General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsYour guide to semi-automatic rifles
What is a semi-automatic rifle?A semi-automatic rifle is a rifle where each pull of the trigger fires one shot and then automatically loads another round into the chamber. This is different from bolt-action rifles, where each pull of the trigger fires one shot but the shooter then has to manually load another round into the chamber using the bolt, as well as from fully-automatic rifles, where holding down the trigger keeps firing a shot and then loading another round into the chamber until either the trigger is released or the magazine is empty.
What does a semi-automatic rifle look like?
Above is an earlier version of the famed AR15.
Above is a Mini-14 from Ruger. I like to refer to this rifle because many people unfamiliar with semi-automatics are surprised to find out it fires the same round as the AR15 and is the exact same in terms of functionality.
Above is a Kalashiknov-style rifle. However, whereas the rifles designed by Kalashnikov and in use by armies around the world are 'select-fire' in that they are capable of both fully-automatic and semi-automatic fire, the Kalashnikov-style rifles available to civilians in the US are semi-automatic.
Above is a M1A from Springfield. Like with the Mini-14, it has the same functionality as the other semi-automatic rifles I've shown here.
Above is a SKS. Even though it is shown with the traditional internal magazine where round have to be loaded from above with a clip, it can be modified to accept everything up to a high-capacity drum magazine, just l like the other rifles shown.
How much ammunition can semi-automatic rifles hold?
Magazines usually hold anywhere from 10 to 30 rounds, although most semi-automatic rifles can also accept round drum magazines that typically hold between 50 to 75 rounds.
What makes an AR15 special?
In reality, the only two things that make it special is that it is the favorite semi-automatic rifle among shooting enthusiasts and seems to have been the weapon of choice in recent mass shootings.
As I mentioned above, it is the exact same in terms of functionality as all the other semi-automatic rifles. Perhaps the pistol grip makes it a little more ergonomic than the Mini-14 and the 5.56mm rounds have less recoil that the 7.62mm in which the M1A and SKS are chambered, but all of them fire as fast as you can pull the trigger and as long as you have ammo in the magazine.
One theory I've seen more than once is that the AR15 is somehow easier to modify illegally to make fully-automatic. I don't know how difficult or easy any of them are to make fully-automatic, but the last notable event I remember where the criminals used fully-automatic weapons was the North Hollywood shootout in 1997. The reality is that the two use for fully-automatic fire isn't to kill as many people as possible, but to suppress enemies - that is, to make sure they keep their heads down and don't fire back at you, due to the number of bullets you are firing at them - and I suppose to look good in movies. Most rifles on the battlefield also offer semi-automatic and burst-fire modes because they're much better for accuracy and don't waste as much ammo.
What was the Assault Weapon Ban of 1994?
The Assault Weapon Ban (AWB) of 1994 sought to define certain semi-automatic rifles as 'assault rifles' or 'assault weapons' and then ban those rifles from civilian ownership. However, most studies agree that the AWB had a negligible impact - if any at all - on gun crimes. The main reason is that the AWB was riddled with loopholes.
For one, the ban applied only to rifles manufactured after September, 1994. AR15s and other semi-automatic rifles the AWB defined as assault weapons manufactured before that time - millions of rifles - could still be bought and sold freely.
Second, the definition of an assault weapon was based mostly on features that were cosmetic or at least didn't have any impact on the performance of the rifle. A rifle was an assault weapon if it had two or more of the following features:
- A collapsible or folding stock. This makes a rifle easier to transport but it's not as if someone can suddenly conceal the rifle underneath their clothes. Manufacturers got around this by sticking to fixed stocks.
- A pistol grip. This provides slightly better ergonomics than a traditional stock (see the Mini-14 and similar rifles above). This was one feature that manufacturers often included but some also resorted to installing a thumbhole stock. See below:
- A bayonet mount. Older rifles used to accommodate bayonets for when a soldier might run out of ammo and needed to use his rifle in hand-to-hand combat. Some semi-automatic rifles still have this as a left-over feature. However, I'm fairly certain there's never been a major event in recent times were a criminal mounted a bayonet and stabbed most of his victims.
- A flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one. Flash suppressors are designed to minimize the muzzle flash in low-light conditions. Like with the other features, it doesn't make the rifle fire any faster or hold more bullets. Manufacturers got around this requirement by welding a muzzle brake at the end of the barrel.
- A grenade launcher mount. The military counterparts of civilian ARs and AKs were usually meant to accept under-barrel grenade launchers. However, even if they can find a launcher, civilians can't get their hands on the grenades. It's something out of Scarface and not reality.
Perhaps the most effective part of the AWB would've been limiting magazine capacity to ten rounds. Unfortunately, like with the rifles themselves, this restriction applied only to magazines manufactured after September, 1994. 'Pre-ban' magazines - perhaps tens of millions of them - could still be bought and sold freely.
Why did you make this thread?
Because in the wake of the tragedy in Orlando, there are many falsehoods and rumors floating around. I'm not looking to defend semi-automatic or 'assault' rifles by any means - I'm one of the least gun-friendly people on DU - but I feel that progressives will have more power to face the NRA and its supporters if those progressives are also better informed on the subjects of semi-automatic rifles, AR15s, and so forth.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Kaleva
(40,365 posts)Magazines made overseas before the ban went into effect could still be imported into the US. A tougher law would have prohibited the importation of magazines that held more then ten rounds regardless of date of manufacture.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)I believe it can be demonstrated that they are...if so, they will not be banned or more heavily regulated.
