There is absolutely no need for semi-auto, military grade weapons in the hands of the public.

[MadHound]

Nor is there any need for large capacity clips.

Hunting? Nope, the experts out there say that the best rifle for deer hunting is a 30-06 or .30-30 pump, lever or bolt action. If you can't hit your game with 1-3 shots, firing a bunch more isn't going to help.

Self defense? Nope, the most widely acclaimed gun for home defense is your basic twelve gauge shotgun, either in pump or double barrel form. Basic point and shoot action, something that anybody can do. If you're really serious about home defense, use a Dutch load in your pump shotgun, buckshot and slugs alternating.

So what is left? Sport shooting, sorry, but most sport shooting is done with specially made rifles, not AR-15's.

There is simply no need for semi-auto, military grade assault guns or large capacity clips.

However, contrariwise, there is still a need for people to own guns. Self defense is a legit concern, especially for those of us living out in the country where law enforcement is many minutes away. Hunting is also legit. Despite what many of you in the city think, there are still people out there that absolutely need to hunt in order to put food on their table.

But probably the most important thing we need to do is reduce the pressure that we all live under. Our society is one of high stress and uncertainty, and while most folks can cope with that, many can't. Working towards a fair, equitable and caring society would do more to reduce gun violence that any gun ban out there. But until that happens, we should reduce the number of military grade assault rifles out there. Even if the vast majority of people are responsible owners, all it takes is one, like Lanza's mother, who don't secure their weapons, in order to open the door to these sort of tragedies.

[still_one]

1. You are right, but of course they will give you a reason. Using their logic we should be able to

own tanks, missile launcher, etc.

It is absolutely insane logic

[Arkansas Granny]

27. Yes, I had one use this "logic" the other day during a discussion.

I asked "Why would you ever need to fire such a weapon?" The answer was "Because I think it would be fun." That was followed by a history lesson on countries that take away weapons turning into a dictatorships and the claim that Obama is trying to take away our guns. He could not back up either statement.

[RegieRocker]

2. It will not happen for semi auto

not now and for a very long time. If the Dems push this it will be their demise. Mark my words.

[Democracyinkind]

26. Good way of not adressing the point in the OP

[RegieRocker]

33. That is the norm here.

It's not going to happen and many of you will be sorely disappointed with the outcome of this.

[spanone]

34. only 4 million people belong to the nra in a nation of 300 million...i will not mark your words

gunners will lose

[RegieRocker]

35. You have no clue

what so ever. Most gun owners are not the NRA.

[RomneyLies]

3. MOAR GUNZ!!

Because FREEDOM!










as if it was needed

[Odin2005]

24. Or as I call it, FREEDUMB!

[SpartanDem]

4. There is nothing with semi-auto rifles as long as you limit capacity

[MadHound]

6. Having been around gun nuts, immersed in the gun culture,

If you allow semi-autos abound, even without high capacity magazines, these people will figure out how to jury rig a high capacity magazine to fit their gun. These are the same people who sell kits, piece by piece at gun shows, that turn your semi-auto into a full auto.

The only real solution is to get rid of the semi-auto. The only real purpose of a semi-auto is to kill lots of people quickly. It isn't a hunting weapon, it isn't even a good self defense weapon, it is simply a killing machine.

[Recursion]

5. I agree with you that it would be good to ban semi-automatic weapons with detachable magazines

I disagree with you that that is politically or practically feasible. There are just way too many of them out there already. We could ban new manufacture and import of them (and, honestly, I bet we could push that through next year), and that would probably do some good, so count me in on that I guess. But we're still talking about hundreds of millions of them in private hands right now and going around and getting them back is an absolute non-starter.

Sport shooting, sorry, but most sport shooting is done with specially made rifles, not AR-15's.

Actually the AR-15 is the most common sport-shooting rifle, but if they were banned that would change. Or sport shooters could use versions with fixed magazines.

There is simply no need for semi-auto, military grade assault guns or large capacity clips.

