Shootings

[Rip]

Fair enough, do you have an answer on the ills created by banning AR-15s? Or is it limited to the paperwork involved, and whether or not we have to collect them?

It isn't ills so much as a waste of time. Personally I don't care because I don't own or intend to buy and AR-15. Just letting you know that banning AR-15s is pointless and will do NOTHING to curb gun violence. Just as many could be killed with an AR-10, R-25, P-415, REC-7, SR-25, M7, FAR-308, FNAR, Scar-17S, FN/FAL, R-15, or a BAR. I could do just as much damage with any one of these.

https://www.outdoorlife.com/photos/gall ... ng#page-21

[GreenGoo]

Sounds good. Put those on the list. Thanks for helping.

[Grifman]

There's no reason for anyone needing to own anything but a bolt action rifle (hunting), shotgun (hunting/self defense) and a revolver (defense). Semiautomatic rifles and pistols aren't needed. If you want to own one of those they should be very expensive and licensed just like machine guns.

[Grifman]

An AR15 is no more dangerous than any other rifle just like a Corvette is no more dangerous than an Escalade.

Stop misinterpreting my words. The statement is about an AR-15 versus other semi-automatic rifles. They are equally dangerous. There is NOTHING at all special about an AR-15.

The AR15 (among others, yes) is designed to mitigate recoil in order to engage multiple targets as fast as possible.

Aren't all rifles designed to mitigate recoil?

No, not really. You only need to mitigate recoil if you are firing shots rapidly, one after another. Recoil is not going to affect your next shot if you are using a bolt action rifle, nor a pump action shotgun.

[Zaxxon]

Really, the problem is those so-called 'video games,' says Kentucky governor.

When Conway asked if Bevin was interested in a ban on these types of games or merely more parental oversight of children's access, Bevin asked for media producers to take some responsibility for their works. "I think we need to start by having an honest question about what value any of these things add," he said. "Why do we need a video game, for example, that encourages people to kill people. Whether it's lyrics, whether it's TV shows, whether it's movies, I'm asking the producers of these products, these video games and these movies, ask yourselves what redemptive value, other than shock value, other than the hope you'll make a couple of bucks off it. At what price? At what price?"

It takes a mind-blowing amount of cognitive dissonance to simultaneously say that video games--not the people playing them--are bad while espousing the opposite view regarding guns.

[Unagi]

Sounds good. Put those on the list. Thanks for helping.

exactly.

Start with this model, for the reasons that have been discussed... and then any other one that is shown to be an equivalent can join the list.

[GreenGoo]

It takes a mind-blowing amount of cognitive dissonance to simultaneously say that video games--not the people playing them--are bad while espousing the opposite view regarding guns.

Impressive. Next he's going to think rock 'n' roll is the devil's music.

[Enough]

There's no reason for anyone needing to own anything but a bolt action rifle (hunting), shotgun (hunting/self defense) and a revolver (defense). Semiautomatic rifles and pistols aren't needed. If you want to own one of those they should be very expensive and licensed just like machine guns.

I tend to agree with you here and it makes good common sense. We tried to do some very basic steps toward this in CO and it energized the pro-gun nutters beyond belief and resulted in the state legislature flipping and massively funding a pro-gun group that makes the NRA look downright reasonable. At this point, I struggle if it's worth it to fight this fight given the political downsides.

I am starting to prefer treating it straight-up as a public health crisis. And just as we wouldn't dream of outlawing cars to reduce automobile death rates, we won't do similar for guns. We will allow federal research money to be spent, we will allow safety enhancements public health experts come up with and we will require liability insurance. Once we have the big data actuarial power of the insurance industry and public health experts tearing away at the data I believe we can make some headway in reducing firearm violence. I'm not naive and realize this path is also fraught with potential NRA attacks, etc, but in the end their ability to land attacks will be decreased if we go this route vs banning certain classes of guns (which would increase the NRA's stature at least in the short term).

Until we can deal with the NRA-hydra thing, we are pretty fucked.

[Rip]

Sounds good. Put those on the list. Thanks for helping.

You don't need a list. All semi-automatic rifles have similar destructive ability.

So what you are really saying is that you wish to ban semi-automatic weapons. Go ahead and call it what it is.

GLWT.

[gameoverman]

There's no reason for anyone needing to own anything but a bolt action rifle (hunting), shotgun (hunting/self defense) and a revolver (defense). Semiautomatic rifles and pistols aren't needed. If you want to own one of those they should be very expensive and licensed just like machine guns.

I'm really uncomfortable with that line of thinking, for many reasons. For one thing, who gets to decide what other people 'need' and why are they the ones who get to decide for everyone else?

