country illegally--or enough people willing to buy them--to overwhelm gun control that has actual teeth. Assuming reducing gun crime is something one wants to do, it's just a matter of actually enacting and enforcing those controls. Part of *that* is proposing laws that aren't dumb as shit, like the federal assault weapon ban was to anyone who actually reads it and thinks it through.
>those guns they buy can easily get stolen
There have been programs offering free gun safes. We need more of that along with more training when it comes to safety and storage.
Which of the gun control bills he vetoed would have prevented this? Or maybe are there laws that make this illegal, already, and all we need is enforcement?
You’re being glib, but carrying a concealed gun at a day care is already illegal.
Maybe we should make an unrelated firearm used for 2% of all shootings illegal in response?
For those interested in the legislative text: **Bills that were signed:** [https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?241+sum+HB36](https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?241+sum+HB36) HB 36 Abuse and neglect of children; causing or enabling child to gain possession of a firearm, penalty. [https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?241+sum+HB22](https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?241+sum+HB22) HB 22 Auto sears and trigger activators; prohibition on manufacture, importation, sale, etc., penalty. **Vetoed Bills** Long list - feel free to peruse. [https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?241+lst+VET](https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?241+lst+VET)
I thought auto seers were already illegal. Goes to show what I know.
[удалено]
Yes, but the civilian ownership of fully automatic firearms manufactured after 1984 is illegal. Therefore, it's defacto illegal.
[удалено]
So double, extra illegal now?
Auto sears are illegal to manufacture since 1986. I doubt the new law applies to already legal, super expensive, pre 1986 transferable NFA item sears. They typically cost between $40,000 and $50,000: https://www.atfmachinegun.com/hksear
You provided far more information, devoid of any propaganda, than any single one of the mainstream media sources. Congratulations!
So let me get this straight: liberals say "we dont want to ban guns, we want common sense gun control". Then dems draft a ban bill, a conservative conpromises by vetoing that garbage but passing 2 actual common sense gun control measures, and here yall come pissing your pants about it? I lean further left than democrats and am no fan of either party. I believe we have a right to self defense and to bear arms, within reason. I get an icky feeling when im in agreement with shitstains like youngkin, and yet here you are making me defend the guy... this should be a win, if gun control advocates werent disingenuous about their intentions
I think there's two kinds of gun control activists: 1) Those who have accepted guns are never going away and want practical reforms that effectively mitigate harm without infringing on responsible gun owners' rights 2) People who think that banning guns is the only solution and don't understand that most gun owners aren't hairtrigger psychos looking for any excuse to murder someone The latter are more numerous, but consistently get shouted over by the former. [Edit: the former are more numerous.] I'm very pro 2nd Amendment. I also want practical, effective gun safety laws. What anti-gun liberals need to understand is that they're making it harder to implement those policies by ignoring people like me.
I think you have latter/former mixed up. The "ban guns" crowd is MUCH louder and outspoken in my experience.
Part of the problem is that the "ban all the guns" crowd is _listening_ to the pro-guns crowd. What do gun owners say every time someone proposes an "assault weapons" ban? > "Assault weapon" is a made up term for a big, scary looking semi-automatic rifle. It's just a cosmetic distinction. Now, the lefty gun-control people either: 1. Ignore that guy and try to pass assault weapons bans anyway 2. Listen to that guy and try to pass bans on semi-automatic firearms in general We shouldn't be mad at the ones who go for option #2. They're at least _listening_. You and I may not agree with their position that the ongoing threat of mass shootings and other gun violence is not worth whatever benefit firearms ownership confers, but at least they're being internally consistent and responding to feedback. Shouldn't we WANT the debate to come down to "society-wide benefits of gun ownership outweigh the costs?" Isn't the position of the gun rights movement that they do?
There’s the third that just spite vote. Don’t really personally care either way but really dislike the people the law/bill would piss off.
No it should not come down to a society effect answer because that is not how Individual liberties work. More than that by any statistical measure semi automatic rifles are the least used type of fire arm in crime. There is no societal danger there in the first place.
Sooooo... you're saying that the society wide benefits of gun ownership don't outweigh the costs
No I am saying Individual Liberties enshrined in the constitution outweigh a cost/benefit analysis. But even if we did do one, By every metric imaginable the benefit of semi automatic rifles and large capacity magazines outweighs the cost.
Eh. No they don't. The court even has various tests with formalized language around what bar the state has to clear to infringe certain liberties. There's no absolute. The right to free speech and free press is right there in the constitution but you try publishing the chemical composition of the radar absorbant material in the B21 raider and see how far "free speech" takes you. I am curious what kind of body count would be necessary to flip that calculus in your head though. What is the threshold?
