General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsCan we agree to ban the weapon used by the mass murderer?
I keep reading on DU that I'm not allowed to suggest banning "semi-automatic" weapons because "nobody can define what they are."
So I have a suggestion. Let's ban the specific weapon that the killer used to kill 49 people and injure 50 more in minutes. Let's start with that one. No need to define it. Just take it off the market.
Anyone have a problem with that?
ileus
(15,396 posts)yardwork
(61,607 posts)So let's start with this one. It's a start.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)its a distraction.
spanone
(135,831 posts)rjsquirrel
(4,762 posts)How about we ban all semi-automatic long guns and all ammunition clips for such guns?
A majority of Americans want this. Don't let the over-compensating RKBA nuts tell you otherwise. There are way more of us than them.
yardwork
(61,607 posts)Herman4747
(1,825 posts)had to say, near the end of his life:
It is painful for me to see when criminal elements of all kinds fire from my weapon, Kalashnikov said in 2008. ( https://newslash.wordpress.com/2014/01/15/inventor-of-ak-47-regretted-ever-inventing-it/ )
In the letter he stated that he was suffering "spiritual pain" about whether he was responsible for the deaths caused by the weapons he created.[28] Translated from the published letter he states, "My heartache unbearable same insoluble question: if my rifle deprive people of life, and therefore I, Mikhail Kalashnikov, ninety-three years old, the son of a peasant, and Orthodox Christian according to his faith, responsible for the death of people, let even an enemy?"-- Wikipedia
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)It' s not like there are a lot of MCXs in circulation...
philosslayer
(3,076 posts)Including a handgun. The handgun as well?
yardwork
(61,607 posts)Just reading posts
(688 posts)yardwork
(61,607 posts)Just reading posts
(688 posts)TeddyR
(2,493 posts)The rate of fire is functionally no different than a semi-auto rifle like the one used in Orlando. A major difference is that a Glock magazine only holds 16-18 rounds and the rifle magazine holds 30 or more
rjsquirrel
(4,762 posts)Had he only had the handgun the death toll would be much lower, and you know it.
He also had a knife. No one says we need to ban knives.
It's the semi-auto rifle with a large ammo clip that needs to be banned. Seized. Criminalized.
I grew up hunting in rural Texas. I am not afraid of all guns. I know how to shoot. And I know for a fact there is no "sporting" use for a semi-auto. If you need one to hunt you're a lousy shot and shouldn't be hunting.
yardwork
(61,607 posts)I also grew up in the country. There's no need to "ban all guns." But that diversion is used to create hysteria, and the result is that nothing gets banned. That's the goal of the diversion.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)were quite popular. They still are. As are semi-auto defense & competition shotguns, and semi-auto handguns, and semi-auto rifles. To say you don't "need" a semi-auto for hunting, or to try demean those who choose a semi for hunting just because - IS a distraction, and dismisses huge numbers of people (but still only like 32% of gun owners).
You want to ban certain arms with certain features/classes/??? - fine, we get that, especially repeating arms with detachable high-capacity mags. We KNOW why, and its understandable.
deaniac21
(6,747 posts)Sunlei
(22,651 posts)linuxman
(2,337 posts)Sunlei
(22,651 posts)linuxman
(2,337 posts)In case the cops never showed up?
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)pipoman
(16,038 posts)You may be referring to me on the content...semi auto can easily be defined, assault weapon is the problem to define unambiguously.
You want to ban the gun by name? It is very easy to change the name tomorrow.
yardwork
(61,607 posts)We can all agree on what that particular gun (or whatever you want to call it) is - it's only purpose is to kill dozens of people in seconds.
There's no need for a private citizen to have such a weapon. It's only purpose is mass murder.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)And all but this one and the few owned by law enforcement are used for that purpose. This is exactly the type of weapon used by competition shooters.
