I would think this is a bit of a toss up, with a slight lean towards uphold
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/assault-weapon-ban-u-s-supreme-court-n442056
Quote
A federal district judge upheld the law, and so did a federal appeals court panel by a 2-1 vote.
Central to the dispute is the Supreme Court's 2008 ruling that, for the first time, said the Constitution's Second Amendment provides an individual right to own a handgun for self-defense.
While it was a watershed ruling for gun rights, it also said "dangerous and unusual weapons" can be restricted.
NRA will shoot this down.
Quote from: Archy on October 12, 2015, 12:31:51 AM
NRA will shoot this down.
The NRA doesn't have a great deal of leverage with the Supreme Court.
Isn't the point of a weapon to be dangerous?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 12, 2015, 01:10:23 AM
Quote from: Archy on October 12, 2015, 12:31:51 AM
NRA will shoot this down.
The NRA doesn't have a great deal of leverage with the Supreme Court.
They might not have the pull, but they do have the aim.
The entire assault weapons ban idea is just stupid. It is a meaningless restriction that gives the NRA an easy way to point out how completely ridiculous gun control nuts are, and will not and cannot make a single bit of difference to the problem.
If we want to accomplish the following:
1. Reduce the number and deadliness of mass shootings in America.
2. Reduce the overall incidences of gun violence in America.
What are actual, real, useful, and practical first steps towards that effort? To *include* the realization that the current political climate means that responses like "Ban guns! The UK has hardly any guns and they have lots less violence!" are largely useless. I don't mind ideas that are politically difficult, but impossible ones are not interesting.
What can we do knowing that there are already 300 million guns in the US, and that simply isn't going to change?
What is a reasonable, rational, and useful set of first steps?
Quote from: Berkut on October 13, 2015, 10:23:31 AM
If we want to accomplish the following:
1. Reduce the number and deadliness of mass shootings in America.
2. Reduce the overall incidences of gun violence in America.
What are actual, real, useful, and practical first steps towards that effort? To *include* the realization that the current political climate means that responses like "Ban guns! The UK has hardly any guns and they have lots less violence!" are largely useless. I don't mind ideas that are politically difficult, but impossible ones are not interesting.
What can we do knowing that there are already 300 million guns in the US, and that simply isn't going to change?
What is a reasonable, rational, and useful set of first steps?
The first step is to try to ground the discussion in reality. Both sides of this highly-polarized debate have a point, but each thinks their point is the only right one and that the other side's is simply an excuse.
The majority of violent crimes in the US are perpetrated with firearms. However, even if all gun crimes were miraculously prevented we would still be the most violent nation in the developed world per capita, and by a decent margin. Our issues with violent crime transcend guns, but guns are exacerbating the issues. The anti-gun lobby does not want to accept the former, and the pro-gun lobby does not want to accept the latter.
We kill silly amounts of people with knives.
We should seriously consider banning murder.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 13, 2015, 10:51:05 AM
We should seriously consider banning murder.
If we outlaw murder only criminals will murder.
More seriously, I would support giving judges more sweeping powers to enforce hospitalization of people at risk of violent and self-destructive behavior. Of course, it'll cost a lot more money as well...
Quote from: Berkut on October 13, 2015, 10:23:31 AM
What can we do knowing that there are already 300 million guns in the US, and that simply isn't going to change?
Next to nothing.
The only thing that may work is making it a real pain the ass to get a handgun. Not prohibitively hard, but hard enough to make you embark on the process only if you're really sure you want it. That would at least cut down on heat of the moment gun homicides and suicides. But even that probably goes much farther than what practical reality would allow.
There are 300 million guns in the country, but the vast majority of them are only owned by a small percentage.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 13, 2015, 12:34:58 PM
More seriously, I would support giving judges more sweeping powers to enforce hospitalization of people at risk of violent and self-destructive behavior. Of course, it'll cost a lot more money as well...
Hey all the Republicans came out saying mental health was the problem. Maybe somebody should see if the Republican congress is interested in doing something about mental health.
