Re: Massachusetts AG expands "assault weapons" ban...

26
p0lyhuman wrote:"PRO-GUN advocates often say that an AR15 is one of the most effective tools for self defense. That is, people who supposedly know what they are talking about. But in their next breath they will say that assault weapons bans are dumb because an AR15 is only cosmetically different from any other rifle. The two arguments are contradictory. If the AR15 is only cosmetically different, then why is it more effective for self defense?"
Yes, the AR-15 is "one of the most effective" guns. So is the Mini-14 Ranch Rifle. These are cosmetically very different guns, and banning one without banning the other really is dumb. These are not contradictory statements.
If the AR15 is only cosmetically different, then why is it more effective for self defense?"
This is where the argument falls apart, because it tries to gloss over a couple of implications and get you to ignore them. Explicitly putting in those implications we get "If the AR15 is only cosmetically different from other assault rifles, then why is it more effective for self defense than non-assault rifles?"

The AR-15 is not more effective than a Mini-14. The AR-15 is more effective than a bolt action hunting rifle.

The anti argument above is trying to compare apples to oranges in order to confuse people.

[EDIT] And of course the next thing the anti side would say is 'well then we need to expand the definition of "assault rifle" to include everything except bolt action rifles.'
106+ recreational uses of firearms
1 defensive use
0 people injured
0 people killed

Re: Massachusetts AG expands "assault weapons" ban...

28
shinzen wrote:
p0lyhuman wrote:In response to a post about this on FB, someone not in favor of AW bans made the following challenge to the pro-gun point of view, and I'm having trouble answering it:

"PRO-GUN advocates often say that an AR15 is one of the most effective tools for self defense. That is, people who supposedly know what they are talking about. But in their next breath they will say that assault weapons bans are dumb because an AR15 is only cosmetically different from any other rifle. The two arguments are contradictory. If the AR15 is only cosmetically different, then why is it more effective for self defense?"

You could logically conclude that if cosmetic features don't change the essential functionality of the gun, then people using it for SD won't be affected by feature-based bans. How do we counter?
I'd actually say the two things are not contradictory at all. An AR would not be my personal first choice for inside the home self defense, but there is definitely the appeal of having a rifle with a round that is more likely to fragment after it hits the first piece of drywall- 223 has shown to do that in many tests. Thus putting your neighbors at less risk than a 30-06 or 308, which has a lot more stopping power. Whether it's a Ruger Mini 14 or an AR-15, they both use the same round- 223. Which is a good rifle round for self defense.

As to the second question, the cosmetics don't matter one whit. The rifle uses the same rounds, fired at the same velocity, generally with the same length barrel. A pistol grip and adjustable stock don't make it more lethal, it makes it more comfortable to shoot, as well as allowing it to adjust to smaller or larger shooters. I've got a featureless AR that is not an evil rifle by CA law. Functionally, it's exactly the same as any other AR- but without the pistol grip/adjustable stock/flash hider. That would be impacted by the AG in MA for new purchases, and would likely get me checked out every time I"m at the range in MA having to prove I bought it prior to the new rules. The Mini-14 I could buy after (I think), and it still has a detachable mag and uses the same ammo.
OK, this was an important reminder for me. I forgot about fragmentation of .223 in walls. So what makes it good for self defense in some situations, in addition to the ergonomic features, is the characteristics of its most common caliber.

As a poster after you mentioned, the obsession with cosmetic features really is a trap, or rather a setup for the claim that every semi-auto should be banned.

Re: Massachusetts AG expands "assault weapons" ban...