I live in a suburban area, surrounded by cities and people. Hunting is something I'd have to travel to do. Therefore, I have no clue what people need when they live in areas where you can hunt right there where you live. Why should I think I have the right to tell them what they need? A person who lives in a rural, sparsely populated area has no idea what I need in my densely populated city environment, why should they be able to dictate to me what I need?

If it's the elected officials who get to decide, because they were elected, then what happens when new people are voted in? Today's elected official may say "Needed" but at some point someone else will be elected to that position. If they say "Unneeded" well okay. But then someone else gets elected and we're back to needed again. That's not something that is going to be helpful.

[xenocide]

There's no reason for anyone needing to own anything but a bolt action rifle (hunting), shotgun (hunting/self defense) and a revolver (defense). Semiautomatic rifles and pistols aren't needed. If you want to own one of those they should be very expensive and licensed just like machine guns.

Something along these lines. Price I would not worry about so much myself. Prices would prob go down actually as the requirement for a license had people giving up guns. Semi auto rifles and pistols would still be legal but you would need to take some kind of training/course that would need to be taken every few years to maintain the license. This way you don't need to "ban" too many things which is the big scare word. Illegal to own without said license and the inconvenience would drive many out.

Other than that, ban things like bump stocks and high capacity mags and add that all ownership transfers need to undergo a background check (even for example parent to child) and bolt action rifles, shotguns, and revolvers should be ok with most current regs.

For the record I am a former NRA member. I own 10 firearms (5 shotguns, 4 rifles, 1 pistol) and prob have close to 1000 rounds of ammo in my safe (actually adds up fast: 100 trap .20ga, 100 trap .12ga, 100 hunting .20ga, 200 hunting .12ga (duck and goose and pheasant), 100-200 pistol, 200-300 rifle hunting and target). I own an ar-15 style rifle and a semi auto pistol. I primarily hunt and I do some recreational shooting also, I don't own for self defense. If above laws were implemented I would sell my ar and pistol tomorrow, they are not worth the effort of the license to me. Yes the ar is marginally better for varmint hunting but as Grifman says my bolt action would work perfectly fine. Pistol I have been considering selling regardless, I don't use it that much.

[Rip]

Really, the problem is those so-called 'video games,' says Kentucky governor.

When Conway asked if Bevin was interested in a ban on these types of games or merely more parental oversight of children's access, Bevin asked for media producers to take some responsibility for their works. "I think we need to start by having an honest question about what value any of these things add," he said. "Why do we need a video game, for example, that encourages people to kill people. Whether it's lyrics, whether it's TV shows, whether it's movies, I'm asking the producers of these products, these video games and these movies, ask yourselves what redemptive value, other than shock value, other than the hope you'll make a couple of bucks off it. At what price? At what price?"

It takes a mind-blowing amount of cognitive dissonance to simultaneously say that video games--not the people playing them--are bad while espousing the opposite view regarding guns.

It does, both are ridiculous suppositions.

[Smoove_B]

I am starting to prefer treating it straight-up as a public health crisis.

For you (and anyone that cares), here is the opinion of someone I follow as a public health professional:

The ultimate solution to the firearm epidemic does not lie with the doctors who treat firearm victims, nor with the community-based providers who try to keep youths away from guns. It lies rather with policymakers and legislators. An activist academic public health community needs to play a central role in engaging this constituency through clear and compelling data-driven research and scholarship. It is only then that we have any hope of turning the tide on what is truly a preventable epidemic.

[Rip]

There's no reason for anyone needing to own anything but a bolt action rifle (hunting), shotgun (hunting/self defense) and a revolver (defense). Semiautomatic rifles and pistols aren't needed. If you want to own one of those they should be very expensive and licensed just like machine guns.

I tend to agree with you here and it makes good common sense. We tried to do some very basic steps toward this in CO and it energized the pro-gun nutters beyond belief and resulted in the state legislature flipping and massively funding a pro-gun group that makes the NRA look downright reasonable. At this point, I struggle if it's worth it to fight this fight given the political downsides.

I am starting to prefer treating it straight-up as a public health crisis. And just as we wouldn't dream of outlawing cars to reduce automobile death rates, we won't do similar for guns. We will allow federal research money to be spent, we will allow safety enhancements public health experts come up with and we will require liability insurance. Once we have the big data actuarial power of the insurance industry and public health experts tearing away at the data I believe we can make some headway in reducing firearm violence. I'm not naive and realize this path is also fraught with potential NRA attacks, etc, but in the end their ability to land attacks will be decreased if we go this route vs banning certain classes of guns (which would increase the NRA's stature at least in the short term).

