How many children do you think you’re going to save with an assault weapon ban? 10 a year? I’d guess zero, since I’m pretty sure the VT shooter didnt even have one.
Seriously, I think we need to have a discussion about the 10,000+ gun deaths we experience every year. I don’t think we need to craft our legislation on the 20 per year that make for really bad stories.
My post was meant to be informative.
I did use the term “scary looking” because that is all these black military looking guns are. They are no different in functionality than their tame looking counter parts with a wood stock.
One thing that’s kind of bugged me in the last couple days is the number of TV pundits refering to the Bushmaster AR and proclaiming “These guns are not used for hunting!.” In fact they are. They are extremely popular with coyote hunters. They are light, accurate, allow for quick follow up shots or to quickly bag more than one coyote. There are numerous AR packages specifically marketed to coyote hunters.
Oddly, the ammo used in most AR style guns (.223) is not allowed for deer hunting because of insufficient stopping power.
Not really. Ideally a hunter is a sniper who drops his critter with one shot through the heart & lungs, or maybe he can pull of a shot to the C2 vertibra, both resulting in a quick, clean kill. In the real world all kinds of crazy shit can happen–maybe you under/overestimate your bullet drop, maybe the critter flinches just as you shoot–and you either get that second shot off fast or you have a wounded critter running off in pain & terror to feed a cougar tomorrow. Or the next day. I don’t know anyone who’s gone out with a pair of doe tags and stumbled on a herd full of good targets they felt they needed to fire into and “thank gawd I had me this here semiautomatic deer-mower with me!” I’m sure it happens, but the hunters I know (and maybe we’re just weird this way) would prefer to kill one cleanly and get to the truck ASAP and come back later for another.
[deleted – very poor taste addition]
Plus…in my post above I meant to say that .223 is not allowed for hunting deer in some places.
I am discussing every death. My point was, how many gun deaths is it worth to bag a few more deer? I was discussing semi-automatics with Inigo Montoya, not assault weapons. “Assault weapon” seems to be too fuzzy a term to use for meaningful discussion or legislation. I know that this thread is about “assault weapons” so I can understand the confusion.
davidm, in the right hands and with the right plan any firearm/combination of firearms can take out 20 kids and 8 grown ups. Without going into a detailed scenario, semiautos are useful for carnage, but not at all necessary. Pretty much if it goes BANG it’s effective for a devastating assault on humans no matter what rate of fire you can achieve. Same with a baseball bat.
The problem is not the tools used, but the people who think the deed is a worthwhile endeavor.
I can’t speak to rifles, but I know that (semi) automatic shotguns are vastly preferred when hunting birds (with Quail being the only possible exception). Most will only shoot 5 rounds before reloading.
Regardless, most shooting deaths, especially those associated with violent crimes, are the result of handguns. Talking about assault weapons or other semi-automatic rifles is probably a waste of time.
That is not a fair question. Millions of guns exist that have never been used against a human being. Most gunowners are law abiding citizens. The regulations you seem to favor will impose a burden on them without making anyone safer from criminals. Why do you care what type of weapons I have? I’m not going to shoot anyone unless forced to do it in self defense or defense of another. Why should I have to jump through hoops to appease the gun grabbers when I’m not a criminal?
I’m a Life Member of the NRA, I own more than a handful of guns, and some of them are semi-automatic.
That said, I’m 100% behind a ban on magazines with a 10+ round capacity (excluding .22LR, I guess), and even in favor of making their possession illegal. That is the limiting factor in how many times you can shoot without reloading.
I know all of the arguments against this (it doesn’t take that long to change magazines, magazines are easy to manufacture, we need them to fight off the gubmint/UN/ aliens/Hitler II, blah, blah, blah) but I don’t buy it anymore. Make a guy change magazines or change weapons and you’ve given someone an opportunity to tackle the bastard, or maybe they’ll use the last shot in the magazine on their own head as seems to be the modus operandi with these monsters…
Just off the top of my head I am going to guess that only a tiny percentage of guns used in shooting sprees ever killed a deer (or any other game for that matter).
That being said, why can’t we discuss limitations on semi-automatics?
As I hunter I know that generally a bolt action rifle does the job just as well. And with a little practice can provide almost as quick a follow-up shot. This idea that without semi-autos the world will be full of wounded deer is BS. The reality is that semi-autos most often allow guys with “buck fever” to take a whole series of “pot shots” at running deer. In my opinion adding to the number of wounded and suffering animals, not reducing them.
I think sportsmen could get along just fine without semi-auto. However I don’t suggest a complete ban. Law enforcement has a legitimate need and perhaps a few other niche uses. I’d propose progressively tightening restrictions on semi-autos with caps on production until they are as difficult to obtain as full auto. Unattainable on a whim. Attainable for the determined and sane.
Then I’d move on to handguns. Well, actually I’d start here. All handguns should be heavily restricted with the exception for some professions, handicap hunters*, and the determined collector.
*The type of handguns favored by big game hunters don’t lend themselves to large capacity or easy concealment.