29
Bob Owens was apparently so agitated he referred to Healey as a "politicians."
http://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2016/07/20 ... a-illegal/
Democrat Attorney General Maura Healey announced today that she is unilaterally redefining what constitutes an “assault weapon” under Massachusetts law, in order to outlaw the sale of the most popular firearms sold in the United States.
Healey’s arrogance is clear. I don’t like that manufacturers complied with the letter of the law we passed, so I’m going to redefine what it means.
Healey also states that firearms that have “has components that are interchangeable with those of a banned weapon” are also illegal. This is even more ripe for abuse than the blatantly unconstitutional and flippant “essentially the same” operating system test, as many firearms—including those that are clearly not “assault weapons” by even the most insane definition—share components with firearm on the list.
sbɐɯ ʎʇıɔɐdɐɔ pɹɐpuɐʇs ɟo ןןnɟ ǝɟɐs
ɯɯ6 bdd ɹǝɥʇןɐʍ
13ʞ
"ǝuıqɹɐɔ 1ɐ4ɯ" dɯɐʇsןןoɹ --- ɯoɔos0269ǝן ʇןoɔ
"ǝuıqɹɐɔ ʇuǝɯǝɔɹoɟuǝ ʍɐן sʇןoɔ" dɯɐʇsןןoɹ --- 0269ǝן ʇןoɔ
(béɟ) 59-pɯɐ

Re: Massachusetts AG expands "assault weapons" ban...

30
Scoped bolt action "sniper" rifles will be next. Nobody needs a sniper rifle to hunt. If you can't stalk close enough to use open sights, you shouldn't be trying to hunt.

And if your rifle is capable of 1MOA or better precision it's obviously a military grade sniper rifle, and you shouldn't have it.

\sarc off
"In every generation there are those who want to rule well - but they mean to rule. They promise to be good masters - but they mean to be masters." — Daniel Webster

Re: Massachusetts AG expands

31
rascally wrote:Scoped bolt action "sniper" rifles will be next. Nobody needs a sniper rifle to hunt. If you can't stalk close enough to use open sights, you shouldn't be trying to hunt.

And if your rifle is capable of 1MOA or better precision it's obviously a military grade sniper rifle, and you shouldn't have it.

\sarc off
You aren't as far off as you might think. Remember the Vox article that asked readers whether a gun should be banned based on how it looked?

http://www.vox.com/2016/7/9/12128686/vo ... n-firearms

The Remington 700 with a scope on it had 42% of people want to ban it. To compare, the Benelli semi auto shotgun had 18% "should be illegal" rating. Even more interesting is the Mossberg 500 pump action shotgun having a 30% "should be illegal" rating.

These are people that are proud to be ignorant about guns and feel that their ignorance actually qualifies them to pass legislation. It's maddening.

Re: Massachusetts AG expands

32
Hazborgufen wrote:These are people that are proud to be ignorant about guns and feel that their ignorance actually qualifies them to pass legislation. It's maddening.
I keep thinking that trying to talk to liberals about firearms is like trying to talk to conservatives about climate change. Both groups willfully ignore a wealth of data because it does not fit their narrative. You cannot debate those people. May as well try to seduce a rock.

Re: Massachusetts AG expands

34
wifesbane wrote:
Hazborgufen wrote:These are people that are proud to be ignorant about guns and feel that their ignorance actually qualifies them to pass legislation. It's maddening.
I keep thinking that trying to talk to liberals about firearms is like trying to talk to conservatives about climate change. Both groups willfully ignore a wealth of data because it does not fit their narrative. You cannot debate those people. May as well try to seduce a rock.
When I was in Alaska earlier this month, I took a tour boat to the Northwestern Glacier in Kenai Fjords and a flight seeing tour over the Bagley Icefield. Apparently people believe that glaciers only calve because of global warming, which I found funny since the Titanic hit an iceberg in 1912. Interestingly enough, some glaciers are actually growing as opposed to receding.
The issue may not be just ignoring data, but both groups also passing on misinformation with "half-truths" in-tow.
EAT,SLEEP,RANGE,REPEAT

Re: Massachusetts AG expands "assault weapons" ban...

36
Background:
The sale, transfer, or possession of an “Assault weapon,” as defined in Section 121, is unlawful
pursuant to G.L. c. 140, §§ 128 and 131M.
“Assault weapon” is defined as a:
semiautomatic assault weapon as defined in the federal Public Safety and Recreational
Firearms Use Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. section 921(a)(30) as appearing in such section
on September 13, 1994, and shall include, but not be limited to, any of the weapons, or
copies or duplicates of the weapons [emphasis added], of any caliber, known as:1
(i) Avtomat Kalashnikov (AK) (all models);
So a Saiga rifle is a copycat rifle of the AK, or not? The magazines are not interchangeable and it doesn't look the same, but the operating mechanism is basically the same. I guess that is up to the Attorney General to decide....
"When and if fascism comes to America... it will be called, of course, ‘Americanism'." - Halford Luccock
"Liberty without socialism is privilege and injustice. Socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality."
— Mikhail Bakunin

