| ▲ | hyperbovine 15 hours ago |
| > Sadly, instead of having better laws we get fallacy rhetoric by people who probably have never touched, much less fired a gun in their lives. Why is this the litmus test for being qualified to write gun legislation? Do we also expect our lawmakers to have tried heroin or downloaded child porn so that they can regulate those activities? |
|
| ▲ | SR2Z 14 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| This is a bad example. I've been notionally pro-ownership but also pro-regulation my whole life, and one of the major problems with gun legislation in the US is that it's incredibly poorly written and does not reflect the technical reality of guns. The government allows private ownership of automatic weapons, but hasn't issued any new tax stamps for 50 years. You can convert any semiauto gun into a full-auto gun for a few cents of 3D printed parts (or a rubber band). The hysteria over "assault weapons" basically outlawed guns that _looked_ scary, while not meaningfully making anyone safer. I think yes, it is reasonable for Congresspeople to fire a gun before they legislate on it, because otherwise they are incapable of writing good laws. Good gun regulation in the US would probably look like car insurance, where gun owners need to register and insure their weapons against the possibility of crimes being committed with them. There are so many guns compared to the amount of gun crime that it would probably not end up terribly expensive, especially if you own a gun safe. |
| |
| ▲ | deaux 12 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The mistake you're making here is assuming that > The hysteria over "assault weapons" basically outlawed guns that _looked_ scary, while not meaningfully making anyone safer. This wasn't the goal by the congresspeople, and that them having fired a gun would've changed that goal. That was the goal. They knew they weren't going to be able to pass any kind of legislation that actually msde people safer, but they wanted to look like they were "doing something". This is incredibly common. It's the primary reason behind the TSA and its continuous expansion, for example. | | |
| ▲ | cogman10 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | > It's the primary reason behind the TSA and its continuous expansion, for example. I'd also add that the TSA is a good reason why we shouldn't expect talking legislators to gun ranges would make better gun laws. The reason the TSA is what it is is because legislators fly more than most people. If you've ever been to DC you see a lot of this sort of security theater everywhere. So much of the TSAs budget should be redirected towards what would actually make long distance travel safer, improving the ATC and Amtrak. |
| |
| ▲ | butvacuum 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Thats defacto gun registration- and worse: registration with a private entity not beholden to due process. Given current realities, anybody who registers their firearm in such a manner can expect a no-knock raid because they were nearby when somebody phoned in an engine backfire as a gunshot. | | |
| ▲ | avidiax 12 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | So make it allowed that the insurance is tied to the gun. You buy a lifetime policy for that serial number, provide payment, and you're done. Payment can be provided anonymously at a window in cash, if that's your thing. If you want discounts because you live in a low-crime area, have a gun safe, have many guns, etc. then obviously the storage location for the weapon needs to be declared to the insurance company. | |
| ▲ | wombatpm 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | ATF is not allowed to digitize any of its records around gun sales or transfer of ownership. | | |
| |
| ▲ | doubleg72 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | You can get a stamp for full auto easily, my neighbor is an FFL and gets them frequently | | |
| ▲ | jeremyjh 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | You can transfer them. You can't register a new one. This is why H&K transferable sears are like $50k. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | some_random 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| You're welcome to come up with a better litmus test, but it's beyond clear that lawmakers writing gun control regulation have less than a wikipedia level understanding of the topic. See "shoulder thing that goes up", the weird obsession with the Thompson, the entire concept of an Assault Weapon, etc. |
| |
| ▲ | zdragnar 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | Wikipedia has much better information about guns than most of the people talking about them in politics, generally speaking. It's not too surprising, considering the way the rules are written at the ATF. There's basically zero logical thought that goes into pistol vs rifle vs felony: https://www.reddit.com/r/Firearms/comments/a4gnr3/makes_perf... (Sorry for the reddit link, it's a common image but that was the first url I found from a quick search that had it up front and center). | | |
