Yes, and no. It is an explosive device, which is controlled, not illegal, but you do have to pay a $200 tax to own one.
But it's an arm. So you are in favor of some restrictions on arms. We just disagree about which restrictions go too far and which don't.
"In common use" for legal purposes, it is protected by the 2nd amendment of the US Constitution.
I get that that's how the law has been interpreted recently. But the 2nd Amendment doesn't say a thing about popularity. But again, this just proves that you're not really a constitutional purist. Some people I've spoken with think any restriction or regulation is considered an "infringement" and are against any attempt to restrict the sale of guns or even make them safer for use.
Sigh
Wow! Yeah, that should definitely be illegal.
Murder is already as illegal as it can be, it is not possible to make it "More illegal";
We're not talking about murder, we're talking about guns. I never suggested any murder laws should change. I'm suggesting gun laws should change.
someone who is about to shoot up a bunch of kids in a gun free zone is not going to care that his pistol grip is illegal.. get real.
Well by then it's too late silly person. Gun restrictions are meant to prevent that someone from getting the gun in the first place.
Yes, and no... His incompetence made a difference, not his magazine capacity.
Exactly! If was equally incompetent with a 100 round drum he would have killed more people.
And the millions of them in circulation? the fact that they can be made at home for less than $10?
The ones in circulation will eventually become obsolete or rust or be removed from circulation. There are millions now, and if we keep producing them there will be billions. I prefer just millions over billions. And if you have the technical expertise and equipment to produce one at home, then have at it. It should still be illegal and you should still go to jail for 3D printing something illegal.
The only thing small magazines cause is a few seconds of delay for 300 or so rounds of ammunition you fire.
Why do you keep saying this? I know this dude. A few seconds is better than no seconds.
He had all the time in the world, had no armed opposition, nothing stopping him.
I'd still rather the guy have to carry around 20 10-round magazines than a couple 100-round drums. You do admit there's a difference, you just think it's small. I think a small difference is better than none. For some reason you can't grasp that concept.
Most mass shooters plan, practice, and have experience operating a firearm. Just 12 hours of firearms practice and instruction is enough to turn a 2011 Tucson shooter (with next to no experience and training) into a Virginia Tech shooter (with just basic firearms instruction and range time).
But it's not enough to turn them into an Army Ranger. You're right that given enough time, the magazine capacity makes less of a difference. But the difference with an Army Ranger is that he can hold off opposition fire. Rarely are mass shooters trained to the point that they can actually defend themselves against SWAT, let alone beat cops or armed security guards. Look at the guy in parliament in Canada. Some old ass guy took him out with a handgun.
So your data point is irrelevant.
No, yours is because you're trying to isolate something in a data set that's not based on the same timeline as the thing you're trying to isolate.
Because that is not what the data says, what the data says is that mass shootings have been increasing in frequency despite lower rates of gun crime; the AWB had no effect, one way or the other.
So crime is down, gun ownership is up and mass shootings are up. Crime peaked in the mid 1990s and has been falling since. But gun ownership and mass shootings both increased after 2000. And nearly every mass shooting has involved guns or magazine capacities that were banned by the AWB. Of course, the AWB didn't prevent everyone from having assault weapons, but it was only around for 10 years and guns last way longer than that.
No.. a shot gun is not less lethal than a rifle; more people were killed by the shotgun in Aurora than the rifle...
Yes, it is. A lot of people what were shot in Aurora survived precisely because they got hit with shotgun fire. Had they been shot with a rifle they'd be dead. You must think a .50 caliber bullet is just as lethal as a .22. You're a silly silly man.
All firearms are lethal, different type of firearms for different purposes.
But all firearms aren't equally lethal. My cousin got shot with a 9mm in his arm and it went through and just left 2 scars. If he had been shot with a .50 caliber Desert Eagle he would have at least lost his arm if not bled out and died on the scene. If you can't accept that as reality then we should just stop this debate now.