Amishman
(5,929 posts)Legally banning the existing ones (no grandfathering) cannot be done without compensation.
Compensation would have to be pretty high in order to get even a moderate level of compliance. Anyone know how many of these clips are even in the country? hundreds of millions? billions?
appal_jack
(3,813 posts)$100 per round of Evil Black Rifle capacity is a small price to pay, right gun-grabbers?
My 20-round Hungarian magazines are rarer and actually quite a bit more ergonomic, so those are worth at least $4,000 each.
But what I value most are my Constitutional rights, so these magazines are not for sale, thanks. And I will oppose these ridiculous, unconstitutional efforts to arbitrarily expand gun control.
This is an excellent and factual OP. k&r,
-app
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)
Recursion
(56,582 posts)It's a broken, stupid concept. We should ban semi-autos.
Journeyman
(15,448 posts)TipTok
(2,474 posts)Post #2 is more realistic I think...
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)... and instead look to quantify a weapon's ability to kill a certain number of people from a specific distance, within a specific time period.
The time frames would be something like under 0-10 seconds, 10-20 seconds, 20-30 seconds, and so on.
As for the number of people, let's say 100 people in a restaurant.
So ... with a knife, you can kill maybe 2 people in 10 seconds, but as more time passes, more and more people escape. And so, in 30 seconds, maybe you could kill 5 or 6.
Specific Hand gun with 9 bullets before reload ... do the same math.
Specific Hand gun with 15 rounds .... do the same math.
And then do it for the same weapons you show ... and others.
Then you start drawling lines.
The more deadly the weapon, the more hoops required to obtain it. Licenses, registration, periodic retesting. Mandatory classes.
In this model, you can own a rocket launcher if you want ... you just have to pass the tests.
Standard hand guns, relatively little restrictions. Same for standard hunting rifles.
The more people a weapon can kill in a short time period, the harder it should be to obtain.
Matrosov
(1,098 posts)All of those weapons can fire as quickly as you can pull the trigger and all of them can hit and kill a human with ease inside of, let's say, 200 to 300 yards.
With that in mind, the most effective way to deal with the AR15 and other assault rifles would be to ban semi-automatics in general.
Since that's unlikely to happen, the next step would be to attempt to decrease the effectiveness of these rifles. Well, you can't decrease the rate of fire without making them something other than a semi-automatic rifle. You can't decrease the effective range without drastically shortening the barrels, which in turn would make them easier and easier to conceal. You can't decrease the lethality of the bullets without maybe switching from rifle to pistol calibers (because pistol rounds generally have less energy than rifle rounds). But even a small caliber handgun can kill...
On the other hand, magazine restrictions would at least have a major influence on how many people you can hit in a certain amount of time. A ten-round magazine forces you to reload twice before you can fire the same number of bullets as in a thirty-round magazine. A five-round magazine forces you to reload five times before you can fire thirty rounds. The more you have to reload, the more time your victims have to escape and law enforcement has to move in.
Unfortunately, many laws restricting magazine capacity make exemptions for older high-capacity magazines, so any future laws would also have to demand that existing high-capacity magazines be turned in to law enforcement in order for those laws to be effective.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)You talk about banning these weapons (then say that's impossible) then say you could try to make them less effective (then say that's impossible).
I'm saying that you CAN own any of them ... you just have to regularly prove you know how to use them safely.
Past that I agree with magazine limits. But again ... if you PASS regular evaluations, maybe you can even have those.
Here's the thing ... mentally unstable people struggle to follow even simple rules.
The approach I'm describing would not be difficult for a sane person to follow. AND ... gun owners could be proud that they have demonstrated proficiency. And expect others to do the same.
Crazy people would go POP and any system like this.
Matrosov
(1,098 posts)I still think banning the weapons - or at least restricting magazine capacity - the most effective, but based on previous attempts, I'm not very optimistic that either one will happen any time soon.
I don't disagree that stricter requirements, regular evaluations, and such, being more likely, but there I worry they won't be as effective. There are still too many people who went and shot someone, and yet they previously were law-abiding gun owners and seemed perfectly fine.
Well, I'm off to yell at some clouds 
pipoman
(16,038 posts)How exactly does this do anything? Is it common that mass shootings take place due to the shooter not knowing how to use their gun safely? Now you want some know-nothing NRA instructor to determine fitness?
There sure are some odd and silly opinions on this shit going around...
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)Every part but the spring, so you print a form that spring stock wire is wrapped around to form a spring to the right size.
20 years ago a magazine ban may have limited access because they tool specialized equipment to make. Now technology has advanced to where that is no longer so- and it's expected within 10 years half of the homes in the US will have 3D printers.
Quite literally anyone who wants a 30rd magazine can download the plans and print it out. So bans now will do nothing to limit availability to anyone who isn't worried about breaking the law.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)
onehandle
(51,122 posts)
ManiacJoe
(10,138 posts)
TheCowsCameHome
(40,270 posts)What a wonderful feature.