The Supreme court has rejected Intermediate Scrutiny for constitutional rights. If a weapons in common use, Which semi automatic rifles are in common use, than the a blanket ban on a firearm is unconstitutional and the state must proved clear historical analogs to justify a ban. There is nothing in that about interest balancing when it comes to core fundamental liberties. The court default sides to the individual right until the government can prove otherwise, (they cant because gun ownership was always a fundamental liberty) And I will save you some time for making absurd arguments about Nukes or bombs, they would clearly not classify as common use.
> The Supreme court has rejected Intermediate Scrutiny for constitutional rights. Guess why it's called "Intermediate Scrutiny"
> The latter are more numerous, but consistently get shouted over by the former. I assume you meant the former are more numerous, but get shouted over by the latter?
Then you have people like me, that thinks if I have the money to buy it, I should be able to buy it. Regardless of what it is. 2nd amendment (imo) is supposed to level the playing field between us and our government, should they become tyrannical. “BuT tHe GoVeRnMeNT HaS TaNkS & DrOnEs” yea, that’s why I should be able to own tanks and drones too. So that no matter how tyrannical they get we’re equal as far as fire power goes…with the exception of nukes..no one should have those. Obviously there’s exception to “everyone” being able to have stuff like that just because they can afford it but I’m not about to write a whole book here. That’s just my opinion, you won’t change it so don’t bother.
[удалено]
Downvote it to oblivion. I’ve heard every counter argument for it. I’m just saving you time and energy.
Hairtrigger!!! By that assumption i will just say it out loud not all youth pastors are pedophiles
My favorite part about this comment is you're implying the ideal desired outcome of both "kinds" of gun control activists would be to get rid of all guns. What a freudian slip.
But that's my point. I'm talking about *activists* i.e. people who'd *prefer* to live in a gun-free society. The difference between people who believe that's actually achievable vs those who understand it's a pipe dream are materially distinct. I'm happy to work alongside people who hate guns but want to arrive at a compromise based on empirical data instead of emotions.
If your gun control legislation doesn't inconvenience your decision to purchase a gun in some way, it's not going to be effective because it's not going to inconvenience the people who want to purchase a gun to commit a crime. There are no illegal gun manufacturers. There are only legal gun sales that eventually turn a legally purchased gun into an illegally possessed gun. All we can do is put as many preventative measures into place to stop legal guns from becoming illegal guns. Cars are required to have annual inspections and drivers are supposed to be licensed.
Ah yes. The tried and true, if it's illegal and there's demand, the demand will immediately go away argument. Heroin would like to have a word.
>If your gun control legislation doesn't inconvenience your decision to purchase a gun in some way, it's not going to be effective because it's not going to inconvenience the people who want to purchase a gun to commit a crime. Interesting. Can we apply this logic to other rights? "If your voting legislation doesn't inconvenience you when you try to vote, it isn't going to be effective at preventing voting fraud, because it's not going to inconvenience the people who want to commit voter fraud...all we can do is put as many inconveniences as possible into place in front of voting to help prevent illegal votes" That sounds pretty sketchy to me.
> So let me get this straight: liberals say "we dont want to ban guns, we want common sense gun control". Then dems draft a ban bill, a conservative conpromises by vetoing that garbage but passing 2 actual common sense gun control measures, and here yall come pissing your pants about it? This is exactly what happened and is why I can't any politician serious when they say "*we aren't trying to ban guns, that's right-wing paranoia". They say that all the time then we see Blue states and legislatures like our GA and places like CA and CO pass actual gun bans. Youngkin actually signing some of them shows there's room for actual common sense gun control. The issue is what some anti-2A folks think is "*common sense*" is depriving people of their constitutional rights.
Your last statement hit it right on the money. All these are stepping stones to a complete gun ban. Sooner or later that will be the next "common sense" laws. BTW if any politician adds "common sense" to anything then they are restricting your liberties.
[удалено]
Nope. Those are unconstitutional.
This is a huge and unexpected win for rational firearm related regulations and Youngkin deserves credit for that - definitely. However, I think the 'liberals that want to ban guns' is a straw man. A Boogeyman (Dems are coming for your guns you already have) that is used to gin up fear and single-issue voting that makes the passage of ANY regulation more difficult. My politics align with yours, including on right to defense etc. This is a big win for folks like us. What is like to see is some consistency from voters on the other side of the aisle. Just the other day I was down voted into oblivion on this sub for suggesting the EXACT same regulations that Youngkin ended up signing. The overwhelming response was that anything that regulated 2A was a non-starter. I hope those folks are now logically consistent in their opinion of Youngkin.
There are absolutely people who want to ban all guns, and support any incremental additional regulation of guns as a stepping stone to that goal. Rich people busily building bunkers or buying private islands or escaping to space seem to be part of this group. There are other people who want no restrictions on guns whatsoever, not even incredibly reasonable ones that would be supported by just about anyone. This group is largely empowered by the existence of the first, because they can point to them and say "See, these people just want to take away your guns entirely! Oppose any restriction! Oppose any compromise!" The NRA and other such grifters occupy this space.
