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

Jerry442

(1,265 posts)
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 04:36 PM Jun 2016

Don't call it an assault weapon.

Call it a Sturmgewehr, literally "storm rifle", a name said to be personally selected by Hitler. From Wikipedia: "the [Sturmgewehr] 44 was the first successful weapon of its class, and the concept had a major impact on modern infantry small arms development. By all accounts, the StG 44 fulfilled its role admirably, particularly on the Eastern Front, offering a greatly increased volume of fire compared to standard infantry rifles and greater range than submachine guns."

Or, we could pretend that assault weapons are just Grandpa's hunting rifle with some cosmetic changes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StG_44

135 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Don't call it an assault weapon. (Original Post) Jerry442 Jun 2016 OP
I overheard some idiots the other day tut-tutting The_Casual_Observer Jun 2016 #1
Recognize? Probably not. But MSM/Controllers can't do it days later in the bright of day... Eleanors38 Jun 2016 #19
How about we ban any magazine for any weapon with a capacity of over 6 shots. CanonRay Jun 2016 #76
That would be a defacto ban on 99.9% of semiautomatic pistols. As such, it would be unconstitional. Just reading posts Jun 2016 #79
Maybe. Maybe not. It doesn't infringe on anyone's right to bear arms. CanonRay Jun 2016 #85
I don't think you know what "infringe" means. Straw Man Jun 2016 #98
Actually, I do CanonRay Jun 2016 #101
Yes, we can. Straw Man Jun 2016 #105
No. Eleanors38 Jun 2016 #91
Fuck conciliatory. I've had 30 years of being conciliatory with these assholes CanonRay Jun 2016 #102
No "flame away." Just expect more of the same. Eleanors38 Jun 2016 #103
I'm mostly against gun control... NaturalHigh Jun 2016 #123
You seem to be confusing "assault rifle" with "assault weapon". ManiacJoe Jun 2016 #2
So AWs are just fru-fru versions of plain old guns? Jerry442 Jun 2016 #4
Yep TeddyR Jun 2016 #6
What is a "plain old gun"? Straw Man Jun 2016 #9
So, what was the point of fighting tooth and nail to defeat the AW ban... Jerry442 Jun 2016 #14
The obvious point: The next move wil be more bans. Right? nt Eleanors38 Jun 2016 #21
And there it is. Jerry442 Jun 2016 #45
I'm more than willing to compromise and work together to lower gun violence TeddyR Jun 2016 #57
Apparently ... Straw Man Jun 2016 #63
There it is indeed, Jerry. Virtually every discussion here, and in the agitprop of banner groups... Eleanors38 Jun 2016 #90
And Di-Fi lancer78 Jun 2016 #128
Same thing happens lancer78 Jun 2016 #127
Because then we have to buy the top one instead of the bottom.. jmg257 Jun 2016 #37
Well, deaniac21 Jun 2016 #55
Because once that ban was in place ... Straw Man Jun 2016 #62
Fine, restrict hell out of both and anyone who tries to buy one, the ultimate catch-22 for gunners. Hoyt Jun 2016 #15
Well, at least that idea would be based on logic. ManiacJoe Jun 2016 #16
Message auto-removed Name removed Jun 2016 #27
Yes, the only difference is the looks. ManiacJoe Jun 2016 #18
You can take a wooden-stocked mini-14, change the stock to a pistol gripped folding stock.. X_Digger Jun 2016 #36
Yes (nt) Recursion Jun 2016 #71
If you want to play semantic games ... Straw Man Jun 2016 #3
Not much different than this, you say. Jerry442 Jun 2016 #10
Very different from that. Straw Man Jun 2016 #12
By the same token . . . gratuitous Jun 2016 #5
Well, crap. Brickbat Jun 2016 #7
Yeah, forget it. For some, ignorance is a badge of honor. NT Adrahil Jun 2016 #34
It's frustrating. Ignorance leads to bad bills, which leads to Democrats losing elctions. Brickbat Jun 2016 #38
Always entertaining to pin down Gun Enthusiasts as to the Nazi origins of the terminology. (nt) Paladin Jun 2016 #8
What terminology? Straw Man Jun 2016 #11
Nice tap dance. (nt) Paladin Jun 2016 #13
Usually ... Straw Man Jun 2016 #61
The modern-day Bundeswehr just calls them "rifles" jmowreader Jun 2016 #116
Are we supposed to feel bad about that?nt hack89 Jun 2016 #28
Assault Rifles are capable of FULL-AUTO fire; the bowlderlized assault weapon is not. Eleanors38 Jun 2016 #17
707 HP Hellcat Hemi says hello Aerows Jun 2016 #20
So, the Hellcat will be running the 400 next month? Eleanors38 Jun 2016 #23
Missed the point you wanted to miss. Aerows Jun 2016 #24
Ok, a spoiler on a Honda doesn't mean its an F-16 with an airfoil. Howzat? Eleanors38 Jun 2016 #87
The 707 HP Hellcat Hemi is also... discntnt_irny_srcsm Jun 2016 #40
Is an M16 capable of full-auto fire? Is an AR15 capable of full auto fire? Eleanors38 Jun 2016 #88
You can use an AR15 as an assault weapon. Ergonomics plays a major role in how fast a Exilednight Jun 2016 #43
That doesn't fit the method. Aerows Jun 2016 #48
The Guardian TeddyR Jun 2016 #58
Actually, not so much. Straw Man Jun 2016 #66
Is the Assault Rifle the formal description of a full-auto weapon? Eleanors38 Jun 2016 #89
Depends on who you ask. Exilednight Jun 2016 #92
I was talking earlier with someone about cars. A Dodge. Eleanors38 Jun 2016 #94
I don't get your point, if you're trying to make one. Exilednight Jun 2016 #104
Full-auto or burst mode is a requirement. ManiacJoe Jun 2016 #96
Call it a semi-automatic rifle Matrosov Jun 2016 #22
Here's a video of a legal semi-automatic weapon Buzz cook Jun 2016 #25
Remember that bump-fire requires a special stock. Straw Man Jun 2016 #97
No it doesn't "require" a special stock Buzz cook Jun 2016 #111
You posted videos of bump-fire stocks. Straw Man Jun 2016 #112
I have read and heard the term used for both Buzz cook Jun 2016 #118
It's still wrong. Straw Man Jun 2016 #120
Actually, the Soviets with the PPSH-41 gladium et scutum Jun 2016 #26
Came up with a damn fine tank, too. tabasco Jun 2016 #30
Problem was not armor protection gladium et scutum Jun 2016 #44
The Sherman was never designed to fight other tanks oneshooter Jun 2016 #47
American tactical gladium et scutum Jun 2016 #53
Yeah, it was a problem. tabasco Jun 2016 #73
Not really gladium et scutum Jun 2016 #110
There's a lot of 3rd Armored Div. vets who disagree with you. tabasco Jun 2016 #119
The Tiger at 54 tons, out classed every Medium tank in the world gladium et scutum Jun 2016 #121
I'm sure the original M-16 has its defenders, as well tabasco Jun 2016 #122
Maybe your should read gladium et scutum Jun 2016 #126
The one advantage the Sherman had was speed. oneshooter Jun 2016 #130
Same with tohe Soviet built T-34 gladium et scutum Jun 2016 #131
Thanks for the info. tabasco Jun 2016 #132
I am sure these are kills claimed by gladium et scutum Jun 2016 #133
I'm not so sure tabasco Jun 2016 #134
Your are correct gladium et scutum Jun 2016 #135
The PPSH-41 was a submachinegun, not an assault rifle. Adrahil Jun 2016 #33
Thanks. gladium et scutum Jun 2016 #42
I guess it's a real pisser Aerows Jun 2016 #49
My interest in them is as historical artifacts. Adrahil Jun 2016 #51
Here we go. Aerows Jun 2016 #52
You missed the part where I said I don't want one. Adrahil Jun 2016 #54
You weren't the one complaining about it Aerows Jun 2016 #56
Thanks for the snark, much appreciated. Adrahil Jun 2016 #75
"I guess it's a real pisser that we can't strut around with UZI's" Actually you can... EX500rider Jun 2016 #106
A prototype assault rifle was the Russian Federov Automat of WW1. Just reading posts Jun 2016 #78
Interesting. The BAR was headed that way, but too big and heavy to be practical. NT Adrahil Jun 2016 #83
The BAR was an excellent light machine gun by WW1 standards, but it cane out too late Just reading posts Jun 2016 #93
Agree. Interesting history. NT Adrahil Jun 2016 #95
The BAR was developed for assulting fixed dug in positions. oneshooter Jun 2016 #107
I'm just pointing out that in WW2 there were LMGs that were arguably better. Just reading posts Jun 2016 #113
Marines hitting Tinian had a different opinion One_Life_To_Give Jun 2016 #109
Of course...that was what was available. But the Bren Gun and MG42 (just to name a couple) were Just reading posts Jun 2016 #114
there are two differences between the traditional "battle" rifle Angel Martin Jun 2016 #29
Which doesn't mean a damn thing Aerows Jun 2016 #50
So you also want to ban semi-auto pistols? TeddyR Jun 2016 #59
Oh for fuck's sake. Odin2005 Jun 2016 #31
Call it what? "BANGIE MCBANGBANG"???? longship Jun 2016 #32
CALL IT AN ASSAULT RIFLE. Paladin Jun 2016 #35
As long as you can describe it in legislation, they may be called whatever you like. jmg257 Jun 2016 #39
That brings you back to describing the rifle based on its looks. ManiacJoe Jun 2016 #69
Actually not the point of this thread, or my post, so not addressed. jmg257 Jun 2016 #74
Post removed Post removed Jun 2016 #41
I'd love to see these folks show up at the NRA convention... Jerry442 Jun 2016 #46
Why? TeddyR Jun 2016 #60
If you believe the gun people posting here... Jerry442 Jun 2016 #65
gun humpers are not known for their intellect Skittles Jun 2016 #64
Banners see falsehoods as mere sport. Eleanors38 Jun 2016 #99
I call them "weapons of mass destruction". Initech Jun 2016 #67
Actually ... Straw Man Jun 2016 #68
"50 people in 20 minutes" ManiacJoe Jun 2016 #70
1984 called, they want their newspeak back n/t Taitertots Jun 2016 #72
A simple solution to the mass fire weapons. -none Jun 2016 #77
And what about the (roughly) 200 million semautomatic weapons already in circulation, Just reading posts Jun 2016 #81
Any used illegally, destroy. -none Jun 2016 #82
**Fist bump** NT Jerry442 Jun 2016 #84
If you only destroy the tiny fraction of the billions of magazines used in crimes, they'll be here Just reading posts Jun 2016 #115
Oh swell, another thread full of gun porn. Piss on guns. hunter Jun 2016 #80
I believe the OP supports gun control. Eleanors38 Jun 2016 #100
Gun control wont happen until it's made socially unacceptable like smoking or drunk driving. hunter Jun 2016 #108
When looking for enemies, things can get confusing. Eleanors38 Jun 2016 #124
I'm not confused in the least. Piss on guns. hunter Jun 2016 #125
Yes NT Jerry442 Jun 2016 #117
Post removed Post removed Jun 2016 #86
Call them "weapons of war", or "military weapons". backscatter712 Jun 2016 #129
 