Until we can deal with the NRA-hydra thing, we are pretty fucked.

That approach may be the one most likely to bear fruit. We don't get a lot of mass shootings in courthouses, perhaps we need to make getting in and out of a school with a gun as difficult as it is for courthouses. It wouldn't be cheap, but on the other hand think of the jobs you would create.

[Enough]

Really, the problem is those so-called 'video games,' says Kentucky governor.

When Conway asked if Bevin was interested in a ban on these types of games or merely more parental oversight of children's access, Bevin asked for media producers to take some responsibility for their works. "I think we need to start by having an honest question about what value any of these things add," he said. "Why do we need a video game, for example, that encourages people to kill people. Whether it's lyrics, whether it's TV shows, whether it's movies, I'm asking the producers of these products, these video games and these movies, ask yourselves what redemptive value, other than shock value, other than the hope you'll make a couple of bucks off it. At what price? At what price?"

It takes a mind-blowing amount of cognitive dissonance to simultaneously say that video games--not the people playing them--are bad while espousing the opposite view regarding guns.

It does, both are ridiculous suppositions.

So wait, if we ban video games (since they are freely available digitally online/offshore) it will in no way impair the ability to obtain a video game since there are too many in circulation to stem the tide, right? I mean I really don't get why gun fanatics always say gun control will fail because there are so many guns in circulation that is trivially easy to get one ban or not, but if we actually do talk about banning a class of guns it suddenly becomes an insurmountable obstacle lol. Clearly bans would reduce access and make it more of a pain in the ass to get one. How many human lives is that lost convenience worth...

[Rip]

Really, the problem is those so-called 'video games,' says Kentucky governor.

When Conway asked if Bevin was interested in a ban on these types of games or merely more parental oversight of children's access, Bevin asked for media producers to take some responsibility for their works. "I think we need to start by having an honest question about what value any of these things add," he said. "Why do we need a video game, for example, that encourages people to kill people. Whether it's lyrics, whether it's TV shows, whether it's movies, I'm asking the producers of these products, these video games and these movies, ask yourselves what redemptive value, other than shock value, other than the hope you'll make a couple of bucks off it. At what price? At what price?"

It takes a mind-blowing amount of cognitive dissonance to simultaneously say that video games--not the people playing them--are bad while espousing the opposite view regarding guns.

It does, both are ridiculous suppositions.

So wait, if we ban video games (since they are freely available digitally online/offshore) it will in no way impair the ability to obtain a video game since there are too many in circulation to stem the tide, right? I mean I really don't get why gun fanatics always say gun control will fail because there are so many guns in circulation that is trivially easy to get one ban or not, but if we actually do talk about banning a class of guns it suddenly becomes an insurmountable obstacle lol. Clearly bans would reduce access and make it more of a pain in the ass to get one. How many human lives is that lost convenience worth...

On the surface that seems true. But at the end of the day I could easily build a semi-automatic rifle in my garage. Write a decent game not so much, but that says more about me than the difficulty I suppose.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/20 ... ing-party/

https://www.engineering.com/AdvancedMan ... apons.aspx

[Carpet_pissr]

There's no reason for anyone needing to own anything but a bolt action rifle (hunting), shotgun (hunting/self defense) and a revolver (defense). Semiautomatic rifles and pistols aren't needed. If you want to own one of those they should be very expensive and licensed just like machine guns.

I tend to agree with you here and it makes good common sense. We tried to do some very basic steps toward this in CO and it energized the pro-gun nutters beyond belief and resulted in the state legislature flipping and massively funding a pro-gun group that makes the NRA look downright reasonable. At this point, I struggle if it's worth it to fight this fight given the political downsides.

I am starting to prefer treating it straight-up as a public health crisis. And just as we wouldn't dream of outlawing cars to reduce automobile death rates, we won't do similar for guns. We will allow federal research money to be spent, we will allow safety enhancements public health experts come up with and we will require liability insurance. Once we have the big data actuarial power of the insurance industry and public health experts tearing away at the data I believe we can make some headway in reducing firearm violence. I'm not naive and realize this path is also fraught with potential NRA attacks, etc, but in the end their ability to land attacks will be decreased if we go this route vs banning certain classes of guns (which would increase the NRA's stature at least in the short term).

Until we can deal with the NRA-hydra thing, we are pretty fucked.

That approach may be the one most likely to bear fruit. We don't get a lot of mass shootings in courthouses, perhaps we need to make getting in and out of a school with a gun as difficult as it is for courthouses. It wouldn't be cheap, but on the other hand think of the jobs you would create.