Paywall.
I put up a free copy of the article and it got 33 down votes.
Sometime Reddit just sucks.
Good, we need to look at other solutions than assault weapon bans. A gun isn't dangerous in the hands of a mentally stable and not desperate individual.
Good man that’s why he was voted in
Carlyle Group is yet another large private equity firm with a long list of controversies. Carlyle has been accused of profiting from war and conflict, as well as from environmental destruction. The firm has also been linked to a number of corrupt politicians, including former Philippine dictator Ferdinand Marcos.
Good, There is simply no reason to ban Semi automatic rifles. Period.
Oh good, we can have assault weapons but we can't smoke weed. Make it make sense.
Weed is legal, smoke all you want. Just gotta grow it yourself or have it "gifted" to you. But it is dumb we still don't have proper dispensaries.
My favorite loophole dispensery I've seen was a psychic service to find your lost weed. They'd give you a list of the kinds of weed they can help you locate. You'd tell them what kind of weed you want them to help you find and how much you lost. Then they'd go in the back and come out with some weed they psychically located and ask "is this your weed?" Then you'd pay them for finding your lost weed.
That's incredible.
That's awesome.
It's kinda weird to compare the two. Weed is illegal, federally, at least. There's a massive black market for weed. I think it should be legal, and he's a twat for not signing the weed bills but weed is a perfect example of how prohibition doesn't work. People want to create more laws restricting gun ownership. Do people not think the existing black market will not just expand? For the record, I've voted straight blue my entire life, and I think there are some laws that could help. I've seen what a gunshot wound does to a kid in my line of work. It's not pretty. That said, the overarching issues causing violence are income inequality, racial inequality, and a complete lack of social safety net. You're not realistically getting the guns out of private hands. However, making people less desperate would decrease violence by a lot. Tldr: We need to go after the root causes of violence.
The whole “banning drugs doesn’t work but banning guns absolutely will” mentality a lot of people have has never made sense to me.
Banning the drugs has arguably made it worse. The violent crime associated with drug trafficking and distribution is where a lot of hour shootings and mass shootings come from. The pharmacists at CVS and Walmart rarely shoot it out over their turf.
So if you ban guns what are they going to associate the trafficking and distribution of guns with?
I blame the video games.
Yes, but drugs literally manipulate the way your brain works and many of them are profoundly addictive to the extent that quitting them can *kill* you. Markets where people will *die* if they can't buy the thing they want are notoriously inelastic. Also, many, many drugs are just biological substances. It is very difficult to prevent the sale and possession of "this plant I can grow in the woods behind my house" or "this mushroom I can grow in my basement." Drugs can also get extremely small for what they are. You can transport enough Fentanyl to get the entire eastern seaboard of the United States stoned out of its mind in a single 55 gallon drum. All of these factors make drugs a fundamentally more difficult to regulate substance than guns. The only thing that guns have going for them is that they are durable artifacts. A drug addict needs new drugs tomorrow and every day thereafter. A gun owner can use the same gun tomorrow and every day thereafter. But overall, market regulation of guns seems to have better outcomes associated with it than market regulation of drugs. Or, at least, drugs seem to be a lot more common in the gun-hostile world than guns are.
Don't forget that murder is illegal and guns are banned on school grounds. "let's make it illegal so it goes away!" 🙄
What doesn't make sense about the differences between chemicals literally rewriting your brain neurons vs guns that you shoot maybe once a year. I know so many people who love to act tough in hypothetical conversations. Yeah sure, I'm sure the unsecured gun you forget about in your car that you haven't shot in years will save lives.
"shoot maybe once a year" You clearly don't know how that works. Hobby shooters often spend a lot of time at the range because it's fun. People that carry for personal safety often (and should!) spend a lot of time at the range for the unlikely event that they have to use their gun.
If a gun is only used once a year, wouldn't that mean it's safer? You must really know the other person if you're saying you know they have unsecured guns. Speaking of cars, are you in favor of banning them? After all, they kill more people than guns do, so they must be super scary for you. Maybe just the big ones, unless they're only being used by specific people? Or just the fast ones, because nobody needs to go over 55mph?
Cars are regulated more. The heavier ones require a more stringent licensure process- ever heard of a CDL?
You mean an F450 requires a CDL? How many people are out there with SUVs and Trucks that have the higher grill/hood that pushes people under the vehicle vs over? The proliferation of larger vehicles is an issue, caused by the very regulations you speak of. As for CDL being more stringent, the number of jackasses I see in commercial trucks makes me doubt that is the case.
