The Conference Committee has sent official language out - h.4885

[milktree]

I think they are waiting to hire a communications director. For now just pony up the donations and bend over and wait for the plan to become clearer.

I don't want to be a communications director, but I'd fix their mistakes for free if they'd let me.

 

[DavidP617]

Revision 1:

The bill bans “ghost guns”

Ghost guns (guns that don’t have a serial number and are home-built, sometimes from a kit that requires significant milling/drilling and assembly) were already felony illegal for someone without a MA firearm license to own. The new bill just requires that licensees etch a serial number on ones they build. Licensees were already required to register them if they built them.

The bill requires live fire training, making us safer

Live fire training was not previously required, as the firearm accident rate among licensees was already non-existent. Live-fire training and extensive changes to the training course needed for a firearm license are now a requirement. There are very few firing ranges where this training can be conducted, meaning it will be much, much harder for someone to complete the required training, which seems to be the intent of this new requirement. It will also put most trainers out of business, again making it nearly impossible to get a license which is required to even possesses a firearm in this state.

The bill expands “red flag laws,” making us safer

Red flag laws are due-process free and ripe for abuse. Previously, when a license was revoked or suspended, a licensee was required to turn in their guns to the police or turn them over to another licensee. Now, police are required to enter a licensee’s home--without a warrant and using force if they deem it necessary--and confiscate their property, putting both the licensee and police in danger. This law also vastly expands who can request an Extreme Risk Protection Order. And of course it is still possible for anyone that has had “contact” (speaking with them, a hand wave, email, text etc.) with a licensee three or more times to have the licensee’s firearms confiscated with a harassment protection order. In order to get their license restored and property returned the licensee must hire a lawyer and spend 10,000+ dollars. This can be repeated over and over again, and can be used to silence free speech as even a short email exchange between a licensee and a political staffer expressing displeasure over a bill or policy can be grounds for a red flag confiscation.

The bill improves the ban on “assault weapons,” keeping us safer

As the number of crimes committed in Ma using legally acquired 'assault style fire arms' is statistically all but non existent, the ban imposes onerous restrictions on thousands of legal gun owners while providing no improvement to public safety. The law as written has many ambiguities and even contradictions making it virtually impossible to comply with and potentially turns otherwise law abiding citizens into criminals with the stroke of a pen.

The bill also bans the sale of every single rifle and shotgun, even single-shot target rifles and double barrel, Elmer Fudd style hunting shotguns. Rifles and shotguns must now be added to an approved sale roster after meeting extensive testing standards which are meant for pistols and have not been updated to apply to rifles. To my knowledge, no such rifles or shotguns exist that would comply with these standards, but if they do the testing and bureaucratic process to add them will take years. The bill also creates another roster for banned and approved semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, including target rifles and sport shotguns. Rifles and shotguns can be added and removed at any time, so if you purchase any semi-automatic rifle that is legal at the time, it can be made illegal later. Your only options then are to sell your property out of state or destroy it. This effectively bans all semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, which was obviously the intent. This will also put most if not all legal licensed firearm dealers out of business, which again was almost certainly the intent.

All of these new requirements and the new registration system are unfunded. The State police indefinitely paused the processing of all new licenses until they were threatened with multiple lawsuits. None of the other requirements have been thought through or prepared for ahead of time, and many take effect in October 2024. I talked to a firearm dealer and they have received zero communication from the state on the new requirements or how to comply.

There are more non-nonsensical restrictions but these are the most egregious.

Edited:

More points that can be added that carry some weight, and largely inspired by a point Colion Noir brought up in a recent podcast:

NATIONWIDE:
Basing this part off of Pew Research data from 2021:
There are roughly 48,830 gun related deaths in the united states for that year.
The current population for 2021 was 332 Million, of that, the amount of reported deaths was 3,464,231
1.41% of all the reported deaths involved a gun in some way
0.604% of all the reported deaths were actually Murdered by guns
0.0147% of the total population died involving a gun in some way
0.0063% of the total population were actually Murdered by guns
0.00046% of the total population accounts for law enforcement (537), accidental (549), and undetermined (458) totaling 1,544
0.0063% of the total population accounts for "violent - murder" gun deaths at 20,958
0.0079% of the total population accounts for the 54% suicide at 26,328

