---yada---yada---yada"

Getting rid of high capacity semi automatic weapons would decrease the body count.
Save lives.
In Europe when you can't readily get an semi automatic weapon, the whack jobs use knives.
Still deadly but more difficult to kill scores of people. YMMV....
m

It just makes killing people much more efficient.

I swear this argument is so stupid. It’s 12-year-old pedantry combined with a callous disregard for shooting victims.

As you replied to this to highlight the truck usage, let me point out that someone will stop by extolling the use of trucks for cargo and personal transportation and that guns have no such useful applications.

But if I may also point out that some folks in Europe haven't been told they can't get semi-autos. As a matter of fact they seem unaware that full-autos are also unavailable.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting
Zastava M70 AB2 rifles
Škorpion vz. 61 submachine guns
Grenade or rocket launcher
Tokarev TT pistols
Pump action shotgun

They are relatively inexpensive and dad gum it, they are 'Merican.. Just looked you can buy one for under $500.
m

It's the receiver part that has the serial number. The parts the feds look at. It's the part that takes a lot of punishment. I don't think 3D printing has a material that would take that much abuse. Now if your talking about CadCam stuff that's a different story. Take a block of aluminum and have a computer carve out a receiver? That they can do...
m

The lack of available and affordable mental health care in this country is the biggest contributing factor.

One used to be able to pick out the gun you wanted from mail order catalogs such as Sears and have it delivered straight to your home with no questions asked.

Obviously from that list, the AR-15 is the common element.

And bigots and white supremacists aren't going to seek out mental health care.

But it’s safer to include the sarcasm smilie which all us sarcastic people have found out.

When the AWB was in effect, Colt got around that by making some minor cosmetic changes and giving the rifle a different name

or maybe a grenade?

I have a .38 Special on my hip right now and I'll have it on me when I get the mai from the mailbox in a few minutes. Can't see myself carrying a rifle while I get the mail.

I have it on me or withing easy reach at all times when I'm home put put it away in a gun safe when I leave but I do have a CPL in case I have to leave very quickly and don't have the time to put it away securely. The plan is too retreat to the safe room, the master bedroom, if needed, and only use the gun if that's not possible and deadly force is warranted or to defend ourselves in the safe room in case the bad guys try to break in.

I don't have an issue with anyone wanting a AR15 style gun for home defense but my preference for a backup to my revolver would be a shotgun because it's so versatile. With a 20 gauge with the appropriate loads, I can defend the home or hunt anything from squirrels to deer.

There is no one correct answer and everyone's needs are different! Over the course of years of being involved in discussions, talking to people directly, reading articles and watching YouTube videos, I've come up with a plan that I feel best works for me.

within reach at home at all times you are paranoid.

After a major event you might begin to understand.

After Hurricanes Andrew, Wilma and Irma...those of us who live in "rural" Miami-Dade County had no electrical power, and no telephone service...landline or cellphone...

During normal times it takes 30-45 minutes for Miami-Dade Police to respond to a call...during emergency situations they dont have time or manpower to respond to rural calls.

If I have to protect myself, my property and my neighbors I'll have to do what i can.

You can't really project when the situation will arise.

It's like buying an emergency generator to provide electricity when the powerlines come down...

Good luck finding a generator and gasoline after the event.

After Hurricane Andrew, when we had no power...bags of ice were selling for $25.00 each...

We had our generator stolen as we slept...

Now we have to lock it up after we turn it off. We sleep in shifts from sunset to dawn...and all of our neighbors have to do the same.

If I felt for 1 minute that I could count on the city/county/state to provide me with a minimum amount of assurance as to our safety I'd be happy to discuss the merits of firearm ownership...

Until then...I'll do what I have to do.

especially in an urban area.

You can’t fill the air with lead but in most self defense situations at close range they can save your ass. With training a revolver is simple to use and not as prone to malfunction as a semiautomatic weapon. You also don’t have to worry about “limp wristing” a revolver which can cause a pistol to malfunction (jam). Plus revolvers do not have a safety to worry about. You simply pull the trigger and a loaded revolver will fire.

