House raises the age to buy semi-automatic rifles to 21 (but unlikely to pass in the Senate)

Politics & Elections
21

The civilian version of the AR-15 is a poor rifle to use for deer hunting. It’s not deadly enough. If you are hunting, you want something that can reliably kill a deer, not just wound it. Contrary to popular belief, the AR-15 is not a super-deadly high power military rifle. The reason people don’t use it for hunting is that it’s really not a very good hunting rifle. Some states actually don’t allow the 5.56 cartridge to be used for deer. Other states do allow it, but it’s on the low end of what is acceptable. If you do use it for deer, you really need to be within 100 yards of the deer. Anything longer than that and the bullet will have shed too much energy to reliably kill the deer.

The fully automatic version of the AR-15, which was adopted by the military as the M-16, uses the 5.56 NATO cartridge, This cartridge is an “intermediate” cartridge. It’s not as powerful as a rifle cartridge, but it’s more powerful than a handgun cartridge. The military uses intermediate cartridges in assault rifles because full size rifle cartridges have too much recoil and are difficult to control in full auto mode (lesson learned from the M-14). Logistics are easier with smaller and lighter rounds. For the same size and weight, cargo planes, ammo trucks, and even the soldiers themselves can carry significantly more rounds of the smaller intermediate cartridge.

The civilian AR-15 is designed to be the civilian version (and therefore the non-assault weapon version) of the military M-16 (which is an assault rifle). You can use it to hunt smaller game, to protect livestock, or for self defense. It is not designed to hunt larger animals like deer.

If you really like the design of the AR-15 and want to hunt deer, you are much better off getting an AR-10, which is the predecessor of the AR-15. The original AR-10 was also capable of full-auto, but used the higher power 7.62 NATO cartridge (which is basically the same as the .308 cartridge). The AR-10 was never adopted by the military (it evolved into the AR-15 instead, which was adopted) but you can currently buy civilian versions of the AR-10. The civilian versions are of course semi-auto only.

I looked up the most popular hunting rifles and found a list of the 25 most popular hunting rifles of the last 50 years. The Ruger Mini-14 was the only semi-auto on the list.

The Mini-14 is basically a scaled down version of the military M-14. It is semi-auto only and fires the 7.62 NATO / .308 round (with some other cartridges available) and is often used for hunting as well as protecting livestock. Designed specifically for civilian use, the Mini-14 is actually a much more deadly weapon than the civilian AR-15.

There were two lever-action rifles on the list, and a modern black powder muzzle-loader. The muzzle-loader might surprise some folks, but there are hunting seasons specifically for black powder muzzle-loaders, and most hunters who hunt during these seasons prefer modern weapons over old fashioned Civil War style muskets.

The rest of the rifles on the list were all bolt-action.

22

Yes, if you are shooting at a running coyote, then you may well need more shots.

But the AR15 is not used for game hunting.

23

Think of the AR-15 as a Barbie doll. If Barbie could spit lethal lead in someone’s direction I guess. You buy the basic rifle, the doll, and then you buy a new stock, sights, grip, trigger mechanism, muzzel, etc., etc. (the shoes, convertable, and Barbie Dream House). This is one of the reasons the AR-15 is such a popular rifle in the United States. Was it designed as a hunting rifle? No. But you can modify the rifle to accept larger rounds appropriate for hunting game animals (though .223 is just fine for the deer in my neck of the woods).

24

Here’s a relevant post from another thread.

Short version: Gun laws in Canada have been very strict and very effective for many decades and are about to get even stronger. Age limits to above 18 are not among either existing laws or new proposals. They’re very unlikely to do anything useful in a society already saturated with guns and seems to be just another feel-good smokescreen for “gun control” while actually accomplishing little or nothing. Pretty damn hypocritical, too, when you consider that 18 was the age of draft eligibility to be sent to Vietnam to kill and possibly to be killed.

25

Would a 9mm pistol have been less deadly in Uvalde?

Relevant to the OP…if we restrict the purchase of AR-15s are we solving a problem or does the shooter just buy a different gun?

26

Without knowing the details of each shot it’s hard to say.

