Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

grantcart

(53,061 posts)
Sun Jul 22, 2012, 03:34 PM Jul 2012

Beyond the trivialities of what is an assault weapon and what is not

I wrote this as a reply in a thread to a gun 'enthusiast' who was gleefully showing that any rifle can be converted into a de facto assault weapon and be as lethal as a machine gun. Apparently they believe that because this could be done that it meant that since all hunting rifles could be converted into a de facto machine gun meant that there was nothing that reasonable people could do, the argument was defeated on a technicality. Several people pmd me asking that I post it as an OP.

For purposes of rational discussion among reasonable people I concede that there is a right to own a personal weapon. Not in the 2nd amendment but in the larger assumption of rights that takes into account American history and tradition and the right to defend one's self. If we can argue that every woman has an implicit constitutional right to control their own body then I think it is not too outrageous to argue that a similar right exists for individuals (like Trevor Martin for example) to arm themselves and protect themselves.

That is the context here is the reply:




I am just pointing out that you and the others who make similar points congratulate yourself on 'winning' arguments by immersing yourself in munitions Mountie and you think you have accomplished something.

There are rifles that are suitable for hunting. Keep them legal and encourage education and we have 100% agreement.

There are handguns that people wish to own for person protection. Keep them legal and encourage education and safety. Allow impacted cities to control the quantity per owner.

That now covers all that is needed to fulfill any explicit or implicit constitutional right to own a firearm.

Recreational firearms, like other weapons including machine guns, bazookas, anti tank missiles or hand held stinger missiles do not have any constitutional right for individual ownership.

I understand that some people are devoted to having exotic firearms, but there is no constitutional argument that could support it as a right. I would have no problem with restricted commercial sites where people could go and exercise their devotion to that.

Before you further trivialize the argument with all of your banal trivialities about the definition of weapons is this one clearly stated principle:

There is no constitutional right and no individual need for any civilian to be carrying around any weapon that can discharge dozens, let alone hundreds of bullets in one minute. None. You may be devoted to it. You may worship it like a religion but you cannot rationally justify it and other countries, like Switzerland, that have high percentages of individual gun ownership consider your position to be a kind of insanity, I know because I have lived there. No one in the civilized world agrees with the idea that a civilian should have the ability to whip out a weapon that can discharge hundreds of rounds in a minute.

Keep your banal weapons definitions to the gun worshiping club and try not to keep trivializing the point.

Beyond the issue of personal weapons is the ability to own weapons that have the capacity to kill a hundred people in a few minutes. If his weapons hadn't jammed we might not have 72 wounded but 100 dead.

Yes it cost Democrats the Congress. So did backing Civil Rights Act of 1964. It gave us Richard Nixon.

So we have learned from it. We aren't going to do it at this time.

Do you know how this is going to end?

Someday some guy's clip isn't going to jam. He may have a buddy. There aren't going to be dozens of wounded there is going to be more than a hundred fatalities and then all of the phony banal obfuscations will melt away. I just wish that it would occur at a site where all of the victims support that right and not at a movie theater, or a hospital or a work place.

Slavery lasted a long time too. All attempts to fix it by legislation were well defeated. Eventually they had to come into conflict and with the shelling of Fort Sumter the issue was finally engaged.

Eventually there will be a body count that will make the country retch and then the trivial, banal and idiotic arguments over the exact definition of 'an assault weapon' and 'a hunting rifle' and a 'machine gun' will be gone and any weapon that discharges hundreds of rounds in a New York Minute will be history.

That is why gun control advocates don't bother with legislation now, they know it is simply a matter of time.




