# HIT & RUN BLOG

## The New York Times continues to push the myth that there is something uniquely deadly about the guns Dianne Feinstein wants to ban.

Joanna Andreasson / ReasonIn an editorial published the day after the shooting that killed 11 people at a Pittsburgh synagogue on Saturday, The New York Times erroneously claimed that so-called assault weapons like the Colt AR-15 rifle used in that attack are distinguished by their "high capacity." In a news story posted yesterday, Times reporter Richard A. Oppel Jr. suggests that AR-15-style rifles are especially "powerful," which also is not true.

Unlike, say, Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, Oppel acknowledges that an AR-15, like any other semi-automatic, "fires one bullet at a time." Still, he says, "it is a powerful weapon: light, easy to hold and to fire, with limited recoil, its bullets shooting out of the muzzle more than twice as fast as most handgun rounds." The only part of that description that is related to "power" is the part about muzzle velocity, and here Oppel pulls the time-honored trick of comparing the rifles Dianne Feinstein hates with handguns instead of other rifles. Bullets fired from rifles generally move faster than bullets fired from pistols, mainly because a longer barrel gives them more room to accelerate. But that tells us nothing about the difference between the rifles Feinstein wants to ban—which are distinguished by features such as folding stocks, pistol grips, and barrel shrouds—and the ones she is willing to leave on the market.

If the comparison is limited to long guns, the .223-caliber round typically fired by AR-15-style rifles does have a relatively high muzzle velocity. But other cartridges, fired by guns that are not considered "assault weapons," equal or surpass it. Furthermore, muzzle velocity is not the only factor in a bullet's lethality; size also matters, and so-called assault weapons fire smaller rounds than many hunting rifles.

Oppel adds that "the standard AR-15 magazine holds 30 bullets and can be swapped out quickly, allowing a shooter to fire more than a hundred rounds in minutes." The ability to accept "high-capacity" magazines does not distinguish "assault weapons" from other guns, and Oppel's point about how quickly magazines can be switched undermines the argument that a 10-round limit would make mass shootings less deadly. In any case, any semi-automatic gun can fire "more than a hundred rounds in minutes," which would require, at most, pulling the trigger about once per second.

The Times has been helping to perpetuate the myth that there is something uniquely deadly about "assault weapons" for decades. But it also has intermittently published articles pointing out that the distinctions drawn by politicians like Feinstein make little sense, or at least acknowledging that perspective. Critical readers, even if they had no other source of information about "assault weapons," should be able to figure out that there is something fishy about the case for banning these guns. It's too bad there are not more of those on the paper's editorial board or reporting staff.

Jacob Sullum is a senior editor at Reason magazine and a nationally syndicated columnist.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

• BYODB||

Look, people aren't evil tools are evil. That's really all you need to know about their world view.

Although even they, in their infinite tolerance, will make it clear that Republicans are evil and that after they're cleansed from society finally we can have our New Soviet Man.

• KevinP||

Mass shootings and killings are unfortunately far from unique to America. The link below has an interactive map where you can browse mass public shootings by country:

CPRC: How a Botched Study Fooled the World About the U.S. Share of Mass Public Shootings: U.S. Rate is Lower than Global Average

Quote:
By our count, the US makes up less than 1.43% of the mass public shooters, 2.11% of their murders, and 2.88% of their attacks. All these are much less than the US's 4.6% share of the world population. Attacks in the US are not only less frequent than other countries, they are also much less deadly on average.
• a tandem||

Not to mention the biggest fatality school shooting in the US was with pistol

• Fist of Etiquette||

When making public policy backed by state violence, who had time to get bogged down with a lot of sciency facts?

• Agammamon||

Like how they eat or breathe?

• Paulpemb||

They should really just relax.

• Steve-O||

Tom Servo for president!

• KevinP||

The AR-15 is on the lower end of power and destructiveness. A traditional 12-gauge shotgun such as the one owned by Joe Biden will cause far more carnage.

Projectiles, Kinetic/Muzzle Energy and Stopping Power

Quote:
Many people think of the AR-15 as a powerful rifle. But the AR-15 is actually less powerful than most hunting rifles used for animals like deer.

Here's a chart with some common projectiles and bullets:

12-gauge shotgun: 4,453 joules
30-06 hunting rifle: 4,050 joules
.223 (AR-15) rifle: 1,854 joules - less than half of the energy of an average shotgun!

• Echospinner||

That is very useful information.

Tried to find a list like that

I did find a few other interesting things

Being hit by a pro fastball (100 mph) - 140 joules

.22 LR rifle - 168 joules.

Either one of those could kill depending on where it hit but I thought it was interesting to compare.

• gaoxiaen||

30-06 is my favorite anyways. Just love that kick.

• gaoxiaen||

And that sound. Not a pea-shooter.

• Harvard||

Too much gun for most N. American game, but if it makes you hard.....

• handsoffmypineapples||

"Too much gun for most N. American game"

You don't need much more than a .270 whitetails, but shoot a moose with anything less than the 30-06 and you'll just piss it off.

• Ron||

my favorite caliber i have two or three don't remember but am debating between getting a BAR or a high end bolt action

• perlchpr||

.223 is so "powerful" that it's banned for use in hunting in some states because it's too small.

• ArmyATC||

"Bullets fired from rifles generally move faster than bullets fired from pistols, mainly because a longer barrel gives them more room to accelerate. "

No it's more about the weight of the projectile vs. the propellant. A 9MM pistol round has 4-5 grains of powder for a 115-125 grain projectile.

A 5.56mm M855 round is 62 grain projectile pushed by 25 grains of powder. Half the weight, 5 times the powder.

• Ron||

its both the longer length of the barrel increases the time the bullet is under pressure hence the higher exit speed. In other words the bullet is pushed longer

• BBerry12||

The longer barrel also makes it worthwhile to use different formulations of gunpowder with a slower burning rate. Rifles also make use of their size to use much larger cartridges than would be practical in a handgun.

The inherent power advantage of rifles also feeds the anti's arguments about "cop-killer bullets", although almost any rifle bullet can penetrate the typical police vest.

• perlchpr||

The .223 is so "powerful" that it's not allowed for use in hunting in several states because it's too small.

• Henry||

"A traditional 12-gauge shotgun such as the one owned by Joe Biden will cause far more carnage."

Whereas one in the actual hands of Joe Biden will cause epic destruction.

• Unicorn Abattoir||

These two weapons fire the same ammunition at the same rate with the same muzzle velocity and have the same capacity. But the first is listed by name as a banned gun in Sen. Feinstein's latest bill, while the second is specifically exempted.

Fortunately, New Jersey bans all versions of the mini-14 by name, so there's no gun violence here.

• I can't even||

But when I walk into an NJ gunstore, there are all kinds of knock-off "assault rifles" on display with different names and slightly modified to comply with their laws.

• Bubba Jones||

Can I make a mini-15?

• Live Free Or Diet||

Or a Mini-13!
Personally, I'd name a gun model "Harmless Rifle" to make them say they banned a Harmless Rifle.
Or, "The Constitution" so they write that they banned The Constitution.

• Mock-star||

Smith and Wesson kinda did that with the "Sport". Whenever someone says that "assault weapons" are only ever made for killing, I just point out that the Sport is made for sporting purposes, like target shooting. Its right there in the name!

• gee||

Guess you don't go to Camden, Newark, Patterson, Trenton.... The 2 weapons shown have no difference other than name and look. They are not assault rifles. Ignorant politicians trying stop gun ownership. Assault rifle is a full automatic weapon not semi auto. There is gun violence in New Jersey....

• Unicorn Abattoir||

Did you just blow in from Stupidville or something?

No, he couldn't find your home-town.

Assault rifles must meet two requirements to be an assault rifle:

1) Fire an intermediate cartridge (more powerful than pistol, less powerful than rifle); and
2) Be select fire (aka full auto).

If a rifle does not meet these two criteria it is not an assault rifle.

• Tionico||

except that these eedjits passing themselves off as "lawmakers" and/or "representatives" can take any word and declare it means any particular thing they want to. Washington State's Citizens' Initiative to ben "assault weapons" defines the subject class. their wackynition includes the Ruger 10.22 rifle!!!

Lawmakers think they have the ability to take the reality of "elephant" and define it by describing a tortoise. Such people should not be freely roaming about in civil society without a full time caretaker/guardian.

• Henry||

This. In the state of Massachusetts, the legal term "firearm" means what everyone else knows as "handgun." Own a shotgun? Not a "firearm."

• gaoxiaen||

I prefer a battle, er... deer rifle. 30-06 uber alles.

• LarryA||

But the first is listed by name as a banned gun in Sen. Feinstein's latest bill, while the second is specifically exempted.

The Really Stupid Part is that AFAIK the Ranch Rifle and the Tactical Rifle are actually the same firearm. You can switch out the stocks "in minutes."

Don't tell Diane.

• Tionico||

In a kneejerk reaction to a shooting of four off duty policemen in Washington some years ago, a nutjob "senator" from Seattle wrote an "asssault weapons" ban and tried to float it onto the floor for a vote. He "happened to be" head of the Senate Judiciary Committee, the one that had to approve HIS bill to get it to a vote. The antigun shill Josh Sugarman was invited to a firing range by another Senator with her head screwed on straight. The rangemaser, the antigunner, and the Senator were the only ones on that range. Sugraman took a turn firing the rifle, a stock out of the box Ruger 10/.22, wooden stocks, carbine length. After firing a fair bit of ammo, he was asked to safe the rifle, and handed it back to the rangemaster. who walked itback to a workbench behind them. Sugarman was instructed to observe as the man took a coommon screwdriver, removed ONE small screw, and lifted the entire barrel and action off the stocks. He then reached belo,w took out a boxed new stock.. black, pistol grip, folding/adjustable stock, a half shroud forward. In less than one minute the "new" stock was fitted to the exact same barrel and action Sugarman had been firing.

• Spiritus Mundi||

In any case, any semi-automatic gun can fire "more than a hundred rounds in minutes," which would require, at most, pulling the trigger about once per second.

There aren't 100 seconds in a minute the last time I checked.

• Fist of Etiquette||

• MatthewSlyfield||

"in minutes"

Please note that in what you quote, it's minutes plural (as in more than one), not minute singular.

at 1/sec, 100 rounds would take less than 2 minutes.

• Spiritus Mundi||

I just read it as per minute. Rounds in minutes is a worthless description as minutes in a indeterminate period of time. Is it 2 minutes, 3, 300? A flint lock muzzle loader can fire a hundred rounds in minutes.

