Time To Ban Autoloading Firearms In America

[angka]

I’m going to seriously piss off the ammosexuals today.

Gunnies keep asking me what law would prevent San Bernardino, or would have prevented the Planned Parenthood attack. It’s like a dare. Well okay. I’ve given some thought to what law might really make a difference to stop mass shootings like Columbine, Aurora, San Bernardino, Planned Parenthood. What can we really do?

I respect the rights of American civilians to own guns for hunting and defense. Period. The Supreme Court has upheld those gun rights. The Heller decision says guns in “common use” are legal. So let’s change what’s in “common use.”

Today I am calling for a ban on the sale of autoloading firearms in the United States. I want a ban on autoloading guns, and an orderly phase-out of their legal possession. I would allow a rimfire exception, and I would allow double-action revolvers. That’s it. Keep your bolt actions, lever actions, pump actions, and break actions.

Killing machines off the streets.

Mass shootings even as crime rates have fallen in recent years mean it’s time for change. The simple fact is that automatic weapons put too much killing power into one hand. In real defense situations, shot placement is what matters, not spraying bullets.

America doesn’t need high-cap nines. We don’t need 5.56mm tumbling rounds to stay safe.

As a gun owner and proud American, I am calling for this to protect my rights and my safety. The “good guy with the gun” can’t stop these horrific mass shootings. We have to do something to reduce the harm potential from modern military weapons used against civilians.

Do you support a ban on autoloading firearms in the United States? Because I am ready to.

[LonePirate]

1. Your headline would be even better if you removed the word "Autoloading."

All firearms need to be banned.

[maxsolomon]

22. that's a non-starter

and basically impossible to achieve. so please stop giving them confiscation flags to wave in our faces.

I'm not a gun owner.

[LonePirate]

31. Everything is a non-starter for gun nuts and the NRA. Fuck them I say and ban every gun.

[maxsolomon]

67. even in japan you can purchase a firearm

its hard as hell, but not "banned".

in Israel, you have a lifetime limit on ammo except at a range.

I hear your frustration, however.

[krawhitham]

94. If guns cost $100,000 on the black market how many mass shooting do you think we would have?

[Frustratedlady]

2. I agree. No one needs that much fire power. Our forefathers had no clue what could

be in the future when they wrote that and it was not meant to be for individual citizens to bear arms for massive killings.

In the process of getting these killing machines off the streets, re-open the mental hospitals/clinics so people with mental problems can get the help they need. Reagan really messed up when he closed them and now governors are also closing what few were allowed to remain open. I believe they are Republican governors, for the most part.

I wish there was also a way to close down hate radio/tv stations. These commentators are getting worse by the day and inciting people who need little encouragement to carry out horrid killings.

That's a big order, but `tis the season and we are long overdue for a solution.

[MGMT]

37. They had repeating firearms when the BoR was written.

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

[AnnetteJacobs]

47. You apparently didn't read your own link

"While the detachable air reservoir was capable of around 30 shots it took nearly 1500 strokes of a hand pump to fill those reservoirs."

[MGMT]

53. Not sure what your point is.

[Spider Jerusalem]

66. No, they didn't (an air rifle is not, by definition, a "firearm")

and there weren't any of those things in widespread common use. In the eighteenth century? A single-shot muzzle-loading flintlock was the height of firearms technology.

[beevul]

73. See: The puckle gun. IOW: Yes, they did.

The framers were no strangers to firearms technology and its potential for advancement.

[Spider Jerusalem]

83. None of these things were practical for widespread adoption with the manufacturing technology...

of the late 17th century.

[beevul]

87. Point me to the person who said they were.

Nevertheless...this argument is dull and useless, seeing as privately owned warships were not uncommon back in those days.

Kind of makes the point of discussing firearms a bit moot in your preferred context, doesn't it?

