4 ms·

The problem is that neither the proposal you linked nor the 1994 FAWB make a rational distinction between banned semi-automatic rifles with a capacity to accept

by wl 6y ago

The problem is that neither the proposal you linked nor the 1994 FAWB make a rational distinction between banned semi-automatic rifles with a capacity to accept a detachable magazine ("assault weapons") and ones that shouldn't be banned, with the exception of a few specific carveouts. In the proposal you link, instead of feature tests, we get the attorney general judging which guns are ok and which ones aren't. AWBs are incoherent and irrational. The feature tests are a manifestation of that. But the lack of them doesn't fix the irrationality of the whole idea.

tptacek 6y ago
I think the bill I cited is has a pretty clear and coherent definition of assault weapons: they're semi-automatic rifles that accept detachable clips of more than 10 rounds. You're fixated on the fact that the AG/SecT can designed some semi-automatic rifles with clips as "not" assault weapons, at their discretion. So what? I don't think mandatory licensure of tactical rifles is an irrational idea at all.
- wl 6y ago
  The ban you linked works the other way around: Such rifles are legal until the AG/SecT specifically bans them. It's the functional definition + irrelevant stuff formula I object to as irrational. If the ban you linked worked as you describe, I'd object to it as bad public policy, but I'd be hard-pressed to call it irrational. And I'm not sure how licensure comes into this. Neither the 1994 FAWB nor the proposal you linked license the possession of "tactical rifles." They ban them with grandfathering. And for what it's worth, I don't think licensure regimes necessarily are irrational.
  - tptacek 6y ago
    The AG/SecT has the authority under this proposal to simply classify all of them as assault weapons. Not all firearms, period; there is a technical definition that carves out weapons that can't be, and, again, it's not based on cosmetic features. I think in the 1980s an outright ban on tactical rifles could have worked. That's the context of the bill. Since then, the black rifle has become a de facto standard platform for hunting and sporting, the market has followed, also somehow a feral hog explosion, and so an outright ban would be very disruptive. My point is that bans aren't the only option, and, in 2020 (but not in the 1980s) the cost of a ban would outweigh the benefit. I think reasonable people can have all sorts of opinions on what kind of regulations there should be around firearms, and my confidence in my own beliefs is not all that high. But I am fairly certain that thought-stopping appeals to the definitions in the FAWB (or, for that matter, to the Sturmgewehr) don't make good arguments, and can be quickly disposed of.

by wl 6y ago

tptacek 6y ago

I think the bill I cited is has a pretty clear and coherent definition of assault weapons: they're semi-automatic rifles that accept detachable clips of more than 10 rounds. You're fixated on the fact that the AG/SecT can designed some semi-automatic rifles with clips as "not" assault weapons, at their discretion. So what? I don't think mandatory licensure of tactical rifles is an irrational idea at all.

wl 6y ago
The ban you linked works the other way around: Such rifles are legal until the AG/SecT specifically bans them. It's the functional definition + irrelevant stuff formula I object to as irrational. If the ban you linked worked as you describe, I'd object to it as bad public policy, but I'd be hard-pressed to call it irrational. And I'm not sure how licensure comes into this. Neither the 1994 FAWB nor the proposal you linked license the possession of "tactical rifles." They ban them with grandfathering. And for what it's worth, I don't think licensure regimes necessarily are irrational.
- tptacek 6y ago
  The AG/SecT has the authority under this proposal to simply classify all of them as assault weapons. Not all firearms, period; there is a technical definition that carves out weapons that can't be, and, again, it's not based on cosmetic features. I think in the 1980s an outright ban on tactical rifles could have worked. That's the context of the bill. Since then, the black rifle has become a de facto standard platform for hunting and sporting, the market has followed, also somehow a feral hog explosion, and so an outright ban would be very disruptive. My point is that bans aren't the only option, and, in 2020 (but not in the 1980s) the cost of a ban would outweigh the benefit. I think reasonable people can have all sorts of opinions on what kind of regulations there should be around firearms, and my confidence in my own beliefs is not all that high. But I am fairly certain that thought-stopping appeals to the definitions in the FAWB (or, for that matter, to the Sturmgewehr) don't make good arguments, and can be quickly disposed of.