Semi-auto and military grade are different things, but OK. Also you're saying there shouldn't be any clips, since you don't want there to be any semi-autos.

[DanTex]

28. I agree that it would not be politically feasible.

I don't think it would be impossible, though. If there were the political will, where could be a buyback, along with a ban on manufacture or importation Sure, a lot of people wouldn't comply, which means there wouldn't be an immediate effect. However, over time the market for semi-autos would dry out.

I think most law-abiding gun owners, if the law were actually changed, would comply, because they would not want to risk breaking the law. For example, if semi-autos with detachable magazines were illegal, then even if you owned one, you wouldn't be able to take it to a gun range.

Politically, though, it is not feasible. Although I did see a poll where more than 50% of people said they would support a ban on all semi-automatic weapons, but my guess is that some of those people saying "yes" don't know just how complicated it would be.

[Recursion]

30. Remember how polls show people hate health care reform but love its actual provisions?

The AWB polls the opposite way; people love to "ban assault weapons" until they learn what that actually means, for the most part.

I also think "banning" is the wrong mindset; we would be rescheduling them under Title II of the NFA. They wouldn't be illegal, we don't even have to make it terribly expensive to get one, we would just know who had them.

[DanTex]

31. I agree.

Though it goes both ways. My a small margin, most polls show the majority is opposed to stricter gun control laws. But, they are in favor of requiring background check on all sales including private sales. And they are in favor of requiring a gun license, and a national gun registry. In fact, those are probably cases where a lot of people are like "umm, what? You mean we don't already have that?!?!"

I also agree that licensing and registration is the way to go, rather than a ban and a buyback. Both for political and practical reasons.

[jody]

7. And there is absolutely no need for a mode of transportation that goes faster than a horse can run.

[derby378]

8. I find it interesting that some folks know enough about us to inform us what our "needs" are

Something along the lines of "Gays, you don't need the right to marry - a civil union is good enough for you."

Now how many DUers do you think are going to support that idea?

[doc03]

12. Well if you know so much what do you suggest or do you

just hang around here to tell us what we can't do and what you don't like?

[MrYikes]

9. I bought a sks this year,

I waffled between a Marlin 336 in 30-30 and this norinko sks. The marlin lost out because Remington bought Marlin and more importantly the bullet is pressing onto the center fire of the next shell while in the tube, which in my mind is dangerous (even though I have never heard of a problem, I don't want to be the first). The sks is rated at slightly more accurate than the ak or ar. My first outing put 5 holes in a 4" circle at 100 yards. That's good enough for me.
I also own 2 muzzle loaders, 2 22 cal., a daisy bb, and a 12 guage. I have owned these guns for 50 years. I am not wise enough to own a hand gun.

This was a good OP. The pressure we live under springs from income inequality. That can be corrected but may take some time. Doesn't have to but probably will. My immediate cure is:
A person shall be put to death quickly if convicted of a crime while in possession of a firearm.

[coalition_unwilling]

10. Hear! Hear! - n/t

[Sgent]

11. Semi-auto

is nice when target shooting, and it does allow a faster compared to a bolt or lever if your hunting something dangerous or are attacked (boar, bear), but I wouldn't be using a .223 round for that anyway.

I think the problem a lot of people have is that there is no practical difference between a AR-15 and a .223 varmint gun, and gun owners see taking away one as tantamount to declaring war on the other. It doesn't help that all the congressmen proposing laws don't know what the hell they're talking about (or do but don't care).

I think the best idea I've seen (long term) is to ban detachable magazines or require a bullet lock on them. Magazines which hold fewer bullets aren't really a problem as reloading is so quick with even with smaller ones.

Also, I wouldn't have a problem extending this to pistols. Depending on who you talk to, a double action revolver is the best self defense pistol around (unless maybe your concealed carrying), especially if you aren't a regular shooter.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

13. There's no need for ignorance either.

'semi-auto military grade assault guns" ... The military uses automatic weapons. An AR-15 is not compliant with any militarys' specification... it is, by definition, not military grade. Our country's problem is not automatic weapons.