Yep... but nothing you have suggested will stop someone from firing 100 bullets... if you go from a single 100 round magazine to 10, 10 round magazines, you might add a total of 5 seconds of time it takes to fire 100 rounds.
Exactly! 5 seconds is a long time in a combat situation.
If you want to be serious about reducing the number of people who die by firearms; you have address the cause of that violence, not the tool they use to commit it.
Well we should do both. A lot of people probably want to blow shit up, but we have restrictions on grenades and other explosives, and all of the bomb making websites are FBI fronts. Consequentially, not a lot of shit gets blown up in this country. So sure, you can try to get at the root cause about why people want to blow shit up (depression, mental illness, road rage, anarchy, poverty, jealousy, boredom, etc.), but it's several orders of magnitude easier to limit the actual tools people use to blow shit up with. Guns certainly don't kill people by themselves. But guns combined with humans and their problems (depression, mental illness, road rage, anarchy, poverty, jealousy, boredom, etc.) certainly do kill people.
The funny looking one is a AR15 you can buy in California with the strictest AWB ban in the country.
Because the law banned the AR15 by name and they changed the name.
LOL... yeah. Why? Because they are black and have a pistol grip?
The color is irrelevant, but the rails and the pistol grip do make a difference in the modularity and ease of use of the weapon. No civilian needs a laser sight or an extended clip to shoot paper targets or to kill a deer.
That does not lessen the lethality of a gun; it just makes people like you, who have absolutely no idea what they are talking about, knows next to nothing about firearms, has zero training in their operation, feel better.
Actually I was a Jr. NRA member and won several skeet shooting competitions (and casting contests) when I was a kid. I personally own 6 guns and I'm very familiar with how to use, maintain, and assemble them. I never won any pistol contests when I was younger, but I know how to shoot with either hand now and get good groupings with both. That said, I know with 100% certainty that I could kill more people faster with a 100 round drum than with 10 10-round clips. You know that too, you're just too entrenched in your opinion that the time difference actually makes a difference to how many people are killed. Sure, giving 30 minutes it doesn't make a bit of difference. But mass shooters rarely have that much time to kill people.
What it does do if radically interfere with my ability to use my firearms for legal purposes for no good reason.
So how is it a big difference to you at a gun range, but almost no difference to a mass shooter?
That is why there is push back on it, and it will never pass. Ever.
It did pass in the 1990s. It just expired and wasn't renewed because we had a cowboy for a president for a while.
The federal limit on magazine capacity was in place for 10 years, and it proved beyond any reasonable doubt to be 100% ineffective.
Nope.
More outstanding ignorance. He can't ban the bullets, he is attempting to ban (Via the ATF) as specific type of .223 caliber rifle ammunition; the ban will not pass,
No, he's banning the M855 green tip ammunition used in AR15s. Maybe you don't know how executive orders work, but it doesn't need to pass anything.
Which one of these bullets do you think will not be able to kill a person? Answer: All of them. Which one will be able to penetrate the hide of a 400lbs Wild boar? Just the two on the right.
I'm missing your point. You can put a piece of wood in a gun and it would kill somebody. But if you had a choice to get shot with a piece of wood or a bullet that can take out a 400lb boar, which would you choose?
If you want to reduce gun violence, support mandatory background checks for private sales, then work root issues that feed gun crime.
I wholeheartedly agree with mandatory background checks for private sales and getting at the myriad of root issues that feed gun crime. Ending the war on drugs would drastically reduce gun violence.
If you want to prevent mass shootings, put armed police, guards, staff, and citizens in the locations they are most likely to take place. Nothing but armed opposition will slow or stop mass shooters; as all mass shootings over the past 16 years has clearly shown.
Police presence has almost no effect on crime whatsoever. This more guns is the solution to gun violence argument purported by the gun lobby simply makes no sense. Arming more private citizens is also unlikely to stop mass shootings, as proven by this experiment. Without proper training, communication and coordination, more armed people will just result in more people dying in crossfire.