I don't own anything that could be defined as a assault weapon and probably never will. I have followed this issue for over 20 years and this weapon is no different mechanically than any other semi auto.
aikoaiko
(34,169 posts)I bought mine for the purpose of collecting, recreational shooting, and self-defense.
yardwork
(61,607 posts)aikoaiko
(34,169 posts)Bully for me, indeed.
hack89
(39,171 posts)as does my entire family. Mass murder has never crossed our minds.
yardwork
(61,607 posts)Tigers are cool, but most of us agree that they can't be owned as pets.
hack89
(39,171 posts)They are both cool and legal.
yardwork
(61,607 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)They are a minor part of my life. I am not proud of my power tools either even though I use them just as much as my guns.
yardwork
(61,607 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)I wouldn't have used "cool" if you hadn't used it first.
yardwork
(61,607 posts)Obviously this is just a game to you.
hack89
(39,171 posts)Owning and using guns is not something I take lightly. That is why in 35 years of gun ownership I have never harmed a living thing either deliberately or by accident.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)so in an effort to save what's left of your dignity, you deflect by dancing on the dead.
You should be ashamed.
EX500rider
(10,845 posts)Nineteen states have banned private ownership of tigers, fifteen require a license, and sixteen states have no regulation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger#In_captivity
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Golly, let's ban Muslims, too. Who cares if millions of them here in the US are normal, peaceful good neighbors? A handful of them have committed mass murder!
uponit7771
(90,336 posts)... relatively efficiently.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)uponit7771
(90,336 posts)... the right type of people or having said people run for office
pipoman
(16,038 posts)SCOTUS says that indiscriminate weapons....bombs, grenades, etc.can be under heavier regulation...not banned.
Discriminate weapons can be more heavily regulated only if they are NOT "in common use for lawful purposes". Considering the tens of millions of semi auto firearms "in common use for lawful purposes", they will not be NFA or otherwise more heavily regulated.
uponit7771
(90,336 posts)... is to the hardest level of getting an abortion or voting
Also, zero days for the AR-15... 3 days for the hand gun and background checks to go with them
Looks like there's some low hanging fruit that congress doesn't want to address... screw them... tRump will give us some seats
pipoman
(16,038 posts)Can be applied to all...Ill pass and so will most of the country...
Amending the Constitution is far more realistic...
Marengo
(3,477 posts)Well in a military context for quite a long time, yet many rifles in common use for hunting utilize magazines of similar capacity.
uponit7771
(90,336 posts)... arrow come to mind but lets start with a musket.
no
If soldiers use it then there needs to be a special case were civilians use it
Marengo
(3,477 posts)Most would accept. I'm satisfied with that, being a bolt gun fan and actually having used a bolt action rifle in a self defense situation. It de-escalated the threat very nicely.
uponit7771
(90,336 posts)... republicans
rjsquirrel
(4,762 posts)and get to 5 or even 6 liberal justices by 5 years from now.
Then we are indeed coming for your guns.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)I own a single shot .223 and a shotgun. Those are hunting weapons and no one wants to ban them.
If you need an AR to hunt you're a bullshit hunter.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)Archery tackle can take any game in North America, so the argument that guns of any configuration are necessary for hunting is bullshit.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)No...even if your fantasy of replacing 5 justices weren't a fantasy it would still take 100 years to turn...
rjsquirrel
(4,762 posts)Americans support reproductive rights by a majority so there's no political will to actually ban abortion. But you will note that they have seriously cut into abortion and reproductive rights even with a 5-4 court.
We get it to 7-3, and mobilize majority opinion, and we will shut this ammosexual shit down.
And while we are at it we will restore women's reproductive rights.
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)In which the author opined that there's very little chance that even the dissenters in Heller had any interest in overturning that decision. The author also noted that if Heller were overturned that there was a real chance of a constitutional amendment strengthening the individual right to keep and bear arms. It is very easy to identify 38 states that would favor such an amendment, the question is whether there would be enough votes in the senate.
uponit7771
(90,336 posts)rjsquirrel
(4,762 posts)for the past30 years, up to and including having SCOTUS choose our president.