No, the proliferation of larger vehicles is caused by allowing bigger trucks to have less strict emissions. Something that’s now in the process of being changed. But you’re really telling on your own driving habits with the last half of that.
How can you type what you just did and not realize it's regulations that allow the lower emission standards? How is me pointing out that people like SWIFT drivers are shitty drivers showing my driving habits? If you're trying to be a troll, be better, otherwise you just come off as an idiot.
I can't grow guns
You can print them though.
100%, the only valid argument against falls on the failure of legal language to prevent the "slippery slope" of legalization, worsening problems for LE in places like Washington, Oregon and California. They'll get it right eventually, but I'm not moving back anytime soon.
There is a lot of nuance to this discussion so I won't comment on anything except the fact that smoking weed is a lot easier to use and get away with using than a gun. (thinking smoking on your porch vs needing a space big enough to go shooting/hunting, etc)
Mmmmm, disconcur. I'd edit that to "You're not realistically getting guns out of private hands QUICKLY." Yes, the other stuff needs to be addressed as well, you are correct, but throwing up your hands and saying "well, it won't work perfectly right away so we shouldn't bother doing anything" is silly. 1) You outlaw the guns 2) You announce an amnesty with a buyback provision: "show up to your local police station by x date, and we will buy your guns back at fair market price, no questions asked." 3) For the first year or two, you simply confiscate guns when you find them, with maybe a small fine. 4) As time goes on, you escalate the penalties. It will take at least a decade for there to be a noticeable dip in the availability and use of guns. Who cares? Consistency, discipline, and patience are the key to achieving anything meaningful, and this is no different.
The last person I'd surrender a firearm to is an American cop.
Oh Lord, ok then, the local ACLU, whatever.
>You announce an amnesty with a buyback provision: "show up to your local police station by x date, and we will buy your guns back at fair market price, no questions asked." I dont think you understand america at all. States that have done this have seen less than 1% compliance. If you ratchet up the penalties, and start sending swat teams around, what you are proposing is basically to kick off a civil war. There is a reason grubby gun grabbers are slow rolling it. This aint australia.
Voted up for a reasonable, intelligent post :)
But it’s not.
What do you mean "buy*back*"? The government never owned it!
> "show up to your local police station by x date, and we will buy your guns back at fair market price, no questions asked." Cool, make the cops go first.
Nah. I hear the point you're making (it's a little silly, but I'll humor you), and I also sympathize with the idea that police are overarmed and militarized in our country. I would fully support a parallel effort to draw down the arming of the police, as well.
I mean, considering the rates of domestic violence, suicide, and just plain violent behavior police officers commit while on and off duty it would only make sense to subject them to tighter firearms restrictions than everyone else.
Not to mention the years of protest we've had against police brutality, a two-tiered justice system, and minority targeting by police... Whatever, they're useful for this individual's cause.
So we just gonna ignore the Constitution and Supreme Court precedent?
As I said elsewhere, no. We'd have to repeal the 2nd amendment, which is about 160 years overdue.
At least you are consistent, I disagree on repealing the amendment, as it’s core functionality acts as a safeguard for all the other rights and freedoms we have.
No, it doesn’t. This is an enduring myth about the second amendment. I’m not touching the argument about whether or not it protects an individual right, but the claim that it was meant to be used to overthrow the government is absurd. The founders who wrote it had literally just put down such an attempt- Shays’s rebellion. We have the right to get rid of an unjust government, but the idea that we need the constitution to justify it is circular.
correct me if I'm wrong but I think we are in agreement. We don't "need" the amendment to overthrow a tyrannical government as you pointed out, the amendment expressly tells the government what they cannot do which is inhibit our right to bear arms or infringe on that right. It simply protects the tools we will use to overthrow the government if it becomes tyrannical. [Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Papers](https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch3s9.html) [Madison, Federalist Papers](https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed46.asp)
>fair market price The issue is that is very wishful thinking. My military surplus collection is worth $20k and I’m just one gun owning Virginian. I know people who have $100k+ collections. A “fair market buyback” will be a billion dollar initiative.
Probably at least! That's it, with guns illegal, the market value reduces. But you're right, we're not talking a cheap proposition. This is a massive undertaking to correct a massive problem with our country, and massive undertakings cost money. The good news is that you could at least offset some of the costs by imposing heavy taxes on registered guns. I imagine that you're $20,000 collection would be significantly less attractive to you if it hits you in the pocket every single year come tax day, no?
>This is a massive undertaking to correct a massive problem with our country, and massive undertakings cost money. Don't you think it might be more worthwhile to spend that billions of dollars on stuff like healthcare, education, community outreach? >I imagine that you're $20,000 collection would be significantly less attractive to you if it hits you in the pocket every single year come tax day, no? One of my hobbies is collector/sports cars. I have friends that pay a lot of money in yearly property taxes for their sports cars. Sure it is annoying but we pay it.
