Why are semi-automatic weapons allowed?

[SHRED]

Especially high capacity.

If we're trying to create a civil society what role do these firearms play other than the destruction of human life?

[BBG]

1. Typo?

If we are trying....

[SHRED]

2. Got it thanks

[NCTraveler]

3. They make inadequate men feel more powerful. nt.

[Eliot Rosewater]

51. And some guys own them just for the fun of it, I have a friend who

is a good guy, totally gets the whole problem and wants more gun control and background checks but also does NOT want to give up his AR-15.

My appeal to him is his hobby is less important than my life or his child's.

[el_bryanto]

4. They are allowed for a couple of reasons

1. The NRA is opposed to any form of weapon control and they have deep pockets. The NRA has tight bonds the Republican Party and have shown a willingness to punish any politician who suggests any form of weapon control.
2. Citizens who are gun owners fear that any attempt to limit semi-automatic weapons will lead inexorably towards them taking away all firearms largely because organizations with deep pockets have told them so (see point 1 above).

Bryant

[ProfessorGAC]

6. Kind Of Wash, Rinse, Repeat Scenario, Right?

I think you nailed it.

As to #2, everyone knows a gun is useless unless there's 30 rounds in the clip! Right? Right? Right?

[SHRED]

7. I would think

That hunters would favor banning them in order to protect their ownership from draconian actions.

[underpants]

5. Mmmm for hunting witches?

[hack89]

8. Because it is 100 year old technology

that over time became the predominant technology.

The reason it is "allowed" is because when America drew the line in 1934 as to what weapons were to be legal, semiautomatic weapons fell on the legal side of the line.

[SHRED]

10. 1934

Lynchings were common.
Why keep backward laws?

[hack89]

11. Then change them

the answer to all your problems is to change the laws. Not complicated, is it?

[SHRED]

14. Really?

You seem pissed?

[hack89]

16. No. Just tired of the formless ranting

not a lot of practical solutions being proposed here. And by practical I mean solutions that will succeed within today's political, legal and cultural reality. Way too many "if I ran the circus" posts. Not a lot of practical posts focused on the political process needed to achieve gun control. Looks like many here are satisfied to be part of the "hallelujah chorus" while others do the grunt work of actually solving the problem.

[SHRED]

17. Like all the "formless ranting" at the Women's marches?

[hack89]

18. No. There were smart people behind the marches

that devised and implemented a sophisticated political action plan to pressure law makers.

Not seeing that here regarding gun control. Too many OPs like yours - venting for the sake of venting.

[SHRED]

45. Marchers were "venting"

And since they didn't organize the marches I guess they were "venting for the sake of venting" according to your logic?

[hack89]

47. So I take you are counting on others to do the actual work

while you do the necessary venting to ensure the effort is cloaked with the appropriate moral outrage? Ok.

[HopeAgain]

61. So tell us then...

Are you for or against banning some assault weapons? Not asking how complicated it is, asking what your position is.

[hack89]

66. I have always opposed AWBs

that and registration are the only two gun control measure I really oppose.

Thing is - any proposed AWB would not effect me or most gun owners. None of them require me to give up my rifles - which is why I view them mostly as political theater.

[HopeAgain]

69. So no ban, no registration...

what's left?

[hack89]

71. UBCs, licensing of gun owners, mag size limits, ability to temporary disarm people

who are a danger to themselves or other, domestic violence offenses mean losing your guns, national anti-suicide campaign (60% of gun deaths are suicides.), mandatory storage laws.

Many things we can do.

[HopeAgain]

73. Stop the damn gun show exceptions?

[hack89]

74. That is what Universal Background Checks (UBCs) do.

my state has them and they work.

[HopeAgain]

76. I don't agree...

I don't believe anyone should have an assault weapon. But what you suggest is a reasonable start, and could live with that as some progress only, but we have to go in strong on bans because the NRA controls the other side of the argument and says no to everything. The majority of Americans are not gun owners and nobody who belongs to the NRA has ever stood up to the NRA.