[tularetom]

3. No, it could never be enforced

[Hoyt]

4. I really believe if we did away with semi-autos, gun sales would drop 50 to 75%.

Gunners just won't get that feeling of power, or whatever they get, from a six shooter or lever action rifle. I would support that starting tomorrow. It would really cut down on accidental shootings and crime.

Gunners would freak though. Plus, they won't dream about modifying their semi-auto, to full auto, or that bump shooting BS.

[doc03]

56. Unless the law has been changed recently a semi-auto can't be used for hunting

in Pennsylvania. Here in Ohio you are limited to three rounds for hunting. If the states can limit magazine capacity and the type of action for hunting why can't they do it for all other reasons? What is the purpose of a semi-auto or a 30 round magazine
other than killing humans?

[Snobblevitch]

60. "If the states can limit magazine capacity and the type of action for hunting why can't they do

for all other reasons?"

They can. I think California has a ban on magazines that hold over ten rounds. New York passed a law banning magazines that hold over seven rounds, but has had trouble enforcing the law.

[GGJohn]

62. Los Angeles has enacted a total ban on over 10 round mags, even those

grandfathered in, the 60 day grace period just ended, no high cap mags were turned in.

[Snobblevitch]

65. The high cap magazine thing has me stumped.

I own two handguns. One is a.22 rimfire with a standard magazine of ten rounds. The other is a 9mm that has a standard magazine that holds 15 rounds. It's what came with the gun, how is that high capacity? (Both are in a locked safe. I don't own guns out of fear.)

[branford]

68. The New York 7 round magazine limit was overturned.

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

Also note that self-defense enjoys far greater constitutional protection than hunting and sport, and thus subject to stricter regulation.

[Photographer]

5. +100 n /t

[MohRokTah]

6. How do you propose rounding up the ~ 130 million semi-automatic weapons

currently in civilian hands?

How do you propose collecting the ~5-25 million more that would go into circulation immediately before such a ban would go into effect?

I wait an answer patiently.

[951-Riverside]

8. Here comes the "come and take 'em" threats

[MohRokTah]

12. I don't own any guns.

I'm also a realist when it comes to firearms.

So do you have a proposal, or do you simply make somewhere between 25-35% of American adults felons overnight?

[EL34x4]

14. Nobody's coming to take anything.

However, perfectly democratic procedures do exist to ban guns.

[maxsolomon]

23. ban further sales of these weapons would be a start

but you win, confiscation is a non-starter.

[MohRokTah]

24. And there are currently enough of them to arm every single adult in the country

with a semi-automatic weapon.

There has to be a better answer because we have too many guns in the wild already and we have a constitutional right to own them.

The only reason the federal government invented "Assault weapons" was because they knew that banning semi-automatic weapons was a non-starter. So they banned types of semi=automatic weapons based upon purely cosmetic aspects, which resolved nothing.

[maxsolomon]

32. yes, i know

:sigh:

[Kaleva]

25. Ban the manufacture in the U.S. and the importation of semi-automatics

Ban the manufacture in the U.S. and the importation of magazines.

Ban the manufacture in the U.S and the importation of rimless, semi-rimmed, and rebated center fire cartridges with a bullet diameter of less then 6.5mm in diameter and a case length of less then 50.8mm. Cases intended for sale to self loaders would also be covered by this.

Those who have such guns, ammunition and magazines can keep them or sell them and it'd be legal to buy such as long as they were manufactured or imported before the ban went into effect.

[MohRokTah]

30. How do you convince 218 Congressmen and 60 Senators to go along with that?

We couldn't even pass a basic background check, let alone ban people on the no-fly list from buying guns.

How do you propose getting something as draconian as what you propose to pass?

The only reason the term "assault weapon" was created when the AWB was passed was because they knew damned well and good a ban on semi-automatic weapons was a non-starter, and many who voted in favor of the AWB went on to lose their jobs after oing so as backlash for doing so.

So how do you do it?

[Kaleva]

40. Back when the AWB was passed, a majority of Americans didn't support marriage equality

DOMA was the law of the land. Today, because attitudes have changed, DOMA is gone.

