Sure, legislation needs to be written in the proper language. I can't imagine how it can survive a legal test if it isn't. But us just talking about it, the public discourse? I don't think that really figures in until you get to the extremes, like people thinking any black rifle is a fully automatic assault rifle. If your knowledge of weaponry primarily comes from Halo and Call of Duty,you shouldn't be writing legislation. But that doesn't disqualify you from engaging in debates about weapons in our society.
It's just like the SOPA thing as someone said - you have the people thatarewriting the legislation who have no idea what they are talking about. Sen. Feinstein:
On Dec. 17th, Feinstein said, "I have been working with my staff for over a year on this legislation" and "It will be carefully focused." Indicating the depth of her research on the issue, she said on Dec. 21st that she hadpersonally looked at pictures of gunsin 1993, and again in 2012.
Lets hope they don't go "look at pictures" to figure out how the internet works then pass sweeping legislation.
And this is not even talking about the 75% of people who will look at two pictures of the same rifle and call for one version to be banned because it has a black stock. All I would like is that people be try to be informed before they push their viewpoints.
So essentially then they should just change their verbiage to be something along the lines of :
"It is illegal to manufacture/sell/posses any firearm with a capacity to fire over <X> rounds between reloads"
Done, and no need to bicker of semantics.
Although I think that's an idiotic law to pass myself. As I am in the camp that believes guns are simply tools. AKA the "Don't outlaw spoons because you're a fatass" group.
It's just like the SOPA thing as someone said - you have the people thatarewriting the legislation who have no idea what they are talking about. Sen. Feinstein:
Lets hope they don't go "look at pictures" to figure out how the internet works then pass sweeping legislation.
And this is not even talking about the 75% of people who will look at two pictures of the same rifle and call for one version to be banned because it has a black stock. All I would like is that people be try to be informed before they push their viewpoints.
http://domedicationscausesuicide-miriam.blogspot.com/
Drugs used to treat ADHD and depressions are reuptake inhibitors which block neurotransmitters from reaching the brain which in turn causes neurotransmitter depletion. When neurotransmitter depletion gets low enough it causes people to act irrationally and commit suicide. The FDA requires all neurotransmitter depletion drugs have a black box warning on them that most people pay little attention to. These drugs are among the few drugs classes that side effects can actually worsen the illness while trying to treat it.
http://foodmatters.tv/articles-1/ant...e-and-violence
Dr. Russell L. Blaylock writes, "It is also known that these medications increase brain levels of the neurotransmitter serotonin, which, in high concentrations, can also act as an excitotoxin." When antidepressant drugs raise serotonin to an excitotoxin level, the brain reacts in ways similar to mental illness. According to Burton Goldberg's book, 'Alternative Medicine', side effects of SSRIs include uncontrollable facial and body tics, dizziness, hallucinations, nausea, sexual dysfunction, addiction, electric-shock-like sensations in the brain and, of course, homicidal or suicidal thoughts and behavior.
General side effects are mostly present during the first 1-4 weeks while the body adapts to the drug (with the exception of sexual side effects, which tend to occur later in treatment). In fact, it often takes 6-8 weeks for the drug to begin reaching its full potential (the slow onset is considered a downside to treatment with SSRIs). Almost all SSRIs are known to cause one or more of these symptoms:
anhedonia
apathy
nausea/vomiting
drowsiness or somnolence
headache (very common as a short-term side effect)
bruxism
tinnitus
extremely vivid or strange dreams
dizziness
fatigue
mydriasis (pupil dilation)
urinary retention
changes in appetite
insomnia and/or changes in sleep
excessive diarrhea
weight loss/gain (measured by a change in bodyweight of 7 pounds)
increased risk of bone fractures and injuries
changes in sexual behaviour (see the next section)
increased feelings of depression and anxiety (which may sometimes provoke panic attacks)
mania and psychotic disorders
tremors (and other symptoms of Parkinsonism in vulnerable elderly patients)[17]
autonomic dysfunction including orthostatic hypotension, increased or reduced sweating
akathisia
renal impairment
Restless legs syndrome
suicidal ideation (thoughts of suicide)
photosensitivity[18]
Paresthesia
dissociative disorders, cognitive disorders and loss of contact with reality
Syndrome of inappropriate antidiuretic hormone hypersecretion
Many side effects disappear after the adaptation phase, when the antidepressant effects begin to come to prominence. However, despite being called general, the side effects and their durations are highly individual and drug-specific. Usually the treatment is begun with a small dose to see how the patient's body reacts to the drug, after that either the dose can be adjusted (e.g. Prozac in the UK is begun at a 20 mg dose, and then adjusted as necessary to 40 mg or 60 mg). Should the drug prove ineffective, or the side effects intolerable to the patient, another common route is to switch treatment to either another SSRI, or an SNRI.[19]
Mania or hypomania is a possible side effect. Users with some type of bipolar disorder are at a much higher risk, however SSRI-induced mania in patients previously diagnosed with unipolar depression can trigger a bipolar episode; however, according to DSM IV-TR, the diagnosis of bipolar disorder requires that the individuals symptoms must not stem from medication side effects, toxins, drug abuse, or another general medical condition.
