Lab, it is commonsense, especially in the context of spree killings. The two most notorious recent sprees both involved semi automatic rifles, legal ones. Further, semis are overkill for both hunting and home protection.
And I don’t even think home protection is a legitimate use for firearms. I think this way for two reasons. First, keeping a firearm in your home increases your chances for violent death. Second, they don’t do anything when you’re not home-- which is when most homes need protecting.
I expect that most Americans think that home protection is a legitimate use, so it’s not like my opinion matters. You really don’t want to hear my opinion on handguns.
I would have no problem with a ban on all semi automatic rifles. I would also not have a problem with allowing them used for sport shooting, provided they were kept in a licensed club or some sort of facility. I don’t really expect either thing to happen, I only note that there appears to be some public support for a ban on semi automatic rifles.
I felt that Kobol did a good job.
What I want doesn’t matter much, we were talking about what Americans want, and that includes you, right? So I asked you what restrictions you favor. You said you have some.
If the problem of spree killing is to be addressed, there needs to be meaningful reductions in the firepower available to ordinary citizens. Do you agree with that?
Good grief, no. My former Browning Hi-Power and my current Ruger P89 are both 9mm Parabellum, and are dramatically different in feel, handling, and design.
I can’t say I’m surprised that a thread started specifically to demean American attitude towards guns have turned into another one with people frothing at their pedantic mouths.
The only serious reply came on the third post and the rest is useless words strung together with “you idiots” being tossed around. As if that will really make people want to understand where you are coming from. Hilarious, too because it was pointed out early on:
The whole culture is sick. Individually, there are some good people, but as a group, Americans are utterly useless.
No, I think spree killings need to be very, very far down the list of things that should be addressed, if at all. Even if you wanted to address it, banning semi-auto hunting rifles would not save one single life. You have yet to address the fact that you are proposing to ban a class of guns that don’t have any part in spree killings.
Even if you ban assault weapons (which I couldn’t give 2 shits about), it wouldn’t save a single life. Most spree killings happen with handguns and handguns would simply become 100% of the problem if assault weapons were unavailable.
The first thing we need to do is try our best to get a solid accounting of all the guns that exist in the US. Strict registration laws, followed by annual renewals, for starters. Serious jail time for anyone who owns or uses a gun illegally might help a great deal, but I’d like to hear criticisms from other gun owners on those points.
Not to turn this into the kind of technical discussion that sets non-gun enthusiasts’ teeth on edge, but the two guns have more in common than they do in the way of differences. Both use the John M. Browning-designed tilting barrel action. They use the same cartridge. Their primary differences are in esthetic details and manufacturing techniques. The Browning High Power is an all-steel gun that used extensive forging and milling, though more recent examples have a cast steel frame. The Ruger was designed from the ground up to take advantage of investment casting which Ruger has always used extensively. The use of casting and a light alloy frame did result in some added bulk compared to the rather more svelte Browning. Overall? Very similar guns that fill the same niche.
The M1 most certainly is not an assault rifle, it is a semi-automatic magazine fed self loading rifle - just like every hunting rifle out there today that isn’t bolt-action. It has never been called an assault rifle; indeed the term ‘assault rifle’ wasn’t even in existence when the M1 entered service. Being semi-automatic and having a limited capacity of rounds is not what separates assault rifles from hunting rifles, in fact the M1 fits perfectly the description you just provided. The M1 has an 8 round magazine; 5-10 round magazines were and are the norm for semi-automatic and bolt-action rifles. Every hunting rifle out there is either semi-automatic or bolt-action, both of which were used by militaries world wide in the first half of last century. Again, the most widely civilian owned rifle in the Western world used for both hunting and target shooting is the Mosin-Nagant,
The m1 carbine most certainly has, because of the detachable box mag. In fact, I’ve heard it referred to as the first assault rifle. What I think you mean is that it wasn’t included in the federal assault weapons ban. It is included in the New Jersey assault weapons ban, I believe. Regardless, I don’t really know of anyone who would refer to the carbine as a hunting rifle first.
Depends on your definition of assault rifle, I guess. In addition to the >10 round capacity box magazine, it would need one addition feature out of a list of 3 or 4 attributes. I think that’s right for the federal ban. Like I said, it’s illegal in NJ under their ban.
Regardless, it isn’t an example of a hunting rifle.
I think your thinking of the Assault Weapon ban. Assault Rifles (select fire) where put under strict regulations in '34 and then again in '86 (well, they didn’t really exist in '34, but full auto did).
How would an SKS strike your fancy, then ? Maybe monsieur would prefer a .22LR (model unspecified and my Google-fu doesn’t help here, but the most popular 22LR hunting rifle in the US by a large margin - the Ruger 10/22 - is a semi, often fitted with a 25-round box mag) ?
I eagerly await the new and interesting semantic games you’ll have to play to weasel your way out of those two.
Soviet Military carbines are not hunting rifles, for Pete’s sake. That isn’t fucking semantics, no matter how much you want to try and poison the well with your language.
.22 rifles aren’t even on the table. They’re still legal even in the UK, which probably has the world’s strictest gun laws. On top of that, I have no idea what the gun used in Saipan (seriously?) even was, other than caliber.
They’re used specifically for deer hunting by millions of Americans, for Keith’s sake. Wikipedia even lists one of its nicknames as “the poor man’s deer rifle” and notes its popularity in the South.
What’s unserious about Saipan ? It’s part of the US, isn’t it ?
But if you want a homegrown 22LR spree killer, by all means, have one. Have another (this one specifically listed as a 10/22). But of course, you already predictably moved the goalposts. Tssk, tssk.
Oh, well. Mini-14 ? Who’s up for a Mini-14 ? C’mon, everybody loves the Ranch Rifle. Model 44 Ruger carbine then ? No True Hunting Rifles either ?
I’ve repeatedly said that anyone can take any rifle into the field they so desire, but a 10-round capacity Soviet military carbine is not called a hunting rifle.
And you accused me of semantics? Hilarious.
No I didn’t.
Evidently, that shooter didnt. All his victims were killed by a shotgun.
That may be legitimate, though i need to read the details. What is that, 3 or 4 dead bodies over the past century? Thanks for helping with my point.
You’d be out of step with the majority on that point. Spree killings will surely be considered a problem by most Americans. And again, the two most notorious of the recent spree killings in the US involved semi automatic rifles.
What are the more important gun problems confronting the US as you see them?
How could you possibly know that an assault weapon ban wouldn’t save a single life? Anyway, we were talking about semi automatics.
Well, I can see a problem with your approach-- simply because a weapon is legal is no guarantee that it will not be used in a massacre. I saw a recent article summarizing notorious US shootings. Nearly all used legally-purchased weapons.
What about a ban on extended magazines? What about background checks? A ban on gun show sales and private sales? All of those ideas have some public support among Americans.
What are the practical reasons why you want to protect semi automatic rifles? They aren’t particularly popular for hunting. They’re great for sport shooting, granted, but dynamite is great for fishing and nobody is urging legalizing TNT for sportsmen.
The reason why I would prefer a ban on semi automatics over an assault weapon ban is that the distinction is clearer. “Assault weapon” doesn’t mean much to me. It looks to be akin to a marketing term, like “adaptive combat rifle”. I gather that under the former assault weapon ban that manufacturers could simply change the style of their product and keep selling the same guns.
