For Those Wanting More Firearm Laws

[Audie]

Oslo made the news last year for almost achieving their target of zero road traffic deaths:

How Did Norway Achieve the Lowest Traffic Fatality Rate in the World? | Road Safety at Work

They're almost there, and Norway as a whole is well on its way: it halved its fatal collisions in a decade and last year had 107 for the whole country.

Cars are still permitted in both Oslo and Norway in general.

It can be reduced but not eliminated.
Any pretense to the contrary is as I said,
ridiculous.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It can be reduced but not eliminated.
Any pretense to the contrary is as I said,
ridiculous.

Notice that I said fatalities and serious injuries. I agree that we probably wouldn't be able to prevent all minor injuries (e.g. scratches and minor complaints of temporary pain), but eliminating life-ending and life-altering injuries on our roads is very achievable. It doesn't require banning cars, but it does require political will and a change in mindset.

 

[esmith]

I am pretty sure they use machineguns in war because they
work better for killing people.

The only machine guns used by the US Military are:
Browning M2 .50 cal
M240 (in different configurations) in 7.62mm
M249 SAW in 5.56x45mm
M60 in 7.62mm (limited use)
All of these are belt fed weapons.
However there are older weapons like the Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR) in 30/06 caliber that is magazine fed or the Thompson sub-machine gun in .45 caliber.
So yes, if you access to a "machine gun" and wanted to carry around the belts to feed them or a drum magazine for the Thompson or numerous magazines you could put some serious hurt on a group of people.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I looked it up. Machine guns are not banned. They are regulated.
There is little to discuss if one does not stick to facts.

Well, if we want to be precise, new sales of machine guns to civilians are banned, with certain exceptions for gun dealers. I already clarified this in the post prior to the one you quoted. The point is it is much more difficult and expensive to get your hands on a machine gun than an assault rifle, and the reason is because one is much more highly regulated than the other. The poster I was speaking with, and I, agreed with each other on this characterization. I use the word “banned” to contrast the status of machine guns vs assault rifles because that is more succinct than explaining all the nuances each time - hopefully we are all on the same page now.

 

[Audie]

Well, if we want to be precise, new sales of machine guns to civilians are banned, with certain exceptions for gun dealers. I already clarified this in the post prior to the one you quoted. The point is it is much more difficult and expensive to get your hands on a machine gun than an assault rifle, and the reason is because one is much more highly regulated than the other. The poster I was speaking with, and I, agreed with each other on this characterization. I use the word “banned” to contrast the status of machine guns vs assault rifles because that is more succinct than explaining all the nuances each time - hopefully we are all on the same page now.

The only machine guns used by the US Military are:
Browning M2 .50 cal
M240 (in different configurations) in 7.62mm
M249 SAW in 5.56x45mm
M60 in 7.62mm (limited use)
All of these are belt fed weapons.
However there are older weapons like the Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR) in 30/06 caliber that is magazine fed or the Thompson sub-machine gun in .45 caliber.
So yes, if you access to a "machine gun" and wanted to carry around the belts to feed them or a drum magazine for the Thompson or numerous magazines you could put some serious hurt on a group of people.

The AK47 is a machinegun. I looked it up.

The AR whatever rifle the USA uses is also a machinegun.

The Thompson is a submachinegun.

 

[Audie]

Notice that I said fatalities and serious injuries. I agree that we probably wouldn't be able to prevent all minor injuries (e.g. scratches and minor complaints of temporary pain), but eliminating life-ending and life-altering injuries on our roads is very achievable. It doesn't require banning cars, but it does require political will and a change in mindset.

You are still being very ridiculous, and do not even seem to
understand that.
People get killed by cars backing into them in a parking lo,
jut for one of a very large number of accidents.

Only way to go to zero is zero cars.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

The AK47 is a machinegun. I looked it up.

The AR whatever rifle the USA uses is also a machinegun.

The Thompson is a submachinegun.

Sorry, I don’t follow what your point is?

The post you quoted by esmith was about automatic weapons used by the US military. The post you quoted by me is about the ban on sales of new automatic weapons to US civilians.

