Attempting to ban AR's in this political climate is futile. Focus on the magazines instead

[NickB79]

The ONLY way we will enact a new assault rifle ban similar to the one in 1994 is if we first control of both the House and Senate in 2018, and then win the White House in 2020. That is too long to wait right now, but it's the hard truth when it comes to really sweeping national reform for gun laws that aim to get assault rifles off the streets.

Instead, I propose we emulate the laws that Canada has enacted. In Canada, you can legally own all sorts of assault rifles. In fact, Canadians can own assault rifles that most people here in the US can't even own without tax stamps, months of waiting and Class 2 paperwork approval. Yet, Canada has no school shootings that I'm aware of, and definitely not any that rival the US. At the same time, their hunters and sportsmen are free to hunt as much as their counterparts here in the US.

Why? Because in Canada, all rifle magazines are limited to 5 rounds, max. Your AR-15 has no more capacity to hold ammo than Dad's bolt action deer rifle. And capacity, above all else, is why the AR-15 is such a deadly gun when it comes to mowing down innocent people.

So, here's my proposal.

Step 1: define high-capacity magazines. Canada caps magazines at 5, New York at 7, and California at 10. The old AWB defined it as 10 rounds. Take your pick.

Step 2: Enact legislation that bans the manufacture of new high-capacity magazines, AND bans the sale or transfer of existing magazines. The second portion is crucial. This is what California currently does, and what the 1994 AWB didn't do. It means you can't sell your old magazines legally. No stacks of 30-round mags on tables at gun shows. No for sale posts on gun websites. When you die, your magazines are turned in at the police station and destroyed. It means all new guns, assault rifles included, only come from the factory with low-capacity magazines, and it would be illegal to purchase anything with higher capacity.

Step 3: Enact a $50/magazine no questions asked buy-back program at all police stations. You come in, turn in your old magazines, and get cash or debit cards.

Step 4: Enact a small tax on ammunition to pay for the buyback. Americans shoot 4-6 BILLION rounds of ammo a year (crazy, right?). A tax as low as a penny a round would generate $40 million a year.

It won't end mass shootings overnight. There will still be tens of millions of high-capacity magazines on the streets for years to come. But frankly, no legally viable legislation would stop any gun crime in rapid fashion. This isn't as cathartic as a pile of AR's and AK's being melted down or crushed, but it is something that would get widespread support from the American people, be completely legal in the Supreme Court and have a proven impact over time.

[NCTraveler]

1. Focus on guns.

All of the sudden people really want our reps out there negotiating from a moderate position. The public debat should be about guns. Remember the whole “woodchuck” thing? Lots of it going on right now. People stating how they would like to narrow the scope of discussion even further.

[dchill]

2. Focus on all guns. Limit and tax the hell out of ammo.

[ooky]

42. Agree. Also require licensing of gun owners and liability insurance

on all registered guns.

Going through that entire process would in effect dissuade gun ownership, requiring more hoops to jump through to own guns. All guns. The insurance requirement could vastly improve background checks when insurance underwriters have to do their own investigation on the owner of the guns they are insuring. And obviously the financial compensation to the families of victims would help to cover the loss of a breadwinner who is killed or maimed by guns and provide some compensation for their loss in general, covering both intended and accidental shootings.

While its not a complete ban, its an intermediate step that could make a lot of difference and makes perfect sense. Personally I think Democrats in Congress should be introducing this right now, at both federal and state levels.

[DVRacer]

47. One small thing

You can not force an insurance company to pay for a intentional act! That will not happen

[ooky]

55. Unless the intent of the insurance is to cover intentional actions.

Insurance is all about risk:reward.

It could very well work if insurance companies recognize a profit motive to entering this market.

[sharedvalues]

15. Yes. Ban semiautos

I have been a hunter and live in a hunting culture.

Let hunters have single shot weapons.

