We'd see things like The Peacemaker and Homeowner's Friend.

Much like if we required ARs to be pink with Hello Kitty stickers.



ARs are sold to insrcure men with ads like this:



The micro-dick gun nuts out there buy those things because they think it makes them a big he-man Rambo soldier, because they are way too cowardly to actually enlist and stand in the line of fire for their country.

All the cosmetic features of the AR-15 that you feel are so silly to ban are exactly what sells them to these fucking idiots. Not only that but the features are of course in and of themselves dangerous to have on a civilian weapon. That is why the assault weapons ban makes sense. That and the AR-15 is an essential ingredient in the typical unhinged mass shooters' fantasy scenario.

No sane civilian should want that thing.

Colt's website already describes the AR-15 as a "modern sporting rifle."

They don’t like “assault rifle.”

There’s a better term, but they want to sell these to women too and calling them “penis substitutes” would totally kill that market.

That's an industry that also already does everything they can to not sell guns to women.

Mail-order machine guns were for "protection". Public got sick of the slaughter. Maybe we're close to the point where we can regulate these "sporting rifles", now.

The Thompson was “the gun that made the Twenties roar” because of gun control.

The city of Chicago wanted to cut down on crime, so they passed and ordinance, no pistols within city limits. They figured no one would take up the Thompson because it was so expensive, and exempted it from the ban. Unfortunately, the mob has lots of money.

I think they should be required to call it the "Rambo Wannbe Child Killer Rifle"

But not as weird as you defending ARs.

I just said that making them change the name from something they're already not named was a complete waste of time.

But if you'd rather engage in several levels of simultaneously pointless name-calling, about all I can do is marvel at the wasted energy.

and, hence, make up for my inadequacies.

to say the public good is more important than the fun they get shooting diet coke cans.

way outside of city limits on BLM land where there wasn't another soul for miles.

But it was with an old, pump action .22, not a military assault rifle.

So it is possible to have fun shooting without using a weapon designed to inflict the most damage in the least amount of time.

BTW: Here is part of the reason why Jeep people get a bad reputation. It's because of the crossover between Jeep people and paramilitary people. How would you like to be this person's neighbor?

“I hereby sentence you to enlist in the US Army as an infantryman in the 2nd Infantry Division for a period of three years. This will teach you how stupid you were to one, put a .50-caliber machine gun on top of your car like some kind of Somali warlord, and two, mount it on that flimsy-ass thing that’s going to snap off the first time you try to fire it. Bailiff, escort the defendant to the recruiting office. I already called your mom to have your birth certificate taken there.”

I think your comparison to a Somalian war lord is accurate. These guys try to damned hard to be militarily cool (and they spend lots of money), but they end up looking like idiot thugs.

This is not rocket science. We are being stupid because we are letting extremists and greedy assholes control the gun debate. Every one knows what a military assault rifle is, they know what it is for.

If you're going to take the "I don't know what Porn is, but I know it when I see it" tactic, you are setting yourself up for disappointment. There is money at stake and the gun industry will be perfectly happy to change things just enough to evade the law.

Let's keep it simple:

Put any magazine for a centerfire rifle or handgun that exceeds 10 rounds on the the NFA list. They are available to anyone who "needs" them, but you have to fill out the paperwork and get the NFA tax stamp. No more ordering a case of magazines online.

The ability to rapidly change large magazines is what makes these things so dangerous. Let's attack that.

Congress did pass a law labeling them, and because of how poor a job they did defining assault weapons, it was much easier than it needed to have been for the NRA to get otherwise sensible and responsible gun owners to agree that the law was overreaching. That bad job of defining what they were attempting to regulate is part of why we are where we are.



This pic illustrates what I'm talking about quite well. Those are both the same rifle, both with 10 round magazines. They're also one of the least powerful calibers available, good for target practice and pest control, and not much else. But the one on the bottom, as defined by Congress, is an assault weapon, because of that hole in the stock for your thumb to rest in. And just to be clear, I do mean exactly the same rifle. Remove a couple screws and replace one piece of wood with a different piece of wood, and it becomes an assault rifle. That really is how the language of the AWB works. It's also why they could change the shape of the grip on an actual AR-15 and make it not be classified as an assault rifle, despite still being the same weapon.

Now, I suspect that neither of these rifles are what you mean when you talk about military assault rifles, but that just further illustrates the importance of defining "assault rifles" well, which thus far Congress has failed to do. And that's at least some part of why the attempt to revive the AWB in the wake of Sandy Hook failed.

But one thing it is very important to understand is that banning weapons on the basis of appearance or design, which is what the language of the AWB did, is never going to be as effective as banning specific capabilities. And that is where Adrahil's suggestion comes into play. Ban all magazines holding more than 10 rounds, and it suddenly becomes a great deal less important what the weapon looks like, because you've changed what it can do.

Hell, I could even go for fixed mags for civilian weapons. My paper and steel targets aren't shooting back, and I'm reloading my one magazine every ten shots anyway. I don't particularly care whether it comes out of the gun or not. But trying to ban features like thumb holes that have zero impact on capability only creates unnecessary resistance to getting something actually effective done.