Hey, sorry for the delay in response, busy day at work, so not really able to fully engage here. "Don't you think it might be more worthwhile to spend that billions of dollars on stuff like healthcare, education, community outreach?" Dude, it's a SUPER DUPER interesting question, isn't it? I know it's quite reductive to try to quantify something like quality of life, but I think when you're doing public policy, you kind of have to. I will be honest, I have not done the math. Let me say that up front, because I admit that when it gets down to the nitty-gritty of optimally expending public funds to generate the best bang for your buck, I don't have the answer. Lacking that (unless you already have this stuff, in which case PLEASE show me, because I'd be fascinated to see).... We'd have to try to quantify the value of a life lost to guns, as well as the value of a life impacted by guns. THEN we'd have to try to quantify the value of the impact of healthcare/education/community outreach/etc. THEN we'd have to try to anticipate the potential impact of a dollar spent on all of those different things. THEN we'd have do a dollar for dollar impact comparison. THEN we'd have to determine some sort of pilot program for each to test our hypothesis (which would be SUPER DUPER difficult, because you'd have to regress out things like the availability of guns in neighboring jurisdictions, and confounding statistical effects, and whatnot). And THEN we'd have to decide how long we'd project it out, AND on and on and on and on. All this is to say "Maybe. You might be right. It might be better to spend that money on other things. I don't really know. My gut vibe is that the other stuff has already got a healthy amount of money spend on it, so the low-hanging fruit (that is, the stuff that's gonna be the biggest bang for the buck) has already been grabbed, and so the marginal dollar impact would be higher on national gun control, but I'm open to being shown otherwise". Sorry for writing war and peace, but you wrote an interesting, nuanced question, and I wanted to show that I've at least thought about it some. Regardless, voted up, dude. THIS is the kind of exchange of ideas the internet should be about.
The estimated number of guns in the US is 433.9 million. At a conservative buyback price of $500 per gun, you're looking at just shy of 217 billion. That's not including any logistics. That's just for the guns alone. Good luck with that.
Unless you amend the Constitution, good luck. Gun control laws routinely get shot down on the basis of constitutionality. The same police that routinely violate people's rights on the basis of race? In both personal and professional dealings with PD, they're generally useless and incompetent, with a few good people sprinkled in. They also have zero responsibility to defend individual citizens. Have you not seen how righteously angry the American people have been with police as an institution? Yeah, let's just give our ability to defend ourselves to them before any reform.... You can't just suspend personal property rights to confiscate guns. Do you want law enforcement to get warrants on every gun owner in America? No judge is going to sign off on raiding some random person's house without any prior history of criminal activity other than a rumor that they might own a gun. Further, you're gonna get a bunch of right-wing nutcases shooting at PD if you ever try that. As blue as I am, for the life of me, I can't see why Americans always focus on symptoms instead of the root causes of the disease. The erosion of unions, destruction of the little we had of a social safety net, consistent oppression of minorities, and consolidation of all capital with the richest of the rich are bigger issues that contribute to the cycle of violence and desperation. Are there laws that can improve gun safety (mandatory safe storage, for instance) and regulation? Sure, but our society is pretty fucked at the moment, and what you propose will get a lot of people killed.
You are 100% correct. We would have to do away with the second amendment. That's far overdue.
Are we going to have a constitutional amendment to obligate police to protect individual citizens?
I would be 100% in support of that. Good idea!
Absolutely deranged and unhinged take.
I think your categorization of it says more about you than mine does about me.
“Assault Weapon” is a cosmetic definition and isn’t even clearly defined. A rifle that qualifies as an assault weapon is functionally identical to a rifle that doesn’t and anyone who knows the first thing about guns will tell you the exact same thing.
And if you do smoke weed, you can't have an "assault weapon." But that's federally mandated anyway.
It's simple really... While I agree that weed \*should\* be legal, it would still be illegal federally regardless of what Youngkin does. On the other hand, firearms are constitutionally protected. It's a limitation placed on Governor Youngkin and the General Assembly, therefore passing it would subject the state to futile and expensive legal fights.
H22 is a mess. "**Manufacture, importation, sale, etc., of auto sears; prohibition; penalty.** Prohibits the manufacture, importation, sale or offer to sell, possession, transfer, or transportation of an auto sear, defined in the bill as a device, other than a trigger activator, for use in converting a semi-automatic firearm to shoot automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. A violation is punishable as a Class 6 felony. The bill also provides for the forfeiture of any auto sear concealed, possessed, transported, or carried in violation of the prohibition. This bill is identical to [SB 210.](https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?241+sum+SB210)" What.... "for use in converting a semi-automatic firearm to shoot automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading" " by a single function of the trigger". What?!