• DarrenM||

Normal people who aren't intent on getting ridiculous about it understand that "in minutes" means a few or several (maybe even 10 or 20 at times) minutes. It's certainly nowhere near 300.

• Live Free Or Diet||

"Normal people" don't pay enough attention to understand that when a politician says "in minutes" he might be ridiculous enough to mean 300 of them.

• mpercy||

"You could save up to $500 or more!" "You could lose 15 pounds or more!" • gaoxiaen|| You could stick your head up your ass. I only wish that I were so flexible. • Rossami|| Of course it's a worthless description. Fact-free but full of emotion. That's why hacks like Oppel use those descriptions. Guys like him make TV ad-men look like decent human beings. • gee|| Sorry no it can't. The British army could have used you during the Napoleonic wars. They could only fire 3 rounds a minute using a flint lock muzzle loader. what weapon are you talking about 300 rounds a minute. • MatthewSlyfield|| He's talking 100 rounds in 300 minutes. Context matters. • AD-RtR/OS!|| Cyclic-rates for full-auto weapons are noted in rounds-per-minute. • Naaman Brown|| Cyclic-rates for full-auto weapons are about as useful as describing the speed of a car in rpm. Given _ typical combat mag size of 20 or 30 rounds, _ time required for magazine changes, and _ the fact that most single user small arms are not designed with the cooling features of a squad automatic weapon, light, medium, general purpose, or heavy machine gun, effective rate of fire is a fraction of cyclic rate. Maybe a water cooled, belt fed machinegun with multiple 100 round belts prelinked together could have a rate of fire equal to its cyclic rate, but you are talking about a fixed-position weapon mounted in a fortification. The only MG I've heard was actually used that way was the British Vickers which was re-engineered from the Maxim MG. Most MGs would overheat and fail. Otherwise equating cyclic rate of a full auto to its practical rate of fire is impractical. Ascribing the theoretical cyclic rate of fire of a full auto M16 to the typical civilian semi-auto AR rifle (one round per pull of the trigger) is dishonest political bullshitting designed to scare the ignorant. • Henry|| Yes, you were hoodwinked. Gun grabbers are experts at couching statistics that mean nothing in particular in words designed to be easily misread to imply mass slaughter. The trick is to recognize that it is a "worthless description" before being taken in by it. For example, the popular "since [date ten years ago], gun accidents have killed [huge number of] children." When you divide the number by ten, you discover that not only is the number unimpressive, but it's half the number of kids annually killed in bike accidents, something we happily give our children and think nothing of it. • TxJack 112|| again misinformation to create hysteria • Drig|| "MINUTES" is plural and non distinctive. Hell, for all we know the author could've meant only ten trigger pulls per minute or less! • MatthewSlyfield|| "for all we know the author could've meant only ten trigger pulls per minute or less!" Except for the fact that the author explicitly mentioned 1 trigger pull per second. • No Longer Amused|| They know their arguments are bullshit, they don't care that you know they know. • loveconstitution1789|| II Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. No background checks, no bans, no limits, no registration, no confiscation, no ammo bans, no restrictions of any kind on any known or future Arms. This includes, tanks, ships, machine guns, grenades, bombs, aircraft, swords, knives, axes, pistols.... • loveconstitution1789|| If some Lefty wants gun control get a Constitutional Amendment. Until then, no compromise- Ever. • Leo Marvin|| Take it up with that shameless Lefty, Antonin Scalia. • perlchpr|| Can't. He's dead. • L.G. Balzac|| Trebuchets ? • MatthewSlyfield|| I'd rather have a ballista. • MatthewSlyfield|| I'd like a torsion catapult, but only if I get to use live cats as ammunition. :) • loveconstitution1789|| All siege equip is a-okay! • AZ Gunowner|| So, you "keep" a warship in your house, and "bear" a tank huh? • Unicorn Abattoir|| Oppel pulls the time-honored trick of comparing the rifles Dianne Feinstein hates with handguns instead of other rifles. This, among other things mentioned above, show that Oppel and other prominent anti-gunners are arguing in bad faith. Yet they call for a "dialogue" for "common sense" gun control. • AD-RtR/OS!|| I'll propose to one of these "experts" that to demonstrate the "high power" capability of the AR-15, I'll shoot an "expert" in one leg with an AR-15, then in the other with an "old fashioned" M1 Garand. • gaoxiaen|| Winner, winner, chicken dinner. • TxJack 112|| LOL Yeah it will be funny when they realize that old Garand is way more destructive than that scary looking AR. • Jerryskids|| Interesting that the pictured gun that scares the gun-grabbers so much is pretty much the same as the other one, with the notable exception that it happens to be a black an African-American gun. Is there something they're trying to insinuate? • Remember to keep it all polit|| Minor quibble / enhancement for the next iteration: rifle rounds also fire faster because the cartridge is longer and holds more powder. Generally. • TxJack 112|| They do not fire faster that handguns. They travel faster but do not fire faster. A typical 5.56 rds (AR round) travels between 2500 and 2800 fps. A typical handgun (9mm) round travels between 1100-1200 fps. The only difference is the effective range. The rifle round has a greater velocity so it travels farther. Every semi auto firearm has a set rate of fire. The weapon can only cycle up to a maximum rate no matter how much powder is in the round. Rifles typically have a higher rate of fire but it has nothing to do with the rounds. Also, you can shoot a rifle more before it overheats than a handgun. Sorry but physics cannot be overcome by technology only used to its full potential. • Remember to keep it all polit|| Yes yes, by "fire faster" I meant muzzle velocity. • TxJack 112|| Why are guns the only item leftists such as you want to ban and punish those who have never violated the law? What makes you think it is just to punish people for the crimes of others? Do we ban cars or place severe restrictions on them because of deaths associated with drunk driving? Do we punish responsible drivers for the actions of others? Others living in other states? No, we hold the people who violate the law accountable. If you want to ban guns, then work in your state to accomplish it but stop trying to tell those of us in other states how to live. • Remember to keep it all polit|| What did I write that makes you think I am a leftist or a hoplophobe? Fuck off, slaver. • LarryA|| You missed the bans on everything from incandescent light bulbs to hemp? Controllers gotta control. • TxJack 112|| Sorry but with all the misinformation tossed about by people, wanted to be clear. If that was your meaning, you are correct and I apologize. • Harvey Mosley|| If you meant muzzle velocity when you said "fire faster" then you are incorrect. Muzzle velocity and rate of fire are not the same thing. Normally I would let it slide but since you wanted to "quibble" I thought I would oblige. • I can't even|| Momentum = mass x velocity .223 is low mass high velocity. Lots of rifles carry far more momentum - like anything you would be allowed to hunt deer with. Far more powerful is a 12-gauge shotgun like the nut in Crimea used. • JeffreyL|| This momentum equation is actually incorrect The correct equation includes the lorentz transformation p=ymv where y= 1/[sqrt(1-v2/c2)] :) • I can't even|| Hey - thanks for, ugh... clarifying? • PubliusVA|| Technically true, but at velocities relevant to small arms v is so small as a fraction of c that y can be treated as equal to 1 (and therefore ignored), within any realistic margin of measurement error for m and v. • Echospinner|| Momentum is not as relevant when discussing gunshot injuries The kinetic energy imparted is what matters KE=1/2 MV^2 So velocity is more important than mass of the object As the bullet goes through the body it imparts energy in and there is cavitation around the fragment. Think of the wake of a boat going fast rather than slow So the tissue damage is much greater • LiborCon|| "So velocity is more important than mass of the object" Yep. And the mass of the object will increase as the velocity increases anyway. • Buddy Bizarre|| Only if you plan on increasing velocity to a significant percentage of the speed of light... • gaoxiaen|| I'm cool with that. • A Thinking Mind|| We do need common sense railgun control. • LiborCon|| Nope. Increasing the velocity of an object increases its Kinetic Energy, which increases its mass. Energy and mass are interchangeable, they're the same thing. That's why the mass of Elementary Particles is measured in Electron Volts. • Chasman1965|| No, the mass of the object will not increase as the velocity increases. • susancol|| "So velocity is more important that mass of the object" Undeniably true in a physics lab. However, if it were true in real life, then hunters would prefer using light cartridges that go fast rather than heavier cartridges that go slower. Of course, in fact, the reason hunters hike in the woods with heavy guns is that the lighter calibers are less effective (and are often banned by states for use in hunting) for anything bigger than small game (squirrels, bunnies, ground hogs). • Rhokaza|| In my experience and that of the folks I know and hunt with there are two major reasons to go with a larger caliber. The first is that a larger diameter round creates a larger wound channel which doesn't close up as easily, which means the animal is more likely to bleed out quickly and the second is that a heavier projectile is less be deflected by random leaves, branches, grass, etc. in between you and the animal. Just my personal experience and anecdotal opinions, but that's my two cents. • MatthewSlyfield|| In terms of absolute energy of the bullet you are correct. In terms of efficiency of energy transfer to the target, it's more complicated. When firing at a relatively soft target with a small high velocity (or a hard non-expanding) projectile you start to run into problems with blow through, that is the round passes completely through the target without transferring all of it's energy to the target. Compare a relatively high mass, low velocity round that will transfer 100% of it's energy to the target, with a lower mas, high velocity round that will only transfer 50% of it's energy to the target. To be more lethal, the high velocity round would have to have twice the absolute energy of the high mass round to have the same level of lethality. • Naaman Brown|| _ Curtis LeMay approved the M16 in the 1960s for USAF security personnel because it would disable a spy or saboteur on a flight line without being as damaging to the aircraft being protected as the existing standard issue USAF security rifles: the caliber .30 M1 or M2 Carbines. _ The .30 Carbine round is one half the power of the .30-30 Win used since 1895 for deer hunting. _ The .30 Carbine is one third as powerful as the .30-06 used since 1906 by US military and big game hunters. _ Curtis LeMay felt the M16 .223 round would do less materiel damage than the .30 Carbine. _ .223 is not legal for deer hunting in many states; is legal in some areas if you use unusually heavy bullets. Yet AR-15s, which are usually .223, are too powerful for civilian ownership? Then every rifle legal for deer hunting in America is more powerful than the "too powerful" .223. Mull that a minute or two. • Tony|| That's why we must ban them all and let God sort it out. • Vulgar Madman|| Good idea. We can ban crime next. • Tony|| Does your sarcasm imply an analogy that everything currently illegal should be legal? Because that's what it sounds like. • Ride 'Em|| I think the sarcasm is that bans don't work. Certain drugs are banned but are readily available. Prohibition really worked didn't it? • Tony|| Sure bans work. Maybe it's a bit of a haul with alcohol considering it's been a staple of humanity since the dawn of time. But the choice isn't between two extremes. Propagandizing the issue as such only