There is also the SKS. some variants have the pistol grip while others do not.
There’s your answer Fiveyearlurker, some have pistol grips and some don’t, therefore there’s no point in trying to pass any new regulations. :rolleyes:
All this stuff about pistol grips, etc. strikes me as smoke and mirrors used to confuse the issue.
How many rounds a minute can it fire? How many rounds can it fire before having to reload? How long does it take to reload? Base your regulations on things like that. Why do pistol grips have to even enter into the discussion?
Because the last version of an assault weapon ban in this country contained the following criteria:
-
Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock Pistol grip Bayonet mount Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device that enables launching or firing rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those mounted externally).Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm.Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock Pistol grip Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds Detachable magazine.*
Essentially, that law banned “scary guns” while similar weapons with somewhat different cosmetic features were allowed. It was a stupid, feel good law that did nothing useful. As such, it is roundly mocked as typical gun grabber bullshit.
You’re pissing in the wind. I tried that in another thread, and was roundly ridiculed. Apparently there is an 18th century weapon that could hold 20 rounds that the poster above tried to pretend was akin to a machine gun (and aren’t I such an idiot for not knowing that such a thing existed!). When I looked it up, it turns out to be an air gun that would require several minutes, and furious hand pumping, about 1500 strokes apparently, of the air chambers, to fire those 20 rounds. But, somehow because such a thing existed in the 18th century, we should all be armed to the teeth with whatever we feel like today. Or something.
I’m being told that rational gun control, as you and I are attempting to define it, is impossible, and it is pushing me further and further into the irrational ban them all gun control camp.
Oakminster,
That is the problem. Reframe the issue away from such minutia and it becomes easy, bullshit terms like “gun grabber” aside.
What the hell does some 18th century gun have to do with anything? Set some limits on the capabilities of the weapons that can be owned by private individuals.
Don’t try to ban this or that class of weapon. When you do that you fall into the trap of trying to define things.
Place limits on the capabilities of anything that fires a projectile. Have ATF test every existing and new model.
The gun lobby deliberately complicates things and the gun control advocates fall for it.
“Assault Weapons” are not functionally distinct from many common and useful hunting guns. Any functional definition is going to end up banning a lot of hunters guns that advocates of “sensible” gun regulation have long been assuring hunters that they have no desire to ban.
What defined an “Assault Weapon” in the expired ban was essentially that it looked bad-ass and scary.
So either you have to give up on assuring hunters that you are not out for their guns, or you have a bullshit law based on purely aesthetic features like pistol grips etc.
And just to be clear, when the last AWB was instituted, violent crime statistics continued the decline they had been on for several years. When it expired, violent crime statistics continued the decline they had been on for several years. This in spite of huge surges in sales when the ban was instituted (before it took effect) and after it expired.
This is because, despite the label, “Assault Weapons” have never had a big role in violent crime. They are too expensive and bulky to conceal. Criminals prefer cheaper, handier guns.
The Rugar 10/22 is a .22 caliber rifle suitable for plinking. Something that I bought for my son as his first gun.
Here is a image of two. The one on top is what they look like out of the box. The one on the bottom is the same gun with some cosmetic and funtional accessories. But it is the same gun.
So which one are we banning? The scary looking one?
I’m gun-ignorant, so forgive me, but by what measure is that the same gun? Is that akin to calling a Porsche and a SMART the same car? Or are they really pretty much the same gun except they look (a lot) different? Honestly ignorant here and looking for factual answers. Thanks.
Sigh. Fiveyearlurker is right. Nothing but distraction and refusing to get the point.
No, they are the same gun. A better analogy would be allowing standard Porsches to be sold but not Porsches that have fancy rims and chrome tailpipes because those would be unsafe.
The actual gun consists of the barrel, trigger and receiver. That determines the function. The extra stuff like the black composite stock are simply cosmetic and don’t change anything about how it works. The scope and tripod add some function but those are common on lots of target shooting and hunting guns. You can’t do anything with the bottom gun than you can with the top one. In fact, the top (plain) one would be preferable to use in an actual shooting because it isn’t loaded down with a bunch of extra crap.