We must control it.
uponit7771
(90,336 posts)Uponthegears
(1,499 posts)Proposed law:
"No firearm shall be sold, otherwise placed in the stream of commerce, and/or possessed with a magazine capacity of more than 6 rounds. All magazines must be fixed, i.e., non-detachable. No magazine may accept a clip or speed loading device of any type. All firearms sold, otherwise placed in the stream of commerce, and/or possessed must require that each round be individually loaded into the magazine."
pipoman
(16,038 posts)Yes? No deal.
Further, there are already 40+ million guns and 100 million magazines in circulation.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)Uponthegears
(1,499 posts)"Common usage" is not the end of the Heller test.
That only gets you to whether a firearm is covered by the Second Amendment AT ALL.
For example, the Government could completely ban the sale and possession of fully automatic weapons (the fact that it has not done so is irrelevant). It can completely ban the sale and possession of sawed of shotguns. No Second Amendment question whatsoever.
I'll accept, for the purposes of the civil argument we are having, your apparent claim that such things as high-capacity magazines, semi-automatic firing capability, etc., are not only now as common as the sands of the seashore, but also that the definition of "common" can be changed by custom and practice and is not limited to those classes/types of weapons (notice I said "classes of weapons" so don't go off on a tangent about how I am claiming that you may only own muskets because I am not) which were "commonly" held by private citizens at the time of the Founding. Is that fair enough?
Even if weapons such as the AR and AK knock-offs and these high-capacity, small caliber/low bullet weight semi-automatic side arms -- which are all the rage among: (1) criminals; and, (2) the suburbanites who have been led to believe they are at imminent risk from such criminals by racist/classist/ethnocentric NRA propaganda -- are covered by the 2nd Amendment, the Government can STILL impose reasonable restrictions on such weapons so long as those restrictions do not "substantially impair" the constitutional right guaranteed in the 2nd Amendment. As Justice Scalia reminded us, that's Constitutional Law 101.
Now your "Oh, that would be unconstitutional, no question" argument is not so clear-cut. Heller describes two basic activities (heck, let's call them "natural rights" protected by the Second Amendment . . . self-defense and sustenance.
Does limiting magazine capacity to 6 rounds "substantially impair" the "right" of self defense? Are there non-hyperbolic and statistically-significant threats out there which are substantially better protected through the use of high-capacity magazines? Are you starting to feel a little less smug?
But were not done, because when we are looking at limitations on constitutional rights, another factor comes into play . . . the governmental interest involved. When dealing with fundamental rights, the Government may restrict those rights only by showing that the restrictions are narrowly drawn AND protect an important governmental interest, BUT they can restrict even fundamental rights.
Do you have an argument that preventing the use of semi-automatic weapons during mass shootings is not an important governmental interest? I'd love to hear it. Okay, how is limiting magazine capacity (not possession, not "style," not caliber, not even rate of fire) not narrowly drawn? Do you have a narrower restriction on gun design/possession that you can point to?
Oh, btw, before your next snide remarks . . . go to law school.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)Were you actually meaning to reply to someone else??
Anyway, since we are on the subject, many of the recent gun decision seem to be decided depending on the level of scrutiny applied, because, though if govt interest, they ARE found to be at contrast with the 2nd.
Maryland AW was 'struck down' (strict), NY AW was upheld - though the mag limit at 7 was NOT and was struck down (intermediate), etc.
Many anti-gun laws will be challenged with regards to the 2nd. Not all will be found to be constitutional. And the make-up of the court is/will be highly important, as well as the level of scrutiny applied.
So you may see various posts were I actually state "tough call" with how the courts would decide re:constitutionality.
I understand the govt interest in passing such laws, and its...'role' in these decisions, and do not argue against it.
Starting to feel a bit less on a soap-box?
Uponthegears
(1,499 posts)Ouch!
Point taken
jmg257
(11,996 posts)uponit7771
(90,336 posts)... that should be the start
aikoaiko
(34,169 posts)http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/06/assault-rifle-used-by-orlando-mass-shooter
What would that accomplish?
yardwork
(61,607 posts)aikoaiko
(34,169 posts)All they have to do is change an insignificant feature (like the shape of the handguard) and rename it.
