I'm really tired of hearing that banning semi autos won't work because there are

[flamin lib]

too many of them and gun nuts won't sell back anyway.

Bullshit!

Pass a law making illegal the possession, import, manufacture, sale or transfer of any semi auto firearm with a removable magazine. Offer a six month grace period to sell back or surender the banned firearms. No grandfather clause.

All those newly outlawed guns will fall into one of three categories: 1) surrendered and gone, 2) kept illegally and hidden in a closet where it won't hurt anyone. The heirs can surrender it when you die or 3) found, stolen or used in a crime in which case you are in deep shit.

In any event the supply of these things will drop by half immediately (surrendered or hidden) and to almost zero over a decade.

As it seems we can't prevent death by gun so the least we can do is reduce the carnage by limiting the technology.

[50 Shades Of Blue]

1. K & R. It's just an excuse to do nothing.

[dickthegrouch]

2. And add requirements for Licensing, registration, and insurance.

Just like cars.
The excuse that "it was stolen last week" will no longer work. The registered owner is always responsible for it, unless a formal Police report can be shown to have been filed in a timely fashion.

My personal feeling is that anyone, outside of law enforcement or the military who wants a gun, should be shot with one first! (Not to kill them, but to give them the experience of the pain they (by having once owned the gun) could inflict on someone else).

[fescuerescue]

3. Mandatory insurance would solve the NRA's funding problems

And make them richer than ever before. Gun insurance is a big part of the NRA's business.

Never really understood that argument. People who are killed usually don't care much that someone will get a check.

[X_Digger]

9. Not to mention that insurance would not pay for an intentional criminal act. n/t

[Hoyt]

30. Fine, if gunners can't get insurance that covers an intentional act, they shouldn't have gunz.

I'm sure you gunners could find some gun organization to offer a product, even if at a premium that will force you to sell some of your gunz annually.

[X_Digger]

32. Hoyt, it's actually *illegal* to cover a criminal act in most states.

Perhaps you should speak with someone who knows insurance. I'm sure your local agent would be happy to disabuse you of some of your *cough* notions.

[Hoyt]

33. Like I said, if you can't get the requisite insurance, you shouldn't be able to own guns.

Again, I'm sure your comrades in the NRA can lobby for any necessary changes to insurance laws or policies to cover you guns.

[X_Digger]

34. Somehow I think the point went right by you.

This is a core tenet of liability insurance. Again, talk with an agent, especially about those "necessary changes to insurance law".

It's like talking quantum physics with a cellist.

[RichardRay]

57. Worse, but...

I know at least one physicist who plays cello very well.

That said, gun insurance could be similar to car insurance. Liability coverage included, and similarly limited.

[ThoughtCriminal]

50. Wrong on many levels

There are numerous examples of coverage that include illegal acts.

[X_Digger]

54. No, not by the insured. By third parties, yes.

For example, section 533 of the California Insurance Code provides “An insurer is not liable for
a loss caused by the willful act of the insured"

Fucking duh.

[ThoughtCriminal]

59. Here it is again

Fucking yes. And I get tired of this myth coming out of the Gun Gulag.

http://www.guninsuranceblog.com/gun-insurance-for-willful-intentional-criminal-acts/#more-412

<snip>
One of the things that opponents of gun insurance or insurance trade representatives often say is that insurance cannot cover intentional or criminal acts. This is simply false.

There are many kinds of insurance that cover such acts. The key is that the insurance pays to the victim and not the wrongdoer. It doesn’t have to matter if the deed is done by the purchaser of the insurance or another insured person. It is important the the policy be written to make this clear; policies that exist at least partially for the benefit of third parties typically work that way. Insurance that is compelled by law for an activity often applies in these cases even if it’s not spelled out in the policy, but courts differ on this point and an explicit requirement in the legislation and in policy language is a good idea.

Insurance textbooks teach that whether an act is accidental or willful is determined from the viewpoint of the insured. Mandatory insurance should treat a victim as an also insured party. This is necessary because the purpose of many kinds of insurance is to protect the insured against the willful acts of outsiders. An example would be a day care center that is negligent in screening visitors who might commit an abuse against a child. From that viewpoint, a act that is deliberate on the part of the abuser is an accident to the victim.

