General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsA "high firepower weapons ban"
I just invented this term a few posts ago. Seems that instead of endless argument of the definition of an "assault weapon", legislation can be crafted that regulates firearms based on three criteria:
1. Magazine capacity
2. Rate of fire
3. Caliber
These three elements would collective comprise "firepower". For example limits could be set as follows:
Magazine capacity: Seven (perhaps ten) rounds maximum. Would apply to any civilian firearm.
Rate of fire: 60 rounds per minute. This is slower than an AK-47, considered to be a slow semi-auto rifle.
Caliber: 30-06 in rifles, 44-mag handguns and 10-guage shotguns.
A simple formula could be used to prohibit firearms that tried to hit the maximum on all three measures, for example, a 10-round magazine in a handgun might be okay, while shotguns would be limited to five rounds. A 30-06 rifle might be limited to five rounds while a 22 could contain 10.
These are just examples, but it seems the concept has promise. Appreciate all constructive criticisms and ideas.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)reading about assault weapons on DU. On the one hand, some do use it to purposely confuse the issue but on the other hand there is an actual point to be made.
Your suggestion and post are helpful. Hope it catches on.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)I disagree with several details, but that's not the point. This is the kind of creative thinking and civil approach that will foster progress on the issue of gun-related violence. When each side just vilifies the other, nothing positive happens. When someone presents ideas, a real conversation can arise.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts).50 BMG rifles have not been actively used in crimes. They have been possessed by some who have been arrested for other crimes, but none have been used in a crime. So there is no real reason to outlaw them except for irrational fear of some gun-banners.
.50 caliber handguns have been used for hunting. Leave them alone.
Magazines can be printed on a 3-D printer. Have fun trying to outlaw them.
.22LR tubular magazines typically hold about 15 rounds, some rifles more.
What to you realistically hope to achieve? According to the FBI more people are murdered by being beaten to death than are murdered by so-called assault weapons.
If you really want to reduce gun violence there are genuine solutions:
End the war on drugs by legalizing all drugs. Then the gangs will become legitimate businessmen.
Ban the publication of the names of rampage killers. When they learn that they won't be famous, they will quit.
Lex
(34,108 posts)Never heard of a theater full of people or a school full of children being beaten to death by one guy so your point is moot.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)Ban publication of the killer's name if its a rampage shooting.
onenote
(46,139 posts)Sorry, but a government-imposed "ban" on the publication of a criminal defendant's name is a non-starter under the First Amendment.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)Most of the time, rampage killers commit suicide.
Maybe they could be given a psuedonym for purposes of the trial, if they are alive to have one. Making them into celebrities and inspiring copycats isn't working.
onenote
(46,139 posts)First, it would be difficult to prove that publicity is a motivating factor in many "rampage" killings. Sometimes its revenge, particularly in workplace shootings or gang/drug related slayings (where someone wipes out an entire household). Plus, attention getting may be the impetus in slayings that target only a single victim, such as attempts to kill a celebrity or even a politician. While we allow plaintiffs to maintain their anonymity in certain types of civil litigation (such as civil actions for abuse), that is generally not the case in criminal suits. For example, laws that prohibit the publication of the name of a rape victim (or someone alleging to be a rape victim) have been struck down as unconstituional on several occasions. And there certainly is no precedent, particularly in our legal system which is based on public trials, for barring the disclosure of the name of someone accused of a crime. Son of Sam laws that try to prevent a criminal from profiting from their crime may survive constitutional scrutiny if narrowly drawn, but several have been struck down. If its not clear that the state can constitutionally prevent a convicted criminal from writing a book or being paid for their story its hard to imagine how the press could be prevented from writing a book or telling a story about an accused or convicted killer.
villager
(26,001 posts)I swear! I swear it's true! Look over there!
Coyote_Tan
(194 posts)... Numbers don't matter?
Lex
(34,108 posts)Coyote_Tan
(194 posts)Got it...
Straw Man
(6,946 posts)... toward reducing murder rates would be measured in the aggregate, rather than by a per-incident death toll.
Not moot at all -- improving the overall public good is the goal.
Wanna know a secret? The vast bulk of the problem is illegal handguns. Wanna know another? Making more handguns illegal won't solve it.
Lex
(34,108 posts)The goal is stopping mass shootings in public places.
Apropos name, by the way.
Straw Man
(6,946 posts)Which is only a tiny part of the overall violent crime problem. Cut off the tip, leave the iceberg. What do you propose to do about gang and drug-war killings?
Hugabear
(10,340 posts)You can also create your own explosives. Just because you can make something yourself, doesn't mean that we can't make it illegal.
And you could also place restrictions on 3D printers if it becomes necessary.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)internal and limit the amount a gun can handle at a time to 7. Make them all manual reloads.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)California is #4 in gun-related homicides per capita in the US.
California has a 10 round and fixed magazine limit for 'assault weapons'.
Granted your solution is a TINY bit more restrictive, I believe California's limit is 10 rounds.
Still useless. The FBI counted the average number of shots fired per homicide related to firearms, at 3.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)You simply required 3 fewer rounds in the mag.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)in a tubular magazine. What will we be ordered to do, cut the mag tubes?
Mw 1866 Henry carries 18 rds. It is valued at $8-10,000. To cut it ruins the collector value( it is a 85% finish rifle).
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Solution A - Must be locked in a safe in the home
Solution B - Must be locked off site in a special safety deposit box
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)That are bolted to both the concrete floor and the concrete block wall.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)Have fun trying.
People don't make their own explosives because it is too dangerous, not because it may be illegal.