The TEC-9 was a funny example of this. The 1994 AWB listed the TEC-9 as banned firearm, so the company renamed it AB-10 (AB for After Ban) and removed the short barrel shroud.
Just reading posts
(688 posts)Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)An excellent rifle...but expensive and not exactly a huge seller...
aikoaiko
(34,169 posts)jmg257
(11,996 posts)That's what happened last time.
And "semi-autos" are easy to define. Its "assault weapons" which is tough.
yardwork
(61,607 posts)Adrahil
(13,340 posts)Otherwise, the manufacturer could just change the finish, or the stock, or the sights.... whatever.
Heck, interestingly, if this WAS a "Black Mamba" rifle, it's not even an actual AR-15.
yardwork
(61,607 posts)As intended.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)If you want to do something effective, you MUST understand the technical details. If you don't, and don;t want to spend 10 minutes learning how these things work, then how can you effectively legislate ANYTHING?
gollygee
(22,336 posts)yardwork
(61,607 posts)aikoaiko
(34,169 posts)Maybe the solution isn't banning a particular firearm or class of firearms.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)"Ban semi-automatics" is exactly the kind of concrete proposal we haven't had for 25 years; what we've had is "keep semi-automatics but make sure their grips are in this approved set of form factors".
yardwork
(61,607 posts)rjsquirrel
(4,762 posts)As someone who grew up hunting and shooting I don't fall for the semantic obfuscation.
No one needs a semi-auto to hunt. It's a mass killing machine and that's all it is.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)Semi-autos are not going to be banned. But if we REALLY wanted to do something effective, that is what it would take.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)It would lose, badly, but at least it would be a non-stupid law, which would be a marked improvement.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)Or "repeating arms with detachable mags, and repeating arms with fixed mags over 10 rounds"
to get even more inclusive.
Won't be very popular, either.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Others may not be, but I'm fine with that.
Let people have their AR's, with factory-fixed magazines that require opening the upper receiver to reload. That's fine with me, personally.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)That still allows arms for defense.
Of course trying to institute such laws would be a shit storm.
And STILL gotta start with amending the constitution no matter what.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Scalia was clear in Heller that the 2nd amendment only forbids literal 100% civilian gun ownership bans a la DC.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)ileus
(15,396 posts)I have a hard time putting down 550 for budget AR's so I'm sure I'd never buy the Sig.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)Completely different gas system. Interesting. Looks like the AR lower, with a unique piston upper. No buffer tube.
rjsquirrel
(4,762 posts)I guess we need to give up and drop the subject. A different gas propulsion system makes that killing machine so much more acceptable.
I say ban pro-gun commentary on DU first. It's a good start at ridding our own community of men with serious conpensation issues and anti-social tendencies.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)The point is that from a LEGAL point of view, these technical features MATTER. If we were ban AR-15's today, that gun would not be banned because it is NOT an AR-15.
One of my main complaints with gun control advocates is that they know nothing about guns. Not how they work, not what makes them more lethal. Nothing. Zilch. That leads to useless legislation (or proposals for legislation). Hell, I heard an "expert" on MSNBC this morning actually say an .45 bullet does more actual damage than a 5.56 mm AR-15 bullet. She said the AR-15 is more dangerous because is "shoots faster." That's BULLSHIT. If that were true, our troops would be armed with Thompson submachineguns.
In short, it is IMPORTANT that in proposing legislation, the we understand what makes guns lethal and effective, how they work, and how to identify individual weapon designs or whole classes of designs we want to regulate or even ban. The BATFE has a reputation for being "anti-gun," but I'll tell you this, they DO understand the technical details of guns.
rjsquirrel
(4,762 posts)anything.
If we severely restrict access to all semi_auto long guns and related ammo we don't need to fuss with this diversionary definitional BS.
Not even a ban is needed. You just need to spend 6 months going through a rigorous background check and annual training and mental health certification. Like owning an airplane.