It will take persistence and work to get such a thing as I proposed to pass. My guess that it's only a matter of time as the mass shootings will continue and people will get sick of that. maybe not exactly what I suggest but something.

[MohRokTah]

43. I own no guns.

I am opposed to your proposal. In fact, if your proposal ever came to a committee hearing, I would begin stocking up on semi-automatic weapons and ammunition for no other reason than you are saying I can't have them.

How do you convince me to alter my opinion?

[Kaleva]

44. So you are a libertarian?

[MohRokTah]

45. No.

[Kaleva]

50. Your viewpoint, at least on this particular issue, would fit the description of one, IMO.

Would you support regualtin the purchase of ammo such as below:

A. Federal Requirements


Applicants for a Federal Controlled Ammunition License must:

1. Be at least 21 years of age

2. Be a citizen of the United States or an immigrant alien lawfully admitted into the United States

3. Have successfully completed a firearm safety training course

4. Not be subject to any of the following:

An order requiring involuntary hospitalization or alternative treatment
An order finding legal incapacitation
A finding of not guilty by reason of insanity

5. Not be subject to a conditional bond release prohibiting purchase or possession of a firearm

6. Not be subject to a personal protection order

7. Not be prohibited from possessing, using, transporting, selling, purchasing, carrying, shipping, receiving, or distributing a firearm.

8. Not have been convicted in any court of, or under indictment for, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year (i.e. felony, or any misdemeanor punishable by more than 2 years)

9. Have not been dishonorably discharged from the United States Armed Forces

10. Have not been found guilty but mentally ill of any crime and has not offered a plea of not guilty of, or been acquitted of, any crime by reason of insanity

11. Have never been subject to an order of involuntary commitment in an inpatient or outpatient setting due to a mental illness

12. Not have a diagnosed mental illness at the time the application is made, regardless of whether he or she is receiving treatment

13. Not be under a court order of legal incapacity in this state or elsewhere

14. Not be detrimental to the safety of his or her self or any other person if issued a Controlled Ammunition License

15. Not be a fugitive of justice

16. Not be an unlawful user of, or addicted to, any controlled substance, as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802) nor reside in a household where resides any person who is an unlawful user of, or addicted to, any controlled substance, as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)

17. Not be an alien who is illegally or unlawfully in the United States

18. Not have renounced his or her citizenship

19. Not be subject to a court order prohibiting harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner or from engaging in other conduct that would place the partner or child in reasonable fear of bodily injury.

20. Not be convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence nor reside in a household where resides any person convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

21. Not reside in a household where resides any person who has been diagnosed as having a mental illness at the time the application is made, regardless of whether that person is receiving treatment

22. Not reside in a household where resides any person who has been under a court order of legal incapacity

B. Federal controlled ammunition license Application and Instructions

Federal controlled ammunition license application kits are provided during normal business hours by the following:

County sheriffs
Local police agencies
County clerks

Federal controlled ammunition license application kits are free of charge to individuals who wish to apply for a license to posses or purchase controlled ammunition.

Federal controlled ammunition license application kit includes the following:

Written procedure to obtain a Federal controlled ammunition license
Application form
Written procedure to appeal and the appeal process form if denied a Federal controlled ammunition license
Reference numbers for current firearm safety training entities

Processing Application

Applicant files their application with the county clerk in the county in which the individual resides. This must include: (1) a certificate of completion of the firearm safety training course, and (2) a passport quality photograph.
Applicant pays a fee of $105 to the county clerk at time of filing.
Applicant receives a receipt for payment.
Applicant provides receipt and has fingerprints taken by sheriff department or a local law enforcement agency. However, the local agency may charge an additional $15 for the taking of the fingerprints. Some sheriff departments participate with a vendor to provide applicant finger printing. There is no additional charge for this service.
Sheriff department or local police agency forwards fingerprints to the applicant's State Police for processing.
Once county gun board receives the fingerprint comparison report, they will issue or deny the license within 45 days.