Insurance that pays to innocent victims for willful, intentional or even criminal acts is common when the purpose of the insurance is to protect third parties. Despite the statements from insurance industry representatives– “if you use your car as a weapon to intentionally run down a pedestrian or another motorist, there is no coverage”, motor vehicle insurance in many states would in fact cover exactly that case. The case commonly cited in legal discussions to illustrate this point is Wheeler v. O’Connell, 297 Mass. 549 , 553 (1937) This case held that compulsory insurance was very different than voluntary insurance, that public policy considerations did not prevent coverage of intentional acts, and that the insurance terms should be interpreted in light of the intention of the compulsory insurance law. Many later cases in various states have taken the same position even in situations where insured persons committed serious crimes including murder.

</snip>

[X_Digger]

65. Yes, Tom, some coverage exists, in special circumstances like defamation. Whoopee!

Go talk to an insurance agent about a liability policy to cover intentional acts. They'll talk about the fortuity doctrine, and contra proferentum. Negligence liability is the bread and butter of such policies.

In your example above, if a day care worker intentionally looked the other way so that his pedo uncle could come fondle some kids, do you really think that insurance would cover that act?!?!?

See Nw. Nat’l Cas. Co. v. McNulty, or even better, Bohrer v. Church Mut. Ins. Co. (1998) (“It is contrary
to public policy to insure against liability arising directly against the insured from intentional or willful
wrongs, including the results and penalties of the insured’s own criminal acts.”

What, you think your local corner boy can get a policy to protect him if his product kills someone?

What a load of horseshit.

[ThoughtCriminal]

68. That was not even close to a rebuttle

Sure if you burn your house down, that's arson and you will not be able to collect insurance. If you murder your spouse, you will not collect the life insurance. Those are the cases where deliberate criminal acts prohibit payment to the person who COMMITS the crime, Not payment to victims.

Yes, the insurance would cover the victims in the daycare center. In your words: Fucking duh - they would have to.

But if your banker embezzles, your deposits are insured and you as a victim, insurance recover your funds - even though it was a criminal act. If you deliberately drive your car into my house, you will not be able to get compensated for damage to your car, but your insurance will pay for damages to my property. Or for an even more specific example lookup insurance payouts for the Columbine massacre. And have you never heard of employees being bonded?

My patience for these often repeated LIES from the Gungeon is at an END.

[Red Mountain]

69. OK, fine.....

Gun nuts will buy insurance and then go out and slaughter people.

It will be folded back into the cost of an insurance policy for the non-gun nuts required to carry insurance.

At the current rate......that might get expensive.

That will suppress legal gun ownership with insurance.

Rates go up even more.

Fewer people buy insurance......more decide to skirt the law.

Pretty soon, the system is unsustainable. More and more gun owners willingly become criminals. States clamp down on 'cool' accessories. Gun ownership rates decline. Lawbreakers receive longer and longer jail sentences and MUCH bigger fines for not carrying insurance. They learn. They choose life or guns.

Kinda what the right wing would like to do with Obamacare......but in this case more people end up alive.



Seems like a plan.

[X_Digger]

74. Duh, we're talking about deliberate criminal acts here. Cases where the person is financially liable

Liability insurance protects you from fortuitous acts that you are liable for. As a homeowner, as a business owner, as a driver- you're financially liable for the medical bills of the person you plowed into because you were looking at your phone. You're responsible for the neighborhood kid who trips on the hose you left out on the sidewalk. You're responsible for the medical bills of the person who slipped on a loose tile in your store.

You have financial liability. To the people who were injured. They are the victims.

Liability insurance does not cover intentional criminal acts by the covered (that's you, not the victims).

If you set up a pit with punji sticks because you were tired of the local kids taking a shortcut across your yard, your homeowner's policy would not cover the bills of the kid who fell in.

In such a scenario, your insurer would point out the nice clause in your policy (and state law, depending on your state) as to why that's on you, not them.

[ThoughtCriminal]

75. Coverage for the victims IS what we are talking about here

I don't know if you are just pretending not to understand that.

