I have no problem banning the production of assault rifles and large clip magazines. I’ve been talking to friends in my hunting club and most feel the same. Hunters have no need for weapons like that. Most states restrict how many shots a Hunter’s shotgun or rifle can have. My shotgun has a plug to restrict the number of shells and make it legal to hunt with.
I can’t imagine target practicing with an AR-15. 10 seconds and a 100 shots gone. Can you imagine what that costs in ammo? Not to mention the hassle of reloading the clip. I’m happing practicing with a pistol and a 8 round clip.
I got a feeling the NRA won’t fight the assault ban renewal either. They realize this isn’t the time to be inflexible. People are shocked and angry about what happened to those kids. The NRA doesn’t want that anger directed at them. imho
Restricted magazines are a valid feature of hunting and game laws, to make the most of a limited resource (wild game). But the above is exactly why gun rights proponents disparagingly refer to such people as “Fudds”: perfectly ok with banning everything but break-action shotguns and single-shot rifles. Yes, we want guns designed for shooting people. That’s sort of the point.
I can’t imagine someone who can pull and release the trigger of the ***semi-**automatic AR-15 ten times a second either. Or do so and switch out three or four magazines, all in ten seconds. Congratulations, you’ve just conflated the AR-15 with it’s M-16 cousin, like so many antis are (deliberately?) doing.
The NRA is only slightly braver on gun rights than the Republican party; a lot of gun rights proponents have a dim view of the NRA.
*well, ok, there is a technique called “bump firing” but that’s another debate.
Now, I hate to argue from authority, but damn, that’s Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John & Samuel Adams, John Hancock and a host of other greats, in whose shadow we don’t even deserve to be.
If those great men say they were living under tyranny, and took the time to so prove in one of the greatest documents of all time- then they lived under tyranny. Sorry dude, you lose the internet.
A 30 round magazine allows you more time in the shooting position to work on your accuracy, you don’t need to break position.
The fact that you can spray 100 rounds quickly doesn’t mean you are required to shoot that quickly. However, even with 10 round magazines you can fire almost as fast as with 30 round magazines. With a minimal amount of practice you can change them within a handful of seconds at most.
The assault weapon ban didn’t outlaw any real functional parts of firearms, nor did it really reduce access to large capacity magazines it was purely a cosmetic ban and I am sure most people who were against it have little issue with irrational fear being directed towards them.
The assault weapons ban was a perfect example of legislation which is meant to appease the irrational fears hordes of uneducated voters but do nothing to address the issues at hand.
I’m not sure if I’m the first one to propose this in this thread, but ammunition should require the same background checks, waiting periods, and other regulations as firearms. Right now, it’s my understanding that none of these requirements apply to bullets. Why not? It certainly doesn’t butt against the 2nd amendment in any way, if these requirements that already apply to guns pass Constitutional muster.
So background checks, waiting periods, etc, for ammunition should certainly be an easy step for Congress. Any downsides?
But unlike guns, bullets physically degrade over a time frame of a few years- so anyone trying to maintain an arsenal with thousands of bullets will periodically have to resupply.
And my understanding was that bullets are not easy to make from scratch- certainly not high quality bullets- am I wrong? It’s not hard to make gunpowder, but it requires a lot of work to make high-quality gunpowder- and I believe the same is true with the other components of ammunition.
Bullets do not physically degrade over time if they are cared for. Some propellants do degrade over time but eve WWII ammo is quite usable today.
It is quite difficult to make match grade ammo but it is quite easy to make ammo that would be perfectly usable at the ranges involved in last weeks horrid event.
With many pistols all you need are tire weights, a stove and a simple mold to produce the bullets.
With rifles you would need to use a gliding material as lead would foul the barrel quickly due to the speed and friction.
Rimfire ammo can degrade a lot faster, but I take your point. I still think applying the same regs to ammunition is a good idea- if the only downside is additional cost (in the form of fees to the buyer to pay for background checks, etc) or inconvenience then I still support it.
"Gun control? We need bullet control! I think every bullet should cost 5,000 dollars. Because if a bullet cost five thousand dollar, we wouldn’t have any innocent bystander.”
Rim fire is a very small part of the market. Remember that we now have people synthesize complex organic molecules in bathtubs to make drugs these days.
But the bigger point is why waste time and public interest on ineffective legislation, why not use that energy to work towards goals which will have an effect.
More importantly, why hand off another general election to the republicans like happened after the silly and ineffective assault weapons ban.
This is my main goal in these debates, to direct energy twords productive solutions and preventing my non-preferred party from gaining control due to non-effective feel good legislation.
My point is that if background checks and waiting periods have been good for society for firearms (and I believe they have), then those same requirements should be applied to ammunition. This is not even close to the only solution for killing sprees and violence in general, but I believe it’s a step in the right direction.
I also believe it’s a much easier argument to make then the assault weapons ban (on which I agree with you).
Waiting periods would severely inconvenience legal owners who shoot frequently (which you WANT legal owners to do, so they’re competent with the gun).
Why not instead issue an ammunition card to the person who’s passed the necessary background check to own a firearm? Show the clerk your card, and you can buy ammunition. (For buying online, enter the identification number on the ammunition card.) That way, you’d know that anyone buying ammo has passed a background check and is legal.
I’m sure there’d be some drawbacks to this as well which I just haven’t though of, but it would be tons better than a waiting period.
If you have any cites that show that waiting periods have had a significant effect on crime I would love to see them.
Also if you have any cites showing that running repeated background checks on the same individuals has a positive effect on crime I would appreciate those too.
I personally would rather direct those limited resources to mental health resources and destigmatization campaigns.
You mean - BUILD A HUGE STOCKPILE OF DEADLY AMMUNITION?!!! :eek:
Seriously, buying ammunition in bulk is what most people would do. But if you have several calibers of weapons, you can forget you’re almost out of .38 Special (for example) until you’re ready to go to the range and shoot. It’s nice to be able to swing buy the sporting goods store on the way to the range and pick up a box without a two-week wait. Also, ammunition sometimes goes on sale, and it’s nice to take advantage of that (although I suppose one could purchase the ammunition at sale price and then pick it up at the end of the waiting period).
They may have ignored things like the Childers Palace Backpackers Hostel fire
Or the fact that court hearings are not required for involuntary commitment as they also aren’t required in much of Europe.