Ban semi automatics of all sorts. That means handguns and assault rifles. That’s what Canada and Australia do. That should be our position.

At the same time work on ammo and magazines. But if we want to stop deaths - daily single homicides and mass killings - we need to ban semiautomatic weapons: ban handguns, ban assault rifles.

[crazycatlady]

3. I like the idea of a tax on ammo

But I wouldn't make it a small tax-- make it a sin tax like cigarettes, alcohol, weed (where legal), etc. The monies should be used to cover victim's healthcare and funeral costs.

[NickB79]

11. Tread carefully or risk a Supreme Court loss

The courts have already ruled that laws that make it too onerous to buy ammunition are tantamount to an infringent on legal gun ownership.

But sure, 5-10 cents per round would net hundreds of millions a year and still be legal.

[sharedvalues]

17. Ban semiautomatic guns. You worry too much.

Heller was wrongly decided and Scalia was bribed by gun nuts and billionaires using guns to get votes. (Scalia died on a billionaire-funded gun junket.)


There is a long history in the US of gun restrictions. A handgun and semiauto ban will easily fly legally.

[EX500rider]

32. "A handgun and semiauto ban will easily fly legally."

I think you mean if the votes were there.....which they most certainly aren't.
Unfortunately there are 80 million or so gun owners, all of legal voting age.

[sharedvalues]

81. SCOTUS

That’s what you brought up. Even though Heller was wrongly decided (by GOP Scalia who was bribed by pro-gun billionaires), it still leaves TONS of room to regulate guns.

So I’m just responding to your point about constitutionality. Gun laws will fly legally.

[EX500rider]

86. Of course gun laws will fly, we already have gun laws

But getting semi-auto handguns which have been around since 1892 banned is extremely unlikely, either thru legislators or Supreme Court.

Scalia was joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito.

[SomethingNew]

56. It would most certainly not.

Heller was concerned specifically with DCs handgun ban. There are still at least 5 votes on the court that would smack down any attempt at such a law, probably with some icy comments along the lines of "how many times do we have to say this?" Furthermore, I would bet that if you took a handgun can back the court today, it would lose even more soundly than Heller. Several of the left-leaning judges have significant respect for stare decisis and would be very hesitant to reverse course so quickly after the last decision.

[sharedvalues]

83. No way. Heller leaves tons of room, even if it stands

Stare decisis is important. And the extremist GOP judges will certainly vote to help the NRA, because they know guns are an issue that helps the GOP at the polls.

But SCOTUS cares about public opinion and cares about reality. An assault rifle ban would easily pass review. A handgun ban has a very good shot, and if overturned it will motivate Democrats for decades just as Roe did for GOP partisans.

[SomethingNew]

88. It is downright delusional to expect a handgun ban

to be found constitutional after reading the Heller opinion and looking at the current court.

[chumpchange]

90. Even pushing for these things

Will dramatically whip up the Republican core base in opposition. You know that, right? I would not be shocked to see the Republicans in control of Congress let the Democrats put up some highly restrictive bills and ensure they get shot down solely to energize their base in the midterms.

[sharedvalues]

92. And the Dem base. Which matters way more!

The GOP base already votes.

The Dem base does not. It is way more important to motivate the Dem base.

Look at Northam in VA. Both bases were motivated. GOP votes were up. But Northam won in a LANDSLIDE. That’s because there is way more room for the D vote to go up. Because Dem voter turnout is typically low (in part because of systematic GOP suppression).

[J_William_Ryan]

31. Correct.

The issue isn’t who controls Congress and the WH, but the makeup of the Supreme Court.

And given the current Court, a new AWB wouldn’t pass Constitutional muster.

The Supreme Court appointment stolen from President Obama was devastating.

[oberliner]

4. Fight like hell to ban assault weapons

This is the time for that fight.

[sharedvalues]

18. Ban assault weapons, and handguns. Ban all semi autos

It’s not just mass shootings, it’s daily homicides that need to be stopped. We need to ban handguns too, like Canada and Australia.

