Those definitions tend to be inconsistent and strange though. They often concern themselves with things like pistol grips vs thumbhole stocks, which only impact the ergonomics and the appearance of a firearm, not the function.
And even a barrel size limit is a strange thing to regulate. Short barreled rifles are not inherently more dangerous than regular size rifles. The only reason they are regulated today is as a holdover from a piece of legislation that would have banned handguns.
I mean, so? The point is that there isn't legislation against 'assault-style' weapons. Every piece of legislation specifies what is and is not allowed. Whether it impacts the ergonomics, appearance, or function of the firearm is completely irrelevant to my point.
He was trying to argue that there is no such thing as 'assault-style' weapons, and I countered by saying there is no legislation targeting 'assault-style' weapons. Each piece of legislation specifies what is and is not allowed.
Yes, but it is a problem when we discuss these things. Most people are in favor of banning "assault-style weapons", but people's conceptions of what that means vary wildly.
This is just like asking if people support educating kids. Everyone wants their kids to be educated, but some want their kids taught that the earth is 6,000 years old and that climate change isn't real, and others want them taught the history of systematic oppression in America.
As for the actual bans, I'm not aware of any " assault-style weapons" bans that didn't ban something stupid because it looks scary. Many have included magazine capacity restrictions, which you can definitely make an argument for, but also regulated something stupid, like pistol grips on rifles.
It is not on the regular population to have to figure out every single detail of how to solve a problem, especially when it is a problem we don't seem to care about solving. Do I really need to know all the ins and outs of how guns work to say I don't want mentally-ill teens using them to shot up schools?
You should understand what they are on a fundamental level. Otherwise someone will say "we need to fix the mentally unwell kids shooting up schools problem" and everyone will jump on board to make lightsabers and airsoft illegal.
I understand it perfectly fine. Guns are widely available. Without that the people who want to shot up schools are left with knives which is a much more manageable problem.
As if you give a fuck about mental health. This is just an excuse you people drag out when someone wants to know why you need a murder machine.
Do I really need to know all the ins and outs of how guns work to say I don't want mentally-ill teens using them to shot up schools?
Of course not. But do you want legislation to be passed so you can feel good about something being done, or do you actually want the law to make a difference? Most of what has been and is currently proposed is akin to banning dual exhaust and racing stripes to reduce deaths from car accidents.
Those definitions tend to be inconsistent and strange though. They often concern themselves with things like pistol grips vs thumbhole stocks, which only impact the ergonomics and the appearance of a firearm, not the function.
And even a barrel size limit is a strange thing to regulate. Short barreled rifles are not inherently more dangerous than regular size rifles. The only reason they are regulated today is as a holdover from a piece of legislation that would have banned handguns.
I mean, so? The point is that there isn't legislation against 'assault-style' weapons. Every piece of legislation specifies what is and is not allowed. Whether it impacts the ergonomics, appearance, or function of the firearm is completely irrelevant to my point.
He was trying to argue that there is no such thing as 'assault-style' weapons, and I countered by saying there is no legislation targeting 'assault-style' weapons. Each piece of legislation specifies what is and is not allowed.
Yes, but it is a problem when we discuss these things. Most people are in favor of banning "assault-style weapons", but people's conceptions of what that means vary wildly.
This is just like asking if people support educating kids. Everyone wants their kids to be educated, but some want their kids taught that the earth is 6,000 years old and that climate change isn't real, and others want them taught the history of systematic oppression in America.
As for the actual bans, I'm not aware of any " assault-style weapons" bans that didn't ban something stupid because it looks scary. Many have included magazine capacity restrictions, which you can definitely make an argument for, but also regulated something stupid, like pistol grips on rifles.
It is not on the regular population to have to figure out every single detail of how to solve a problem, especially when it is a problem we don't seem to care about solving. Do I really need to know all the ins and outs of how guns work to say I don't want mentally-ill teens using them to shot up schools?
You should understand what they are on a fundamental level. Otherwise someone will say "we need to fix the mentally unwell kids shooting up schools problem" and everyone will jump on board to make lightsabers and airsoft illegal.
I understand it perfectly fine. Guns are widely available. Without that the people who want to shot up schools are left with knives which is a much more manageable problem.
As if you give a fuck about mental health. This is just an excuse you people drag out when someone wants to know why you need a murder machine.
Of course not. But do you want legislation to be passed so you can feel good about something being done, or do you actually want the law to make a difference? Most of what has been and is currently proposed is akin to banning dual exhaust and racing stripes to reduce deaths from car accidents.