Hugabear
(10,340 posts)There are already copiers won't let you print certain copyrighted works.
You can program restrictions into printers that will prevent them from making certain items, or accepting certain instructions.
Of course, you could get around those restrictions - but you would be breaking the law in doing so.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)Hugabear
(10,340 posts)Although it does seem to me that you're more interested in protecting your precious high-capacity magazines than you are in reducing gun violence
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)It is extremely rare for a criminal to fire a 10th round, and even much more rare for the criminal to fire a 30th.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)If we want to talk about "transportation safety" we should focus on cars, sure, but airplane regulations are a good thing.
Mass shootings are rare, and the things that make them less likely don't really affect the majority of gun homicides, but that doesn't mean there's no sense in looking at them, particularly when there's great political pressure to. Or to put it another way, 99.99999% of murderers don't use the 30th bullet, but the one who does is named Jared Loughner.
I think regulating transfers is ultimately a much more important thing to do than restricting types of weapons, but if we are going to restrict types of weapons I like to see people talking about capabilities.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Not all regulation is productive.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)code. How in the hell are you going to regulate that?
Ban all homebuilt 3d printers and only allow them from Xerox corporation, so Xerox can build in safeguards?
uponit7771
(93,532 posts)...stupid on it's face
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)GeorgeGist
(25,570 posts)Your check's in the mail.
Wayne
Scuba
(53,475 posts)I agree anyone with a 50-caliber handgun isn't a great threat. One round will kick the weapon out of the hand of an inexperienced gunner.
I also agree with ending the war on drugs and not turning mass murderers into celebrities.
As for printing magazines, make it a crime. My car will go over 70, but it's a crime to do so. Make possession of high-capacity magazines a crime and the punishment severe. It will deter many, like the mother of the Newtown shooter.
I recall fondly a Remington 22 with tubular magazine. Fun for target shooting, squirrel hunting. Could easily be exempted/grandfathered.
How would you limit firepower through legislation? Do you have any constructive ideas?
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)Doing that would reduce gun violence (And knife violence, beating violence, etc.) to a low enough level that we would not be worried about it. Zero level is impossible.
And one other very difficult thing, bring jobs back to our inner cities.
guardian
(2,282 posts)Yeah right. That will deter a psychopath bent on mass murder. That is about as effective as placing a "gun free zone" sign in front of a school.
Tommy_Carcetti
(44,497 posts)First, you go with the old tired talking point of assault rifle deaths vs. "beaten to death", forgetting that one is a very narrow catagory and the other is an extremely broad one.
And you can't expect legalization to end all gun crimes. My guess is that the majority of gun deaths are not the result of drug gang warfare.
And apparently you want to circumvent the 1st Amendment (freedom of the press) to protect what you believe the 2nd Amendment protects. Banning the publication of the name will do very little to stop these mass shootings. Most of these shooters plan to die in their own act, so whatever they fantasize people reacting to their actions, that's what they are going to go off of.
S.S.D.D.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)The law would have to be carefully crafted. The rampage killers are known to fantasize about being famous. The Columbine killers are known to have speculated about who would play them in the movie about their lives. If they know that it won't make them famous, then they will have to do something else. It would be a 1A limit, but a narrow and specific one.
The majority of gun deaths are suicides. That is their right. Guns don't radiate a "kill yourself" mind control field. People that want to kill themselves choose a tool that will get the job done.
The war on drugs effects violence in many ways. Not only gang warfare, but addicts use violence to get money for the next fix. Prices of drugs are highly inflated due to the cost of smuggling & underground distribution.
thucythucy
(9,103 posts)No American law would be able to prevent an overseas news source from reporting the name, which would then be rebroadcast all over the net.
Come to think of it, arrest records are public--that's part of our being an open society. Any civilian here could obtain the arrest record, and post the name. You keep telling us how absurd it is for the government to regulate guns, printers, etc., but now you're going to have the government regulate every blog and website?
Norman Mailer wrote a book about Lee Harvey Oswald, Truman Capote wrote a book about two mass murderers in the 1960s. You going to have the government ban what novelists and historians can write about? Someone produces a documentary on YouTube about a mass killer, you going to ban that too? A rock or hip hop group decides to write about a killer, you going to ban that as well? Talk about government intrusion on our rights!
And all in an effort to insure there are no further limits on gun ownership, which remains the one most precious inalienable right of all, and freedom of speech and the press be damned. How weird is that?
Yavin4
(37,182 posts)It's really that simple. If you want a gun for self-protection or hunting, then a low capacity firearm is all that you need. You do not need a WMD.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)I don't have any of those.
Yavin4
(37,182 posts)What happened in Newtown is mass destruction. Are the results any different from if you dropped a cannister of poisoned gass into that Kindergarten classroom or use a Bushmaster machine gun?
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)...he meant the Saddam had machine guns? Wow, Bush was right after all. 
Yavin4
(37,182 posts)Bush's war rhetoric notwithstanding, assault rifles are the most common WMD.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Yavin4
(37,182 posts)The Newtown killer had more kills than each individual terrorists involved in the London 2005 attack. Each of the 4 terrorists killed 13 people in a coordinated attack. The Newtown killer killed 26 just by himself.
If assault weapons are not WMDs, then what are they?
beevul
(12,194 posts)One must actually aim to hit whatever their target is, and the shooter in newtown surely did just that.
WMDs not so much.
"If assault weapons are not WMDs, then what are they?"
They're simple self loading semi-automatic rifles which someone decided to label pejoratively.
The definition of WMD is not based on the end result, but rather the methodology involved in achieving it.