The exclusion for criminal acts is for the person who commits the crime. Period. End of Debate. Insurance companies do pay to victims of their clients even if their client did so criminally. PROVE otherwise because there are numerous examples (including Columbine) that absolutely contradict the LIE you are promoting.

Really let's hear some REAL, DOCUMENTED, examples of insurance companies not compensating the victims and then we will talk about legislative remedies for that situation.

It is legal. It is common. It is not a barrier to mandatory insurance for gun owners that compensates victims.

[sarisataka]

82. You had me questioning myself

Because I do have carry insurance. As I had remembered, they will defend me and pay claims to third parties for bodily injury or property damage arising out of self defense.

Exclusion number 1, found on page 10, however does void coverage if the injury/damage is caused by me committing a criminal act.

http://www.usccamemberterms.com/

[X_Digger]

88. Just google it, silly.

https://www.irmi.com/articles/expert-commentary/cgl-exclusion-for-expected-or-intended-injury

https://www.rcslawfirm.com/the-intentional-act-exception-to-insurance/

https://www.propertyinsurancecoveragelaw.com/2016/03/articles/insurance/my-spouse-burned-down-the-house-am-i-covered-part-iii-connecticut/

https://www.insurancejournal.com/magazines/mag-legalbeat/2002/03/11/18987.htm

https://www.dallasfortworthinsurancelawyerblog.com/category/intentional-acts/

Plenty of cases cited there. Wessinger v. Fire Insurance Exchange (1997 Texas) in that last one.

Fire Insurance moved for summary judgment stating that the insured’s actions were not accidental but were intentional conduct excluded from coverage. The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of the carrier.

[dickthegrouch]

35. I care very much that my family is provided for

I've provided for them in normal circumstances, but I want anyone who shoots me to PAY for the rest of their miserable, cowardly lives.

[fescuerescue]

41. Thats awesome

But insurance pretty much means that they WONT pay.

Just their insurance company.

[dickthegrouch]

48. As you pointed out...

They'll have paid for insurance thinking they were insured, because they didn't read the fine print.
Because they've committed a crime, the insurance company will refuse them, and they'll have to pay my family for damages. Stupid is as stupid does. I have no problem with some enterprising company soaking them for everything they have.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

73. Are you aware...

- every part of an AR-15 is available through the mail except the lower receiver. The lower receiver is the part that gets a serial number impressed into it. However, items known as "80% lowers" are available unserialized through the mail. To make a homebrew AR-15 with no paper trail you need some hand tools, maybe a drill press and a credit card.

To the committed killer, firearms, firebombs and edged weapons are tools. Failing to secure any particular one will only move them along to whatever is most available.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

83. and yet, we lead the world in these types of mass murders

Are we the only ones mass producing "the committed killer"?

I think there is a connection between the ease of civilians obtaining weapons of war and the number of massacres of civilians, by civilians in our country.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

87. mass murders

Are we the only ones mass producing "the committed killer"?

I'm not sure but I remember a statistic comparing the US and UK (since UK laws are often discussed) that said the US non-firearm murder rate was higher than the UK overall murder rate... so, maybe.

I think there is a connection between the ease of civilians obtaining weapons of war and the number of massacres of civilians, by civilians in our country.

I don't want to go down the rabbit hole of semantics about "weapons of war" but here's my opinion. If firearms availability leads to higher murder rates, it's surprising that rate isn't higher in the US since about half of all privately owned firearms in the world are here.

So how do you feel about fixing the background check system?

[Hermit-The-Prog]

89. sorry, I don't know enough about the background check system

All of my firearms are old and were acquired 2nd (or more) hand.

Banning assault rifles would be a start. Any weapon designed for war should be as well-regulated as our military.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

90. The National Instant Check System

My major issue with the system is that in most states only federally licensed firearm dealers (FFLs) have access. It is illegal for a private person who wishes to sell a firearm to another private person to have any access or means to vet the buyer. The only current option is to sell through an FFL and pay thier commission. I like changing the law to allow local law enforcement to offer this service to the public. This restriction, as it is now, perpetuates what has been called the "gun show loophole".

IMHO less than 1 in 1000 people out there would do what they know to be dangerously illegal but putting legal blinders on folks helps nothing. A few states have a universal check system but I'm not sure how it works. I realize that a voluntary system won't stop all the bad sales but it would be some progress. The next step would be working to actually get the important data the should be in that database collected and added.

