2024 US Presidential Elections Megathread

[Barrister]

Apparently insisting assault rifles aren't a real thing is the NRA sanctioned narrative to push against anyone suggesting maybe bringing back some sensible laws would be a good idea.

The thing is they're kind of right on this one.

So look - I actually deal with a lot of firearms files.  A lot of which deals with definitions - what is or is not a firearm, what is or is not a restricted, or prohibited, firearm.

The definition of a firearm largely revolves around firing a projectile at a certain velocity - it's what distinguishes a firearm from a pellet gun or an air rifle.  Restricted or prohibited firearms depend on the length.

The thing is - an "assault rifle" is all about the aesthetics.  An assault rifle will be in all (or mostly) matte-black, making it look like something the military would use.  A "long-gun" on the other hand probably has a lot of wood trim, and looks like something you'd take out hunting.  Functionally though there's no difference in capability.

So Canada has banned "assault rifles".  What that means though is they've just named literally hundreds of different models of firearms and banned them all individually.  There's no broader technical definition to rely on.

So I'm agnostic - maybe it is a better idea to ban scary looking military-style firearms.  But it is worth noting it's only about aesthetics, not capabilities.

[Josquius]

Apparently insisting assault rifles aren't a real thing is the NRA sanctioned narrative to push against anyone suggesting maybe bringing back some sensible laws would be a good idea.

The thing is they're kind of right on this one.

So look - I actually deal with a lot of firearms files.  A lot of which deals with definitions - what is or is not a firearm, what is or is not a restricted, or prohibited, firearm.

The definition of a firearm largely revolves around firing a projectile at a certain velocity - it's what distinguishes a firearm from a pellet gun or an air rifle.  Restricted or prohibited firearms depend on the length.

The thing is - an "assault rifle" is all about the aesthetics.  An assault rifle will be in all (or mostly) matte-black, making it look like something the military would use.  A "long-gun" on the other hand probably has a lot of wood trim, and looks like something you'd take out hunting.  Functionally though there's no difference in capability.

So Canada has banned "assault rifles".  What that means though is they've just named literally hundreds of different models of firearms and banned them all individually.  There's no broader technical definition to rely on.

So I'm agnostic - maybe it is a better idea to ban scary looking military-style firearms.  But it is worth noting it's only about aesthetics, not capabilities.

I've not heard it's about aesthetics before. I thought it was something to do with the mechanism, the amount of bullets that would be fired with a single trigger press or so?

The way I've seen it spun by NRA types is they're actually planning to ban all rifles, whilst laws controlling assault rifles tend to have a lot of space given over to defining what is included in them?

[Barrister]

I've not heard it's about aesthetics before. I thought it was something to do with the mechanism, the amount of bullets that would be fired with a single trigger press or so?

The way I've seen it spun by NRA types is they're actually planning to ban all rifles, whilst laws controlling assault rifles tend to have a lot of space given over to defining what is included in them?

100% in Canada, and 99% sure in the US - no automatic rifles are legal.  One trigger pull = 1 bullet.  (I think there's some really old grandfather clause for 60+ year old machineguns).  This came up in the discussion over "bump-stocks" in the US, which were used in the Las Vegas mass shooting - the stock has a kind of spring which moves the gun itself, which then allows multiple trigger pulls very rapidly.

Now there can be related bans, such as on magazine capacity.  Canada bans magazines over 5 rounds, which is not the case in the US.  But that is separate and apart from the type of firearm the magazine is attached to - a large capacity magazine does not make a firearm an "assault rifle".


But yes - the NRA has, forever and ever, portrayed any kind of gun restriction as being the thin edge of the wedge to a ban on firearms.

[grumbler]

"Assault rifle" is just a scare term used by people who should be more focused on real gun reform.  As BB says, it doesn't have anything like a definition that would stand up in court, which is partially why gun control advocates now refer to "assault-style weapons."

Meaningful gun control even in a society that has a "gun culture" is, indeed, possible.  See: Australia.  Gun control: what makes Australian and US laws so different?

[Barrister]

"Assault rifle" is just a scare term used by people who should be more focused on real gun reform.  As BB says, it doesn't have anything like a definition that would stand up in court, which is partially why gun control advocates now refer to "assault-style weapons."

Meaningful gun control even in a society that has a "gun culture" is, indeed, possible.  See: Australia.  Gun control: what makes Australian and US laws so different?

I mean - there are laws you could pass that would give meaningful distinctions.  You could introduce a maximum (or minimum) weight, maximum muzzle velocity, maximum calibre size, probably some other details.  (Note I know nothing about 2nd amendment jurisprudence, just what would otherwise be possible).

And it is worth noting that 30+ years ago nobody made "assault-style rifles" - it was all very much in the hunting rifle genre.  There's just something in the culture that has made rifles that look this way very appealing.

[Oexmelin]

"Something in the culture" = a deliberate marketing ploy by weapon manufacturers, with the help of the NRA's gun fetishism, and the growth of far-right movements in the US.

"Assault weapons" is, of course, a fuzzy term, but it's one that also has been deployed to sell the idea of being in a paramilitary militia to would-be discount action heroes.

[Barrister]

"Something in the culture" = a deliberate marketing ploy by weapon manufacturers, with the help of the NRA's gun fetishism, and the growth of far-right movements in the US.

"Assault weapons" is, of course, a fuzzy term, but it's one that also has been deployed to sell the idea of being in a paramilitary militia to would-be discount action heroes.

So this goes back to something I read a long time ago so I can't find it now, but it suggested that gun manufacturers really resisted coming out with "assault-weapon" style firearms.  After all they don't want to be on the bleeding edge of the culture wars, they just want to quietly make their money (which they were doing with more traditional-looking rifles).  Of course once they finally gave in, they started selling far more weapons than ever before.

