Someone, explain to me again why these guns are legal. Hunting?

[kpete]

http://liberalsarecool.com/image/134512298411

[daleanime]

1. Because Freedum.

[PeoViejo]

2. 'Cause Ah ain't happy 'less Ah got auto-git 'em.

[pipoman]

3. Because the 2nd Amendment hasn't a single thing to do with hunting....

Because mechanically these have been unchanged for over 100 years and there are literally tens (perhaps hundreds) of millions which are "in common use for lawful purposes" in the US.

[CanonRay]

4. Because the NRA says so

that's why. And they own more Congressmen that you do.

[belcffub]

5. I don't think that they were

Those were not CA legal based on my understanding of CA gun laws... but I could be wrong...

[TeddyR]

13. Police said the weapons were legally purchased

But I don't know if they were purchased in California or elsewhere.

[belcffub]

47. I thought CA semi-automatic rifles

required a fixed mag or a bullet button... but I'm no expert on CA gun laws... they could have been modified... not sure

[mwrguy]

58. one article stated that hey did have bullet-buttons

[MohRokTah]

6. Because most of what you think is scary about those weapons is purely cosmetic.

Functionally, they are identical to many hunting rifles. What scares people is the black color, the folding stocks, the pistol grips, and the flash suppressors, none of which makes them more dangerous or effective than this weapon:



It's tough to make weapons that are ubiquitous illegal. That image is functionally the same weapon as the two used by the terrorists.

[jmg257]

10. If I were to be scared, it would be the removable hi-cap mags.

Not the semi-auto action.

Of course the mini-14 shown has a 5rnd mag, but higher-capacity mags are readily available, so true that is similar to the ARs.

But do you think if it had a fixed 5 round mag it would be as lethal in a mass shooting situation?

[MohRokTah]

14. You're never going to force 5 round mags.

It'll never happen. Nobody would pass it, nor should they.

Plus there's no evidence the capacity has any significant effect. In Columbine, they just brought more magazines. In the Aurora shooting, the extremely high capacity magazine was the reason the weapon jammed. Had the Aurora shooter simply brought many lower capacity magazines, the slaughter would have likely been much higher.

This is ubiquitous technology and there are literally tens of millions of magazines with ten rounds or higher capacity in circulation. You can never put that genie back in the bottle.

[jmg257]

22. I mentioned FIXED magazines. I.E. guns with non-removable mags.

You know, like a tube magazine on a shotgun?

Like a M1903? Like A 1941 Johnson (though that's 10 rounds)?

[MohRokTah]

25. Not going to happen when there are tens of millions of weapons with removeable mags in circulation.

It's not a practical solution.

[Herman4747]

53. If one of them was pointed at you...

...tell me that you wouldn't be scared.

GO ON, I DARE YOU.

[bighart]

7. I am not a gun owner, never have been

I don't hunt and have only shot a gun once in the last 30 years.
I live in Northwest Ark., this general area of the country is very pro-gun rights.

Wanted to throws those facts out there before I make my comment.

What exactly is it about these particular weapons that you think should make them unavailable for the general, law abiding public?

I know enough about guns to know that these are not full auto so in practical fact they function in exactly the same manner as a "standard hunting rifle" of the same caliber. The fact that they have plastic parts makes them lighter to carry and the grips and stocks just make them more ergonomic and more comfortable to use and increase accuracy, which for hunting purposes is a very good thing.
I support universal background checks, a waiting period for gun purchases, and limits on magazine capacity as a few very reasonable and sensible control measures.
But the fact of the matter is any standard hunting rifle of the same caliber as these is just as lethal, can fire just as quickly and be almost as accurate as these models.

So again what is it about these particular weapons that you think should make them unavailable to the general, law abiding public?

[jmg257]

8. Do you think a repeating arm, even a semi-auto, with

a fixed magazine of say 5 rounds, would be as lethal in a mass shooting situation
as these AR-15s with removable hi-cap mags? (and even the handguns, although the 1911 isn't hi-cap, but still removable)

[MohRokTah]

11. The Ruger mini-14 can handle as large a magazine as any AR-15.

[jmg257]

12. I know. I didn't ask that though. If the mini-14 was fixed mag at 5 rounds,

would it be as lethal?

[TeddyR]

17. Well

It would certainly be as lethal, although maybe not as lethal as quickly. I will say that for a handgun it takes approximately 1 second to remove and replace a magazine. I personally would not favor a 5 round limit. Why not just a 1 round limit, since those types of limits seem completely arbitrary?

[jmg257]

33. "replace a magazine"... Your just not getting it. Fixed capacity.