The_Casual_Observer

(27,742 posts)
1. I overheard some idiots the other day tut-tutting
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 04:44 PM
Jun 2016

About how that rifle in Fla was a "Sig Sauer" such and such rather than an AR whatever. I felt like asking them if they would know the difference if I put them in a dark auditorium with a guy shooting at them that had either one.

 

Eleanors38

(18,318 posts)
19. Recognize? Probably not. But MSM/Controllers can't do it days later in the bright of day...
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 06:24 PM
Jun 2016

And they have no intention of doing so, even if a book is in front of them. The issue is culture war and MSM is all-in for any means necessary: Strange, how the AR-15 has replaced the AK-47 as the all purpose scary gun. MSM proclaimed an assault weapon was used in the Navy Yard shooting. It was an hoary Remington 870 pump shotgun. Google was filled with corrections after that proclaimation.

Now, they don't give a righteous public defacation anymore.

Always remember this:. When you are in the biz of banning, get the terms right if you draft bills; otherwise, it blows back in your face.

CanonRay

(14,036 posts)
76. How about we ban any magazine for any weapon with a capacity of over 6 shots.
Tue Jun 21, 2016, 09:37 AM
Jun 2016

then it doesn't matter which kind of baby killer you have in your hand. You have to reload. A lot.

 

Just reading posts

(688 posts)
79. That would be a defacto ban on 99.9% of semiautomatic pistols. As such, it would be unconstitional.
Tue Jun 21, 2016, 09:51 AM
Jun 2016

Even New York's "SAFE" Act couldn't get away with limiting magazines to 7 rounds.

