I know "progressives" are particularly inclined to live in fantasy worlds devoid of facts (though I know a few people who thought Peruta would win en banc!), but nowhere is this more evident than in some of the arguments about firearms. It's hard to get past the slogans, and cliches, and sound-bite solutions in lots of these issues, certainly it is when considering "assault weapons" bans. There are definitely a lot of misrepresentations, falsehoods and outright lies coming from those suggesting that an "assault weapons" ban would have some particular or even general effect on crime. Sean Davis at The Federalist lays out the barebones facts regarding the consequences of the previous ban in place from 1994-2004, and suggests that nothing has changed to expect any different outcome (no change in crime) now. Plus, I like the title. And, as an added bonus it included the famous U.S. Representative Carolyn McCarthy interview where she admits she doesn't know what (her bill outlaws) a barrel shroud is, but thinks it's "the thing that goes up". That one still cracks me up!    I've also included the link to Davis's appearance on NRA News Cam & Company, where his final line is a classic (re Disney World having reported the Orlando Pulse murderer to the FBI after observing him and his wife "casing" Disney World in April): "We have a multi-trillion-dollar government security apparatus, and at the end of the day Mickey Mouse knew more about what this guy was up to than our own government did."

The Assault Weapons Ban Is A Stupid Idea Pushed By Stupid People

http://thefederalist.com/2016/06/13/the-assault-weapons-ban-is-a-stupid-idea-pushed-by-stupid-people/

According to FBI statistics, you are far more likely to be beaten to death by someone's fists than you are to be killed with a rifle.

It happens like clock work: as soon as there’s a mere whisper of a terrorist attack or a mass shooting, the usual suspects kick in to high gear. Their destination is always the same: a faraway land where a so-called assault weapons ban magically eliminates not only guns but also prevents guns from walking of their own volition, without need of human agency, into crowded places and killing people.

Collective leftist denial about the existential, radical Islamic threat facing America is not going to prevent Islamic terrorism. Gun bans that ban guns based on nothing more than scary-looking cosmetic features are not going to prevent radical jihadis from murdering innocent people. Pretending that Republicans and the NRA are the real villains is not going to prevent ISIS from killing more Americans. Ignoring the fact that these attacks seem to only happen in gun-free zones won’t prevent violent psychopaths from waltzing into those gun-free zones and gunning down the unarmed civilians who congregate there.

But all those things will make progressives feel better about themselves, and who are you to deny them that right?

https://www.nranews.com/series/cam-and-company/video/cam-and-company-2016-sean-davis-what-is-the-definition-of-an-assault-weapon/episode/cam-and-company-season-12-episode-114

The National Institute of Justice (a division of the U.S. Department of Justice) report on the (non)effect of the 1994-2004 "assault weapons" ban is here: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf

Too much detail for the average liberal / progressive brain.

Note that many people are protesting Trump without even knowing what his policy positions are, and what they are against regarding those policies.

They just don't like his haircut, or that he was on Reality TV (for a show that focuses on business entrepreneurship, actually).

The only way those emotional libtards are going to react is if you show them something even more scary than the big loud guns.

Which is the consequence if not having guns.

(But do it concisely. They don't call them libtards for nothing).

Hillary is talking Australian gun buyback programs. Do the Dims really think that Americans would so easily turn in their semi-auto weapons ? And what happens next if they don't ?

Hillary is talking Australian gun buyback programs. Do the Dims really think that Americans would so easily turn in their semi-auto weapons ? And what happens next if they don't ?

...
Welcome to the forum. Are you really a new member?
Introduce yourself.
Do you own firearms and go shooting much?
https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=4.0

Hillary is talking Australian gun buyback programs. Do the Dims really think that Americans would so easily turn in their semi-auto weapons ? And what happens next if they don't ?

I've read reports claiming that the Australian "compliance" rate for the "compensated confiscation" was only 20%. I'm not sure how that would be calculated as anything but a rough guess unless they had full prior registration for many decades (which I don't believe they did), but if it's even a close estimate is indicative of what would likely happen here. Well, by "here" I mean the United States, not "here" Hawaii where all the registered firearms and their owners could easily be targeted (and, yes, I used that word precisely because its multiple meanings). Once that decision is made, I wouldn't be surprised by anything they do. For the children. And public safety.