[wasupaloopa]

5. No, we change the political climate and ban ARs

[NickB79]

10. That means waiting for years

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. We both know any weapon ban has no chance to pass until 2020 at the earliest. If we can get magazine restrictions now, though, there's nothing to prevent new gun legislation years down the road when we finally regain control of Congress and the White House.

Magazine restrictions NOW are viable as common-sense, bipartisan actions.

[sharedvalues]

19. This is a scaredy cat position

Be bold. Build the America you want to see - an America with much less gun violence. Talking about half measures helps the NRA.

Make your case to America. Semi auto weapons hurt the country. They should be banned.

[GulfCoast66]

59. That position will elect more republicans

But we can reduce magazine size and have universal background checks. And that will have a positive impact.

[sharedvalues]

79. Do both.

Gun control in 2018 is gay marriage in 2012. The tide is turning. A former GOP identity politics hatemongering wedge is becoming a winning political issue for progressives. Stay strong. Stand up for what we all want - a better, safer America with way fewer guns.

[nycbos]

6. Chris Rock had a good idea.

Charge $5,000 for a bullet. That way there will be no more innocent bystanders.

[Sherman A1]

7. I believe that you have some very valid ideas

A five or six round magazine should be more than sufficient for "hunting" or target practice. I would think that as a potential stop along the way perhaps high capacity magazines could be restricted to some sort of designated shooting ranges as a possible alternative where they could be stored and secured. That would allow the owners to use them for their "hobby", but still prevent them from leaving the location. I would like them to all be eventually destroyed, but that is likely to be a difficult accomplishment.

[EX500rider]

35. That will fly even less, most guns are kept for home self defense, not hunting.

And many Americans live 45 min's or so from the nearest Peace officer, and are not going to settle for their firearms being kept somewhere else.

[Sherman A1]

39. I didn't suggest the firearms be kept somewhere else

simply the high capacity magazines that remain after the suggested buy back and destruction of the OP.

[EX500rider]

48. Sorry, I misread that.

But that does get proposed here a lot and seems unlikely to happen, the other issue is there are millions of hi-cap magazines out there and no one knows who has them so I suspect compliance would be low.

[Sherman A1]

50. I agree that it is a huge mountain to climb

I do however believe the concept is much more workable overall than trying to ban the weapons themselves.

[aikoaiko]

8. Worse than futile, a gun ban could cost of regaining the Senate and House.

Obama understood this and did not do much to get gun control legislation on his desk until after he was elected a second time -- especially a gun ban.

[Hoyt]

12. Jeeez. Gunners will say anything to protect their access to more lethal weapons and accessories.

Would you actually refuse to vote for Democrats who voted for a magazine limit or so-called assault rifle ban?

[aikoaiko]

14. Worse than say anything, 'gunners' vote to protect their access

You've seen it before, Hoyt. I'll always vote for a Democrat, but not everyone is like me.

This OP is proposing moderate legislation that would have an impact in time.

And you know that Assault Weapons Bans are easily defeated and don't prevent massacres (e.g., Newtown's Lanza's AWB compliant AR). Even if you collected every "assault weapon", the VATech massacre showed what someone can do with 2 handguns.

[sharedvalues]

21. A real ban.

It’s easy to make legislation that would have stopped Lanzas purchase. Let’s do that.

[Abnredleg]

28. He didn't purchase his gun

He murdered his mother and stole her gun. How do you legislate against that?

[sharedvalues]

80. Ban would have stopped the mother, obviously

Fewer guns, fewer deaths. Every country in the world knows this except America.

And America is confused about guns because:
- gun companies buy media and politicians
- The GOP uses gun propaganda as a wedge to get votes for billionaires
- a small number of insecure American men, the tactical culture, want guns to compensate for their weakness

[Abnredleg]

84. Her weapon was legal under the AWB

[sharedvalues]

85. Yup. We need a REAL ban on assault rifles

Not the NRA-weakened “ban” we used to have. Any ban that allows the Newtown shooter to get that weapon is insufficient.