The federally prohibiting criteria are as follows:
* A person who has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year or any state offense classified by the state as a misdemeanor and is punishable by a term of imprisonment of more than two years.
* Persons who are fugitives from justice.
* An unlawful user and/or an addict of any controlled substance; for example, a person convicted for the use or possession of a controlled substance within the past year; or a person with multiple arrests for the use or possession of a controlled substance within the past five years with the most recent arrest occurring within the past year; or a person found through a drug test to use a controlled substance unlawfully, provided the test was administered within the past year.
* A person adjudicated mental defective or involuntarily committed to a mental institution or incompetent to handle own affairs, including dispositions to criminal charges of found not guilty by reason of insanity or found incompetent to stand trial.
* A person who, being an alien, is illegally or unlawfully in the United States.
* A person who, being an alien except as provided in subsection (y) (2), has been admitted to the United States under a non-immigrant visa.
* A person dishonorably discharged from the United States Armed Forces.
* A person who has renounced his/her United States citizenship.
* The subject of a protective order issued after a hearing in which the respondent had notice that restrains them from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such partner. This does not include ex parte orders.
* A person convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime which includes the use or attempted use of physical force or threatened use of a deadly weapon and the defendant was the spouse, former spouse, parent, guardian of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabiting with or has cohabited in the past with the victim as a spouse, parent, guardian or similar situation to a spouse, parent or guardian of the victim.
* A person who is under indictment or information for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.

https://www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/nics/about-nics

There are now most likely over 10,000,000 AR style rifles already in the hands of private owners. I don't see a way to turn back time and I don't feel that banning a gun just because it is semi-auto is good idea.

[MicaelS]

4. Ban all semi/full automatic firearms.

All of them. Along with supressors, destruct devices. Anything regulated under the NFA of 1934.

All magazines, clips, speedloaders of all types for all weapons.

Only revolvers, bolt action, pump action, single shot, and double barrelled weapons would be legal. With fixed non-removable magazines.

Maximum capacity of 6 rounds.

Ban all steel core ammo, and all ammo that was designed to be used in a semi/full auto weapons.

And I am a FORMER gun owner.

[AllaN01Bear]

19. had to do some groundin on the national firearms act of 1934

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

now my head hurts in a good way.

[MicaelS]

22. Glad to help.

If we get rid of semiautos, then NFA weapons need to go, too.

[sir pball]

67. Why not just make semis NFA weapons too?

It's gun control that seems to work, and is line with most of the rest of the world.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

23. Tell Republicons Bans Don't Work

(cons will say you can bring a uterus into an airport or bank, and on and on. Counter that gun owners are not given internal probes when they want to buy a gun, have to go out of state, etc.)

[Bernardo de La Paz]

29. Sorry, found another and couldn't resist

[FakeNoose]

37. Here are a couple more

[keithbvadu2]

47. Tomi/Tammy - Gunsplainin'

Gunsplainin' - to distract

In a nutshell, ‘splainin’ is an “explanation” which is put forward in the most patronizing way possible. The ‘splainer feels passionately that ou opinion and beliefs outweigh actual lived experience and wishes to inform everyone of this fact. ‘splainers are unfortunately especially common in safe spaces in which the voices of people living in marginalized bodies are centered, because such spaces are threatening to people who find our voices contrary to their worldviews.

http://disabledfeminists.com/2010/02/13/what-is-splainin-and-why-should-i-care/

[aikoaiko]

39. Not many NFA registered weapons are used in crimes.

Maybe the answer is to register semi-autos.

[MicaelS]

43. Very true.

But it would be pointless to ban semiautos and leave full autos still legal.

I would say there are too many semiautos to easily regulate.

[leftieNanner]

5. I totally agree

The trick with this legislation is that the gun humpers will argue about the "definition" of the weapons to be banned. That was a part of the problem back in 1994 (I think that was the year) when Dianne Feinstein got the first assault weapons ban passed. That original ban (which was allowed to expire during Dubya's term) was effective nonetheless.

We need to get after our representatives ASAP on this.

