So how about banning all semi-automatic weapons?
- Thread starter canndo
- Start date
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
Not really, if you've a magazine readied and a quick bolt arm you can be disturbingly dangerous even with a bolt action hunting rifle.
Sure didn't JFK (supposidly) get shot like 4 times in 5 seconds (with 2 head shots) from some ridiculous range with only like a .303 hunting rifle?
Sure didn't JFK (supposidly) get shot like 4 times in 5 seconds (with 2 head shots) from some ridiculous range with only like a .303 hunting rifle?
canndo
Well-Known Member
this would not be a solution to the problem but a way to reduce the damage done - JFK's shooter was in an isolated room far from the action, he would not be able to keep up that rate of fire for very long, no where near as long as the near instantaneous rates of fire from a semi-automatic with ten or more rounds in the clip.
Canna Sylvan
Well-Known Member
How about, not.
desert dude
Well-Known Member
They were all also insane. How about banning insane people?
They were mostly also Caucasian. How about restricting gun sales to African Americans only?
They were all also male. How about banning sales of firearms to males?
Or, how about we fall back to the hoplophobes' favorite: The second amendment was written in the 1790s, so obviously it only allows citizens to "keep and bare" black powder muzzle loaders.
You can hunt with any firearm, so ban all of them or just the scary ones?
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Oswald had magic bullets from what I understand.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
No. cn ....
canndo
Well-Known Member
Why? because you want to keep yours? Do these shootings have any impact upon you? or is it just "oh well"? (note in my other posts I support an oh well attitude so I am not trying to show you up as an uncaring individual, even if you don't care).
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Problem 1 is legal. The 2nd Amendment is in need of restoration, not further erosion by the "reasonable".
The other is that a ban on all semi-autos would remove the superior self-defense choice. Autoloading handguns are THE choice by military, police and concealed-carry civilians. it looks like you want to punish a class of objects for their utility. cn
canndo
Well-Known Member
We cannot ban the sale of weapons to certain classes even if that were adviseable.
This is not about "scary weapons" or I would have said banning what are known as assault weapons. Nothing scary about a semi-automatic hand gun that isn't also scary in other respects.
But my suggestion has not engendered any real argument, has it? I am saying that there are natural limits to the ability of one man to fire more than a set few rounds before taking the time to reload. That might limit deaths and allow anyone, from police to armed teachers a decent chance to stop the shooter.
Now, other than your emotionaly based arguments, what would the real reasons be for not banning semi-automatic handguns?
canndo
Well-Known Member
Military and LEO would be exempt from the ban. So far as one's ability to defend one's self, i wonder exactly how many times an individual feels he may need to defend himself from mass attacks of zombies? Isn't 6 rounds and a speed loader plenty?
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
There is no need to ban what is known (to the knowledgeable) as assault weapons. Select-fire weapons are a tiny, closed collector class. None have been used in crime since the y were initially restricted.
My response is chopped liver? They're the tool for the job for all who carry a concealed gun. Superior to snubby revolvers.
And how is reminding someone of the 2nd an emotional argument? I just Liked one of your posts in which you defended Constitutional law and the amendment process. You seem to be contradicting that stance here. cn
Now, other than your emotionaly based arguments, what would the real reasons be for not banning semi-automatic handguns?
Speedloaders for all of my shooting Revolvers, can empty and reload in less than 2 seconds. a hot .357 magnum round does more damage than just about any semi auto commonly carried ever will. What do you do with a guy who shows up with 8 revolvers, each with a reload? Not that I have 8 revolvers, I don't. I have many more than that.
canndo
Well-Known Member
What about the recent knife attacks? how many people died? would you feel at least a little more comfortable in a situation where the attacker was a lone individual with a knife and he was surrounded by others looking to not get slashed?
"plenty of damage" is not an absolute.
So you suggest that I need to be shot? really, that is the attitude from one who is likely judged sane. in fact anyone who might wish to take your guns away, even if they are simply the semi-automatic kinds should be.... shot eh?
And all of those children deserved to be shot as well?
canndo
Well-Known Member
You don't do anything, but your argument doesn't hold up. Just because someone CAN shoot rapidly with a revolver and that revolver CAN do more damage (to the individual), does not negate the argument. Why make it any easier to for a nut to take out a dozen people then necessary?
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
I would violently oppose exempting LEO. My basic position is, if the Gov't doesn't want a thing in civilian hands, don't allow it for the police. NO double standard for the civilians in uniform. That is a bad bad idea, one we as a society should hound into the ground. Weapons exemptions for police are the great prima facie indicator that our society is in clear, present need of greater latitude for carry and possession of arms. Jmo. cn
How do you collect the 50 million or so unregistered semi auto firearms that are out there right now?
You gonna take the semi-auto shotguns too?
A model 1912 Winchester has no hammer disconnect, you hold the trigger down and rack that pump as fast as the slickest action ever conceived will allow and you can pump out 8 shots of 12 Ga 00 buckshot in less than 2 seconds.
No matter what you ban there will always be a workaround, perhaps banning human ingenuity is your next bandwagon to jump on?
desert dude
Well-Known Member
Why not? What prevents us from banning weapons for select groups? If there is a strong correlation between the group and mass shootings, why not prevent those obviously demented groups from owning weapons?
canndo
Well-Known Member
The only reason for not banning semi-automatics is that they are considered within the class of firearms that are legal to posess in the united states under the 2nd amendment. I believe that were they to be banned and those that are banned magicaly dissapear from gun closets and safes all over the country we would see a few fewer lives being taken in these sorts of shootings. but what i said is an accurate depiction of our country, those children died for our right to keep and bear, children will always die for our freedom as that is the way things are. fetuses die for our freedoms, Afghanistani children die for our freedoms and school children die for our freedoms, the sort of weapon used does not change that fact.
Banning semi-automatic weapons was just a thought and I wondered if there was an argument. That it is the "weapon of choice" for those who carry is sort of an odd argument seeing that it is also the weapon of choice for the average mass shooter of children.