serves the status quo, which gun manufacturers certainly appreciate, especially when there's a nice school shooting to increase gun nut paranoia and run up their sales. • gee|| Bans don't work. They create a Black market. Drugs are a perfect example and if you don't like drugs we can use Alcohol during prohibition although alcohol is a drug also, Anything you can ban will create a market for it. Your wrong. • lap83|| Bans only work with people who obey laws. That's why it is stupid to outlaw guns to reduce crime. It only punishes law abiding gun owners • Tony|| Law-abiding gun owners shoot people and themselves all the time. Stricter gun controls would reduce the availability of guns, if not eliminate it completely. The mere presence of guns means more people shot. The evidence is clear. • BigChiefWahoo|| Assuming, for the sake of argument that such bans do work, what lengths are you willing to have authorities go to enforce them? That's the real question. Alcohol prohibition failed largely because people who had supported it initially realized it was an enforcement disaster. Or maybe you think 'saving lives' also outweighs other procedural limits on government power which might get in the way of your ban? • Tony|| All I know is that every other civilized country manages to do it. Perhaps the variable is that we aren't civilized. • Red Rocks White Privilege|| All I know is that every other civilized country manages to do it. You mean the ones that are majority white? • DesigNate|| God, not even that is true. Do you have a fear of the truth? • Sevo|| Tony|10.31.18 @ 2:53PM|# "Does your sarcasm imply an analogy that everything currently illegal should be legal? Because that's what it sounds like." His sarcasm makes it clear you're a fucking lefty ignoramus. • Vulgar Madman|| I just object to virtue signalling delivered at gunpoint. • loveconstitution1789|| Gun bans are unconstitutional but Lefties like Tony hate the constitution. • Tony|| It's not my favorite constitution if I'm honest. Some parts are good stuff. • mpercy|| We can eliminate 2/3s of gun deaths by banning suicides. • mpercy|| We could really crack down on this, too and make committing suicide with a gun punishable by death. • || I wish the gun rights movement would simply cave on this, with the specific objective of showing how worthless it all is. They spend too much political capital fighting laws on principle vs. practical grounds. • Bubba Jones|| IIRC the judicial opinions upholding the various restrictions are often predicated on the fact that they are cosmetic and ineffective. Citizen can still get effective weapons. Therefore, there is no meaningful infringement. • || Yes. Imagine a world where the NRA said "go ahead...pass all the laws you want...they'll be either ineffective or unconstitutional" and then they disengaged from the political process. We'd end up exactly where we are now, but with no boogeyman to blame. • Lawn Darts|| Problem is, the only real difference between a semi auto rifle and a semi auto handgun is the length of the barrel. And the only real difference between a semi-auto handgun and a wheel gun is that the former uses hot gasses and mechanical means to help chamber the next round and the wheel gun uses only mechanical means. There. I just banned all guns. Cause they are all pretty much the same when you employ logic instead of feelings. Any assault-weapon banner is either totally ignorant, or willfully ignorant. And any ban of any gun just sets the stage for the banners to suddenly rediscover logic down the road, and use that to ban them all. • Ron|| the gun rights groups have already caved and then asked to surrender ever more but never more shall we ever. BTW California is trying an end run by outlawing certain ammo as well and that list only keeps growing as well. Prime example lead free ammo that is not available for older calibers and they are trying to claim somme ammo as armor piercing when its not. • DarrenM|| I've wondered off and on for quite a while why it took so long to restrict ammunition. The 2nd Amendment says you have a right to bear arms. It says nothing about ammo (though I would expect SCOTUS to include ammo as protected.) • L.G. Balzac|| A rifle or pistol without ammunition would not be an "arm", it would be a club which is a different kind of arm, I guess. A baby's arm with an apple in its fist is another type of weapon but that's just me bragging. • loveconstitution1789|| Bombs are Arms. Ammo is included. Its why they used the term Arms and not weapons or guns or similar. The Founders did pretty good anticipating how tyrannical Democrats would become. • AZ Gunowner|| No, if they had done what you wanted them to they would have used the word "weapons". Arms is a subset of weapons, more than that it is a term of art depicting a certain type of weapon - weapons one "bears" for self-defense. But I know, English IS hard. • MatthewSlyfield|| @AZ Gunowner, You are full of shit. Arms in this context is an archaic synonym for weapons. The two words, without any modifiers mean exactly the same thing. • AZ Gunowner|| Would you like to point me to any Founding era documents that support your thesis? but, let us assume you are right, now how do you explain away the "bear" part. or, do you think the Founders were so stupid or lazy that they just sloppily wrote a sentence that really means one can keep ANY weapon and bear those that he can? The Founders tried to write a document that could be understood by the average intelligent person. But it seems they didn't allow for the decrease in the average intelligence of people. oh, and as to my being "full of shit', f you and the horse you rode in on. • MatthewSlyfield|| "now how do you explain away the "bear" part." I don't. I actually agree with you that the text of 2A excludes crew served and vehicle mounted weapons. However, trying to argue that from the definition of arms (go look up what international "arms dealers" sell.) to get there is pure bull shit. Bear does all the necessary work. • AZ Gunowner|| So "arms" means all weapons but because the Founders said the right was to keep AND bear them then weapons in this instance (the 2A) arms means only those weapons one can bear? Sounds like you agree with my definition of arms (as used in the 2A). What you don't understand is that context contributes to the definition of a word. The Strategic ARMS Limitation Treaty doesn't refer to small arms. So "arms" there has a different meaning. The fact that arms and weapons may be used interchangeably in SOME sentences doesn't meant that the definition of the words in different contexts remains the same. Arms in the 2A are those that you can "bear" AND that you would bear for self-defense (or offence in case of confrontation). A suitcase nuke is not an arm just because you can bear it. The 2A definition of arms excludes ALL weapons that you cannot bear and that you would not bear (stinger missiles etal) for self-defense. Henry Higgins was right, in America English is hardly used anymore. • AZ Gunowner|| sorry, "then weapons in this instance (the 2A) means only those weapons one can bear" • AZ Gunowner|| even sorrier, "then ARMS in this instance (the 2A) means only those weapons one can bear" • MatthewSlyfield|| "Sounds like you agree with my definition of arms (as used in the 2A)." No. Bear in this context modifies arms in same sense as any adjective or other grammatical modifier it does not change the DEFINITION of arms in any way shape or form. • AZ Gunowner|| "The two words, without any modifiers mean exactly the same thing.". No, the 2 words don't mean exactly the same thing. That is why there are 2 words. But, I'm glad that you do agree that "Arms" as used in the 2A does not mean any and all weapons because arms has to be weapons that can be carried. You cannot substitute the word weapon in the 2A and get the same meaning. You got there, you just don't want to recognize that you did. But if do recognize that then you are on your way to taking the English language seriously. • AZ Gunowner|| Also, "bear" is a verb, verbs don't modify nouns. Arms is not weapons that you can bear because bear is used to modify the word "arms" but because arms (as used in the 2A) means weapons that one carries for self-defense. Here is the 1771 definition as quoted by Heller - Timothy Cunningham's important 1771 legal dictionary defined "arms" as "any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another." 1 A New and Complete Law Dictionary (1771); see also N. Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language (1828) (reprinted 1989) (hereinafter Webster) (similar). The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity. For instance, Cunningham's legal dictionary gave as an example of usage: "Servants and labourers shall use bows and arrows on Sundays, &c. and not bear other arms." 1 of 2 • AZ Gunowner|| 2 of 2 The use of the word "keep" also bears on this matter (ooh, note that bear in this instance has a different meaning than bear in the 2A) - William Blackstone, for example, wrote that Catholics convicted of not attending service in the Church of England suffered certain penalties, one of which was that they were not permitted to "keep arms in their houses." 4 Commentaries on the Laws of England 55 (1769) (hereinafter Blackstone); see also 1W. & M., c. 15, §4, in 3 Eng. Stat. at Large 422 (1689) ("[N]o Papist . . . shall or may have or keep in his House . . . any Arms . . . "); 1 Hawkins, Treatise on the Pleas of the Crown 26 (1771) (similar). So, taken as a whole the 2A refers to weapons that one would keep in one's house (certainly not cannon) and bear abroad in case of the need for self-defense (not stinger missiles). Loveconstitution1789 is wrong above, bombs are not arms. He has it exactly backwards because the Founders used arms rather than weapons because they were not protecting bombs (or cannon, or warships etc etc) but "arms". All arms are weapons but not all weapons are arms. • MatthewSlyfield|| "bombs are not arms." Yes, bombs are arms, they just aren't part of the subset of "arms" that are covered by 2A, that subset being limited by the phrase "keep and bear". • AZ Gunowner|| Boy you are obtuse. • AZ Gunowner|| Would you like to point me to any Founding era documents that support your thesis? I'm guessing not. So, you think the Founders were lazy or stupid? How do explain away the "bear" part. They wrote a sentence indicating one could carry a warship? Oh, and as for what I am full of - you can go perform an anatomically impossible act upon yourself. • a tandem|| it is clear from all the historic context that the founders and the conditions mean to protect, to refer to a right of civilians to have and bear the same typical weapons carried by regulars in infantry. • gaoxiaen|| Not Democrats, but rulers, and tyrants, in general. • ArmyATC|| The other tactic I have heard about in CA is that in order to be sold in the state, a gun has to be inspected and approved for sale in the state. Meaning only older models are available. A new gun comes to market and the manufacturer has to send it in (and pay) for the approval process to ensure it is CA compliant. CA is drying up the supply through heavy regulation • TxJack 112|| Actually what they did was pass a law requiring that all new models of firearms be capable of microstamping the shell casing when fired. Problem is the technology does not exist for this to be accomplished. The current case when the 9th circuit and they ruled the fact the technology does no exist is not relevant and it is legal for the state to make such a requirement. This is how they have limited the supply to only models of gun made before the date the law took effect. As has happened so many times before, the case will like go the SCOTUS and be overturned if they have the cajones to actually hear it. • KevinP|| Gun banners want to ban all guns. They can't get them all, so they think that they can get there one slice of the loaf at a time. Gun rights activists know the end game, so we fight back. And we are slowly winning. Gallup 2018: Majority in U.S. Now Oppose Ban on Assault Rifles Quote: Americans' support for a ban on semi-automatic guns in the U.S. has dropped eight percentage points from a year ago, when opinions were more evenly divided after the mass shooting in