Magazines can be changed in 2-3 seconds by most competent shooters. I think most of the mass shootings would not be significantly impacted by the use of multiple "low capacity" magazines. Keep in mind that most common compact and fullsize pistols exceed 10 rounds in capacity. And there even a number of fixed magazine rifles and shotguns hold more than ten rounds... are those to be banned along with hi-capacity magazines? Didn't Cho use pistols with ten round (not high capacity) magazines in the VT shootings?

Considering self/home defense, not everyone can wield a shotgun for home defense. There are persons of small,limited weak stature that cannot manage a shotgon's size, heft, or recoil... not to mention that something over 30" weighting a few pounds is not easy to use in the confines of an urban home. My wife cannot handle a shotgun well and keeps a .38 revolver for home defense. I myself do have a shotgun but keep a handgun readied instead for home defense - I can handle a pistol much more easily than my 46" 12ga double-barrel. There are also handicapped and elderly persons to consider. For such individuals, a pistol is also a better choice.

Another thing to consider, for people who would use a long-gun for home defense is penetration. A 12ga slug will penetrate WAY more walls and pose much more of a risk than a .223/5.56mm AR in the confies of a home. The high velocity small projectile will fragment, skew, and break up after only a few sheets of drywall. A large heavy 12ga slug will penetrate many more walls. Basically, neighbors and people in other rooms of your house will be safe if you use an AR for home defense rather than a shotgun.

[rhett o rick]

15. Well what would you suggest? nm

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

16. I think more stringent background checks and emphasis on disallowing access to unfit persons.

A hicap magazine ban sounds pretty good on paper, but in reality, there are already so many out there (probably tens of millions) that ban wouldn't impact the supply of them for decades. I also think making even the already existing ones retroactively illegal for possession would violate some sort of ex-post facto laws or something. Even then, as I mentioned before, even if one could magically poof them off the planet, I doubt that mass shootings would be significantly impacted since magazine changes are so simple.

Short of repealing the 2nd Amendment and limiting people to revolvers, bolt-rifles and shotguns (basically eliminate semi-autos), I'm not sure there can be anything done from a legislative point of view to curb mass shooting gun violence. I think the best road forward in the immediate future is policy changes surrounding the gun culture and trying to better control access to firearms by unfit persons. An end game of limiting actual amount of firearms in the public will require more time and planning, I feel.

[rhett o rick]

17. I dont like the sound of "I'm not sure there can be anything done from a legislative point of view."

We must change the acceptance of the public of gun violence. We see it on tv every single day. Good guys violently killing bad guys. Banning high capacity magazines and assault type rifles is a start to change the public's view of what our society will allow. Currently gun ownership is glorified. Being able to shoot bad guys is glorified. "Wow, dad can I kill bad people". It's a sickness exploited by media and the gun lobby.

It's past time for action. Any action is better than none. Better than what we have done so far. Stupid action is better than nothing. Why would honest gun owners object to gun registration?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

18. Not immediately, anyways. Like you said, there needs to be a cultural change and

then acceptance of legislative gun control may work. Rejection of proposed or passed gun control legislation would only serve to derail the effort for another decade or so.

Stupid action is not better than nothing. Do you think the 1994 AWB (a very technically stupid & ineffectual ban) was "better than nothing"? It really did nothing to stop assault style weapons from proliferating and only managed to drive the prices of magazines up a little bit. Manufacturers simply changed cosmetic appearances to skirt around the poorly written law. What it really accomplished was to thrust a marginalized style of weapon into the spotlight and cost democrats dearly in the interim elections. As soon as ARs became taboo everybody wanted one... and manufactures were happy to oblige. I'm confident that if there was no 1994 AWB that AR15s & AKs and other assault weapons wouldn't be half as popular as they are today. The 1994 AWB is the primary reason for the panic buying we see today and when dems who talk about it are elected.

Stupid action provides for setbacks and backlash that only puts society in a worse position. Only a moron would think that "Stupid action is better than nothing". We need effective changes and we need them now.