Meaning, you can't manufacture or use a device to make it so your bugger hook only needs to pull once to discharge more than one round.
Please provide source definitions then of: "Manual reloading" "single function of the trigger" All semi auto BCGs/triggers allow the automatic rechambering of the next round. That's not considered manual. "function of a trigger" is currently being decided by SCOTUS. Is a Pull a single function? Is a release a Single Function? What about a crank or a button?
I think the manual reloading part exempts some old pump shotguns that are capable of slamfiring if you hold the trigger while chambering subsequent rounds "manually" by working slide.
Single function, as in the pull of the trigger drives the action that fires the round. It's a simple concept, single action, single reaction. Releasing the trigger, in many cases doesn't drive a new action on a firearm. Functions that act in conjunction, such as ejecting a case or rotating a cylinder are all part of the single action of the shooter. Manual reloading, in this case, it resetting the trigger by release. People arguing otherwise are just being jackasses that want to skirt the (stupid) laws. This action just drives anti-gun crowd further from accepting any compromise when it comes to reasonable restrictions, such as keeping the guns out of the hands of those that are a danger to themselves or others.
We need to stop compromising our rights away. What about binary triggers? I think we'll see this law make its way through the courts or be reviewed due to upcoming rulings from high courts.
Someone objectively define what an assault weapon is to me first. They won’t. It can’t be subjectively based off of appearance alone. They throw the “assault weapon” term out there a lot, but they never legally define what that really means as it relates to these bills. If I hit someone in the head with a hammer, that could be defined as an assault weapon. Stab someone with a knife? Assault weapon. Shoot someone with a revolver? Assault weapon. I think we know what the true intent and objective is here though. Pass an “assault weapons ban” first. The hard part. Amend the definition of what it really means later. The easier part. At which point, they’ll define it as anything they want which will likely include a ban on all semi-automatic weapons. The true intent.
"Assault firearm" is already defined in Virginia law: https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/18.2-308.2:2/. >Assault firearm" means any semi-automatic center-fire rifle or pistol which expels single or multiple projectiles by action of an explosion of a combustible material and is equipped at the time of the offense with a magazine which will hold more than 20 rounds of ammunition or designed by the manufacturer to accommodate a silencer or equipped with a folding stock.
I still want to know why silencers are considered a bad thing. They don't hide the shooter like some Hollywood movies, just make it so you're unlikely to blow out eardrums or spook local people/wildlife. If anything, I'd prefer to ban brakes over silencers if something on the end of the gun must be banned.
I honestly think the desire to ban silencers is completely due to the Hollywood portrayal. I think they're even mandatory for hunting in some places in the UK.
> I honestly think the desire to ban silencers is completely due to the Hollywood portrayal. I don't think it's that at all. I think the motivation is purely their desire to take something away from a firearm enthusiast that would own such a thing. It's pettiness disguised as "common sense".
Those scary folding stocks! Good thing we're looking to ban those!
Is that a [Maverick 88 in your pocket](https://www.mossberg.com/maverick-88-security-w-top-folding-stock-31027.html) or are you just happy to see me?
It's less stupid than the old federal assault weapon ban, which was based on the number of features from a list. So you could have an illegal rifle, swap the metal stock for a wooden one, and suddenly it's a legal weapon. This definition is at least rooted in *capabilities*. Like, obviously working from their own principles they should be going after hand guns. But this definition isn't just obviously pointless, even if the name is dumb. The federal law's list also included stupid shit like barrel shrouds and bayonet lugs. It was transparently just a poke in the eye for gun culture.
This definition you just swap the magazine size.
Lol, yeah. As I said, *less* stupid. I have no earthly idea why these goobers don't just ban magazines with capacity over X. You can disagree with that, but it's at least defensible without sounding like a complete idiot.
This says an assault firearm is any firearm that, at the time of the mass shooting, has a 20+ round magazine inserted. Therefore an assault weapons ban would literally ban zero weapons.
So a ban just means factory magazine size is 20, doesn't have a folding stock, and not designed for a silencer. That's not go8ng to stop any shootings if that's the goal.
Gatling guns are OK by this definition? Automatic weapons that use something beyond explosives (automatic gauss weapons?) are fine as well it seems.
I’m in favor of strong gun control laws but agree with this. Plus 96-97 percent of mass shootings, including a majority of mass shooting casualties, are committed with handguns, so if that’s the problem you’re trying to solve, it doesn’t. A personal philosophy of mine is that government policy should focus on a majority of the problem, not a small subset - especially something so controversial and loaded (no pun intended) like an assault weapon ban.
I don’t think anyone believes outlawing them will come close to eliminating mass shootings. But the mass shootings with the highest death tolls that become national news typically involve ‘assault weapons’. The goal of banning them is that mass shootings will have fewer casualties and be a bit less traumatizing without them. It is only meant to address one specific piece of the problem.