1 round could work obviously.

But traditionaly(SP?) many bolt actions & shot guns were 5 round fixed, so that's why I picked that - arbitrary no doubt.

[MohRokTah]

18. Yes, just as lethal.

Reloading a magazine in any semi-automatic weapon is quick and easy.

The lower the capacity of the magazine also results in a lower likelihood of a jam.

[jmg257]

27. Sure - I bet you can manually load 5 rounds into

the receiver/mag of a MINI-14 as fast as you could swap out a magazine.

(sorry - not buying it).

I do understand there are shooters who are mad fast at shotgun reloads, especially 3-gun shooters.
Speedloaders, clips, etc would also help.

[MohRokTah]

31. There are literally tens of millions of weapons with removeable magazines in circulation.

Probably more than 100 million.

How do you suggest enforcing your idea of fixed magazines?

[jmg257]

39. I don't. I'm pointing out that there are solutions

that allow for possession of guns, while still reducing their lethality(sp?) in similar situations.

Of course bans and confiscations would be needed as a start to enforce them. NOT arguing the practicality of all that.

[bighart]

16. As I stated I have no issue wtih capactiy restrictions

The answer is YES all things being equal no difference in lethality between and standard mini 14. Same round, same rate of fire, same result.

[jmg257]

28. ALL things were not equal. The ARs had removable 20/30 round magazines,

while a fixed capacity of 5 rounds would have - 5 rounds. (and require manual reloads).

[bighart]

43. From your own post:

"Of course the mini-14 shown has a 5rnd mag, but higher-capacity mags are readily available, so true that is similar to the ARs."

If all things were equal, and the mini 14 could easily be outfitted to make them equal, YES just as lethal.

I fully support capacity restrictions.

[jmg257]

48. Sorry, I'm not clear. The notion would be to get rid of the removable magazine feature.

Make the guns FIXED capacity only. NO removable magazine, of any capacity.
Like the tube magazine of a shotgun, the cylinder on a revolver, the rotary mag on a Johnson (though that allowed stripper clips).

That would reduce the lethality in mass shootings - by reducing capacity & increasing reload time.

[bighart]

52. Fully support any reasonable way to restrict capacity

If fixed capacity is the best and most sensible method all for it.

If limiting the capacity of a clip or magazine is reasonable, all for that.
The issue with that of course is it would take considerably less time to reload a five round clip than reload five rounds in the weapon it's self.

[jmg257]

56. Cheers! Thanks for sticking with me on this discussion. :)

I haven't come with any other way to make a noticeable impact and still allow for individual ownership for hunting, defense etc.

AWBs that address an arbitrary feature and possible capacity are kind of a joke and just piss people off.
It is always readily pointed out so often how semis like the mini-14 and other hunting guns and AWs are basically the same.


Ha - nOT that this would be any more acceptable (or readily practical), but IF one wanted to make a difference, it could be a start.

[bighart]

57. A ban based on cosmetics and ergonomics

that make essentially no difference to function just seems arbitrary to me.
It is doing "something" for the sole sake of doing "something" but would have little to no impact on the problem in all reality

[jmg257]

61. Yep - agreed! nt

[MohRokTah]

9. It does appear they may have installed bump fire stocks on those weapons.

Bump firing is 100% legal, too, because the trigger is still pulled for each round fired. 30 shots still equals 30 trigger pulls:

This increases the rate of fire and is completely legal.

[bighart]

19. Can you tell these have been modded for bump fire

from that picture? I am not familiar enough with weapons mods to know the answer to that.

[MohRokTah]

23. Looking at the stock and the handle on the front, it's possible.

I cannot be certain just from the photograph, though, which is why I said they may have installed a bump fire stock.

[onecaliberal]

46. They're used for hunting humans. What exactly about that don't you get.

My FIL is an avid hunter, owns several guns, NONE of them are semi automatic. The whole meme that people need those guns to hunt is absurd and ridiculous.

[bighart]

55. If none are semi auto what are they and what does he hunt?

I know some enthusiasts and hunters prefer bolt action or lever action and depending on what you hunt a shotgun may be needed, ie waterfowl or other game birds.

A semi auto rifle is not designed for "hunting humans" that is not their intended purpose.
The gun pictured in reply number 6 is a semi auto, would you say it is used to "hunt humans"?

[LonePirate]

15. We need to repeal the 2A and ban every single gun. No distinctions or exceptions.

[MohRokTah]

20. Not a solution.

You will NEVER get 2/3 of each House and 3/4 of the states to agree with you.