And why don't I trust registration? simple... because I don't trust the people proposing it. Many people have expressed interest and intent on actual banning & complete civilian disarmament. If you have any doubts, spend about 10 minutes browsing GD threads from the past 3 days and you'll see a few here on DU. I don't trust that registration lists will not be misused as confiscation lists in the future. It's happened before and I see nothing promising to stop it from happening again. So I say screw it and refuse to support registration involving a record listing. I however have no problem requiring all purchases to be made through an FFL with an FBI NICS background check (or similar).

[rhett o rick]

19. That's what I kinda thought. I guess we should just learn to accept mass killing of 5 and 6 year old

children because we, as a society cant seem to get our shit together.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

20. No one said society can't get it's shit together...

there is a solution, we just need to work to find it. Just because a solution is difficult or doen't meet your predispositions does not you mean give up nor does it mean you make a half-ass effort.

If you expect a shit solution/legislation to yield anything but shit results... you will be disappointing.

[rhett o rick]

22. Of course there is a solution. Most other modern countries have found the solution.

But not here where we let the gun lobby rule. Registering guns, banning assault weapons, banning high cap clips, will be a good start. You may argue that it wont work. Let's try. At least it will send a message.

[Fumesucker]

14. Well said n/t

[malthaussen]

21. There's absolutely no need for a car that does 120, either.

But people own them. And the last time I looked, cars kill more people than guns. Stipulating, of course, that it is the driver or shooter who actually does the killing.

We do not restrict cars because it is not convenient to do so.

-- Mal

[Odin2005]

23. a 30-06 is what I have for deer hunting.

I don't get the point of semi-automatic weapons for hunting. It's a waste of ammo.

[bighart]

25. Was talking to a friend this morning who is an avid gun collector.

He is absolutely appalled by all of these mass shootings and is always willing to have an open conversation about gun control.
His take is that there should be a background check done on every gun transaction even when sold by a private individual to another
private individual. He told me he would support restrictions or bans on clips over 15 in capacity. When I asked why 15 he stated that when he is "plinking" (ie target shooting cans, bottles, jugs etc) he doesn't like to reload a lot. He did say that he is open to discussion on this subject and would not be too concerned if the capacity was lower.
When the subject of a complete ban came up like Japan he asked me to name another right that was written in the constitution that has been taken away, I couldn't.
He also stated that since part of the oath of office for the president and congress is to "protect and defend the constitution" that any such attempt to eliminate a right enumerated in the constitution may well be viewed by some as treason or at least grounds for impeachment or recall.

At the end of the day he and I both agree that we have to address the root causes, easy access to guns and whatever societal issues (ie mental health care and lack of respect for life) lie at the heart of the problem. There is no quick fix, no easy solution, but with continued attention and calls for change we can begin moving to a more sane policy toward guns and address some of the underlying causes of this kind of thing.

One other point he made was that there have been more people killed by gun violence in Chicago this year than the number of troops killed in Afghanistan and he wondered why there isn't outrage of that fact. Good point in my view.

[ladjf]

29. IMO the male obsession to achieve extreme marchioness drives the compulsion to obtain ever

more powerful personal weaponry. This is neurotic behavior and if so, could be dealt with positively through skillful intervention.

[JPZenger]

32. ... but I have a serious Zombie problem in my neighborhood

I really need a 100 round ammo clip.

[slampoet]

36. Semi-auto is nice to have for a birding shotgun, but that third shot almost NEVER hits a bird.

That is why the truly classy and quickest way to get that important second shot on a bird is the double barrel shotgun..

Also it is said that you can fire faster with a slide action than a semi auto if you had the skill but I've never tried..

And I've never needed to hunt anything larger than a rabbit, but I can't see ever needing more than 5 shots to kill any North American game as long as you are using the right round and even five shots from a .22 ought to at least deter all but the biggest polar bear.

As for home defense?

We should be arguing what breed of DOG is the best.