Re: Massachusetts AG expands

38
GeorgiaRN wrote:
wifesbane wrote:
Hazborgufen wrote:These are people that are proud to be ignorant about guns and feel that their ignorance actually qualifies them to pass legislation. It's maddening.
I keep thinking that trying to talk to liberals about firearms is like trying to talk to conservatives about climate change. Both groups willfully ignore a wealth of data because it does not fit their narrative. You cannot debate those people. May as well try to seduce a rock.
When I was in Alaska earlier this month, I took a tour boat to the Northwestern Glacier in Kenai Fjords and a flight seeing tour over the Bagley Icefield. Apparently people believe that glaciers only calve because of global warming, which I found funny since the Titanic hit an iceberg in 1912. Interestingly enough, some glaciers are actually growing as opposed to receding.
The issue may not be just ignoring data, but both groups also passing on misinformation with "half-truths" in-tow.
Yes, the ill-informed citizenry and their congresscritters are swimming in a fact-deprived pool. The difference between the two groups is that guns are being limited based on belief and emotion - not fact. The perception of climate change is in a similar pool, but there are actual facts to be found on that topic. Like the glacier thing - yes, about 10% of the planet's glaciers are growing mass (due to changes in the water cycle from global heating), but the huge loss of mass in the remaining 90% more than make up for the slight gains in the 10%.

Re: Massachusetts AG expands

39
AndyH wrote:
GeorgiaRN wrote:
wifesbane wrote:
Hazborgufen wrote:These are people that are proud to be ignorant about guns and feel that their ignorance actually qualifies them to pass legislation. It's maddening.
I keep thinking that trying to talk to liberals about firearms is like trying to talk to conservatives about climate change. Both groups willfully ignore a wealth of data because it does not fit their narrative. You cannot debate those people. May as well try to seduce a rock.
When I was in Alaska earlier this month, I took a tour boat to the Northwestern Glacier in Kenai Fjords and a flight seeing tour over the Bagley Icefield. Apparently people believe that glaciers only calve because of global warming, which I found funny since the Titanic hit an iceberg in 1912. Interestingly enough, some glaciers are actually growing as opposed to receding.
The issue may not be just ignoring data, but both groups also passing on misinformation with "half-truths" in-tow.
Yes, the ill-informed citizenry and their congresscritters are swimming in a fact-deprived pool. The difference between the two groups is that guns are being limited based on belief and emotion - not fact. The perception of climate change is in a similar pool, but there are actual facts to be found on that topic. Like the glacier thing - yes, about 10% of the planet's glaciers are growing mass (due to changes in the water cycle from global heating), but the huge loss of mass in the remaining 90% more than make up for the slight gains in the 10%.
It is frustrating. Odd that with firearms in particular some seem to feel they know all they need to know in order to make some sweeping ban, as if it's a trivial something that only affects a handful of our entire population. Not to mention that it is enshrined in our beloved Bill of Rights. It is aggravating as all get out. Still, people can become better informed: I not only turned my dear mother around on the issue of guns and their owners, but got her out to the range, to boot. And yes, she had fun. :)
"I am not a number, I am a free man!" - Number Six

Image

Image
Image

Re: Massachusetts AG expands "assault weapons" ban...

41
When I was an anti, one of my staunchest beliefs was that civilians had no business owning "assault weapons" (black rifles specifically), and nothing really changed my mind on this topic until after I started owning guns and learning more about them.

Now that I'm on the flip side, I do find that one of the hardest areas to get any traction with is assault weapon bans and asking anti-gun liberals to ease up on this black gun vilification.

Part of the problem I think is that in order to loosen up on these hoplophobic attitudes towards MSRs, one really needs to have some basic level of understanding of firearms (rifles in particular), which unfortunately the vast vast majority of antis don't. And they don't seem to want to learn any thing about firearms unless it's from a VOX article that already bends to their world view. Data and number arguments don't really work as it's far more of a visceral emotional issue, so they don't really give a dang about black rifles only being used in less than 2% of crimes or what not. So this is a real tough area to fight against.