STATE:
Basing this part off of CDC data:
Current Massachusetts population sits at 6.982 Million. Massachusetts experiences about 260 (lets play 300 on the safe end) gun related "deaths" a year, putting the gun related deaths to population ratio at about 0.0043%
Factor in 54% for suicides (haven't found data to support this locally but hopefully the national percentage holds) brings the total gun homicides in MA to about 138 deaths or 0.0019% of total population

Massachusetts also experiences about 4,000 motor vehicle deaths a year, out of 6.982 million that puts us at 0.058%

Mind you, gun related deaths don't show up on top 10 causes of death in the state. CDC states that the leading cause of death in Massachusetts is cancer at about 12,500 deaths per year, out of 6.982 million that puts us at 0.179%

Mathing all of this out means you are 2,952.63% more likely to die on your daily commute and road trip down to the Cape than you are of being killed by a gun. You are also 9,321.05% more likely to die of cancer than you are of being killed by someone with a gun.

SUMMARY:
To sum up all the numbers and FACTS:
1. Nationwide, you would only save maybe 0.604% of the people who were going to die anyway by getting rid of all guns. If you could even guarantee a complete civilian and gang disarmament in the United States.
2. There are currently estimated to be 500,000,000 firearms in the United States that we know of and can somewhat track. If guns were the problem, expect the death rates to be significantly higher.
3. On the more left leaning side, there are estimated 600,000 self defense cases of guns each year. Meaning the death toll in the United States can be presumed to increase by at least half of that without legal arms in circulation. 2,000,000 self defense cases by more right leaning sources (hearsay unless I can find data to prove it)
4. You are 2,952.63% more likely to be killed driving than you are of being shot and killed by a gun before factoring in the firearm suicide rate.
5. 0.0019% of the total MA population is murdered by guns which doesn't even sit at the top 10 of leading causes of death in this state. You should be more concerned with hitting the treadmill, your genetics, and not eating too much candy this Halloween.

If they really wanted us to be safe and alive they would be passing legislation to make roads safer, mandating exercise, and restricting added sugars and chemicals that are poisoning us every day.
They won't do it because it's not a popular opinion. So the next time someone says that cars and Snickers aren't as inherently dangerous and killy as a gun, kindly correct them.

Please let me know if these stats are wrong or if you suggest edits, the numbers don't lie but I'm not perfect

Coming soon I'll post retorts to the "guns are still dangerous because of firearms related accidents and the sole purpose of a gun is to kill" argument

P.S., I'll be posting replies and updates here as my autistic ADHD brain takes over and I just need to research something to make this all make sense lmao

P.P.S. Kindly direct me to the proper thread or suggest a thread creation for common sense retorts to gun control bullshit arguments.

 

[milktree]

More points that can be added that carriy some weight, and largely inspired by a point Colion Noir brought up in a recent podcast:

NATIONWIDE:
Basing this part off of Pew Research 2021 data:
There are roughly 48,830 gun related homicides in the united states for that year.

er... this seems really, really high.

Does that include suicides?

According to politifact, in 2020 there were only 13,663 homicides committed with guns.

 

[CrackPot]

More points that can be added that carriy some weight, and largely inspired by a point Colion Noir brought up in a recent podcast:

NATIONWIDE:
Basing this part off of Pew Research 2021 data:
There are roughly 48,830 gun related homicides in the united states for that year.
The current population for 2021 was 332 Million, of that, the amount of reported deaths was 3,464,231
1.41% of all the people that died that year died to guns
0.0147% of the total population died due to guns that year
0.00046% accounts for law enforcement (537), accidental (549), and undetermined (458) totaling 1,544
0.0063% accounts for "violent - murder" gun deaths at 20,958
0.0079% accounts for the 54% self deletion at 26,328

STATE:
Current Massachusetts population sits at 6.982 Million. Massachusetts experiences about 260 (lets play 300 on the safe end) gun related homicides a year, putting the gun related deaths to population ratio at about 0.0043%
Factor in 54% for suicides (haven't found data to support this locally but hopefully the national percentage holds) brings the total gun homicides in MA to about 162 deaths or 0.0023% of total population

Massachusetts also experiences about 4,000 motor vehicle deaths a year, out of 6.982 million that puts us at 0.058%

Mind you, gun related deaths don't show up on top 10 causes of death in the state. CDC states that the leading cause of death in Massachusetts is cancer at about 12,500 deaths per year, out of 6.982 million that puts us at 0.179%

Mathing all of this out means you are 1,248.83% more likely to die on your daily commute and road trip down to the Cape than you are of being killed by a gun.