Sick.
TipTok
(2,474 posts)onehandle
(51,122 posts)Illegal as Hell, but you can trust me. I'm a responsible nuke owner.
TipTok
(2,474 posts)That's how you get the good deals...
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Another advantage of the AR platform is how modular it is. You cachange calibers and barrel lengths in seconds without purchasing another firearm.
Gidney N Cloyd
(19,847 posts)
Brickbat
(19,339 posts)progressives are also better informed on the subjects of semi-automatic rifles, AR15s, and so forth."
This is so true. It drives me up the wall when people pooh-pooh this kind of knowledge as either needless nitpicking or as "too many details -- I want 'em all banned!" Knowledge is power, and we (should have) learned with the AWB that a vague and emotional law is a bad law. If people really want to control effectively, they need to get educated.
Orrex
(67,111 posts)And they've all but destroyed women's rights of reproductive freedom while being catastrophically ignorant about biology.
It is not necessary to know the pitch of every screw holding this or that murder weapon together in order to craft sensible legislation, and to some degree it's pointless, because as soon as you address one microscopic particular of one particular gun, the manufacturers will tweak it slightly to produce a new murder weapon that sidesteps the ban.
Better to address the broad performance characteristics than the minutiae.
Brickbat
(19,339 posts)that's also a bad law. "Ban the AK-15" is overly specific; the AWB was vague. Educate yourself on what it is you really want to control; educate yourself on how many guns that would actually apply to; educate yourself on whether you want a ban on further sales or a confiscation, and then figure out how many people that would affect and what kind of effort and resources it would require to put into place.
Orrex
(67,111 posts)There's no law that precisely forbids me from killing someone with an ulu that I hand-crafted out of walrus bone and meteor iron, but if I killed someone that way then there's a good chance that they'd find a law to charge me with breaking.
The same applies here. We simply don't need exhaustive technical details in the language of the law, and in fact I submit that it need be no more specific than the mighty 2nd Amendment.
I've used this example elsewhere and will use it again to make a point here, knowing that it wouldn't pass in a million years:
As it pertains to the language of the Second Amendment of the US Constitution, "arms" shall describe hand-held melee weaponry and firearms capable of firing no more than three rounds in ten seconds and capable of holding no more than three rounds at once. Clips, magazines, belts and similar apparatus able to hold more than three rounds shall be forbidden.
See? No mention at all of gun type or "assault weapons" or any of that, but a simple amendment like that would end the gun debate, because sensible laws could thereafter be enacts with greater or lesser specificity as needed.
In other words, it's a mistake to demand any greater specificity than is strictly needed.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)since it doesn't regulate how many shots a gun can fire in a short period of time? (Or, at least, can you join me in being indifferent to its passage?)
Orrex
(67,111 posts)But on the whole, I don't find it terribly effective.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Others would need bayonet lugs filed off. Etc.
The underlying capability of shooting X amount of bullets in Y minutes is unchanged.
sendero
(28,552 posts).... because then they would understand why half+ of their arguments are beyond ridiculous.
Brickbat
(19,339 posts)TheCowsCameHome
(40,270 posts)or Sandy Hook give a sweet fuck about what "kind" of killing machine mowed them down in their prime.
Good God, why post this crap now?
Orrex
(67,111 posts)Even here on DU, gun-enablers sprang into action to defend guns before the death toll was even known.
Matrosov
(1,098 posts)As I said in the last section, I'm not looking to defend these rifles but to help educate fellow progressives. Not so that they may be more accepting of semi-automatic rifles, but that they may make better arguments against the NRA, the RKBA lobby, and so forth.
It's only fair that if you're going to argue against something, you also inform yourself on the subject as much as possible. My own position is actually that there won't be any significant impact on gun violence until gun ownership is pretty much outlawed and millions of guns are taken off the streets, but then I also feel I should educate myself on the subject of firearms.
hunter
(40,690 posts)Piss on guns. Piss on your gun porn.
Maybe you'd like to discuss the minutia of nerve gas? How about nuclear weapons? After all, how can we possibly outlaw nuclear weapons unless we know exactly what kind of nuclear weapon we are talking about...
You just enjoy talking about guns, the same way some people talk about the anatomy of porn stars.
Oh yeah, piss on guns.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Awesome. Let's move forward then.
hunter
(40,690 posts)You can't ban the damn things entirely, but you can make them socially unacceptable and tax and regulate them to the point where it's an onerous pursuit.
People don't smoke in restaurants here any more.
bighart
(1,565 posts)No adjudicated constitutional right to smoke cigarettes.
Like it or not the second amendment significantly changes the debate.
Since the courts have ruled that individuals have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms all discussions and attempts to regulate MUST start with that as a given.
If you want to ban all private gun ownership you are going to have to work to repeal 2A
If you want to restrict private gun ownership you are going to have to craft legislation that will hold up to legal challenge based on 2A.
As so many have said before we all have a right to our own opinion but we don't have a right to our own facts and the courts have in FACT ruled individuals have the CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to own firearms.
Meaningful gun control has to begin from that starting point or we are trying to scoop water with a sieve and will never make headway.
hunter
(40,690 posts)It's ALWAYS been used to terrorize oppressed populations.