I have handled a lot of mediations and I know that if the other side wants a million for a $500,000 claim, I'm not going to start at $400,00. So let's not start with we can't, let's start with "we are gonna" unless you get reasonable. The NRA has been successful with give no ground , lose no ground. These kids from MSD are on to something, and the polls are showing it.

[hack89]

77. Did you read Paul Ryan's comments today?

there will be nothing meaningful coming out of Congress controlled by republicans during an election year.

[HopeAgain]

81. So we go for the juggler

We march these kids in front of them and show how cruel and heartless the Republicans are. We don't tell these kids that what they want is impractical, instead we encourage them to keep going even if what they want is a ban.

This is our issue if we keep up with the momentum they are generating.

[hack89]

82. ok. nt

[maxrandb]

83. That's precisely why we need to kick the shit out of Retrumplicans at the polls

then we can start working on taking away these penis-extenders.

I'm not looking for "anything meaningful" coming out of a Congress controlled by ReTrumplicans...I'm looking to make sure we end their control

The AR-15 and similar weapons, are weapons of war and have no business on our streets.

If you are such a lousy fucking shot that you can't protect yourself with a 6-shot Revolver, or 9-round handgun, you've got no business owning any weapon, period

Want to go jack-off with an AR, or a machine gun? Fine, but only at a gun range, where the weapon and ammunition would be permanently stored. At least if the jack-offs are restricted to keeping their guns at a gun range, we'd only have to worry about them blowing the shit out of each other.

Funny how we "can't do anything", and yet, we did have an Assault Weapons Ban for a decade and THESE KINDS OF SHOOTINGS DID NOT HAPPEN, or were so rare, it was news. Now, we're averaging 1 per week that involves some deaths, and 1 a month that involves MASS DEATH.

And before you try to "gunsplain" how the AR is "not really" an "assault" rifle, and Blah, Blah, Blah...know that I served 30 years in the military, know a little about weapons and can state unequivocally that "any weapon that is able to spray more than 30 rounds in less than 30 seconds at speeds in excess of 1,000 feet per second" needs to be banned. And that includes "high-velocity" handguns and ammunition as well.

If that shooter was carrying a 6-shot Revolver, he would have had to reload 5 times to injure that many people, and probably 10-12 of the 17 would have survived their wounds.

I'm not interested in what the "NRA is willing to accept", or what the "Retrumplicans are willing to pass".

Sorry, but they've lost the privilege to be in this debate.

[hack89]

86. That's nice. nt

[Eliot Rosewater]

52. We could end this debate tomorrow if we read the 2nd amendment and

abide by what it says.

Now some states would still allow murderous, unnecessary, made for war guns, but many states would not.

What you need is a case to replace the horrendous Heller decision then a FEDERAL law outlawing any weapon that shoots more than one bullet at a time or any weapon that HOLDS more than one bullet in it.

[hack89]

63. Heller allows AWBs

you are going to have to work within the limits of Heller - it is not going to change anytime soon. AWBs, registration, magazine limits, required safety training - all perfectly constitutional under Heller.

As an aside, if you can't pass any of those laws now, why do you think you will get rid of all multi-shot weapons. Need to show you can pass any law right now - gun control has a credibility problem right now that will only be fixed by actually do something.

[zipplewrath]

20. Actually solving the problem

Quite honestly, many of the efforts over the last 40 years have done nothing to "solve the problem" and really have only allowed effective solutions to be delayed. The AWB was a pin prick that cost alot politically achieved very little. The ultimate effect has been to ward off democrats for a couple of decades from ever trying anything similar again.

The NRA has actually adopted a similar strategy with the "it's a mental health issue" approach. Divert the discussion to meaningless actions that won't really accomplish much. Then, when they don't accomplish much, use that as "evidence" that "gun control doesn't work".

Truth is, until we are prepared to do something significant on a national level to reduce the capacity of these weapons down to a level where they are incapable of killing at these rates, the killing will go on.

I'm more for a magazine limit than an semi-auto ban. But it will take something of that extent in order to have any real effect in this country. But yes, I also think we are probably somewhere between 10 and 30 years away from such a thing.