By the way, there are AK47s and AR15s that are not machine guns. Typically manufacturers design these weapons without automatic capability in order for them to be legally sold to the civilian market in the US. I have fired both AK47s and AR15s for fun. Neither was capable of fully automatic fire. The ones used by militaries have a switch that makes them capable of both fully automatic and semi-automatic firing modes.

The assault rifles used in the deadliest mass shootings in US history were not machine guns. Because those are essentially banned for civilians. Assault rifles were used and they happen to be the deadliest guns that can be obtained easily and legally. Coincidence? I think not.

 

[esmith]

FYI. The military nomenclature for their service rifles are "Battle Rifles" not assault rifles.

 

[Audie]

Sorry, I don’t follow what your point is?

The post you quoted by esmith was about automatic weapons used by the US military. The post you quoted by me is about the ban on sales of new automatic weapons to US civilians.

By the way, there are AK47s and AR15s that are not machine guns. Typically manufacturers design these weapons without automatic capability in order for them to be legally sold to the civilian market in the US. I have fired both AK47s and AR15s for fun. Neither was capable of fully automatic fire. The ones used by militaries have a switch that makes them capable of both fully automatic and semi-automatic firing modes.

The assault rifles used in the deadliest mass shootings in US history were not machine guns. Because those are essentially banned for civilians. Assault rifles were used and they happen to be the deadliest guns that can be obtained easily and legally. Coincidence? I think not.

Goodness, like I know this topic. But I can look thing up.

The National Firearms Act, 26 U.S.C. 5845(b) defines “machine gun” to include any combination of parts designed and intended for use in converting a weapon to shoot automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.

The AR 15 rifle and the AK 47 are originally designed as machine
guns. Their world wide use in military application is as a machine gun.

Some are modified to be semiautomatic. Those an be sold to civilinas
like any other gun.

Machine guns can be legally purchased by US citizens, although
it is difficult. The are not banned, just more restricted.

The term "assault rifle" is incorrect usage for a gun that only
shoots semi auto. Ordinary hunting shot guns can by such
sloppy usage be called assault shotguns.

Of course, persistent misuse of the world "awesome" has
changed the meaning so now it is used as an alternate way
to say "thank you".

Now I would have to go look up more coz that is all i know.

BTW, I have also fired an AK, back when I was in the USA
and trying to learn to shoot a smith and wesson revolver.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Goodness, like I know this topic. But I can look thing up.

The National Firearms Act, 26 U.S.C. 5845(b) defines “machine gun” to include any combination of parts designed and intended for use in converting a weapon to shoot automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.

The AR 15 rifle and the AK 47 are originally designed as machine
guns. Their world wide use in military application is as a machine gun.

Some are modified to be semiautomatic. Those an be sold to civilinas
like any other gun.

Machine guns can be legally purchased by US citizens, although
it is difficult. The are not banned, just more restricted.

The term "assault rifle" is incorrect usage for a gun that only
shoots semi auto. Ordinary hunting shot guns can by such
sloppy usage be called assault shotguns.

Of course, persistent misuse of the world "awesome" has
changed the meaning so now it is used as an alternate way
to say "thank you".

Now I would have to go look up more coz that is all i know.

BTW, I have also fired an AK, back when I was in the USA
and trying to learn to shoot a smith and wesson revolver.

Yep, agreed with all that except I wouldn’t say machine guns “are not” banned. I would say new sales to civilians are banned ... that’s a type of ban. It’s just a ban that “grandfathers in” the existing automatic weapons already owned by civilians at the time the law was enacted, among other exceptions. But, there’s no need for us to quibble over semantics.

Is there a deeper point you are trying to make, that I am missing? I.e., are you disagreeing with something I said, or are you just commenting on the subject?

The point I was trying to make is that automatic weapons are “highly restricted” (to use your terminology) because they have very high killing power in the hands of a single person, and not much other use. And those higher restrictions have been effective in preventing mass shootings using such weapons.

“High caliber, high magazine capacity gas-operated semi-automatics” (I won’t say “assault weapon” if you prefer - the exact terminology doesn’t matter) should be “highly restricted” like fully automatic weapons, for the same reasons. That was my point.