[LonePirate]

24. You sound like a southerner speaking to an abolitionist circa 1820.

[MohRokTah]

29. I'm a realist talking to somebody who has unrealistic expectations.

You will NEVER repeal the second amendment. Won't happen. A majority of the country supports it and it takes a major super majority of the country to get rid of it.

My 76 year old mother does not own a gun, but says if you try to tell her she can't have one that's when she'll buy one.

[LonePirate]

32. Thank you for proving the truth in my previous statement.

[MohRokTah]

36. There's not a shred of truth in your previous statement.

Simple hyperbolic rhetoric is all you have.

Reality dictates proposing realistic solutions. Proposing the repeal of the second amendment is ludicrous.

[LonePirate]

40. If you can't see the parallels between your pro-2A spiel and someone supporting slavery back then

That's your ignorance, not mine.

[MohRokTah]

41. IF you cannot see the differences between the second amendment and slavery

that's your ignorance, not mine.

[LonePirate]

49. They are both morally repugnant destroyers of life, liberty and humanity.

Very little difference between the two.

[MohRokTah]

50. That's your opinion, and you are entitled to it.

The two are completely different things and those who equate the second amendment with slavery are no different than those who equate abortion with the Holocaust, IMO.

[TeddyR]

35. Well

That's not really an apt comparison. Slavery wasn't abolished through the amendment process, slavery was abolished through a civil war that resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths. I think the point that you will never get the Second repealed through the amendment process is completely accurate.

[MohRokTah]

38. Treating weapons like vehicles is a more realistic solution.

Require a test to obtain a firearms ownership license. If you wish to own any firearm, you must be licensed to do so.

Require each and every weapon to be licensed and insured, just like automobiles.

This is a much more realistic approach.

[GGJohn]

62. No, he sounds like a realist,

something you could learn from.

[TeddyR]

21. Alternatively

We could require all adults to attend an initial firearms training class, participate in updated annual training and own a firearm. I think my proposal is more likely to happen than yours.

[Hepburn]

26. Becasue some have issues with penis size...

...and some wish to have campaign contributions. Note: The two groups may have mutual members.

[deminks]

30. I heard a GOPer say that the only difference between these and a hunting rifle is cosmetics.

Well, I say try a little lipstick on that pig instead.

The squirrel isn't gonna care what the gun you use to kill him looks like. There is only one animal that these cosmetics are meant to intimidate or stimulate- humans.

[Matrosov]

34. What difference does it make?

Would it have been better for the victims to have been shot with hunting rifles? What about the victims that were possibly shot with a handgun?

Mass shootings might be big news and semi-automatic rifles might be popular in mass shootings, but if we only ever focus on mass shootings and assault weapons, we're doing a huge disservice to the many more murder victims who didn't die in mass shootings and who were killed with handguns.

[Lee-Lee]

37. I can't tell you why those are legal because they were not in CA

They may have been legally purchased in a different configuration and later modified to what you see now, but possession of those firearms in that form is illegal in CA, as are those magazines unless they owned them prior to 1994- and they did not.

So at a minimum thy purchased guns that were made CA legal meaning no detachable magazine without tools and no collapsible stock and other features. Then they changed them to an illegal weapon (felony), possessed the illegal weapons (felony) purchased standard capacity magazines while a resident of CA (felony), possessed high cap mags while in CA (felony).... I could go on and on, but bottom line is what you show in that picture isn't legal in CA and constitutes multiple felonies.

So your question is based on a faulty premise.

[MohRokTah]

44. They used 10 round magazines.

Those weapons were California legal:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15s_in_California

They had to have modded the magazine for detachment, though. That was the felony.

[Lee-Lee]

45. Looks like a standard mag release to me.

And that's not legal in CA. It must require use of a tool to change mags to be legal.

And I've seen 30rd mags in pictures of the gear.

[Lee-Lee]

51. Pics of 30rd mags from the crime scene

https://mobile.twitter.com/sbcountysheriff/status/672594046313861120

[MohRokTah]

54. Thanks, so then multiple felonies.

This suggests something similar to Chicago where most guns used in crimes come from just a few gun dealers in the Chicago suburbs, Indiana, and Wisconsin.

[Rex]

42. They are legal, because we have a Congress that caters to the gun lobbies and then

pretends it is about our freedumbs to kill each other with armor piercing bullets.

[bighart]

59. Has there been a report that armor piercing rounds were used?

I have not seen that so just curious.

[Rex]

60. Yes, the couple were firing armor piercing rounds.

I think that is why we see the military hardware show up during the siege of the suburban. The cops were taking zero chances.