CanonRay

(14,036 posts)
85. Maybe. Maybe not. It doesn't infringe on anyone's right to bear arms.
Tue Jun 21, 2016, 10:44 AM
Jun 2016

You can own any death machine you choose to own. And as many as you want! Gun humper heaven. Gun humpers get real scared when you talk about this idea. It's nice and simple and hard to get around.

CanonRay

(14,036 posts)
101. Actually, I do
Tue Jun 21, 2016, 05:44 PM
Jun 2016

Infringe is to wrongly limit. I don't think this wrongly limits their right to "bear" arms. You can bear them all you want, with a six shot clip in there. We can disagree on "wrongly".

Straw Man

(6,613 posts)
105. Yes, we can.
Tue Jun 21, 2016, 07:11 PM
Jun 2016
I don't think this wrongly limits their right to "bear" arms. You can bear them all you want, with a six shot clip in there. We can disagree on "wrongly".

"Wrongly" is completely subjective. Why six? Why not one?

Since a federal judge has already struck down the NY SAFE Act's seven-round limit, you're going to have a hard time making a case for six.
 

Eleanors38

(18,318 posts)
91. No.
Tue Jun 21, 2016, 02:47 PM
Jun 2016

Good approach, that "baby killer" stuff. How reasonable, how positive, what a concilliatory approach. But always acceptable in DU, new rues or no, no?

Heard of the expression dig-in?
Heard of the expression double-down?

How about, what goes around, comes around?

CanonRay

(14,036 posts)
102. Fuck conciliatory. I've had 30 years of being conciliatory with these assholes
Tue Jun 21, 2016, 05:45 PM
Jun 2016

that's how we got here. Flame away.

NaturalHigh

(12,778 posts)
123. I'm mostly against gun control...
Thu Jun 23, 2016, 03:21 PM
Jun 2016

but I'll frankly admit that the whole six-round magazine doesn't scare me. I never load more than seven in my shotgun to begin with.

The problem is that most people who want to ban high-capacity magazines are actually for banning anything with more firepower than a beanie flip. If you don't believe that, just take a look around DU at the people calling for a gun ban to include confiscation.

ManiacJoe

(10,136 posts)
2. You seem to be confusing "assault rifle" with "assault weapon".
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 05:22 PM
Jun 2016

They are two different things and their definitions never overlap, regardless of which varient of the silly "assault weapon" definitions is used.


> we could pretend that assault weapons are just Grandpa's hunting rifle with some cosmetic changes

No need to pretend. What you just said is an accurate statement due to the silliness of "assault weapon" definitions.

 

TeddyR

(2,493 posts)
6. Yep
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 05:38 PM
Jun 2016

There are no functional differences between "assault weapons" and every other semi-auto rifle on the market. All have the same rate of fire - one trigger pull = one shot and none are automatic weapons (or at least none that have been used in a mass shooting). The rest of the differences are simply cosmetic.

Straw Man

(6,613 posts)
9. What is a "plain old gun"?
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 05:46 PM
Jun 2016
So AWs are just fru-fru versions of plain old guns?

All that extra firepower is just marketing BS?

They are semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines. That is where the firepower comes from. The "assault weapon" designation simply refers to their visual resemblance to military weapons: pistol grips, adjustable stocks, etc. That could be considered marketing, but it's also ergonomics.

These two rifles have the same firepower:





Jerry442

(1,265 posts)
14. So, what was the point of fighting tooth and nail to defeat the AW ban...
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 06:07 PM
Jun 2016

...when, according to you yourself, the whole AW thing is nothing more than snappy decor? (And probably way overpriced, but that's not my problem)

 

TeddyR

(2,493 posts)
57. I'm more than willing to compromise and work together to lower gun violence
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 11:53 PM
Jun 2016

But are you claiming that the next step isn't more bans, or are you satisfied with only an AWB?

Straw Man

(6,613 posts)
63. Apparently ...
Tue Jun 21, 2016, 01:02 AM
Jun 2016
No compromises ever, because that will only lead to more compromises.

... you don't understand the meaning of the word compromises. I think you have it mixed up with concessions.
 

Eleanors38

(18,318 posts)
90. There it is indeed, Jerry. Virtually every discussion here, and in the agitprop of banner groups...
Tue Jun 21, 2016, 02:42 PM
Jun 2016

is prefaced with:

For beginning.
For starters.
Just a beginning.
Frst, we come for...
Our agenda includes...

Not the most authentic, trustworthy approach. And with predictable results.

 

lancer78

(1,495 posts)
127. Same thing happens
Thu Jun 23, 2016, 04:27 PM
Jun 2016

in the abortion debate. The pro-choice fights any limitations because they know that the end-game for the pro-birthers is to ban all abortion.

jmg257

(11,996 posts)
37. Because then we have to buy the top one instead of the bottom..
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 09:12 PM
Jun 2016


And in NY, this fugly thing...



Obvious.


Straw Man

(6,613 posts)
62. Because once that ban was in place ...
Tue Jun 21, 2016, 12:59 AM
Jun 2016

... you would be looking around for what to ban next.

C'mon. Tell me you wouldn't.

 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
15. Fine, restrict hell out of both and anyone who tries to buy one, the ultimate catch-22 for gunners.
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 06:08 PM
Jun 2016

Response to Hoyt (Reply #15)

ManiacJoe

(10,136 posts)
18. Yes, the only difference is the looks.
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 06:16 PM
Jun 2016

There is no extra fire power.

They use the same lower-power ammo.
They fire at the same rate (one shot per trigger pull).

The only difference is the looks and building materials. The traditional wood rifles are prettier but less ergonomic. The modern plastic guns are ugly, ergonomic, and more weather proof.

X_Digger

(18,585 posts)
36. You can take a wooden-stocked mini-14, change the stock to a pistol gripped folding stock..
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 08:54 PM
Jun 2016

.. and then it would qualify under the expired 'assault weapons ban'.

Same mechanism, same gun-- just a different stock. But because it now has more than 2 'features', it's an ebil 'assault weapon' rather than the ranch gun that many ranchers have in their pickup trucks.

Straw Man

(6,613 posts)
3. If you want to play semantic games ...
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 05:27 PM
Jun 2016

From your link:

The StG 44 (abbreviation of Sturmgewehr 44, "assault rifle 44&quot is a German selective-fire rifle developed during World War II that was the first of its kind to see major deployment and is considered to be the first modern assault rifle.