I noticed that “scary looking” has become the new condescending talking point as if gun aficionados are so learned and we couldn’t possibly wrap our heads around the finer aspects of such a complicated piece of machinery.
To answer your question, if they are truly the same gun functionally, they would either both be banned or both be acceptable depending on the statistics with regard to capacity, firing rate and reload speed.
If someone uses terms like “scary looking” and “gun grabbers” I know where they’re coming from and that they have no interest in having an intellectually honest conversation.
Part of the problem is that past “assault weapons” laws focused on the cosmetic. It has a flash supressor and a pistol grip… it’s illegal. It has neither, but fires the same bullet from the same length barrel with the same muzzle velocity, same fire rate, and same magazine options, that one is totally legal. Lousy law.
The problem with firing rate is that these are semi-automatic weapons. One trigger pull = one bullet. Unless you outlaw semi-auto entirely, you’re stuck with the fire rate being as fast as you can pull a trigger.
I think the only way to functionally ratchet down the firepower is to restrict magazine capacity. 5 bullets + 1 in the chamber. 6 was good enough for Dirty Harry, right? If someone wants to shoot up a theater or a school, he’ll need to carry a lot of magazines, and spend a lot of time changing them instead of shooting people. If you want to go hunting or plinking, you can do that with 6 as well.
Oh, and if you want it to have teeth, no grandfathering, you turn in your existing magazines and get reimbursed the cost of new ones.
Okay. Consider me educated on semi-automatics and firing rate. Maybe it’s possible to somehow mechanically limit how fast a trigger can be pulled or how fast the next round is available? Maybe not. If not, limiting clip size seems reasonable.
Of course then it comes down to “how many kids should someone be able to kill between reloads” and I have some difficulty with that discussion, but maybe it’s unavoidable.
Is there any real hunting or self-defense need for a semi-automatic?
Hunting with a semiautomatic is not a bad idea. If you botch your first shot for whatever reason it makes sense to be able to put another round downrange without having to cock and re-sight. Better for the hunt, probably better for the critter you just maimed.
As a gun-loving liberal I could get onboard with this. I can’t think of many (any?) non-assault applications that require a steady rate of fire for more than 6 shots. Although I’d miss my .22 long rifle semiauto which is just plain fun because there’s negligible recoil.
Sighting in? 3-4 verification shots per group, right? Target practice? Dunno about you, but my deer rifle kicks like a mule and I don’t really enjoy popping off more than 4 or 5 rounds without a break. Hunting? If you can’t drop it and/or kill it in 3 (2 really) shots I’m not sure I want to share the forest with you. And I sure as hell don’t want to be anywhere near you if your deer hunt ever goes, “BLAMBLAMBLAMBLAMBLAMBLAM…Dang, missed 'im!”
Ignorance fought. Thanks.
Does it maybe come down to bagging a few less deer but saving a few more children? Is that a fair question?
The “looks scary” verbiage is due to the fact that the last AWB focused on exactly that. Detachable magazines were the only feature that defined an assault weapon that could possibly change the outcome if a kook on a rampage used one, yet without several other purely cosmetic features, detachable magazines were deemed A-OK.
If the point was not to ban certain guns that “look scary”, then what the heck was the point of that law?
Okay, I admit it was a purely rhetorical question. The point of the law was to be the thin end of a wedge, banning some guns that were not popular for hunting, so as to avoid the wrath of hunters. Like our AHCA, It was what the anti-gun lobby could manage to get passed at the time, so they settled for it and set to work on more extensive bans. They didn’t count on the pushback though…like democrats losing the house and Shrub squeaking out an electoral victory. That bill cost dems control of congress and the white house, and they realized it was toxic, so the AWB was left to expire.
Do we know for a fact that that bill is what cause them to lose congress and the White House, or is that just speculation? Are there polls supporting that claim?