The best way to prevent the NRA and GOP from weakening future bans is to have a very bright line. For example: all semi autos are banned. Single shot weapons only.

[Hoyt]

37. They are easily defeated because you guys gotta have your lethal weapons. Just ban, semi-auto

rifles, or detachable magazines and cap ammo capacity. You are right, ban semi-auto pistols too. Tell the owners that they abused ownership and can no-longer possess the damn things.

Maybe you should stop promoting voting against Democrats who stand their ground against what are really weapons of mass destruction outside a war zone.

[EX500rider]

57. "Tell the owners that they abused ownership and can no-longer possess the damn things"

How exactly did 80 million gun owners "abuse ownership"?
Most gun legal gun owners feel as responsible for shootings as most car owners feel responsible for DWI homicides.

So semi-auto pistols are "weapons of mass destruction"?
What war zone uses pistols exactly?

[Hoyt]

76. Look, not wasting my time posting to people who believe they cannot live without a bunch of guns. nt

[sarisataka]

69. Democratic "gunners"

have consistently supported and loyally voted for Democrats, even when they disagree on exactly what gun control should be enacted

Democratic "controllers"... well do you remember the 2016 election when the Gun Control Reform Activism group supported Mark Kirk (R) over Sen. Tammy Duckworth during her campaign? Why did our gun conrol group support a Republican over an Excellent Democrat?

While "gunners" have been supporting Democrats our control group cheered as Bloomberg helped elect tea-partyer Tom Cotton over Democrat Mark Pryor then stepped it up a notch in 2016 to actively campaign for Republicans, admonishing people to "vote single issue over party"

Ask yourself, if given the choice between two candidates, a Democrat who is "pure" on all issues except opposes an AWB and a Republican who supports the GOP 100% but wants to ball all guns- who will you vote for?

For me, that answer is easy since I am not a single issue voter an I will venture 99.9% of "gunners" would vote the same as I.

[flamin lib]

16. Nope. Gun control is a winning position for us. Get used to it.

There just ain't that many gun nuts out there to swing an election once the rest of us wake up. You are a tiny minority of a slightly larger minority.

[sharedvalues]

22. Yes! Like gay marriage and equal rights for all.

The tide has turned.


America no longer wants to see our kids and citizens killed so gunners can play with their toys to compensate for their insecurities.

This is the time. Fight the NRA. Do what’s right.

[hack89]

34. We win when we expand civil rights

Think about it.

[aikoaiko]

23. I think gun control is possible, but gun bans will invigorate the opposition

I remember all the hubris of gun controllers after Sandy Hook. They thought and AWB and other gun control laws were going to win easily. It was the proposed AWB that met the most resistance.

But maybe you're right that the tide has turned enough. Just don't be surprised if it hasn't and we don't take Congress.

[flamin lib]

25. Nope. The muzzel suckers will find a workaround. They always do.

Ban machine guns you get bumpstocks. Make it illegal to import, manufacture, sell, transfer or possess any semiautomatic gun with a removable magazine. Find a workaround for that.

[aikoaiko]

26. They will find a workaround. See California and the bullet button.

[aikoaiko]

33. Question: Have any Democratic party leaders vowed to put forward an AWB yet?

I haven't had time to look around.

[chumpchange]

38. Last I looked

Feinstein and her ilk pretty much have something like it perpetually out.

[Hoyt]

44. Pretty good "ilk" if you ask me. Much better than the gun culture.

[chumpchange]

45. An exercise left up to the reader

I am sure.

[Hoyt]

77. Or, most readers know gunners care more about their access to more guns than anything.

Tell us about your cache.

[chumpchange]

78. Or perhaps

I am simply not a Pelosi fan.