Maybe we need to work on some sort of emotional appeal or gut level arguments to at least get close to some middle ground. I'm sure there are strategists far smarter than me that can think of some great ways to reframe the debate or plant seeds of doubt into aspiring anti-gun minds.

Re: Massachusetts AG expands "assault weapons" ban...

42
pdoggeth wrote:Maybe we need to work on some sort of emotional appeal or gut level arguments to at least get close to some middle ground. I'm sure there are strategists far smarter than me that can think of some great ways to reframe the debate or plant seeds of doubt into aspiring anti-gun minds.
"plant seeds of doubt into aspiring anti-gun minds"

That makes me wonder if you are taking the wrong tact. This is not a game. There are no "seeds of doubt" to "plant". This is "our" society and some people have been scared shitless about guns. Right or wrong, that is their reality. Respect it.

It's a constant dialogue. My parents were avid antis but started to think more when I bought my first rifle in 2008. I have educated them on the facts and gotten them to really look at firearms from an objective perspective. They now believe that AWBs are BS and a distraction from real issues. On FB, I continue to carefully work on my anti-friends.

My experience says you have to acknowledge their concerns before you can educate them. You also have to respect that some people just don't want guns in our society. Yet they can be focused too. Get them thinking about the real issues and what is and is not going to have an impact. A lot of the discussions are about hate, poverty and personal crisis. Those are issues liberals understand. Then work in data on what aspects of firearms regulations may adjust some of the numbers - training, education, secure storage, etc. At some point, they will see diminishing returns on gun control and move to root causes of violence.

Frankly, the gun zealots need the same hand holding. It's just as wrong, maybe worse, to just say FU and hide behind the 2A. It is really about crafting a civil society of diverse interests.

Re: Massachusetts AG expands "assault weapons" ban...

44
ErikO wrote:So, looking at the MA AG's action, it would seem that everything semi-auto is no longer able to change hands in MA. So, if you live in Massachusetts and want a 10/22 but don't have one you are screwed.
There is an interesting discussion on another forum about FFLs falling all over themselves to let the police know they can and will still sell to them. But while police in MA are exempt from the state's AWB, the law--as now re-interpreted--does not actually allow for the transfer of banned firearms to anyone. Remains to be seen how that shakes out.
sbɐɯ ʎʇıɔɐdɐɔ pɹɐpuɐʇs ɟo ןןnɟ ǝɟɐs
ɯɯ6 bdd ɹǝɥʇןɐʍ
13ʞ
"ǝuıqɹɐɔ 1ɐ4ɯ" dɯɐʇsןןoɹ --- ɯoɔos0269ǝן ʇןoɔ
"ǝuıqɹɐɔ ʇuǝɯǝɔɹoɟuǝ ʍɐן sʇןoɔ" dɯɐʇsןןoɹ --- 0269ǝן ʇןoɔ
(béɟ) 59-pɯɐ

Re: Massachusetts AG expands "assault weapons" ban...

45
DispositionMatrix wrote:
ErikO wrote:So, looking at the MA AG's action, it would seem that everything semi-auto is no longer able to change hands in MA. So, if you live in Massachusetts and want a 10/22 but don't have one you are screwed.
There is an interesting discussion on another forum about FFLs falling all over themselves to let the police know they can and will still sell to them. But while police in MA are exempt from the state's AWB, the law--as now re-interpreted--does not actually allow for the transfer of banned firearms to anyone. Remains to be seen how that shakes out.
That is exactly the case based upon what a couple lawyers I've heard from have had to say.

Can't transfer to cops.

Boo frickin hoo. lol
In a bacon, egg and cheese sandwich the chicken and cow are involved while the pig is committed.

Re: Massachusetts AG expands "assault weapons" ban...