Incidentally, for context, a majority of Americans agree with this view. Source: Analyzing Surveys on Banning Assault Weapons

Why some people ardently oppose this, after the horrific incidents of Newtown, Sandy Hook, Aurora, Las Vegas, El Paso, Dayton .... the list goes on .... is beyond me. There are now people in the US who have been victims / near victims of multiple mass shootings. In one weekend, there was a mass shooting in my hometown of Dayton and my current state of Texas. The US has a mass shooting problem. We do not have a lack-of-deadly-enough-guns problem.

 

[esmith]

The point I was trying to make is that automatic weapons are “highly restricted” (to use your terminology) because they have very high killing power in the hands of a single person, and not much other use. And those higher restrictions have been effective in preventing mass shootings using such weapons.

“High caliber, high magazine capacity gas-operated semi-automatics” (I won’t say “assault weapon” if you prefer - the exact terminology doesn’t matter) should be “highly restricted” like fully automatic weapons, for the same reasons. That was my point.
Why some people ardently oppose this, after the horrific incidents of Newtown, Sandy Hook, Aurora, Las Vegas, El Paso, Dayton .... the list goes on .... is beyond me. There are now people in the US who have been victims / near victims of multiple mass shootings. In one weekend, there was a mass shooting in my hometown of Dayton and my current state of Texas. The US has a mass shooting problem. We do not have a lack-of-deadly-enough-guns problem.

Well I'm going to have to take exception to a few of your opinions.
First, new sales are still allowed; however what are not allowed are those weapons manufactured after 1986 except in certain cases.
Second the AR-15 style rifle is not a "high caliber round. It fires a 5.56mm bullet. The general consensus is that a "high caliber" is 7.62mm and above.
Third, you say you have fired a AR-15 have you ever handled a fully automatic rifle? I suggest until you have you should rethink your idea that a fully automatic rifle is more deadly than a semi-auto. I have fired both and I guarantee you I could take out more people with the semi than the auto.
Forth the "mass shootings" are not the result of the AR-15 style rifle but something that has to do with the person doing the shooting. Yes the AR-15 style rifle has been the weapon of choice for many of these shooters but one must ask what caused these people to do this. Until that is addressed mass killings are going to continue with or without a firearm.
However, if your State wants to ban the AR-15 style rifle are they going to confiscate those already owned by persons in that State. Just keep your knee jerk ideas out of my State.

 

[Audie]

Yep, agreed with all that except I wouldn’t say machine guns “are not” banned. I would say new sales to civilians are banned ... that’s a type of ban. It’s just a ban that “grandfathers in” the existing automatic weapons already owned by civilians at the time the law was enacted, among other exceptions. But, there’s no need for us to quibble over semantics.

Is there a deeper point you are trying to make, that I am missing? I.e., are you disagreeing with something I said, or are you just commenting on the subject?

The point I was trying to make is that automatic weapons are “highly restricted” (to use your terminology) because they have very high killing power in the hands of a single person, and not much other use. And those higher restrictions have been effective in preventing mass shootings using such weapons.

“High caliber, high magazine capacity gas-operated semi-automatics” (I won’t say “assault weapon” if you prefer - the exact terminology doesn’t matter) should be “highly restricted” like fully automatic weapons, for the same reasons. That was my point.

Incidentally, for context, a majority of Americans agree with this view. Source: Analyzing Surveys on Banning Assault Weapons

Why some people ardently oppose this, after the horrific incidents of Newtown, Sandy Hook, Aurora, Las Vegas, El Paso, Dayton .... the list goes on .... is beyond me. There are now people in the US who have been victims / near victims of multiple mass shootings. In one weekend, there was a mass shooting in my hometown of Dayton and my current state of Texas. The US has a mass shooting problem. We do not have a lack-of-deadly-enough-guns problem.

Of course those guns are effective for killing a lot of people in
a short time.