Yavin4
(37,182 posts)And if someone is spraying a crowd with bullets, they're not aiming at someone in particular when they're shooting.
beevul
(12,194 posts)The closest you're going to come to "WMD" with a gun, is a shortgun, and even they are aimed.
"And if someone is spraying a crowd with bullets, they're not aiming at someone in particular when they're shooting."
Automatic weapons are not what the current gun debate is about...and semi-automatic weapons generally do not "spray" bullets like automatic weapons do.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)
wercal
(1,370 posts)...and you'll accuse me of using NRA talking points...but we have to get one thing straight.
The AR-15 is not a machine gun.
Ok?
Now before you get upset, let me articulate why that is important.
The difficulty with crafting legislation that outlaws Assault Rifles lies in the details. This is because there is fundamentally no difference in rate of fire or even magazine capacity between an AR-15 and a common hunting rifle.
Exhibit A would be the BAR .308 semi-auto. You can search Google Images for it. Its wooden, has no flash suppressor or pistol grip, and doesn't look flashy at all....its what a most would picture a 'hunting rifle' looks like. Yet, it does exactly the same thing the AR-15 does - it is semi-automatic and can accept a high capacity magazine. Its actually more powerful.
That term I used was 'semi-automatic'. And that's exactly what the BAR has been since the late '60's. And that's exactly what the AR-15 is. Neither of these are machine guns. Both require one trigger pull per bullet.
The same can be said for the vast majority of pistols out there that are semi-automatic (think Jared Loughner).
Machine guns have been very restricted in this nation since the days of Al Capone....and I may be wrong; but, I can't recall a single mass shooting in my lifetime that featured a machine gun.
So why are these semantics important?
For starters, you don't want to write your congressman demanding he restrict machine guns...that would be redundant. Next - how does one outlaw an 'assault weapon' and not a 'hunting rifle'? Its been tried before, so manufacturers just made 'Assault Weapon Ban Compliant' weapons. I actually think the 1994 ban is responsible for the meteoric rise in popularity of the AR-15. This is because the ban caused the manufucturer to sell a stripped down model, yet they made it very easy to accept accessories, and an entire cottage industry of interchangeable parts sprung up. AR-15 owners can customize and accessorize just like some people do with automobiles. That's more fun to them than that plain ole .308 BAR.
So, how does one outlaw an assault rifle? And, even though we are in the shadow of two recent mass murders using the AR-15, shouldn't we step back and ask why outlaw the AR-15 and not Semi-Automatic pistols, since they are used in so many crimes (and mass shootings). The OP tried to address these questons - a good attempt, yet it is still very flawed. But to not address these questions just gets us AWB 2.0...some people pat themselves on the back, but nothing meaningful is accomplished.
Anyway, please know that an AR-15 is not a machine gun; and, despite the protests of many, it is a very important distinction.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Same reason you can't have explosives, non-black-powder rifles over .50 caliber, grenades, rockets, artillery. These are area effect weapons, or anti-material weapons.
My AR with a 30 round mag can be used against a single hostile with extreme precision and no danger to innocent people around me.
Your analogy is broken.
I have every bit as much reason to possess such a device defensively, as the police do. I am less likely to need it, but 99% of police officers with AR's and high cap mags in their trunks don't use them in a given year either.
Straw Man
(6,946 posts)And how exactly does that metric work? Will all assailants be unarmed or armed only with low-capacity firearms themselves?
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)
hack89
(39,181 posts)there is absolutely no rational reason that an AWB will pass any time soon. And if it was, it would not ban semiautomatic rifles in calibers larger than .22. They may look different but they will be available.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)I'm sure you will continue to have unfettered access to your precious toys for a while longer, but obstruction at the federal level is going to become politically unsustainable. At the state level change can be even more rapid.
hack89
(39,181 posts)I question your grasp on social and political reality.
I support all of the president's EOs plus universal background checks and a high capacity mag ban. But even the president's advisers think they will not get all of it.
hack89
(39,181 posts)I question your grasp on American political and social reality.
Easy and likely incorrect.
But, there’s also plenty of evidence to suggest that the NRA is regarded entirely differently in the country at large. Polling conducted by NBC News and the Wall Street Journal this week showed 41 percent of people had a favorable opinion of the NRA, while 34 percent viewed it unfavorably, a margin largely unchanged from a similar survey conducted in January 2011.
And a look at the longer-term trend line on views of the NRA by Gallup suggests a striking consistency in the overall impression Americans have of the gun rights group.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/01/18/how-the-nra-is-winning/
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)That what is needed is a near total gun ban.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)You are one of the ones that have convinced me. That does imply that there are others and there were others before you. But, no my mind was more on what the OP was suggesting we should do before extremists came out and kept pointing out how nothing can be done to stop the carnage. Because that is basically what you are saying when you shoot down every reasonable precaution against gun violence.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)
Drahthaardogs
(6,843 posts)When I was in Alaska, I ALWAYS carried a rifle capable of stopping a bear when hiking, fishing, etc. in the bush. My .338RUM would have likely been banned under this scenario. You sure aren't going to carry a .22 or even a .357 Magnum for bear protection up north.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Bear pepper spray is the most effective means of repelling an attacking grizzly or black bear in a non-toxic, non-lethal manner. Although common sense might suggest that guns would provide greater personal protection, research and experience indicates that human-bear encounters that do not involve firearms are less likely to result in injury to a human or bear.
Drahthaardogs
(6,843 posts)I had to take the training every year for work. The class was taught every year by Alaska's foremost experts. The rules are in order of preference
1) High powered rifle in .300 WIN MAG or larger
2) 12 gauge shotgun with BRASS slugs.
