True. As mentioned already the NFA provides for classes of firearm that are *not *allowed to “just everyone” – a true machinegun/autorifle, or a *part *for such, would be subject to special limited licensing requirements. And most carrying permit laws distinguish long arms from handguns. The deal is that those restrictions usually base their classifications on objective functional characteristics: does it fire full automatic or semi only by design; is it longer than X inches of barrel (afffects muzzle velocity and accuracy and concealability); is the device or ammo explosive, is it incendiary; is caliber greater than .50 etc.
But someone with reasonable competency can lay down a lot of shots with a “conventional” civilian-market weapon. A person of reasonable motor skills with an off the shelf semiauto pistol or “varmint rifle” could be averaging 3 shots per second in between reloading with little effort.
After the Las Vegas shooting there was a brief glimmer of hope that at least “bump stocks” and such devices used to trick out the semiauto weapon to mimic full auto mode could be reclassed as the sort of thing no civilian needs (the Army doesn’t need them since they have real automatic weapons). But it apparently beyond some local legislation, the attempt to make it a national rule got quagmired in arguments over whether it should be a law or a regulation.
Thank you for reminding me of the pointlessness of discussing gun issues with gun rights advocates.
I consider these responses as silly as, how do I keep my kid from gaining so much weight? Should I keep junk food out of the house? No, your six year old is just going to sneak out of the house at night, get a job waiting tables, and use the tips to go buy Twinkies. After all, if the kid really wants junk food, there is literally nothing that can be done to stop them. Nothing!
The point isn’t that nothing can be done. The point is that an AW ban by itself isn’t effective. To make it effective, the ensuing laws would need to be much more expansive than an AW ban.
It’s not meant to be flip, it’s meant to illustrate that the issue is not just banning AR15 platform rifles.
Which leads back to the fundamental pointlessness of discussing the issue. It always boils down to the classic NRA Catch .22: small laws do nothing; big laws are unacceptable.
I wouldn’t shed a tear if police in the case of Cruz held him for involuntary detention in order to evaluate his mental status, and based on the totality of the circumstances he was involuntarily committed because he presented a danger to himself and/or others. That would have made him prohibited and unable to legally purchase a firearm.
But the flip side is how far would you want to go. You can ban AR-15 platform rifles - then what? The Mini 14 would be its heir apparent. Same cartridge, similar rate of fire, also able to accessorize like barbie dolls. If a person is okay with an AR15 platform ban, would they also be okay with banning the Mini 14? If the proposal is to schedule certain weapons as more dangerous necessitating more rigor in screening, then I think it’s not the type of arm, but the capability of that arm that is a better criteria. That’s why it comes down to “big laws” rather than small ones. Gun control folks may claim they want only small laws, but either the small laws don’t make sense, or it’s a ploy to get to the big ones. And since I assume gun control folks are smart, it’s hard to accept they’d want to push for something that wouldn’t actually accomplish the stated goals.