I am trying to read through the study, but it is a bad sign that the second sentence: “The weapons were banned in 1994 under the federal assault weapons ban” is completely false. Also, “semiautos are designed for easy use, can accept large magazines…” So, other types of firearms are designed to be difficult to use? That is not true at all. Bolt action rifles and revolvers are super easy to use, as a rule. And not all or even most semiautos can accept large magazines, or any sort of magazine. I don’t think they are using the term in the way it is actually defined or in common use.
In a scientific study that is primarily about semiauto rifles and their lethality, it would be comforting to think that the authors of the study knew what one is. In this case, the definition is critical to the conclusions of the study. Part of the methodology was to look at news reports for each incident and determine what kind of weapon or weapons were used. That would have to include enough knowledge of firearms types to make that determination competently.
Although the conclusions of the story seem sensible, it would be impossible to really endorse it without determining if the authors are actually compiling data on semiauto rifles, or something else.
“On May 3, 1994, Ronald Reagan and two other former presidents sent a letter to House members, urging them to support a controversial ban on lethal, military-style assault weapons. At the time, President Clinton was battling Republicans, conservative Democrats and the NRA to pass a bill barring many semiautomatic rifles.
Clinton needed all the help he could get it. He got it from Reagan, who still carried great weight in the Republican Party, as well as Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter. Their letter, in part, read:
“This is a matter of vital importance to the public safety. While we recognize that assault weapon legislation will not stop all assault weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals. We urge you to listen to the American public and to the law enforcement community and support a ban on the further manufacture of these weapons.“”
Oh that’s absolutely the rational. From people who buy guns for those reasons. From people who use it as a justification for lack of restrictions. And as the central thing pushed by fire arms marketing that created and propagates the whole idea.
Even a basic understanding of fire arms safety and you know that’s insanely dangerous on a hundred fronts. But that’s the base assumption of the whole customer base and industry. You aren’t safe unless there is a gun quickly to hand. Just go check out firearm safes. The shear number of products with “quick access” features that completely moot any and all safety or security offered by the things is insane.
September 1994 Clinton had be in office over a year.
The Ruger 10/22 is also most commonly (only?) chambered in .22lr a very small rifle cartridge. It makes it a poor comparison point to larger guns chambered in .223 Remington. None the less its a favorite for firearms regulation opponents to bring up. As is the claim that ar-15s and similar guns are “just twenty twos”. The hope is that you’ll confuse something that fires a full on (if smaller and moderately powered) rifle cartridge for the dinky 22 caliber guns we for some reason consider weak and safe.
.223 to the right.
Beyond that .22lr is still a pretty dangerous caliber of weapon. It was the most commonly used caliber in murders until some time in the 80’s.
Its also important to remember that Reagan (and a majority GOP congress I think) gave us the 1986 ban on importation of automatic weapons and sales of them to civilians.
Which is why the AR-15 became the darling of mass murderers. AK’s became harder to find/more expensive. An entire industry of knockoff AR’s started up. Guns that used to be available about $2000+ dropped to versions which were a little over $500
Its a little more complicated than that. Initial burst in popularity after import restrictions was part of what lead to the Assault Weapon Ban in '94. And while AR-15’s were explicitly labeled “legal” by that law they were still subject to restrictions on barrel length and magazine capacity. As well as the “two of a kind” restrictions on features like pistol grips, collapsible stocks and the like. So the real price drops, broad availability and huge popularity didn’t kick off until the Assault Weapon Ban expired and the full on Tacticool ™, accessorize it like a Barbie aspect that drives a lot of the popularity was able to hit market.
It passed muster at a Federal appeals court, but not the SC. And you are correct about Scalia, as well as the idea that appropriate gun regulations are perfectly fine. So, the question is whether assault weapons would be protected at the SC after Heller, McDonald, and Caetano. I don’t think we know the answer to that question. Some say no, some argue yes.
Here is a pretty good interview with a 2nd Amendment scholar who argues that they would be. And also that reduced magazines would not be allowed, which I find disappointing:
Thanks but as I mentioned in my original comment, a ban on all semi-autos would likely be unconstitutional. The reason I mentioned the 10/22 is because it’s generally accepted to have multiple lawful purposes, and thus extremely difficult to ban barring a constitutional convention which redefines the right to bear arms as not an individual right.
(Recent court decisions have explicitly ruled this to be the case)
i don’t think a ban on semi-auto weapons would be unconstitutional. i don’t think you could really point to any of the rulings, even the most pro-gun rulings, of the supreme court which indicate that forbidding the use of a particular class of firearm or weapon system, or greatly restricting their uses, is totally impermissible else the restrictive regime imposed on full-auto weapons, “silencers,” or sawed-off shotguns would have been overturned by now.
i think it’s closer to the truth that so many firearms are semi-auto from pistols to rifles to shotguns. unlike the assault-type weapons which were banned and confiscated in australia, there are just so many out there that it would be nearly impossible to enforce. in many cases it would be very difficult to distinguish between a semi-auto weapon from one with some other type of action with just a cursory glance at a rifle or shotgun from a distance. something i think would be more helpful than making a futile attempt to ban all semi-auto firearms would be to ban clips with more than a 5 to 8 round capacity and preventing the firearms themselves from having a magazine built in to it with a larger capacity than that. it would be relatively easy to tell whether a rifle had a 25-50 round clip on it, even at a distance.
The ban on automatic weapons for civilian sale is still constitutional. For all intents and purposes. All the recent supreme court decision means at base is you can’t have a blanket ban on all fire arms.
Its a recent court decision. Not fully imbedded in the law yet. And could be over turned by another court decision just as easily as it overturn centuries of constitutional precident. And lower courts are not entirely bound to follow its precident they can find differently or cite the minority opinion. Especially on closely split rulings. And the fresher a ruling, and the fewer rulings drawn from it. The easier and morenlegally justified it is to do so.
Now whether that remains the case or not given current circumstance is another question. But a semi-auto ban would be just as constitutional as as the auto ban. If structured the same way.
That also doesnt mean that bans are the way to go. Europe tends to use tiered licensing. Where by you can get a semi-auto. Its considerably more difficult to do so than single shot and bolt action firearms. Seems to work pretty well.
“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.”
You could permaban all ammunitions. Any important amendments wouldn’t be infringed if people could keep their beloved (fire)arms even if they would be empty.
Medical workers who have treated mass shooting victims have described bullet wounds from rifles as larger and more serious than bullet wounds from handguns.
But in the study of shootings, “the proportion of people who died is actually the same”, regardless of the weapon used, Haider said. “The difference is that in incidents where there was a semiautomatic rifle, the number of victims basically doubled.”