[hack89]

21. Usually effective solutions are found in the middle

right now the gun control fight is dominated by the extremist on either side and there is no middle ground. A lot of people are simply sitting out the fight.

[zipplewrath]

23. This isn't usual

This is in effect the reverses of prohibition. The NRA uses the same political model as the political forces that passed prohibition. The NRA took away any concept of a "middle". Furthermore, the magnitude of the change that has to occur is so large that small incremental changes aren't going to accomplish anything except delay the inevitable.

I've been watching these baby steps for 60 years, we're no further along than we were 60 years ago. We're just having different arguments. As much as criminal violence in general has decreased over the last 30 years, we've seen no corresponding decline in these mass gun shootings.

[hack89]

24. There will be no magic wand that miracously produce massive changes.

lots of people think mass shootings are a problem to be solved. Not everyone thinks that gun control is the only solution to the problem. But that is where we are at DU so we simply talk past each other.

[zipplewrath]

25. Well, yes there is

Just ask the Australians, or really any other western democracy. The "solution" to the size and frequency of mass shootings to which this country is uniquely exposed is fairly plain. It is just currently politically unachievable. Without significant gun restrictions of some sort, there is no "other" solution that will have any meaningful effect UNTIL the weapons are significantly restricted.

[hack89]

27. A magic wand rooted in American political, legal and cultural history would be good.

you reinforce my original point - too much "if I ran the circus" kind of thinking.

[zipplewrath]

36. More of a case of "when we finally come to ours senses"

I really don't think it is a "when I am king" approach, as it is having to repeat the obvious until it is understood.

Agreeing that 2+2 = 5 because that is more palatable to the "center" is just setting yourself up to have to argue in the future about whether 2+2 = 3 because the center is hell bent not to understand that 2+2 = 4.

The NRA is right. The vast majority of gun control laws don't achieve the end goal. They are a delaying tactic until we admit the inevitable. They are a political "victory" until we wise up and admit that in fact, yes, guns are designed to kill people.

[hack89]

40. That's fine I guess.

I will never see it but perhaps my grandchildren might. Time will tell.

[zipplewrath]

43. 10 - 30 years

Depending upon their age, they may be those who bring it to us.

[MicaelS]

48. Given the fact the we in the US..

Have had two bites at the apple of Prohibition (alcohol and drugs), I am doubtful a third will work.

[zipplewrath]

55. Fortunately the reverse

I those two cases, we're the instigators of the policies. We are surrounded by countries that didn't care. In the case of weapons, the vast majority of the world has policies that severely restrict weapons ownership and the world wide market for them is narrow and not oriented towards a truly "civilian" market.

In prohibition, Canada was still producing, as was all of Europe. Most of the Scottish brands of which you are familiar, developed their brand identities during prohibition. Ships came over and parked in international waters to off load their cargoes onto smaller vessels for distribution. Also, not every state had laws against alcohol and they refused to participate in the enforcement (sanctuary states?).

The states will be vastly more cooperative this time around. Canada only wishes we would restrict our weapons. And Mexico is tired of the free flow of weapons into Mexico from the US.

A better metaphor would be slavery. The rest of the western world was more than happy when the US finally abandoned their position on slavery.

[Lurker Deluxe]

32. Not really backwards

The reason we struggle so much with this is people who know squat about guns try to make stupid laws.

To get rid of "all" semi autos is foolish. Any hunter is going to balk at this ... even if they are not bird hunters. Any sport shooter is going to balk at this ... even if they do not shoot trap and skeet.

The target is caliber and barrel length.

You want to start your quick trigger finger with a 30-06 ... go ahead. You will not shoot for long, and damn sure not 30 rounds.

The 16" barrel length that makes these weapons so easy to hide and easy to aim in close quarters is a problem. Go after that, most hunters and sport shooter are not going to have an issue with this. The light load with high velocity that makes these guns easy to shoot quickly with little recoil is an issue, go after that. The ease to change mags so quickly is an issue ...

Shouting "ban all semi autos" is going to lose elections and never going to happen any way.

Pick you battles, fight for things that will make a difference and actually stand a chance of happening.

