We can argue about the implications all we want... but given the choice between sending an American soldier overseas to die or a robot to get destroyed... the choice is pretty obvious to me.
I see this every day in American politics. Couple of days ago people were fighting over what constitutes an 'assault riffle'. Mission accomplished: the actual original debate (banning guns) was already abandoned.
The clip is a weapon of war, just look at the impact repeating rifles had on the civil war for example.
As to the reasoning, a single bullet is a threat, but far less useful for mass shootings. So banning them would save thousands of american lives over time and it's also constitutional.
Net result vast reduction in gun violence, zero constitutional issues.
Lol, big gun nuts are gonna have tens of thousands of shells around just waiting to be refilled.
But you don't have to completely eliminate gun violence to claim a massive reduction...
Do you want those people to have more power and fresh markets?
Some countries that banned guns and have very little gun violence also have something else in common and that is strict border / customs control e.g. The UK, Australia, Japan and South Korea all of which are islands or effectively an island since the N. Korea border isn’t exactly open.
Mainland Europe while having less gun violence than the US isn’t exactly gun violence free far from be it and it’s a pretty commmon occurrence to have gangs shoot it out and even throw grenades at each other even in Norway since guns are easily smuggled through land from former soviet block countries and even from as far as Afghanistan.
If you remove the full auto functionality of such gun, you can buy belt fed anything as much as you want without any licence.
Single shot handgun is incredibly bad for hunting. Single shot rifle is useful and some people still use them for added challenge. But having a bolt action rifle with maybe three rounds in the magazine is much better for beginners, because if you miss and wound the animal, you can end the suffering with follow up shot.
Clip is just a bent piece of metal. It's mostly out of favor by now. They we're used because that's insanely cheap and easy to manufacture. And currently could be manufactured in a garage with very cheap tooling.
https://milsurpexchange.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/copy_...
Magazines are the modern option. It's practically a plastic box with spring inside. It has almost no strength requirements and magazines are some of the most easily 3D printed items around.
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2011/09/21/welcome-to-the...
Most firearms with no detachable magazine can be converted to accept a magazine relatively easily. How are you going to stop criminals from making the conversion and 3D printing the magazine?
As to 3 shots, a revolver that can't be rapidly reloaded is the kind of compromise that's worth talking about. Cutting the number of bullets you can fire in 10 seconds by say 1/3 is in and of it's self a useful compromise.
PS: Personally I don't think the full vs semi auto is generally a useful distinction because you quickly run out of ammunition in either case. However, limiting someone to say 6 shots per 30 seconds really world be a significant change.
Requirements: usage of hand drill and screwing on 3D printed adapter. Only parts of a firearm that cannot be easily manufactured or endlessly modified in some random garage are the barrel and the chamber.
>As to 3 shots, a revolver that can't be rapidly reloaded is the kind of compromise that's worth talking about.
There are currently no revolver rifles manufactured. So it would be very bad deal for hunters.
Then there are revolver speed loaders and half moon clips. Those things are bloody miraculous. The difference between those and magazines is so small that some cops still use revolvers.
Have you looked at the statistics of how many people die in mass shootings and how many people die in single shootings? Also do you know how many shots is fired in average gunfight in US?
>Personally I don't think the full vs semi auto is generally a useful distinction because you quickly run out of ammunition in either case
We agree on this. I have shot full auto AK-47 and I could probably take out 6 people with single magazine while firing full auto because you easily waste about 5 rounds with every burst. Switch to semi auto and I could probably take out 25 people with that same magazine. Switching between targets usually takes equal amount of time regardless are you firing semi or full auto.
To modify a front loading single shut gun you do have to modify the chamber.
Average shots in a gun fight is a very misleading statistic. Average shots in a gun fight resulting in death are vastly higher.
Edit: A lot more people die in US mass shootings than you might think. Once you start talking about saving 1,000+ lives per decade it's far from meaningless.
PS: "a revolver that can't be rapidly reloaded" clearly excludes speed loaders. Revolver chambers that open up are necessary before you can use a speed loader. I can only assume you are ignoring what I am actually saying.
Relatively trivial to modify. Germans did exactly that to Mauser bolt action rifles during WW2 with very little hardware.
Muzzle loaders area actually dangerous to the shooter. And outdated inefficient for most modern shooting sports and hunting. You could just as well tell people to use bow and arrow. Actually modern bows and arrows would in that situation be technically superior.
Bit like you would decide that 60 ton trucks are dangerous. Now everybody has to only drive cars manufactured prior to 1920.
My point about the statistics is that if you make magazine change impossible for the hobbyist, you should know how much impact that even can have on crime.
Anyhow, I present you a video of a guy who is first using a firearm that is not automatic or even semiautomatic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYQBgi0TRGU
Then speed loading that weapon with a plastic tube and wooden rod:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9emvE1LIEWA
I'm actually for gun control and few other things that would bring gun violence down without controlling guns. I just think your approach to the matter is absurd and would be inefficient. If terrorists would simply switch to bombs, any advantage from strict gun law would just melt away overnight.
But this is not what the second amendment is about. In the words of Hammilton:
> This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the Government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the People, while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights, and those of their fellow-citizens.
The key point is that, when the rebels inevitably capture weaponry or receive foreign assistance in that form, they would be generally familiar with its use. They would have skills like marksmanship, trigger discipline, and maintenance. They might need to learn the specifics, but these skills largely transfer.
Edit: Now, I don't think banning breech-loaded firearms makes sense, but that is for reasons unrelated to the original purpose of the second amendment.
source? one center mass shot from a 12 gauge or an ar would probably put down an assailant, but only if the person aims perfectly (easier said than done with a long gun inside a building in a stressful situation). and with a pistol, by far the most common firearm in the US, you are pretty unlikely to neutralize the threat with only one shot.
As to being shot, even the 'Hollywood graze' is going to ruin your day and make a lot of noise. Actually killing someone is very rarely necessary.
A graze is called that because it rarely kills - and adrenalin is one hell of a drug, trained people can resist for quite some time in life and death situations even after being shot and stabbed multiple times.
PS: Actually walking around with a loaded gun is fairly useless vs someone willing to sniper you from a distance. The simple truth is even criminals want to minimize risks.
I don't think an outright ban was ever really up for debate. A minority wants guns banned outright. Most people just want stricter laws.
Also, "assault rifles," constitute a minority of homicides with firearms. It's mostly hand guns. Either way, gun violence is way down from it's historical peak during the early 90s. No one really knows why.
These are generally morally good reasons to spend blood and treasure