3) Pepper spray
Have you ever been charged by an Interior grizzly? I was bluff charged by the same bear six times. I had that very rifle targeted on her head every charge, and luckily for us both, she stopped about 20 yards short each time, backed up, and charged again. She would have have come within 15 yards, because that was not going to happen.
No offense but I KNOW who are considered the top bear experts in Russia and Alaska, and it is not these people. The statement that "human and bear conflicts that do not involve firearms, blah, blah, blah...." is padding the statistics. I am not talking about ENCOUNTERS. I am talking about stopping a full on, 1400 lbs of teeth, claws, and saliva, running you down at 35 mph, frontal charge by ursus arctos in all of its pissed-off glory.
bobclark86
(1,415 posts)...if the wind is blowing.
BTW, it's probably not best to post ADVERTISING COPY from an anti-hunting group as fact. Show empirical evidence, please.
Just sayin'...
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muzzle_energy
We would then have guns with fewer bullets in the magazine, low rate of firing those magazines and they would fire bullets with less destructive power.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)Hunting rifles tend to have higher ME and MV, but are scarcely the problem
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)- wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muzzle_energy
I think restricting muzzle energy by firearm type makes sense. Restrict handguns with high muzzle energy, restrict rifles with high muzzle energy, etc.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)Which have nothing to do with mass shootings?
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)
Note that in energy equations (Thanks to wiki for the graphic) that changes in velocity have the much higher impact on energy than changes in mass due to the exponent.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)not so much for humans. The weapons some are so concerned about have neither large ME or MV.
You are chasing a useless metric if your true goal is to address human gun deaths
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)those guns.
OTOH, isnt it illegal to hunt all of the above? Not to mention most guns dont work well in sea water?
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)And in most jurisdictions you CANNOT use .223 for it.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Scuba listed three categories. Scaling "up" on each category costs you points, and a legal model can only have so many.
Want a high muzzle energy? Make it a single-shot bolt-action rifle. Want a semi-automatic with detachable magazines? Require subsonic ammo. Lather, rinse, repeat.
theKed
(1,235 posts)hunting eeapons don't need high rate of fire or capacity. Home defense weapons dont need high velocity/large calibet rounds.
oldhippie
(3,249 posts)... if you want to see a Republican President and Congress. Limiting rifles to 30 caliber will only turn, oh maybe, 10s of millions of big game hunters against Dems. And those hunters that go after big, dangerous game that require rifles larger than 30 caliber generally have a LOT of money to spend on campaigns. Just really great.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Or are you just going to criticize without being constructive?
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)I'll trade fewer massacres for those votes any day.
NickB79
(20,354 posts)Hunting is practically a religion in the Midwest, and it's enjoyed by Democrats just as much as Republicans. The northern half of Minnesota is virtually all blue, yet virtually every person you talk to up around Duluth loves hitting the woods in the fall with a gun.
Try winning states like Michigan and Ohio without the support of the union worker who also likes to go deer and duck hunting in the fall. I'm sorry to tell you that you will fail by a wide margin.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)So new reasonable regulations would perhaps result in 2% of democratic voters, most of them in solid red areas, changing sides. Oh well. I'm willing to pay that price to reduce the number of gun massacres.
SpartanDem
(4,533 posts)the term assault weapon is excuse the pun a loaded term. First it's not technical definition and second it end of day it's about banning high powered weapons. I would add banning new guns with magazines all together, nothing should hold more than ten rounds and make possession of large mag illegal.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)jmg257
(11,996 posts)tell me the fire-power ratios for:
an H&K P2000 .40SW w/155gr & 180gr, & in 9mm
a Wather P99 in 9mm & .40sw
a Glock in 9mm, .40SW, .45acp & 10mm
A Beretta 92F in 9mm & .40SW
a Beretta Bearcat in .32 acp
a Beretta Cheetah in 9mm
A Colt 1911 in .45 & .38 Super
A Beretta Storm Carbine in 9mm, .40Sw & .45ACP
a Springfield M1A in .308 (the National Match version)
an AR-15 in 6.8spc & 5.56
an AR-10 in .308
an SKS
a Benelli M1 S90 in .12 ga shooting hi-brass magnums
a Winchester SX2 in .20 ga,
a Remington 1100 in .12ga.
a Remington 7400 in .243, 7mm Mag, .308, & 30-06.
an M1 Garand in .308 & 30-06
an M1 Carbine in .30
I would like to know which versions of these I could legally purchase and the resultant capacity I could legally possess.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)jmg257
(11,996 posts)IF we are serious, then let's just stop screwing around.
How about we ban:
Repeating arms with an internaly fixed or permantly attached magazine with a capacity greater then 8 rounds.
Repeating arms that can accept a detachable self-contained magazine capable of containing more then 8 rounds.
Ammunition feeding devices of any sort, used to directly facilitate the loading of a firearm, with a capacity greater then 10 rounds, or containing more then 8 rounds (stripper clips)
Some C&R exemptions.
If you want to break it down for some reason, then:
Repeating Shotguns: 6 rounds
Repeating Rifles & Carbines: 8 rounds
Repeating Handguns: 10 rounds
or whatever.
The problems are capacity and detachable magazines and fast reloads, and handguns. The problem will ALWAYS be dealing with the guns & mags already out there. 10 round limits worked for new mags, but did nothing to slow down reloads, or deal with grandfathering. NY attempts to fix that with 'exisiting less then 11 ok, but load with 7' AND includes very limited grandfathering on hi-cap, but still does little for fast reloads.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)It simply takes objective metrics and evaluates current and future guns based on that. I think this is a great idea, whatever nits I might pick with the particular lines Scuba drew (which I assume were for illustrative purposes anyways).
hootinholler
(26,451 posts)Muzzle energy would be better.