[zipplewrath]

38. Magazine size

Clip/magazine/whatever you want to call it. Make 'em reload often. After that, make it harder to reload. That's my incremental approach.

[Hoyt]

53. Exactly. Although, one DUer proposed way to impede gun use immediately -- make them all pink and

require manufacturers to make each shot sound kind of wimpy/wussy -- like pew, pew, pew.

[zipplewrath]

58. Ha!

[Initech]

9. Because of a reckless "gun rights" organization.

That makes money off death and destruction and won't accept anything that even remotely resembles a ban on these horrible machines.

[Pachamama]

15. This....

....is the reason.....

And the money making companies that manufacture them.....

[samir.g]

12. tiny-dicked dirtbags clain it's their "right" to threaten everyone else

[LiberalArkie]

13. Not everyone likes to fire a shot. Then chamber another shell take aim again and fire again.

The double barrel shotgun was a fantastic advancement in hunting. The revolver was also.

[jberryhill]

26. Question

I've fired semi-automatic rifles and pistols for target shooting. The target generally stays put.

I have not been hunting.

How many shots does one normally get at, e.g., a deer, assuming the first shot was a miss.

[LiberalArkie]

31. I do not own a weapon now. I just remember having a 22 rifle and having to reload a shell

and then fire, bring the gun down and chamber another round and fire, versus a Glock 9mm I had a one time. I was able to pull the trigger, then pull the trigger etc.

Just a lot of difference in the weapons. I would still like to get another .22 or a .177 pellet rifle..

My friends say I need something bigger as I live alone out in the country and 70 years old. My thought is a burgler can just put me out of misery as I sure would not be able to shoot another living being.

[Shrek]

60. Deer aren't really the issue

Think more about a covey of quail. Often a dozen or more small birds, who fly quickly and in unpredictable directions. They move out of range very rapidly so multiple opportunities to shoot is quite valuable.

It's not such an issue with waterfowl because by law you're limited to three shots no matter what.

[jberryhill]

64. There are people shooting birds with rifles?

Maybe this discussion branched in odd ways.

My first question was along the lines of "how many shots does someone take at a deer". My understanding is that deer generally don't stick around for too many.

My other question was along the lines of "how were we able to effectively ban certain types of large capacity semi-auto shotguns without causing a similar flurry of indignation from the gun fanciers".

[Shrek]

70. No, I didn't mean to come across that way

The OP asked about semi-auto firearms which I thought included shotguns.

A semi-auto deer rifle might be convenient but hardly necessary. For some types of bird hunting semi-auto is almost required to be effective.

[Whiskeytide]

68. No one who actually hunts deer...

... does so with a high capacity mag. If they say they do, they're lying, and have effectively established their incompetence - at both hunting and debate.

[maxsolomon]

19. Semi-Auto is basically the default firearm now.

I've learned a lot on DU.

The issue is not the technology, it's the capacity, and more importantly, the barely regulated access.

[sarisataka]

22. They've been around

Over 130 years so we can't ask the people who were alive when they hit the market.

Semi auto pistols became popular in the seventies. Although there were many semi auto pistols around, revolvers were still more popular.
As police changed over to semi auto, the civilian market grew as well. The perception is that police use the best type of pistol and caliber for self defense so the civilian trend is to mirror police choices.

Bolt action riflesare, and always have been, favored by hunters over semi autos. The argument is that bolt action is more accurate (a generallly true statement).As more accurate semi auto rifles have been made, that gap narrows but has not yet closed.

Military style semi auto rifles were a niche market until the 90s. Except for a few WW2 types valued for deer hunting, hunters disdained military styles as insufficient for hunting. The main purchasers were competitive shooter's who participated in events that required rapid shooting and reloading.
Then the 1994 ban came around and many people took a second look at these rifles. More shooting competitions appeared that catered to these rifles. Hunters realized that these rifles could be used on small to medium game and, with kits that change the round it shoots, even on larger game.
At the same time there was growth among paramilitary groups and individuals who espoused philosophies opposing or supporting the government. They were naturally attracted to the military style of the weapons. Outside of these groups, but overlapping with them, there developed a self defense philosophy that a long arm is the last, best weapon to protect one's self and family. Rifles are generally promoted over shotguns because of their range advantage in a total societal breakdown scenario. The timing of the LA riots and Katrina cemented images of such a breakdown in these folks heads.
Lastly their popularity grew with the forbidden fruit aspect of the ban. Once an item is given that aura some people's desire for the item moves from couldn't-care-less to must-have.