"Selective-fire" means that is had full-auto capability. This is what gave it the "greatly increased volume of fire" over the American M1 Garand, which was semi-auto only -- like the contemporary civilian AR15.

If you want to talk nomenclature, please be accurate.

gratuitous

(82,849 posts)
5. By the same token . . .
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 05:34 PM
Jun 2016

I prefer to call it gun or firearm regulation rather than gun control. It tracks with the language of the Sacred Second (albeit in the part of the Amendment that we are told doesn't count).

Brickbat

(19,339 posts)
7. Well, crap.
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 05:40 PM
Jun 2016

I was hoping this would be something about people educating themselves about weapons use and terminology in order to write more effective legislation. But no.

Straw Man

(6,613 posts)
11. What terminology?
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 05:50 PM
Jun 2016
Always entertaining to pin down Gun Enthusiasts as to the Nazi origins of the terminology.

Sturmgewehr is a German word for a specific rifle. It may have generic use in Germany, but it is not used in an English-speaking context to designate a class of weapons.

Straw Man

(6,613 posts)
61. Usually ...
Tue Jun 21, 2016, 12:57 AM
Jun 2016

... one follows up such a comment with a substantive criticism or refutation. Got anything?

 

Eleanors38

(18,318 posts)
17. Assault Rifles are capable of FULL-AUTO fire; the bowlderlized assault weapon is not.
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 06:12 PM
Jun 2016

"Assault weapon" is a term of art denoting a close look-a-like to an Assault Rifle (a technical for a class of weapon used in militaries all over the world), but cannot fire FULL-AUTO. Assault weapons are not considered adequate for various militaries for this very lack full-auto feature. Hence, your AR-15s cannot be considered "military-grade.". Some wags in MSM will use "style" like a spoiler on a Dodge Charger has the "style" of a fully set up NASCAR vehicle.

But it ain't NASCAR.

By now, the corruption of acceptable terms and clear definitions in MSM (when it comes to gun bans) is recognizeable to all, and taken advantage of by banners. But the trouble prohibitionists will have will be of their own making: The banning of what they consider "Assault (fill in the blank&quot will require that ALL semi-automatic arms be banned, and the constituency of those owners is tens of millions. That is why the banner/controllers have such little credibility. The duplicity and subterfuge is there for all to see.

On grandfathers' guns:. Google up Remington Model 8.

 

Aerows

(39,961 posts)
20. 707 HP Hellcat Hemi says hello
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 06:26 PM
Jun 2016

No, still isn't NASCAR but let's not sit here and pretend it's the same as a base model.

 

Eleanors38

(18,318 posts)
23. So, the Hellcat will be running the 400 next month?
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 06:35 PM
Jun 2016

Let's not pretend a semi-auto carbine is a modern battle rifle.

 

Aerows

(39,961 posts)
24. Missed the point you wanted to miss.
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 06:42 PM
Jun 2016

Happens all of the time with some of you folks. You were the one that picked out your analogy. I just pointed out where your argument wasn't very sound.

discntnt_irny_srcsm

(18,470 posts)
40. The 707 HP Hellcat Hemi is also...
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 10:16 PM
Jun 2016

...not the hennessey venom gt. So to continue the analogy, the Nissan GTR has a V6 and a better 0-60 time but not as powerful as the Hellcat. Enough car stuff.

What we need to understand and agree on is that different stocks be they wood, plastic or folding metal do not change how deadly the rifle is. A pistol grip is not more deadly than soup ladle. A bayonet lug makes the rifle marginally more deadly if it actually has a bayonet attached.

IMHO the single factor that will affect how deadly your terrorist type attack will be when using a gun, is your choice of venue. Places with a high concentration of unarmed folks with little experience can be deathtraps. Places with people jammed together, places with limited egress, places where visibility may be low, loud places... these are places the mass shooter can do the most damage.

After venue, the next thing a shooter might do to make his bow out more deadly is maybe to chose hollow point ammo with no metal jacket. That presumes he can hit something shooting which brings me to another key aspect, practice. Practice everything. Practice changing mags. Practice shooting short range. Practice holding the gun correctly. Practice switching the safety on and off.

To minimize that kind of damage we could limit availability of hollow point jacketless ammo and add well trained armed security to these venues. Other than that, if an individual with resources, patience and determination wants to kill you or a bunch of people, there's not much to stop him.

 

Eleanors38

(18,318 posts)
88. Is an M16 capable of full-auto fire? Is an AR15 capable of full auto fire?
Tue Jun 21, 2016, 02:32 PM
Jun 2016

Does Assault Rifle mean capable of full-auto fire?

Does the term "assult weapon" denote a weapon capable of full-auto fire?

Quit pretending.

Exilednight

(9,359 posts)
43. You can use an AR15 as an assault weapon. Ergonomics plays a major role in how fast a
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 10:27 PM
Jun 2016

Person can fire rounds. The US Army toyed with the idea in the late '80s with doing away with the full-auto feature on the M-16, but instead they just changed front handgrips and added 3 round burst and renamed it M-16 A2.

The reason the military wanted to do away with full-auto was due to the number of rounds being wasted and declining accuracy the longer a soldier pulled the trigger.

Either way, it would still have been an assault weapon.

 

Aerows

(39,961 posts)
48. That doesn't fit the method.
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 11:22 PM
Jun 2016

Make anybody that agrees with even halfway sensible re-examination of gun laws seem like nincompoop hippies that have never fired a gun in their lives.

*YOU* don't know right off of the top of your head the velocity of .300 Blackout 72 gr ammunition, so clearly, you have absolutely NO ABILITY to take part in the discussion.

If you aren't driving in NASCAR, you have no business discussing speed limits around schools or discussing drunk driving! You aren't a professional driver!!!

That's the argument over and over again. It's stale, ludicrous as hell, but this one just managed to wander into their own analogy while oops, yeah, reality, sanity! got the better of them.

 

TeddyR

(2,493 posts)
58. The Guardian
Tue Jun 21, 2016, 12:03 AM
Jun 2016

Which almost always promotes greater restrictions on firearms, published an article today discussing the fact that both Sandy Hook parents and the Obama administration believe that an AWB is basically pointless. And Slate recently published an article discussing the fact that gun control supporters need to educate themselves a bit so they don't make dumb arguments, like equating "assault weapons" with semi-auto rifles.

Straw Man

(6,613 posts)
66. Actually, not so much.
Tue Jun 21, 2016, 01:34 AM
Jun 2016
You can use an AR15 as an assault weapon. Ergonomics plays a major role in how fast a

Person can fire rounds.