[virginia mountainman]

57. Would you support the same requirements placed on other civil liberties?

After all, if it is legal to treat one that way, it is legal to treat all that way. Say Voting rights, this is the president your TRYING to set.

BTW, I make my own ammunition, I can teach you too how to do this? Wanna learn??

[Snobblevitch]

58. Ok, I'll bite,

what form that from?

[Kaleva]

96. One I wrote up myself

[MohRokTah]

75. I would oppose those restrictions. eom

[ileus]

7. No...

[EL34x4]

9. "Today I am calling for a ban on the sale of autoloading firearms in the United States."

OK. Now what?

[1939]

46. Make it part of the Democratic Party "Contract With America"

In 2016, the Democratic party presidential candidate, all senate candidates, and all house candidates will run with that as the crowning peak of their platform. See how that works out for you.

[EL34x4]

51. I think it's a great idea!

We're guaranteed to win California!

[1939]

59. Yes, 1994 anyone? NT

[EL34x4]

70. I suspect many people here were in diapers back then.

I remember it well though. For those who've forgotten, in the early 1990s, violent crime was at an historic high. A crack epidemic was scourging cities across America. Gun battles and drive-bys between gang members was the norm. A largely toothless ban on assault rifles brought a backlash from the Right, handing Congress to the GOP for the first time in 40 years and forcing President Clinton to the political center, where he would govern for the remainder of his Presidency, handicapping progressive initiatives for the next 15 years.

And the whole time that costly "Assault Weapons Ban" was in effect? Assault weapons and hi-capacity magazines were still plentiful and could be purchased anywhere.

But, hey, let's try it again!

[Snobblevitch]

10. The political capital would be better spent elsewhere.

Not to mention the fact that it would be impossible to enforce.

A while back there was a Florida woman who shot a 'warning' shot (her words) in the direction of her husband and I think his children. She was senrenced to 20 years because of Florida's tough laws on using guns to commit crimes. There was outrage from most of DU that she was sent to prison for shooting that gun. Do you wish to imprison the millions of people who would not turn in their auto-loading firearms?

[GGJohn]

11. No, I don't support such a ban.

But good luck with that.

[MosheFeingold]

13. Bird hunters

Would be pissed about the loss of 3 shot semi-shotguns.

You also left off single action revolvers (e.g., cowboy pistols).

[Shrek]

17. +1

A Remington 1100 is very handy for waterfowl and upland birds.

It doesn't hold enough rounds for any kind of mass slaughter.

[1939]

48. Good bird hunters and duck hunters use the side-by-side shotgun

They consider the three shot autoloaders to be the mark of a "slob hunter".

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

92. "slob hunter"? As opposed to a "snob hunter"?

Many of us are truly beneath the one-percenters, unworthy of notice.

[MosheFeingold]

97. +1 n/t

[SpookyDem]

15. Common use

Would you have the police and military abide by this "no autoloading" to stop them from being common use?

[Waldorf]

16. Nope, don't support your suggestion at all.

[etherealtruth]

18. It is a place to start n/t

[linuxman]

19. Lol.

In 50 years when you are wondering what kept sensible gun control from taking root, go ahead and read this again.

"Why won't gun owners work with us and trust us? I just don't get it!"

[MosheFeingold]

20. In a contrarian mood

And also been deeply involved with writing gun legislation. I'll just pick your idea apart a bit, aside from the extremely common semi-auto shotgun used by basically every bird hunter (3 shot auto, remove plug for 5 or 6), let's talk about the rimfire exception.

OK, how about the Ruger 10/22, a common .22 rifle used by everyone from boyscouts to Delta Force.

Delta Force? Yep. They have a slightly modified Ruger 10/22 with a longer barrel with a threaded end. They load it with sub-sonic ammo and use commercial 25 round mags. Then add a suppressor.