Everyone knows that it is a ticking bomb. Someday some individual will take these extremely lethal weapons to their ultimate lethal conclusion and the debate over what is a rifle and what is an assault weapon will no longer exist.
28 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Beyond the trivialities of what is an assault weapon and what is not (Original Post) grantcart Jul 2012 OP
Thank You. drm604 Jul 2012 #1
Your broad brush smears and nonfactual statements gut any effectiveness your post might of had ProgressiveProfessor Jul 2012 #2
There are no smears and no factual statements. grantcart Jul 2012 #4
Wonderful post and response! citizen blues Jul 2012 #14
When you say "effectiveness" do you mean changing the minds of gun "enthusiasts"? rhett o rick Jul 2012 #5
Part of the Problem SoDesuKa Jul 2012 #19
Thank you grantcart. I'm sure you're gonna get the hair-splitters by the droves calimary Jul 2012 #3
All defenders of the 2nd Amendment are like George Zimmerman? Marengo Jul 2012 #16
Interesting... Reasonable_Argument Jul 2012 #23
Well said. But the gun lobby, NRA and GOP are too stong for decent rhett o rick Jul 2012 #6
Eventually there will be a tragedy where highly lethal weapons are used by one or more grantcart Jul 2012 #9
Matter of Time SoDesuKa Jul 2012 #20
Well said. Patiod Jul 2012 #7
Kick for a worthwhile post amid all the ranting and raving. (nt) scarletwoman Jul 2012 #8
Excellent OP! n/t Spazito Jul 2012 #10
So every semi-automatic with a detachable magazine could be an assault weapon? Kaleva Jul 2012 #11
Actually I was pointing the absurdity of the 'assault weapon' nonsense. Edweird Jul 2012 #12
If you mean that the only relevent issue is the lethality of the weapon and grantcart Jul 2012 #13
So, your stated goal is the ban of all semi-automatic weapons and all the assault weapon talk is TheKentuckian Jul 2012 #15
Really? grantcart Jul 2012 #17
Talking About Guns SoDesuKa Jul 2012 #18
What makes you think that this massacre didn't provoke revulsion? lapislzi Jul 2012 #24
When people are proposing laws Union Scribe Jul 2012 #21
The only distinction that is important is that of the lethality of the weapon involved. grantcart Jul 2012 #26
In order to have a rational discussion about any subject it is necessary to define terms. ... spin Jul 2012 #22
Capable of firing... kudzu22 Jul 2012 #25
I am not sure of what you are saying grantcart Jul 2012 #27
Two points. benEzra Jul 2012 #28

ProgressiveProfessor

(22,144 posts)
2. Your broad brush smears and nonfactual statements gut any effectiveness your post might of had
Sun Jul 22, 2012, 03:55 PM
Jul 2012

Thank you for being part of the problem

grantcart

(53,061 posts)
4. There are no smears and no factual statements.
Sun Jul 22, 2012, 04:31 PM
Jul 2012

You have completely missed the point if you were looking for either.

It is a very narrow argument that establsihes that people who try to get into the minutae of what a gun is are missing the point of what a gun does and they think that by arguing definitions and model types it is a relevent discussion.

The very narrow point is this:

If we accept that there is a legal right to own a weapon that can be used for either hunting or self defense then we do not have to accept that there are no limitations to those weapons to accept that there is a legal right to own them.

No one would argue that a person should be able to own a hand grenade or a machine gun for hunting or self defense,

All of the arguments that follow on what is an assault weapon or what is a rifle that gun worshippers (who are to be distinguished from simple gun owners) love to engage in to derail discussi fons about those reasonable limitations are specious.

The only relevent fact in this discussion is the number of rounds that can be discharged instantly.

You simply do not need to have weapons (by whatever classification you wish to use) that can discharge hundreds of rounds a minute. Whether that was the original design, or whether it is a modification of the weapon is beyond the point.

You are unable to engage that argument because in the civilized world there is no counter argument and even the most ardent gun enthusiast outside of the US agree with that simple narrowly defined proposition, that there should be some limit to the lethality of a weapon that any individual citizen can have.

The other reality is that all of these terrible tragedies always have a footnote to them that the gun jammed or that a much higher lethal count was not reached due to the incompetence of the criminal. Someday there will be no footnote but a much much higher death count and then there will be some Republican legislators who will be facing an angry constituency and they will break with the pact in the same way that James Brady did for earlier attempts.