http://www.thestar.com/news/investig...ampix-suicides
A Star investigation has found 24 Canadians taking Champix to quit smoking have killed themselves since it hit the market here in 2007, putting it among the leading suspected causes of reported suicides linked to prescription drugs.
http://breggin.com/index.php?option=...sk=view&id=269
Death by suicide is at record levels in the armed services. Simultaneously the use of antidepressant drugs is also at record levels, including brand names like Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, Celexa and Lexapro.
According to the army, in 2007 17% of combat troops in Afghanistan were taking prescription antidepressants or sleeping pills. Inside sources have given me an even bleaker picture: During Vietnam, a mere 1% our troops were taking prescribed psychiatric drugs. By contrast, in the past year one-third of marines in combat zones were taking psychiatric drugs.
Are the pills helping? The army confirms that since 2002 the number of suicide attempts has increased six-fold. And more than 128 soldiers killed themselves last year.
He said that despite increase in number of cases of suicide attempts, there has been given no attention to the establishment of toxicology units at public sector hospitals in the province.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/ar...r-suicide.aspx
Every year, more than 253 million prescriptions for antidepressants are filled in the United States, making them the second most prescribed drug class in the United States (second only to cholesterol-lowering drugs).4 This includes use among children, where in the U.S. kids are getting three times more prescriptions for antidepressants and stimulants, and up to double the amount of antipsychotic drugs than kids from Germany and the Netherlands.
But how effective are antidepressants in alleviating the symptoms of depression?
Antidepressants are Often Ineffective and May Increase Your Suicidal Tendencies
Studies continue to show antidepressant drugs are no more effective than a placebo, and in some case less effective. A study published in the January 2010 issue of JAMA concluded there is little evidence that SSRIs (a popular group of antidepressants that includes Prozac, Paxil, and Zoloft) have any benefit to people with mild to moderate depression.5 Researchers stated:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Arm...00801-596.html
What it barely considers is the suicide-inked antidepressants, antipsychotics and antiseizure drugs whose use exactly parallels the increase in US troop suicides since 2005.
In the report Chief of Staff General Peter W. Chiarelli acknowledges antidepressant risks, saying there's "fair quality evidence that second generation antidepressants (mostly SSRI) increase suicidal behavior in adults aged 18 to 29 years. but adds that "other research evidence shows the benefit of antidepressant use".
And nowhere does he acknowledge the suicide potential of antiseizure drugs so widely used for pain and as "mood stabilizers" by troops even though the FDA mandated suicide warnings on Lyrica, Topamaz, Depakote, Lamictal, Tegretol, Depakene, Klonopin and 16 others in 2008
So essentially then they should just change their verbiage to be something along the lines of :
"It is illegal to manufacture/sell/posses any firearm with a capacity to fire over <X> rounds between reloads"
Done, and no need to bicker of semantics.
Although I think that's an idiotic law to pass myself. As I am in the camp that believes guns are simply tools. AKA the "Don't outlaw spoons because you're a fatass" group.