SUMMARY:
To sum up all the numbers and FACTS:
1. Nationwide, you would only save maybe 1.41% of the people who were going to die anyway by getting rid of all guns. If you could even guarantee a complete civilian and gang disarmament in the United States.
2. There are currently estimated to be 500,000,000 firearms in the United States that we know of and can somewhat track. If guns were the problem, expect the death rates to be significantly higher.
3. On the more left leaning side, there are estimated 600,000 self defense cases of guns each year. Meaning the death toll in the United States can be presumed to increase by at least half of that without legal arms in circulation. 1,200,000 self defense cases by more right leaning sources (hearsay unless I can find data to prove it)
4. You are 1,248.83% more likely to be killed driving than you are of being shot and killed by a gun before factoring in the firearm suicide rate.
5. 0.0023% of the total MA population is murdered by guns which doesn't even sit at the top 10 of leading causes of death in this state. You should be more concerned with hitting the treadmill, your genetics, and not eating too much candy this Halloween.

If they really wanted us to be safe and alive they would be passing legislation to make roads safer, mandating exercise, and restricting added sugars and chemicals that are poisoning us every day.
They won't do it because it's not a popular opinion. So the next time someone says that cars and Snickers aren't as inherently dangerous and killy as a gun, kindly correct them.

Please let me know if these stats are wrong or if you suggest edits, the numbers don't lie but I'm not perfect

Coming soon I'll post retorts to the "guns are still dangerous because of firearms related accidents and the sole purpose of a gun is to kill" argument

P.S., I'll be posting replies and updates here as my autistic ADHD brain takes over and I just need to research something to make this all make sense lmao

P.P.S. Kindly direct me to the proper thread or suggest a thread creation for common sense retorts to gun control bullshit arguments.

You fell into the suicide trap. All the gun grabbers include suicide in gun death numbers. We already know from countries that have effectively banned guns that the suicide rate does not decrease; they just find new ways to off themselves. You need to excise all suicide numbers from your analysis.

 

[DavidP617]

er... this seems really, really high.

Does that include suicides?

According to politifact, in 2020 there were only 13,663 homicides committed with guns.

Good catch! Can't believe I forgot to break that out lol, I'll correct it

You fell into the suicide trap. All the gun grabbers include suicide in gun death numbers. We already know from countries that have effectively banned guns that the suicide rate does not decrease; they just find new ways to off themselves. You need to excise all suicide numbers from your analysis.

Yeah 100% aware they play that game with the figures. I knew I forgot something lmao, 1 sec

 

[HorizontalHunter]

No, 0.08 or over and you are prima facie "under the influence"
Below that the state needs to show evidence of influence - but that's usually an easy to overcome threshold of "I am trained to observe the influences of drugs and alcohol. In my professional opinion I observed multiple signs that the defendant was intoxicated"

Never give the state free evidence. IIRC there is no consequences for not blowing like there are for DUI.

 

[btnh6668]

Correct me if I am wrong. Private transfers of all rifles are not effected with this shit show correct? At least that's how I understand it. Just curious why I continue to see ads with people saying to get it before 10/24. If transfers are not effected why would the 10/24 date matter? I apologize if it's been covered In the many pages before.

 

[cKy04]

Correct me if I am wrong. Private transfers of all rifles are not effected with this shit show correct? At least that's how I understand it. Just curious why I continue to see ads with people saying to get it before 10/24. If transfers are not effected why would the 10/24 date matter? I apologize if it's been covered In the many pages before.

Trying to get people to buy stuff they can’t get to sell or trying to make a big profit. I would assume they also know there are a lot of stupid and fearful people out there. I know a guy afraid to buy anything since the 1st.

 

[Reptile]

Anything on the EOPSS “approved firearm roster”

Do you mean the same "roster" that includes Gen5 Glocks? Or, the secret roster that only includes pre 98 Glocks?

As far as i can tell - all post 98 Glocks will be unavailable after 10/23.

 

[milktree]

Do you mean the same "roster" that includes Gen5 Glocks? Or, the secret roster that only includes pre 98 Glocks?

As far as i can tell - all post 98 Glocks will be unavailable after 10/23.

I said EOPSS roster on purpose.

Not the secret AG’s list, the EOPSS list.

 

[milktree]

Correct me if I am wrong. Private transfers of all rifles and handguns are not effected with this shit show correct?