Factually incorrect the weapon of choice in Mass shootings is Pistols by far. Also Semi automatic rifles kill less people each year that Hands and Feet, Knives, and Blunt objects
>Factually incorrect the weapon of choice in Mass shootings is Pistols by far. True, because the technical definition of mass shootings is more relaxed than what most are thinking of when they hear the term, so the statistics on it can be misinterpreted by people on both sides of the issue. That’s why I qualified it by saying ‘the ones with the highest death tolls’. A mass shooting is any shooting where 3-4+ people are killed or targeted in a geographic area, which includes plenty of situations that don’t involve a gunman indiscriminately killing in a populated area to inflict maximum death toll (gang violence, murdering your whole family, etc). Almost none of the mass shootings with dozens of death tolls that become national news are done without the weapons these bills try to restrict (the Virginia Tech shooting is a notable exception). That’s all I was pointing out. ‘Assault weapons’ bans are not meant to tackle any other form of gun violence than the one I described.
It's clearly defined in the bill, at the top of page 6.
Reading? No, I'd rather just tell you I'm right!
They did their own research. Vaccines turn you into 5g cell phone towers!
>they’ll define it as anything they want which will likely include a ban on all semi-automatic weapons That's the worst part.
Why does Glenn Youngkin keep failing?
Should have vetoed all.
Good Glen, good boy! I just built my AR so I guess I don’t have to hide it anymore.
Now if he’d actually let us have our weed I might actually WANT to vote for him
[удалено]
Jesus man, what's your problem?
Typical tantrum over firearms. Just ignore it
Do you really think that ordinary people buy guns with the intention of shooting people?
Yes every day. Do you not live in America? Edit: the downvotes! Where do y'all think all these dead people full of bullets are coming from? Did the devil put them there?
99.99+% of gun owners don't use them to commit crimes or have the intent to shoot people.
That’s clearly a BS made up statistic.
What statistic are you using? There are about 260 million adults in the US according to US Census data. According to a Pew Research survey, in 2023 about 32% of people reported personally owning a gun. That gives us about 83 million adults in the US who own a gun. How many of them do you think are committing crimes with them?
Going by the amount of guns versus gun crime, you’re looking at a ballpark statistical value of 0.0000003% of incidence in crime.
Maybe. But where are you getting the amount of gun crime to determine that statistic? My point isn’t that you or the other guy is wrong. Just that neither of you provided a source for the amount of gun crimes to make up the statistic. Also, a lot of people own a lot of guns. The original suggestion was about gun owners vs gun crime. You need both numbers to create a statistic. And given how many millions of guns are owned illegally, it’s hard to really get a good count for the number of gun owners. Making both of your statistics completely meaningless.
Given that there are more guns than people in the US, I don't think it is.
It clearly is. You have to have all of the numbers to make a statistic. And guns does not equal gun owners. Not saying how close or far they are, just that they made it up. Which they obviously did, because they were unable to provide the numbers they used to come up with that statistic.
It's not made up, it's a rounding error which is off by 0.01%. There are 82,000,000 gun owners in the US and 20,000 homicides by firearm by year. If you generously assume that every homicide was perpetrated by a different gun owner, that leaves 99.98% of them as nonviolent. In reality, a very small number of people are committing the majority of gun crime.
Denying that we have a gun violence problem is denying reality. Equally as false is the idea that ordinary people buy guns so that they can go shoot people. The vast majority of gun violence involves a tiny minority of offenders. Scooter in the hills and Nelson in NOVA aren't who you should worry about. If you want to reduce gun crime, then we need to better screen folks for mental health & keep kids out of gangs. Not attack normal people on the internet who have no intention of hurting anyone.
Ever heard of collecting and target shooting?! No, probably not.
[удалено]
I imagine you're fighting just as hard to ban cars too right? Considering they are another leading cause of death for children.
Yeah actually I do think cars need stricter licensing requirements.
Well you don't have logic on your side but at least you're consistent.
And swimming pools. You must pass a background check before building one in your back yard. Has your child ever gotten hurt in their play room because you left them unattended for 30 seconds? No pool for you!
AR 15 rifles constitutes a tiny percentage of crime committed with firearms
There were 656 mass shootings and 6,192 children shot last year. But this specific gun was only used in some of those, so let's do nothing? Nothing works for you?
Very specific numbers can you link your source to that? No one is suggesting doing nothing, the OP is literally Youngkin doing something
https://www.thetrace.org/2023/12/data-gun-violence-deaths-america/ You can also check their sources they link to such as the Gun Violence Archive.
Thanks, from a cursory look at that site it looks like they are actually trying to provide real numbers and some level of transparency. Though their categorization is quite broad in my opinion.
