This will infuriate the paranoid anti government crowd but they are a tiny crazy fringe.
If we want to do something about this, we need to look carefully at the current conditions and craft a policy that acknowledges the situation to do the best we can now. To simply say,”No AR-15’s!” Is pretty useless.
If I were king, I would impanel a bipartisan commission to carefully look into the current situation and come up with ideas to address our problems. Take testimony from people who actually have a clue about this stuff. Select a respected national LE professional (if there still is one) to lead it. Louis Freeh? Is he still respected? Publish a report with actionable recommendations at the end.
(no message)
(no message)
the same 223 ammunition. Do you want to ban their ammunition? Yr one trick pony idea of banning ammo is useless
an instrument of terror...it is impossible to identify beforehand and remove from society all those who are mentally ill and would commit such atrocities..so the best way of dramatically reducing, if not eliminating, them is to take away such an effective tool. Banning Assault Rifles and their ammunition has been done before...in this country (Brady Bill) and others (see Australia's ban)...those who want to hunt or target shoot have many other firearms, better suited to their interests, to choose from.
Of course this is only a part of the solution...rigorous background checks, waiting periods...databases...ownership age increases, etc. are also essential elements. Responsible gun owners should welcome these efforts.
Anyone who resists such meaningful changes is complicit in each tragedy that follows.
Link: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/all-american-killer-how-the-ar-15-became-mass-shooters-weapon-of-choice-107819/
223 and 5.56 (nearly identical) are not exceptionally damaging rounds and the AR platform can be configured for 308, 6.5CM and even 300 win mag. Compared to a 300 win mag, a 223 is a bb gun. 300 win mag has around 3x as much energy at point blank but over distances is where it really shines. A person may be able to kill an elk with a 223, with a perfect shot at 50 yards, but penetration is the challenge. Meanwhile, 300 win mags regularly drop elk in their tracks at 500 yds plus. There are also handgun rounds that cause more damage at school shooting range than the 223.
The 223 is also a very popular varmint round in hunting circles, primarily due to the availability of brass and bullets due to military surplus. But there are other rounds such as the 22-250 that push the same bullet at velocities of 4000 FPS, AKA more damaging.
The article also mentions the rising popularity of the AR platform but fails to identify the primary reason, the sunset (not repeal as Chris seems to think) of the assault weapon ban of 1994. While having almost zero effect on firearm homicides, it created a huge market for AR-15s. So the challenge for legislators is to not only create effective legislation that achieves its desired effects without ultimately exacerbating the original problem it was meant to solve.
Stat I saw was that there are 20M AR style weapons out there, only a handful of them are used in criminal activity. There are also millions of lawful gun owners out there and only a handful of gun owners will commit a crime with them.
I am pessimistic that legislation can actually solve this problem, especially since the people crafting such legislation are ignorant of the subject matter.
Where I think there is room would be:.
1. Raise the age from 18 to 25, Ramos bought 2 ARs on his 18th birthday and killed a few days later.
2. Eliminate high capacity magazines. Might save a few kids.
3. Tax and register military style SA rifles. Taxation will make them more expensive and registration will allow LEO to profile and monitor potential domestic terrorists who often show warning signs on social media. This last one could certainly be abused.
reason not to try...as evidenced by the long road travelled for the Civil Rights and Voting Rights bills...nonetheless, I like that you envision changes for a better life in America.
As for the points you raised, i wouldn't be so quick to refer to .223 ammo as "BBs"...see the linked comments from someone who has to treat gunshot wounds...Assault Rifles like the AR-15 were not intended for Elk...the weapons were designed to kill and maim People...and with the .223 they do this very well...please admit the obvious....here is an excerpt that underscores the statement...
-----------------
"Furthermore, while all rifle bullets have this capability, the ammunition used by the AR-15, a .223 Remington cartridge, travels at approximately 3,000 feet per second and causes a significant cavitation effect — where a bullet is travelling so fast that it sends shock waves through the body and severely damages or kills displaced tissue."