(They got the idea from the fiscally frugal IDF who uses them to shoot Arab rocket teams who like to do things like put their rocket launchers on top of schools, hospitals, etc, so they can't be bombed.)

The result is a COMPLETELY silent weapon with an effective 200 yard range. And yes, a .22 will kill you. In fact, more people are killed with .22 than any other round.

You could go on a killing spree with that weapon that no one would notice or figure out what was going on for 15 minutes.

And you could take it apart and hide it in a long coat.

[branford]

21. Semi-Automatic weapons are already in "common use" in America,

and fully-automatic firearms are very tightly regulated under the NFA, as was generally recognized in the Heller and McDonald Supreme Court decisions. A legislative ban on all "autoloading firearms" would therefore now be clearly unconstitutional. In any event, such legislation would have absolutely no chance of passage in Congress or most states.

If you support such a ban, you will need to repeal the Second Amendment (and its state analogs in the vast majority of state constitutions), and actually convince a clear majority of citizens and our elected representatives of the wisdom of your proposal. Considering a Democratic Senate couldn't even pass UBC's, despite claims of over 90% popular support, I don't believe your opponents have much to fear. However, talks of any form of gun bans do tend to send gun sales skyrocketing and increase donations to organizations like the NRA, who I'm sure would love for your proposals to get more attention.

[ManiacJoe]

26. You are looking to ban common technology that is over 100 years old.

Good luck putting that genie back into the bottle.

[AZ Progressive]

27. Your call for a ban goes nowhere

This is why...



We gotta win elections first otherwise our tough talk is just laughable.

[TeddyR]

29. That map is really sobering

Setting aside the gun control issue, this really drives home how much work there is to do at the state level to promote the progressive agenda.

[AZ Progressive]

33. Progressives aren't bright enough to figure out how to build a strong political movement

It's frustrating. Even the Tea Party conducts classes to teach their members how to win elections and win things from the bottom up.

[TeddyR]

52. There have been some significant wins over the last few years for progressives

Notably with respect to same-sex marriage. But I sometimes think that progressives need to do a better job coalescing around other issues, like income equality.

[AZ Progressive]

64. The RW has the advantage of being from more aggressive environments like business and the military

And they think more in terms of organization and discipline, how to get to a desired objective, etc... things that are highly helpful to be successful.

[EL34x4]

54. You can change Louisiana to purple now.

Though I don't see John Bel Edwards, with his 93% NRA rating signing any new gun control legislation.

[virginia mountainman]

63. Yea, Pro Gun Democrats tend to do well in the south..

Alas, our party leadership has decided too "try other things".. See the end effect....

[virginia mountainman]

61. Another very saliant point..

It is the gun control groups that tend to loose... This map makes this painfully obvious, which way the long term trends have been moving..



Now tell me again how we are ready to ban the most popular type of fire arms again????

[TeddyR]

28. I'm not sure that would have a lot of impact

Certainly doesn't impact the suicides. I agree that it might help reduce the deaths in some of the mass shootings, although there are so many semi-auto weapons on the street that it would take decades to eliminate them (assuming more don't come in illegally). I just don't think this is realistic though. Hell, we can't even pass UBCs, even though something like 80% of Americans favor.

[sanatanadharma]

34. Throw the book at the last legal owner of record each and every time a gun is used to cause violence

Criminals get guns from good guy gun owners

Criminals get guns from good-guy gun manufactures and owners
Forget confiscation.

Different laws are needed. We need to throw the book at the last legal owner of record each and every time a gun is used to cause violence.

The "no-one could have foreseen..." argument is riddled with head-spinningly deliberate ignorance.
Your gun. Your karma. Period.

Different laws to require all gun re-sales be transacted at, by and through a licensed location.
Different laws to change gun buying from an impulse emotion to a long drawn out investigation of the purchaser's suitability for the militia.