This, or something like this. I know my kids' elementary school has really beefed up the entrance in the past couple of years. It's sad, but maybe we do need to go the airport security route for schools. Or just REALLY beef up the exteriors to where it's damn near impossible to get inside without a badge or someone buzzing you in. Or both. Make them damned compounds if we have to.

[msteelers]

Maybe we should beef up security at the schools. Add a couple of armed guards for protection. But you can never be too safe. Better put up barbed wire around the school. And we better put a guard tower or two up, so the guards can see everything that’s going on. Getting all of those students in and out is going to be a real problem though. I guess we could just let them all stay at the school full time. No one in, no one out.

Sounds like a great place to learn.

[Rip]

Well there you go, problem solved.

Next.

[LawBeefaroni]

An AR15 is no more dangerous than any other rifle just like a Corvette is no more dangerous than an Escalade.

Stop misinterpreting my words. The statement is about an AR-15 versus other semi-automatic rifles. They are equally dangerous. There is NOTHING at all special about an AR-15.

The AR15 (among others, yes) is designed to mitigate recoil in order to engage multiple targets as fast as possible.

Aren't all rifles designed to mitigate recoil?

No, not really. You only need to mitigate recoil if you are firing shots rapidly, one after another. Recoil is not going to affect your next shot if you are using a bolt action rifle, nor a pump action shotgun.

Not so. Don't want to turn this thread into gun talk bit it's not so.

[GreenGoo]

Sounds good. Put those on the list. Thanks for helping.

You don't need a list. All semi-automatic rifles have similar destructive ability.

So what you are really saying is that you wish to ban semi-automatic weapons. Go ahead and call it what it is.

GLWT.

Wait, people were talking about AR-15's, you added guns to the list, now you're adding all semi-automatic guns to the list.

I think you might want too much gun control. Maybe just start with the first guns you mentioned. If that works, everyone can consider your suggestion of all semi-automatic guns. Hopefully, it won't come to that.

Why would you name specific guns if what you meant was all semi-automatic guns? I get the feeling you're being disingenuous with me, but that can't be true, you're so forthright and honest the rest of the time.

[Enough]

There's no reason for anyone needing to own anything but a bolt action rifle (hunting), shotgun (hunting/self defense) and a revolver (defense). Semiautomatic rifles and pistols aren't needed. If you want to own one of those they should be very expensive and licensed just like machine guns.

I tend to agree with you here and it makes good common sense. We tried to do some very basic steps toward this in CO and it energized the pro-gun nutters beyond belief and resulted in the state legislature flipping and massively funding a pro-gun group that makes the NRA look downright reasonable. At this point, I struggle if it's worth it to fight this fight given the political downsides.

I am starting to prefer treating it straight-up as a public health crisis. And just as we wouldn't dream of outlawing cars to reduce automobile death rates, we won't do similar for guns. We will allow federal research money to be spent, we will allow safety enhancements public health experts come up with and we will require liability insurance. Once we have the big data actuarial power of the insurance industry and public health experts tearing away at the data I believe we can make some headway in reducing firearm violence. I'm not naive and realize this path is also fraught with potential NRA attacks, etc, but in the end their ability to land attacks will be decreased if we go this route vs banning certain classes of guns (which would increase the NRA's stature at least in the short term).

Until we can deal with the NRA-hydra thing, we are pretty fucked.

That approach may be the one most likely to bear fruit. We don't get a lot of mass shootings in courthouses, perhaps we need to make getting in and out of a school with a gun as difficult as it is for courthouses. It wouldn't be cheap, but on the other hand think of the jobs you would create.

This, or something like this. I know my kids' elementary school has really beefed up the entrance in the past couple of years. It's sad, but maybe we do need to go the airport security route for schools. Or just REALLY beef up the exteriors to where it's damn near impossible to get inside without a badge or someone buzzing you in. Or both. Make them damned compounds if we have to.

Now if we could only find the money to make sure our teaching parts of the school could be adequately funded....

[Rip]

Sounds good. Put those on the list. Thanks for helping.

You don't need a list. All semi-automatic rifles have similar destructive ability.

So what you are really saying is that you wish to ban semi-automatic weapons. Go ahead and call it what it is.

GLWT.

Wait, people were talking about AR-15's, you added guns to the list, now you're adding all semi-automatic guns to the list.

I think you might want too much gun control. Maybe just start with the first guns you mentioned. If that works, everyone can consider your suggestion of all semi-automatic guns. Hopefully, it won't come to that.