Las Vegas. Last year's measure was unusually high for the trend over the past several years; the current 40% is back to within a few points of where it was between 2011 and 2016. Support has dropped in all groups: Republicans, Democrats, Independents, both gun-owning and non-gun-owning households. • susancol|| Oh yes, we should be "reasonable" and "cave" on little things, because, after all, there won't ever be a NEXT law . . . ROFLMAO. I've been involved in 2nd Amendment advocacy 'way before Heller and can tell you we have already SEEN this road. After a year or two, the gun banners are shocked, SHOCKED to discover their law didn't work, which means that they must pass EVEN MORE stringent laws. Google "slippery slope". • TxJack 112|| This is the discussion that I find most amusing. People who claim an AR15 is more deadly than a handgun due to its rate of fire. First, an AR shoots a 22 caliber bullet. Last time I checked, a 22 is much smaller than a 9mm, 38 special, 30/30, 308, 45 or 30-06. Second, to argue an AR is "more lethal" than a handgun, such as a 357 or 44 magnum is stupidity. The only difference between an AR and other semi auto rifles is they look scary to the uninformed and ignorant. Any gun is deadly but remember, the two largest mass killings in US history did not use a single firearm. One used airplanes and the other a truck, diesel fuel and fertilizer. • bvandyke|| IDK - I find that a 44 magnum handgun is pretty scary looking. Scary than an AR15 (at least to me). Would much rather the AR pointed at me than the 44. Though the AR is much easier to shoot than the 44. • gaoxiaen|| Trudat. • MatthewSlyfield|| @bvandyke, What if that AR15 was set up for or .50 Beowolf rather than 5.56mm NATO(.223)? • MatthewSlyfield|| Fix for formatting error: What if that AR15 was set up for .458 SOCOM or .50 Beowolf rather than 5.56mm NATO(.223)? • John Cuyle|| Pretty much any rifle designed for a centerfire rifle cartridge can legitimately be described as "more lethal" than any handgun due to the vagueness of the phrase. Does a .44 magnum have a lot of muzzle energy and make a big hole? Yes, but most people only train with handguns at ranges around 30'. Accurately hitting a stationary target at a distance of 50' with a .44 magnum requires some skill and practice. A moving target or a target farther away is extremely difficult. Meanwhile, even a small round placed in one of a few places in the human body is guaranteed to be lethal, and a rifle, even one chambered for .223, lets an average shooter do that reliably from a couple hundred yards away. • Ron|| true but most mass murders occur in short distances the size of a class room where everything can be hit without any practice with any gun and when a group of people are huddled together like they are told to its even easier. aiming and marksmenship is not required. mass murderers are not snipers • Longtobefree|| Lethality is a function of accuracy more than any physical characteristic. Use of a .22LR by a skilled marksman, hitting with each round, is more lethal than random spraying by an amateur who only hits 5% of the time. So, I have brought the conversation around to my favorite point: The magazine capacity, appearance, and reloading mechanism (single shot, semi-automatic, fully automatic) are not necessarily determinators of lethality. I give you the WWI Lee-Enfield short magazine bolt action rifle. In trained hands (routine military level training, not Olympic standards or anything) this rifle is capable of firing over 30 AIMED rounds a minute. And that is starting with only 4 rounds in the magazine, so 3 reloads are required during the minute. OK, three minutes required to get over 100 rounds, but these are aimed rounds hitting a 48 inch target at 300 yards. There are multiple records of German troops reporting they faced machine gun emplacements when 'all; that was there was a bunch of BEF infantry with Lee-Enfields doing a mad minute. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad_minute So like the loveconstitution1789 says, repeal the 2nd or shut up. • Ron|| see my earlier comments about aiming not being necessary even the Las Vegas shooter didn't need to be any good at the distance he was shooting. when that many people are grouped so close aiming is of little importance • DevilDog943|| Not entirely factual. The SMLE magazine capacity is TEN rounds. It is true that British soldiers were trained in rapid fire and could indeed fire thirty aimed rounds in a minute, reloading twice from stripper clips. • ArmyATC|| The way it was described is factual. Starting with 4 rounds in the magazine, 3 reloads would be required to fire 30 times. It was probably an aspect of training both the shooting and the reloading. In the Army, pistol training is done with partially filled magazines to force a reload during a firing sequence. • loveconstitution1789|| With a .44 magnum revolver, you can kill 4-6 people per load. An AR-15 can kill between 15 and 100 people depending on magazine Arrangement. Gun control people just want to take your ability to kill them when they institute tyranical dictas. • gaoxiaen|| I'm a traditionalist and love revolvers. You can ignore them for years or decades and they still are reliable. • TxJack 112|| I would argue the only advantage of the AR is you can SHOOT more people, not necessarily kill them. Anyone shot with a large caliber handgun, especially a magnum revolver, has very little chance of surviving. • Rhokaza|| I don't disagree with your point, but you may be overestimating the lethality of 5.56 a bit. It has been known for poor performance in that regard for 40 years. • Kirk Solo|| Not 22. But a .223 which is much larger. • mpercy|| A .22LR BULLET (not cartridge) at 0.223in is almost exactly the same diameter as a .223 Rem bullet at 0.224in. The .223 Rem bullet tends to be 55gr in weight compared to a typical weight for .22LR in the 30-40gr range, but the .223 can be smaller and the .22LR can be larger. The difference in the size of the BULLET is pretty small. The massively larger cartridge of the .223 vs the .22LR makes the difference. The muzzle velocity of a .223 will tend to be around 3x that of a .22LR (e.g., 3,240 ft/s vs 1200 ft/s), and it is the speed differential that makes the damage of a .223 bullet so much larger than a very similar sized .22LR bullet. • MatthewSlyfield|| Yes, its the same diameter, but the 5.56MM NATO/.223 Rem round, is a long partial copper jacket round rather than a shortish pure lead slug, making the volume of the 5.55mm NATO round significantly greater than the .22LR • TxJack 112|| The diameter of the bullets are almost identical. The difference is the shell casing and the amount of gunpowder used to propel the round. A 22LR rimfire uses 2- 3 grains of powder vs a 223 which uses 24-28 grains. The difference is maximum effective shooting distance and FPS of the round. The copper jacket is irrelevant because the amount of lead inside reduced to keep the overall diameter the same. • MatthewSlyfield|| "The diameter of the bullets are almost identical." True, and I said nothing that contradicts that. In addition to the shell casing being larger to hold more gunpowder, the actual bullet for a .223 Rem/5.56mm Nato is longer than a .22lr The casing length of a .22LR is .613" and the overall length is 1.00", a difference of .387 inches. that difference is most of the length of the bullet (the bullet is actually slightly longer than this but we can use it as a proxy). For .223 Rem the casing length is .176" and the overall length is 2.26". A difference of .5" Assuming a similar relative amount of the bullet inside the casing, the .223 Rem projectile around 29% longer than a .22LR projectile. • mpercy|| Exactly. The diameter is the same, but the weight is a bit more at 55gr vs 30-40gr typically. So we'd expect the extra weight to make the bullet longer. But the extra mass (from the additional length) is not the big ticket. The formula is 1/2 mv^2. Add 50% to the weight (55gr .233 vs 36gr .22LR) adds 50% to the energy. Triple the velocity means a 9-fold increase in energy. • MatthewSlyfield|| Yes, but for lethality, the absolute energy of the bullet isn't the most important factor. When determining lethality, what matters is the amount of energy transferred to the target. A bullet that exits the back side of the target did not transfer all of it's energy to the target. A bullet with 4000 joules of energy that only transfers 30% of that energy to the target will be less lethal than a bullet with only 2000 joules of energy but that transfers all of it's energy to the target. • TxJack 112|| What? A .223 is .224 inches in diameter, which is a 22 caliber bullet. They weigh between 40-75 grains which depends on their length. A 22LR is usually a 30-40 grain bullet, but it the exact same diameter. I load all my own ammo including 223/5.56 so, I know exactly what I am talking about and can say with certainty, your claim is complete hogwash. • TxJack 112|| What? A .223 is .224 inches in diameter, which is a 22 caliber bullet. They weigh between 40-75 grains which depends on their length. A 22LR is usually a 30-40 grain bullet, but it the exact same diameter. I load all my own ammo including 223/5.56 so, I know exactly what I am talking about and can say with certainty, your claim is complete hogwash. • Bubba Jones|| Why are they discriminating against black? • Longtobefree|| Because to racist democrats, all things black are scary unless it is voting for them. • loveconstitution1789|| havent you heard? Blacks are scary now that they are leaving the democratic party. • grb|| Military-style assault weapons are no different functionally or operationally than any other semi-automatic rifle. Besides being true, this is not a new point; it was made repeatedly way-back during Clinton's presidency. Assault weapons are only unique by their military cosmetics, but that points to a solution of this debate. Because militaryish fashion is precisely the reason why these weapons are so popular with gunnuts, pychos, serial killers, and mass murderers : They all want to play soldier- without the bother of signing-up at the local recruiter, of course. This is wholly understandable. I remember the thrill of running through the backyard as little boy, fighting off hordes of imaginary enemies. Likewise, I remember my military commitment being a bit much by the fourth, fifth, and sixth year. So how can this be solved? Simple : Allow the sale of assault weapons, but only in hollow plastic, like I played with as a child. A sound generator making a rat-a-tat when you pulled the trigger adds a charming effect. Thus everyone is happy : Gunnuts, pychos, serial killers, and mass murderers all get to play G.I.Joe, but fewer people die. You're welcome. • TxJack 112|| A military assault weapon is NOT semi auto rifle. It is a rifle capable of selective (3rds burst with each trigger pull) or full auto. These types of rifles are already illegal except the ones manufactured before 1986 which are highly regulated, scarce as extremely expensive if they ever come up for sale. You use of terms, gun nuts, psychos, etc and you completely inaccurate claims not only demostrate you ignorance but your arrogance as well. I love how people like you think you get to decide what the rest of us will be allowed and not allowed to do based solely on your beliefs and those of others be damned. • grb|| Absolutely. Hilarious. This debate is over semi-automatic rifles decked out in military trim and commonly available for sale. It is not over the automatic or three-round burst weapons used in the military. Apparent you don't have the slightest clue what we're discussing here. If you are soooo eager to jump over my supposed "ignorance", why don't you wait for that hoary old chestnut : When I misuse the terms "magazine" and "clip"....... • Unicorn Abattoir|| I remember the thrill of running through the backyard as little boy, fighting off hordes of imaginary enemies. Likewise, I remember my military commitment being a bit much by the fourth, fifth, and sixth year. What does this have to do with "semi-automatic rifles decked out in military trim"? Absolutely hilarious, indeed. • Hank Ferrous|| You're not discussing anything w/ your sense of superiority about 6 entire years in uniform, and a half-baked theory