AFAIC, every gun in the world can be thrown in the ocean
and no more ever made.

so yeah, I was just commenting.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Well I'm going to have to take exception to a few of your opinions.
First, new sales are still allowed; however what are not allowed are those weapons manufactured after 1986 except in certain cases.
Second the AR-15 style rifle is not a "high caliber round. It fires a 5.56mm bullet. The general consensus is that a "high caliber" is 7.62mm and above.
Third, you say you have fired a AR-15 have you ever handled a fully automatic rifle? I suggest until you have you should rethink your idea that a fully automatic rifle is more deadly than a semi-auto. I have fired both and I guarantee you I could take out more people with the semi than the auto.
Forth the "mass shootings" are not the result of the AR-15 style rifle but something that has to do with the person doing the shooting. Yes the AR-15 style rifle has been the weapon of choice for many of these shooters but one must ask what caused these people to do this. Until that is addressed mass killings are going to continue with or without a firearm.
However, if your State wants to ban the AR-15 style rifle are they going to confiscate those already owned by persons in that State. Just keep your knee jerk ideas out of my State.

Thanks.

New sales ... sales of new guns ... perhaps I could have worded it better but yes, you are right and that is what I meant. My point was that this is effectively a type of ban, albeit one which grandfathered in existing weapons, and much more strictly regulated than assault rifles.

My understanding is AR-15's are versatile and can fire a number of different rounds ranging from 0.22 to over 0.45 caliber. The Las Vegas shooter used eight 0.308 caliber AR-10 style rifles, which I understand to be 7.8mm and therefore "high caliber" according to your definition above. But in any case, you are missing the forest for the trees. These weapons are really good at killing and not much else. They are capable of horrific wounds due to both the size of the bullet and its velocity, as the ER doctors who treated Parkland shooting victims can attest. You don't have to be a gun expert to understand this: What I Saw Treating the Victims From Parkland Should Change the Debate on Guns

No, I have never handled a fully automatic rifle. I didn't say a fully automatic rifle is more deadly as a blanket statement - I said very specifically, that it provides more optionality, that it could be more deadly in certain situations like a densely packed crowd, and that there is a reason the military has them. Let me ask you a question: why does the military include fully automatic weapons in its arsenal? I realize that many weapons are more effective in many situations when not going cyclical. I am asking why does the military have it, if it never provides a deadlier option.

The mass shooting is caused by the shooter, as you said. I am not saying otherwise. But how many people can a mass shooter kill or maim in under 10 minutes? The weapon sets an upper limit on the body count. The Las Vegas shooter was able to shoot more than 400 people in 10 minutes. How? Because he had weapons that enabled him to fire more than 110 rounds per minute (he fired a total of 1,100 rounds during the shooting), at thousands of feet per second from a high rise building into a crowd. He couldn't have achieved such killing power with weapons that have less killing power. Mass killings will always occur but they do not have to be that deadly. We know this from experience, because of the top 20 or so deadliest mass shootings, none of them used an illegal firearm, the deadliest ones used the deadliest weapons legally available, and all of the assault rifles were used after the assault rifle ban was lifted.

No, we don't have to confiscate AR15s in order to ban them. As we discussed there is a type of "ban" on automatic weapons and it did not involve confiscation. Yet, that "ban" has been successful in preventing any mass shootings using those weapons. I think when assault rifles were un-banned back in 2004, and when you proposed to un-ban automatic weaopns, that is the knee-jerk reaction.

Unfortunately we all live in the same country. The Las Vegas shooter looked at doing attacks in Boston and Chicago - not just his home state. And if your state is crazy enough (respectfully) to un-ban machine guns, as you suggest, then every nut in Texas will drive out and bring them back here, ultimately affecting me and my family too. We are not separate countries, if your state decides to be the Toys 'R Us for mass shooters, it will affect the states around it.

 

[esmith]

Thanks.
New sales ... sales of new guns ... perhaps I could have worded it better but yes, you are right and that is what I meant. My point was that this is effectively a type of ban, albeit one which grandfathered in existing weapons, and much more strictly regulated than assault rifles.

We all think one thing then write something else.

My understanding is AR-15's are versatile and can fire a number of different rounds ranging from 0.22 to over 0.45 caliber. The Las Vegas shooter used eight 0.308 caliber AR-10 style rifles, which I understand to be 7.8mm and therefore "high caliber" according to your definition above. But in any case, you are missing the forest for the trees. These weapons are really good at killing and not much else. They are capable of horrific wounds due to both the size of the bullet and its velocity, as the ER doctors who treated Parkland shooting victims can attest.