Even blaming the NRA... I mean historically, sure.  But the NRA declared bankruptcy in 2021.  It spends even-increasing amounts on legal expenditures, ever less on other services, and is bleeding members ate a fairly steady rate.

[Valmy]

I heard that the father, who purchased the fire arm, was arrested. If true that is good. I think if you purchased a gun that was used in a mass murder committed by another person you should be liable, either civilly or criminally depending on the circumstances. If we are going to allow this mass gun ownership than it should come with responsibility for gun owners.

[grumbler]

I heard that the father, who purchased the fire arm, was arrested. If true that is good. I think if you purchased a gun that was used in a mass murder committed by another person you should be liable, either civilly or criminally depending on the circumstances. If we are going to allow this mass gun ownership than it should come with responsibility for gun owners.

He did so after the FBI and local authorities warned him that his son was posting disturbing violent fantasies on social media.  Lock him up.

[viper37]

"Assault weapons" is, of course, a fuzzy term, but it's one that also has been deployed to sell the idea of being in a paramilitary militia to would-be discount action heroes.

The problem I have is with Canadian style laws that outright ban weapons based on their scary appearance to please some activist groups and annoy hunters rather than try to think about a complex issue and legislate it the way BB is telling it.

Between doing nothing like the US and banning weapons used by hunters while letting criminals peacefully use their weapons for shooting one another in the street, there's something to be done.

But it's not as if the left is listening to reason on this.  Or most other issues.    So maybe, before blaming the Evil Corp (tm), talk to your friends at your next Take-Over-the-World meeting?

[Admiral Yi]

I mean - there are laws you could pass that would give meaningful distinctions.  You could introduce a maximum (or minimum) weight, maximum muzzle velocity, maximum calibre size, probably some other details.  (Note I know nothing about 2nd amendment jurisprudence, just what would otherwise be possible).

And it is worth noting that 30+ years ago nobody made "assault-style rifles" - it was all very much in the hunting rifle genre.  There's just something in the culture that has made rifles that look this way very appealing.

Aren't detachable magazines a determinant?  Honest question.  I've never seen a hunting rifle with one.

[HVC]

Magazines are relatively common for rifles here, but they're all small capacity.

[Zanza]

Dick Cheney will vote for Harris. Trump said that Dick Cheney is just a RINO. 

[Norgy]

I am not going to step into a debate about gun control in the US, but Cheney is a poor shot, by all accounts.

Norway's had zero school shootings, but for a massacre of Labour Youth activists in 2011 and an attempted mosque shooting by an utter fool who got so badly beaten up by the members of the mosque, he looked like the victim. He was inspired by Tarrant's NZ shooting up a mosque. We have shootings, yes. Gang violence, and more than before. More murders in close relations. Seems knives are more the thing for crimes of passion. Or tyre irons.

Judging from what my colleagues in Norway and in Europe write, travelling to the US is about as safe as going as a mercenary for some mining concern in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

From what "we" know here in Norway, most violence is committed as part of a parallell, hidden economy based on drug sales and gangs, you know, good old pyramid scheme, just with a bullet in your back when you decide to pull out. Most, if not all, members are from immigrant backgrounds. When you see your class mates sporting the Vuitton bags and have new winter jackets at 500 Euros a pop, and your family is four children sharing hand-me-downs, I can see why an alternative career might seem fine.

We're fucking this up. Every shade of politician is. Because there is not one simple solution.

However, we have very little gun control in Norway. A register over owned firearms, yes, with serial numbers and licences. You can't carry here. Except when hunting or if you're at, say, gun practice. Like the US, we were a colony and the local "skytterlag" (rough translation, shooting teams) were sort of the reserves to be called upon if it came to war with the Swedes. Later if those damned workers didn't work and went on strike.

The biggest issue with firearms in Norway these days is that too many males between 25 and 50 turn them against themselves and blow their heads off. We have suicide rates that are harrowing reading. In one of the world's "happiest countries".

Fuck that.

[viper37]

"Well, I would do that and we're sitting down, you know, I was, somebody, we had Senator Marco Rubio and my daughter, Ivanka was sooo..uh..impactful on that issue. It's very important issue... But I think when you talk about the kind of numbers that I'm talking about, that, because, the child care is, child care is ..couldn't, you know, there's something you'd have to have it in this country, you have to have it. uh but when you talk about those numbers compared to the kind of numbers that I'm talking about by taxing foreign nations at levels that..they're not used to but they'll get used to it very quickly. And it's not gonna stop them from doing business with us, but they'll have a very substantial tax when they send product into our Country. Those numbers are so much bigger than any numbers we're talking about including child care...that it's gonna take care. We're gonna have. I look forward to having no deficits within a fairly short period of time. Coupled with the reductions that I told you about on waste and fraud and all the other things that are going on in our Country. Because I have to stay with child care..I wanna stay with child care but those numbers are small relative to the kind of economic numbers that I'm talking about INCLUDING growth..but growth also headed up by what the plan is that I just..uhh..that I just told you about, we're gonna-bee takin in trillions of dollars. And as much as child care..uhh..is talked about as being expensive, it's relatively speaking not very expensive compared to the kinda of numbers we'll be taking in. We're gonna make this into.....an incredible Country that can afford to take care of it's people..and then we'll worry about the rest of the World..let's help other people. But we're gonna take care of our Country first, this is about America first, is about Make..America..Great..Again..We have to do it because right now we're a failing Nation..so we'll take care of it. Thank you."

At least, he will support Israel.  That's a good President.