[billh58]

6. The NRA fights

any legislation that would reduce its member's profits. We need to regain political control of this country in 2020 and override their bought-and-paid-for political prostitutes.

[leftieNanner]

7. The NRA's internal conflict

right now makes me happy. They seem to have lost some of their clout. We have another opportunity next year to elect a congress and a President who will make these laws happen.

[yaesu]

8. Banning the import and manufacturing of assault weps has and will work. nt

[jcgoldie]

10. THANK YOU!

K&R

[40RatRod]

11. Cowards in Congress and...

...another coward and madman in the Whitehouse.

[erronis]

24. They're not cowards. They are greedy traitors. They want to get theirs before the country

disintegrates. Because of them.

It's said that losing status/position/power is much harder on the psyche than trying to gain them.

Perhaps when they are losers, they can take their firearms and have a conversation with themselves behind the shed.

[lame54]

12. Stop the manufacturing

[Bernardo de La Paz]

28. Yup. The NRA political arm is an advertising 'wing' or 'arm' of the murderous gun industry.

[Ford_Prefect]

13. One class to add: now illegal weapons exported fill the appetite of international arms trade.

...Or else the most expensive paperweights anywhere. Some of those warrior wannabes have more invested in their dangerous toys than many a good used car sells for, and as said above the NRA won't brook any interference in their patrons' profits.

[Traildogbob]

16. Another plan

If you just have to have a war weapon for fun, confiscate thier 24/7 AM radio, TV and Bible. Owning a gun does not drive the hate, drive to kill and excuse to slaughter people just because of color. Those other three entities do exactly that. Our national Anthem, Bruce Springsteen's "American Skin (41 shots)" I will stand and remove my hat for that. I am a vet, no longer honor the current one under the current hate filled GOD regime. You can find me on a knee to honor the slaughtered for the "cost of freedom".

[stopdiggin]

14. removable magazines are pretty standard (includes most handguns)

Agree with your premise that it is BS to claim we can't do anything. We don't have the WILL to do anything. But .. outside of the NRA block, some of the gun owning public is willing to listen. My advice .. start with small things we can find agreement on (30 round magazines), and build out from there.

[ancianita]

15. The only way to prove it won't work is to try it. For at least a few years.

[sharedvalues]

17. Yes. Ban semi autos.

And all handguns.

Do it now.

[spanone]

18. K&R...

[Archae]

20. Yup, sure thing. But how would these bans be enforced?

"Let's do like Australia did!"

Did those laws stop the New Zealand massacre?

But sure thing.

Let the ATF ransack houses and businesses, looking for the "wrong" guns. Based on anonymous tips.

I mean, cops and DEA people are so good at finding dope without doing any damage... /s

School administrators have such stellar record with their "zero tolerance" policies... /s

How about ENFORCING the laws against felons and nutcases buying and having guns?

[mr_lebowski]

52. We have a ban on heroin, but the cops aren't kicking down everyone's door looking for dope every day

Now are they?

Also, probably don't wanna let an Aussie or Kiwi hearing you talk like this:

"Let's do like Australia did!"

Did those laws stop the New Zealand massacre?

Put 'Canada' and 'The USA' in those two spots and see how much sense it makes ...

[uponit7771]

56. There were no laws banning these war weapons in NZ, you kinda make the point of the poster right?

The law banning these war weapons came in NZ after the fact

[kimbutgar]

21. I would pay extra taxes like a $1 to buy back and destroy those semi automatic guns

Get them out of circulation. Make them illegal to own and put people in jail if they are caught keeping one. Criminalize the ownership of these death guns. And outlaw those large capacity ammo cartridges.

You can own rifles and regular guns just not the military style ones.

[Hoyt]

31. I'd pay too. But, honestly, these sicko gunners bought the guns, and like any bad investment, they

should just absorb any loss.

[planetc]

25. A pleasure to rec your post. eom

[world wide wally]

26. We can't make the speed limit 75 mph because a lot of people own cars that will go 120 mph

[Duppers]

27. K & R

+100

[Captain Stern]

36. I'm tired of people putting the cart before the horse.

In order to pass the kind of laws that you are proposing, you have to have public support, and you don't. I'd guess public support for banning all semi-automatic guns is 15%, at the most.