And of course all gun owners need to be required to carry a multimillion dollar liability policy attached to their guns, not their persons. If your fun is then used in a crime because you solder or let it be stolen or borrowed or lost, you don't get indemnity and you go bankrupt from the fines and liability.
Make gun owners and gun companies liable for their costs. Treat gun companies and dealers like cigarette companies. Make them carry the cost of their business fully.
We are coming. We will get the Supreme Court under President Hillary Clinton and a lot of us will demand anti-gun views as a litmus test.
My views are held by a majority of Americans. A large majority.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)The OP of this thread suggested banning the specific model of gun used here. That's a dumb and useless idea.
You are right. It's about the actual technical features. You're right, that banning semi-autos altogether would be more effective. But good luck with that. I think you have zero chance of doing that, except in some specific states.
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)Were permitted yet none were enacted
Orrex
(63,209 posts)Rather than trying to pass different laws to ban each of a billion different features that would immediately be changed to defeat the ban anyway.
Here is the solution:
1. Ban all firearms that can fire (or can be made to fire) more than one round in any consecutive five second period.
2. Ban all firearms that can load (or can be made to load) more than one round at a time.
Problem solved, and it spares us all the bullshit about barrel length, trigger mechanism or propellant systems.
"But that's impossible," gun enablers will (and do) instantly reply. And the answer is this: it's not at all impossible, but we as a society have declared that rapid-fire, high-capacity firearms are more important than personal or public safety.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)1. Will be a no go. Plain ole bolt action rifles can fire faster than that. Heck, I have an antique Spencer rifle, built in 1860 that can fire faster than that. Heck, you can fire faster than that with a single shot Martini-Henry.
2. Is also ridiculous. Also, that is the wrong term, I think. "Loading" implies the cartridge in the chamber. I think you are referring to magazine capacity. Do you also intend to extend this to cylinders on revolvers? This restriction would pretty much eliminate every hunting rifle or shotgun currently made.
Yeah, that IS impossible, I think what you want to target is semi-automatic weapons with a removable magazine. I doubt that would happen either, but it is at least reasonable.
Orrex
(63,209 posts)1. Ok, then let's go back to plain ol' bolt action rifles, as long as they comply with requirement #2.
2. Whatever the term, ban any firearm that can contain more than one live round at a time.
Of course I recognize that they're impossible, because I'm not naive, and because it's impossible to pass any realistic gun legislation whatsoever. Even now Republicans are fighting the effort to withhold firearms from people on terrorist watch lists (and I've seen quite a few on DU siding squarely with Republicans on that one).
But since gun enablers make sure that nothing ever gets done at all, it's time to stop placating them by focusing on deal-breaking technical minutiae that's frankly irrelevant to the underlying issue.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)I think there is no possible way you'll win on the single-shot requirement, but I admire the ambition.
spin
(17,493 posts)Realistically how much chance would it have to become law even in a Congress with a Democratic majority in both houses and a Democrat in the Oval Office?
Since your idea would basically ban the vast majority of firearms in our nation, why not just go for a total ban on firearms.
You may not realize this but often firearms are used for legitimate self defense. Both my mother and my daughter successfully used a revolver to stop an attacker. Without having access to a firearm both might have been raped or killed as their attackers were much larger and stronger and could have easily overcame any resistance. In both cases once the attacker realized they were armed they ran.
Orrex
(63,209 posts)And obviously I know that our gun-loving culture will take no steps to curtail gun violence. My point is to address the stupidity of the "nothing can be done" mindset that serves as the beginning and end of all attempts at a solution.
However, barring some actual physical impossibility, then the only reason we can't implement sufficient gun control to ensure safety is that we as a society lack the will to do so. Since we're willing to let innocent people die by the thousands, it's clear we have no will to do anything at all.
spin
(17,493 posts)I also agree with you that while many will suggest banning certain firearms the chances of anything significant happening with that issue are slim to none.