Why would you name specific guns if what you meant was all semi-automatic guns? I get the feeling you're being disingenuous with me, but that can't be true, you're so forthright and honest the rest of the time.

Why? They are pretty much all the same. Any separation of semi-automatic rifles by anything other than caliber would be purely arbitrary and pointless.

If you think I am actually suggesting banning all semi-automatic weapons then I am being disingenuous. I am simply stressing the point that as you say any effort to ban certain semi-automatic weapons is disingenuous and is actually just a way to make banning all semi-automatic more palatable later. It would be like banning iPhones because texting kills but not other phones because less of them are involved in texting deaths. Just means that more people will start dying with other phones.

[Grifman]

There's no reason for anyone needing to own anything but a bolt action rifle (hunting), shotgun (hunting/self defense) and a revolver (defense). Semiautomatic rifles and pistols aren't needed. If you want to own one of those they should be very expensive and licensed just like machine guns.

I'm really uncomfortable with that line of thinking, for many reasons. For one thing, who gets to decide what other people 'need' and why are they the ones who get to decide for everyone else?

I live in a suburban area, surrounded by cities and people. Hunting is something I'd have to travel to do. Therefore, I have no clue what people need when they live in areas where you can hunt right there where you live. Why should I think I have the right to tell them what they need? A person who lives in a rural, sparsely populated area has no idea what I need in my densely populated city environment, why should they be able to dictate to me what I need?

If it's the elected officials who get to decide, because they were elected, then what happens when new people are voted in? Today's elected official may say "Needed" but at some point someone else will be elected to that position. If they say "Unneeded" well okay. But then someone else gets elected and we're back to needed again. That's not something that is going to be helpful.

I’m just telling you my opinion, I’m not telling you how it would be done. That said, we regulate all sorts of things and tell people what they can and can’t do all the time. Using your logic we could never regulate anything, yet we do, so I don’t see your objection as a realistic or reasonable one.

That said, explain to me why someone needs a semiautomatic rifle or pistol, regardless of where they live, for hunting or self defense, and why the weapon types above that I would alllow are inadequate for those purposes.

[Combustible Lemur]

There's no reason for anyone needing to own anything but a bolt action rifle (hunting), shotgun (hunting/self defense) and a revolver (defense). Semiautomatic rifles and pistols aren't needed. If you want to own one of those they should be very expensive and licensed just like machine guns.

I'm really uncomfortable with that line of thinking, for many reasons. For one thing, who gets to decide what other people 'need' and why are they the ones who get to decide for everyone else?

I live in a suburban area, surrounded by cities and people. Hunting is something I'd have to travel to do. Therefore, I have no clue what people need when they live in areas where you can hunt right there where you live. Why should I think I have the right to tell them what they need? A person who lives in a rural, sparsely populated area has no idea what I need in my densely populated city environment, why should they be able to dictate to me what I need?

If it's the elected officials who get to decide, because they were elected, then what happens when new people are voted in? Today's elected official may say "Needed" but at some point someone else will be elected to that position. If they say "Unneeded" well okay. But then someone else gets elected and we're back to needed again. That's not something that is going to be helpful.

I’m just telling you my opinion, I’m not telling you how it would be done. That said, we regulate all sorts of things and tell people what they can and can’t do all the time. Using your logic we could never regulate anything, yet we do, so I don’t see your objection as a realistic or reasonable one.

That said, explain to me why someone needs a semiautomatic rifle or pistol, regardless of where they live, for hunting or self defense, and why the weapon types above that I would alllow are inadequate for those purposes.

Semi automatic is a must in self defense. I don't know much about guns but once you've made the decision to kill someone pull the trigger till they aren't a threat. Or they might have their own gun, or take yours.

I don't really care that muct which regulations get made as long as they work. We don't have a gun but we'd like to hunt if we lived in the country. And having been burgled, I can see having one for self defense.
But I'm kinda With Rip and ND in that calling out AR 15s is in some ways counterproductive. Every time someone looking for sensible gun regulation says something stupid about guns, people who use and have used them get suspicious of motives and efficacy.

Up above somebody mentioned 30 round clips. That IMO is a great place to start. Even varmint hunters I would think shouldn't be using more that ten rounds in a spurt. In pistols a thirty round clip is a novelty yes? It's only purpose is to decrease reload/firing time. Which is silly for hunting and only seems to make sense for in someone in a firefight. And even there, you don't see cops running around with extended pistol clips.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[Grifman]

Semi automatic is a must in self defense. I don't know much about guns but once you've made the decision to kill someone pull the trigger till they aren't a threat. Or they might have their own gun, or take yours.