For a zombie apocalypse I might prefer an AR-15 but fortunately zombie apocalypses are extremely rare.

Your plan to retreat to a safe room is wise. It is always better to wait for the bad guys to come to you rather than go looking for them. A cell phone should be available so you can call the police.

Shotguns are fine but they are bulky and harder to maneuver than a handgun. The bad guy can take away your shotgun far easier than a handgun if he is close enough. Of course if you have a handgun you should be aware a bad guy can also disarm you. Stay a good distance away from the bad guy if you want to hold him for the police rather than shoot him.

Your comment:

"Your plan to retreat to a safe room is wise. It is always better to wait for the bad guys to come to you rather than go looking for them. A cell phone should be available so you can call the police. "

The bedroom door is solid wood and the jamb, frame and strike plate are reinforced. The door knob is a keyed, exterior grade model. I'd put in a dead bolt too but the wife nixed that idea. My wife and I each have cell phones and there is a cordless land line in the bedroom with a corded phone back up. I also have an old cell phone that no longer has service but I keep charged up as one can still call 911 with it.

The shotgun I'm thinking of getting would be a 20 gauge single shot break action model. It'd be for my wife to use to back me up. The reason for the choice is that it is very easy to train with and it's very reliable. Being on SSDI, my funds are limited and break action shotguns can be had for a very reasonable price.

I encounter a lot of opponents of AR-15's who are okay with revolvers, but few seem to really bother to understand why that is. And it's because, as you correctly state, they're not suitable for filling the air with lead, and the reason for that is their inherently limited capacity.

Limit AR-15's and other similar rifles to a capacity similar to that of a revolver, and it's clearly an entirely different animal.
Really simple and obvious solution, but it's hard to get people to focus on it, which sucks, because that we might actually achieve.

I've been around for well over 60 years now and have never had the need to protect myself. We could be much safer than we are now... but not by carrying around guns.

Other countries don't seem to have a mental illness problem.

among Western countries. There are clear links between untreated mental illness and mass shooters.

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-duwe-rocque-mass-shootings-mental-illness-20180223-story.html

"There are clear links between untreated mental illness and mass shooters."

There are also clear links between accessibility of weapons and mass shooters. Focusing on the one while wholly ignoring the other is a logical fallacy.

more than guns? don't think so. except in the sense that our nation is mentally ill.

have deliberately planned them. To say, Oh, if we only had more and better mental health care in this country this wouldn't happen.

The most common element is the fucking guns.

Notice how other countries don't let their citizens be armed like this and, I know, it's so bizarre, they don't have these kind of incidents? Or do you think they just don't have the mental illness problem? Because even if that's true, they still don't have access to the guns.

Someday everyone's right to remain alive will be seen as more important than someone else's right to shoot and kill as many people as possible.

with AR-15s

That's what makes the AR15 & other "assault rifles" so deadly, the speed of the bullet.

Companies can still make an "AR15," just slow the bullet down so it doesn't rip apart everything in its path.

But I'd go with caliber size instead of velocity. I'm using my tablet now but later tonight when I have access to my laptop, I'll send you a link to an OP I wrote years ago explaining my idea.

Very light recoil and so very easy to shoot many rounds fast - and the bullet does insane damage due to its high energy and tumbling once it hits a body.

You are talking about banning a certain caliber bullet and not a gun itself

'AR-15 style'...have any of these shootings involved anything but the .223/5.56? Yeah, no. When the Germans invented the assault rifle in WW2, they shortened their standard rifle cartridge from WW1, creating a round with less recoil that could be fired faster, and with less weight, so more could be carried. When the AR was designed, the designers went in a new direction to achieve the same ends - instead of keeping the old rifle caliber, .30, they went smaller and faster - the .223. Entrance wound tiny, exit wound huge, with everything in between destroyed. So, yeah - the round should be banned, and every semi-auto chambered for it.

I've been talking here for years about what you proposed.

"Instead of banning guns, how about banning the ammo for certain guns?
To the regulars here who have a great knowledge on the subject of guns and ammo, if your were tasked to provide a list of ammo cartridges that would affect all semi-auto handguns and long guns like variants of the AR-15, semi-auto AK-47s, AK-74Ms and other guns one may say is an assault weapon?