Got yourself a slave revolt? Workers striking? Indians won't leave their land?
Call in the militia, a bunch of fucking yahoos with guns!
I'm an abolitionist.
Every asshole who pulls the trigger thinks he's justified, the cop, the fourteen year old shooting a rival gang member, the paranoid guy who shoots a family member in anger or because he mistakes them for an intruder.
Piss on guns.
bighart
(1,565 posts)It took a constitutional amendment to end slavery so are you saying that is what is needed?
If no constitutional amendment then:
What laws would you like to see changed or added that would pass legal challenge based on settled 2A case rulings?
How would you go about educating and gathering support for passing those laws?
Who would you recommend be the person to craft and propose those laws?
What kind of time line is it going to take to implement?
What are the mechanisms for enforcement?
hunter
(40,690 posts)Make gun love a socially unacceptable and painful pursuit. Make buying bullets awkward.
We can't get rid of guns entirely; properly stored the bloody things are indestructible, and there are millions of them.
But you can convince people to give up their gun habit.
Nobody smokes in restaurants here anymore, and it's easy to find a non-smoking motel rooms or entire non-smoking hotels.
Even the militant you'll-have-to-pry-them-from-my-cold-dead-fingers smokers realize their habit is hazardous to their own health and a great annoyance to others.
Piss on guns. It starts with me.
bighart
(1,565 posts)I really don't see any actionable steps outlined in what you said however.
I think the general mood and temperament of the public is shifting on guns and would like to see that fact leveraged to create real change and that means defining the actionable steps that can be taken.
Response to hunter (Reply #81)
Name removed Message auto-removed
FSogol
(47,623 posts)Response to FSogol (Reply #115)
Name removed Message auto-removed
hunter
(40,690 posts)He still got shot.
"Self Defense" is bullshit.
I live in a violent city with a high crime rate, there is gang graffiti on my back wall right now, and I'll paint it over, and it will be back in a few days... oh well. Even so, I'm not going to waste any room in my head with violent fantasies of shooting some stranger.
The closest shooting to my house (that I know of) was a neighbor shooting her boyfriend in the leg with his own gun. I suspect she was aiming for his crotch. Just another stupid domestic argument with guns. Gun lovers never have fantasies like that, right?
Response to hunter (Reply #118)
Name removed Message auto-removed
hunter
(40,690 posts)Our moron Congress doesn't even want scientists to study the issue.
It's like the stupid seat belt arguments.
"Oh, but I know somebody who was thrown clear of the car before it flew over the cliff and exploded!!!"
Guns are no kind of "equalizer." Once the guns come out everything is FUBAR. As tools they tend to escalate the violence. It's a crap shoot whether the "good guy" or "bad guy" wins and in many cases it's not clear who the "good guy" is.
Response to hunter (Reply #121)
Name removed Message auto-removed
hunter
(40,690 posts)I don't trouble my imagination with unlikely scenarios where outcomes would have been improved if I'd had a gun. There have been times outcomes were much worse because somebody had a gun.
Someday you may be that somebody.
Why should I let anyone I'd shoot live inside my head? There's plenty of ugliness in the world I have to deal with today. I don't need to imagine any more violent crap.
Response to hunter (Reply #129)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Matrosov
(1,098 posts)But I'd be interested in knowing how you plan on getting rid of AR15s?
'Ban AR15s!'
Sure, but what is an AR15? Lots of companies make them, so they're not specific to any manufacturer. It's a general rifle design. But how do define that rifle design?
That's why I posted the section on the AWB, because it tried to define assault rifles and failed miserably.
But why get rid of AR15s specifically and not semi-automatic rifles in general, the way many are suggesting?
'Because they're military weapons that can be converted into fully-automatic rifles.'
That's why I posted the section on what makes them, or doesn't make them special.
See, if you're trying to argue with someone who denies climate change, you don't go, 'Well, you're a stupid poopoo head if you don't believe in climate change and I hate you' to make an argument. You learn about the details of climate change and then you confront the climate change deniers with your knowledge.
Likewise, if you want to argue against assault weapons, you have to do a little better than scream 'Ban AR15s!.' Again, that's why I posted the thread, not because I enjoy talking about guns (well, I do enjoy talking about banning them) but to help people confront the gun lobby with something a little better than 'Ban AR15s!'
hunter
(40,690 posts)"Mom, I'm taking your guns."
No law enforcement action required, and years before the legal system officially recognized my grandma as a danger to herself and others.
Maybe someday enough people will pull their heads out of their asses and confront all the gun fuckers.
What are they going to do, shoot us?
Yep, nice penis pics... I'd delete them if I was you. Have you no shame?
hunter
(40,690 posts)They're more dangerous than gun-fuckers.
It's amazing how many are both.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)hunter
(40,690 posts)I'm telling him he's on the wrong path, a path created by the gun fucks.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)Ownership of firearms. I'm not suggesting that is your goal as well, but is that belief not closer your position on the spectrum?
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)Regularly look like idiots and get nothing done because they don't know what they are talking about.
Dem2
(8,178 posts)I've seen these lame "explanation" threads for years, get a life - off to ignore with another excuse maker for mass-slaughter.