No, they aren't needed. Are you saying people were unable to adequately defend themselves before the advent of semiautomatic weapons? A revolver or shotgun is entirely adequate for home defense. A shotgun gives you power and the next round can be reloaded quickly with a pump. A revolver can be fired again quickly with another pull of the trigger. Nothing more is really needed for the vast majority of situations.

[Chaz]

For the self defense in the home thing, I can't help but think a baseball bat would be more effective than a gun. They're much cheaper. They're dead simple to use. Almost everyone in America has far more experience swinging a bat than they do firing a gun accurately in a stressful situation. They can be left within easy reach without posing a risk of kids finding them and accidentally killing themselves. They do require you being within arms reach, but in most homes, that's a pretty likely scenario even with a gun. But somehow, the narrative has become that the only way to effectively defend your home is with a gun. I guess the thinking is that the intruder might have a gun too? If that's the case, and they're willing to use it, it seems way more likely that they would if they see you coming at them with a gun as well.

But I don't know. I usually subscribe to the theory that the chances of my house being broken into are really small to begin with, even smaller if there's someone obviously at home, and if I am, the person breaking in is more likely to bail out at the first sign someone's coming to investigate. If they're that intent on causing me physical harm, then frankly, I don't like my chances no matter what I'm armed with, and the better move is to get out quickly and call for help. The infinitesimal chance that I wind up in the last situation is totally not worth the cost in time, money, and risk involved in keeping a self defense gun in the house.

[LawBeefaroni]

Semi automatic is a must in self defense. I don't know much about guns but once you've made the decision to kill someone pull the trigger till they aren't a threat. Or they might have their own gun, or take yours.

No, they aren't needed. Are you saying people were unable to adequately defend themselves before the advent of semiautomatic weapons? A revolver or shotgun is entirely adequate for home defense. A shotgun gives you power and the next round can be ready quickly with a pump. A revolver can be fired again quickly with another pull of the trigger. Nothing more is really needed for the vast majority of situations.

A semi-automatic pistol is much easier to manipulate and fire for most people. My pistol of choice is a semi auto because it is easier to for me to carry, deploy, maintain, and most importantly, shoot accurately. Police departments have largely abandoned the revolver with good reason.

A revolver can be fired again quickly with another pull of the trigger.

So why are revolvers ok when effectively they have the same rate of fire as a semi auto? Is it because usually they hold fewer rounds? They are slower to reload?

Unfortunately many characteristics that make a firearm better for self defense also make it better for mass killings.

I think more specifics might be better in another thread.

[Grifman]

A semi-automatic pistol is much easier to manipulate and fire for most people. My pistol of choice is a semi auto because it is easier to for me to carry, deploy, maintain, and most importantly, shoot accurately. Police departments have largely abandoned the revolver with good reason.

Yes, a revolver is still entirely adequate, which is all I am aiming for. It seems to have worked well for decades for most people, and it is still entirely adequate. It doesn't have to be the best, just adequate for the purpose.

So why are revolvers ok when effectively they have the same rate of fire as a semi auto? Is it because usually they hold fewer rounds? They are slower to reload?

That's it, fewer rounds, slower to reload.

[Paingod]

You don't need a list. All semi-automatic rifles have similar destructive ability.

I think you might want too much gun control. Maybe just start with the first guns you mentioned. If that works, everyone can consider your suggestion of all semi-automatic guns. Hopefully, it won't come to that.

Why? They are pretty much all the same. Any separation of semi-automatic rifles by anything other than caliber would be purely arbitrary and pointless.

I agree that semi-auto is semi-auto. Rifle, pistol, revolver. Each pull of the trigger is one bullet with no intervening user action required. Make/model/style/name is largely irrelevant in that manner.

The other factors in play are accuracy, caliber, capacity, reload speed, weight, and scalability.

All "assault-rifle" style guns tend to have good specs across the board. The AR-15 platform, in particular, is a highly modifiable one. You can change out a huge number of parts until the gun is barely recognizable from when it was purchased. It's part of why it's so popular with hunters and sport-shooters.

In short, banning one or two or ten by name is pointless. You'd need to ban the "assault-rifle" theme all together because they're all so similar in destructive ability. Doing so, though, would put you in direct opposition to the bulk of why people who like guns buy guns.

Gun owners all have different reasons for owning the guns they have. From self defense, to sport, to hunting, to simply thinking they're cool. An assault rifle checks a lot of those boxes, sometimes as the best choice.