That you would term my OP as "part of the problem" simply reveals the deep and troubling psychosis that you bring to the subject. You are no longer able to discuss it in a rational manner.

In the end it comes down to a very simple question;

Do you believe that there should be some limit to the lethality of the weapons that otherwise could be legally obtainsd.

Apparently you believe that there should be no such limit.

citizen blues

(570 posts)
14. Wonderful post and response!
Sun Jul 22, 2012, 07:38 PM
Jul 2012

I think you hit the nail on the head. I completely agree that we have gotten so mired in this 2nd amendment debate, that we have completely lost sight of the basic question at hand.

Should civilians have weapons that fire 100+ rounds a minute?

The question is clear, concise and rationale. Not really a difficult one to figure out. But sadly, as a country we are no longer capable of answering basic moral questions anymore. Just like with health care. We've completely lost sight of that basic question too.

Should profits be made off of people's injuries and illnesses?

Again, clear, concise and rationale. Not a difficult one to figure out. The events in Aurora seem to have brought about the intersection of these two questions. The Governor has already started a donation fund to help the victims pay their medical bills.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
5. When you say "effectiveness" do you mean changing the minds of gun "enthusiasts"?
Sun Jul 22, 2012, 04:39 PM
Jul 2012

I doubt that is his goal. There is no changing that mindset. And thanking him for being "part of the problem", ah yes. Do you honestly think he is the problem or even part of the problem?

There is a huge problem and the GOP and NRA are fueling it. I am surprised that a "Progressive Professor" would go along.

SoDesuKa

(3,173 posts)
19. Part of the Problem
Mon Jul 23, 2012, 03:03 AM
Jul 2012

Professor, what do you believe "the problem" is? It's not clear from your post what you mean.

calimary

(80,693 posts)
3. Thank you grantcart. I'm sure you're gonna get the hair-splitters by the droves
Sun Jul 22, 2012, 04:23 PM
Jul 2012

trying to "shoot down" your arguments. Too broad-brush, or you don't understand, or it's legal, or those were Illegal, or this magazine is okay because it's whatever, or that gun isn't an assault rifle or weapon or whatever gymnastics they wanna play with the semantics here. They'll always talk their way around whatever valid points you make and somehow label them invalid.

Well, grantcart, they're NOT invalid. Not at all. I don't care how the Second Amendment folks try to dance around this. To me they can't. To me they lose before they even open their mouths. To me they're just simply and flatly WRONG. And they cling to the Second Amendment like a bunch of george zimmermans, unapologetic and proud as can be in their purported rectitude. And somehow they all avoid or ignore the "WELL-REGULATED MILITIA" phrase in that same Second Amendment. What I "love" is how many times I've made that point to some gun-lover and the response is always some version of "oh, no, that's not what it means at all! You see, what they were REALLY talking about was..." Or "oh, no. That doesn't apply. That only applies to..." Or "well, what you don't understand is what that REALLY means here, which is..." Which, frankly, is nothing but BULLSHIT. The founder weren't talking about assault weapons or AK 47s or WHATEVER you want to call them or rename them or somehow jabber-jaw your way around what they really are. Or, splitting hairs further, it wasn't the GUN so much as it was the magazine clip or cartridge or whatever the verbiage is regarding those add-ons that allow you to mow a crowd down in 30 seconds to a minute.

I don't fucking CARE! These guns are WRONG. They're NOTHING but BAD. There is NOTHING good or beneficial or "keeping me safe" about them. They're just damage and mass-murder and bad and WRONG. That's all they are! And NO fast-talking or hair-splitting or slippery-sloping or jabber-jawing or mewling about the Second Amendment and how they get to stand their ground and whatever slick (and SICK) opportunistic murderous talking points the NRA comes up with this hour will change my mind. I don't want to hear their rationales. NONE of them will convince me otherwise. Not EVER.