BTW 30-06 is not a caliber, it is a designator. It is a 30 caliber round though, but a high energy one. It develops more energy than my 50 caliber muzzle loader.
I'm not sure about magazine size for fixed magazines and outlawing removable magazines would impact a lot of handguns because they can only be loaded by removing the magazine.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)You hit the big three that matter. There is another variable though. The intended purpose of the gun. If the purpose is lawful and not intended to hurt anyone, regulating the big three is moot because nobody got hurt. And if the purpose is to hurt another unlawfully, the characteristics that are determined acceptable won't keep it from being a tragedy.
There is no such thing as a benign bullet.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)SayWut
(153 posts)30-06 isn't a caliber, it's a cartridge. In your example 7.62mm or .30 would be the caliber.
Trivial nomenclature, nit-picking, arguing over technicalities? Not really.
.30 caliber ammunition comes in all sizes, loads, muzzle energy; from the relatively weak 7.62x39 (AK-47, 1,810 ft·lbf), and .30 carbine (M1 carbine, 880 ft·lbf), to the .300 Win Mag (4,027 ft·lbf ,avg muzzle energy compared to the 30-06 muzzle energy of 2,900 lbf).
OTOH, there is 7mm ammunition that is just (or more powerful), than .30 caliber/7.62mm).
Point is, using a caliber based standard or measure of "fire power" doesn't accomplish what it sets out to do. Using your reasoning (or what you hope to accomplish), one would have to use the average muzzle energy (bullet weight x muzzle velocity. Note: muzzle velocity can vary due to barrel length, type and amount of powder and even temperature), as the cut-off point.
Another example you use is .44 Magnum (.44 being the caliber).
Even though .45 ACP is just a hair larger in diameter, it has nowhere near the muzzle energy of the .44 magnum. .45 ACP also happens to be one of the most popular cartridges around.
Now, given all those variables, how would "fire power" be determined as to what constitutes a legal firearm if ammunition is taken into consideration?
Scuba
(53,475 posts)SayWut
(153 posts)I know your intent is to reduce firearms related deaths and/or abolish certain firearms based on their firepower or lethality.
However, you're trying to reinvent the wheel here by proposing an idea that is random and more complicated than you realize.
If it's of any help, the performance based measure of what should be allowable, and what should not, had been proposed ages ago, when it was determined to be unworkable as it would have banned practically every hunting, target rifle available.
As an alternative, the definition of ammunition to be prohibited was changed to a materials based one; commonly known as or referred to as "cop killer bullets".
Scuba
(53,475 posts)SayWut
(153 posts)And you did ask for the following...
"These are just examples, but it seems the concept has promise. Appreciate all constructive criticisms and ideas."
How much more constructive need I be?
Recursion
(56,582 posts)the mass of the round times the square of the muzzle velocity. For the most part that's what "matters", too.
SayWut
(153 posts)What would be an agreeable or sane cut-off mark?
Should there be different cut-off depending on the type of firearm?
Let's say for the sake of argument, 1,500 ft·lbf.
While that would be satisfactory for a handgun used for self defense, it wouldn't be nearly enough for someone hunting big game, particularly at long distances (say 300-400 yards or more).
I'd also be concerned about enforcement and risk of prosecution.
If the law states that muzzle energy of a rifle can not exceed 1,500 ft·lbf, what happens if seized, confiscated ammunition is measured (to be determined by ballistics testing), at 1,505 ft·lbf?
Recursion
(56,582 posts)You can trade off among form factor, rate of fire, magazine capacity, and muzzle energy.
Mostly just spitballing here.
SayWut
(153 posts)"it's two complex".
Police, prosecutors, defense attorneys, judges, juries, etc have enough trouble understanding the nuances and fine details in the law as it is, even when it's explained to them.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)I don't see these as being law enforcement issues very often; these are manufacturing restrictions.
SayWut
(153 posts)Some things are constant and are easily determined (magazine capacity for example).
Others are more dynamic (muzzle energy for example).
Combining both factors leaves too much room for error or flawed interpretation; or to be more specific, room for law enforcement to make an improper arrest, a prosecutor to bogus file charges or an attorney to properly defend his/her client.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)But I get why it is some people's, and I think this conversation is a much more constructive one to have than most restriction conversations I've seen.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)and 67gr of 2Fg black powder. Velocity is 1260 FPS.
My bolt action 45/70 uses a 400gr JSP at 1985 FPS.
Same cartridge, different specs.
NickB79
(20,354 posts)Say that the system devised makes it illegal for an AR-15 to use a high-capacity magazine AND use full-power ammo. It would have to use either one or the other to be legal.
A manufacturer could simply market a modified upper barrel assembly for that rifle that could reliably cycle lower-velocity ammo, and an ammo maker could introduce lower-velocity ammo, and the gun would be legal to own and use. Something similar has happened before: when California made .50-cal rifles illegal, a manufacturer started selling .416-caliber barrels and ammo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.416_Barrett
Now, you might say "but the lower-power ammo would make it less lethal though."
Not necessarily. A 5.56mm round, loaded with a frangible bullet designed for hunting small game and varmints, would still fragment and expand at lower velocities. You would see the same damage done as you'd see with an FMJ bullet today.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)I assume you would serial number and restrict the purchase of AR-15 uppers. One of the major features of the platform to allow the same weapon to fire many different types of rounds without having to purchase additional guns.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)... so we'll need "silver buckshot" instead.