Many Senators in Congress may vote to pass legislation to ban some firearms but the problem is that each state has two Senators. If all the Senators who live in states that support such a ban were to vote for it they would be out voted by the Senators who come from gun friendly states.
To be fair most Senators wish to stay in office and in many states voting for a ban on certain firearms would be political suicide. It is also fair to point out that Senators are elected to represent the people in their state and if the people in a Senator's state oppose something they can't be faulted for voting against it. That is the strength as well as the weakness of living in a representative democracy or a constitutional republic such as we have.
Your suggestion was:
1. Ban all firearms that can fire (or can be made to fire) more than one round in any consecutive five second period.
2. Ban all firearms that can load (or can be made to load) more than one round at a time.
Effectively that would ban at least 95% of the firearms in our nation which is why I suggested you should just go for a total ban.
Orrex
(63,209 posts)Despite all of the wailing and gnashing of teeth that go on after a given week's massacre, society as a whole truly seems to have no will to act in a way that might curtail future gun violence. Certainly our well-funded elected officials make no serious effort in that regard, outside of very public calls for prayer, etc.
spin
(17,493 posts)Most oppose extremely strong gun control laws such as bans but many would like to see some improvements to our current national gun laws.
The eighty million figure I used is probably an underestimate. However you also have to consider that many gun owners have family members who enjoy using the owner's firearms for sport and also home defense. For example a husband might be considered the owner but his wife uses his firearms. When they head to the polls to vote they may vote against any candidate who advocates strong gun control.
Another factor is that the people who would love to see gun bans often have no money in the game. Many gun owners have several firearms and consequently do have money in the game as firearms are not cheap.
If a ban on certain weapons is suggested often gun owners feel this will be followed by more bans. They feel that a ban on assault weapons would be followed by a push for a ban on all handguns. Therefore many may not own an assault rifle but will still vote against a political candidate who is for a new federal assault weapons ban.
Once thing that disturbs me is that when gun bans are discussed by politicians, gun and ammo sales skyrocket. Often people who do not own a firearm and really have no need for one decide they better buy one before they are banned.
ileus
(15,396 posts)I use my AR for several purposes that don't include killing.
What if we bad pro-gun commentary on DU, but leave progressive 2A commentary?
rjsquirrel
(4,762 posts)No one suggests they should not be well armed.
Another diversion.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)FLPanhandle
(7,107 posts)Bad guys will just move to another weapon.
Stop allowing bad guys to buy weapons of any kind.
hertopos
(833 posts)We do not need to sell Assault weapons.
Period
hertopos
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)Numerous studies showed that the last assault weapon ban had almost zero impact on gun crimes.
ileus
(15,396 posts)stuffed with lead.
So now were stuck....maybe the answer is to chop everyones hand off that enables them to hold a weapon. Or maybe we put everyone a chill pill Rxd by Congress and the President...
after all if it saves just one life it would be worth it...right?
Brickbat
(19,339 posts)A vague law is a bad law; it's unenforceable. Our laws rely on precision of language. But when precision moves to overly specific, that's also a bad law. "Ban the weapon" is overly specific; the AWB was vague. Educate yourself on what it is you really want to control; educate yourself on how many guns that would actually apply to; educate yourself on whether you want a ban on further sales or a confiscation, and then figure out how many people that would affect and how many resources it would require to put into place.
Just reading posts
(688 posts)Crunchy Frog
(26,582 posts)And the rest of us are stuck along for the ride, so the answer is probably "no".
I personally wouldn't mind seeing everything but muskets banned, but I don't have any say in the matter.
yardwork
(61,607 posts)For too long, Democrats have cowered in fear of the gun lobby. Why? Because it's very effective. They have a lot of money, and that's an understatement. But we can still vote.
Crunchy Frog
(26,582 posts)We've still got loads of alleged "progressives" on this board (on this very thread) gloating about their guns and about how the rest of us can't touch their precious "liberties", before the bodies are even cold from this latest tragedy.
People are speaking up, and have been for years. I haven't seen it achieve anything other than ever more extreme gun "rights" legislation.