Are you referring to pistol grips? They may have a marginal effect on rate of fire, but they have more to do with accuracy and controllability. That's why Olympic rifle competitors like them.



The US Army toyed with the idea in the late '80s with doing away with the full-auto feature on the M-16, but instead they just changed front handgrips and added 3 round burst and renamed it M-16 A2.

Toyed with and then abandoned the idea. You need more than semi-auto capability for suppressive fire.

The reason the military wanted to do away with full-auto was due to the number of rounds being wasted and declining accuracy the longer a soldier pulled the trigger.

In other words, there was an economic motive. This was the same reason the military stuck with Springfield muskets and Sharps carbines long past the point at which they should have adopted repeating lever-action rifles. The theory was that if soldiers were armed with repeaters, they would waste too much ammo. A self-fulfilling prophesy: soldiers waste even less ammo when they're dead.

Accuracy is not really relevant to suppressive fire. The era of semi-auto battle rifles is over.
 

Eleanors38

(18,318 posts)
89. Is the Assault Rifle the formal description of a full-auto weapon?
Tue Jun 21, 2016, 02:37 PM
Jun 2016

If a full-auto weapon is converted, disabled, made without the full-auto feature, is it no longer an Assault Rifle.

ManiacJoe

(10,136 posts)
96. Full-auto or burst mode is a requirement.
Tue Jun 21, 2016, 04:24 PM
Jun 2016

According to the definition of an assault rifles, the user must be able to choose between single-shot and multi-shot per trigger pull by some type of switch/lever.

If the gun is semi-auto only, then it is just a standard semi-auto carbine not an assault rifle.

 

Matrosov

(1,098 posts)
22. Call it a semi-automatic rifle
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 06:35 PM
Jun 2016

Focusing on terms like 'military grade assault rifle' when referring to AR15s and similar weapons then downplays the lethality of other semi-automatic rifles that are just as capable of killing large numbers of people but don't receive the same kind of attention because they look different.



For example, a Mini-14 that fires the same bullet as the AR15 and can even hold 100 rounds at once in a drum magazine.

Buzz cook

(2,470 posts)
25. Here's a video of a legal semi-automatic weapon
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 06:43 PM
Jun 2016

One pull of the trigger one shot.'



Notice that it fires very quickly.

Now here is a comparison between a semi auto and a machine gun.



Notice the difference. Now you may want to fast forward to the shooting part cause this guy talks a lot.

And here's the almost obligatory girl with gun video.


Just want to point out that for some semi-autos rapid fire doesn't need special equipment. Bump fire as it's some times called is a problem for some SKS surplus carbines. Some semi-auto firearms go into bump fire mode with "soft" primers. In some firearms you can "ride" the trigger to create the bump fire effect.

I have yet to see an old style hunting semi auto with a bump fire problem. It always seems to be sporter style semi-autos.

Straw Man

(6,613 posts)
97. Remember that bump-fire requires a special stock.
Tue Jun 21, 2016, 04:40 PM
Jun 2016

The stock has to be held against your shoulder. Kinda rules out that "spray firing from the hip" thing ....

Also, the rifle has to be held loosely for the device to work; hold it too tightly and you're back to regular semi-auto. It's not exactly a configuration that a criminal would want. That's probably why ATF has decided to leave them alone.

Buzz cook

(2,470 posts)
111. No it doesn't "require" a special stock
Tue Jun 21, 2016, 10:21 PM
Jun 2016

As I pointed out It is a problem with the SKS carbine, it happens to some semi-auto with soft primer ammo.

But the point is that there is a potential for semi-auto firearms to fire much more quickly than the "one pull of the trigger" apologist would like us to believe.

Straw Man

(6,613 posts)
112. You posted videos of bump-fire stocks.
Tue Jun 21, 2016, 10:54 PM
Jun 2016

Bump-fire stocks exist in order to make bump-fire moderately controllable. Yes, you can hook your thumb in your belt loop and make some standard-stocked semi-autos bump-fire that way. The notion that anybody would use this as anything other than a range trick is ludicrous. It's inaccurate and prone to jams.

What you're talking about with the SKS is not bump-fire. It's slam-fire, caused by the free-floating firing pin. If it's caused by soft primers, the rifle will probably just fire a short burst because you will release the trigger when it happens. If it is caused by a seized firing pin, it may empty the magazine even if you release the trigger.

Slam-fire is completely different from bump-fire. It is not controllable. You never know when and if it will happen. If your SKS does this, get it fixed as soon as you can, or you risk an out-of-battery detonation, potentially damaging your rifle and injuring yourself.

The only usable, controllable form of bump-fire is with a bump-fire stock -- as in the videos you posted -- and that has its drawbacks too. The ATF has decided that it's not an issue. You seem to have a problem with it, but you haven't convincingly articulated it.

Straw Man

(6,613 posts)
120. It's still wrong.
Wed Jun 22, 2016, 07:03 PM
Jun 2016
It seems like your being politically correct.

Not when they're completely different mechanical processes, one deliberate and the other accidental.

Bump-fire is the deliberate manipulation of a semi-auto firearm to make it fire in full-auto. It works by anchoring the trigger finger so that the movement of the gun itself under recoil will cause the trigger to be pulled again. You can control bump-fire to a degree, especially with a special stock and practice.

Slam-fire is unintentional and is caused by a malfunctioning firing pin. You cannot control slam-fire. You don't know when it will happen, and you can't control it when it does. I will repeat: If you have experienced slam-fire with an SKS or any other rifle, "get thee to a gunsmithery" before you attempt to fire it again.

gladium et scutum

(803 posts)
26. Actually, the Soviets with the PPSH-41
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 07:20 PM
Jun 2016

Beat the Germans to a light weight automatic weapon about a year or so before the Sturmgewehr was issued to the Wehrmacht. This weapon had a firing rate of 1000 rps and did not require special lubricants to operate in the extreme cold environment of the Soviet Union.

