HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » benEzra » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 35 Next »


Profile Information

Gender: Male
Hometown: Eastern North Carolina
Home country: United States
Current location: Eastern NC
Member since: Wed Dec 1, 2004, 04:09 PM
Number of posts: 11,949

Journal Archives

You were the one who proposed a ridiculous capacity limit

that would have no effect on gun deaths, but is especially ludicrous to float as a proposed solution to suicide.

I'll also point out that Japan has a higher murder + suicide rate than we do, if you want to use that metric. Prohibitionists don't give a shit about non-gun suicides, though.

FWIW, our suicide rate is *lower* than that of Canada, Germany, France, Iceland, Norway, and New Zealand.


Less than 200 murders/year involve "assault weapons". Not 30,000.

Most of those 30,000 are suicides, which even a ridiculous 3- or 6-round magazine limit wouldn't touch, and which rarely involve rifles anyway.

Of gun homicides, most are with small, lowish-capacity pistols and revolvers, wielded by career criminals who can't legally so much as touch a gun, and who can't legally carry them. All rifles and all shotguns combined barely reach 500 murders annually.

Less than 200 deaths a year nationwide isn't low enough for the fundamentalists.

Assuming so-called "assault weapons" account for half or even 2/3 of the ~270 rifle murders annually in this country (a fair assumption given that they are by far the most popular civilian rifles in the United States), yet the fundamentalists want nationwide bans, and many want mass confiscation---from 20-50 million people, depending on how defined---over that ~200/yr.

To put that into perspective, ~720/yr are killed riding bicycles.

The civilian ones are basically a Glock made less concealable.

They're still non-automatic handguns firing pistol cartridges. They're not all that popular, in part because they have less capability than an ordinary-looking pistol shooting the same ammunition.

The restricted Title 2 automatic versions (the middle 3 in your pic) are a different story, but I doubt that was what was used here.

"Semantics" is the study of the meanings of words.

Definitions matter.

If the anti-abortion lobby introduces a bill to ban "late term abortions" and defines a late-term abortion as anything after 10 weeks' gestation, then pointing out the bait-and-switch does indeed deal in semantics. It is also true.

The gun control lobby isn't trying to ban 31-round magazines; they are trying to ban 11-round magazines, or even 8-round magazines (e.g. the NY SAFE Act as passed). Unfortunately for that approach, the very first Winchesters ever made (since 1866) had 15-round magazines, as did their predecessor, the Henry carbine of 1860-1861. That's why the compliance rate with New York's magazine and rifle-handgrip ban is estimated at 5%, and the compliance rate with Sunnyvale's magazine ban was zero; it's like setting the national speed limit on the Interstates to 35 mph.

A couple of years ago, I guesstimated the number of over-10-round magazines in U.S. homes at around a third of a billion, owned by around 50 million people. I don't know how many are sold a year, but it is probably in the many tens of millions, so that number may be half a billion now. You'd likely double that number if you want a 7-round limit. That would make the "war on magazines" much bigger than the "war on drugs".

As to the "saving lives" aspect, the head of Americans for Gun Safety a couple years ago stated that the most dangerous bullets in a magazine are the first 10, not numbers 11 and up. Rifles are used in only ~270 murders/year out of ~12,000; of those, magazine capacity is almost always irrelevant for offensive use if the shooter plans their tactics around reloads; the rate of aimed fire between a 10- or 15-round magazine and a 30-round magazine is not that different. Capacity matters a lot more for defensive use than offensive.

Yep, Saiga with aftermarket stock.

Here's the Saiga in its factory straight stock:

Which is not, I'll point out, an "assault weapon". No protruding handgrip, no "evil features", just a plain civilian semiauto rifle.

You just proved Salon's point.

Outlawing rifle handgrips that stick out (which is what you actually mean by "banning assault weapons") does not affect, in any way, the lethality of available rifles. Just like outlawing scotch, but not vodka, wouldn't affect drunk driving in the slightest.

"Assault weapon":

Not an "assault weapon":

Those are the *same rifle*.

The NRA is only a very small part of the issue.

I believe the NRA has about 5 million members, whereas over 20 million Americans own "assault weapons" (or far more if you use the proposed new California definition), and 50+ million own over-10-round magazines. Probably 75-80 million own guns that are banned in Australia. For perspective, about 16 million Americans hunt in a given year.

I think guns would be a lot less front-and-center in the national conversation if the prohibitionists weren't constantly trying to ban the lawful ownership of the most popular ones.

Because full autos were never common in civilian hands, and semiautos work well for civilian use.

But since 75% of the civilian gun market is semiauto, and semiautos have *always* been considered suitable for civilians, banning semiautos would be a lot more like trying to ban beer and wine than banning, say, fentanyl.

Semiautomatics are civilian-legal in California and in Bloomberg's New York City, in Canada, and across most of Europe. They are not going anywhere.

If a gun is easily converted to full auto, it is considered a machinegun under Federal law

even if not actually converted. That's why there are no civilian semiautos that fire from an open bolt.

The civilian AK, civilian AR-15, etc. do indeed have internal differences from the restricted military/government select-fire models that make them as difficult to convert as any other civilian semiauto.
Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 35 Next »