Matrosov
(1,098 posts)Too many people who are against guns aren't willing to educate themselves on the subject. I even provided a disclaimer stating that I'm one of the least gun-friendly people on DU and I'm making this thread so people can make better arguments against the NRA and RKBA supporters, but I'm dismissed as an excuse maker for mass-slaughter 
Recursion
(56,582 posts)A feature that the AWB leaves legal.
But try to point this out, and we're "derailing" or spreading "gun porn" or whatever.
Dem2
(8,178 posts)The O/P's biased blow off of why the AR-15 style is so popular was embarrassing and all I needed to see to realize I was being treated to the same propaganda being dumped by gun-nuts for years.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)There's not any functional difference in an AR-15 and a different model semi-automatic magazine-fed rifle. If what you're concerned about is "the ability to shoot hundreds of rounds in a few minutes" the AR isn't any worse in that regard than any other.
Matrosov
(1,098 posts)As I said, it wasn't meant to excuse the AR15, it was to point out that there are a number of other rifles that are functionally the same.
I feel that we'll go nowhere if we keep focusing on the AR15 exclusively. Even if we were to find a way to get rid of all AR15s, people would still have access to plenty of other rifles that are just as lethal.
So is the solution to forget about the AR15 and let everyone have a safe full of them? No, it's to deal with the subject of semi-automatic rifles in general.
Dem2
(8,178 posts)Please!!
I do care that the particular style that's popular can easily be fitted with large inexpensive magazines, ammunition is relatively cheap, and lots of accessories are available that make the gun easier to handle and conceal (for instance the folding stock on the one used in Orlando).
So, form, fit, function (ergonomics) and economics are why the AR style is so popular. Sure, 7.62 and others have the same basic function, but only an idiot moron would imply that a gun enthusiast sees them all the same - I know I as a gun owner I would never buy something that shot ridiculously expensive ammunition or that has crappy ergonomics and/or recoil etc. Reading through their Forums makes it clear what their priorities are - and they are same as any person with common sense would want - the coolest fake military looking penis that can be modified to fuck they can get for the least amount of money - same as with car enthusiasts!
Now if we're talking about legislation, surely the piece I just saw on TV isn't what we need - it showed 2 identical looking guns - one was called - well you know what I'm going to say. I'm to the point where I'm tired of hearing the same old shit - real solutions involve making the purchase and ownership nearly as painful as owning a fully automatic weapon.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Because if it can accept any detachable magazine there's no mechanical limit to how big that magazine can be.
Hell, people have joked about requiring them to all be bright pink but by the UX argument there's kind of something to that...
Dem2
(8,178 posts)I don't expect much right now, just a start down the path toward sanity.
But OK, fixed magazine and bright pink, that's next on the agenda.
sarisataka
(22,695 posts)Sadly some people revel in ignorance. The same people will mock the ignorance of others who believe in evolution or don't accept evidence of climate change...
hunter
(40,690 posts)Ha, ha, you are so clever!
aikoaiko
(34,214 posts)If you're a guy and your penis looks like any one of them I encourage you to see a doctor.
hunter
(40,690 posts)My penis is not.
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)ugh
RandySF
(84,266 posts)49 dead in a matter of seconds.
Matrosov
(1,098 posts)Not against the AR15 specifically. Those other rifles can also kill 49 in a matter of seconds.
Crepuscular
(1,068 posts)factor is not the type of action, it's magazine capacity. Semi-autos are not much more deadly then other types of firearms, it's the capacity of detachable magazines, as Recursion has mentioned, that increase the potential for mayhem. And I say that as someone who does not support banning high cap magazines but who can also acknowledge the truth of the situation.
Ban semi-auto's and rifles like this will become the most popular weapon for mass shootings. It's fully AWB compliant, BTW.
Matrosov
(1,098 posts)I didn't even know a pump-action rifle existed 
Granted, even if rifles were gone altogether, we saw with Virginia Tech that a handgun can also make for a frightening body count.
So I'm starting to agree more and more with the idea that maybe focusing on magazine capacity would be the most practical thing for now. The only catch would be to figure out a way to deal with all the +10 round magazines already in existence, since restricting the capacity of new magazines wouldn't make it difficult at all for someone to get their hands on one that holds 30.
Crepuscular
(1,068 posts)that with the fact that magazines are just plastic boxes that can be printed on a 3D printer and the likelihood of actually preventing a crime by limiting magazines is even more unlikely to ever stop a single person from being killed.
The alternative is to recognize that we live in a country that values certain freedoms above life. 100,000 or so people a year are either injured or killed riding motorcycles, yet we tolerate them. The same with swimming pools, snowmobiles, ATV's, trampolines and any number of other items that can result in death or serious injury if used inappropriately. I can live with the deaths that result, especially when they tend to be on a downward trend.
While human life is certainly precious, unless we live in plastic bubbles, a certain percentage of people are going to die every year, whether from accidents, suicide, homicide or other means and no amount of legislation or loss of liberties will stop that from occurring.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)And that means we need to drop the AWB as a concept. Ditch that albatross.
pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)as liars and idiots on this subject ----- and those who don't think that there's a political price to be paid for lying and behaving like idiots aren't worth engaging.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)hunter
(40,690 posts)Piss on it.
As an adult might say to an angry, frustrated toddler, "Use your words, dear."