[aikoaiko]

46. As of today, neither Pelosi, Schumer, or Feinstein are calling for an AWB through press releases

Of course there is still plenty of time, but so far not much from leadership.

https://pelosi.house.gov/news/press-releases/pelosi-statement-on-school-shooting-in-parkland-florida
Feb 14, 2018 Press Release
Contact: Ashley Etienne/Henry Connelly, 202-226-7616

Washington, D.C. – Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi released this statement following the news of the tragic shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida:

“Today, another American community is reeling from the horror of gun violence, perpetrated against innocent school children. Our hearts ache for the people of Parkland, Florida and the entire Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School community. Our deepest gratitude goes out to the heroic first responders who provided aid and comfort to those in need. As the families and friends of the victims mourn and others wait for word from their loved ones, Americans everywhere share in their shock and grief.

“Too many families have lost someone to the senseless epidemic of gun violence. Congress has a moral responsibility to take common sense action to prevent the daily tragedy of gun violence in communities across America. Enough is enough.”

Schumer hasn't said anything on his website.

https://www.schumer.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases

Feinstein has a long press release and mentions previous AWBs, but doesn't call for an AWB now.
https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/featured?id=250CE751-7032-46BA-8163-DC1B010E0266

I’m tired of children getting shot. I thought [Sandy] Hook was going to be the end of this. I thought that would compel action. We put a bill together. We tried. It failed. What are we going to do? How many school shootings do we need in a given year?

So I’m here to say, Mr. Chairman, please, let’s take some action. We cannot see this continue on.

You can pass the Fix NICS bill and the bump stocks. Nobody likes these devices. You can’t have automatic weapons on the streets. It’s easy to fix. Why don’t we do it?”

[chumpchange]

51. Probably a waste of time

So they are holding off for a better opportunity. None of this stuff would even get out of committee.

[shanny]

29. the opposition is invigorated already

and has been for decades. what we need to do is invigorate our side, and we won't do that by continuing to placate theirs.

[EX500rider]

49. Depends on the legislation...too draconian and 80 million gun voters become a serious block.

[Kaleva]

9. I agree. It's the magazine capacity that makes certain semi-autos the favorite for mass shooters.

[moriah]

13. 5 rounds is the legal limit for long gun mags for hunting in Maine and Oregon.

And if in their wisdom the Game and Fish Commissions there have decided no hunter needs more than that to bring down a deer, I think that's a great limit to use for long guns.

There was actually an article about this after Sandy Hook, because it seems like deer have more protection than people.

If people claim "modern gun" technology is necessary and useful for hunting animals, 5 seems to be a good place to put the overall mag mag limit for long guns.

8-10 is the usual max size for a single-stack handgun magazine. And I think that's completely sufficient for a hanrgun.

[Kaleva]

20. Same in Michigan.

[sharedvalues]

24. Any hunter using an assault rifle is weak.

Hunters should use a gun for real men. A single shot weapon. If you need a semiauto assault rifle to kill a deer— you are lame and weak. Strong men use single shot rifles.

[Kaleva]

27. Rather sexist. Every year, more and more women hunt.

But I agree with your premise that single shot rifles and shotguns are adequate for hunting. My next gun I plan to purchase will be a single shot break action 20 gauge shotgun because it's simple, very reliable, relatively inexpensive and very versatile. I can hunt squirrel, grouse, rabbit, racoon and even deer with one gun loaded with the right shotgun shell. And because it's so simple to operate and reliable, my wife will use it to back me up with my revolver in a home defense situation.

[moriah]

43. Rather sexist to assume women need guns to hunt! ;)

My second cousin, a grandmother, usually goes out with her bow, and even I reshared when she got an 11 point buck that way.

Arkansas has competitive archery in schools for middle-school and up, and even if more girls are getting into it because of the Hunger Games movies than actual hunger, I know several who are quite competitive.

I'd rather see competitive archery than competitive shooting in schools personally, but that's my own opinion and I can have it, right?

