Okay; I’ll accept that. I think there is some historicity to Tommy Guns in the gangster era, but not as much as Hollywood makes out. It isn’t totally made-up.
Here’s at least one cite… The actual Tommy Guns used in the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre.
But, yeah, Hollywood habitually overstates things.
That weapon is fully automatic, not semi-automatic. We’re talking about a practical difference in the cyclic rate of fire of semi-automatics.
This is justly silly. A semi-auto Schmeisser can fire no faster than any other semi-auto. The limiting factory if the operators finger, not the weapon.
This is why we don’t like people who don’t understand guns making gun policy.
BTW, there is a semi-auto version of the “Schmeisser”, on sale now, or soon to be.
All the hemming and hawing over definitions.
Just ban anything with a clip as an ammo source. You can have revolvers, lever-action rifles and pump action shotguns.
Yes you can shoot many of these weapons as fast as a semi-auto. The point here is the shooter is slowed down because of the need to re-load. That allows potential victims more time to get away than they would have if the shooter had a semi-auto with a high capacity magazine and quick(er) reload clips.
Not ideal I know. No guns would be better but we are stuck with the 2nd amendment so we can do this. Yes, people will still get shot. A lot of people will still get shot but it will be more difficult to injure/kill ~100 people in one go.
Which will do- what? I mean it wont prevent mass shootings. It wont prevent murders- since rifles are used in about 2% of crimes.
It might, just might, hold down the number of casualties once in a great while.
Well, what are you trying to fix, exactly? You want to broadly ban a huge swath of guns (which won’t be lost on any gun owners at all…nor the fact that this would be seen as merely your first step, given your attitude), on the basis of events that almost never happen (i.e. ‘injure/kill ~100 people in one go’, something that has as yet not happened in the US, and I only know of one event where it did. Norway)? Do you see this as a reasonable compromise given your stated rationale for it?
nm
Holding down casualties would be a good start in my view.
A longer time needed to shoot seems a benefit when a shooter is intent on mass murder. It would allow more time for people to get away once they realize what is going on.
Nm as well…
Can you demonstrate that it WOULD hold down casualties, though? I mean, even making the (IMHO unwarranted) assumption that you COULD somehow ban all the semi-automatic rifles, how many casualties are you thinking this would prevent yearly? If we are talking mass shootings, we are talking about a very small number of people even today, when we have all those semi-automatic weapons. So, what’s your estimate? Does it justify what this would entail? :dubious:
Yes it is my first step.
Guns should be banned outright. Full stop.
There is no legitimate use for them anymore. Hunting might be as close as you get to a “legitimate” use but I find killing things for sun reprehensible too. If you need to do it to survive then fine but no hunter in the US needs to do it to survive in this day and age.
But we have the 2nd amendment and that is not going away so the question becomes what can be done within that and I see no reason why you cannot ban every weapon with clips or over certain ammo capacities or really any feature.
Go back to muskets as the only allowable firearm ideally but I’ll settle for revolvers and lever action rifles and double-barrel shotguns.
Target shooting, it’s a Olympic sport.
Trap & Skeet shooting.Olympic sport.
Collecting.
Home defense.
Police.
Security guards.
And there are certainly hunters in Alaska, especially amoung Native Americans, who depend upon hunting for food.
Sure.
Why do militaries and police and individuals prefer the higher capacity magazines and higher rate of fire?
If you are asserting they are no more lethal than lower ammo capacity weapons then you should not be fussed to not have access to them right? The Orlando shooter could have done as well with a six shooter revolver as he did with a semi-auto rifle.
Police and military are, of course, a special case. They already have access to weapons your average Joe doesn’t (ok…not sure about police unless you get to SWAT and such…military certainly does).
As for security guards if you want to make a special class that requires extensive training and licensing to be allowed to carry a weapon I’m cool with that. You realize most police and security guards in Great Britain are not armed and somehow they manage. A gun is not required for these things.
Home defense is dubious at best. In fact, statistics show a gun in the home is far more likely to kill you than it is to save you from an intruder seeking to do you harm.
As for hunters humans managed without guns to do it for the vast majority of human history so they are clearly not required. That said I’m fine with something like a bolt action, single shot rifle being allowed.
So no…not persuaded even a little bit.
No, I’m asserting that the lives lost are very small, while the political cost to actually attempt to do what you are proposing is…well, pretty much off the charts. The vast majority of gun deaths in the US wouldn’t be prevented by your measures…and even THOSE deaths are relatively small, again compared to the costs of trying to do what you are planning.
Yes, I got that. I understand. And so do the pro-gun folks.
Yes, that’s your opinion. I get that. YOU don’t find any legitimate use for guns, including hunting. And when you become God King of America you can wave your hand and have your will made reality. Unfortunately, in the mean time, there are literally hundreds of millions of Americans who disagree with you to one degree or another.
Well, the 2nd itself doesn’t seem to lead itself to such a broad based banning. I assume you understand that you are talking about most guns out there. And there is the rub that, even if you got the clips banned back to some arbitrary number of bullets allowed (6? 4? 2? Some other number you arbitrarily picked today?) it wouldn’t stop the majority of gun deaths in the US. It probably wouldn’t prevent things like Orlando either. And it would come at an unbelievable political cost to try and do it (I actually think ‘impossible’ is more realistic…certainly ‘very, very difficult’).
Well, as long as you will settle for that I guess we are good. 
Convince a majority of Americans to feel the same and you might get somewhere…
Already answered above.
Thank you for the misguided insult. The actual matter has been addressed already. Some guns can be modified to become fully automatic, and there are little electric (or even spring wound) gizmos that can pull a trigger faster than a finger can. The limitation is not the operator’s finger.
Lever action rifles feed ammo from a magazine, and so do pump-action shotguns.
If I read this correctly, you would seem to want to be any semi-automatic weapon, and require every shot to be prepared by a significant physical action on the part of the shooter.
You do not know that and even if you are correct it is near certain you would not have 100 casualties in the Orlando shooting.
If pro-gun folks had ever, in all of history, been ok with some reasonable restrictions perhaps some accommodation could be made.
But very few (too few) pro-gun folks have ever been in favor of reasonable restrictions on guns.
Thing is, the pro-gun folks are a minority in the world. They are a majority in the US because they have some sort of fetish for them but pretty much everywhere else thinks the US in nuts on this issue and they get on just fine.
Yes, lot of Americans disagree with me. Lots of Americans do drugs too which is not good for them or the country. What of it?
We have abundant data that guns are a scourge in the United States. Can you think of any other product which causes so much death and injury in the US that we tolerate because we enjoy it as a sport and has almost no practical use?
The 2nd Amendment says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Thing is we already infringe on that. No surprise there. No constitutional right is without its limitations…none are absolute.
So sure, the courts can seem the restriction to mean whatever they say it means. That is not the case to day of course but perhaps a court in the future will say you can have the same personal firearms that people had in 1792 when it was passed (well…1791 but closer to 1792).