That's exactly what they want to hear.

They want you to try to ban something by its nickname so they can say that there's no such thing.

It's a favorite game of theirs. (And one I like to watch them play, I admit.)

That's not 400 vs 9000.

That's 9400.

It only goes up.

This is not a game. Stop keeping score.

Are they less important? Less dead?

The kill count for quite a few other things easily surpasses rifles or pistols.

Do you care about those in equivalent measure?

or it is not enough and we must address handgun regulation ALSO?

I also think zeroing in on rifles that kill 300 to 400 a year while ignoring the 42,000 who die from poison or 33,000 who die in car crashes or the 31,000 who die in falls every year seems more about hating firearms then actually trying to prevent tragic deaths.
YMMV


https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/accidental-injury.htm

And extra points for citing the CDC, which has been been banned for over a decade from doing gun death research, thanks to our NRA-dick-sucking Republicans.

They are both 'thought-terminating cliches' :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clich%C3%A9#Thought-terminating_clich%C3%A9

So please spare me your protestations that you want to discuss.

...the goal is to reduce deaths by gun.

I'm not going to play your game.

Defending ARs is shameful.

...and are as easily played as any low-information NRA member. Remember, the progun side aren't
the only ones engaged in culture war- they've just been better at using it to motivate voters

That, and ongoing problem with thinking that money and votes can be countered with Facebook likes.

The progun side has three major players (The Republican Party -with the NRA being their armed wing,
the Second Amendment Foundation, and the Russian Government) All three shovel money into politics.

The antigun movement is Balkanized, and can't come up with nearly as much $$ as the other side.

But there are a lot more of us than there are of them, even though the progun side has the money and the zeal of the gun nuts.

...politicians and the NRA are well aware of that fact.

If young people can start showing up in large numbers at the polls on a regular basis, the
stalemate could be broken.

FBI has the stats for gun use every year.

Outlaw and somehow collect all AR-15's and the next wacko just uses another model and brand.

Or do you really thing someone who is sick enough to want to kill a bunch of people would say "Oh darn, I can't get the AR-15, guess I will give up my sick plan" instead of using another type of firearm?

Thank you for your concern.

....or not.

I don't follow your argument.

Mass shootings are deliberate murders and attempted murders. The statistics you cite do not separate accidents from deliberate murders.

Outlawing all rifles and killers will move to pistols, death count won't budge much if at all. With murder it is the intent, not the means.

Figure out how to lower the major causes of premature death like falls and poison will save more people from tragic ends.
60,000 dead a year is a seriously big number and dwarfs the 300+ who get shot by rifles.

Lower rifle deaths by 10% and you saved 30 people. Lower falls/poison deaths by 10% and you saved 6,000 people.

The death count does "budge" where gun control is implemented.
See, e.g.,

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1016201712


There is a terror factor involved in these mass shootings and murders that does not attach to accidental deaths. It is not just a matter of comparing body counts.

I am guessing none.

There are a lot of paragraphs from the article that I did not post, but the link apparently works for anyone to read the rest.

It's very easy to drive into cities and thus, I presume, easy to sell weapons both legally and illegally.

None of this is evidence that we should do nothing but send thoughts and prayers after mass shootings.

NRA - Right Wing bull crap. I almost never alert, but I am tempted to here.

But I won't, because keeping this post shows how you are shilling for the NRA.

calling them"assault rifles".

They blather on and on (and on and on and on and...) about barrel length, grip length, magazine capacity, anything they can think of that sounds technical enough to lent weight to a stupid argument.

The most ludicrous result of their argument is that they want a weapon that can kill large numbers of people very rapidly with minimal re-load time, but they don't want it to have a scary name...

Either everything goes away as a group, or we're going to have to draw a line very precisely. Honestly, previous attempts to draw that line, like the 1994 ban, could stand improvement. Until society is ready to do away with them as a whole, we've got to get better about describing what we'll accept. We found out in 1994 that bayonet lugs and flash hiders are just cosmetic, for example. Use that going forward.

There are other guns that have the same capacity to kill and can hold the same clips, but don't look like anything more than an old 22 rifle I have for critter control on my land. We have to go after clip sizes, not what a gun looks like. This is what the did in 85. Nothing over 15 rounds I think.

and tell the parents of the dead children all about armaments and all about why we cannot. People who don't want a solution can't find one.

...since that’s not part of its name?

It is officially the “AR-50™ .50BMG Bolt-Action Rifle”

Which would then get around your proposed ban.

People who don't want a solution can't see a solution.

Fixed, 5 round hand loaded magazine. A military rifle nonetheless.

let's just keep having large groups of children die.

Like I said, its easy not to find a solution if you aren't looking for one.

Congress can get to the details. That is what we elect them for. By throwing details up as an obstacle you are either buying NRA propaganda or trying to protect guns you don't need. I don't ejaculate over rapid fire weapons so I don't know the details.

I grew up in the West and my grandfather hunted sucessfully with a bolt-action rifle.

FUCK THEM ALL