[chumpchange]

36. Done much hunting?

I am guessing the answer is no. Simply put, things don't always go well after the shot even if you wait for the perfect opportunity. Sometimes the animal moves at the last second. Sometimes you get a flyer round for the important shot. Sometimes the shooter flinches or trembles. Sometimes weird things happen after the projectile hits the critter (deflects off a bone away from the vitals). When any f these things happens, the hunter needs a quick follow up shot or there is a significant risk that a wounded animal takes off, possibly never to be found again. This has nothing to do with your odd concept of weak vs. strong, and everything to do with hunting ethics. No ethical hunter wants to leave a wounded animal in the field and every hunter wants a clean kill with minimal suffering. As a result, single shots aren't generally the best choice for hunting.

[moriah]

40. You'd agree, though, that by the time you've fired six your prey is either gone or gore, right?

I've never seen a deer stay in range past two misses. That'd still leave 4 with a 5 round magazine (assuming one chambered).

The rest are only really necessary to spare a wounded-but-not-dropped creature the few seconds of pain it'd take to reload in the attempt to get it out of its misery.

[chumpchange]

41. Eh

Deer, elk and other large animals are hard because if they are wounded and not incapacitated they may take off for the next county in a hurry. Could be out of the picture long before you reload your single shot. Misses are another story. If you miss, it really does not generally matter how many rounds you have in the gun because the animal usually takes off after the first shot or two.

Smaller animals are an issue as well. Squirrels and jackrabbits, for example, can be pretty tough to bring down. I would not hunt either with a single shot.

[moriah]

52. I'm not arguing that many a person has regretted even only having a double-barrel.

Are you arguing you would need more than six to try to put your wounded elk out of its misery?

Because, no offense to you, my focus is on ending tragedies and not specific platforms, which is also what the OP was about. We have modern gun season and muzzleloader season, as well as archery season, here. I can't imagine a person really needing more than a 5 capacity magazine in modern gun season, at least if they either have a partner or a backup handgun in case they upset a bear while going for whitetail.

[chumpchange]

53. In my state

Big game seasons are limited to 5 round magazines if they are detachable (obviously does not apply to tube fed lever actions), while other non-waterfowl species are generally open to whatever (shotguns limited to 3 shots, handguns, rifles, bows, slingshots, etc.). But if you only get a 200+ yard shot on an elk and remember that these are big animals (cows can be 500+pounds), I would imagine that most hunters want as much help as they can get.

The second amendment wasn't written with hunting in mind, though, so this discussion of game and hunting laws is kind of beside the point.

[moriah]

58. The Second Amendment doesn't apply to ammunition and magazines on plain reading, either.

It applies to the weapons themselves. And not even to their purchase.

It keeps the government from prying the AR-15 you already own out of your hands without due process, and allows you to conceal your Kimber after you follow due process. Some argue it allows you to strap your rifle over your shoulder unless a city or stste offers a compelling reason you shouldn't be able to in that area.

But plain language says absolutely nothing about sales, ammo, or accessories like magazines.

Welcome to DU. Enjoy your stay!

[chumpchange]

62. So the founders...

Would have been right along the idea of having people in the late 1700s have the right to bear arms, but access to powder and projectiles would be forbidden? I am not sure I can see that one. More to the point, I doubt the Supreme Court would see it that way.

As for the rest, I think you are assuming a lot about me. You know what they say about "assume."

[moriah]

64. I apologize for the use of "you" if you felt it was personal vs informal use as a generic pronoun.

It really is a terrible use of grammar, and I should remember to use the more correct "one" or "a person" in heated debates.

I am the one that used to own a Kimber, and I have no idea if you own an AR-15.

But again, welcome to DU!