 

tabasco

(22,974 posts)
30. Came up with a damn fine tank, too.
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 08:13 PM
Jun 2016

While US tank crews were burnt alive in the under-armored Sherman.

gladium et scutum

(803 posts)
44. Problem was not armor protection
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 10:29 PM
Jun 2016

Sherman's used a gasoline engine. The Soviets used diesel engines. The Soviets asked the U.S. to power the Lend Lease Sherman's with diesel engines. We engineered the Sherman to take 2 GMC 675 diesel engines. This became the M4A2. We sent the Soviets about 6,000 of these tanks. Our Marine Corp also used this model of Sherman in their Pacific campaigns.

oneshooter

(8,614 posts)
47. The Sherman was never designed to fight other tanks
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 11:09 PM
Jun 2016

It was designed as a break out weapon. Yo punch a hole in the line and raise hell behind their lines. The problem with the early models was not the fuel. It was the ammo storage. Main gun ammo was stored at the bottom of the turret basket in an upright position.any low hit would set off the propellent charges of the round's that were struck.
This was fixed by adding rubber bladders on both outer and inner sides of the ammo ring . These were filled with a glycol/,water mix. This stopped the flare ups of the tanks.

gladium et scutum

(803 posts)
53. American tactical
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 11:40 PM
Jun 2016

doctrine was for tanks to support infantry. Anti tank operations were the responsibility of the anti tank battalions. The armor problems were fixed early in the war, the gasoline fuel problem persisted throughout the war. Up until the end of the war Shermans were referred to by their American crews as Ronson's and their British crews as Tommy cookers.

gladium et scutum

(803 posts)
110. Not really
Tue Jun 21, 2016, 09:54 PM
Jun 2016

The Sherman weighed in at about 30 tons, as did the Soviet T-34. The German Mk IV was slightly lighter at 27 tons. These were medium tanks of the era. The U.S. didn't even field a heavy tank until 1945.

 

tabasco

(22,974 posts)
119. There's a lot of 3rd Armored Div. vets who disagree with you.
Wed Jun 22, 2016, 03:26 PM
Jun 2016
All it took was a German adversary like the awe-inspiring Tiger tank with its 88-millimeter gun. One round could punch through the Sherman’s comparatively thin armor. If they were lucky, the tank’s five crew might have seconds to escape before they burned alive.


Hence, the Sherman’s grim nickname—Ronson, like the cigarette lighter, because “it lights up the first time, every time.”

http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2014/10/26/the_m-4_sherman_tank_was_hell_on_wheels_-_and_a_death_trap.html

Sherman tanks were not nearly as efficient or as armored as the primary German tank, the Panzer IV. This was a fact even before the upgrading of Panzer gun barrels and armor in 1943. Shermans were under-gunned when fighting German Tiger tanks and out-maneuvered when facing German Panther tanks. These disparities are shown in an account of the famous Lt. Colonel William B. Lovelady, commander of the 3rd Armored Division’s 2nd Battalion, retold by Lt. Colonel Haynes Dugan.

“One of his Shermans turned the corner of a house and got off three shots at the front of a Panther, all bounced off. The Sherman then backed behind the corner and was disabled by a shot penetrating two sides of the house plus the tank.”[iii]

Because of their insufficient armor, the insides of Sherman tanks were prone to catching fire during combat. This problem was compounded when fires ignited shells and other munitions inside a tank. Sherman M4’s were jokingly referred to by British soldiers as “Ronsons”, a brand of lighter whose slogan was “Lights up the first time, every time!”[iv] Polish soldiers referred to them simply as “The Burning Grave”.


http://archives.library.illinois.edu/blog/poor-defense-sherman-tanks-ww2/

I served in 3AD from 1986 to 1989 and had the pleasure to talk to a lot of the Spearhead WWII vets during reunions. I'll believe them over some wonk historian "tank expert."

gladium et scutum

(803 posts)
121. The Tiger at 54 tons, out classed every Medium tank in the world
Wed Jun 22, 2016, 07:35 PM
Jun 2016

The Tigers 88mm gun could punch holes in Sherman's, T-34/76 and 85s and even the panzer Mk IVs at ranges over a 1,000 meters. The armies of the world up gunned their original medium designs with improved 75 mm guns and armor, or in the case of the Soviets 85 mm guns, but the armor protection, even on the improved versions, of these medium tanks was never proof against the tigers 88 mm. Only the Soviet IS 2s at 46 tons with a 122 mm gun were one shot killers of tigers at over 1000 meters.

 

tabasco

(22,974 posts)
122. I'm sure the original M-16 has its defenders, as well
Thu Jun 23, 2016, 02:28 PM
Jun 2016

Funny how none of the soldiers who fought with that weapon will defend it.

gladium et scutum

(803 posts)
126. Maybe your should read
Thu Jun 23, 2016, 04:18 PM
Jun 2016

"Commanding The Red Army's Sherman Tanks" by Dmitriy Loza. He fought in Sherman's against both the Germans and the Japanese.
He was honored as a Hero of the Soviet Union for his actions against German armor in the capture of Vienna, Austria. You have to remember the Sherman was designed at a time when the biggest tank the German Army was a Mk-IV with a short 75 mm gun.
The Tiger may have been on the German drawing boards by wouldn't be produced for another 18 months. The Panther was not even an idea at the time the Sherman went into production. During the war the Sherman was adequate against the Mk-IV, (the bulk of German armor) through out the war. It was not a perfect tank, none of them were. The best medium tank of the war would have been a T-34 built in Detroit instead of Chelyabinsk. The Sherman was improved over the course of the war as was the Mk-IV and the T-34. You referred to the 3rd Armored Division. During the operations around Normandy 3AD lost 648 tanks, they destroyed 1023 German tanks in that campaign.

oneshooter

(8,614 posts)
130. The one advantage the Sherman had was speed.
Thu Jun 23, 2016, 06:57 PM
Jun 2016

A top speed of 30mph meant that the Sherman could travel faster than the Tigers turret could traverse.

gladium et scutum

(803 posts)
131. Same with tohe Soviet built T-34
Thu Jun 23, 2016, 09:31 PM
Jun 2016

The crucial advantage of the Sherman tank over the Tiger I and Tiger II was the fact the Germans only build 1800 of them.
We built 49,000 Shermans. That is roughly a 27 to 1 advantage. Yes you will loose some Sherman tanks to brew up a Tiger,
but the cruel mathematics of war was on the side of the Allies. The Tiger may have been the best tank in the world, but it lost the war to a lot of adequate medium tanks in the American and Soviet armies.

 

tabasco

(22,974 posts)
132. Thanks for the info.
Fri Jun 24, 2016, 10:57 AM
Jun 2016

Our engineers and planners could have and should have done better. If they had, we wouldn't even be arguing about this on the internet in the year 2016.

