7 ms·

People bring up the Mini-14 because the Mini-14 Ranch (5801) is specifically, by name, exempt from "Assault Weapon Ban" laws while the Mini-14 Tactical (5846) i

by 28226 7y ago

People bring up the Mini-14 because the Mini-14 Ranch (5801) is specifically, by name, exempt from "Assault Weapon Ban" laws while the Mini-14 Tactical (5846) is banned because of its ergonomic features.

tptacek 7y ago
That's an eminently fair response. If the argument is simply that existing assault weapon bans are irrational, I concede fully that the Mini-14 is a great illustration. I remarked downthread about like, a gossamer-thin thread of rationalizing behind this kind of policymaking, but, I mean, yeah. I just think that in general, firearms advocates are "high on their own supply" from these arguments: that the FAWB, for instance, is terrible legislation, but also, that all our discussions about firearms policy should be rooted in the definitions hammered out in the FAWB. And: no, of course not. All I'd like to establish is that the real underlying issues are not that complicated, even if they're uncomfortable for firearms advocates, and can be grappled with by laypersons. When firearms advocates gotcha with FAWB definitions or weird counterexamples or appeals to rifle color or the fact that a belt buckle is a machine gun or whatever, that's an evasion, not a real argument, and should be called out as such.
- 28226 7y ago
  Yes, they are irrational. An AR Pattern rifle chambered in a rimfire cartridge such as 22 LR is legal under "Assault Weapon" ban laws. Rimfire rifles have been used in spree shootings. What's the argument for why ergonomic features like an adjustable stocks should be banned?
  - tptacek 7y ago
    They shouldn't. But you won't like what I have to say next: that's because the rational target for regulation should be any semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine. And (I'm relating a fact here): that's what the original proposals were. We don't ban cosmetic features because legislators are stupid; we ban them because the firearms lobby is powerful, and scrambled the original proposals. (Again: I think another problem with firearms regulations is that they've been based on bans, when what's in fact needed is licensure --- in the US, for historical reasons, probably presumptively-issued licenses).
    - 28226 7y ago
      I appreciate your honesty, it's rare in discussions like this. Do you want semi-automatic handguns to be regulated the same way as semi-automatic long guns? Exactly what problem would licensure solve?
      - tptacek 7y ago
        Keeping high-powered weaponry out of the hands of complete and total fuckups, who dominate the list of spree shooters with high casualty counts. And potentially mitigating (obviously not solving) proliferation. Within Constitutional limits (and without wading into a protracted argument about what those limits might be; Heller was 5-4!), devolving this question back out to the states, so states that overwhelmingly support restrictions regain some knobs to accomplish that (through licensure requirements). Letting the Laboratories of Democracy do their thing. I don't see a fundamental reason why we'd want to take most semi-automatic rifles away from most owners, because while I don't actually believe most owners derive any practical benefits from them (I think overwhelmingly they're a hobby, not a tool), I also don't see what the point of reclaiming a firearm from someone who simply isn't going to abuse it would be.
        28226 7y ago
        Does a semi-automatic handgun qualify as "high-powered weaponry?" The "Laboratories of Democracy" idea is unrealistic for firearms, and most issues. States don't control their borders. Though, it's against federal law to buy a handgun from an FFL out of state and a long gun can only be purchased out of state if said long gun is legal in a buyer's home state. In general, do you think that gun crimes (e.g. possession of a firearm by a felon) are adequately prosecuted? I'm not interested in talking about the US Constitution. We both already know each other's arguments. I'm not even interested in changing your opinion. I'm a lurker, but I've read your comments for years and respect you. The logistics of your ideal scenario interest me. Canada gave up on registering long guns because it was infeasible. Would you support a law requiring background checks for all purchase of firearms under the condition that the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) is made available for all citizens to use (not just FFLs), free of charge, using a driver's license number of the potential purchaser? Do you think that the progression of low-cost CNC machines, such as the Ghost Gunner, is a hurdle for the gun control measures that you want implemented? The serialized lower receiver is what is considered a firearm in America. Do you want to regulate all firearm components, such as barrels, handguards, etc?