(b) DEFINITION OF SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPON- Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
`(30) The term `semiautomatic assault weapon' means-
`(A) any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the firearms in any caliber, known as-
`(i) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models);
`(ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil;
`(iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC-70);
`(iv) Colt AR-15;
`(v) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC;
`(vi) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12;
`(vii) Steyr AUG;
`(viii) INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22; and
`(ix) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12;
`(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of-
`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
`(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
`(iii) a bayonet mount;
`(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and
`(v) a grenade launcher;
`(C) a semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of-
`(i) an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip;
`(ii) a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer;
`(iii) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned;
`(iv) a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; and
`(v) a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm; and
`(D) a semiautomatic shotgun that has at least 2 of-
`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
`(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
`(iii) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds; and
`(iv) an ability to accept a detachable magazine.'
According to US code, yes, this is an example of US code distorting reality. Legally yes you are correct, in reality they are mislabeling alot of guns.
http://gunfax.com/aw.htm
The book is "Small Arms Identification and Operation Guide - Eurasian Communist Countries", written by Harold E. Johnson. It was prepared by what at the time was the U.S. Army Foreign Science and Technology Center of the Army Material Command.
You can click on any scanned image above to see it for yourself. The quote itself is on page 67 of this edition in section III, part A, paragraph 68a, and reads as follows:
"Assault rifles are short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachinegun and rifle cartridges."
The paragraph concludes by adding:
"Assault rifles have mild recoil characteristics and, because of this, are capable of delivering effective full-automatic fire at ranges up to 300 meters."
So there we have the "official US Army definition": select-fire, full-automatic fire, and an intermediate cartridge. These are not the rifles we commonly see in the hand of gun owners today.
You are right, according to US code those are "assault guns", according the military many of those guns are pistols, rifles ect not "assault guns".
it's almost an existential question, if you legally write down than all oranges shall be known as apples, are they really oranges or are they apples.
According to US code, yes, this is an example of US code distorting reality. Legally yes you are correct, in reality they are mislabeling alot of guns.
Correct, I believe that definition is based of the US and other countries codes. It definitely doesn't come from the military language, where the weapons where originally designed, made and produced.
I guess you could call it the civilian definition of assault rifle, but it's a stupid arbitrary definition, what makes it an "assault" weapon, because it looks like one? even though they are modified to behave differently, they work differently and the modified versions take away the essence of what is an "assault" weapon.
Again It's almost an existential question, if you legally write down that all oranges shall be known as apples, are they really oranges or are they apples?
I've never seen assaultrifledefined like. An Assault rifle has always been capable of full-auto.
But whatever.
What you should be looking at is the retarded "features" list that was under the last AWB. Bayonet mounts, pistol grips, & flash suppressors? Fucking lols.
In theory yes... A couple of years ago a guy and his family were tied up by burglars (who had guns) and were being robbed, he managed to get away, fight for the gun.
Got the gun, shot one (who died), and then chased the others away, when the cops arrived he got locked up and the judge planned to put him way for "homicide".
Due to the public uproar, he was let out free with "several year prison sentence without obligation to perform it" (avec sursis).
Basically he now has a criminal record.... I'm not saying that "at most proportional threat" law is not retarded (IT IS RETARDED).
But it's a good difference with the "on my turf, anyone is fair game" attitude which you see so widely adopted (and not only in movies).
What is it, something like 90% of America's gun crimes happen in the shitty neighborhoods of LA, Chicago, D.C., and New York?
Well i always lived in "popular areas" where the "average working joe & family live" no where near the "projects" (we do have some) but as someone pointed out, in Europe the projects were moved "to the far edges of town" several decades ago.
I'm not even in "suburbia" (or at least the equivalent in life quality / income level) my point was more about the "cultural differences".
Now go live in inner city Chicago and see if you feel the same way.....
I'm glad i don't after a few documentaries (and the wire) i'm glad i live in a decent neighborhood, i understand the worry if you "live near that area".
But Suburbia ? Gated Communities ? I need a rocket launcher to protect my family ?
I mean you must be a more accredited source than the criminologist and professors who have done peer reviewed studies on the matter and you must have more experience with the situation than all those women who have been victims or potential victims.
Every day, 550 rapes, 1,100 murders, and 5,200 other violent crimes per day are prevented just by showing a handgun. In less than 0.9% of the time is the gun ever actually ever fired.* Gary Kleck, Criminologist, Florida State Univ.
I admit i may have been a bit overboard, but no study will ever convince me that "guns = lower rape", very convenient numbers !
You don't run up to a chick with your dick in the air shouting "i want to rape you" giving her an opportunity to use a gun.