The tank numbers you mention for the 3rd AD would include all tank kills, not just tank-on-tank. We had air supremacy at Normandy and LOTS of tanks were destroyed by aircraft. I would guess those number include air support.

gladium et scutum

(803 posts)
133. I am sure these are kills claimed by
Fri Jun 24, 2016, 01:33 PM
Jun 2016

3AD tank and tank destroyer units. Pilots would have reported their tank kills through their chain of command. Combat tank crews would have reported their tank kills in their reports up the chain of command. The army would have wanted to know exactly how many enemy tanks were destroyed and who destroyed them. Otherwise the risk of double counting kills would have provided suspect intelligence to army planners. The numbers could be all source, but I do not think so.

 

tabasco

(22,974 posts)
134. I'm not so sure
Fri Jun 24, 2016, 01:51 PM
Jun 2016

because I don't know your source. Infantry kills tanks too. That was my job in 3rd AD.

gladium et scutum

(803 posts)
135. Your are correct
Fri Jun 24, 2016, 05:13 PM
Jun 2016

those tank kills by infantry units would have been listed in 3AD records as division kills. My point is that there would have been a considerable effort to distinguish between USAAF kills and 3AD kills. The number comes from the 3AD Association records at the University of Illinois, Urbanna Champaign campus. I came across it many years back, sorta by accident.

 

Adrahil

(13,340 posts)
33. The PPSH-41 was a submachinegun, not an assault rifle.
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 08:45 PM
Jun 2016

It fired the 7.62x25 Tokarev cartridge... a pistol cartridge. Submachineguns had been around form some time. The Thompson, quite famously (and heavily), but the Sten gun appeared in 1941 and is light weight and fired the ubiquitous 9mm. There were tons of others.

The assault rifle is defined as a select-fire rifle using a medium-power rifle cartridge. The StG44 was the first successful rifle of that type.

 

Aerows

(39,961 posts)
49. I guess it's a real pisser
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 11:27 PM
Jun 2016

that we can't strut around with UZI's. I mean, aren't they just guns, too? Shouldn't everybody have an SMG at their fingertips in case of the paperboy missing the drive way or the neighbor's dog barking too loud?

Someone here was lamenting that if we were going to have any legislation of anything, we need to get something like loosened import restrictions.

It's not as though we have enough guns in the country, damn, we need to have MORE of them.

 

Adrahil

(13,340 posts)
51. My interest in them is as historical artifacts.
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 11:32 PM
Jun 2016

I do not own a SMG, and have no plans to get one.

 

Aerows

(39,961 posts)
52. Here we go.
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 11:37 PM
Jun 2016

"I'm interested in importing an UZI as a historical artifact".

Fine. It will be rendered non-functional - there are ways to do that. Go ahead and import one that cannot be fired. All of you are extremely aware of how to chamber and bore your weapons - we all know there are ways to damage them to where they do not function and likely will never function.

You can have all of the historical artifacts you would like, in that case!

 

Adrahil

(13,340 posts)
54. You missed the part where I said I don't want one.
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 11:41 PM
Jun 2016

Most of the guns I own are more than 100 years old. No interest in owning an SMG, deactivated or live.

EX500rider

(10,522 posts)
106. "I guess it's a real pisser that we can't strut around with UZI's" Actually you can...
Tue Jun 21, 2016, 07:31 PM
Jun 2016

....in a state with open carry:

Uzi's for sale:
https://www.gunsamerica.com/Search.aspx?T=UZi

 

Just reading posts

(688 posts)
78. A prototype assault rifle was the Russian Federov Automat of WW1.
Tue Jun 21, 2016, 09:49 AM
Jun 2016
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fedorov_Avtomat

Selective fire, 25 round magazine, chambered for 6.5 Arisaka. Appears to have had reliability issues, though. They only made a few thousand of them.

 

Just reading posts

(688 posts)
93. The BAR was an excellent light machine gun by WW1 standards, but it cane out too late
Tue Jun 21, 2016, 03:14 PM
Jun 2016

to be used until the very end of the war.

By the time WW2 came around, it had been surpassed by numerous other designs.

oneshooter

(8,614 posts)
107. The BAR was developed for assulting fixed dug in positions.
Tue Jun 21, 2016, 07:59 PM
Jun 2016

Trenches. I would be used to supply "walking fire" as the troops approached the trenches, and to clear said trenches by shooting directly down them. It was tested in combat by a Lt. Browning on the western front, and found to be "admirably suited for the task for which it was developed".

WW2 the BAR was used as a light MG as it only weighed 21lb Vs the 56lbs of the tripod mounted M1919 30 cal.

The Marines LOVED it for the jungle battles.

 

Just reading posts

(688 posts)
113. I'm just pointing out that in WW2 there were LMGs that were arguably better.
Tue Jun 21, 2016, 11:16 PM
Jun 2016

The BAR had two disadvantages: feeding from a bottom mounted magazine, and a limited capacity of only 20 rounds.

The British Bren Gun addressed both of those issues by feeding from a top mounted magazine and having a 30 round magazine.

The German MG42 GPMG, in the meantime, weighed only four pounds more then the BAR, and had far more firepower.

I'm not saying the BAR was bad, mind you. Just that it was heads and tails above the competition in World War One, but this was not the case in World War Two.

One_Life_To_Give

(6,036 posts)
109. Marines hitting Tinian had a different opinion
Tue Jun 21, 2016, 08:30 PM
Jun 2016

Although they had wanted the Johnson instead of the Garand. They would take a BAR over either.

 

Just reading posts

(688 posts)
114. Of course...that was what was available. But the Bren Gun and MG42 (just to name a couple) were
Tue Jun 21, 2016, 11:17 PM
Jun 2016

arguably better guns for that purpose. As I said in another post, I'm not saying that that BAR was a lousy gun. It was a world-beater in WW1, but by WW2 the state of the art advanced beyond it.

Angel Martin

(942 posts)
29. there are two differences between the traditional "battle" rifle
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 08:09 PM
Jun 2016

and "assault" rifle

assault rifle is capable of semi auto or full auto fire

the assault rifle cartridge is de-powered from the battle rifle cartridge (eg Garand with 30 06) because there is too much recoil from full power ammo like 30 06, 308 etc and full auto fire is just uncontrollable.


"Or, we could pretend that assault weapons are just Grandpa's hunting rifle with some cosmetic changes."

actually, the ammo for Gramp's hunting rifle is a lot more powerful than assault rifle cartridges.