as to why ARs appeal to folks. You are however, coming off like a dick. • mpercy|| What possible difference can the cosmetics make to the lethality of the weapon? None. So banning weapons based on cosmetic differences is arbitrary and stupid. Banning one of the weapons pictured in the article but not the other is arbitrary and stupid, and does little but highlight the fact that the next step is ban both (all). At least be honest about the end-game. • || The trouble is, nuts seem to think that assault weapons are either more deadly or cooler, which is why so many of the mass killing involve assault weapons. There is no doubt that such nuts could do just as much damage with a semi-automatic deer rifle. The question is, if they could not use an assault rifle, would some of them not bother? • bvandyke|| The semantics matter in the discussion. They are not "assault weapons", they look like military "assault weapons" but they are not, they are just semi-automatic weapons. • Agammamon|| The military does not have assault weapons. We have assault rifles. Different things. • grb|| Is this a new thing? Back when I was in the military calling my M16 my "weapon" was de rigueur. Of course the main thing was never call it a "gun"....... • Buddy Bizarre|| An 'assault rifle' is a weapon. It is specifically a rifle designed to fire an intermediate cartridge that is capable of some type of full auto fire. • Kirk Solo|| No that is still a thing, • bvandyke|| Correct - rifle. • The Last American Hero|| Given that the murder rate in this country was higher back when we had an assault weapons ban, the answer is yes, they will bother. • Agammamon|| Very few mass killings involved assault weapons. Sure, pretty much every one had one nearby - but the killer was generally doing the carnage with a shotgun or pistol. • John Cuyle|| Apparently they would and do bother since long arms of all types (including "assault weapons") are only used in a small percentage of shootings. Boring old handguns tend to be the weapon of choice for criminals, presumably for the same reasons the same reason that they are the weapon of choice for non-criminal self defense, concealability and portability. • KevinP|| An arsonist in South Korea killed 192 people with milk cartons filled with a flammable liquid: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daegu_subway_fire In Nice, France, a terrorist rented a cargo truck and murdered 84 people by driving over them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_attack • Henry|| This is great logic. For example, an addict with a preference for opioids would never switch to fentanyl if they became difficult to procure. • bvandyke|| "Critical readers, even if they had no other source ......" New York Times, really, critical readers, find me 5. Hell, find me 5 critical readers of anything. If you are relying on the readers to be critical and really look at what is written, analyze it and make judgement from that then you are delusional. • Sevo|| Steve Kerr may be a good hoops coach, but he's simply one more dumb shit regarding firearms: "Nobody in this country should have a semiautomatic weapon of war. So I'm going to vote for every candidate that is willing to stand up to the NRA and say you know what, this is insane." https://nba.nbcsports.com/2018/10/28 /before-warriors-take-on-nets-steve-kerr -talks-gun-control-in-wake-of-synagogue-shooting/ Stupid son of a bitch has no idea what he's yammering on about. • TxJack 112|| A semi automatic weapon of war is what always makes me laugh. No soldier or marine would go into a firefight with a semi auto rifle. Any one who did would get the new moniker of dead guy. • AZ Gunowner|| The Brits fought the entire 2WW with bolt action rifles. They didn't lose because of that. • Henry|| They didn't lose only because they had allies who knew how to wage beter war with more capable weapons. • AZ Gunowner|| They were losing the war in 1940 when they got kicked out of France and nearly lost their entire army at Dunkirk. Remember the Germans too were fighting with predominantly bolt-action rifles. The British defeat in France wasn't the result of either their Lee's nor the German FA machine pistols. Likewise the Americans didn't win in both Europe and the Pacific because of the M1 Garand. • ArmyATC|| The M-1 Garand is semi-auto. The M-14 was originally full auto, but many models were made in semi-auto because full auto was too hard to control. The FN-FAL came in both full auto and semi auto depending on which nations military you were in. The M-16 was full auto, and changed to 3 round burst because troops were blowing through all their ammo too fast. 3-round burst is rarely used outside 50 meters. Semi auto is the default state for the US Army. • Agammamon|| Oppel adds that "the standard AR-15 magazine holds 30 bullets and can be swapped out quickly, allowing a shooter to fire more than a hundred rounds in minutes." I suppose that's *technically true* but sweet evil jesus man. Even when they're trying to hype up something that would really be an impressive measure of lethality their ignorance makes them look stupid. You can fire a hundred rounds in *seconds* from a semi-auto rifle. But you can do that even with low-capacity magazines. Like 5 round hunting mags and reasonably careful aim you could get a hundred rounds off in as many seconds. • Quo Usque Tandem|| Curious that when there is a mass shooting [Aaron Alexis, Washington Navy Yard, Remington 870 pump shotgun; Stephen Cho, Va Tech, Glock 19 and Walther .22] that does not involve an AR you just don't hear about it for very long; this in spite of the number of victims. By far handguns have been the weapon of choice in the majority of mass shootings over the past 25 years; but it is much easier to vilify guns like the AR as being especially evil and therefore easier to ban. • a tandem|| "Curious that when there is a mass shooting [Aaron Alexis, Washington Navy Yard....] that does not involve an AR you just don't hear about it for very long" Because it doesn't fit the narrative of the left which controls the US press. the highest US fatality school shooting was with pistol (VaTech). the highest fatality school shooting anywhere was in Norway with a rifle that is not an assault rifle, in fact a mini14 ranch -- which is not only the single most popular gun model in Canada today, but one that Canada REMOVED from its restricted list a couple of years ago. No mention either of the fact that Europe has had in the past 10 years 500% MORE large mass murders of over 50 people than the US has had, including: 150 people by Andreas Lubitz without a gun; Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel killed 86 people and injuring about 500 more without a gun; Bataclan with guns stolen from military ; Utoya with a gun legal in Canada and more. IE NONE that would have been prevented by any gun control promoted by US gun control/ban lobby. And the "gun violence archive" an Everytown group, list of mass shootings are over 96% with guns that are not assault rifles. More than 90% were committed by prior criminals, and over 80% by people with ten or more arrests, most of those withn two years of release. About 2/3 of mass shootings would be stopped immediately by raising actual time served on sentences for felons by three years • Truthteller1|| Even the shills and bots know they are promulgating lies that will never change anything of substance. It's just symbolism. • Longtobefree|| Fact check: there is no such thing as an assault rifle. That is a made up term used solely for propaganda purposes. • DispositionMatrix|| "...there is no such thing as an assault rifle" is a false statement. The term made up solely for propaganda purposes is "assault weapon." It is a nonsensical political term unfortunately codified into law in ban states. http://assaultweapon.info * "Assault rifle" is a technical term meaning selectable-fire, flat-shooting carbine that accepts a detachable mag and fires an intermediate round. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle * I am unsure as to why people who supposedly have knowledge about firearms cannot correctly differentiate between the meaningless political throw-away term "assault weapon" and the legitimate technical term "assault rifle." • loveconstitution1789|| Exactly, ask lefties what the definition of an "assault rifle" is and they cannot give you one. Since there is not such thing, the lefties will continue to try and be traitors to the constitution by violating the 2nd amendment. • DispositionMatrix|| No. You still got it wrong. If you read the post above yours, you'll have the answers. • Ron|| I almost bought a min-14 a few weeks ago since it fires just as well as a AR-15 but is still legal in California. I decided to wait and buy a much more powerful and accurate gun with just as much ammunition capacity • Live Free Or Diet|| Most of the time, I keep a stainless Ruger 10/22 (.22LR) for the rabbits and other typical animals that eat up the garden. It's cheaper, quieter (which keeps the neighbors happier), and doesn't tear up so much meat. My (new series) Mini-14 Ranch Rifle is my favorite, though. It's great for our farm, with plenty of reach, accuracy and stopping power for the coyotes, bobcats, gophers and raccoons we see in Virginia. • Ron|| I heard the mini-14 wasn't very accurate and thats why most the ranchers here use the AR-15 but maybe they are wrong I just may have to fine out for my self. • Live Free Or Diet|| The pre-2010 version had lightweight barrel harmonics that got worse as it heated up. The new heavier barrels are much improved. I have owned ARs, but sold them when Obama drove up the prices. No real objections. I just don't personally like the feel, or that dirty operating gas is dumped into the receiver. Either way, accuracy suffers some from the gas operations. To max out accuracy, bolt actions are primo, and usually less expensive. My daughter's Gunsite Scout Rifle is quite the tack driver for a 16" barrel 5.56 NATO. • perlchpr|| The biggest problem with the Mini-14 is the proprietary magazines. AR-15 uses the same mags as the M-16 which means there's a much larger pool of production, and so you get the economy of scale effect. • loveconstitution1789|| Just drive to georgia or other free gun states and get a .50 barretts, ak-47, ar-15.... and drive it back to commifornia. • loveconstitution1789|| Take back some tannerite to scare the shit out of you communist neighbors. • TxJack 112|| yeah I love that stuff. It is a blast to shoot. The other brand Sonic boom is awesome as well. • Buddy Bizarre|| While you can buy long guns in states other than that of your residence, the dealers are only supposed to sell you what is allowed in your state. • Ron|| Unless you have friends • Henry|| You can find long guns privately for sale at most flea markets and swap meets in "real" America. • TxJack 112|| You can buy any guns in states other than your resident state. The only issue is you cannot take them with you. They have to be sent to a FFL in your state who conducts another background check when you pick up the firearm. If you go to another state and purchase a firearm from a private seller, although the chances are not great, if you are caught carrying it across state lines, you will be arrested for arms trafficking. In addition, if a FFL dealer sells you a firearm and knows you are from out of state, they are committing a federal crime. • DispositionMatrix|| Succinct article dealing with inaccuracies in the Times, but it was troubling to see "...AR-15-style rifles...," an oxymoron, used as a legitimate term in your article. * The AR-15s we buy on the US domestic market--meaning all those used in high-profile mass shootings--are by definition _not_ assault rifles. They are instead semi-automatic carbines. Assault rifles are selectable-fire, flat-shooting carbines that fire intermediate rounds, like the M4. It's worth noting Merriam-Webster changed their definition within the last few years to make it more amenable to the cause of firearm prohibition and in the process made it inaccurate. * Journalists sympathetic to the firearm prohibition lobby make heavy use of the "assault rifle" misnomer; it perpetuates the myth AR-15s sold on the US domestic market are capable of automatic or burst fire, which is