I think if we presume some political will to actually do something, there are a few ideas that are perfectly reasonable and doable given politicians willing to buck the NRA a bit.
1. Magazine capacity restrictions. Limit all magazine capacities to some nominal number of rounds, like 8 or so. This could help make mass shooting less lethal, while clearly not being a restriction on the basic ability of responsible gun owners from providing for their own self defense.
2. Immediately end the selling of firearms except through registered dealers and all transactions must be tracked. This would obviously be a very difficult sell, but I cannot possibly see how anyone can argue that, for example, there is a mental health issue if there is not some means to deny the mentally unhealthy the ability to purchase a weapon, absent some ability to actually track how guns are sold.
The only serious solution I can see is to require people who want to have access to firearms to undergo a mental health screening. Even then there would be a massive problem with false positives and false negatives.
People who did pass and bought a firearm would be criminally liable for not securing their weapon from people who didn't pass.
I imagine what we'll see instead is some cosmetic limitations on magazines and/or assault rifles along with steadily increasing militarization of school security. No idea what theater owners will do. Maybe the whole industry will just die.
Quote from: Berkut on October 13, 2015, 01:38:00 PM
I think if we presume some political will to actually do something, there are a few ideas that are perfectly reasonable and doable given politicians willing to buck the NRA a bit.
1. Magazine capacity restrictions. Limit all magazine capacities to some nominal number of rounds, like 8 or so. This could help make mass shooting less lethal, while clearly not being a restriction on the basic ability of responsible gun owners from providing for their own self defense.
2. Immediately end the selling of firearms except through registered dealers and all transactions must be tracked. This would obviously be a very difficult sell, but I cannot possibly see how anyone can argue that, for example, there is a mental health issue if there is not some means to deny the mentally unhealthy the ability to purchase a weapon, absent some ability to actually track how guns are sold.
In my opinion, 1 is not worth the cost in political capital. Mass shootings to gun violence are what plane crashes are to transportation safety: public and terrorizing, but ultimately an insignificant killer.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 13, 2015, 01:00:23 PM
There are 300 million guns in the country, but the vast majority of them are only owned by a small percentage.
Fucking 1%. :glare:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 13, 2015, 01:51:55 PM
The only serious solution I can see is to require people who want to have access to firearms to undergo a mental health screening.
I don't think that's all that serious of a solution in terms of results, unless your real goal is to make purchasing firearms a pain in the ass. Or if you're screening not just for mental illnesses, but also dangerous personality types.
raciss
Quote from: Berkut on October 13, 2015, 01:38:00 PM
I think if we presume some political will to actually do something, there are a few ideas that are perfectly reasonable and doable given politicians willing to buck the NRA a bit.
1. Magazine capacity restrictions. Limit all magazine capacities to some nominal number of rounds, like 8 or so. This could help make mass shooting less lethal, while clearly not being a restriction on the basic ability of responsible gun owners from providing for their own self defense.
2. Immediately end the selling of firearms except through registered dealers and all transactions must be tracked. This would obviously be a very difficult sell, but I cannot possibly see how anyone can argue that, for example, there is a mental health issue if there is not some means to deny the mentally unhealthy the ability to purchase a weapon, absent some ability to actually track how guns are sold.
Plus a basic licensing scheme (a la drivers license) - raises same issue as 2.
How much can you tax guns before it gets unconstitutional?
Quote from: DGuller on October 13, 2015, 01:52:57 PM
In my opinion, 1 is not worth the cost in political capital. Mass shootings to gun violence are what plane crashes are to transportation safety: public and terrorizing, but ultimately an insignificant killer.
There are hundreds of mass shooting events annually. It isn't insignificant.
Quote from: DGuller on October 13, 2015, 01:52:57 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 13, 2015, 01:38:00 PM
I think if we presume some political will to actually do something, there are a few ideas that are perfectly reasonable and doable given politicians willing to buck the NRA a bit.