[jberryhill]

28. "Military style semi auto rifles were a niche market until the 90s"

Thank you.

The Girandoni Air Rifle Brigade of the NRA attempts to muddy the historical waters on this point.

It is precisely the mentality that drove the explosive growth of that market segment which are the "problem" gun owners.

[Locrian]

29. great post

I've seen this happen thru my lifetime. It's reflected in the general media as well over years.

I remember "cop" shows that guns were relatively (compared to now) scarce and mainly revolvers. That changed dramatically in the 80s/ 90s etc (think Miami Vice etc) with guns very much the center of "cool".

As I've said before - I don't think media is "cause and effect for violence" - but it sure as hell is a 24/7 advertising feedback loop for guns.

[sarisataka]

41. I think the attitude

On pistols was best captured in Lethal Weapon when MenlGibson and Danny Glover characters are comparing guns. Gibson looks at the revolver and tells him -wheelgun, lots of old timers carry them.

Revolvers have gone essentially unchanged for over a century. Semi auto, though septegenarians at that time, had moved to the forefront as the modern pistol.

[Locrian]

87. you could go on and on

Dirty Harry
James Bond
Miami Vice
24
Lethal Weapon
Terminator


There's whole websites devoted to it
http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/Category:Gun

[Still In Wisconsin]

30. My dad, who used an M1 Garand in Korea, never hunted. But he often said it would be a perfect

firearm for hunting deer. I'm not planning on going out and getting one, but what do you think about the M1 as a hunting weapon? I know there are collectors out there who have them.
I'm just purely curious what you think, because you seem to know more about firearms than I do. I know it's a .30-06 with 8 round magazine.

[sarisataka]

33. The M1 is indeed

One of those exceptions. Although semi auto, millions of ww2 vets were familiar with it and even today it has a reputation for accuracy. IIRC you could buy a block to put in the magazine if local law had a limit of less than 8 rounds.
For many years the 30-06 was considered the most versatile hunting round.
Growing up I recall a couple of uncles who were ww2 vets thatvused M1s every year.

[jberryhill]

37. Another thing I don't get

Is how we managed to limit capacity on shotguns.

I'd like to have someone explain to me why there is a required magazine block in certain shotguns, and why the "streetsweeper" was effectively dealt with.

That one seemed to get onto the NFA without a whole lot of hue and cry from gun nuts.

[sarisataka]

39. IMO it is because

A shotgun is looked at as a multipurpose item. Longer barrels are better for hunting so no one wants to saw down their shotgun unless they plan to use it for nefarious purpose.
Limiting shotgun capacity is so easy to do and undo. Going hunting? Drop a stick in the tube and you have a three shot limit. Come home, take the stick out, put the gun in the closet with a handful of shells on the top shelf and it is a home defense gun...

[MicaelS]

46. Limiting magazine capacity on long barreled

Shotguns was done specifically to prevent mass killing of waterfowl and other game birds, and thus preventing them from being killed off completely.

[jberryhill]

49. Ah, well, thank goodness the waterfowl get protection

We should send our students to school in Canadian Goose outfits.

[Eliot Rosewater]

57. Yeah, no shit. Now I am all for protecting those birds or fowl, but too bad our children

arent as important.

[Ferrets are Cool]

34. They are built for two reasons....to make money and to take human life. PERIOD

[Lee-Lee]

56. This was made to take a human life?

If so they didn’t do very well designing it.

My dad shoots a lot of squirrels with one just like that every year however. Works well for that.