Background checks seem like a no-brainer. I would suggest that they be universal and rigorous.
The combination of the terms background checks and "silver buckshot" raise questions.
Background checks are a great idea but I don't see how they can be enforced without some pretty serious invasions of privacy.
Regulating the transfers of firearms aren't really regulating firearms, they're regulating relationships. If someone buys a gun from a firearms dealer, the buyer and the seller have to satisfy certain criteria to have that kind of relationship. The buyer has to pass a background check, which is to say they have to be a certain kind of person. The seller has to be a certain kind of person as well. That kind of person has to have a brick and mortar facility from which to sell the gun. He also has to give the BATF access to that facility at will to inspect his inventory and his bound book to verify if he has satisfied chain of custody documentation. If you don't compel chain of custody, background checks will be useless.
If we want to compel background checks between everybody we will have to turn every gun owner in the United States into a defacto firearms dealer with all the rights and responsibilities thereto. We will be demanding they have a particular kind of relationship with whomever they transfer the firearm. Demanding people be a certain kind of person before they can have a certain kind of relationship is fine if you are regulating a business relationship, but people have all sorts and kinds of personal relationships which may facilitate or require the transfer of a firearm. And that relationship would have to be documented along with federal access into the brick and mortar facility where it occurs, which in the case of personal relationships would be a private residence. The cultural and political ramifications of such regulation are pretty disturbing.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)rrneck
(17,671 posts)Would you ask to borrow a gun from a gun store? You won't have much luck. But the president's plan leaves room for "common sense" sharing of guns between family members or for hunting and sport shooting purposes. That, pardon the pun, shoots the chain of custody right in the foot. The administration has already conceded that it is impossible to maintain chain of custody documentation between people when the relationships between cannot be controlled or defined.
Here's a c&p from an earlier post of mine...
Bob and Alice have been married for twenty glorious years. Bob wants to take up target shooting so Alice decides to give him a gun for his birthday. Alice goes to the store with the make and model of the gun he wants, fills out the paperwork pays for the gun and leaves. She gives him his present over dinner that evening.
Bob and Alice have been living together for five years. The neighborhood is going downhill and they can't afford to move, so they decide to get a gun. Since Bob is a truck driver and is often away from home, he tells Alice what to buy and she makes the purchase.
Bob and Alice hooked up at a rave and fell madly in love. Bob thinks guns are cool so Alice goes to the store and buys him one.
Bob and Alice broke up because Alice found out about Cathy. She kicked Bob's cheating ass out but kept the gun. Alice meets John and falls madly in love with him and gives him the gun as a gift.
Relationships are so malleable that any exception will allow people to redefine the relationship to avoid the NICS check. But if you make it mandatory for each and every possible transfer it will be come ridiculously complicated and intrusive.
It always reminds me of this movie...
Recursion
(56,582 posts)I guess it's more along the lines of how a car is titled. Having it always be legally "somebody's" gun. It's not as good as actual registration, but it's better than Bob selling to any yahoo who comes to his garage sale.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)I just seems to me that the only time it could conceivably be "somebody's gun" is when it gets bought from the dealer. From then on it would be untraceable if people didn't want it traced.
I do like the idea of opening NICS to private citizens, but I don't think we could compel them to use it.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)I haven't heard of ways to slow down semi-automatics. But this definitely sounds like a problem with an engineering solution. What if there were a way to get gunmakers to delay the feeding of the next round, or the cocking of the hammer, for X seconds? Say, 5 (aimed shots are going to be slower than that, anyways).
Yes, that would probably be circumventable. Yes, compliance with retrofitting wouldn't be close to 100%. But that's still a very interesting idea, and the public seems to approve of technocratic solutions.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)... Rem autoloader you've been using for ducks.
Grandfathering could take care of a lot of issues. That's where specific make/model designations might be useful.
But if we can stop the proliferation of rapid-firing, high capacity, high powered weapons we'll be doing our society a service.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)There is a reason for the M16 to be only .223 cal...and its the same reason why 50 caliber machine guns are mounted.
Straw Man
(6,946 posts)... the full-auto FAL and M-14 were such a bad idea.
spin
(17,493 posts)I miss with my first shot or it doesn't stop the first attacker. The three guys swarm me and take my gun away. They then shoot me 9 times waiting 5 seconds between each shot.
I should also point out that I can aim and place 5 shots in the black of a 25 yard bullseye pistol target in five seconds especially when using a .22 caliber target pistol which has a low level of recoil. The black center circle (the nine and ten rings) of that target has a diameter of 5.5 inches. At 21 feet I can hit the black of that target 5 times in under 2 seconds without any difficulty and possibly in less than 1 second. For those interested I usually use a Ruger Great Eight target pistol which was a special run of the normal Ruger target pistol made for an outside vendor. At 21 feet I can place all five shots of my S&W .38 caliber snub nosed revolver in the much larger 9 and ten rings of a standard sillouette target in less than 2 seconds. (I should point out that shooting at paper targets that are not shooting back is far easier than shooting at an armed individual who is moving and returning fire.)
I should point out that I am not bragging as many other experienced shooters can hit the target more accurately as fast or faster than I can. I remember one instance when a concealed weapons instructor was teaching a class of students on the range and walked out to the lobby to tell the range master that another shooter was using a fully automatic pistol on the range. He was wrong. The guy was just one very skilled shooter in his early 20s who was attending college while working for the police department. His speed and skill while shooting a semi auto pistol makes me look like an amateur and I have 40 years experience with shooting handguns. A competitive shooter named Jerry Miculek has fired 6 shots from a revolver, reloaded it and fired six more shots in 2.99 seconds. You can read about him at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Miculek or watch videos of him shooting on YouTube.