Fetish photography by gun fucks, yeah, that'll get the point across...
Hey let's talk about birth control... here's some photos of my favorite porn star and a model z-100 dildo up the ass of her boyfriend!
Matrosov
(1,098 posts)No, but lots of people judge the effectiveness of guns by their looks.
That AR15 looks scary, but that Mini-14 not so much, so surely the AR15 must be the deadlier of the two? Nope.
Yet another reason I wrote about the AWB, because the defining features of what constituted an assault rifle were, woops, cosmetic.
Does it matter to the victims in Orlando? No, but it matters to potential victims of the future, if we go after one type of rifle and ignore the others because of looks. Or, rather, the perceived effectiveness based on those looks. Getting rid of the AR15 won't do anything if the next person wanting to shoot up a school or club is still free to run around with a Mini-14 (which, by the way, was the gun Breivik used in Norway, 2011, on his murdering spree that resulted in 77 dead people).
hunter
(40,690 posts)Put it back in your pants, or take it back to the dungeon.
It's obvious you like to talk about guns and see this as an opportunity to evade the General Discussion rules about gun porn.
Matrosov
(1,098 posts)The Trump-esque approach of 'We're gonna take your guns and it's gonna be yyyuuugggeee!!!' isn't going to get us anywhere. If outrage alone could change things, we'd have passed some better gun control measures a long time ago.
The reality is that we need to fight the battle by appealing to people who sit on the fence on the issue of firearms and hopefully even get a few RKBA supporters on our side. But to do that, we need to make some good arguments, and to make some good arguments, we need to educate ourselves better.
As for guns, yeah, I like to talk about them. They are a public health issue that needs to be addressed.
They don't like me much in the gungeon though, because whenever I visit, I have a nasty habit of saying 'We're gonna take your guns and it's gonna be yyyuuugggeee!!!' 
pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)Shit........no good work goes unpunished, eh Matrosov?! As another member said, I expect more from "progressives".
Bookmarking this thread as evidence that our team can be just as filthy and irrational as the other.
1939
(1,683 posts)of tactical and strategic mistakes in the 2000 and 2004 presidential campaigns.
You get twenty responses of people holding their hands over their ears and screaming "IT WAS STOLEN!!!!!!!!!"
pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)Gotta say, It's gotten to the point where I'm frequently more pissed at "my team" than theirs. Depressing as hell.
hunter
(40,690 posts)If they fall to the gun love side of the fence, they are wrong,
Some issues are black-and white.
Slavery was one of those issues. Nobody argues what sort of slavery is "ethical" these days; how slavery should be "regulated."
Racism is such an issue.
Gay marriage is such in issue.
Global warming is real.
Anyone on the other side of the fence is wrong.
There is NOTHING "fair and balanced" to be found in these arguments.
SunSeeker
(58,283 posts)Gun nuts really do love their guns. They think of them as beautiful. They make them feel manly. They're buying a fantasy as much as they're buying a weapon, if not more so. I think addressing the cosmetics of the assault rifle absolutely will affect sales.
I'd like to require all semiautomatic rifles be pink. I'm guessing a lot less would be sold.
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)Lots of talk about "gun porn" and use of angry words, but you ignore the basic point that anyone who supports a position needs to understand the subject.
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)Having the right terminology and understanding what you are discussing is a plus.
I don't get why some folks here turn up their noses at education. I expect conservatives to wallow in ignorance but I have higher hopes for the more liberal people in society.
hunter
(40,690 posts)And I know gun porn when I see it.
The whole "Assault Rifle" thing is NRA bullshit diversion.
The U.S.A. is a land of very well armed ignorant people who'd shoot their own relatives and sometimes do.
Not to mention the nutters who easily purchase weapons to attack their imaginary enemies -- which is pretty much everyone who keeps a gun for "self defense."
Piss on guns, all of 'em.
They are a public health problem, and ought to be discouraged in every way.
hack89
(39,181 posts)emotions over rational thought is why gun control is a smoking wreck in America - the NRA can count on you fucking it up.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts) PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)being available to all of them.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)If you want to craft laws that do what you intend, you should actually understand the subject.
The childish approach is to hide one's head and say, "Piss on it!"
hunter
(40,690 posts)Why?
I know guns.
I'd say most gun enthusiasts don't know guns, they're always so fucking surprised when something terrible happens.. if they're not dead.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)So which are you?
hunter
(40,690 posts)And I stand by that.
Gun love is disgusting.
It does not make our world a better place.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)SunSeeker
(58,283 posts)His Sig Sauer had a folding stock. As you note, folding stocks were illegal under the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban. This was not a silly or a "cosmetic" feature of the ban. The purpose was to prevent someone from doing exactly what the Pulse killer did: fold up the stock so he could hide the assault rifle under his jacket and sneak it past the armed front door security guard.
Also, the effect of the AWB, even with all its loopholes, was not negligible as you contend. While the ban was in effect, mass shootings were rare. Now, we have one at the rate of about one a day.
I think we need to bring back the AWB, but close the loopholes and ban all semiautomatic guns and rifles that have interchangeable magazines or high capacity (more than 7 rounds) magazines. In other words, all semiautomatic guns and rifles must have fixed magazines of 7 rounds or less. And no folding stocks.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)If folding stocks were banned, he would have purchased what was at the store.....the ban compliant version....