You don't break up a bathroom window, you try and find one open.
You sneak up on her when she's opening her car door, house door, bathroom door (or whatever) hit her in the back of the head, beat the shit out of her, then proceed to have fun.
Yeah, your post has changed my views, I'm converted. lol
A gun is indeed a much more convincing deterrent to rape than a tazer or pepper spray, but if she is given time to get out her gun..
you're doing it wrong.
As i said, i come from a very different society... So my views are very different, but that doesn't change the fact i am surprised by the WORSHIP of guns, how MUNDANE/TRIVIAL guns are viewed, and how FEARFUL the US society is.
You get the impression 99% of the population lives in Baltimore's Projects with a CrackAddict/Rapist at every corner.
I've never seen assaultrifledefined like. An Assault rifle has always been capable of full-auto.
But whatever.
What you should be looking at is the retarded "features" list that was under the last AWB. Bayonet mounts, pistol grips, & flash suppressors? Fucking lols.
Yeah, I copypastad the US Code up there. Banning these tactical features seems kind of strange, kind of like someone was trying to ban anything that looked like it could be wielded by John McClain against Eastern European terrorists.
Disclaimer up front: I've gone shooting at ranges a number of times and my parents and brother own guns, but I have chosen not to purchase one... yet. So I am not in the gun crowd.
So a question for the gun knowledgable: what are the legitimate uses of high capacity magazines? Do you actually want massive capacity magazines to stay legal, or are you more concerned that moronic legislators will bumblefuck the law wording and end up screwing you on more legitimate sizes?
I'd like to hear some opinions on the "pro" side (or at least the "don't regulate" side) so I have an informed opinion. Also, I did a cursory check, but may have still screwed the pooch on mag vs clip. Sorry if so.
EDIT: also, even as someone on the outside looking in, a ban on "assault rifles" is ludicrous. No chance DC can define "assault rifle" in a manner that makes sense.
Thing is though you would never be able to ever buy a weapon that was once select fire(aka former military weapon) in this country. What it comes down to is that politicians just use the label "assault rifle" and play with it however they want to and attach it to whatever they want to.
The whole assault weapon thing is strange, but I can somewhat understand the purpose of the "at least two" section of the code. Yes, the basics of the rifle may well be the same... but they're not the same gun. It's not a matter of one being black and the other wood-grain. The various attachments on those other pictures make a tangible difference in how the gun handles, do they not? Otherwise, why do people spend exorbitant amounts of money customizing their weapons?
There's an image going around Facebook that shows two guns, a standard AR-15 and a kitted out one, then a standard Honda and one with rims, a spoiler etc. It's clever, but not exactly an accurate argument. If there's more than a cosmetic difference between them (and I assume that flash suppressors, folding sticks, different grips etc. provide a tangible difference in functionality), then the analogy is closer to a stock Crown Vic and a police cruiser.
There's an image going around Facebook that shows two guns, a standard AR-15 and a kitted out one, then a standard Honda and one with rims, a spoiler etc. It's clever, but not exactly an accurate argument. If there's more than a cosmetic difference between them (and I assume that flash suppressors, folding sticks, different grips etc. provide a tangible difference in functionality), then the analogy is closer to a stock Crown Vic and a police cruiser.
There's an image going around Facebook that shows two guns, a standard AR-15 and a kitted out one, then a standard Honda and one with rims, a spoiler etc. It's clever, but not exactly an accurate argument. If there's more than a cosmetic difference between them (and I assume that flash suppressors, folding sticks, different grips etc. provide a tangible difference in functionality), then the analogy is closer to a stock Crown Vic and a police cruiser.
Not really - I can't think of an AR-15 attachment that totally changes how the gun functions. Flash suppressors only work for the shooter, grips are just personal preference, collapsible stocks only allow for a wider range of shooter sizes without replacing the whole stock.
An off the shelf Colt functions in the same way as any of those kitted out rifles.
Thing is though you would never be able to ever buy a weapon that was once select fire(aka former military weapon) in this country. What it comes down to is that politicians just use the label "assault rifle" and play with it however they want to and attach it to whatever they want to.
I interpret that statement to be saying "modified" as in "modified from the military equivalent weapon it is modeled after", meaning basically any semi-auto rifles. But I do agree with you, though, people are just playing games with the wording.