[Blackhawk]

People (including in this thread) don't even know what 'assault rifle' means. I sold guns between high school and college, and have carried in three jobs, and even I don't know what it means, as it changes depending on who you ask. Often it is applied more to aesthetics than functionality, which is silly. It's like saying you can have a tank as long as it is painted to look like a Yugo. It is a useless term when everyone uses it to mean something else.

[El Guapo]

There's no reason for anyone needing to own anything but a bolt action rifle (hunting), shotgun (hunting/self defense) and a revolver (defense). Semiautomatic rifles and pistols aren't needed. If you want to own one of those they should be very expensive and licensed just like machine guns.

I'm really uncomfortable with that line of thinking, for many reasons. For one thing, who gets to decide what other people 'need' and why are they the ones who get to decide for everyone else?

I live in a suburban area, surrounded by cities and people. Hunting is something I'd have to travel to do. Therefore, I have no clue what people need when they live in areas where you can hunt right there where you live. Why should I think I have the right to tell them what they need? A person who lives in a rural, sparsely populated area has no idea what I need in my densely populated city environment, why should they be able to dictate to me what I need?

If it's the elected officials who get to decide, because they were elected, then what happens when new people are voted in? Today's elected official may say "Needed" but at some point someone else will be elected to that position. If they say "Unneeded" well okay. But then someone else gets elected and we're back to needed again. That's not something that is going to be helpful.

I’m just telling you my opinion, I’m not telling you how it would be done. That said, we regulate all sorts of things and tell people what they can and can’t do all the time. Using your logic we could never regulate anything, yet we do, so I don’t see your objection as a realistic or reasonable one.

That said, explain to me why someone needs a semiautomatic rifle or pistol, regardless of where they live, for hunting or self defense, and why the weapon types above that I would alllow are inadequate for those purposes.

Semi automatic is a must in self defense. I don't know much about guns but once you've made the decision to kill someone pull the trigger till they aren't a threat. Or they might have their own gun, or take yours.

I don't really care that muct which regulations get made as long as they work. We don't have a gun but we'd like to hunt if we lived in the country. And having been burgled, I can see having one for self defense.
But I'm kinda With Rip and ND in that calling out AR 15s is in some ways counterproductive. Every time someone looking for sensible gun regulation says something stupid about guns, people who use and have used them get suspicious of motives and efficacy.

Up above somebody mentioned 30 round clips. That IMO is a great place to start. Even varmint hunters I would think shouldn't be using more that ten rounds in a spurt. In pistols a thirty round clip is a novelty yes? It's only purpose is to decrease reload/firing time. Which is silly for hunting and only seems to make sense for in someone in a firefight. And even there, you don't see cops running around with extended pistol clips.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

I recently found out about Israel's self-defense licensing laws:

Relevant contents
[T]o buy a gun, Israelis must obtain a license via the Public Security Ministry, which they can only get if they meet certain criteria, and can only buy guns at licensed gun shops.

Among the requirements are living in Israel for at least three years, speaking basic Hebrew, a minimum age of 21 for citizens who did army or civilian service, 27 for citizens who didn't and 45 for non-citizens, a signed doctor's note, and being properly trained.

Once an Israeli gets a license, he or she can only own one firearm, in most cases, and get a lifetime supply of 50 bullets that cannot be replenished.

Israelis can only get a gun if they have what is considered by the Public Security Ministry to be a good reason, such as if they work in security or law enforcement, or if they live or work in a settlement in which the state has an interest in arming some residents…

Original publisher's web link:
http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Politi ... ent-445402

The bullet restriction I found especially interesting - if you are allowed to buy a gun for self-defense (which is not an automatic process), you're limited to 50 bullets, period. As I read in an article, the rationale being, "if you need more than 50 bullets to defend yourself, the gun's not going to help you."

[xenocide]

I would say an assault rifle is only significantly better than alternatives for sport and "thinking they're cool".

For self defense they are worse. At least in a home burglary type situation. Unless you're planning on defending your compound from a large invading force (which I realize some crazies do want it for that but they are crazies (yes I know they are still a voice for the NRA)). A handgun or shotgun world be much better.

For hunting I agree they can be better depending on usage. But I don't think they are significantly better, just marginally. Not enough to justify the societal downside.

[LawBeefaroni]

The bullet restriction I found especially interesting - if you are allowed to buy a gun for self-defense (which is not an automatic process), you're limited to 50 bullets, period. As I read in an article, the rationale being, "if you need more than 50 bullets to defend yourself, the gun's not going to help you."

Would work here if there was a way to replenish. Or if you had unlimited rounds while at the range. Because practice is important and if you've never fired a gun before, 50 rounds is as good as 0 in a self defense situation.