SunSeeker
(58,283 posts)If he had bought a fixed stock AR, it would not have tucked under his jacket and he would have bern stopped at the front door to the club.
hack89
(39,181 posts)there is a minimum length every rifle must be - 26". The shooters gun had to be 26" with the stock folded. It is not hard to buy a rifle with a fixed stock that is only 26" long.
SunSeeker
(58,283 posts)It is you who misunderstand. What I was expressing is my exasperation with the fact that a folding stock on an assault rifle is legal (it was illegal under the 1994 AWB). That fucker in Orlando snuck an assault rifle in because it had a folding stock. Most assault rifles are quite long and would be very difficult to sneak in. An AR-15 with a fixed stock is about 40 inches long. Just because something is currently legal does not mean it should be.
hack89
(39,181 posts)a long barreled AR-15 is about 40 inches long. An AR-15 Carbine is much shorter - you can get barrel lengths as short as 10".
http://www.impactguns.com/sig-sauer-516-patrol-7-short-barrel-rifle-556mm-r516g2-7b-pdw-sbr-798681441501.aspx
http://www.impactguns.com/pws-1075in-piston-driven-rifle-223-wylde-isonite-qpq-treated-button-rifled-18-twist-7in-keymod-rail.aspx
A whole selection just from one site:
http://www.impactguns.com/short-barrel-rifles.aspx
SunSeeker
(58,283 posts)hack89
(39,181 posts)SunSeeker
(58,283 posts)hack89
(39,181 posts)Do you need more links?
SunSeeker
(58,283 posts)I do not deny the existence of folding stock assault rifles nor short fixed stock assault rifles, nor that some are currently legally sold. I said they should be illegal. And I am right about that.
hack89
(39,181 posts)You were pissed because a folding stock rifle was legal because we all know regular rifles are too long to conceal. I showed you that there are fixed stocked rifles just as short as a folding stock rifle. You were wrong and I was right.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)very good explanation
SunSeeker
(58,283 posts)My original post is correct, the 1994 AWB the OP mocked would have stopped the sale of the assault rifle the Pulse shooter used, because it had a folding stock which the 1994 AWB made illegal. That is a fact.
Damn right I am pissed that an AR is allowed to have a folding stock. It should not be legal. No AR should be legal, let alone a shortened on or one with a folding stock. I was not talking about "regular rifles." I was stating my opinion regarding ARs and semi-automatic guns and rifles with interchangeable magazines. I have a right to my opinion, particularly when my opinion is reflected in the laws of the vast majority of civilized countries on this planet.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)If that was true, he would of just purchased the legal non folding stock version
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)
Matrosov
(1,098 posts)oneshooter
(8,614 posts)pipoman
(16,038 posts)He killed 50 fucking people, you don't think he would have killed the door man? Did he kill the door man? We probably don't know, but it is probably a safe bet he disabled the person responsible for security first thing...
SunSeeker
(58,283 posts)Amazing how you have no qualms with calling me silly when you are the one who doesn't know what he is talking about.
The folded stock is how the AR got snuck in. Security did not notice until the guy was already in the club and was shooting. That is when the security guard returned fire:
If Security had engaged him at the front door, the shooter would not have been able to take patrons hostage or shoot up the club.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)Ridiculous.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)"There is no indication, though, that Mateen was using a modified rifle or wearing a coat that would have been able to hide the gun."
NickB79
(20,354 posts)No need for a folding stock to make it short. It was only 30" long:
SunSeeker
(58,283 posts)The picture does confirm that AR's length in any way. I can't imagine why you would post that picture other than to troll this thread with gun porn and/or because you genuinely get a thrill out of looking at guns.
NickB79
(20,354 posts)The length of guns was the entire point of your previous argument: that if the AWB was still law, the Orlando shooter couldn't have gotten a powerful gun short enough to conceal beneath a jacket.
The picture clearly shows that would not be the case.
Personally, I have no problem with increasing the legal length of firearms beyond the current 26" to make the Bushmaster example I posted illegal. However, as of this moment, it is not illegal, and only dedicated legislative action will change that.
SunSeeker
(58,283 posts)But it does say a lot about you.
But I am glad you agree the legal length should be longer.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)
SunSeeker
(58,283 posts)
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Is that really the best you have?
typical
SunSeeker
(58,283 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Matrosov
(1,098 posts)Because it points out how many people make the mistake of equating 'scariness' with 'lethality.' Because it points out what a useless waste of time and political capital the 94 AWB was, for defining 'assault weapons' based on cosmetic features.
Again, if you want to get rid of 'military-grade assault weapons,' you have to ban all semi-automatic rifles, including that Mini-14 that looks like a cute little hunting rifle.
SunSeeker
(58,283 posts)This is an ad for an assault rifle:
It is literally aimed at fucked up broken men--just the sort of folks who should never have a gun, let alone an assault rifle.
And yes, all semiautomatic guns with interchangeable magazines should be banned. I don't care how "cute" they are.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)oneshooter
(8,614 posts)ErikJ
(6,335 posts)which greatly reduced suicides and especially mass shootings.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Because that's the OP's point.