And also, what would need to be done to prevent those who reload from making their own such cartridges?"

https://www.democraticunderground.com/117296531

"One is often asked to define "assault weapon". Here's my definition.

Last edited Sun Jan 6, 2013, 05:09 PM - Edit history (2)
Any semi-automatic weapon that fires a rimless, semi-rimmed, or rebated rim centerfire cartridge that has a bullet of less then 6.5mm in diameter or a metal based case length of less then 50.8mm or caseless ammunition of any dimension or any rimless, semi-rimmedd or rebated Polymer-cased centerfire cartridge of any dimension.

The appearance of the gun has nothing to do with the above definition. The gun could look like a hunting rifle or it could look like something out of a Hollywood war movie. The gun could have a bayonet lug, grenade launcher, flash suppressor, pistol grip or folding stock and it might not be an assault weapon as defined by above. Or it could. It all depends on the action of the gun and the cartridge it fires.

Such a definition keeps things simple. All one has to do is first determine if the gun is a semi-automatic, see if the cartridge it is loaded with is a centerfire round and then measure the cartridge. No fuss. No muss.

If one has an issue with including semi-automatic handguns in the above, then one could refine it further by saying an assault weapon is a semi-automatic firearm that has a barrel length of 16" or longer and fires a rimless, semi-rimmed, or rebated rim centerfire cartridge that has a bullet of less then 6.5mm in diameter or a case length of less then 50.8mm.

A semi-automatic, or self-loading, firearm is a weapon that performs all steps necessary to prepare the weapon to fire again after firing—assuming cartridges remain in the weapon's feed device or magazine.

A centerfire cartridge is a cartridge with a primer located in the center of the cartridge case head.

"The rimmed cartridge is the oldest of the types and has a rim that is significantly larger in diameter than the base of the cartridge. "

"On a rimless case, the rim is the same diameter as the base of the case; it is known as an extractor groove."

"On a semi-rimmed case the rim projects slightly beyond the base of the case, though not as much as a rimmed cartridge."

"Rebated rim cartridges have a rim that is significantly smaller in diameter than the base of the case, serving only for extraction."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rim_%28firearms%29

Rimmed cartridges do not have an extractor groove.

According to the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute (SAAMI), a cartridge is "a single round of ammunition consisting of the case, primer and propellant with or without one or more projectiles." Only the projectile portion is the bullet.

The case length of a 7.62x39mm cartridge is about 38.7mm



Polymer-cased ammunition (or PCA) is the concept applied to define the alternative to use polymer-based casings instead of metal-based (brass, aluminium or steel mainly) in the manufacturing of ammunition.

Caseless ammunition is a type of small arms ammunition that eliminates the cartridge case that typically holds the primer, propellant, and projectile together as a unit. "

https://www.democraticunderground.com/117297510

But I still find myself thinking that capacity is truly the more appropriate metric by which to judge whether or not a rifle is an assault weapon, and it's by far the simplest characteristic to evaluate.

Looking at weapons the militaries of the world regard as suitable for an assault role, they vary widely in both cosmetic and ergonomic features and caliber. But what ALL of them have in common, pretty much without exception, is rapidly replaceable high capacity magazines. I'd challenge anyone to find me a single modern military assault rifle with a five round capacity. If there are any at all, I'd expect they are very few, and for the very obvious reason that the more often one has to reload a weapon, the less suitable it is for assault. Also, coincidentally, the lower the capacity, the less desirable a high rate of fire, for the exact same reason.

I do like about the way you craft your definition that my modest .22LR would not be considered an assault weapon, but at the same time, I do think it would be reasonable to consider even my .22LR an assault weapon if I equipped it with a 50 round magazine. 5-10 rounds, clearly not so much.

And I do disagree on the point of grenade launchers. That, to me, is clearly an assault weapon, period.

There are unknown millions upon millions of high capacity magazines out there and now one can 3D print them. Magazines can be reused over and over again and generally last for years with normal use. Ammo is a one and done deal.