Consistent laws! To dangerous to be allowed on a plane = too dangerous to have a gun,
Worried about civilian rights? Fight to change regulations for the no fly list. That is logical.
Being willing to sell guns to possible terrorists is anti-social.

Then after some years, when many so-called good guys with guns have been called out, perhaps the rest of you will begin to have moments of self reflection; maybe stop delusional illusions of Jesus with a gun, and see the NRATERRORISM in America.

[pipoman]

35. You almost had the fail in your own call to action..

"In common use for lawful purposes"....fail...100,000,000+ in comm9n use for lawful purposes.

[OakCliffDem]

36. " I would allow double-action revolvers "

angka is not King, and does not get to 'allow' anything for me.

[MisterP]

39. yeah, cash is king; and NRAILA makes sure enough are executed at random to show who rules

[OakCliffDem]

41. Oh My! Invoking the NRA

Since no Democrat will step up to defend the NRA, it looks like you win.

Congratulations

[beevul]

38. No. N/T

[bigwillq]

42. No (nt)

[cherokeeprogressive]

49. I'm not pissed off at all. I simply stopped reading at "ammosexuals".

You couldn't even get through one single sentence without the childish name calling. That's no way to start a conversation.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to happily pour myself another glass of cab.

[Straw Man]

88. Exactly.

Any reform of gun policy in this country is going to have to have buy-in from gun owners if it is to have any chance of success. Use of the terms "gun humpers," "ammosexuals," "freedumb," "gunz," etc., poisons that well from the start.

[virginia mountainman]

55. Nope

I have mine, my kids have theirs, my neighbors all have theirs.. Let my clarify, we own several of those, matter of fact I own some that's design is over 100 years old.

NO way will I support such a ban. No way would I comply with confiscation. Frankly I don't care what a suit in a far of city says "I" need. They are not responsible for defending my home and family, I am.

These are the tools I chose to do it with. It is not up for debate.

[Logical]

71. LOL, you are always over the top. "Cold Dead Hands" mode. nt

[virginia mountainman]

86. Where did I say that>??!

The question you really should be asking is who is willing to "do the dirty work" of confiscation..

[angka]

69. Great responses

This isn't something that could be accomplished at the state level, it would require federal universality to be effective and I of course know what the present makeup of Congress is. It's a long-term objective I would consider coeval with retaking Congress. So yeah, I'm just laying down a hypothetical marker calling for this.

But I don't think this violates the 2nd Amendment as interpreted by Heller, a decision from a highly conservative SCOTUS. If we can change the nature of what is in "common use" by eliminating this class of weapons, and do it federally so there's no unequal application between states and local jurisdictions, it would be perfectly constitutional as far as I can reckon it. No doubt somebody's going to disagree, but it's critical to say again and again that many firearm choices would remain available to Americans if autoloaders were banned.

As for the rest of the "it's impossible, no one will comply" stuff, I'm kind of sick of hearing that. I actually don't think most of my fellow Americans are lawbreakers, and I believe this terrible scourge of mass killings is slowly breaking down the objections to doing something comprehensive to reduce gun violence. I really believe, having been around guns all my life and (I think) pretty knowledgeable, that getting rid of autoloading guns would reduce the death toll in mass shooting incidents--and by reducing the spectacular horrors that can be committed, perhaps reducing their sick appeal.

But after San Bernardino, after Planned Parenthood, and Newtown and Aurora and Columbine and all the ones I'm missing...

We have to do something. We have to. I believe the time to talk ourselves back into complacency is past.

Thanks for reading...

[EX500rider]

74. "I actually don't think most of my fellow Americans are lawbreaker.."

Riggghttt.....that's why it's so hard to get pot and no one smokes it...lol

[Snobblevitch]

79. Your proposal might not violate the 2A,

but if your supposed law includes going door to door to confiscate auto loading guns, it could violate the 4th, 5th, 9th, and 14th amendments.

[jmg257]

81. New York Supreme Court said that 'AWs were in common use for lawful purposes'

And restrictions on them were contrary to the 2nd. Only the level of scrutiny applied kept the bans from being overturned.