I apologize for my cynicism.
AirmensMom
(14,642 posts)Ban them all except muskets. I am so sick of our gun culture. The "need" for these weapons is entirely manufactured.
get the red out
(13,466 posts)Damned killing machines, no other use for them.
Calista241
(5,586 posts)The MCX is a very high end, very expensive rifle. It uses a gas piston system rather than Direct Impingement like the AR. Gas Piston systems are more expensive to install and maintain, but are arguably more reliable. It doesn't sound like much, but it's a completely different design, and for a gun nut, those are major changes. Different moving parts, different actions, different feel, different recoil. Basically it's totally different.
In any case, banning this specific rifle will accomplish absolutely nothing. It's lightly circulated and not widely used or adopted.
Six months after the ban was implemented, Sig Sauer would change the type of pistol grip, or the location of the mag release or strap attachments, rebrand the rifle as a Sig Sauer MXC, and put the rifle back on the market.
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)Protects an individual right to keep and bear arms and that a gun ban is unconstitutional. But as others on here have pointed out, the only gun control law that would make a true difference is to ban semi-automatic firearms. That would make it more difficult for the mass shooters, but would do little to stop the everyday violence on our streets. That said, I doubt a semi-auto ban will ever happen, and even if it did the non-compliance rate would be astronomical.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)This one included...
yardwork
(61,607 posts)Sunlei
(22,651 posts)I think a START would be reinstate the 1990 ban that expired after ten years.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)Or the one used in Sandy Hook, which was CT legal at the time.
or go NY Safe Act, and so buy these fugly things:
(or simply not really comply like 95% of the people)
If we are going to do something, make it worth while.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)Jester Messiah
(4,711 posts)And I can confirm that while it is an absolute joy at the range, it has only one purpose. You would only take this rifle somewhere other than the range for the express purpose of shooting a lot of people in an efficient manner. It is accurate, the recoil is so low as to be unnoticeable, and it goes a long time between reloads. If your home is under such duress as to need this kind of weapon to defend it, you've got bigger problems than a mere weapon can solve.
I don't know if I'd outright ban people from owning these, but I would certainly make them jump through a whole lot of hoops first. Certifications, qualifications, extensive background checks, and yearly verification that any given weapon is still with its registered owner.
valerief
(53,235 posts)know it when they see it.
A semi-automatic is easy to define. "Assault weapons" are a different story.
nil desperandum
(654 posts)it won't stop a criminal, no matter what weapons can be homemade and be as effective in the confines of a night club. The weapon shown below uses standard sheet metal and plumbing parts and requires no real CNC skill just a little bit of ability with some basic tools. It's a 9mm submachine gun and fires fully automatic and is completely illegal, but criminals can make them easily.
I wish I had an answer to this, but disarming 150 million people because 49 died seems no more effective than banning all muslims because one killed some people.
The weapon pictured isn't mine, but I can easily make this weapon and test it out as I have an awful lot of land and no one will be the wiser....if a dummy like me can make them, someone motivated could easily churn out dozens for a terrorist act.
DesMoinesDem
(1,569 posts)It's been reported that the murderer shouted Allahu Akbar when he was killing people. Let's ban that specific phrase that the killer used when killing 49 people and injuring 50 more in minutes. Let's start with that one. No need to define it. Just make it illegal.
Anyone have a problem with that?
yardwork
(61,607 posts)deathrind
(1,786 posts)AWB does not infringe on anyone's right to "keep and bear arms".
The AWB should be enacted...promptly. Banning high cap mags/clips/drum should also be included.
bighart
(1,565 posts)homicide rates.
According to the FBI homicide stats less than 3% of homicides from 2009 to 2013 were committed with a rifle.
Assault rifles are a subset of that number and this specific gun is one single part of the that subset.
We are likely talking about less than 1% of the overall homicides committed over that 4 year period being prevented by a ban of this particular weapon.
There were more homicides committed by people using hands, fists and feet as weapons over that time period than those using a rifle of any kind to commit the crime of homicide.