-----------------
I'll say it again, AR-15s and all other Assault Rifles are weapons of war...that is their purpose...not hunting...not target shooting...not close in home defense...ban them like we did before.
Note once again...Australia did this very effectively...certainly the U.S. can show as much intelligence and courage as the Aussies.
Link: https://globalnews.ca/news/4043345/ar-15-handgun-bullet-wounds-difference/
Given your engineering background maybe you can figure out if a 55 grain bullet traveling at 3,000 ft per second or a 200 grain bullet traveling at 2200 feet per second such as out of my 460 handgun would cause more damage to the human body.
I am providing facts and proposals intended to help here, don't shoot the messenger.
isn't needed during hunting season, and varmints can be dispensed without 3,200 fps ammo. We both know that the weapon...and all others rightly classified as "Assault Rifles" were designed - and used extensively - for war...because they are so good a killing people, thanks to their light weight, low recoil and ammunition that imparts supersonic shock wave effects on tissue...I'm sure you've seen comparisons on videos with 'ballistic gelatin' that demonstrate the point...now add in the fact that they have 30 (or 100) round magazines that can be snapped in and out very quickly, and fired by people with body armor...
Such weapons are only useful for adolescent "G.I. Joes" who watch too many video games, and because they are universally available, the 'oddballs' out there can buy them just as easily as the "Law Abiding" enthusiasts...IMO, and that of many others, our society can survive just fine without such weapons on the street...also, as Australia has shown, we can not only stop selling them, but we can remove an awful lot of what's out there..."LET'S DO THIS!"
The 4000 FPS 22-250 is a varmint round, varmint hunting refers to hunting prairie dogs or coyotes or the like at long distances, with many shots over 200 yds. The 223 is also used extensively for this purpose.
There are technical reasons that idiots like you shouldn't be crafting legislation on this topic, several of which I've already pointed out. And you may know more than our idiots in Washington.
If you are going to ignore my points and argue past me, as you've done here, there is no reason to continue.
with high capacity magazines loaded with exceptionally destructive ammunition...there are numerous alternatives for 1) Hunting, 2) Target Shooting, or 3) Home Defense...these are the ONLY reasons citizens should own guns...the first two are purely for "Pleasure"...and the third makes no sense for an Assault Rifle.
Why should society pay the price of school kids lives just so others can have the "Pleasure" of shooting something that looks like a soldier's weapon?
I'll say it again, if you continue to make such weapons available to anyone, then the "Psychos" will get them and use them...it's a small "Sacrifice" for the gun owning public to make...just ban any and all Assault Rifles and their ammunition...while also checking the boxes in Conor's list.
(no message)
Can we agree that weapons with 30 - 100 round magazines...extended barrels, and 3,200+ fpm velocities can be much more lethal when used against human beings than weapons with 10 or less rounds and velocities below 1,200 fps? Note the links i've provided from experts in the field of armaments...and medicine...that support this contention.
Note also that as you've already shown, there are scads of guns to choose from...yet, all of the grotesque killings we're seeing are perpetrated with one class...i.e. Assault Rifles (e.g. AR-15)...why do you suppose this is?...
Finally, I'll reiterate that both Australia and New Zealand have banned such weapons with the result that since they did that, only one mass shooting has occurred...all those other firearms that don't fit the category are still available, but surprisingly they aren't being used!...imagine that.
So, we have solid evidence that banning such weapons will indeed reduce or even eliminate events that none of us want...without harming any Hunters, Marksmen, or Home Defenders...Woo-Hoo!...problem solved...all it takes is some political courage by our national leaders.
I don't know if you can't read or can't comprehend, I am done with you.
on this topic, it should be embarrassing you, but it doesn't. No links or Boy Scout Camp brochures to back you up? Stop arguing with a real knowledgeable poster. You look like a dumbass
People who shoot recreationally, such as me, regularly have 1000s of rounds of ammo on hand, especially now after several shortages over the last 10 years. Recreational shooters buy in bulk, a day at the range will often consume 100 or more. Articles often try to paint anyone with many guns or a lot of ammo as psychos, it's not helpful.
point...but that is literally impossible...not even worthy of discussion, but if you want to go there I'll meet you.