[Eliot Rosewater]

59. Guns are made to take human lives?

[moondust]

35. "civil society"

[Kingofalldems]

42. Gungeoneers organized and on the march.

[dlk]

44. It's Nothing More Than Selfish People Demanding to Have Their Way, No Matter the Consequences

[Lee-Lee]

50. Because 99.9999% of owners are perfectly law abiding

And we don’t ban things because a tiny minority misuses things.

Just the same for alcohol, fast cars, etc.

[Hoyt]

54. No they aren't. No law forces them buy these guns, and 90% say they would not turn them in

if made illegal. That ain't law abiding.

[Lee-Lee]

62. I dont think you understand what law abiding means

A person who has not broken any laws is law abiding.

Saying they would not follow a new law doesn’t make them criminals. I am sure there are laws you wouldn’t follow blindly if they were passed too.

Now a god example what what someone who is actually not law abiding, and should not be allowed to own firearms, would be the kind of scumbag who goes around robbing people. That kind of scumbag isn’t law abiding and belongs in jail and has demonstrated that they are not a responsible member of society.

[Hoyt]

75. I understand what a good citizen is, and gunners don't seem to. I agree, if either one of us were a

robber, we'd be bad people. Of course, some folks have trouble reading in context.

[zipplewrath]

65. Dunno about the "perfectly"

The amount of illegal hunting that goes on, not to mention the shot up road signs that I see suggest they are far from "perfectly law abiding". Then there are all of the people that keep showing up at the airport with their handguns. I'd hazard a guess that gun owners are about as "law abiding" as most drivers that I see. They obey the laws they want to, or only when they think they might get caught.

[Hoyt]

78. Exactly. Not to mention the ones who drink, or are on drugs (prescription or otherwise) while

playing with their lethal weapons.

[Skittles]

67. because gun humping cowards need their toys

[Orsino]

72. They are grandfathered in from the pre-Viagra era. n/t

[Whiskeytide]

79. I asked a high capacity mag owner that very question...

... two weekends ago.

He said they're fun - and admitted that was not really a persuasive argument.

And, he said that they are quite effective when you are trying to eradicate herds of feral pigs. You can take down a half dozen or so before they scatter.

The pigs are a problem. I get that. I've seen the damage they do to the ecosystem. I hate feral pigs like Yosemite Sam hates rabbits. In fact, I've hunted and killed pigs in the past (years ago) - but with a rifle containing three or maybe five rounds in the clip. Never took more than one shot even if it was a herd. So I considered for a moment the idea of mowing them down with a semiautomatic rifle. They're surprisingly fast, and they bolt quickly at the sound of the first shot. So basically the idea is to pour lead into the clearing as fast as possible and "spray" (not aim) your fire to hit as many targets as possible.

I said I hope no one is hanging out on the other side of the clearing when you open up. He said he's careful. I said, well if they're hunting the pigs too, they're hiding, right? He said yeah. I said what if they have an AR-15 too? What if they plan to send in 30 rounds to score 6 pig hits? That's 24 unaccounted for rounds coming in your direction, right? Do you wear Kevlar when you hunt pigs?

Hunting with a high capacity mag is just stupid.

The only honest reasons for them is what Jim Jefferies said ("I fuckin' like guns" ), or perhaps to defend your home and family against zombies, aliens or the US government. Not sure at all that I like such weapon enhancements in the hands of people who think like that.

[DBoon]

80. Protected as a religious icon

The Church of Firearm Worship is protected under freedom of religion

As a holy icon, semi-automatic weapons provide worshipers with magic powers to defeat tyrannical government, eliminate evil doers with a single shot, protect families and property, and fend off post-apocalyptic rampaging hordes.

Part of their sacred doctrine.

Makes Scientology seem sane.

[malaise]

84. Profit n/t

[Kablooie]

85. Because guys think they are fun to shoot.

That's it.

To them having fun shooting loud, dangerous weapons is is more important than preventing children from being slaughtered.

And Republicans agree.

Because it's not THEIR kids.

[Calculating]

88. Because they are mainstream popular guns

Almost all guns outside of hunting rifles, shotguns and revolvers are semiautomatic. If you want a gun for defense it's the logical choice.