Your comment:

"And I do disagree on the point of grenade launchers. That, to me, is clearly an assault weapon, period. "

Grenade launchers are classified as destructive devices and as such are highly regulated and they are expensive:

"One of the first challenges for the recreational shooter to overcome besides the initial cost of the Destructive Device which can range from $2,000.00 to $10,000.00 in today’s market is ammo."

https://smallarmsreview.com/display.article.cfm?idarticles=2548

I'm just saying that I do consider having a grenade launcher to be a valid inclusion in the features list in the conventional definition, because unlike having a pistol grip, telescoping/folding stock or other such purely cosmetic/ergonomic features, having a grenade launcher genuinely does make a difference in whether the weapon is suitably called an assault weapon or not, so it's a valid criteria for classification.

As for the other part of the debate, I get what you're saying about the magazines' durability, ubiquity, and home manufacturability. And thus, I personally support banning ownership of them full stop. Just stopping more from being made legally is inadequate, in my view.

And at the end of the day, the single most relevant factor to how suitable a weapon is for assault is still always going to be how often it has to be reloaded. Ergo, my focus on the magazines. I don't think there's great cause to ban any caliber for civilian use, but banning being able to fire more than X of any caliber before reloading is another matter.

I remember my dad doing reloads for his 30.06 - a very long and slow process. Did any of our mass shooters load their own ammo? Adam Lanza? Stephen Pollack? What made Lanza, who had the muscle tone of a cadaver, capable of mass firing? What allowed Pollack to shoot 600 people in 10 min.? The light recoil .223 AR-15. The round described by physicians as tearing up bodies like no other, freely available, as is the gun designed around it.

The AR-15 is just one of many semiautos that an fire the .223. As the patent for the AR15 expired years ago, many gun manufacturers make guns that look similar to the Colt AR15 but have some differences in the internals.

The AR-15 has many clones? Who knew!! What's the difference between the M1A and the Ruger Mini 14? .308 vs .223. Would I ban the Ruger? Yes. Is the .308 lethal? Of course. But the recoil is such the military disabled the full auto in the original M14. No average wimp can put an endless supply of clips through it like they can with the .223.

"New rifle, bigger bullets: Inside the Army's plan to ditch the M4 and 5.56"

"Critics of the M16/M4 and the 5.56 mm round say no matter what has been done to improve the M16 and its subsequent variations, the 5.56 mm round lacks the range and lethality needed in modern firefights."

https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2017/05/07/new-rifle-bigger-bullets-inside-the-army-s-plan-to-ditch-the-m4-and-5-56/

As you know, one can purchase AR style rifles that fire the bigger rounds.

That means the .223 AR will be thought old, obsolete, pathetic, no longer validation for the 'man card' for the millions of posers who have them now. They'll be happy to turn them in to be destroyed!

Many hunters think the .223 to be border line at best for deer and you'd be thought crazy to use it for bear. It's far too powerful for small game.

As I'm many, many times more likely to be shot by a person armed with a handgun then a rifle of any caliber, I'll spend my time thinking of protecting myself against what is more likely to happen then something that has the statistically chance of zero happening.

I hunt and have switched my hunting rifles to 6.5 Grendel as it has near .308 power and range but the recoil of 5.56 NATO. The velocity is 1780fps and 870ft lbs @ 500 yards vs 5.56 which is 1325fps and 215ft lbs @ 500 yards. It stays supersonic to 1200yds which typically indicates a rounds accuracy range.

I assemble AR’s myself with a handful of basic tools this and the current costs are why AR’s are as popular as they are a fully equipped rifle in 6.5G with a 4x14 scope can be built for around $500. In this configuration it can put all rounds in a 10” pie plate at 1000yds. That is double to three times the range of most 5.56 rifles.

I look at firearms as tools not an idol to be worshipped. They have their place in our country and like it or not the AR is the most popular rifle in our country because it is cost effective and versatile. They can easily be configured for long range, short range, up to .50 caliber down to .17 also in most pistol calibers such as 9mm and .45ACP. The design is around 70 years old and can be made at home with common hand tools.

