The three vectors to look at as far as “capabilities” is rate of fire, size of magazine, and easy of reload. A fourth might be “power of cartridge”.
A lever action or pump action weapon can have medium capacity, pretty high rate of fire, but slower reload time. (See Chuck Conners in “The Rifleman” or for real life, the SASS action shooters who all shoot archaic “wild west” type weapons.)
Anything with a removable magazine makes reloading faster. IMO it almost makes magazine limits more or less moot. I shoot action pistols and purposefully limit myself to a 9 round magazine, which means I have to reload multiple times in a stage, where as someone with a standard Glock can shoot 17 rounds or more before the have to reload. The time differences between people of similar skills are negligible. There is also the issue that one can now 3D print magazines for many popular rifles and some pistols (with varying degrees of success). It’s a box of metal or plastic - it is going to be hard to regulate if there is a national ban. But there are several states that do have magazine capacity limits. (IIRC NY and CA, one can look up the others.)
Among bolt actions, the most common rifle type, you usually have slower loading, slower firing, but generally better accuracy. They do make removable magazines for some of them, but most are the internal box magazine that hold 3-5 rounds.
So i agree with your point on what one should look at, but still not sue how one would draw the lines.
Whew, you’re asking for a huge expense that is going to be low yield. While this is speculation, I am think it is a reasonable assumption to assume the average person using their guns for crime can go a whole year on a box of ammo. Where as people into sport or plinking can go through hundreds in a day/match.
I suppose if you had to show ID like you do to buy Sudafed, and it was tied to NICS, it could block sales to felons and other restricted persons. Or like the tweakers, they just get someone clean to buy it. At least it would ween out the slow ones.
I’d also contend there is little difference between someone who has 500 rounds and someone who has 10,000. You said you were in the military, right? What was your average load out? 210 rounds? Even if you doubled that you have under 500 on you. You couldn’t physically carry 10,000 rounds with you. I guess if you wanted to do some sort of Waco style shut in, you have a point, but as far as mass shooters go, worrying about 10,000 rounds is pointless.
And for anyone wondering, no, 500 rounds isn’t anything to raise an eyebrow about. 500 rounds is a good sale on 9mm. 500 rounds is what you bring to an action shoot match. My dad probably has 500 rounds made up of 25 boxes, each of a different caliber and from 5 different decades.
Split this topic if you want to get into, but an armed populace doesn’t have to actually be able to STOP a government if there is an all out war. Never mind the gunships, what sort of optics and public reaction would we have if the military started shooting armed civilians? Do you remember Waco and Ruby Ridge? Even though those two example were against wackadoos, people were pretty upset at how they were handled. Indeed it changed the FBIs protocols for those sorts of events. Again, I am not a “WOLVERINES!” sort of person. But I also don’t dismiss how an armed populace affect the power dynamics. If you want to reply to this, split the topic so I don’t get accused of derail. Thanks.
Respectfully, most of this is not minutia. This is the reality of what is out there that people are asking to regulate. I believe if one wants to have any hopes of moving something through, it needs to be very well crafted.
Ok, fair point, but the politicians have a history of crafting TERRIBLE laws. The AWB is a real world example.
Right, that’s what I’m doing, although I wouldn’t call myself an “expert” per se.
If someone says, “ban assault weapons” I just told them what they would have to ban and the scope of it. If they say, “ban military grade weapons”, I just told them what that entails. I also told them what people would shift to in that event.
I agree with this. We already ban felons from possession, and domestic violence, even misdemeanor offenses, gets you removed. There is a problem where reporting of these offenses to the NICS registry isn’t always 100%. Nor do they usually follow up with ownership after a domestic violence conviction.
I am a bit wary of a red flag law, but if it was properly crafted, I could get behind it. If one can lose their rights just because a neighbor knows you have guns and doesn’t like it - that’s bad. If one can lose their rights because they have been menacing or making threats or close family/friends worry about suicide, I could see that being a temporary measure to put a pause on rights. But it HAS to go beyond just that.
Is someone suicidal or possibly mentally ill? They need mandated help. You can’t just put their rights in limbo and then abandon them. Is this a temporary thing due to a break up or a job loss, or a chronic thing? Is this some mental disorder that will never be “cured” and it should be a permanent suspension? Was someone making threats or acting menacing? They need to be actually tried and convicted and make it official. Make some of these misdemeanors that are still tied to the suspension of rights. Or are they bad enough they should be a felony threat?
