AR-15 is a semi-automatic rifle.

I am virulently anti-gun, and live in the US, but it's important to be precise when engaging in this debate, which is why I don't like the term "assault rifle", which doesn't actually describe the capability of a firearm. AR-15's bear a striking resemblance to rifles used by the armed forces, and consequently look scary to the uninitiated. They are not automatic weapons. An automatic weapon is able to fire multiple rounds as long as the trigger is depressed. This includes machine guns, submachine guns (like a Tommy gun used by 30's gangsters), and also includes the ability to fire bursts, i.e. 2-3 rounds every time the trigger is depressed. Truly automatic weapons, as has been noted, are extremely highly regulated. Not impossible to own, but very difficult.

Functionally, does that matter? you can clear the magazine of a semi-automatic rifle very quickly, but you can't just wave it around spraying bullets.

When people talk about "dying for your freedoms", just remember the people currently dying for your freedom to own guns, are school kids. It's that simple. Our collective unwillingness to make drastic change, means that kids get to die in order to protect your ability to have a pallet of ammo in your basement and a safe full of weapons. How do you answer the question: would I give up my gun if it meant another child never got shot at school? If the government sponsored a massive buy-back, would you part with your treasured firearm to prevent second graders from being shot? Realistically, the likelihood of you successfully repelling a bad guy in your home, with a gun, is very low. IF you're responsible, then your guns should be locked away in a safe, which obviates their use in self defense. If, on the other hand, you keep loaded guns easily accessible in your home, which you would, in order to protect yourself, then where does that fall on the 'responsible gun-owner checklist'?

I realize it's very unpopular and unlikely, but I think the US should buy back all privately owned firearms. If you want a gun, fine, there's a 5-10 year waiting list. You can only buy and sell guns though a government mediated office, with titles and registration, just like a car. You can only own black powder or bolt action rifles, and it is illegal to possess more than some small number of rounds, which are only obtainable at the government gun office, with proper identification. Your 2nd amendment right to own a gun has not been violated, you may still have them. Nowhere does the bill of rights specify that you have a constitutional right to unlimited guns which are quickly accessible. You can still hunt or target shoot. But you can't have 100k rounds of ammo like my coworker does. You can't own a drum fed shotgun like another coworker.

The notion that somehow you, as a private citizen, owning a gun, is somehow the only barrier to the US government intervening in your life is laughable. If you think of the times when private groups went up against the Feds, who won? the .Gov is better equipped than you can ever be, and if they want to destroy your house to put in a freeway, your pistol ain't stopping them.
Thus endeth my rant.

And Americans wonder why their country has a gun problem.

Love this, but a part of it feels unfair to me. A buyback and inoperability program might be a reasonable first step agreable to both sides. Could be run by states, cities, churches, charities, whatever. Something is better than nothing. Every initiative always feels like a drop in the ocean when it launches.

I just want to keep the thought process going on for the people here, if you'll allow me.

Bad people with guns are the problem, or the symptom, everyone can agree on this.

Why do we have speed limits? Why do we have BAL driving limits? Why are certain drugs prohibited? Why do we have sexual consent laws? Why can't we dive in the shallow end?

They ruined if for the rest of us. Ever heard of that phrase? Of course you have. Why are we not saying this about guns yet?

Responsible gun owners do the right thing, they do. Why would guns be any different than anything else we chose to control though? Responsible and moral individuals do the right thing, about everything, yet they are controled.

With great power comes great responsibility. Given the finality of gun use, shouldn't control be portional to potential outcomes?

There is a saying in French: "Là où il y a de l’homme, il y a de l’hommerie." We will not eliminate bad people. At any given time, someone out there is making bad choices and slipping the wrong way, it constantly cycles, always has, always will, in every society, about every aspect of life. So knowing this, how can you stop guns from getting into bad people's hands? There's only so many ways you can shuffle a deck of cards before you realize you have to play a diferent game altogether to win.

Reducing accessibility sucks for every responsible gun owner, but it's the right thing to do for every responsible society member. That's my opinion, and I would love to hear from those who disagree.

Please propose a better idea.

I'm a fan of picking the low hanging fruit (cliche, I know), at least to start. Repealing the 2nd amendment isn't going to happen, soon at least. Comparisons to other countries will only further entrench a significant voting population.

National firearm purchase age minimum of 21

Real, national background check with 10 day waiting period

And, enforcement of current laws. With stiff penalties for illegal firearm possession or use during a crime. As an example of what isn't working look to the dipshit DA's of SF and LA - I need say no more.

---

I saw this on a white board in a window box at my daughters middle school...
List of what life owes you:
1. __________
2. __________
3. __________

This and after 567 posts a bunch of folk think they need a weapon when they go for a ride, just in case it escalates, like a rider pulling a gun because a car cuts him/her off.

Basically, yes. Gun nuts will say that they aren't full auto - Well the military trains you to almost never use full auto mode anyway. You'll empty your magazine in 3 seconds and put all your bullets into just one or two targets, and then be out of ammo immediately. Instead, in combat you do single shot as fast as your finger can pull the trigger and that's plenty. And if you really want full auto, swap out a small part and it's full auto in just a few minutes. They are lying to themselves and trying to get away with it.

While I appreciate your intentions here, for me it's all "blah blah blah blah"

You can't get around the fact that Assault rifles (AR15, M15..whatever) were designed for fighting wars...Killing other human beings...that is not cool.

---

"Good genes are not a requirement, just the obsession to beat ones brains out daily"...the Griz

When I was cycling frequently I never had an occurrence that would warrant concealed carry.

Today may be different, however I am not ready to go back on the road for the reason of traffic safety in my area.

for those of you in the LR, where this thread now is, if you're seeing for the first time, note that i posted, 6 years ago, asking about this because it came up in another thread on the triathlon forum that concealed carry while cycling was a thing. at least for one person.

because of recent shootings, this thread was resurrected and has become a gun rights / gun limits thread, which makes it more appropriate for this forum. hence its being moved here.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

The 5.56x45 is VERY different than the 22LR! A 223 bullet weighs between 55 grains and 77, is 5.7mm diameter, and about 0.72" long. Travels between 2750 and 3260 ft/s, landing with between 1300 J and 1764 J. The whole thing is 57mm / 2.26" long

The 22LR bullet is 5.7mm diameter, but that's the only thing similar. The bullet varies, but almost always less than 1/2". The weigh between 30 and 40 grains, travel between 800 and 1700 ft/s, landing with between 175 and 260 J. The cartridges are 1" long.


Assault rifle isn't nebulous at all. Assault rifles are defined as selective fire rifles, intermediate cartridge, removable magazine.
Selective fire = can select semi auto or full auto
Intermediate cartridge = smallar cartridge than a main battle rifle. 5.56 is a lot smaller than the 30-06 used in the M1
Removable magazine, self explanatory.

Assault weapon is where you get into trouble. It's a political, legal term defined in the 1994 assault weapon ban. It's a semi-auto rifle with a detachable magazine and 2+ items off a list, a semi-auto pistol with a detachable magazine and 2+ items off a list, or a semi-auto shotgun with a detachable magazine and 2+ items off a list. OR a specifically named firearm in the legislation. The AR-15 was explicitly listed as a banned assault weapon in 42 USC 136.

I always find this fascinating.

I'm 47. Lived in the US for more than a decade, lived in cities in UK, continental Europe and the middle east for more than another decade.

I've never been in a position where I felt "at risk". The closest was the European cup in 2016, I think, when we were in France and had 2 small kids under 3 and there were thousands of English fans drinking where we were. I thought it would kick off.

I've never lived anywhere where I felt at risk enough to want to be armed.