If magazine size is your compromise (and it’s not unreasonable IMHO) you have to include the .22LR. It’s a lethal enough round and you can get a lot of 'em into a single target really quickly without attracting a lot of attention. Every bit as dangerous as a bigger/hotter round, maybe moreso.
This.
My guess is that its because there are millions of them already out there. A buyback or confiscation program isn’t going to work in the US.
I know, I just didn’t want to give up the 25rd magazines I have for my 10/22. They’re so convenient! But you’re correct, I suppose they’ll have to go as well.
I think if you want a workable foundation, you have to exclude the .22LR for now. Too entrenched as the sport shooters economical choice.
New production of semi-auto can be eliminated, but I think you hold off on buy backs of that weapon until programs for other popular classes have been established and matured. I think buy backs (with an honest assessment* of value) are the key to getting any kind of meaningful reduction in the near term.
*in other words, none of this “there is no more market” so 1/3 what you paid for it yesterday is fair.
Assuming we could find a version that would pass muster with enough of the US population…
It would need to have a way to turn in any non-compliant weapons already on the market without penalty. Thus the need for an amnesty period.
There would need to be compensation for the monetary value invested in these weapons. Thus the buy-back plan with fair appraisal values.
For any registered weapons, there could be a notification and followup home inspection, but that would be aggressive and some would feel to invasive. That kind of plan would feed into the “they’re coming for my guns” mentality that triggers resistance. People would be hiding guns, claiming they sold them without records, or else selling them without records to each other, etc.
And then there are plenty of them that aren’t registered. No way for government to know they exist to hunt them down. Other than people ratting them out. Fostering a sense of communistic spying on your neighbors kind of thing.
Better policy is a buy back with amnesty, but if the authorities find them otherwise (through other kinds of police actions), they will be treated to the full extent of the law, no grandfathering.
Also, the law would need to target actual features that make the weapons “more dangerous”, rather than cosmetics. Primarily limiting magazine sizes.
See this picture: http://modernsurvivalonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/ruger_banner.jpg
Those two guns are effectively the same weapon. The mechanism that holds the bullet in the chamber, fires the bullet, and ejects the round and reloads, is the same mechanism.
The black stock vs the wood stock is cosmetic, and so is the stock. The pistol grip is a comfort feature that does not really affect the handling of the weapon, the wood stock has a similar grip feature integrated in the wood. Same thing for the forward grip.
The telescope and the tripod are functional features, but make the weapon slightly more suited for sniper work. A close combat situation like shooting up a mall is going to be the same for both weapons, with the scope perhaps being a slight hindrance (if trying to use it) and the tripod being a snag hazard/weight penalty.
The primary functional difference between those two guns is the magazine. The bottom one has a large detachable magazine, meaning it can carry more rounds and easily be exchanged. The top appears to have an integral magazine only, i.e. the magazine is a tube under the barrel inside the wooden shell. It probably carries 5 or 6 rounds max. Bullets are loaded into that magazine one at a time through the bottom of the gun just in front of the trigger, like a shotgun.
What that means is that the top gun is going to be just as dangerous for those first 5 or 6 rounds, but then the shooter must stop to reload the magazine, or else treat it like a bolt-action. It will dramatically slow down his shooting rate.
I think an even more effective change would be to eliminate removable magazines and have a 6 shot integral magazine limit, or something. Maybe even 3 shots.
In shotguns, semi-auto allows things like bird hunters to get off multiple shots at groups of birds. In rifles, it can be useful when hunting things like coyotes or hogs, where you are shooting to kill off nuisance animals rather than taking prey. Rapid fire means possibly multiple kills.
For self defense, semi-auto is very useful. Suppose your house is being broken into by a group of burglars/home invaders. Rapid multi-fire is a big advantage to stopping the attack. Semi-auto rifles are less useful in other self-defense situations because you’re not likely to have one handy when the street thug comes out of an alley. But semi-auto handguns are very useful in that situation. First shot might not put him down.
The standard magazine for the Ruger 10/22 (the rifle pictured) is a 10-round rotary, removable magazine.
It fits in exactly the same place as the larger-capacity magazine, and when inserted is invisible from a profile view. The top weapon may very well have a loaded magazine.
The rounds are loaded into the top of the magazine while it is removed from the weapon, and then the magazine is inserted. Apart from capacity, there is really functionally no difference between the two.
I’m not a Life Member, but I am a member, and I also own more than a handful of firearms.
I, too, would (grudgingly) agree to a 10+ round capacity magazine restriction. Tell you what, if I turn in a 30-round mag, I want three 10’s in return.
ETA: Not just .22LR, but .22 HMR as well.
New Jersey still has an assault weapons ban. A friend of mine has a SKS. It has a bayonet that folds back along the stock like some AKs do. It is perfectly legal. However if it had a bayonet lug it would be illegal. So permanently attached bayonet ok, the potential to attach a bayonet not ok. That is why many feel like pulling their hair out when talking about the assault weapons ban. It really is a stupid law.
Why not? What if we offered to buy them back at list price, with expedited approval for the purchase of a revolver or pump shotgun?
Watching the local news. They went to the big gun store here in town. They described the scene as “Black Friday like” with AR-15s “flying off the shelves.” They said customers were wanting to beat the anticipated bans.