meant to gin up more fear. * Selectable-fire would put AR-15s squarely under the control of the NFA of 1934--meaning ownership would be significantly curtailed due to federal registration and red tape. In short, even in free states we cannot own machine guns without jumping through federal and local hoops and waiting months. * People in the know with regard to firearms should make an effort to not assist the civilian disarmament lobby in spreading false information about semi-automatic carbines and the type of fire of which they are capable. • loveconstitution1789|| Come to a Georgia gun show and see how wrong the media has mislead you. All is for sale here. • DispositionMatrix|| Can you give a concise example of how the media has mislead me relative to what I posted? • mpercy|| "It's worth noting Merriam-Webster changed their definition" It's a long-standing issue that lexicographers are descriptive, not prescriptive. Merriam-Webster now includes a definition for "literally" that reflects the ignorant by oh-so-common usage of the word by millennials to mean the exact opposite of the meaning: 2. : in effect : virtually —used in an exaggerated way to emphasize a statement or description that is not literally true or possible So maybe don't blame them for taking the wrong side here, it's just the way dictionaries work. • DispositionMatrix|| "...it's just the way dictionaries work." It's no less sad that is the case. • gee|| There is a difference. One is able to be full automatic and the other is Semi automatic. Full Auto is one squeeze of the trigger and the full mag empties. Semi auto is one squeeze of the trigger release 3 rounds at a time maybe a few more but not the whole magazine. • Unicorn Abattoir|| There is a difference. One is able to be full automatic and/or selective fire and the other is Semi automatic. Full Auto is one squeeze of pull and hold the trigger and the full mag empties. Selective fire generally refers to a weapon that can swith from burst mode (3 rounds usually) and semi automatic. Semi auto is one squeeze of the trigger release 3 rounds at a time maybe a few more 1 round. but not the whole magazine. Sheesh. • Naaman Brown|| Semi-auto by definition is one round per action of the trigger. Three rounds per squeeze of the trigger is burst fire and ATF regards it as legally full automatic. My dad taught me that in WWII he commonly used his BAR in slow rate of fire setting, and he would tap and release, one, two, or three shots full auto; he regarded emptying the full mag in one long burst as usually bad tactical discipline. • newshutz|| My father told me in training with the Thompson sub machine gun, they were told to do three round bursts with a quick squeeze and release to keep the business end toward the target. • Uncle Jay|| Only through total elimination of gun ownership can we progressives build a socialist utopia like they enjoy in Cuba, North Korea and Venezuela. For too long, the unenlightened masses have been clinging to their guns, the US Constitution and freedom bitterly. Now is the time for some sanity and remove all the guns from the little people so we can put some educated, indoctrinated and believers of true socialism into power if we are to enjoy all the wonders and joys of living in a socialist slave state. We must trust our ruling elites to do the right thing and ensure the hoi poiloi never is armed so no nefarious counter-revolution by evil and insane people who wish to be from The State's plantation. Therefore, now is the time for all us to give our guns to our obvious betters and ensure they are the only ones that have guns so we can be enjoy the freedom of being in a socialist slave state. • IceTrey|| Actually an AR lower, which is the "gun" part, can fire some incredibly powerful ammo with the right barrel and bolt. There are about 50 calibers you can choose from. • AZ Gunowner|| But that is a relatively recent development and typically when people speak of an AR15 the default assumption is that it is .225/5.56mm. • MatthewSlyfield|| Actually, it's not as recent as you think. While they tried to sell it to the DOD in in a .223 caliber, the AR15 platform was explicitly designed to be modular, allowing fairly easy swap outs to different calibers and barrel lengths as well as a vast array of add on accessories for different mission profiles. • AZ Gunowner|| Regardless of what it was designed to do, the actual use of different calibers is a "relatively recent" phenomena. And I suspect that the number of AR15's out there with some other caliber than .223/5.56mm is likely less than 1%. • Mr. Dyslexic|| I love my Remington R-15 VTR 204. It sends projectiles down range at 4,200 FPS with V-Max 45 grain rounds. • TxJack 112|| I would say it is greater than 1% but agree the most common caliber by far is 223/5.56 Only in the past 10 years has the AR become a platform rather than a standard rifle. When it became a platform, you began to see companies developing new calibers like the 300 blackout, 223 wylde, 6.8 Creedmoor, as well as larger rifles like AR-10 (308/7.62). With the introduction of new calibers, you also have more people building their own rifles. My buddy built a 6.8 Creedmoor over the weekend. Took about an hour to complete the entire build. • AZ Gunowner|| Took me 5 minutes to build my 300bo. I bought a complete lower from somebody and a complete upper from CDNN. 2 pins and added the combat sights. Yes, the modularity of the AR platform is cool. I also have an AR10. But it ways more than the Garand. It is almost a crew-served weapon :)/ But if the S were to HTF I'd pick up the M1A. I'd prefer the .30-06 of the Garand but the 20 rds of .308 with the M1a makes it the better choice. I most certainly wouldn't run out into the streets with any of my AR's. • TxJack 112|| 223 is 5.56 in regard to the bullet and bullet diameter. Both are a .224 caliber bullet. The only difference between what is called 223 and 5.56 is how the rounds are loaded. The military 5.56 rounds have a crimp ring around the primer because the military rounds have slightly more powder which generate higher internal pressures when fired. In addition, the brass used for military rounds is slightly thicker again because of the higher pressures. The actual bullets are exactly the same bullet. A 55 grain 223 bullet is the exact same bullet as a 55 grain 5.56 bullet. This is why there are barrels that shoot 223/5.56 The diameter is the same, the only difference in the chamber is it is thousands of a inch larger to accommodate the thicker brass of military rounds. The desire for a larger round with more stopping power is why the US military is looking to switch to the 6.8 creedmoor. The original reason for adopting the 5.56 was the ability to carry a large number of rounds without increasing the overall weight being carried by a soldier or marine. • AD-RtR/OS!|| What the average reporter or editor, plus their readership, at the New York Times doesn't know about firearms is legion. • Naaman Brown|| FBI UCR 2016 Crime in the United States Expanded Homicide Data Table 4 Murder Victims by Weapon, 2012-2016 Weapons used in year 2016 Rifles: 374 homicides Personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.): 656 homicides. Assault weapony type rifles are a subset of rifles. You are more likely to be murdered in America by an assailant armed with personal weapons than by an assailant armed with an assault rifle. Note also that while there is a constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to keep and bear arms, there is no amendment guaranteeing a right to keep and bear hands, fists, feet, etc., so there's nothing to block banning those Killer Personal Weapons now! There is not even a National Hands, Fists, Feet, Etc. Association to lobby for protecting the right of law-abiding Americans to keep their hand, fists, feet, etc. for traditional lawful purposes. We could ban Killer Personal Weapons tomorrow! It's common sense crime control, like banning comic books in the 1950s to end the seduction of innocents into juvenile delinquency.. • LiborCon|| I bought an AR-15 but it just wasn't scary enough. So I got an AR-10. The 7.62X51mm has twice the muzzle energy of the 5.56X45mm in a gun that's just two pounds heavier and looks like big AR-15. Way better at punching through barriers like car bodies or body armor and way better at long range shots. God I love 'Merica! • loveconstitution1789|| When Lefties start civil war 2.0 they will find out how .50 rifles rip right thru car engines. • TxJack 112|| Almost any rifle will punch through body armor. That is why the military have ceramic plates in their armor. As for car bodies, vehicles today are made of such light gauge steel and aluminum, anything will punch through them except the very low power rounds like 22LR or 25acp. • LiborCon|| Ceramic and metal plates are body armor. Stopping a 7.62X51 round requires heavier armor than 5.56X45. Heavier armor slows the wearer down and wears him out faster. Yes, most bullets can punch through cars, but they lose energy doing so. A 7.62 will go through two car doors and still have more than enough energy to punch through Kevlar body armor or other obstacles. It's also better at penetrating other barriers such as doors and walls. A barrier that provides cover for a 5.56 won't do so for a 7.62. • a tandem|| "body armor" virtually any rifle above .22 will punch though police and civilian body armor with standard ammo. 99% of the hunting rifles sold today in Canada will with ammo legal in canada • Ron|| interestingly self defense pistol ammo will not always go through a windshield and because of that I alternate rounds in my pistols. • JeremyR|| FWIW, the record for shooting 12 shots out of a 6 shot revolver is like 2 1/2 seconds So it's not just "assault rifles" that can shoot 100s of rounds in minutes. Granted, you'd need a lot of speed loaders to do that with a revolver, but you'd also need a lot of magazines... • MatthewSlyfield|| "Granted, you'd need a lot of speed loaders to do that with a revolver" Or a stack of 20 or so pre-loaded revolvers. :) • Doug Huffman|| The vast conspiracy of ignorance masquerades as common sense. • Quo Usque Tandem|| If you don't mind the intellectual theft on my part, I'm going to put that on a bumper sticker. • Joe_C|| I don't get why these people think speed really matters. Sure, speed of the round increases force a ton. F=MA and all of that, but at a certain point with human flesh and vitals it doesn't really fucking matter. It's not like getting hit with a subsonic .45 is a cakewalk. But I guess they think 830 f/s is somehow easy to outrun or dodge. • PaulTheBeav|| There are two kinds of gun control laws, those which are ineffective, and those which are unconstitutional. • Dadlobby|| Sadly these types of killings aren't done with Molotov Cocktails. These fake news sites could just blame Trump and Russian collusion and leave us gun owners alone. • TxJack 112|| So just read an article that says Army is abandoning the 5.56 and moving to the 6.8 Creedmoor in next generation of rifles. So I guess this means that ARs will no longer be a military weapon of war so gun control zealots will not be able to whine about them any longer.... LMAO!!!! • MatthewSlyfield|| They passed over the 6.5 Grendel? • TxJack 112|| yeah. Dunno why. • Ron|| I guess we better stock up on the 6.8 then, off to the store I go. BTW for anyone in California stock up now for in July of 2019 we need a background check to buy ammo. • TxJack 112|| That is why you should spend the money and learn to load your own. I have not bought factory ammo in about 5 years and shoot all the time. • Lance L|| Since firearms are not the problem, it must be the people that are the problem. The US has many more firearm deaths every year that we do in Canada, per capita. Now, "some" might say that since firearms are much more tightly controlled in Canada that is a good reason for this difference. But we all know that firearms are not the problem. That must mean that Canada has better people. • vek|| Canada has fewer/different minority groups than America. That is 100% of the difference right there. Look up murders by ethnicity, and you will find that white Americans have... Wait for it... Almost identical murder rates to whites in Canada, Europe, etc. Which is to say VERY