| ▲ | some_random 12 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | ATF rulemaking can be unintuitive and arbitrary but there really is a level below it occupied by people who have dedicated a significant chunk of their lives to trying to restrict firearm ownership, who genuinely seem to believe that Die Hard, Rambo, and Spaghetti Westerns are real life. Politicians who can't answer basic questions about their legislation, who have to be told live on air that magazines can be repacked, that just make up impossible crime statistics. Yeah it's stupid that the ATF has decided that vertical grips are a rifle feature but angled grips aren't, but it gets worse. | | |
| ▲ | zdragnar 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | A bit like Joe Biden complaining that a 9mm bullet will blow the lung out of a body, and crazier things from others, yeah. |
| |
| ▲ | voidUpdate 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | What's the difference between a "pistol brace" and a "stock"? Don't they both go into your shoulder to stabilise the weapon? | | |
| ▲ | zdragnar 5 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | There's no legal definition per Congress. Generally speaking, braces are intended to stabilize a pistol against your arm [0], whereas a rifle stock is meant to stabilize against your shoulder. However, braces can technically be "misused" such that the rear of the brace fits against the shoulder, meaning it is used as a stock. Likewise, the distinction is so small something as simple as a sling attachment to the stock could make it a brace, or an articulation that could be used as a cheek rest turn a brace into a stock, converting a pistol into a rifle or vice versa.
For awhile, the only way to know the difference was for the manufacturer to submit an NFA and hope. The ATF has been in court (and lost) quite a bit [1] over this. [0] there's a nice picture and writeup here of a pistol brace being setup https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/gear-review-sig-sb15-pisto... [1] a brief rundown of the 2023-2025 legal rulings https://www.fflguard.com/atf-pistol-brace-rule/ | |
| ▲ | some_random 26 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | A "pistol brace" is designed and "intended" to be braced against your forearm to stabilize the "pistol" in a way that allows you to shoot a particularly large and heavy "pistol" with one hand. The ATF said this was fine, although I think they really regret that now. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | heavyset_go 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Do we also expect our lawmakers to have tried heroin or downloaded child porn so that they can regulate those activities? It would be nice if they delegated to experts, instead of think tanks or populism, when it came to dealing with these. Both are examples of rampant regulatory failure. |
| |
| ▲ | galangalalgol an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Knowing the difference between a think tank and experts might be hard without some rudimentary knowledge to spot nonsense? I don't know, actually asking. It seems to me that the primary skill we need in our leaders is that of spotting experts talking within their field and actually listen to them while ignoring others. The primary trait, which is even more important, is character so that they act on what they here in our best interests instead of their own. | |
| ▲ | rpmisms 15 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | At this point, I do expect that of them. |
|
|
| ▲ | freeopinion 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| In this specific discussion familiarity does seem relevant. I don't think shooting is so relevant, but printing and assembling are. You don't have to be a life-long user to regulate heroin, but if you start legislating second-hand heroin smoke, people might look at you sideways. You kinda need to know a little even if you've never actually ever seen heroin. If you demonstrate severe ignorance, people are going to call you on it. |
|
| ▲ | andrewflnr 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Having a clue about how guns work, or the general reality of any other field one may be attempting to legislate, is absolutely crucial. With guns it just happens that actually firing them is a good way to gain (some of) that understanding. |
|
| ▲ | 8note 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| litmus test wise, regulators of 3d printing should be able to create strong parts with a variety of 3d printing mechanisms. they should at least be able to understand that a 3d printer is akin to a turing machine and what the real limits are - strength of the printed material vs length of the strip of memory. |
|
| ▲ | rolisz 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Well didn't they? From the Epstein files, it looks like "all" the elite is involved.... |
|
| ▲ | wellthisisgreat 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| It’s more like people who barely use computers regulating software features and development.. oh wait I don’t own a gun, and think guns should be regulated more and better, but the heroin let alone another one are just flawed. There are no legitimate, non-life-ruining use cases for either of those analogies. |