You are correct.

The only private transfer restriction in the new stuff is pre-ban magazines with a capacity over 10 rounds.

I added “handguns” to your post for completeness.

 

[btnh6668]

You are correct.

The only private transfer restriction in the new stuff is pre-ban magazines with a capacity over 10 rounds.

I added “handguns” to your post for completeness.

Thanks

 

[DavidP617]

Good catch! Can't believe I forgot to break that out lol, I'll correct it


Yeah 100% aware they play that game with the figures. I knew I forgot something lmao, 1 sec

I went back over the data and the National homicide figures I put in are correct based on Pew Research for 2021 data.

2020 might be different because of Covid and everyone hunkering down but if you link a source that has a break down of current percentages and is more reliable than Pew I'll update the numbers.

It took a second but I understand what you mean now lol. I broke out the national suicide figure in the national chart and added actual murders as a separate line item.

MA figures are correct, kinda, I based the homicide rate at 46% of "gun violence" numbers which I don't have a source to prove its not 45% or 50% etc... I updated the comparison to vehicle accidents to reflect the suicide cases and the change is even more drastic.

I'll gladly accept edits to this too, in formatting for ease of reading and number values. This is what's on everyone's mind in the 2A community and we need hard numbers for the uninformed.

 

[MAJoe]

Correct me if I am wrong. Private transfers of all rifles are not effected with this shit show correct? At least that's how I understand it. Just curious why I continue to see ads with people saying to get it before 10/24. If transfers are not effected why would the 10/24 date matter? I apologize if it's been covered In the many pages before.

Has it been determined what reporting system will be used come 10/23? FA10 will be obsolete and new system won’t be running.

 

[pastera]

Correct me if I am wrong. Private transfers of all rifles are not effected with this shit show correct? At least that's how I understand it. Just curious why I continue to see ads with people saying to get it before 10/24. If transfers are not effected why would the 10/24 date matter? I apologize if it's been covered In the many pages before.

Correct - no change in private transfers
However, if it's legal now but illegal under the new laws then I can see someone wanting to unload it before it is worthless in the state.

 

[pastera]

You are correct.

The only private transfer restriction in the new stuff is pre-ban magazines with a capacity over 10 rounds. - inside Massachusetts

I added “handguns” to your post for completeness.

FIFY

 

[EJFudd]

Correct me if I am wrong. Private transfers of all rifles are not effected with this shit show correct?

You are correct. The only private transfer restriction in the new stuff is pre-ban magazines with a capacity over 10 rounds.

Correct - no change in private transfers. However, if it's legal now but illegal under the new laws then I can see someone wanting to unload it before it is worthless in the state.

Since a ton of everyday semi-auto "rifles" are now being redefined as "assault-style firearms" under the new anti-2A law... can we really still privately transfer those "rifles" to anyone we wish within Massachusetts?

I thought the new anti-2A law greatly limits the private transfer of those "rifles"... no? What am I missing here?

 

[pastera]

Since a ton of everyday semi-auto "rifles" are now being redefined as "assault-style firearms" under the new anti-2A law... can we really still privately transfer those "rifles" to anyone we wish within Massachusetts?

I thought the new anti-2A law greatly limits the private transfer of those "rifles"... no? What am I missing here?

If the firearm was lawfully possessed in Mass on 8/1 it is NOT an ASF therefore it can be transferred without issue.
Now, how that transfer happens post 10/23 is anyone's guess since the new registration system won't be online and the transaction portal is written out of the law (non-compliant unless they make some immediate changes)

 

[Redsox802]

I love CMMG… I think this “New York model” should be GTG under new law:


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=d1iVkJaakzo#bottom-sheet

 

[milktree]

If the firearm was lawfully possessed in Mass on 8/1 it is NOT an ASF

This is not true.

All guns that meet the definition of "assault-style firearm" are ASFs, even the ones made before '94.

But any ASF that was lawfully possessed on 8/1 is not subject to the restrictions of §131M(a).


The old law about "assault weapons" worked the way you describe: before a particular date the definition didn't apply. Any pre-'94 guns even with all the evil features were not legally "assault weapons"

 

[MAJoe]

I love CMMG… I think this “New York model” should be GTG under new law:


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=d1iVkJaakzo#bottom-sheet

Will need to make sure that receiver doesn’t fail the “copy or duplicate” test. I didn’t watch the video to see if they address that.