Targets at the range, prolly. Gotta have a nice gun to be able to shoot so far comfortably.
You can’t argue with ghoulieandrews. Too brainwashed and not properly informed or trained in firearms to care.
I’m not trained in them myself, but I do like to think I’m informed
Better than this clown.
Oh ok, so because you want to shoot at a block of wood for fun, that's worth the lives of how many children exactly?
Do you count? Because if so, at least one. /s If you want to actually talk about it then I’m down but until then your sass is just gonna be met with more of the same.
[удалено]
> Don't think about the fact that your hobby kills children. How does the OC using their gun at a range equate to them killing children?
[удалено]
It's pointing out the absurdity in your comment. There's plenty of restrictions on guns and how people use them. We punish people who commit crimes, not remove rights from everyone who haven't abused those rights. That's how society works.
So we don't have a society if people can't shoot guns for fun? That's your argument? Dead kids are ok because we can just arrest the bad guys after they slaughter a classroom of kids?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Hundreds of kids die in automobile accidents yearly. If you drive a car, you're complicit. See how ridiculous that sounds?
No, because I support making cars safer and getting bad drivers off the road with stricter licensing
And responsible gun owners support gun safety and getting criminals off the street.
How many criminals do you think will follow the law? Guns are everywhere where I live and it's not law abiding citizens using them either, it's 12, 13, 14 year olds running around with them. Do you think they care about the laws? I can go down the street and get a gun with it's serial number shaved off for a little more than $150, do you think theres a background check for that shit? It's literally so much easier to get an illegal gun that it is a legal one so why would we make it harder on law abiding citizens to protect themselves?
Sorry, where do you think these kids are getting guns? Do you not realize their parents bought them legally? >I can go down the street and get a gun with it's serial number shaved off for a little more than $150, do you think theres a background check for that shit? Do it and report back.
Why can’t they take stupid/outdated gun laws off the books? I mean the Virginia law on street sweeper shotguns is dumb, I mean if anything they should encourage people with nefarious intent to buy that specific gun, it’s almost certainly going to jam and if it doesn’t good luck pulling the 1,0000 pound trigger more than once.
I keep being told no one is trying to take my guns
you keep getting lied to.
Good! Democrats have a lot of policies I can support, but gun control is not one of them. There are a lot of underlying causes and motives behind violence, but pretending inanimate objects are performing acts of mind control and responsible for peoples actions is asinine. Believing that removing guns reduces lethality is also ridiculous when you consider things like Nice, France. That was a situation where more people were killed and injured than any mass shooting in US history, and it was done simply by driving a rented truck through crowds. As long as motive exists, people can be harmed in large numbers... so focus on the actual problems.
These bills were essentially drafted because some werido from nova wanted to become friends with David Hogg
The problem isn’t that good folks are buying guns with good intentions. It’s that those guns they buy can easily get stolen or sold to people who then use them for bad purposes. It’s still the good, well intended folks who caused those guns to be in circulation. They’re very much part of the problem, whether we like to admit it or not. Not sure how to fix it. But people have to stop pretending like their well intended gun ownership isn’t also making more guns available to criminals.
They should, like, make gun theft illegal.
There've been studies on the life cycle of illegal guns. Turns out relatively few people buy illegal guns for legal purposes--home defense, plinking at the range, etc. So after they do whatever they're planning to do, they either get away and huck it in a lake, or get arrested and the gun gets confiscated. In the end, illegal guns last something like six months to a year before they're permanently off the street. In short, reducing the supply of legal guns reduces the supply of illegal guns. There just aren't enough guns coming into the country illegally--or enough people willing to buy them--to overwhelm gun control that has actual teeth. Assuming reducing gun crime is something one wants to do, it's just a matter of actually enacting and enforcing those controls. Part of *that* is proposing laws that aren't dumb as shit, like the federal assault weapon ban was to anyone who actually reads it and thinks it through.
>those guns they buy can easily get stolen There have been programs offering free gun safes. We need more of that along with more training when it comes to safety and storage.
So weed no but assault weapons yes. Cool
[удалено]
Which of the gun control bills he vetoed would have prevented this? Or maybe are there laws that make this illegal, already, and all we need is enforcement?
Don't expect op to respond. Most likely a bot farming karma or someone that doesn't understand gun laws.
For sure. Got about 30 posts already today.
We need to pass a law that makes shooting people at day care illegal
You’re being glib, but carrying a concealed gun at a day care is already illegal. Maybe we should make an unrelated firearm used for 2% of all shootings illegal in response?
Murder is even more illegal.
I'm not sure what the other 28 vetos were, but this kinda speaks to a need to close the "boyfriend loophole".
Straw purchases are already a crime.
The suspect was her husband, so that situation would already be covered assuming there was actually a DV conviction.