I disagree with this logic because so many laws crafted in effort to do something for security have just robbed people of civil liberties, though I do understand the point of view.
Most likely, yes. And some token law, like the bump stock ban, really does nothing to make anyone safer. There is this uphill battle because of the 2nd Amendment making it a right, so anything broad is going to face a constitutional challenge.
I am thinking a licensing system would be the most likely thing that would pass a constitutional challenge. It also is something people like me would grumble about, but not actually march in the street for. I already have two firearm related licenses.
I still contend that requiring private sales to go through NICS isn’t going to curb much crime. People who are knowingly selling to shady people aren’t going to stop doing that because it’s against the law (they are already breaking the law.) It may stop a guy from selling to a restricted person, not knowing they were restricted. We don’t have any data on how often that happens, but anecdotally, when BST groups were a thing on FB shady characters were scorned and booted. Most people wanted to see a CCW permit.
But as far as new laws go, requiring NICS on private, face to face sales would leave me grumbling, but not in the streets with a sign. Although I would request that NICS check could be run by citizens on the web and a receipt of the check could be presented with the sale.
I believe this to be true as well.
Yeah, now, with the AR platform a big as it is, they have changed it to meet the new market.
I mean, technically back in the day they did have versions that had all those features. Ever watch the A-Team? That’s what they used, folding stock Mini-14s. In 1994 the most popular model was the wood stocked version and it had the reputation of being a “ranch gun”. Something fairly rugged and reliable, so-so accuracy but cheaper and less “what do you need THAT for” than an AR-15. You’re right in that the capabilities are basically the same. The AWB was largely semantics. The whole “10 round” limit is from a comment Bill Ruger made that “no one needs more than 10 rounds” - something he was crucified for later.
BTW “what do you need THAT for?” was the most common reaction for military style weapons by the average gun owner in the 90s. IMO, the ban actually propelled them into popularity.
Why not? The potential is there. We had a goddamn president assassinated with one. You’re right that if one were to chose, they might stick to an AR style weapon. But if that was not an option, the bolt action rifle is extremely capable. For mass shootings, your standard Glock type pistol - which has been used in the past. Or shot guns. At those types of ranges, buck shot is just terrible. You’re never going to remove the danger if the zeitgeist is now “I want to go out and hurt a lot of people.” They will use the best method available.
You’re right, the designated marksman are on the 5.56 platform with Mk 12s and the like. Snipers use a mix of the old bolt action M24s, updated M-14s, or the new M110 based on the AR-10. They also updated their bolt actions to include the Mk 21 in .338 Lapua (I won’t get into the Barretts) So yes, they have transitioned to semi-autos, but are also using bolt actions. For over 100 years they were using bolt actions, many of them with accuracy that if you had today in a new rifle you would return it for having a defective barrel.
A 30 round magazine doesn’t throw off the balance because it was designed for it. Something like that 100 round cmag makes it more front heavy, yes. Honestly the barrel is the biggest factor on the weight and balance. Do you have bolt actions with tapered and bull barrels? Same sort of thing. The military styled barrels tend to be lighter. The make heavier barrels for sport and hunting. Typically the thicker the barrel the more consistent the accuracy is and the less likely it is to move as the barrel heats up. And then people throw crap on the fronts and back shifting the weight because it’s like legos and they swap parts all the time.
The heaviest one I have seen was one set up for National Match, with a 20" bull barrel and lead weights in the butt stop and forearem. But those are heavy because of their marksman use, you wouldn’t want to lug that in the woods.
As to your last question, how far does the speedometer go in your car? Would you ever get that needle all the way to the right of the dial on the highway?
First off, in some states, they have ammo limits when hunting - depending on the game. Like a lot of bird hunting you can have 3 shells in the shot gun. Deer hunting you can have 5 rounds. They make 5 round mags for ARs, or even if there is no restriction, no one is actually loading up a full 30 rounder. A 5 or 10 round magazine will not snag in the brush as much. So just because you gun CAN carry 100 rounds, doesn’t mean you actually USE it that way when hunting. (And for comparison, a lever action .357 holds 10 rounds in its tubular magazine.)