The problem is, while you are a paragon of virtue when it comes to all things "Guns & Ammo"...(and I'm not being facetious)...allowing such weapons and amounts of ammo to the general public is tacit support for arming all the "Psychos"...denying them those weapons involves a "sacrifice" by all the many, many rational and loving people like yourself...given the price we are paying right now, are you willing to sacrifice a class of firearms that admittedly has many substitutes that are better for hunting, target shooting and home defense?...it's really that simple.
Doubtful
(no message)
dismissive...check out this excerpt..
"Gun-makers call the civilian AR-15 a “modern sporting rifle,” and insist that the restriction on automatic fire somehow neuters the weapon. The industry’s trade group, the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), maintains that “AR-15-style rifles are NOT ‘assault weapons,'” adding that the guns “look like military rifles . . . but function like other semi-automatic civilian sporting firearms.” This line of argument is hard to square with the Army’s own Field Manual, which instructs soldiers that semi-automatic fire is the “most important firing technique during fast-moving, modern combat,” adding, “It is surprising how devastatingly accurate rapid semi-automatic fire can be.”
btw, as a 16 yr old I was given responsibility for running the rifle range at our scouting district's summer camp...while the guns weren't AR-15s, I certainly understood the difference between .22 Long Rifle rimfire and centerfire ammunition...and I've fired that centerfire type in both low and high velocity weapons...must say, though, I'm not up to date on teh latest squirt guns.
(no message)
firearms used them.
I don't claim to be a firearms/ammunition expert, but I do know how to handle them and shoot them very accurately.
(no message)
(no message)
How many of these mass murderers are members of the NRA? How many of these murderers have slipped through the Red Flag law cracks? How many on social media knew and said nothing? Get real.
Gun sales without strict regulations. Oh and the NRfuckingA (assholes of America).
The rest of your statement is your own bullshit.
(no message)
(no message)
Link: https://apple.news/A_CC_AtF1T3K8JbngKkydJA
(no message)
Is he late on the trigger with one ? Hmmm
(no message)
(no message)
Waukesha anyone?
(no message)
(no message)
weapon used were pistols. I believe 32 people were killed and there were also numerous injured.
If only there was a pattern that we could base policy on.
Hope you guys are happy with the repealed assailing weapons ban! You can go a-shootin.
Uvalde: AR-15
Buffalo: AR-15
Boulder: AR-15
Orlando: AR-15
Parkland: AR-15
Las Vegas: AR-15
Aurora, CO: AR-15
Sandy Hook: AR-15
Waffle House: AR-15
San Bernardino: AR-15
Midland/Odessa: AR-15
Poway synagogue: AR-15
Sutherland Springs: AR-15
Tree of Life Synagogue: AR-15
there was a potential copy cat killing just broken up by authorities and that gun was an AK47.
It’s the access to guns. High capacity weapons.
Nothing against you personally, but your kind of thinking is the main reason why America has this problem.
(no message)
(no message)
Do you really think an inanimate object is leading to these events?
By the way, where did you get your data? Does the data include the actual make and caliber? I only bothered to check one at random. The Aurora shooter started with a 12 gauge shotgun. He switched to a Smith & Wesson M&P 15 (an AR variant), which malfunctioned. He discarded that, and proceeded to shoot people with a Glock 22. This was after he threw some pyrotechnics.
So, do you think the AR caused that shooting? And if he couldn't get an AR, would that shooting have been prevented or less? Obviously not.
..it does not matter to the Left whether the AR’s actually caused the problem, they just want to get any restriction that they can to start, and they know once a chink in the 2nd Amendment is achieved, the other guns such as handguns can be targeted down the road. There is not other reason to explain the illogical reach.