And frankly, the massacre on Friday night would NOT have been stopped by some law-abiding concealed carry person in the audience. First the guy threw TEAR GAS. Okay? Would any of those concealed-carry zealots have been in that theater with their own gas masks on, too? So they could see through the tear gas and shoot the killer? Yeah, sure. In that packed theater with the lights low and the movie still playing so all this weird flickering light would have been enlivening the billowing clouds of tear gas in everybody's faces, noses, and eyes? How would everyone not be choking and gasping - WHILE they were stampeding in sheer panic, with barrages of 100-shots-a-minute bullets flying everywhere? Oh I'm just SURE somebody else with a gun woulda nailed that killer and just fixed it all, wouldn't they? Some latter-day Wyatt Earp wannabe woulda saved the day, for sure! In THOSE conditions. I've also heard that there WAS someone with a concealed weapon AT the Gabrielle Giffords event when the shooting erupted there. He was unable to do anything to stop the perpetrator there, mainly because, in the chaos that ensued - even in an open parking lot area in the light of day - he couldn't be sure he'd get the actual gunman, or manage to do so without accidently shooting some innocent bystanders too. Plus the fear of what the cops might do when they arrived at the scene and saw HIM with a gun, and mistake HIM for the perpetrator. That IS not the solution.

 

Marengo

(3,477 posts)
16. All defenders of the 2nd Amendment are like George Zimmerman?
Sun Jul 22, 2012, 09:09 PM
Jul 2012

Care to flesh that out? In what way are they like George Zimmerman?

Oh, and apparently you need to learn what makes a statement prefatory or operative.

 
23. Interesting...
Mon Jul 23, 2012, 08:02 AM
Jul 2012

That you call out pro gun posters close minded and then expose that same close mindedness in the opposite opinion you just posted.

grantcart

(53,061 posts)
9. Eventually there will be a tragedy where highly lethal weapons are used by one or more
Sun Jul 22, 2012, 05:31 PM
Jul 2012

who know that they are doing.

The numbers of fatalities will be so great as to cause Republicans who live in swing districts to peal off.

The same thing that happened with Brady.

We don't have to break them or convince them.

Eventually there will be a split and at that time we will be able to strike and effective reasonable compromise.

Its just a matter of time before one of these guys doesn't wound 71 but kills 71 or 171.

SoDesuKa

(3,173 posts)
20. Matter of Time
Mon Jul 23, 2012, 03:07 AM
Jul 2012

Holmes was meticulously prepared for the massacre, but he just didn't know enough about the AR-15 to keep it from jamming. The next madman may not be so inept.

Patiod

(11,816 posts)
7. Well said.
Sun Jul 22, 2012, 05:22 PM
Jul 2012

I keep going back, over and over again, to the fact that we are the only civilized country in the world where guns are this unlimited, and the only civilized country without decent national health care.

Kaleva

(36,145 posts)
11. So every semi-automatic with a detachable magazine could be an assault weapon?
Sun Jul 22, 2012, 06:38 PM
Jul 2012

If the magazine can be easily detached from the gun, then the gun can be equipped with a high capacity magazine. This would apply to most every semi-auto pistol and a number of hunting rifles.

Now the M-1 Garand of WWI and Korean War fame was a semi-auto rifle but it had an internal magazine which required reloading one round at a time or by using en bloc clips. The gun could not hold more then 8 rounds. But even with that limitation, a well trained soldier could, on average, accurately fire about 40-50 rounds a minute. The Italians later modified the design so that a detachable magazine was used and that increased the gun's mag capacity to 20 rounds. The old M1911A1 .45 pistol has a 7 round magazine but one can buy extended ones that double that capacity.

A well trained person with a semi-automatic of any kind can potentially accurately fire several dozen rounds a minute and kill many.

If you wish to ban all semi-automatics, I don't have a problem with that. I don't think it's do-able though. I do think there may be a chance to ban, without exception, all high capacity magazines.