 

[Dench]

I honestly don’t understand why nobody at GOAL is paying attention to these threads.

They are.

 

[pastera]

This is not true.

All guns that meet the definition of "assault-style firearm" are ASFs, even the ones made before '94.

But any ASF that was lawfully possessed on 8/1 is not subject to the restrictions of §131M(a).


The old law about "assault weapons" worked the way you describe: before a particular date the definition didn't apply. Any pre-'94 guns even with all the evil features were not legally "assault weapons"

Semantics
I'm tired of explaining the 8/1 grandfathering versus the 7/20 exclusion since in the end there is no operative difference.

and no, any copy or duplicate in the transaction portal as of 7/20/16 is excluded from being a copy or duplicate so is not a ASF if in a compliant form

I simply don't have the energy to write out all of the different ways to arrive at the same outcome - if the firearm was lawfully possessed on 8/1, it's legal to do all the things you can do with a non-scary FUD gun.

 

[pastera]

I love CMMG… I think this “New York model” should be GTG under new law:


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=d1iVkJaakzo#bottom-sheet

Will need to make sure that receiver doesn’t fail the “copy or duplicate” test. I didn’t watch the video to see if they address that.

Receiver doesn't matter since the barrel shroud would fail - and the gun is fudded up enough without cutting the top of the shroud off to get rid of the "encircling" feature

 

[DavidP617]

Edited:

More points that can be added that carry some weight, and largely inspired by a point Colion Noir brought up in a recent podcast:

NATIONWIDE:
Basing this part off of Pew Research data from 2021:
There are roughly 48,830 gun related homicides in the united states for that year.
The current population for 2021 was 332 Million, of that, the amount of reported deaths was 3,464,231
1.41% of all the reported deaths involved a gun in some way
0.604% of all the reported deaths were actually Murdered by guns
0.0147% of the total population died involving a gun in some way
0.0063% of the total population were actually Murdered by guns
0.00046% of the total population accounts for law enforcement (537), accidental (549), and undetermined (458) totaling 1,544
0.0063% of the total population accounts for "violent - murder" gun deaths at 20,958
0.0079% of the total population accounts for the 54% suicide at 26,328

STATE:
Basing this part off of CDC data:
Current Massachusetts population sits at 6.982 Million. Massachusetts experiences about 260 (lets play 300 on the safe end) gun related "deaths" a year, putting the gun related deaths to population ratio at about 0.0043%
Factor in 54% for suicides (haven't found data to support this locally but hopefully the national percentage holds) brings the total gun homicides in MA to about 138 deaths or 0.0019% of total population

Massachusetts also experiences about 4,000 motor vehicle deaths a year, out of 6.982 million that puts us at 0.058%

Mind you, gun related deaths don't show up on top 10 causes of death in the state. CDC states that the leading cause of death in Massachusetts is cancer at about 12,500 deaths per year, out of 6.982 million that puts us at 0.179%

Mathing all of this out means you are 2,952.63% more likely to die on your daily commute and road trip down to the Cape than you are of being killed by a gun. You are also 9,321.05% more likely to die of cancer than you are of being killed by someone with a gun.

SUMMARY:
To sum up all the numbers and FACTS:
1. Nationwide, you would only save maybe 0.604% of the people who were going to die anyway by getting rid of all guns. If you could even guarantee a complete civilian and gang disarmament in the United States.
2. There are currently estimated to be 500,000,000 firearms in the United States that we know of and can somewhat track. If guns were the problem, expect the death rates to be significantly higher.
3. On the more left leaning side, there are estimated 600,000 self defense cases of guns each year. Meaning the death toll in the United States can be presumed to increase by at least half of that without legal arms in circulation. 2,000,000 self defense cases by more right leaning sources (hearsay unless I can find data to prove it)
4. You are 2,952.63% more likely to be killed driving than you are of being shot and killed by a gun before factoring in the firearm suicide rate.
5. 0.0019% of the total MA population is murdered by guns which doesn't even sit at the top 10 of leading causes of death in this state. You should be more concerned with hitting the treadmill, your genetics, and not eating too much candy this Halloween.

If they really wanted us to be safe and alive they would be passing legislation to make roads safer, mandating exercise, and restricting added sugars and chemicals that are poisoning us every day.
They won't do it because it's not a popular opinion. So the next time someone says that cars and Snickers aren't as inherently dangerous and killy as a gun, kindly correct them.