by 28226 7y ago

tptacek 7y ago

That's an eminently fair response. If the argument is simply that existing assault weapon bans are irrational, I concede fully that the Mini-14 is a great illustration. I remarked downthread about like, a gossamer-thin thread of rationalizing behind this kind of policymaking, but, I mean, yeah. I just think that in general, firearms advocates are "high on their own supply" from these arguments: that the FAWB, for instance, is terrible legislation, but also, that all our discussions about firearms policy should be rooted in the definitions hammered out in the FAWB. And: no, of course not. All I'd like to establish is that the real underlying issues are not that complicated, even if they're uncomfortable for firearms advocates, and can be grappled with by laypersons. When firearms advocates gotcha with FAWB definitions or weird counterexamples or appeals to rifle color or the fact that a belt buckle is a machine gun or whatever, that's an evasion, not a real argument, and should be called out as such.

28226 7y ago
Yes, they are irrational. An AR Pattern rifle chambered in a rimfire cartridge such as 22 LR is legal under "Assault Weapon" ban laws. Rimfire rifles have been used in spree shootings. What's the argument for why ergonomic features like an adjustable stocks should be banned?
- tptacek 7y ago
  They shouldn't. But you won't like what I have to say next: that's because the rational target for regulation should be any semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine. And (I'm relating a fact here): that's what the original proposals were. We don't ban cosmetic features because legislators are stupid; we ban them because the firearms lobby is powerful, and scrambled the original proposals. (Again: I think another problem with firearms regulations is that they've been based on bans, when what's in fact needed is licensure --- in the US, for historical reasons, probably presumptively-issued licenses).
  - 28226 7y ago
    I appreciate your honesty, it's rare in discussions like this. Do you want semi-automatic handguns to be regulated the same way as semi-automatic long guns? Exactly what problem would licensure solve?
    - tptacek 7y ago
      Keeping high-powered weaponry out of the hands of complete and total fuckups, who dominate the list of spree shooters with high casualty counts. And potentially mitigating (obviously not solving) proliferation. Within Constitutional limits (and without wading into a protracted argument about what those limits might be; Heller was 5-4!), devolving this question back out to the states, so states that overwhelmingly support restrictions regain some knobs to accomplish that (through licensure requirements). Letting the Laboratories of Democracy do their thing. I don't see a fundamental reason why we'd want to take most semi-automatic rifles away from most owners, because while I don't actually believe most owners derive any practical benefits from them (I think overwhelmingly they're a hobby, not a tool), I also don't see what the point of reclaiming a firearm from someone who simply isn't going to abuse it would be.
      - 28226 7y ago
        Does a semi-automatic handgun qualify as "high-powered weaponry?" The "Laboratories of Democracy" idea is unrealistic for firearms, and most issues. States don't control their borders. Though, it's against federal law to buy a handgun from an FFL out of state and a long gun can only be purchased out of state if said long gun is legal in a buyer's home state. In general, do you think that gun crimes (e.g. possession of a firearm by a felon) are adequately prosecuted? I'm not interested in talking about the US Constitution. We both already know each other's arguments. I'm not even interested in changing your opinion. I'm a lurker, but I've read your comments for years and respect you. The logistics of your ideal scenario interest me. Canada gave up on registering long guns because it was infeasible. Would you support a law requiring background checks for all purchase of firearms under the condition that the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) is made available for all citizens to use (not just FFLs), free of charge, using a driver's license number of the potential purchaser? Do you think that the progression of low-cost CNC machines, such as the Ghost Gunner, is a hurdle for the gun control measures that you want implemented? The serialized lower receiver is what is considered a firearm in America. Do you want to regulate all firearm components, such as barrels, handguards, etc?