 

Edweird

(8,570 posts)
12. Actually I was pointing the absurdity of the 'assault weapon' nonsense.
Sun Jul 22, 2012, 06:51 PM
Jul 2012

It wasn't that a hunting rifle could be 'converted' - there is nothing to 'convert' to. A box fed semiautomatic rifle is a box fed semiautomatic rifle whether it looks like one your grandad had or one you carried in the service. The difference is cosmetic. Fearmongering over a paint scheme or grip is ridiculous. "Oooh this one is black and has a 'flash hider' so it's a killing machine".

grantcart

(53,061 posts)
13. If you mean that the only relevent issue is the lethality of the weapon and
Sun Jul 22, 2012, 07:01 PM
Jul 2012

the original form of the weapon, or clip, or how easy it is to upgrade, then I agree.

People who are unfamiliar with the munitae of weapons are not, I don't think, fearmongering about paint schemes or grips, it is about how many rounds can be discharged in a few seconds.

TheKentuckian

(24,934 posts)
15. So, your stated goal is the ban of all semi-automatic weapons and all the assault weapon talk is
Sun Jul 22, 2012, 07:59 PM
Jul 2012

a distraction BUT to prevent some future tragedy and face extreme blowback we should accept the ban of assault weapons to preserve access to ordinary semi-automatic weapons?

Seriously?

Either that is the very unconvincing argument or you are arguing simply for the ban of all semi-automatic weapons without all the double talk.

Be advised that minus the double talk and "assault weapons" fear mongering the little crusade is DOA.

I double dog dare you folks to boldly announce your intention to ban all semi-automatic weapons. The trip will be over before you can get to the car door.

grantcart

(53,061 posts)
17. Really?
Mon Jul 23, 2012, 02:23 AM
Jul 2012

You guys are so emotionally wrapped up into your gun devotion that you lose all ability to read simple sentences

From the OP;




Beyond the issue of personal weapons is the ability to own weapons that have the capacity to kill a hundred people in a few minutes. If his weapons hadn't jammed we might not have 72 wounded but 100 dead.

Yes it cost Democrats the Congress. So did backing Civil Rights Act of 1964. It gave us Richard Nixon.

So we have learned from it. We aren't going to do it at this time.



So there is no stated goal to "ban" anything.

It was stated in languag simple enough for a 3rd grader.

And yet you cannot read it and understand it.

You cannot be this obtuse in the rest of your business so why is it that when it comes to talking about guns you brain stops working.

Even your language becomes infantile, "Double dog dare".

Please don't respond and further embarass yourself with your childish comments.

The only way to make it any simpler that I am not advocating a ban on anything, I just don't want the gun fetish people to think that the technical discussion of whether it is an 'assault weapon', a 'rifle' or 'semi automatic' is simply adolescent.

The only metric that is relevent is the lethality of the weapon.

To make it any simpler for you to be able to understand it I will have to use crayons.

SoDesuKa

(3,173 posts)
18. Talking About Guns
Mon Jul 23, 2012, 03:01 AM
Jul 2012

Yes, there is a detached way of talking about guns as if they were only mechanical devices like a carburetor. The rest are expected to join in with this affect-less way of discussing guns. It's as if the way they work is separate from what they do.

As you say, we're on a collision course between present laissez-faire policy and the likelihood of a massacre so great it will provoke revulsion. It's just a matter of time. Holmes wasn't skilled enough with weapons to avoid having them jam on him; the next madman won't be so inept.

I don't think the gun enthusiasts are fully engaged in the discussion. They want us to focus on what they focus on, but it's clear that they are averting their eyes from the larger picture.

lapislzi

(5,762 posts)
24. What makes you think that this massacre didn't provoke revulsion?
Mon Jul 23, 2012, 09:34 AM
Jul 2012

It certainly did for me, as did other massacres before it.

Do mean, reach a tipping point of revulsion? Although I have no wish to see any further carnage wrought by awful people with awful weapons, that tipping point cannot come soon enough for me. Today would be good.

Last week would have been better. December, 2010 would have been better still. And so forth.

Union Scribe

(7,099 posts)
21. When people are proposing laws
Mon Jul 23, 2012, 03:58 AM
Jul 2012

Then yeah, distinctions and concrete understanding of what guns they're talking about is not too much to ask.