FEW murders. According to FBI statistics blacks (50%) and Hispanics (35%) account for around 85% of gun murders (not suicides) every year in the US. It varies slightly by year, but they hover around those figures. Keep in mind blacks are 13% or so of the population, and Hispanics 16% or thereabouts. Leaving whites, which are around 62% of the population, and all other ethnic groups to fill in the remaining 15% or so of murders. Short version of the story is the US would be one of the LOWEST murder rate countries in the entire world if we didn't have massive ethnic gang problems. But hey, pay no mind to the most OBVIOUS and correct answer to our "violence" question, because it's not PC. • vek|| On the plus side, whites are more likely to be mass shooters! Us and Muslims, who are something like 100,000 (IIRC) times more likely per capita to commit mass shootings/bombings. LOL • James Pollock|| "Short version of the story is the US would be one of the LOWEST murder rate countries in the entire world if we didn't have massive ethnic gang problems. But hey, pay no mind to the most OBVIOUS and correct answer to our "violence" question, because it's not PC." It's not obvious (sorry, OBVIOUS) or even correct. You are assuming, without evidence, that if the minority ethnic gangs were to disappear magically overnight, the result would be a lack of violence, rather than simply having different people commit the same violence. The poor minorities have successfully displaced the white gangs of the past, probably because they were cheaper to hire and willing to work harder. • vek|| LOL Yeah, that's why Europe has the same percentage of white people in gangs as the USA does? Don't be a fool. White people DO join gangs, both in the past and present... But the sheer scale of the ethnic gang problems has NEVER been matched by white folks, not even at the height of Italian mob days. White people in the same income brackets as minorities STILL commit far fewer crimes than blacks or Hispanics, as per statistics. So you can just fuck right off. All you're doing is projecting what you WANT to be true onto reality, despite facts being to the contrary. • a tandem|| Over 20 US jurisdictions have found on the order of 86% to 91% of their murder victims are CRIMINALS • James Pollock|| Serves those jaywalkers right, then. Wait for the light to change, ya darn CRIMINAL! • Henry|| The minute you use the term "firearms deaths" you give the enemy territory. "Firearms deaths" is an almost completely meaningless number. "Gun deaths" in the US claim 30,000 per year, about 20,000 of which re "voluntary" (suicides). Compare this to "hospital deaths due to medical error," which claim over 400,000: http://www.hospitalsafetygrade.....ntstooslow We could immediately prevent all "hospital deaths" by closing all hospitals. Yes, you're right, that's stupid, because hospitals presumably save more people than they kill. And yet so do guns: 500,000 to 3 million defensive uses per year, compared to 10,000 unjustified "gun deaths." And these aren't "NRA numbers," they're from a CDC study commissioned by Barack Obama: https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1 • a tandem|| Canada own heath authorities say up to 75% of non gun suicide in Canada is misclassified as accident. Canada does have a lower gun suicide rate per capita but likely has a higher TOTAL suicide rate per capita than the US. A dozen peer reviewed studies in Australia found the same thing -- ZERO reduction in total suicide with the broad removal of guns -- just a shift to other means, frequently means that are mostly misclassified as accident even when actually Canada also has a higher murder rate of non criminals than the US has • James Pollock|| "We could immediately prevent all "hospital deaths" by closing all hospitals. Yes, you're right, that's stupid, because hospitals presumably save more people than they kill." OK. What's your position on licensing medical practitioners? Maybe some kind of "background check" to see if they're qualified to dispense medicines which might cause serious injury or death? Maybe find the ones who have too many "mistakes" on their record, and take away their ability to handle medicines at all? Of course, to do that, we'll have to make some medicines illegal for citizens to have without government permission, and some of them, the government (heh, heh) won't give anyone permission to have. And if any of the states tries to make them legal to possess, we'll have the attorney general come after them with federal law that says they're still illegal even if the state says they're OK. Naw. They'll have to pry my cold, dead fingers off my bottle of sudafed. • TxJack 112|| All firearms are banned in France and yet, there have been a number of mass shootings. People who decide to commit mass murder do not care about the law since they have decided to violate the one seen as the most serious in every culture/country on earth. • James Pollock|| Therefore, what you need is for the people who DO care about the law, to not give firearms to people who don't. In much the same way we expect bartenders to keep drunks from driving off. • a tandem|| "The US has many more firearm deaths every year that we do in Canada, per capita. …. But we all know that firearms are not the problem. That must mean that Canada has better people." Canada does have better people, Canada does not have the minority murder commission rates because it does not have the same types of minorities. My former state, New Hampshire, has virtually no gun control, and similar demographics to Canada and less mass murder than Canada and no higher rat of homicide. Moreover, Canada has a 30% HIGHER rate of murder of non criminals than the US has. We know gun control is not why Canada has a lower murder rate • Tionico|| Those erroneously labelled "assault weapons" are not even legal for the taking of deer when hunting. Anyone want to guess WHY? They are banned for that use precisely BECAUSE they are NOT powerful enough to reliably kill a deer, an anumal quite a bit smaller in size and weight than most humans. Yes, they have higher muzzle velocity. Downrange velocity is another matter, but the critical factor is a thing called "downrange energy". THIS is the critical measure of "hitting power" or "penetration". They fire a very small projectile... light weight and small diameter. Thus \it does not have much energy, not enough to reliably kill a deer. I can think of two dozen OTHER rifle calibers that are quite common, easy to obtain, and very capable for use in hunting. The typical AR style rifle is also quite heavy... half again as much so as many very powerful hunting rifles. I would not choose the AR platform rifle for most combat situations. Yes they are small, so what? Feeble into the bargain. Short effective range. Ungainly at least for me. I do not own one, nor do I care to except as a possible hedge against the day they are made illegal. • Echospinner|| Hunting humans is not the same as deer. We could agree about that. So different tools. • perlchpr|| Thin skinned game in the 150 - 300 lbs range. Show me the difference. • James Pollock|| "Thin skinned game in the 150 - 300 lbs range. Show me the difference." There is at least a theoretical chance that a human can return fire when fired upon. The deer have not yet mastered firearm production. • MatthewSlyfield|| A dyslexic man was arrested in Yellowstone Park for mounting firearms on animals. At his trial, he insisted that the second amendment gave him the right to arm bears. • a tandem|| @ James, do you only write strawman arguments and red herrings? • James Pollock|| Did you feel the rush of wind as the joke whizzed past you, or was it too far over your head? • perlchpr|| Thin skinned game in the 150 - 300 lbs range. Show me the difference. • perlchpr|| Thin skinned game in the 150 - 300 lbs range. Show me the difference. • perlchpr|| Also, a .223 will really fuck up a squirrel. • mpercy|| "I can think of two dozen OTHER rifle calibers that are quite common, easy to obtain, and very capable for use in hunting." And they all can be found in AR-style weapons. "The standard AR-15 caliber is the .223/5.56x45mm and it works well for small game and predator hunting. There is ammunition available for the .223 built specifically for deer hunting that penetrate well at close ranges. These deer-specific loads work well for whitetail hunting in tree-stands and blinds. The low recoil and easy handling make those rounds ideal for smaller individuals and youth hunters. The .450 Bushmaster, .458 SOCOM, .50 Beowulf, .277 Wolverine, 6.5 Grendel, .6.8 SPC and .300 Blackout carried by Starline Brass are excellent deer calibers as well. While not flat shooting cartridges by any means, the .458 SOCOM, .450 Bushmaster, and .50 Beowulf are large enough for any of North America's big game and most of the rest of the worlds'." The similarly styled AR-10 platform boasts .30-06 and other large calibers as well. • MatthewSlyfield|| Actually, .450 Bushmaster, .458 SOCOM and .50 Beowulf would be a bit much (overkill) for whitetail deer. There are however excellent for Moose, bear, or feral hogs. • James Pollock|| If it's overkill you want, you need a GAU-8. The military has decided to start phasing out the A-10... not sure if an A-10 can even fly with the gun removed. Be a shame to see them all scrapped. • MikeP2|| Grow up Jacob. The NYT isnt "perpetuating a myth". They are, with clear intent, lying to their low informtaion readers to skew the political discussion. They are a propanganda outfit "Enemy of the people" is not entirely wrong. • James Pollock|| Firearms enthusiasts are generally correct to point out that guns are tools, and what makes a tool dangerous (or not) is the person using it. Gun control advocates are generally correct to point out that firearms are tools designed for the purpose of killing, and readily turned to the goal of killing people, and that deserves special attention and different treatment from other tools. If you handle your tools safely and responsibly, then your doing so infringes on the rights of no other person and thus should be nobody else's business. At issue, then, is the question of what is to be done, if anything, to keep irresponsible people from having tools designed to kill people, or criminals who would use such tools intentionally to kill other people unlawfully from having such tools? This creates the subquestion, very important, of how much we are willing to tolerate regulation that limits the safe, responsible possessor as an unintended side consequence of limiting the unsafe, irresponsible, or criminal possessor? There is close to zero people who favor allowing possession to any person, including unsafe, irresponsible, or criminal possessors. There are fairly few who want to dispossess the safe responsible possessor, but considerable latitude in the range of opinion about how much regulation that affects them is acceptable and tolerable. • Naaman Brown|| My father took me target shooting when I was 6. I went hunting with my uncle when I was 14. I grew up in a working class community during local option alcohol prohibition 1953-1968. I was 5-20 years old during this. It was also the birth of the modern gun control movement, Carl Bakal "This Very Day a Gun May Kill You" 1959 through the crusade against mail order guns, We had bootleggers in the neighborhood. The gun thugs got their weapons illegally, even theft from military or police. None of them bought a gun by mail order (they did not want a sales record with address and a check or money order signed even if they used a PO Box and alias as Lee Harvey Oswald's mail order guns were traced within 24 hrs). As far as I am concerned, the gun control restrictions are a huge waste of money and effort in the wrong direction just like Prohibition. The target of law enforcement should be violent criminals period. Gun control is a huge net broadly cast at 65 million gun owners the vast majority of whom will never do any harm with their guns. We now have sin taxes on used guns sales ($30 background check fee for private sale, \$65 transfer and BG check for interstate sale), but the sin taxes do not discourage private sales or interstate transfers. They discourage private sales and interstate transfers with BG checks.