[chumpchange]

74. No worries!

[moriah]

98. Thanks. Now that you know I wasn't trying to make assumptions about you in particular...

... engaging further with your reference to history, the purpose of the Second Amendment, and the Supreme Court's opinion might be better done in what's sometimes referred to as the "Gungeon", tbe sub-forum normally used to discuss 2A issues outside of current events.

It's a huge topic and that's essentially why I gave the "plain language" argument in this context to your retort about the 2A not being about hunting. There wasn't a reference to ammo precisely because at thst time, the arms we used often had homemade slug ammunition, a la Laura Ingalls Wilder descriptions. Magazines hadn't been invented, let alone 100 round ones. We still had the potential threat of a ground military invasion because we hadn't claimed and secured all the territory we have. We didn't have a standing army, reserves, and state national guards.

With changes in both social order and the technology, going back to a founder's argument *or* plain language reading is problematic in many ways. Constructively I'm sure an attempted ban on all sales of ammunition or magazines of any capacity, yes, would amount to an infringement on the right to bear them. Requiring, as Canada does, for a person to have a license to purchase ammo, or restricting magazine capacity, or banning bump stocks? Nope. I'm sure it's Constitutional. It's also responsible.

We have to address the real-world issues we have facing us now. Which is that too many people have guns who shouldn't and we don't have a reliable way to determine who should and shouldn't. Yes, banning everyone who's had a TRO in the past due to domestic violence from possessing firearms would probably reduce numbers significantly. But even though that's as far as most domestic violence incidents in public record go despite the truth or falsity of the allegation, the temporary order is made with zero burden of proof, which wouldn't meet due process standards.

If we can't reliably determine who is going to snap, the next best thing is limiting the ability to do damage from snapping. Which is where magazine restrictions WOULD help.

[chumpchange]

99. I think it is pretty straight forward

The founders intended the people to have the means to fight off tyranny, full stop. They had up close and personal experience of having their own government become tyrannical and require a war to escape. They wanted future generations to have the same ability and, thus far, we do. All the rest is pretty much irrelevant.

[SHRED]

30. Focus on voting out Republicans

Follow the money.

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/toprecips.php?id=D000000082&cycle=2016

[pangaia]

54. Also, Canada is a considerably more sane country...

[pwb]

60. Yea. We need a big correction in the political climate. It's coming.

Meanwhile I suggest angry gun nuts use them on themselves and leave innocent people out of it.

[Brother Buzz]

61. Did you know the gunhumpers are making 30 round AR-15 magazines with 3D printers?

[chumpchange]

63. Not surprising

In many places where magazines are restricted, it is common practice to buy 10 or 15 round magazines (or whatever the local law is) built originally as 30 rounders and with a plug to restrict capacity, then take out the plug.

It is also apparently perfectly legal to buy a polymer "lower" (the receiver) via mail with absolutely no serial number, background check, etc. Add a bunch of over the counter parts and you have a functioning gun. The likelihood any of these will ever be used in a crime is pretty small considering the many, many hours of fiddling with tiny springs, jigs, etc. to put it all together (criminals generally want fast and easy).

[Brother Buzz]

66. I've never seen a plug in a removable magazine

Only in fixed magazines, like shotguns.

[chumpchange]

71. Plug is perhaps the wrong word

But it is pretty common to use "magazine repair kits" to take the guts out of a reduced capacity magazine and restore it to original capacity.

[Kaleva]

95. So you are saying that the banning or regulating of guns isn't worthwhile?

Because with 3-D printers, one can make an entire gun and not just a magazine.

[Brother Buzz]

97. Not at all

I was simply pointing out one of the weaknesses in banning large magazines. That being said, thankfully, 3D printing an entire weapon isn't near as easy as the knocking off a large capacity magazine.

[bluestarone]

65. I would support any DEM that supports WEAPON BAN! BUT i also would support any DEM that

get's rid of ALL LOOPHOLES (GUN SHOWS) limited magazines, limited cartridge purchase!! And anything else to stop this killing!! We do need to play the RIGHT MOMENT decision! (get what we want IF POSSIBLE) I leave it up to our leaders!