I have no idea of how you would engineer a semi-auto pistol or revolver and limit the rate of fire. I imagine it would be a challenge and no manufacturer would have any interest in making one as there would be absolutely no market.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Let's say a gun gets a limit of 50 points. The gunmaker can "spend" those points on any of these categories:
(These numbers are just thrown out there, and using my illustrative categories rather than Scuba's)
Rate of fire
Bolt action is free
Pump and lever action are 10 points
Semi-automatic is 20 points
Muzzle energy (hash out multiple chamberings later)
1 point per 300 foot-pounds
Form factor
Handguns cost 20 points
Carbines cost 15
Full-length costs 10
Magazine capacity
No magazine is free
Internal magazines at 1 point per bullet
Accepting detachable magazines costs 20 points
I don't know. Maybe it's too complex, but it's very interesting to think about.
So you could have a .50 BMG, but it would have to be a single-shot bolt-action. Or you could have an AR-15 that fires subsonics.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)20 points for semi-auto
20 points for a detachable magazine
so there would be 10 points left for muzzle energy (3,000 ft/lbs).
That's alot, more I suspect than a .223 generates, meaning the AR-15 would be OK.
If I did that right, I'd advocate for a stingier standard. But I like the concept.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Just as a proof of concept
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)There's always a simplicity/nuance tradeoff and I think your idea and mine are both leaning towards the "nuance" side. And I'm sure 20 advocates would have 21 different schemes.
There's a million different ways this idea could go and it's not the specifics I'm concerned about at this point; what I like so much is the idea of addressing the capabilities of firearms in regulating them. The much-mentioned NFA was a capabilities-based schedule, and it's worked very well.
There's two very different kinds of shootings we're trying to address here: Newtown/Aurora/Columbine stuff, and "normal" shootings. Weapons regulations like this are a way to address the first kind, and really jmg257 got to the gist of how to do that (limit magazine capacities) as well as the inherent limitations of that (lots of magazines already out there). "Normal" shootings can pretty much only be dealt with by background checks, police work, early intervention, etc., because they pretty much use "normal" guns. (This is less sexy but would save many more lives.)
Basically, as a process issue I'm "for" discussing capabilities of weapons rather than anything else about them. As a policy issue I'm open to a lot along those lines.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)over a specific period of time, say 1 minute.
So let's say the weapon's effective kill distance ends at 50 feet. You draw an 180 degree arch with a 50ft diameter from the weapon. Then you place people shoulder to shoulder all the way around the arc.
How many of the people can the weapon kill in 1 minute when fitted with various type and sizes of ammo?
The more deadly the weapon, the stricter the regulations around both the weapon and the ammo.
I also continue to recommend graded weapons licenses, similar to how driver's licenses are handled. You start with a learner's permit for a particular class of weapons, then you get a restricted license, and then the restrictions are reduced as you demonstrate proficiency.
In addition, today I have a license that allows me to drive a car but not an 18-wheeler. But I can take training, pass a proficiency test, and have my license expanded to include 18 wheelers.
In this model, I can start will one class of weapons, but then increase the set of weapons I can own based on demonstrated proficiency.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)It's an objective metric, but I don't think long-range shootings are a problem
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)And ... going back to my earlier suggestion ... you could examine the total "kill area" a particular weapon has.
For instance, I'd suspect that an AR-15 with a 30 clip mag could kill more people over a larger area during a specific time person (like 1 minute) than most hand guns.
I think TIME is an important element in an effort of this type because particularly in these mass killings, its over in a relatively short amount of time.
So the fewer people that can be killed in say a minute, the more time others have to escape, hid, etc.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)No one has been shot with a pink gun, so all guns should be painted pink.
guardian
(2,282 posts)of formulas, rules, and proposals to limit private firearm possession? It is obvious the antigunners' preference/goal is to ban all firearms. Just say so. It would be more honest and constructive just to start with the anitgunners' actual goal of zero firearms in private ownership. Then the debate can be over should private ownership be permitted and why/why not.
These mindless formulas are ridiculous in the extreme. You can have this, but not that. A rifle can have this type of stock but not that. Handguns can have x number of rounds but not y number of rounds. This color is permitted but that color is not. You can use FMJ but not JHP. You can shoot an assailant if they are at least 1.698322 times your body weight or at least 29% taller than the victim. An exception is made for people with arthritis in their thumbs, but not in there knees. You can use this caliber round, but only if you duct tape a NYC telephone book so that it blocks the muzzle. You can have a concealed carry permit, but only if you wear a speedo. Ad infinitum.
Sheeeeesh.
Tommy_Carcetti
(44,497 posts)guardian
(2,282 posts)The whole point of these proposals and formulas is to make gun ownership so burdensome, difficult, expensive, or to limit the firearm's effectiveness to the point that nobody will want to own a gun. I'm just calling it out for what it is.
And IMO many of the actual proposals are equally as ridiculous as the examples in my satire.
Tommy_Carcetti
(44,497 posts)But essentially what I read from you is that people who advocate for gun control actually just want a blanket ban on all firearms.
guardian
(2,282 posts)I perceive all of these limitations/regulations/measures as nothing but an incremental step toward the ulterior goal of a total ban. They just know they can't get their ultimate goal implemented now. I think many pro-gun people think the same as I. You apparently contend a total ban is not the goal. But until those making such proposals convince the pro-gun people that a total ban is not the goal I think both sides will keep talking past each other.