Please let me know if these stats are wrong or if you suggest edits, the numbers don't lie but I'm not perfect

Coming soon I'll post retorts to the "guns are still dangerous because of firearms related accidents and the sole purpose of a gun is to kill" argument

P.S., I'll be posting replies and updates here as my autistic ADHD brain takes over and I just need to research something to make this all make sense lmao

P.P.S. Kindly direct me to the proper thread or suggest a thread creation for common sense retorts to gun control bullshit arguments.

NATIONWIDE:
Basing this part off of Pew Research data from 2021, corroborated with CDC stats for 2022:
There are roughly 48,830 gun related deaths in the united states for that year.
The current population for 2021 was 332 Million, of that, the amount of reported deaths was 3,464,231
1.41% of all the reported deaths involved a gun in some way
0.604% of all the reported deaths were actually Murdered by guns
0.0147% of the total population died involving a gun in some way
0.0063% of the total population were actually Murdered by guns
0.00046% of the total population accounts for law enforcement (537), accidental (549), and undetermined (458) totaling 1,544
0.0063% of the total population accounts for "violent - murder" gun homicides at 20,958
0.0079% of the total population accounts for the 54% suicide at 26,328

STATE:
Basing this part off of CDC data:
Current Massachusetts population sits at 6.982 Million. Massachusetts experiences about 260 (lets play 300 on the safe end) gun related "deaths" a year, putting the gun related deaths to population ratio at about 0.004%
Factor in 54% for suicides (haven't found data to support this locally but hopefully the national percentage holds) brings the total gun homicides in MA to about 138 deaths or 0.0019% of total population

Massachusetts also experiences about 4,000 motor vehicle deaths a year, out of 6.982 million that puts us at 0.058%

Mind you, gun related deaths don't show up on top 10 causes of death in the state. CDC states that the leading cause of death in Massachusetts is cancer at about 12,500 deaths per year, out of 6.982 million that puts us at 0.17%

Mathing all of this out means you are 2,952.63% more likely to die on your daily commute and road trip down to the Cape than you are of being killed by a gun. You are also 9,321.05% more likely to die of cancer than you are of being killed by someone with a gun.

GUN RELATED ACCIDENTS:
Bear with me now, I'm going to use a Radical Anti-Gun source to prove our point, again, bear with me here
According to Everytown, on average each year:
96,935 people are wounded by a gun in some way and survive
*Disclaimer* 2,411 of those are attempted suicides
*Disclaimer* 35,451 includes police AND "gun assault" which probably alludes to attempted homicide
59,073 of those are injured by negligent discharge, accident, or undetermined

Using the population for 2021 which was 332 Million:
0.029% of the total population received some sort of wound from a gun (be that a graze, burn, might even being pistol whipped idk) and survived.
2.48% of these are attempted suicides or 0.007% of the total population, subtracting it brings us down to 94,524.
37.5% of these are police AND attempted homicides or 0.01% of the total population, subtracting it brings us down to 59,073 unintentional injuries.
This figure is probably skewed without accounting for victims who only reported being shot "on accident".
Nonetheless: 0.017% of the total population is injured from firearm related "accidents".

Those arguing that they still could have died, would need to add 549 accidental gun deaths to 59,073 non fatal accidents bringing the total deaths from firearm negligence, in theory, to 59,622
If they theoretically succumbed to their injuries, adding to the death count for 2021, there would be 3,523,853 deaths total.
This would mean 1.69% of the people who died that year in total would have died from firearm wounds compared to the original 1.41%, reflecting a minor change of 0.28%
Adding a "potential death" figure gets you to 0.017% of the total population involving a gun in some way, compared to 0.014% beforehand

SUMMARY:
To sum up all the numbers and FACTS:
1. Nationwide, you would only save maybe 0.604% of the people who were going to die anyway by getting rid of all guns. If you could even guarantee a complete civilian and gang disarmament in the United States.
2. There are currently estimated to be 500,000,000 firearms in the United States that we know of and can somewhat track. If guns were the problem, expect the death rates to be significantly higher.
3. On the more left leaning side, there are estimated 600,000 self defense cases of guns each year. Meaning the death toll in the United States can be presumed to increase by at least half of that without legal arms in circulation. 2,000,000 self defense cases by more right leaning sources (hearsay unless I can find data to prove it)
4. You are 2,952.63% more likely to be killed driving than you are of being shot and killed by a gun.
5. 0.0019% of the total MA population is murdered by guns which doesn't even sit at the top 10 of leading causes of death in this state. You should be more concerned with hitting the treadmill, your genetics, and not eating too much candy this Halloween.
6. Only 0.017% of the total population received some sort of injury from a firearm due to negligence. With widespread awareness and guns safety instead of making the topic taboo, that figure is likely to drop significantly. Even if you added firearm related accidents to the "casualty" list, you would only get a 0.003% increase in deaths which is negligible. Let's be honest, even without guns, stupid and irresponsible people will find ways to get themselves and others hurt.