It's too versatile and it can be had for a reasonable price that many can afford.

And the military does seem to be leaning towards adopting some version of the 6.5mm round.

I'll never forget the look on her parent's faces. Depends on whose statistics we're talking about I guess. Speaking of which, my brother was shot in a mugging, in the leg with a cheap .22. He was back at martial arts in a week. Not the result you'd get from the .223.

The patent on the AR-15 expired years ago so any gun manufacturer can make one and many do but most have made minor modifications to the design.

All attempts at regulating the AR-15 style rifles have been based on cosmetic features and the magazine. Which makes it easy for gun manufactures to get around such laws as is the case with the supposedly tough New York AWB Ban.

"Gun design legal, deadly
Arms makers work to make AR-15-style weapon conform to NY SAFE Act"

https://www.timesunion.com/local/article/Gun-design-legal-deadly-4549130.php#photo-4686787

A .223 is a horrible deer round because of the low impact energy.
A 60g at 3100ft/sec a .223 has about a 1300ft/lb impact energy.
A .30-06 at 2700ft/sec has about 2600ft/lb impact.....

But it's not tat simple.

Along with the nearly bankrupt NRA!

The AR-10 was first released in 1956, then was redesigned in 1957 and called the AR-15.

The company that manufactured it was originally located in Hollywood, then the designs were sold to Colt and manufactured in Hartford (about 7 miles from me) I don't know where they ultimately moved, though.

The Armilite AR15 was 1st submitted as an AR-10 replacement in '58..

It was meant to be the rifle of clerks, cooks, and base security staff; kind of like the M1-Carbine in WW2. Then special forces got them and liked that they were light accurate, and you could carry a lot of ammunition. Stoner developed the civilian model of the AR at the same time for use as a varmint rifle.

...my great uncle let me fire a double-barreled shotgun into a cow tank. The shot came out the front and I was ejected out the back.

Because every time there's a gun thread re: a mass shooting, the same people trot out their "it's all due to mental illness" as if mental illness hasn't been around forever.

You know what hasn't been around forever and available to the public? AR-15's.

And the reality is that it's because it's the semi-automatic rifle for which extended capacity magazines are most widely available. People like to focus on the scary appearance, but realistically it's the high capacity magazines that are the major problem.

Ban all high capacity magazines, and it's just a rifle like any other. Ban that weapon but not the high capacity magazines, and we'll see another weapon with high capacity become the one of choice.

I am sick of hearing that this is a "hate crime".
It was an act of terrorism plain and simple.
The intent has put people in fear and in a protective mode.
We are all living in a terrorist state where an attack can come from anywhere at any time.

until that Judge's order lifting our longstanding ban was temporarily stayed by Ca AG. I wonder when & where this 19 year old violent hatemonger NeoNazi bought his AR-15 high capacity magazines.. Reportedly hundreds of thousands of high capacity mags were sold in Ca during that one week between March 28 & April 5..

I am also reading that this same 19 year old Menace is also saying he set the Mosque in Escondido(March 25) ablaze just days before the Ban was lifted. Was he able graduate from Hate Arson To Hate Murder in this one single week that high capacity magazines were permitted to flood Ca bkz of Judge Roger T Benitez?

Was about magazines, not the rifles

Thanks for telling me. I'll change my post.

Last edited Sun Apr 28, 2019, 08:58 PM - Edit history (1)

...because there are literally dozens of other firearms capable of doing the exact same thing. The problem isn't the gun, the problem is the person wielding it. I personally know multiple hundreds of people who own AR-15s and not one of them has ever committed a mass shooting - or even a a single shooting, for that matter...

yet.

They are dangerous, I was driving to work the other day, and saw a roving pack of AR's loping down the road. I slammed on my breaks and got the heck out of Dodge. Got the heck out of Ford and Toyota for good measure. You can't be too careful around those AR's.

But where do you stand regarding outlawing high capacity magazines?

I'm of the firm belief that we should limit capacity to something sensible, and outlaw not only manufacture and sale, but also ownership of high capacity magazines, with mandatory surrender and appropriations for buy-backs.

