AR 15 and 10 type rifles

[Europe]

Yesterday I was listening to a group of hunters form three continents Africa, North America and Europe. They were discussing the recent shootings in America ( Ohio and Texas---also the one in Nev was mentioned )

Some wondered, aloud, why dont the hunters in America agree to ban these types of weapons for hunting, or to the general public. Some felt that giving these rifles up would appease the masses that want to take away firearms completely.

I felt and stated that this is a slippery slope. First you take away the Ar.s, then automatic rifles and shotguns, etc. Others wondered if it would appease the masses and take the focus of off gun ownership.

We attempted to solve other world problems as well, but this topic was the most contentious

And your thoughts gentlemen ?

 

[dirtclod Az.]

Whats the difference between an AR and my semi-auto .30-06?
Nothing,try taking my rifle! I'll show you the difference.

 

[SticksMcKinley]

The United States of America was founded upon the principles of a free republic. Our 2nd Amendment protects all the others. We cannot stop acts of violence. Sadly, they are going to happen. Just a few weeks ago, an evil coward in Japan trapped people in a building in order to burn them alive. No guns involved. Guns are not the problem. Stop blaming inanimate objects.

 

[mplane72]

Just google Jim Zumbo. That was 12 years ago.

 

[rmauch20]

There is no compromise is the problem. It is only gun owners giving up more and more, we never get anything in return.
They will always want to impose more restrictions. Look no further then New Zealand. They already had rather restrictive gun laws. They had one shooting and more restrictions pushed through.

Unfortunately I think I’m eventually lose this fight.

 

[Panda Bear]

suicide bombers
car driven into crowd ( china, U.S., Europe )
Boston Marathon Bombs
Jonestown ( 900 died by poison )

People kill people, not guns

Our handgun laws are very restrictive.

Dont give up any of your rights America

April, your right, it is a slippery slope and once on that slope they will take, and take and take.

 

[rwc101]

People on the fringes of both sides of the debate are the loudest. They are also incapable of having an honest conversation on the issue. I don't see the issue being resolved amicably any time soon.

 

[Cody Lightfoot]

The second amendment has literally nothing to do with hunting, those are separate arguments. The second amendment was written to protect the citizen's right to own "weapons of war" in order to protect ourselves from a government that goes too far...again. If we give that up, we've already lost.

 

[huntid73]

Like others have said here, it's the person behind the gun, not the weapon itself. In 1966, a former US Marine went to the top of the University of Texas clock tower with a 30-06 and killed 14 people (injured 31 more) over the course of 96 minutes. The platform of the rifle may have changed, but so did our approach in this country to mental health.

 

[cbang65]

I fear this debate is seldom simple... and I'd argue that it's only going to get more complicated as my generation becomes old enough to hold office. Personally, I think giving up the right to own any of the firearms that are currently legal in the U.S. is a mistake. We've largely struck a balance as far as who can own and operate automatics, the average (meaning without major ATF oversight) citizen can't buy rocket launchers, etc. We've got background checks, and laws barring domestic abusers from being able to purchase. We have waiting periods, and cities like Chicago and New York already have arguably unconstitutional possession laws that prohibit carrying within city limits. And people are still dying. Legislation won't stop illegal gun sales. They are, by definition, already illegal. The average American will follow the letter of the law and give up whatever is mandated, but I guarantee those who seek to do harm ,will do harm.

Aside from the constitutional argument, how would they legally ban them in the first place? I know of the ban back in the 90's but am unfamiliar with it's specifics. But use California state legislation as an example. No pistol grips, not high capacity magazines, no detachable magazines. The franken-guns they come up with as a result still look like and function like an AR15. Companies are making EZ loaders that feed into the action to reload the attached magazine, making reload time the same if not faster than a standard AR15. For legislators to write a law that bans "Assault weapons" and not the semiautomatic action in entirety is impossible. And that's opening a whole other can of worms. They will have a serious issue on their hands with many people if they attempt to outright ban the semiautomatic firearm.

In short, everybody agrees mass murder is horrendous and should be stopped, but further restriction of gun ownership among Americans will not solve the issue any more than it does in war zones like Chicago. Those who want to buy a gun, will find a way to buy a gun. Banning the scary looking guns is a feel better solution and later legal precedent for when legislators attempt to eliminate the semiautomatic entirely.

 

[madtom]

"Appease the masses"

When was the last time anything appeased our masses?

 

[Gut Shot]

Gun control isn't about guns, it's about control.

 

[Jorgy]

I am ready for some steps to be taken on stricter gun control. Won't stop all of the problems, but any steps at this point will help

I believe all firearm sales should involve a background check. Public or private
I'm for a capacity limit on firearms.

 

[rmauch20]

I am ready for some steps to be taken on stricter gun control. Won't stop all of the problems, but any steps at this point will help

I believe all firearm sales should involve a background check. Public or private
I'm for a capacity limit on firearms.

I’m pretty neutral on UBC, but please site which mass shooting would have been stopped by universal background check?
I would love to hear your opinion on how you think magazine capacity limits would affect mass shooting incidents.
I’m not trying to be snarky I just really haven’t heard a good reason for either of those that’s just not totally based on the emotional argument “we have to do something”.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I felt and stated that this is a slippery slope.

I'm not sure if it is, I think there is a certain "sex appeal" to ARs while I agree that mass shootings to some extent would occur, that many didn't use ARs, and that there have been mass killings in other countries with knife, trucks, swords, etc... but it is interesting that the vast majority of US mass shootings have occurred with a few specific rifles.

I think you might dramatically reduce the number of shootings simply by banning, AR-15s, AR-10s, and AK-47/74s and still leave gas fed semi autos with large capacity magazines legal.

There is undoubtedly an obsession with black guns and AKs, that's all I'm saying, it's weird.

On the flip side, I think there is evidence that mass killings might happened even if you made all guns illegal and gave police the right to forcible take them from owners. I mean tanks aren't legal, but a dude in Colorado built one and went on a rampage.... so....
https://allthatsinteresting.com/marvin-heemeyer-killdozer

Honestly though the number of people killed in mass shootings in this country is dwarfed by the number of people killed by hand guns, especially wives by husbands and kids accidentally getting into guns. The AR's get all the press, but they aren't the biggest issue.

I certainly don't have an answer on how to solve either.

 

[madtom]

I could see a case for outlawing high capacity magazines and maybe assault rifles altogether.

Mass shootings with high capacity magazines and assault rifles will continue to occur, but I think it may show that law-abiding gun owners are not the problem.

 

[SticksMcKinley]

Mass shootings with high capacity magazines and assault rifles will continue to occur, but I think it may show that law-abiding gun owners are not the problem.

This already happened with the Columbine murders during the Assault Weapons Ban.

 

[Dave N]

The big problem with outlawing the mags and/or rifles is just how would you round them up? Never going to get them all.

 

[rmauch20]

I could see a case for outlawing high capacity magazines and maybe assault rifles altogether.

Mass shootings with high capacity magazines and assault rifles will continue to occur, but I think it may show that law-abiding gun owners are not the problem.

What! Really, WTF does that even mean? I can’t wait to live in that country. I have to prove my innocence by not owning a firearm to prove that I am not a deranged killer. Sounds like a good time.
With that train of thought we should also ban alcohol and possibly vehicles to prove the law abiding citizens are drunk drivers

 

[Guest member 25165]

If a ban or law were to occur that would include ar-15 weapons, what would the logistics look like? Everyone just turns in their guns? Marshall Law with the emphasis on black gun round up? There are so many guns floating around the United States. Or high capacity magazines? How many 30 round P-mags are floating around? I don't see how this is logistically possible.