The black market for cartridges would be a problem that would have to be dealt with. Wonder what it's like in Isreal.

[Smoove_B]

The policy in Israel is quite interesting. Though I'm sure once it was floated here everyone would be yelling about how Obama and the JEWS are coming for your guns (and bullets). It could certainly be part of a solution. I still think insurance premiums need to be included as well (as mentioned in a half a dozen other places). Regardless, there seemingly needs to be much more tracking and information collected at various points of sale - which I know is probably the largest sticking point for many of the 2nd Amendment purists.

[Paingod]

People (including in this thread) don't even know what 'assault rifle' means.

I keep assuming we're all talking about anything that qualifies as a rifle (2 hands, long barrel, shoulder pad/scope compatible) and is semi-automatic. The classic vision, though, is something you'd see in combat or used by a SWAT team. Tactical black, banana magazine, lots of bits and nobs and it looks dangerous. I assume some can be converted to full auto with the right parts.

Merriam Webster:
Any of various intermediate-range, magazine-fed military rifles (such as the AK-47) that can be set for automatic or semiautomatic fire; also : a rifle that resembles a military assault rifle but is designed to allow only semiautomatic fire

[LawBeefaroni]

.

For self defense they are worse. At least in a home burglary type situation. Unless you're planning on defending your compound from a large invading force (which I realize some crazies do want it for that but they are crazies (yes I know they are still a voice for the NRA)). A handgun or shotgun world be much better.

This is not true in all situations. This is like the second or third time someone has said this and I'm curious why a semi-automatic carbine would universally be worse in home defense than a pistol or shotgun.

Mostly because if your argument is that AR-15s and similar rifles have no legitimate use for self defense, you're going to run into trouble.

[Blackhawk]

People (including in this thread) don't even know what 'assault rifle' means.

I keep assuming we're all talking about anything that qualifies as a rifle (2 hands, long barrel, shoulder pad/scope compatible) and is semi-automatic. The classic vision, though, is something you'd see in combat or used by a SWAT team. Tactical black, banana magazine, lots of bits and nobs and it looks dangerous. I assume some can be converted to full auto with the right parts.

Merriam Webster:
Any of various intermediate-range, magazine-fed military rifles (such as the AK-47) that can be set for automatic or semiautomatic fire; also : a rifle that resembles a military assault rifle but is designed to allow only semiautomatic fire

Exactly my point. You just described three different types of weapons in five sentences. One is almost any modern rifle, including my grandfather's 80-year-old .22 'varmint' gun. The second is something that looks scary. The third specifies military rifles (and repeats the 'looks scary' definition.) Oh, and in case people didn't get the snark, banning the weapons that look scary instead of the ones that are effective is about as ridiculous as it gets.

[Paingod]

For self defense they are worse. At least in a home burglary type situation... A handgun or shotgun world be much better.

This is not true in all situations. This is like the second or third time someone has said this and I'm curious why a semi-automatic carbine would universally be worse in home defense than a pistol or shotgun.

I thought a typical .38 or 9mm bullet is going to pass through fewer walls and hard surfaces than a .223 bullet would before stopping, reducing the risk of harming neighbors and other home occupants?

*Edit: Maybe not. A little research shows the 9mm actually goes through walls and a little further than the .223 bullet did. Huh. I never researched it and simply made an assumption. This isn't something that you think much about unless you're debating it, I guess.

The best home defense round to use to avoid risk to your neighbors seems to be birdshot with a shotgun. Anything else flies through wall after wall after wall.

[xenocide]

.

For self defense they are worse. At least in a home burglary type situation. Unless you're planning on defending your compound from a large invading force (which I realize some crazies do want it for that but they are crazies (yes I know they are still a voice for the NRA)). A handgun or shotgun world be much better.

This is not true in all situations. This is like the second or third time someone has said this and I'm curious why a semi-automatic carbine would universally be worse in home defense than a pistol or shotgun.

Mostly because if your argument is that AR-15s and similar rifles have no legitimate use for self defense, you're going to run into trouble.

Of course AR-15s have a use in self defense, if you need to shoot someone having an AR-15 is obviously better than having nothing. I just disagree it is better or as good as a handgun or shotgun. I am sure people can come up with situations where they think an AR-15 style gun is necessary for self defense but once again I don't think the possible small advantage over a shotgun/handgun in rare situations outweighs the downsides.

A self defense shotgun or a handgun is much easier to grab and wield and fire in a tight quarter, tense, quick developing situation. Yes if I grab my AR and charge the burglar and mow him down he is stopped, but I can't do that with a 12ga?