And, would it be too much to ask that if you reply, you not angrily insult my intelligence a dozen times?

grantcart

(53,061 posts)
26. The only distinction that is important is that of the lethality of the weapon involved.
Mon Jul 23, 2012, 11:46 AM
Jul 2012

The only constitutionally guaranteed right that anyone can claim is for a weapon that is sufficient for self protection or hunting.

No one makes a case that everyone should be able to purchase machine guns.

The most dangerous law enforcement job in the US government is a US Border Patrol Agent.

They are protected by



http://www.usborderpatrol.com/Border_Patrol412.htm


At present the US Border Patrol Agents are issued the Berretta 96D "Brigadier" pistol. It can contain as many as 12 rounds of ammunition (11 in the magazine and one in the chamber). The "96" is essentially an older Berretta model (the 92) with some modifications.



There is no rational argument for any civilian to be carrying any weapon that has more lethality than the weapon that serves to very effectively protect the most dangerous law enforcement position in the country. Any argument to the contrary is not based on reason but on some mythological devotion to beliefs about the need to be invested with special powers to own munitions that exceed what a law enforcement officer needs to carry out a dangerous job. People who try to make distinctions beyond that logic are embarassing themselves.

Now if you believe that I have taken a sensible comment that you have made then direct it to me. If you think that you and every other random person in the country needs more fire power than a law enforcement officer then prepare to be ridiculed. Its really like talking to a Republican on health care. I have given up my personal preference for living in a developed country that is largely gun free like the rest of the developed world (like I have to give up my preference for universal health care) and I have even conceded a constitutional right to own a gun (feels like giving up the public option) and now I am left with supporting the NRA's position to simply aggressively enforce existing law (stuck with the Heritage Foundations idea that Romney turned into RomnyCare) and now you want me to back off and be polite when they insist that having a hundred rounds in a rifle doesn't really change what a hunting rifle is all about (feels just like talking my Republican friends and relatives who want to be respected after they reject the concept that there should be no barrier to access to health care). Again educate me exactly what did I say that you felt was intelligent, reasonable and compassionate that I attacked which you felt was unfair? Looking forward to your answer.

spin

(17,493 posts)
22. In order to have a rational discussion about any subject it is necessary to define terms. ...
Mon Jul 23, 2012, 07:59 AM
Jul 2012

Many people who don't understand firearms believe that "assault weapons" are fully automatic firearms. Much of that misconception has been caused by a mass media who promotes this view.

For example:

No Right to Bear Assault Weapons
Published: October 9, 2011

***snip***

The District’s firearms law defines “assault weapon” to include rifles like the AR-15, which the Supreme Court once called “the civilian version of the military’s M-16 rifle.” The appeals court suggested that the only place where assault weapons, which are designed to spray bullets at a rapid rate, are necessary for self-defense is on a battlefield or the equivalent for police. Anywhere else their presence is an invitation to mayhem and puts police officers and all around at high risk.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/10/opinion/no-right-to-bear-assault-weapons.html


This article would give an uninformed person the view that an AR-15 is basically the same as a M-16 assault rifle used by the military. While the two look the same one is semi-auto and one is full auto.

AR-15

The AR-15 is a lightweight, 5.56 mm, air-cooled, gas-operated, magazine-fed semi-automatic rifle, with a rotating-lock bolt, actuated by direct impingement gas operation or long/short stroke piston operation. It is manufactured with the extensive use of aluminum alloys and synthetic materials.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15


M16 rifle

The M16 (officially Rifle, Caliber 5.56 mm, M16) is the United States military designation for the AR-15 rifle adapted for semi-automatic, three-round burst and full-automatic fire.[5] Colt purchased the rights to the AR-15 from ArmaLite, and currently uses that designation only for semi-automatic versions of the rifle. The M16 fires the 5.56×45mm NATO cartridge. The rifle entered United States Army service and was deployed for jungle warfare operations in South Vietnam in 1963,[6] becoming the U.S. military's standard service rifle of the Vietnam War by 1969,[7] replacing the M14 rifle in that role. The U.S. Army retained the M14 in CONUS, Europe, and South Korea until 1970. Since the Vietnam War, the M16 rifle family has been the primary service rifle of the U.S. armed forces.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_rifle