If they really wanted us to be safe and alive they would be passing legislation to make roads safer, mandating exercise, and restricting added sugars and chemicals that are poisoning us every day.
They won't do it because it's not a popular opinion. So the next time someone says that cars and Snickers aren't as inherently dangerous and killy as a gun, kindly correct them.

Please advise on stat corrections or if you suggest edits, I want this to be as bulletproof (pun intended) as possible

P.S., I'll be posting replies and updates here as my autistic ADHD brain takes over and I just need to research something to make this all make sense lmao

P.P.S. Kindly direct me to the proper thread or suggest a thread creation for common sense retorts to gun control bullshit arguments.

 

[MAJoe]

Receiver doesn't matter since the barrel shroud would fail - and the gun is fudded up enough without cutting the top of the shroud off to get rid of the "encircling" feature

Good catch. They elude to that at the end of the end of the video. More to come.

 

[milktree]

Semantics
I'm tired of explaining the 8/1 grandfathering versus the 7/20 exclusion since in the end there is no operative difference.

and no, any copy or duplicate in the transaction portal as of 7/20/16 is excluded from being a copy or duplicate so is not a ASF if in a compliant form

I simply don't have the energy to write out all of the different ways to arrive at the same outcome - if the firearm was lawfully possessed on 8/1, it's legal to do all the things you can do with a non-scary FUD gun.

Law is all about semantics.

In the beforetimes people would say, "it's a pre-ban assault weapon", which was also not true, because in the beforetimes anything pre-ban was explicitly NOT and "assault weapon"

The reason it matters is because in the old language, pre-ban meant, "regulated like any other rifle", but in the new times "pre-ban" means "still an assault-style firearm, but these specific laws don't apply". This difference is important because I can 100% predict that "assault-style firearm" will end up in some other regulation or law without the "on 8/1" language", and someone's going to get f***ed because of that misunderstanding.

 

[pastera]

Law is all about semantics.

In the beforetimes people would say, "it's a pre-ban assault weapon", which was also not true, because in the beforetimes anything pre-ban was explicitly NOT and "assault weapon"

The reason it matters is because in the old language, pre-ban meant, "regulated like any other rifle", but in the new times "pre-ban" means "still an assault-style firearm, but these specific laws don't apply". This difference is important because I can 100% predict that "assault-style firearm" will end up in some other regulation or law without the "on 8/1" language", and someone's going to get f***ed because of that misunderstanding.

Well guess what - an 8/1 gun is an assault-style firearm if it has the features but is exempt.
But a pre 7/20 C&D are not ASFs but are still exempt so features don't matter. Neither do the current exemptions since they will do away with them the first chance they get.
Your reference to pre 94 is irrelevant since that status no longer exists except for LCFDs

It's complicated until it isn't
And when it isn't either the Supreme Court has crushed all of this shit or they reverse Heller.
There is no middle ground - we are either free to own modern sporting arms or we become England in 50 years.
Unfortunately too many here are okay with a slow creep as long as things don't move too fast.

 

[Rockrivr1]

Well guess what - an 8/1 gun is an assault-style firearm if it has the features but is exempt.
But a pre 7/20 C&D are not ASFs but are still exempt so features don't matter. Neither do the current exemptions since they will do away with them the first chance they get.
Your reference to pre 94 is irrelevant since that status no longer exists except for LCFDs

It's complicated until it isn't
And when it isn't either the Supreme Court has crushed all of this shit or they reverse Heller.
There is no middle ground - we are either free to own modern sporting arms or we become England in 50 years.
Unfortunately too many here are okay with a slow creep as long as things don't move too fast.

Unfortunately today’s school shooting is not going to help our cause.

 

[Horatio Alger Jr]

Unfortunately today’s school shooting is not going to help our cause.

Where was that?