Straw Man
(6,947 posts)which greatly reduced suicides and especially mass shootings.
I want to hear about how it's easier to commit suicide with a semi-auto. Really, I do.
Lancero
(3,276 posts)What he conveniently left out was that suicide by firearm rates (And suicide rates in general) were already falling before the ban went into effect.
Australia put in place suicide prevention programs before their firearms ban, which was what started the fall. And looking back at the statistics, while suicides were overall lower then previous years the rates of hanging increased after the gun ban.
I don't doubt that the gun ban had a positive impact on suicide rates, but at the same time he's greatly exaggerating things.
AntiBank
(1,339 posts)
pipoman
(16,038 posts)Where do people get this nonsense?
pipoman
(16,038 posts)Where the 2nd amendment is repealed....until then...
ileus
(15,396 posts)I remember buying SKSs of 79 bucks in the early 90's and 20 rounds of x39 was 2 bucks a box.
I normally hunt with my 270 BAR (5 round mag) but this year I will hit the field with the 300blk AR upper.
If it proves reliable, I'll use subsonic ammo in the 300 as our HD rifle. (Of course the P09 holds first responder spot)
GOLGO 13
(1,681 posts)Got my ar15 years ago. Lots of fun to shoot.
TipTok
(2,474 posts)... by the controller crowd.
It's not that the information isn't available. It's that they don't want to know...
hack89
(39,181 posts)if they want to legislate from a position of righteous anger and ignorance then let them. One day they will figure out why gun control is a smoking wreck in America.
bighart
(1,565 posts)I don't own any guns myself but know a lot of people that do, comes with living in a rural area.
I believe willful ignorance on the part of some of the anti gun crowd shows who they are.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)considered an assault weapon?
jmg257
(11,996 posts)“(36) The term ‘semiautomatic assault weapon’ means any of the following, regardless of country of manufacture or caliber of ammunition accepted:
...
“(F) A semiautomatic shotgun that has any 1 of the following:
“(i) A folding, telescoping, or detachable stock.
“(ii) A pistol grip.
“(iii) A fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 5 rounds.
“(iv) The ability to accept a detachable magazine.
“(v) A forward grip.
“(vi) A grenade launcher or rocket launcher.
H.R.4269 - Assault Weapons Ban of 2015
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/4269/text
Chances are they won't change it much for the next go around.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)Guess I have an "assault weapon." 
jmg257
(11,996 posts)oneshooter
(8,614 posts)
jmg257
(11,996 posts)oneshooter
(8,614 posts)jmg257
(11,996 posts)"A fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 5 rounds."
Just reading posts
(688 posts)NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)You're probably going to hell as far as the anti-gun crowd is concerned.
Just reading posts
(688 posts) NickB79
(20,354 posts)If a law were passed outlawing them and requiring their surrender, we have to pay their owners fair compensation.
Several billion magazines (not an unlikely number) at $10-$50/magazine, along with the man-hours needed to collect and dispose of the magazines, starts to add up quickly. And even then, given how small and easily hidden they are, you will likely never collect more than a fraction of them in our lifetimes.
And then we haven't even started on the threat of 3D printers and easily made polymer magazines: http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/01/14/gunsmiths-3d-print-high-capacity-ammo-clips-to-thwart-proposed-gun-laws/#5210b7203fed
That homemade chunk of curved plastic holds special significance: Between 1994 and 2004, so-called “high capacity magazines” capable of holding more than 10 bullets were banned from sale. And a new gun control bill proposed by California Senator Diane Feinstein would ban those larger ammo clips again. President Obama has also voiced support for the magazine restrictions.
But Defense Distributed founder Cody Wilson says he hopes the group’s recent work demonstrates the futility of that proposed ban in the age of cheap 3D printing.
“We want to preempt Feinstein, to eat their lunch,” says Wilson. “This isn’t 1994. The Internet happened since the last assault weapons ban. This is a fledgling tech, but look what we’re able to do. We printed that magazine out.”
Anyone have any suggestions?
Just reading posts
(688 posts)
JustABozoOnThisBus
(24,681 posts)With a grace period. Once that expires, if you are caught with a high-capacity magazine, you pay a fine.
It works now in MI. If you are deer hunting with a semi-auto, and you have a large (>5) capacity magazine in your possession, you get a ticket.
This would not stop criminals from smuggling high-capacity magazines from outside the U.S. But, that's why they're called criminals.
Good luck.
pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)
ProudProgressiveNow
(6,189 posts)jack_krass
(1,009 posts)Paladin
(32,354 posts)Your "Fuck The South" comment on another thread undoes any beneficial effect of this gun tutorial, as far as I'm concerned.
Matrosov
(1,098 posts)I live in the South. Most everyone I know is armed to the teeth and believes their Second Amendment right to be armed to the teeth trumps any right you have not to be shot. So I make no apologies for that comment.
Matrosov
(1,098 posts)Last edited Mon Jun 20, 2016, 01:08 PM - Edit history (1)
I've literally had gun owners say to my face: "Show me in the Constitution where you have a right now to be shot? I can show you in the Constitution where I have a right to keep a gun on me at all times."
Do they not exist outside the South? I'm not sure, but again, I live in the South, and there is not shortage of those 'responsible' gun owners here.