Some are intrinsically much faster than others, specifically the ones designed to be modifiable to fully-automatic. (ETA: or, if you want to be pedantic, the ones that are modified versions of guns that were originally fully-automatic, but which have downgraded semi-automatic versions.)
Yes, I acknowledged that in my first post: in WWI, bolt-action rifles did considerable slaughter.
I see this pop up from time to time and it usually refers to filing down the sear so that the hammer doesn’t catch when it gets knocked back by the action and will just keep firing until the magazine is empty. Filing down your sear basically means you empty your entire magazine (in a matter of a couple of seconds) when you pull the trigger. Noone does this on purpose.
If you mean dremelling the lower receiver and drilling holes into it so that it can receive a select fire trigger set then you are right back where you started, those trigger sets are not available for purchase by the general public.
It depends on how you define developed country. If you define developed country to mean any country with a lower murder rate than the USA you would be correct but unless you exclude a shitload of latin american countries, A shitload of former soviet countries, and practically the entire continent of Africa, you would be wrong. If developed countries means east Asian countries and western europe, and former english colonies then, you would probably be correct.
Cite?
There are plenty of things that gun rights activists support. Banning guns is not the only way (or even an effective way) to save lives.
You realize that the concept of closing gun show loopholes is entirely consumed by universal background checks, right?
Heck, ban the manufacture and sale of semi-automatic firearms, while easing access to pump- and bolt-action rifles and shotguns and single/double-action revolvers. Then wait forty years for the “more bullets = cooler” attitude to die off.
And while you’re at it, get me a pony.
No. Not one. Not a single one has seen measurable positive results from an assault weapons ban (banning a subset of semi-automatic rifles based on mostly costmetic and ergonomic features).
There are countries that have banned semiautomatic weapons but noone is proposing that. And there is no evidence that it makes a difference.
Australia is the prime example of a semiautomatic weapons ban that people put forward but when you are talking about a country that wasn’t having very many of them to begin with, its hardly surprising that they haven’t had any.
If we compare Australia with New Zealand, (a nearby, culturally similar country with no ban on semiautomatic weapons) and they ALSO have not had a mass shooting since Australia passed their law.
The ban of a subset of rifles will not work to any great effect no matter what. The fact that there are a shitload of them already out there is a second hurdle that you have to overcome but lets start with first things first. Show some evidence that this will make any fucking difference at all.
The one being proposed is in fact ineffective. If you wanted to ban all firearms, I think that it would have an effect after several decades of an unarmed populace facing a well armed criminal element. But noone seems to be proposing that.
Well it might help your cause if you cold distinguish between the good ideas and the really shitty ones.
What if, instead of an outright ban, some weapons were confined to ranges? You could still own the weapons and fire them at places that had permits and had to pass regular safety inspections. With some hoops to jump through, you could get very short term “transport permits” that allow you to transport them to another range. Self-transport permits have more stringent legal and background requirements than simply owning and firing one at a range, but you could pay for some registered entity to transport them between ranges (or competitions, etc) for you. If they’re not checked in at the range you declared you would transport them to by the time the permit expires, you’d be reported to the authorities.
For safety, we could say that ammo also has to be stored at the range, and can’t be transported at the same time as the gun itself. Though maybe that’s too far. At the very least, this would require at least one co-conspirator to fire one of these weapons outside a range.
Hell, for extremely stringent background check requirements, you could even get very temporary (a couple day long) permits that allow you to take the gun and shoot it in your back yard or the woods or wherever you damn well please.
If you wanted one for display purposes, you have to have the range it’s stored at cement/plug the barrel or otherwise disable the gun in a way that makes it very hard or impossible to reactivate.
That preserves the tradition and fun of range or sport shooting, and allows people to brag about their cool guns to their friends, but gives a much better idea of who and where the more dangerous guns are at any given time.
There are downsides to this, of course. Storage fees, and storage insurance costs for the ranges, but I think it’s a pretty fair compromise. There are also some benefits for the ranges in that ranges get more guaranteed repeat business because people will be moving to different ranges less often.
This allows more of a gradation than a strict binary “weapons ban” where a lot of people can have or use certain guns, but it becomes increasingly more difficult to move it around and use it illegally.
This approach actually works with regard to fully automatic weapons. There are specialized ranges where you can go and fire machine guns.
Trinopus, can you give a specific example of a semi-automatic rifle with an acceptably low “cycle rate?”