Perception is reality. Perception is powerful. In communication, the onus is on the sender, and not the receiver, to clear up misperceptions. For me personally, a good start would be for those wanting measured limitations to be as vocal and forceful against those antigunners wanting a total ban or $5000 per bullet tax as they are against lawful gun owners. When you start calling someone calling for a $5000 per bullet tax "little penis" then maybe I'll start believing you. Until then...talk to the hand because the face ain't listening.
Tommy_Carcetti
(44,497 posts)
"Antigunners" aren't the ones responsible for over 30,000 deaths a year. Sorry.
guardian
(2,282 posts)Any attempt at serious communication is futile. I'll just stick with snarks in the future. That is all the antigunners deserve.
Tommy_Carcetti
(44,497 posts)Don't be so shocked that people take you as a joke.
Response to Tommy_Carcetti (Reply #99)
Post removed
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Meh.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)Reality != strawman
Straw Man
(6,946 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)
NutmegYankee
(16,478 posts)Far too many threads here in GD have stated otherwise. Not everyone here proposing restrictions wants to ban them, but quite a few have proposed an incremental approach over the past month and were very clear about it. You can't blame someone for taking away that impression.
Declaring every point you dislike as an "NRA talking point" is just a ruse to shut down debate. It's like yelling "nazi" over someone's argument. If you disagree, then provide your opinion on why the poster is incorrect in his impression.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Nobody in Washington is saying ban them all. Even New York's latest laws don't being to approach banning them all.
Yet the NRA foments righteous outrage among their members, because 'they're going to ban them all, ya know?'.
It's a red herring. Get it?
NutmegYankee
(16,478 posts)I'm aware of the situation in Washington. I'm unsure if they can even manage to raise the debt limit, so I don't have high hopes on gun laws.
But the opinions on DU have been far more extreme, as is expected on a political website. Each thread is its own trial balloon or a chance to get your $.02 out there. The poster you had replied to obvious was a bit disillusioned about the debate in GD (and added a large helping of sarcasm to prove it) and was just venting like many others on both sides. I know the NRA is scaring it's members with visions of black helicopters and large internment camps ala Beck, but I think this guys rant was about GD.
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)Caliber is mass. Muzzle velocity is momentum. Takes both to calculate force.
OneTenthofOnePercent
(6,268 posts)I think the caliber condition is a little convoluted. I didn't even know 10 gauge shotguns were a problem. Aren't the only 10 gauge shotguns like single shot or double barrel break action? Many handgun caliber hunting weapons (single shot thompson contender pistols and large game revolvers) are commonly chambered in calibers much larger than .44mag, sometimes even rifle calibers. I think the best way to deal with establishing a maximum caliber (in the interest of public safety, of course) is just a single size like .510 inches in diameter for rifled projectiles, 10 gauge for shotguns. It would be easy to understand and easy to enforce.
If you limit to 2 out of three - the intermediate caliber AKs and AR15 would never hit all three catgories. They are, in reality, intermediate in power (typically on the low side of power for atypical rifle cartridge). Some states don't even allow those calibers use for hunting due to low power possibly being inhumane.
Mechanically, there is no simple way to limit semi-automatic fire. A typical person can squeeze a trigger 2-5 times per second. Considering the simple 100+ year old .45acp 1911 with 7 round magazine, a very average 3.5 shots per second and a mediocre reload time of 3 seconds... you're looking at a maximum rate of fire of about 90 rounds per minute. Under the same conditions, a common 10 round pistol can about 110 rounds per minute. Basically, ANY mag-fed semiauto can EASILY surpass any reasonable limit on shots per minute assuming average shooting skills.
Paladin
(32,354 posts)Presenting any sort of formula for controlling guns is an open invitation for the Gun Enthusiasts to pick it to pieces, ostensibly on the basis of this or that technical "metric" they don't like. The plain fact is, these people don't want any sort of restrictions placed on guns whatsoever. Again, your constructive efforts are appreciated by those of us who view the wide-open trafficking in guns as a national disgrace.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)... but we shall not be deterred.
2ndAmendmentRights
(13 posts)Wait, what?
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)It is about being sensible and it does not matter what description brought forth let the limits be placed as you have stated. If your offering does not go well then we can start with a single bb weapon with lever action and end somewhere in the sensible area you have put forth. We have to protect our citizens, mental health, video games and violent movies or shows needs to be limited. Bottom line, without the weapons used in recent mass shootings being available the shootings will not result in as many deaths. Gun lovers should be promoting safety and sensible use and not the mad max gun nuts. ENOUGH!!!!
Straw Man
(6,946 posts)... that an ordinary citizen just might need an effective firearm for a legitimate purpose? Or is humanity just a mass of ticking time bombs in your estimation?
I'm sorry, because I know you mean well, but I would suggest that taking mass murder as a given and then looking for a technological fix that will mitigate the death toll is macabre. If that truly is the best solution, then civilization has failed and we now live in Hell.
Oops -- I forgot to be constructive. Take your metric and apply it to a tiered licensing scheme. A person would be licensed to own a certain class of firearm, based on background checks and training qualifications. Strict "Shall Issue" on clear criteria would have to be guaranteed, and registration would most likely not be necessary. It would be enforced at point-of-sale.
It won't stop gang-and-drug violence or suicidal spree killers, but it's something.
samsingh
(18,426 posts)thanks
JoeyT
(6,785 posts)I'd quibble about details, but the concept definitely has promise.