A House Democrat plans to introduce a bill that would hit AR-15's with a 1,000% tax -- and

[CaptainTruth]

173. After reading this thread I'm going to go out on a limb & say...

...if we want effective legislation that saves lives, one way to do it could be addressing a combination of 3 variables:

A = the power of the ammunition (kinetic energy of the projectile)

B = number of rounds carried (magazine capacity)

C = rate of fire

Restrictions could involve a combination of all 3 variables. For example, guns that fire high-powered ammo could have magazine size & fire rate limited. For lower-powered (less deadly) ammo, magazine size & fire rate could be increased.

In other words, if you want more A, you get less B & C.
If you want less A, you can have more B & C.

I'm writing this & I just realized that what I'm talking about is setting a limit on how much energy (kinetic energy of bullets) a gun can deliver within a set period of time.

Set a maximum amount of E energy that can be delivered in T time. You can do that by firing a lot of low-energy bullets faster, or by firing fewer high-energy bullets slower, either way the total E energy delivered in T time is the same, make that the limit, regulate that.

To be clear, I'm just trying to save thousands of lives & make mass shootings less deadly. I believe new regulations on guns & ammo can achieve that, so I'm looking for new, better, smarter ways that laws can be crafted, laws that stand a decent chance of withstanding court challenges.

The existing machine gun ban can be cited as precedent for the kind of regulations I'm talking about here. "How many bullets fired how fast" is already successfully regulated in the US, & my idea is an application of that same principle.