 

Aerows

(39,961 posts)
50. Which doesn't mean a damn thing
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 11:31 PM
Jun 2016

since Gramp's hunting rifle isn't designed for killing multiple people at the rate of 45 bullets/min - and by the way, some cartridges can be put in the modified AR-15 that actually render this argument moot.

I think I pointed one out up thread, but see, I'm making a case that maybe we might look at ways that we can get guns that can mow down dozens in a minute, so obviously, I'm dumber than a box of rocks.

 

TeddyR

(2,493 posts)
59. So you also want to ban semi-auto pistols?
Tue Jun 21, 2016, 12:05 AM
Jun 2016

And which "cartridges" make this argument moot? A cartridge doesn't alter the firing rate

Paladin

(28,202 posts)
35. CALL IT AN ASSAULT RIFLE.
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 08:51 PM
Jun 2016

High time to wrest control of the vocabulary away from the pro-gun militants. They've been using it as a weapon against us for decades.

jmg257

(11,996 posts)
39. As long as you can describe it in legislation, they may be called whatever you like.
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 09:20 PM
Jun 2016

Though you might as well start with something that makes sense...

how about "semi-auto assault rifle"?
"sporting type assault rifle"?

"assault rifle with no full- auto capabilities?

"semi-auto with detachable magazine and 1 of these features"?

The choices are endless!

ManiacJoe

(10,136 posts)
69. That brings you back to describing the rifle based on its looks.
Tue Jun 21, 2016, 02:39 AM
Jun 2016

No one who knows what they are talking about cares what the rifle looks like.

What is the difference between your "assault weapon" and other semi-auto carbines?
Answer: Nothing but its looks. Same ammo; same rate of fire; same magazine sizes.

jmg257

(11,996 posts)
74. Actually not the point of this thread, or my post, so not addressed.
Tue Jun 21, 2016, 08:13 AM
Jun 2016

Anyway, if you want all semi-autos with detachable mags banned, or SA of certain fixed capacity, that would work much better.

Response to Jerry442 (Original post)

Jerry442

(1,265 posts)
46. I'd love to see these folks show up at the NRA convention...
Mon Jun 20, 2016, 11:02 PM
Jun 2016

...and publicly own all the stuff they said here -- basically that the "assault weapons" folks out there are paying top dollar for are just tricked out versions of stuff you could buy off the rack at Walmart's.

Jerry442

(1,265 posts)
65. If you believe the gun people posting here...
Tue Jun 21, 2016, 01:17 AM
Jun 2016

...gun buyers purchasing, say, a Sig Sauer MCX are paying big bucks for features that have all the functionality of a Hello Kitty decal.

Oh course, Sig Sauer would tell you you're getting extra "mission capabilities".

Initech

(99,913 posts)
67. I call them "weapons of mass destruction".
Tue Jun 21, 2016, 01:46 AM
Jun 2016

If you can murder 50 people in 20 minutes, it's a weapon of mass destruction. That's the only thing they can and should be called.

Straw Man

(6,613 posts)
68. Actually ...
Tue Jun 21, 2016, 02:14 AM
Jun 2016
I call them "weapons of mass destruction".

... that term already has a meaning:

Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) are defined in U.S. law (18 USC §2332a) as:

1. Any explosive (see below list), incendiary, or poison gas;

- Bomb
- Grenade
- Rocket having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than four ounces,
- Missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce,
- Mine, or;
- Device similar to any of the devices described above;

2. Any weapons that is designed or intend to cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals, or their precursors;

3. Any weapon involving a disease organism;

4. Any weapon that is designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life

--https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/terrorism/wmd/wmd_faqs

ManiacJoe

(10,136 posts)
70. "50 people in 20 minutes"
Tue Jun 21, 2016, 02:43 AM
Jun 2016

That is one person every 24 seconds. That rate describes every modern rifle in existence.

-none

(1,884 posts)
77. A simple solution to the mass fire weapons.
Tue Jun 21, 2016, 09:48 AM
Jun 2016

Outlaw removable magazines. Make them built in, a integral part of the weapon. Limit to a maximum of 6 to 8 shots, before needing to reload.
What does a civilian need with a 30 round magazine for? Except for mass shooting, there is no real need for that many shots.

We need to tighten up background checks. Any weapon transfers, need the proper paperwork and go through federally licensed firearm dealers. Waiting periods to make sure everything is correct.
The owner of any firearm used in a crime, is an accessory to the crime, unless the firearm is reported stolen before the crime, or a short reasonable afterwards.
Make firearm owners responsible for their weapons, with stiff penalties for misuse.

 

Just reading posts

(688 posts)
81. And what about the (roughly) 200 million semautomatic weapons already in circulation,
Tue Jun 21, 2016, 09:59 AM
Jun 2016

and the billions (literally) of magazines for them already in private hands?

Grandfather them?

Confiscate them?

-none

(1,884 posts)
82. Any used illegally, destroy.
Tue Jun 21, 2016, 10:09 AM
Jun 2016

If we can get cigarette use as not being socially acceptable, we can do this too. I won't happen over night, but something needs to be done.
How would you stop the mass massacres? Lax weapon laws doesn't seen to be working too well. Let's try something else, OK?
There is too much loss of life to continue to do nothing.

 

Just reading posts

(688 posts)
115. If you only destroy the tiny fraction of the billions of magazines used in crimes, they'll be here
Tue Jun 21, 2016, 11:21 PM
Jun 2016

for centuries.

How would you stop the mass massacres?

I won't, and no one else can, either.

Lax weapon laws doesn't seen to be working too well.

The murder rate has dropped in half in the last quarter century, while at the same time the number of guns in private hands has doubled (at least).

So we have more guns (fact) and less crime (fact).

Hm...wonder if there's a book title in there somewhere?

There is too much loss of life to continue to do nothing.

Are you really characterizing the myriad of gun control laws already on the books as "nothing"?

hunter

(38,264 posts)
108. Gun control wont happen until it's made socially unacceptable like smoking or drunk driving.
Tue Jun 21, 2016, 08:08 PM
Jun 2016

I don't have to tolerate drunk driving.

People don't smoke in California restaurants and other workplaces, I can rent a smoke free motel room in a smoke free motel.

I don't have to tolerate gun love.

Posting gun porn after a mass murder is disgusting.

hunter

(38,264 posts)
125. I'm not confused in the least. Piss on guns.
Thu Jun 23, 2016, 04:13 PM
Jun 2016

Gun love is disgusting.

I wouldn't want to have anyone I'd care to shoot living in my head.

Response to Jerry442 (Original post)

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Don't call it an assault ...