If there was a discussion if people should be allowed to own cars that can exceed the speed limit and the argument from the side that supported limiting the ownership of fast cars stated that such cars were the same as NASCAR race cars and there was no reason for any civilian to own any car that had such horsepower -- the other side might fairly point out that merely because a car sold at a dealership looks like a race car it isn't anything like one.

Once both sides agreed on basic definitions of the cars truly being discussed the debate could progress with fair points made by both sides.

So if you are in a debate with a person over banning or limiting the sales of "assault weapons" and stated that they were the same as military grade weapons, it is fair for the person you are debating to point out the differences. Admittedly it might hurt your argument.

The debate might turn into an interesting and worthwhile discussion about limiting the ownership or sales of semi-auto firearms that had detachable magazines. You could make powerful augments for your position and far more gun owners might consider your the value of your view as you seem knowledgeable about the subject.





kudzu22

(1,273 posts)
25. Capable of firing...
Mon Jul 23, 2012, 10:24 AM
Jul 2012

I see this phrase a lot when discussions about firepower come up. Many want to restrict access to "weapons capable of firing x rounds in a minute". Nobody needs that to hunt, you see. The problem is, that would include basically every semi-auto out there. You can't make a semi-auto that takes a detachable 5-round magazine that can't also take a 100-round magazine. The magazine is just a metal box with a spring in it. You can always make a bigger one.

So next the argument follows that we should restrict magazine size. That is just patently silly. As we have seen, magazines can be changed easily. There is no federal license needed to make magazines, and if you did it would make very little difference in outcomes, except to waste a lot of federal dollars.

So now we're left with either banning all semi-autos in order to stop the massacre capability of every psycho in the country. Semi-autos are by far the most common type of weapon sold these days, so you're talking roughly two-thirds of everything on the market. You can understand why that makes the sportsman and/or enthusiast a little nervous. And the ban still wouldn't end the massacre capability unless you also go out and round up the millions of semi-autos already in private hands.

So, the argument breaks down because one side just wants to end the massacres, but to do that requires a much more significant impact than they may have believed.

grantcart

(53,061 posts)
27. I am not sure of what you are saying
Mon Jul 23, 2012, 11:55 AM
Jul 2012


Again I am proposing nothing, but rather waiting until the time when the gun doesn't jam and there is a sufficient body count that 20-30% of Republican legislators break and co sponsor a bill. There is no reason to defeat all progressive legislation by pursuing a policy that will have a limited impact and never get passed anyway.

But just for understanding, when you state



So next the argument follows that we should restrict magazine size. That is just patently silly. As we have seen, magazines can be changed easily. There is no federal license needed to make magazines, and if you did it would make very little difference in outcomes, except to waste a lot of federal dollars.



That if there was a draconian law against manufacturing or altering a clip so that it could have more than, lets say, 20 rounds, that you don't think that the manufacturers and commercial distribution of clips could not be significantly diminished?

benEzra

(12,148 posts)
28. Two points.
Wed Jul 25, 2012, 12:02 PM
Jul 2012

One, you're talking about banning the most popular civilian centerfire rifle in the United States, not some rare exotic. Last time I checked, one in four centerfire rifles sold annually in the United States was a generic AR-15, and that trend has been going on since the late 1990s/early 2000s (yep, they were never banned, contrary to popular belief).

Two, you're talking about banning the *least* misused class of weapon in the United States. Check out the FBI Uniform Crime Reports, Table 20, Murder by State and Type of Weapon:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl20.xls

Compare the Rifle column to handguns, shotguns, knives, and even fists/feet, and then tell me again how civilian centerfire .22 rifles with handgrips that stick out are such an existential threat.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Beyond the trivialities o...