I get the emotion. I guess I just expected a professor of political science to be somewhat informed.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
…..that’s not paranoid, it common sense, and both sides understand it.
The actual specifics of this case indicate that the same amount of carnage could have been achieved with a handgun rather than an AR. He had close to an hour to do whatever he wanted. So why are you focusing on AR’s?
I’ll tell you. Because going for the all out gun ban is still a bridge too far, so you’ll go for what you can get, and exploit the new chink in the armor of 2nd Amendment Rights the next chance you get down the road.
This particular massacre could have been accomplished with any gun (in fact a knife could have done it in the time he had though the cowardly police may have been less scared to act if they didn’t think that he had a gun).
The fact that you are targeting the AR’s in this case where the crime did not require them makes others suspicious of your incremental motive.
I’ve never bought a gun, and I don’t belong to the NRA, but I can see the concerns of 2nd Amendment advocates.
Your side loves its guns more than its kids.
If only those kids were unborn.
…because otherwise, you would pushing for all types of gun control from the events of this case. This is an incremental strategy.
They "loved" militia class arms (to use your term). Your point is comical. I assume you know better, and you are just hoping that the rubes of this board won't notice you don't know what you are talking about. Or, do you think the First Amendment doesn't apply to electronic newspapers, and the government can therefore control all electronic speech? Very disingenuous of you.
Careful of unintended consequences.
No flash suppressors, No tactical scopes, etc. Do estimates gun companies could basically pull those features off and continue selling them.
(no message)
I got the second to last one...the guy behind me got the last one in town. There was definitely a rush on AR's the day that the ban was announced.
(no message)
Without looking it up, the majority of firearm homicides are handguns with the majority of those being in the 9MM (medium sized) class.
ARs and the like, what I would refer to as "military-style", semi-automatic, high powered rifles, account for a small fraction of firearm homicides, but almost all mass shootings. These deserve a class that isn't available to 18 year olds (25+ is my thought) and should be more highly regulated and owners should be registered.
We already have higher classes of firearms in the "offensive weapons" categories, which are highly regulated but a person could own one if they followed the protocol.
No one would know it because big city shootings and murders don't get the 24/7 coverage as does a mass shooting spree. 218 in Chicago so far in 2022. And this doesn't include those cases investigated by state police. Handguns are the leading cause of death for Illinois children. Handguns. Not ARs.
(no message)
……as Ned pointed out before, the Constitution doesn’t mention anything about hunting when including the right to have arms…it is for defense.
I personally think that some states make it TOO easy to get a gun, and there should be more screening than exists, but the need was made very evident just this year. It’s true that small guns won’t win that war, but they were a lot better than no guns.
Even when a President says he can defeat his own people with F-15s and nuclear weapons.
(no message)
As a lawyer I would argue that the 2nd Amendment was focused on defense against foreign invasions not our own government. In this circumstance our “militia” is our military. Allowing guns for hunting and personal protection should be up to the States.
Military defense against foreign invasions is government's function, not individual right.
Some of these idiots think their personal arsenal is insurance against tyranny, which is nonsense, instead of a danger to their own children, which is factually true.
The are paranoid of losing their phallus.
On the other hand, the left is acting out it’s desire to catrate others.
That was foremost in their mind.
The were worried about centralized power, which is why they started with the Articles of Confederation, instead of the Constitution.
Later realizing the need for greater centralized power in the form of a national government, they instituted the Constitution. But, they promised a Bill of Rights to follow, to protect the people from their own government which they had just instituted. The Bill of Rights didn't have anything to do with foreign powers.
If both sides have already lost a war, perhaps they will learn how not to fight it.
But, obviously our Founding Fathers didn't think they had lost the Revolutionary War, and they were facing the most powerful army and navy in the world at that time.
so it seems that the defense is against both domestic and foreign.
…and although I am not a lawyer, it was my understanding that “the militia” as used in the Constitution represented any citizens willing to take up arms against a threat.