But you are trying to ban an 'entire class of arms', which i think would not fly.

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/f65f5551-0d79-4b31-b734-7aea4a8fba59/3/doc/14-36_14-319_opn.pdf

The case is very interesting in how Heller was used to support the bans in NY & CT.

[Lurks Often]

72. Thanks for the laugh I got from reading your post

1. You can't get it passed by Congress
2. It would probably be ruled unconstitutional in the court system
3. More then half the states in country would tell the Federal government to fuck off
4. The majority of law enforcement would refuse to enforce it
5. Most gun owners would refuse to comply

Your "idea" has no basis in reality

[Lizzie Poppet]

76. Again, the issue is non-compliance.

Even if a ban on autoloaders somehow passed constitutional muster (let's just assume that for conversational purposes), there are millions and millions of such weapons already in civilian possession. Non-compliance would almost certainly be massive. Extremely low rates of compliance in states that have enacted bans on certain types of semi-auto, on high capacity magazines, etc. make that clear.

So what then?

[Recursion]

77. That at least makes much much more sense than an assault weapons ban

So this seems like progress.

In terms of what "ban" means, would you count rescheduling under the NFA to be like machineguns are?

[angka]

95. That would be one way to effect it, yes.

Exceptions rare and with due diligence. And yes, I want them bought back or tax credited, and then I want them made into art pieces and new cars. Out of civilian circulation means just that.

Yes yes, gonna be really hard to do. Like world peace, though I don't see nearly as much whining when people call for world peace.

[patsimp]

78. if bans don't work - fine the shit out of them

[aikoaiko]

80. As a RKBA Democrat, your demand does not bother me because it will never happen.

Will shootings of four or more people with revolvers be less tragic?


The average person will never be as fast as Jerry Miculek, but speed reloaders and full moon clips for revolvers are fairly effective.

[Elmergantry]

82. impressive!

Might just have to get one of those revolver "death spewers"

[mwrguy]

84. autoloaders is a start

[madville]

85. A ban might make it more inconvenient but

Modern technology and tooling make it fairly easy to make a firearm and magazines at home. You would probably be surprised how many people manufacture their own firearms at home as a hobby, think CNC machining equipment and 3D plastic printing.

We're talking aluminum, thin stamped steel, plastic, wood, not some special kind of unattainable material or mystical manufacturing processes.

The hardest part would probably be rifling a homemade barrel but then there is the option to have rifled projectiles instead, casting ones' own bullets at home is fairly popular and lead isn't particularly hard to work with.

[krispos42]

89. I appreciate your honestly.

While I disagree with your position, I find it much more logically consistent and honest than people that want to ban "assault weapons", i.e., semiautomatic rifles that have combinations of "assault" features like protruding pistol grips.

[angka]

91. IMO, the "assault weapons ban" is a fearful half measure

It's not the color of a gun or what kind of grip it has, it's whether you can spray bullets as fast as you can pull the trigger until your magazine is empty. All the technobabble gobbledegook from the gun lobby contributes to this misdirection too--they prefer it because they end up winning the confused argument that ensues.

It's about the action of the weapon. It is autoloading weapons that have turned individual nuts into agents of mass tragedy through convenience. That's what I'm getting at here. And maybe it's a really big thing but we need to start thinking big about stopping or at least harm reducing mass shootings.

I'm a gun owner and I respect the right. I don't need an autoloading firearm to do anything I want or might ever need to do with a gun.

[Vinca]

90. Good idea. At least there would be a chance to tackle the killer after a few rounds.

I'm so old I remember when semi-automatic weapons were unheard of and later only found among police officers. Somehow we survived, deer were hunted and targets were hit.

[Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel]

93. What about the lonely snipers hidden on the far-away rooftops?

They can do a lot of kills if they wanted to while using non loading rifles.

Look at the Secret Service Team, they use bolt-action rifles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Secret_Service