And there are hundreds or thousands of people the FBI investigates who never kill anyone. Should we medicate or observe all of them? How about all the militia men out West who deny the authority of the government and actual threaten people. Imagine the joy of the Muslim haters if we threw all them in jail. Are you for that?
Saying retrospectively we should have known that one guy was going to do something and 999 weren’t is kind of stupid - I wonder if there is a name for this kind of fallacy. But if you want to be sure you can throw them all into internment camps - maybe the Japanese ones are still in good shape.
Also BTW, if you blame the FBI for this then you had better blame Bush for 9/11, since he did get warned. Not that he planned it, just that he ignored the warning.
(post shortened)
Ahem - People knew this monster. They knew he was planning to commit mass murder. Co-workers, family members, and the FBI were aware that there was something terribly wrong with this guy. Why was this monster not medicated or under observation BEFORE he became the mass murderer he wanted to be?
“Retrospectively?” Prior to this jihadi mass murder, people participated in this monster’s preparations for a mass murder spree. Co-workers had informed authorities that this monster was planning a jihadi attack.
I wonder who in Obama’s FBI had closed the case file on this Muslim’s strange behaviors? And why they chose to close it?
Because he hadn’t committed a crime and did not appear to be about to commit one.
If you want the FBI to keep tabs on every American whose neighbor or co-workers reports as suspicious, or who has stupid or hateful ideas, you’re going to need something a lot more like the Stasi than the FBI.
Most Americans do not want an American Stasi. Yet.
Well if you included all weapons that were based off of designs that were once used by the military you would be talking about almost every firearm outside of few novelty items like the KSG and derringers.
Trinopus, full-auto weapons are virtually never used in crimes. The last big incident I can recall is the North Hollywood shootout in the '90’s. And those guys managed to kill no one but themselves. I don’t understand your concern with them. It seems that you’re trying to solve a problem that doesn’t exist (at least not in any meaningful way).
You realize that “end the gun show loophole” and “require background checks” is the same thing, right?
making me criminally liable for the criminal acts of others (absent criminal acts of my own) is a pretty novel proposal. Can you give me an example of any other situation where do this? Heck, can you give me an example of when society holds me CIVILLY liable for the criminal acts of others where I have not at least been negligent?
Neither here nor there but clip fed weapons are different than magazine fed weapons in that the clip automatically ejects when you fire the last round in the clip so you don’t have to remove the clip before you insert the next one. I could literally load a clip into a weapon in less than a second after the empty clip ejects.
Dram shop laws, obviously.
I think you are letting the term “mil spec” confuse you. Do you know why the AR-15 is so popular? One reason is that it is modular. You can fit any upper receiver (the part with the barrel) on any lower receiver (the part with the trigger and stock) because they both conform to “mil spec”. Mil spec is mostly about dimensions and tolerances and shit like that so that all the parts from one gun are interchangeable with parts from another gun. Gun accessory manufacturers manufacture parts and accessories to fit on mil spec guns.
For example the Sig Sauer has an AR-15 platform guns series that is NOT mil spec. it is superior to most of the mil-spec AR-15s out there but it uses proprietary specifications so some of the sizes are different so you can’t just take any AR-15 front barrel shroud and put it on a Sig AR-15 it has to be one made specifically for my that rifle.
Perhaps the term mil spec means something more to people who don’t know what the term means but the primary purpose of “mil spec” is to assure the buyer that the parts on their gun will be interchangeable with commonly available parts accessories.
I don’t see why they couldn’t cross that line and just say “this is the assault weapon you’ve always wanted” For the most part mil spec means that these guns are more or less fungible so they differentiate themselves along a few lines.
They use higher quality parts. Nickel/boron bolt carrier group means that the carbon doesn’t stick to them as much and require less cleaning. Hammer forged steel barrels and magnetic particle testing mean they are more durable and will fire more shots before the rifling wears out. etc.
They have neat little doodads that come with the gun: the gun might come with a sleek functional quad rail that lets you stick a shitload of attachments that you will never need on the gun.
They have women in bikinis presenting the gun at trade shows and in advertisements. They appeal to some macho impulse, etc. Pretty much everything that Madison avenue has devised to sell stuff like guns, grills, tools, pick-ups, beer, etc. to a largely male audience.
If you’re smart you ignore number three, only buy something from list two if you would have bought it separately and focus on quality. Who cares if they used unicorn tears to polish the gun, who cares if Phoebe Cates is the spokesmodel for the gun?