The steps don't go like this:

1. Pass law that most people don't support
2. Problem solved

It goes like this:

1. Get public support for proposed law
2. Law passes
3. Problem solved.

The first step is where the work comes in. You have to talk a lot of people that don't support this idea, into supporting it. It takes time, and effort.

[smirkymonkey]

40. According to this recent Marist poll, most people do support banning a

57% think its a good idea vs. 41% who think it's a bad idea. 2% are unsure. That's a bit more than the 15% you are claiming. http://pollingreport.com/guns.htm

For the life of me, I can't understand why so many people are against banning them. Their only purpose is to kill a lot of people in a short period of time. Why does ANY civilian need a semi-automatic unless they are a paranoid gun-humper or a member of some militant right-wing militia.

[Captain Stern]

42. That recent Marist poll doesn't really address what I said.

The question asked in that poll was:

"Do you think a ban on the sale of semi-automatic assault guns, such as the AK-47 or the AR-15, is a good idea or a bad idea?"

You're correct in saying that 57% of the respondents said 'yes', and that 41% of them said 'no'.

However, the OP proposed the following:

"Pass a law making illegal the possession, import, manufacture, sale or transfer of any semi auto firearm with a removable magazine."

I was talking about that proposal.

[uponit7771]

55. Do you think the public would know the difference or even give a damn? tia

[Captain Stern]

61. Yes to both.

In the first case, we're only talking about what people consider to be 'assault' rifles.

In the second case, we're talking about 'assault' rifles, most hunting rifles, and most handguns too.

People do know the difference between those things, and I'm pretty sure the percentage of people that would be for banning all three of those things is far below 57%.

[GulfCoast66]

38. What we should do and what we can do in the near future

Are two different things.

And until we keep the house and get the senate and White House we can do nothing.

First reimplement the AWB. With a reduced magazine size from 20 to 10. Even that will be a lift.

If we do that, then perhaps in the future we can go for a buy back of semi-automatic high bullet capacity rifles. And handgun magazines over 10 or 8. We can’t just take them but the cost of a squadron of F35’s would easily pay for a buy back. I would be all of it.

If we did that the amount of damage a a mass shooter could do would go down to the point that they would not be attractive to the people that do them.

But I don’t see it happening right now. Not with the gerrymandering we currently have. But we have to keep pushing it.

[elocs]

44. It's not that I don't think it would work, I just don't think it will happen.

There's a difference.

[Rural_Progressive]

45. You all do realize there is a very easy way to cut down on gun violence without banning anything

If you commit a crime using a firearm of any sort you go to jail and you stay in jail and you do not get let out of jail. PERIOD.

Let the reality of that sink in and see how quickly the number of crimes involving firearms drops.

How about we start there, the laws are already on the books, even repukes would be hard pressed to argue against this and we'll see where we need to go from there.

[killaphill]

71. You realize of course....

That under your proposal thousands of young men of color would be locked up for life. Is that what you really want?

[Rural_Progressive]

72. I want ANYONE who commits a crime using a firearm

locked up for life.

Not retroactive and only after a very loud, very comprehensive, and very intensive public announcement of the new penalties and what date it begins on.

You have a problem with that?

[DVRacer]

76. And you trust that police will not have a plant gun?

Just look at the story out of Florida where the cop planted drugs for years and ruined 100’s of lives. I’m on record as opposed to giving any more power to LEO’s until we have a better handle on who gets to be one.
Imagine you getting pulled over for speeding and a gun is “found” well you just committed a crime with a gun. Off to jail for life for you.

[Rural_Progressive]

80. Wow and I thought I was paranoid but

You win.

And no, the whole point is that mere possession would not be a crime so unlike planted drugs, "finding" one in your car wouldn't end up with you up in jail.

The weapon would have to be used in commission of a crime against a person or persons in order for you to end up spending the rest of your life in jail

Using your logic, if gun control is enacted a member of LE could plant an unregistered gun on your property and you would be found guilty of having an unregistered gun.

My solution isn't total but it is a start and it would be difficult for the "law and order" repukes to make any meaningful argument against it.