[VMA131Marine]

67. Instead of focusing on specific types of weapon, focus on weapon lethality

I would restrict ownership of any semi-auto weapon capable of penetrating a typical law enforcement ballistic vest at 10 yards or less to people 21 or older and I would make them go through the same background check required to get an FFL. If the problem is people and not guns, then we have to look at the kind of people we are allowing to arm themselves.

[chumpchange]

72. That is...

Pretty much every rifle. Every rifle cartridge I know of out of a full length barrel will go right through a typical ballistic vest. Probably not a tenable objective.

[VMA131Marine]

87. So then ever semi-auto rifle would require the purchaser to be 21

And pass the enhanced background check. Single shot hunting rifles wouldn't fall under the requirement, neither would shotguns. There is already a minimum age of 21 to purchase handguns, it's ridiculous that you only need to be 18 to buy an AR-15. That change alone would have prevented the Douglas HS shooter from legally buying the weapon he used.

[chumpchange]

89. A question

Don't take this as anything other than me trying to rectify some cognitive dissonance: if you raise the minimum age to purchase whatever to 21, will the military similarly raise its minimum recruiting age? After all, we know that recruiting standards have become, um, relaxed (criminal record, smoking weed, etc. all OK), so it isn't like an 18 YO who enlists and is handed a full auto service rifle is all that different from a civilian 18 YO.

I also keep seeing "single shot." There are a range of action types besides semi auto and single shot. What would you do about those?

[VMA131Marine]

93. I used a handgun in the Marines at age 18

Even though i could not legally buy one. Military personnel also have access to a lot of weapons in the service that they can never own in civilian life. I just don't see that it's an issue.
On your other point, I interpret semi-auto to mean any weapon that will fire until the magazine is empty just by pulling the trigger for each shot. If you have to do more than that, your rate of fire will be a lot slower.

[Kaleva]

82. The Vegas shooter would have qualified under your proposal.

The Sutherland Springs 1st Baptist Church shooter would have too because the Air Force didn't add his name to the national data base.

And I think the Sandy Hook shooter got his guns from his mother who would have qualified under your proposal.

[VMA131Marine]

91. I don't belive either would have passed the FFL background check and interview.

[Kaleva]

94. Possibly but the interview process and backgound check looks pretty basic

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/apply-license

[VMA131Marine]

96. I believe you also have to get local law enforcement to sign off on the application

Eventually, someone who has a criminal intent will look to avoid these interactions and get a less effective weapon instead.

There are other things that could be done which have precedent in other countries, like requiring semi-auto rifles to be stored at a licensed range; they aren't a good choice as home defense weapons, a shotgun would be much more effective and not likely to go through the wall of your neighbors house and cause collateral damage.

[sarcasmo]

68. $5,000 per bullet.

[chumpchange]

73. Instant fail at the supreme court

Also does nothing to affect the billions of rounds in civilian hands.

[customerserviceguy]

70. So

which one of the high school students was expected to jump Cruz while he was reloading another magazine? Maybe the coach would have tried, but Cruz would have shot him first before running out of ammo.

As far as "illegal" goes, the Boston Marathon brothers made a type of bomb that is totally illegal to manufacture. It didn't slow them down much on their way to mowing down innocent people.

[Iggo]

75. Too soon?

[samir.g]

100. Ban all semi-autos, all guns with removable magazines

It's not perfect but its a start.

[Boxerfan]

101. I call BS!!!

Something fishy about minimalism in this scenario....


Odious fishy bottom.

Ban all Semi Auto guns over .22 lr is the semi sane position.

[Dan]

102. Why not also allow

Lawsuits against the gun manufacturer and magazine manufacturer where weapons such as an AR-15 is used. Plus, enable lawsuits against the sellers of such weapons - and eliminate their limited immunity due to the type of business they have thus exposing them to personal risk/loss.