I deeply regret selling the 7 guns I owned at age 17 (1967).  Those guns were sold after 1968 and prior to 1994.  Should have seen what was coming.  All unregistered because registration was not required.  They were not AR15 rifles because those were not in existence back then.  They were a Winchester semiauto 22, a pre 64 Model 70 in .270, a BDL 700 in 7mm Rem Mag,  pre64 Winchester lever action 30-30, a old military bolt action 30-06, a Lee Enfield 303 and a single shot break action in 20 gauge which brand I don't remember.  Now all the guys I grew up with on Molokai don't want to sell me any of the guns they acquired before mandatory gun registration.

...
Welcome to the forum. Are you really a new member?
Introduce yourself.
Do you own firearms and go shooting much?
https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=4.0

Thanks for the welcome. Yes, own firearms. No, don't go shooting much anymore. Used to, when there was no one there.

I've read reports claiming that the Australian "compliance" rate for the "compensated confiscation" was only 20%. I'm not sure how that would be calculated as anything but a rough guess unless they had full prior registration for many decades (which I don't believe they did), but if it's even a close estimate is indicative of what would likely happen here. Well, by "here" I mean the United States, not "here" Hawaii where all the registered firearms and their owners could easily be targeted (and, yes, I used that word precisely because its multiple meanings). Once that decision is made, I wouldn't be surprised by anything they do. For the children. And public safety.

I would suspect that the HPD would be the last organization that would actually do anything. It's interesting that when the 10 round handgun magazine rule went into effect, it only affected new gun sales. Nothing was done (to my knowledge), that would ensure existing 10+ mags were no longer in civilian hands. In fact, I did own such a weapon that would have fallen under that category. And the mag count could have been easily inferred by the registration model number.

Although, I have seen in Cali, that there are groups tasked with confiscating weapons from registered owners, who subsequently were disqualified because of felony convictions, etc. These groups could theoretically be expanded to confiscate weapons from registered owners of semi-automatic rifles. I think that's pretty much what the Dims have in mind.

As a brief aside, does anyone have any studies/data/estimates on how many "unregistered" firearms there might be in Hawaii? A quick search yielded nothing for me. I'd like to see the distinction included between the legally unregistered firearms that were grandfathered in, black powder, etc., and the illegally possessed unregistered weapons. Of course I'd be interested in the methodology of any claims, as I doubt there are many people (any?) who would admit to having an illegal firearm. Thanks.

As a brief aside, does anyone have any studies/data/estimates on how many "unregistered" firearms there might be in Hawaii? A quick search yielded nothing for me. I'd like to see the distinction included between the legally unregistered firearms that were grandfathered in, black powder, etc., and the illegally possessed unregistered weapons. Of course I'd be interested in the methodology of any claims, as I doubt there are many people (any?) who would admit to having an illegal firearm. Thanks.

I doubt if you could ever get a number on illegally possessed guns in the State.

There was an estimate of 1 million total privately owned guns in the State a few years ago. I don't know how that was estimated. There are also numbers for registrations per year, but there are no numbers for how many guns leave the State, so there aren't really any accurate numbers on what is actually out there.

http://www.staradvertiser.com/breaking-news/record-number-of-guns-registered-in-hawaii/

http://ag.hawaii.gov/cpja/files/2015/03/Firearm-Registrations-in-Hawaii-2014.pdf

I doubt if you could ever get a number on illegally possessed guns in the State.

There's gotta be some (civilian disarmament) "researcher" out there who could get a grant from Bloomberg et. al. to make some stuff up about the numbers and come up with some plan to find and take those guns "off the streets". I'm surprised if no one has done it yet. Just because they'd have to make up bogus methodology to come up with make-believe numbers hasn't stopped them in the past.

There's gotta be some (civilian disarmament) "researcher" out there who could get a grant from Bloomberg et. al. to make some stuff up about the numbers and come up with some plan to find and take those guns "off the streets". I'm surprised if no one has done it yet. Just because they'd have to make up bogus methodology to come up with make-believe numbers hasn't stopped them in the past.

Who needs Bloomberg, just have the State do a study. The State loves to waste money on worthless studies. The problem with the plan is who would actually be going out and collecting the guns ? Can't be HPD, because they're too lazy.