[DVRacer]

81. Just look at the two from Galveston

Put a black man on a leash and walked him through town while on horseback. Looked like modern day slave catchers they would love more power.

[quaker bill]

46. I have no problem with laws and buybacks.

But what I think will actually get it done fully is social stigma. Instead of "standing up for our freedoms", owners need to be seen as unrepentant idiots and owning such a weapon seen as a sign of lowered IQ, lack of sanity, and overcompensation for a lack of manliness elsewhere. That will get them turned in.

By all means prohibit and buy back and many as you can,

[MadDAsHell]

49. 3 is already happening today. Every one of these mass shootings is "used in a crime."

And each perpetrator is already "in deep shit," looking at life or even possibly the death penalty.

[onecaliberal]

51. It worked before when the ban was in place.

[hack89]

58. No it didn't. Legal AR-15s were on sale during the AWB

The AWB was an absolute disaster that was so poorly written that it was child's play to circumvent it.

[tirebiter]

53. The gun ban written by DiFi needs to be reinstated

No did not end all massacres. There were a helluva lot fewer of them while it was in effect.

[sir pball]

60. I don't remember very many before the AWB either

I was 14 when it took effect; I definitely don't remember 10, 20, 50-death shootings while I was growing up.

[hack89]

62. Exactly the opposite happened

It was so easy to circumvent that AWB compliant AR-15s were in the gun stores before the "ban" took effect. AR-15 production actually peaked 2 years into the ban as demand skyrocketed.

[ROB-ROX]

63. California's SOLUTION

Semi automatic ain't a problem. It is the 30 round clips which is something used for KILLING. California limits the magazine to 10 rounds.

[flamin lib]

64. 29 shot in 30 seconds. It takes less than a second to change mags. So with your suggestion it

Would take 32 seconds.

I don't see that as much progress.

[Kaleva]

79. You might find informative the reasons gun humpers oppose restrictions on magazine capacity

One would think that they'd not care about bans on high capacity magazines if changing mags was so easy as you say.

AR15.com is a great start. You'll see comments there such as :

"There is no maximum number because, like ammo, you can never have too many mags. You should have a minimum of 10 mags for each rifle and then keep adding to those 10. I won't give an exact number but I have well over 1,000 30 round 5.56 AR mags. "

"For a “fighting” rifle I’m all for 30s.

When I go hog hunting, hiking around or general purpose around the ranch I like a more compact magazine.
So I usually have a 20 in the gun and a 30 in my back pocket. "

"I use 10 round mags for load development. It's the only time that they're useful because I measure accuracy in ten round groups.

I use 20's for match rounds. Easier to shoot from the prone with.

Thirty's are for general purpose range work and defensive purposes.

That's how I use as. "

""Probably plenty" You've never been in a gun fight have you? Bigger, faster, better.

I only buy Pmag 40's now and D60 drums. I like every AR to start with a drum. Eventually it will be 2 per gun. But even if I leave the lights on these damn rifles get frisky and multiply. I give them away as wedding gifts, house warming presents, Trumps inauguration...

I'm just kidding, but I'm serious that you need more and bigger. I do the 40 and 60 thing. Though my next purchase will be ETS coupler mags. "

[sir pball]

66. Just put 'em under the NFA

Any magazine-fed semiauto has 30/60/120/whatever time to be put on the registry or sold back.

After that, owning one is real bad news.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

70. Have a quote:

"Never depend upon institutions or government to solve any problem. All social movements are founded by, guided by, motivated and seen through by the passion of individuals."

[LiberalFighter]

77. Make it illegal to sell and buy ammo for them.

[Marengo]

86. How would that distinction be made if both manually operated and semi automatic firearms...

Are chambered for the same caliber?

[Turbineguy]

78. I've heard gun nuts tackle that question.

As long as they can cheat the government, they'll sell.

[LanternWaste]

84. Gun threads are consistent... they so often illustrate

Gun threads are consistent... they so often illustrate a demographic who consistently instructs us that nothing can be done or accomplished.

The direct implications: Guilt by apathy. Tolerance of the status quo. Dead children are worth the price.

[Kaleva]

85. When our leading candidate says the NRA isn't the enemy, there isn't much chance.