1. Magazine capacity restrictions. Limit all magazine capacities to some nominal number of rounds, like 8 or so. This could help make mass shooting less lethal, while clearly not being a restriction on the basic ability of responsible gun owners from providing for their own self defense.
2. Immediately end the selling of firearms except through registered dealers and all transactions must be tracked. This would obviously be a very difficult sell, but I cannot possibly see how anyone can argue that, for example, there is a mental health issue if there is not some means to deny the mentally unhealthy the ability to purchase a weapon, absent some ability to actually track how guns are sold.
In my opinion, 1 is not worth the cost in political capital. Mass shootings to gun violence are what plane crashes are to transportation safety: public and terrorizing, but ultimately an insignificant killer.
I don't disagree, but they do have a social impact well out of proportion to their actual contribution to gun violence. It may not be entirely rational, but that doesn't mean that it is rational to ignore it.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 13, 2015, 02:04:52 PM
Quote from: DGuller on October 13, 2015, 01:52:57 PM
In my opinion, 1 is not worth the cost in political capital. Mass shootings to gun violence are what plane crashes are to transportation safety: public and terrorizing, but ultimately an insignificant killer.
There are hundreds of mass shooting events annually. It isn't insignificant.
Still a tiny percentage of preventable gun deaths.
Gun store found liable for selling a straw purchase when they should have known better.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/badger-guns-found-liable-negligence-milwaukee-police-shooting-n443951
Quote from: Berkut on October 13, 2015, 02:09:08 PM
Quote from: DGuller on October 13, 2015, 01:52:57 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 13, 2015, 01:38:00 PM
I think if we presume some political will to actually do something, there are a few ideas that are perfectly reasonable and doable given politicians willing to buck the NRA a bit.
1. Magazine capacity restrictions. Limit all magazine capacities to some nominal number of rounds, like 8 or so. This could help make mass shooting less lethal, while clearly not being a restriction on the basic ability of responsible gun owners from providing for their own self defense.
2. Immediately end the selling of firearms except through registered dealers and all transactions must be tracked. This would obviously be a very difficult sell, but I cannot possibly see how anyone can argue that, for example, there is a mental health issue if there is not some means to deny the mentally unhealthy the ability to purchase a weapon, absent some ability to actually track how guns are sold.
In my opinion, 1 is not worth the cost in political capital. Mass shootings to gun violence are what plane crashes are to transportation safety: public and terrorizing, but ultimately an insignificant killer.
I don't disagree, but they do have a social impact well out of proportion to their actual contribution to gun violence. It may not be entirely rational, but that doesn't mean that it is rational to ignore it.
What social impact exactly?
Quote from: garbon on October 14, 2015, 06:45:53 AM
Quote from: Berkut on October 13, 2015, 02:09:08 PM
Quote from: DGuller on October 13, 2015, 01:52:57 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 13, 2015, 01:38:00 PM
I think if we presume some political will to actually do something, there are a few ideas that are perfectly reasonable and doable given politicians willing to buck the NRA a bit.
1. Magazine capacity restrictions. Limit all magazine capacities to some nominal number of rounds, like 8 or so. This could help make mass shooting less lethal, while clearly not being a restriction on the basic ability of responsible gun owners from providing for their own self defense.
2. Immediately end the selling of firearms except through registered dealers and all transactions must be tracked. This would obviously be a very difficult sell, but I cannot possibly see how anyone can argue that, for example, there is a mental health issue if there is not some means to deny the mentally unhealthy the ability to purchase a weapon, absent some ability to actually track how guns are sold.
In my opinion, 1 is not worth the cost in political capital. Mass shootings to gun violence are what plane crashes are to transportation safety: public and terrorizing, but ultimately an insignificant killer.
I don't disagree, but they do have a social impact well out of proportion to their actual contribution to gun violence. It may not be entirely rational, but that doesn't mean that it is rational to ignore it.
What social impact exactly?
Outrage, fear, over-reaction, political fallout, etc.