Thereby, people could still own their AR's or whatever other style rifle they want, and they'd still be plenty capable for legitimate lawful uses, but they would be far less capable of inflicting the kind of carnage we've been seeing in mass shootings, and I would expect there to be much less pushback on such a ban, because it would be targeting one specific thing, the number of rounds that can be fired before needing to reload, which I think gun rights and gun control advocates alike can all agree really does actually have legitimate public safety implications, and is therefore valid to regulate.

As far as I'm concerned, capacity is the single most relevant characteristic to classification as an assault weapon. An AR-15 with a 5 round capacity is no more an assault weapon than any standard hunting rifle, whereas ANY weapon with a 30-plus round capacity clearly is more legitimately deemed an assault weapon. I, for one, really wish we would focus on the thing that really does matter most.

FUCK THE NRA

Many more die in car accidents.
Many more die from knives or blunt instruments...say a bat or fist.

Rifle deaths...of ANY version are really low on the homicide scale.

...That's 80,000+ people killed in 730 days so should cars be gone too?

Guns have no comparable use.

Common denominator has been obvious for years. NZ showed what true leadership is and did it swiftly. We have seen massacre after massacre and done nothing. If the execution of 20 children plus plus 6 adults was not going to move this issue into more common sense arena nothing will. It is truly pathetic on our part.

They have common sense. Furthermore the 2nd amendment says nothing about AR-15’s. It does say “a well regulated militia” because we had no standing military or law enforcement at the time. This first sentence is noticeably skipped right by, by people pointing to the 2nd amendment as justification for continued ownership of a firearm the founding fathers clearly never imagine would one day be available. The Supreme Court in recognizing the right to bear firearms in the heller decision also recognized that ownership is not unlimited that ownership can and should continue to be regulated. Getting rid of AR-15’s does not infringe the right to bear firearms. One can still own pistols/ shotgun/ bolt action long rifles. Pointing to the 2nd amendment as justification for these weapons to remain legal after their continued use in massacre after massacre is simply not a logical or reasoned cognitive function based in the reality of the world as it is today.

The Prefatory clause does NOT limit the Operative clause...read Heller..I have

"...we had no standing military or law enforcement at the time."
>> Boston had some form of law enforcement since 1647.
>> Article II section 2 of the US Constitution: "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States..." Apparently there is a standing Army and Navy.

Many rifles operate equivalently to an AR-15. Would it matter if a different rifle with a different appearance but very similar functions remained legal?

Are the millions (probably tens of millions) of AR-15s to be confiscated? How?

The deadliest mass shooting in the US (Las Vegas) was accomplished with modified rifles which (AFAIK) are not publicly available. The deadliest school shooting in the US (Virginia Tech) saw pistols with standard capacity magazines used.

" The Act is not entrenched or supreme law, and can in theory be amended by Parliament by a simple majority...." unlike our BoR's that IS entrenched and supreme.

5 year mandatory minimum.

Many paper plates (with Xs drawn on them with black marker) were shot. And a shaving cream can. Foamy.

they'd be all over banning automatic assault type weapons. They serve no purpose-sporting or otherwise. But, all-they have no sense, and are destined to fail.

and the two biggest discussions I always wind up having is 1) the easy availability of guns in the US and 2) our lack of a Universal Single Payer system

Weaponized items don't kill people. Crazy, insane, racist, prejudice, hateful people kill people.

If all firearms disappeared and killers switched to trucks it would not be a improvement.

Not that hard to rent a U-Haul.

On the evening of 14 July 2016, a 19-tonne cargo truck was deliberately driven into crowds of people celebrating Bastille Day on the Promenade des Anglais in Nice, France, resulting in the deaths of 86 people[2] and the injury of 458 others.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_truck_attack

The 11 events you mentioned took 211 lives over seven years - an average of 31 per year, certainly tragic but ...

The city of Chicago, one major U.S. city, had 555 murders in 2018 alone. Two and half times the death toll of seven years of AR-15 shootings. 2017 saw 664 murders and a staggering 781 a year earlier.

If you want to save lives, figure out a way to ban handguns.