• James Pollock||

" The target of law enforcement should be violent criminals period."

So if I steal you money by forgery instead of by force, I get to keep it?

Any "gun control" needs the support of the firearms enthusiast community generally, or it will fail. This is an argument both for changing the "gun control" laws as well as changing the firearms enthusiast community. If you had buy-in, then the people who spent the most time around firearms and firearms fans would be the ones who'd take note of, and take actions to limit, the very small number of people who should not have access to deadly weapons.
As long as you have the "us vs. them" mentality that leads the community to shelter people who really should not have access to a weapon, you're going to continue to have incidents where people who shouldn't have been able to get a weapon had no problem getting (and then misusing) a weapon that most owners/possessors handle safely and responsibly.

• a tandem||

EG: "Gun control advocates are generally correct to point out that firearms are tools designed for the purpose of killing, "

Actually the main function of firearms in civilian hands, and this is easily proven with the numbers, is to REDUCE killing and violent crime. Gun owners prevent two to three million crimes per year.

As far as who should not be able to get a weapon, since lots of murders are committed with a knife, bludgeon etc, what you really mean is who should or should not be on the streets.

Lets not forget US gun murder has PLUNGED 50% in the past 25 years.

• James Pollock||

Or yours are.

• James Pollock||

EG: 'Gun control advocates are generally correct to point out that firearms are tools designed for the purpose of killing,'
Actually the main function of firearms in civilian hands, and this is easily proven with the numbers, is to REDUCE killing and violent crime. Gun owners prevent two to three million crimes per year."

If you can fulfill this objective WITHOUT a tool designed for the purpose of killing, then you can do this without a tool designed for the purpose of killing. QED.

Was this the outcome you were arguing towards? That you don't need a gun to be tough?

• a tandem||

"the firearms enthusiast community"

NRa runs 58% approvals among all Americans. it is likely the US has a 57% to 63% gun ownership rate.
The vast majority of gun owners are not 'firearms enthusiasts" but people who simply keep their households safer by owning a gun (and if you are not a criminal, owning a gun makes your household about 30% safer from violence).

there is no "us vs them" there is the vast a majority of Americans who support eh individual right to keep and bear arms, and a handful of billionaires who have created a few astroturf organizations all of which have promoted TOTAL gun bans.

• James Pollock||

"The vast majority of gun owners are not 'firearms enthusiasts'"

I don't recall stating they were.

"there is the vast a majority of Americans who support eh individual right to keep and bear arms, and a handful of billionaires who have created a few astroturf organizations all of which have promoted TOTAL gun bans."

If you got out more, you'd know that there are a few other categories.
I contend that the biggest group of all would be "Americans who support individual freedom to own and possess firearms of their choice, but also some limits for some individuals who are irresponsible gun users and have thus forfeited their right to have them".

I contend that you, yourself, fall into that category.

It is not lost on me that you want to both argue both that there are just a few billionaires who promote TOTAL gun bans, but when I said there were very few people who supported limits on safe and responsible gun owners, you called that an easily debunked lie. So which is it?

• Henry||

"At issue, then, is the question of what is to be done, if anything, to keep irresponsible people from having tools designed to kill people, or criminals who would use such tools intentionally to kill other people unlawfully from having such tools?"

No, that is exactly the wrong issue.

You cannot plan to achieve an impossible goal. Prohibition laws are never effective. You may as well ask what can be done, if anything, to totally PREVENT people from crashing their cars, or totally PREVENT their houses from catching fire.

Instead, we realize that we need to design mechanisms -- like seat belts, airbags, smoke detectors, and sprinklers -- so that when the s* DOES hit the fan, which it always will, we can limit the scope of the tragedy. Trying to prevent the s* from ever hitting the fan is a dangerous diversion of valuable effort, and provides aid and comfort to tyranny.

What can we do when the irresponsible people DO (as they will) obtain firearms and other deadly weapons? We ensure that the responsible people (who exist in much greater numbers) are armed and ready to correct the situation. To wit, we honor their basic constitutional right to be armed for the security of themselves and their community, as we should have been doing all along.

That's why the massacres are concentrated in venues (like schools) where good people are unfairly disarmed by law; and that's why whenever gun control laws are relaxed in an area, violent interpersonal crime drops.

• James Pollock||

"You cannot plan to achieve an impossible goal. Prohibition laws are never effective. You may as well ask what can be done, if anything, to totally PREVENT people from crashing their cars, or totally PREVENT their houses from catching fire."

= we can't be perfect, therefore we shouldn't try to be better.

"That's why the massacres are concentrated in venues (like schools) where good people are unfairly disarmed by law"

That's a crock. There was a mass shooting at Fort Hood. If there's a place that's more likely to contain armed persons than a military base in Texas, I can't think of what it might be.

• TxJack 112||

There are already laws to prevent felons, domestic abusers, and people with mental illness from purchasing and possessing firearms. The problem with your premise are the terms "unsafe and irresponsible". I have had many online debates with people who oppose people owning guns and in their minds anyone who has them is "unsafe and irresponsible" and that is exactly the problem. Who decides the definition of "unsafe and irresponsible"? The government? If that is the case then the 2nd amendment is no longer a right but a privilege. All you have to do is look at states like California, NJ and NY and it is crystal clear when the government decides who is safe and responsible enough to own firearms, it is practically no one except the police, wealthy and politically connected. Average people are too "dangerous" to own firearms.

• James Pollock||

"There are already laws to prevent felons, domestic abusers, and people with mental illness from purchasing and possessing firearms."

Felons, as a group, are not know for their strict adherence to laws, not limited to gun possession laws. Ditto for people with mental illness. What you need are laws that apply to NON-criminal, NON-mentally-ill persons... because those are the people who will, you know, follow the law.

"I have had many online debates with people who oppose people owning guns and in their minds anyone who has them is "unsafe and irresponsible" and that is exactly the problem."

Yeah, this is why we don't set policy based on who has time to sit down and type things on the Internet.

"Who decides the definition of 'unsafe and irresponsible'?"

You start with people who fit the definition no matter who's deciding.

"All you have to do is look at states like California, NJ and NY and it is crystal clear when the government decides who is safe and responsible enough to own firearms, it is practically no one except the police, wealthy and politically connected."

You're doing it wrong. There's no reason why every state should be the same. Some states have conditions that lead its citizens to support fewer restrictions, and some have citizens who support more restrictions. So too with everything else the state regulates.

• Lawn Darts||

"Felons, as a group, are not know for their strict adherence to laws,"

That would be all of us then: Three Felonies a Day

• James Pollock||

"That would be all of us then"

• TxJack 112||

There are already laws to prevent felons, domestic abusers, and people with mental illness from purchasing and possessing firearms. The problem with your premise are the terms "unsafe and irresponsible". I have had many online debates with people who oppose people owning guns and in their minds anyone who has them is "unsafe and irresponsible" and that is exactly the problem. Who decides the definition of "unsafe and irresponsible"? The government? If that is the case then the 2nd amendment is no longer a right but a privilege. All you have to do is look at states like California, NJ and NY and it is crystal clear when the government decides who is safe and responsible enough to own firearms, it is practically no one except the police, wealthy and politically connected. Average people are too "dangerous" to own firearms.

• a tandem||

"There are fairly few who want to dispossess the safe responsible possessor"

That is complete lie and easily debunked. Not some, but EVERY, gun control origination supported DC in Heller v DC, meaning every single one support TOTAL bans, even of revolvers to be kept in a safe by background checked individuals. That is Giffords, VPC, Everytown, Moms demand, Bloomberg's Children's crusade, Brady -- every single one.

Every gun control organization -- every one -- has supported and promoted the "Australian model" which is mass confiscation -- even of revolvers -- of the firearms of lawful "safe responsible" gun owners.

And what is 'safe responsible"? That is a classic weasel word. do you support first, fourth fifth and sixth amendment rights only for people who are "safe"? WTF does that even mean?

• James Pollock||

"That is complete lie and easily debunked."

How odd, then, that it is the position you took, above, calling the opposition to gun freedom "a few billionaires and astroturf organizations."

• Henry||

"The New York Times erroneously claimed..."

Look, Jacob, enough with the undeserved civility. It's time we began calling a deliberate lie a deliberate lie.

• TxJack 112||

The basic problem with this debate every time it occurs, is those opposed to firearms either clearly have no idea what they are discussing and simply regurgitating "data" they have heard/read or they are pushing the common gun control lies. In addition, when you begin to present facts and point out why what they claim is wrong, you are attacked as a gun nut or some other label they love to toss around. As of today, all my firearms have shot or killed ZERO people. In addition, they have shot or killed Zero animals. However, they have turned a lot of paper into confetti. Gun owners are not blood thirsty or crazy, yet that is how we are portrayed by every person pushing for more gun control whenever we argue against them. The simple truth is they do not want gun laws to stop crime, they want gun laws to stop any resistance to the laws they will impose AFTER they ban all firearms. An armed populace is the only defense against the type of government the progressive left wants to create which is why they are totally committed to this cause.

• James Pollock||

" An armed populace is the only defense against the type of government the progressive left wants to create which is why they are totally committed to this cause."

It's cute that you think this.

However, it's simply not true that a bunch of civilians with popguns are holding back the tyranny. As "your side" of the argument likes to point out, it's not the gun that's dangerous, it's the person holding the gun that's dangerous.

I suspect if you looked into it a little bit more, you'd find a LOT MORE leftists with carry permits than you imagine. This is because "gun control" and "ban all firearms" are not interchangeable, any more than "require license, registration, and insurance" is "ban all cars". When you conflate these two, right after complaining that "their side" treats every responsible gun owner as a nut (or some other label they like to throw around), you deeply undermine your argument.

• Rynosaur||

As much as I hate Kavanaugh, at least his scotus appointment keeps our gun rights safe for a while. About the only good thing you can say about him.

• ejhickey||

Some call it an "assault rifle " . I call it a "defense rifle" . "it is a powerful weapon: light, easy to hold and to fire, with limited recoil, its bullets shooting out of the muzzle more than twice as fast as most handgun rounds." Just the thing I need to protect my home and my family. I prefer one of these to the 12 gauge shotgun that VP Biden recommended that every house have.

• snowhawk||

Being a Constitutional American (as apposed to being a post Revolution migrant squatter) I'm most affected by those whose genes were unwilling to fight to change what they allowed to become a shit hole. These people never considered my Guarantied Constitutional Rights before choosing, for the money, to squat in my Country. Beginning with the stinking Irish Catholics; who block voted in their own representation which immediately began to affect We the Peoples Freedom the challenges to my Rights have grown greater with each passing year.

Though the Communist RATs keep up their constant propaganda rhetoric. In all reality the Federal Government made the determination in 1939 to make Assault (automatic firing) weapons illegal to possess without a very hard to obtain Gun Trust License.