You’d expect the AR-15 to be more deadly. It has a longer barrel, so it does a better job at accelerating the round. The 9mm is a pistol round, and pistol barrels tend to be quite short. A lot of the energy in the powder gets wasted. The 5.56 NATO round has a lot more energy in it to start with. The 9mm bullet is actually significantly larger and heavier, but the 5.56 is going much faster. At close range (which I believe many if not most of the shots were) the 9mm round may actually do more damage to the human body. The 5.56 will penetrate much better through doors or anything else in the way. It will also penetrate better through the human body, leaving a smaller hole with less damage to the surrounding tissue.

Handguns are significantly more difficult to aim as the range gets longer, due to the very short distance between the front and rear sights. This is called the “sight radius”. From one side of a classroom to the other, it’s not going to be difficult to hit someone with a 9mm handgun. Shooting down a hallway, the AR-15 has a significant advantage in hitting the target.

That one is pretty obvious. The shooter just buys a different gun. Most likely, a more powerful and more deadly gun.

27

Possibly. A 5.56 round from an AR-15 typically causes more internal bodily damage than does a 9mm round.

I’m all for raising the age to 21. Heck, I’m for 25. The male brain’s frontal lobe is not quite fully developed at 21, or is just becoming so. I’m not a doctor but that’s my understanding.

28

Not even a tiny bit.

In the military, they are very strict about when personnel have access to weapons. You can’t casually carry a gun around and fire it at stuff for fun. They are very controlled.

Even in combat zones, when I assume military staff on the front lines will be carrying a weapon around at all times, you are still under supervision by superior officers and where you go and when you go there is under control.

When an 18-year-old buys a gun for personal use, none of those controls are in place. It’s apples and oranges.

ETA: I am a gun owner who has a semi-automatic pistol locked up in his bedroom. I’m not anti-gun. I just want them treated more carefully.

29

I think one important reason for raising the age to 21 is to give violent people a chance to develop the sort of criminal record that would show up on a background check.

30

Since the army will be providing their arms and sidearms, I don’t see why it is ironic that soldiers can’t buy their own guns, no.

Do you find it ironic that a sailor in the navy cannot buy a warship, or that a tank commander cannot buy an M1 Abrams?

Guns are tools. They are extraordinarily deadly tools because unlike most tools they’re specifically designed to kill, whereas a shovel or a chainsaw or an ice pick is not.

I don’t see the problem with telling someone “you aren’t allowed to buy this tool for your own use yet, but if you’re in the military serving the government and you’re told to use the tool, you can do so.”

31

And this wouldn’t prevent an 18 year old civilian from firing a gun, they’d just have to do it with the permission, (and hopefully under the supervision) of the owner of the gun. Just like soldiers use guns under supervision.

This seems very different from alcohol restrictions.

32

Just wanted to point out that people also use guns to protect crops from varmints. Of course, an AR-15 is overkill for squirrels, racoons, and other smaller agricultural pests. But it would do the job.

33

Just to play devil’s advocate, that actually DOES seem similar to alcohol laws. An 18 year old cannot buy a drink but in most states they can legally drink with their parents.

34

But soldiers who drink do so without official supervision. I just don’t think there’s the same “if they can…” argument.

35

IIRC, in the US, drinking age on base is 21. I’d also say if the soldier is drinking on base then that counts as supervised.

36

That is to say, i see some justice in the idea that if you have to be, perhaps literally, in the line of fire “at work”, you ought to be able to relax with a beer when you aren’t working. I don’t see any particular reason that you should be allowed unsupervised use of a gun just because you had to use one under supervision on your job.

37

Surely the more relevant question is how quickly and easily law enforcement (especially first responders who may not be well armed) would be likely to stop someone.

38

The bill restricts people under 21 from buying semi-automatic rifles. (They’re already restricted from buying handguns.) The point of the bill is to slow the crime down. A Winchester 94 might be more powerful and more deadly, but it shoots slower and takes longer to reload.

39

This is incorrect.

The age to purchase a handgun from a federally licensed dealer is 21.

However, under federal law, the age to possess a handgun is 18. An 18 year old can legally buy a pistol from a private seller or have one given to them by a friend or family, or be issued one by the military, law enforcement agency, or other employer.

YMMV by state. However states that have higher ages for possession generally exempt military, police, and those in the company of someone older than whatever that states age is.

40

You are correct.

However, the bill that passed the house is reasonably about purchases from a dealer as the Uvalde shooter did. Again: I don’t see anything burdensome about restricting sales of semiautomatic firearms for three years.