46
ErikO wrote:
DispositionMatrix wrote:
ErikO wrote:So, looking at the MA AG's action, it would seem that everything semi-auto is no longer able to change hands in MA. So, if you live in Massachusetts and want a 10/22 but don't have one you are screwed.
There is an interesting discussion on another forum about FFLs falling all over themselves to let the police know they can and will still sell to them. But while police in MA are exempt from the state's AWB, the law--as now re-interpreted--does not actually allow for the transfer of banned firearms to anyone. Remains to be seen how that shakes out.
That is exactly the case based upon what a couple lawyers I've heard from have had to say.

Can't transfer to cops.

Boo frickin hoo. lol
The governor seems to have heard that maybe this is overly broad. Asked for clarification.

Baker is a technocrat and while I don't agree with him he does seem competent.

Re: Massachusetts AG expands "assault weapons" ban...

47
My guess is ultimately transfers to police will continue regardless of what the law says. The AG's office is not going to prosecute FFLs for selling to cops.
sbɐɯ ʎʇıɔɐdɐɔ pɹɐpuɐʇs ɟo ןןnɟ ǝɟɐs
ɯɯ6 bdd ɹǝɥʇןɐʍ
13ʞ
"ǝuıqɹɐɔ 1ɐ4ɯ" dɯɐʇsןןoɹ --- ɯoɔos0269ǝן ʇןoɔ
"ǝuıqɹɐɔ ʇuǝɯǝɔɹoɟuǝ ʍɐן sʇןoɔ" dɯɐʇsןןoɹ --- 0269ǝן ʇןoɔ
(béɟ) 59-pɯɐ

Re: Massachusetts AG expands

48
Inquisitor wrote:
ErikO wrote:
DispositionMatrix wrote:
ErikO wrote:So, looking at the MA AG's action, it would seem that everything semi-auto is no longer able to change hands in MA. So, if you live in Massachusetts and want a 10/22 but don't have one you are screwed.
There is an interesting discussion on another forum about FFLs falling all over themselves to let the police know they can and will still sell to them. But while police in MA are exempt from the state's AWB, the law--as now re-interpreted--does not actually allow for the transfer of banned firearms to anyone. Remains to be seen how that shakes out.
That is exactly the case based upon what a couple lawyers I've heard from have had to say.

Can't transfer to cops.

Boo frickin hoo. lol
The governor seems to have heard that maybe this is overly broad. Asked for clarification.

Baker is a technocrat and while I don't agree with him he does seem competent.
He was fine with it last Wednesday. I wonder what made him partially backpedal so carefully.
sbɐɯ ʎʇıɔɐdɐɔ pɹɐpuɐʇs ɟo ןןnɟ ǝɟɐs
ɯɯ6 bdd ɹǝɥʇןɐʍ
13ʞ
"ǝuıqɹɐɔ 1ɐ4ɯ" dɯɐʇsןןoɹ --- ɯoɔos0269ǝן ʇןoɔ
"ǝuıqɹɐɔ ʇuǝɯǝɔɹoɟuǝ ʍɐן sʇןoɔ" dɯɐʇsןןoɹ --- 0269ǝן ʇןoɔ
(béɟ) 59-pɯɐ

Re: Massachusetts AG expands "assault weapons" ban...

49
wifesbane wrote:
That makes me wonder if you are taking the wrong tact. This is not a game. There are no "seeds of doubt" to "plant". This is "our" society and some people have been scared shitless about guns. Right or wrong, that is their reality. Respect it.

It's a constant dialogue. My parents were avid antis but started to think more when I bought my first rifle in 2008. I have educated them on the facts and gotten them to really look at firearms from an objective perspective. They now believe that AWBs are BS and a distraction from real issues. On FB, I continue to carefully work on my anti-friends.

My experience says you have to acknowledge their concerns before you can educate them. You also have to respect that some people just don't want guns in our society. Yet they can be focused too. Get them thinking about the real issues and what is and is not going to have an impact. A lot of the discussions are about hate, poverty and personal crisis. Those are issues liberals understand. Then work in data on what aspects of firearms regulations may adjust some of the numbers - training, education, secure storage, etc. At some point, they will see diminishing returns on gun control and move to root causes of violence.
Uhmm, wouldn't this be also be planting seeds of doubt? As in, having doubts about the returns on gun control? :p Well as I said, smarter people than me can come up with good strategies.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Semrush [Bot] and 3 guests