The AR15 style weapons, to the best of my knowledge, have been chambered only in 5.56mm .223, 7.65mm, and .308.
When one has an opinion, as in your statement " really good at killing and not much else" one should say that it is an opinion only.
Yes the 5.56/223 (some can handle both round) tumbles when it hits, that is what causes the damage. But any modern, hunting type round can cause just as much damage. That is why the Hauge Convention says FMJ rounds for military weapons. Therefore any firearm including rifles and shotguns are capable of inflicting just as much damage, if not more, as a 5.56/223 so your point is moot.

No, I have never handled a fully automatic rifle. I didn't say a fully automatic rifle is more deadly as a blanket statement - I said very specifically, that it provides more optionality, that it could be more deadly in certain situations like a densely packed crowd, and that there is a reason the military has them. Let me ask you a question: why does the military include fully automatic weapons in its arsenal? I realize that many weapons are more effective in many situations when not going cyclical. I am asking why does the military have it, if it never provides a deadlier option.

To start with one should have knowledge about a subject before one speaks about it, without specifying that it is "your opinion". The military has basically gone away from the fully automatic battle rifle and issues the battle rifles with semi-auto and 3 round burst capabilities only. The full auto type weapon is only good for maneuver situations when it is necessary to suppress the fire of the opposing force to allow your people to "maneuver". However, in this type of situation the best weapon would be the M249 light machine gun.

The mass shooting is caused by the shooter, as you said. I am not saying otherwise. But how many people can a mass shooter kill or maim in under 10 minutes? The weapon sets an upper limit on the body count. The Las Vegas shooter was able to shoot more than 400 people in 10 minutes. How? Because he had weapons that enabled him to fire more than 110 rounds per minute (he fired a total of 1,100 rounds during the shooting), at thousands of feet per second from a high rise building into a crowd. He couldn't have achieved such killing power with weapons that have less killing power. Mass killings will always occur but they do not have to be that deadly. We know this from experience, because of the top 20 or so deadliest mass shootings, none of them used an illegal firearm, the deadliest ones used the deadliest weapons legally available, and all of the assault rifles were used after the assault rifle ban was lifted.

Yes your point about the Las Vegas shooter is correct but only because of his location and the number of rounds that he had on hand. Yes I will agree that a deranged shooter can do a lot of damage with rifle, however I will disagree that a person using a fully auto rifle can cause more injuries than a person with a semi-auto. This is based on my experience with a rifle that is capable of firing in full auto vice burst or semi-auto. In my opinion, an inexperienced person using a full auto weapon will cause less injury than a inexperienced person using a semi-auto rifle due to the problem of keeping the point of impact on target and with full auto the number of round on target will be less than those of a semi-auto with the same number of available rounds.

No, we don't have to confiscate AR15s in order to ban them. As we discussed there is a type of "ban" on automatic weapons and it did not involve confiscation. Yet, that "ban" has been successful in preventing any mass shootings using those weapons. I think when assault rifles were un-banned back in 2004, and when you proposed to un-ban automatic weaopns, that is the knee-jerk reaction.

The problems are many when you start "banning" something. Take a close look at what was "banned" in 1994 (Text - H.R.4296 - 103rd Congress (1993-1994): Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act) and tell me they knew what they were doing.
In addition there are approximately 15 million AR-15 style rifles in the US according to some. So, you "ban" them, what have you accomplished unless you confiscate them.

Unfortunately we all live in the same country. The Las Vegas shooter looked at doing attacks in Boston and Chicago - not just his home state. And if your state is crazy enough (respectfully) to un-ban machine guns, as you suggest, then every nut in Texas will drive out and bring them back here, ultimately affecting me and my family too. We are not separate countries, if your state decides to be the Toys 'R Us for mass shooters, it will affect the states around it.

Well we can see you have little or no knowledge of firearm laws when you say someone is going to drive to another State and purchase a firearm. When you have an understanding of the law then you can put forth a point.
I have never advocated for the lifting of restrictions on the ownership of fully automatic weapons; however I see no reason not to do so but I will say that it has to be a State by State decision.