Keen

The .22LR cartridge kills more people every year than ALL OTHER CALIBERS COMBINED. How is that for "danger?" No weapon should be banned, but much more should be done to keep guns of all types out of the hands of crazies, and criminals. Background checks, red flags, linking of psych records with criminal records, closing the gun show loophole, etc, work for me. I am a gun owner, and have been since I was 7 years old, and I have been in the military, and have been a cop, and I have used guns to defend myself, and others. I put three bullets into a home invader in my own home years ago. I used a single action Ruger Single Six .22 WRM, because that was what was closest to hand when the fool broke in. My .44 Mag S&M M29, .380 Walther PP, 12 Gauge Remington 870, etc, were in different rooms at the time. Sane, safety trained, law abiding, citizens should be able to own all the guns they want.

Criminals, and crazies, should-as much as possible-be barred from buying / possessing guns of any type. Police / FBI should set up internet monitoring teams to spot the crazies before they act. Many crazies brag online about their murderous intentions before they strike. People who talk online about shooting spouses, shooting up schools, targeting political opponents for assassination, etc, should be found, and arrested before they kill. Any guns they own should be auctioned off. Anyone who helps a criminal, or crazy, get a gun should be prosecuted as an equally guilty Accessory Before The Fact to any crimes the criminal / crazy commits with said gun. No civilian NEEDS an assault style weapon to defend themselves, or hunt.

BTW - The Second Amendment NEVER mentions: assault rifles, rifles, pistols, guns, or firearms of ANY sort. It mentions "arms." Pitchforks, nightsticks, and carving knives, are "arms." If you go with the presumed "original intent" of The Founding Fathers, AND assume they meant guns as "arms", then organized state militia (National Guard) members have the right to own a single action, single shot, flintlock weapon...and nothing more. If you are not in the NG, you do not have the right to even that. So, it is all a matter of "interpretation", and interpretation is the jurisdiction of The US Supreme Court....NOT The NRA. I was an NRA member....until they started spending more time, and money, lobbying for, and bribing, sleazy politicians than they spent on gun safety training. Today, the NRA serves gun MAKERS....not gun owners. The NRA does not care that criminals, and crazies, kill even gun owners. They care that the gun MAKERS get to SELL guns TO the criminals, and the crazies, and so make a buck off of them.

BY NOT doing more to restrict criminals, and crazies, from getting guns, law abiding gun owners let mass shootings happen in schools, shopping malls, etc, and so increase the odds that the next mass shooting WILL cause a public backlash which will GREATLY restrict the rights of even law abiding gun owners. It is just a matter of time. Non criminals / non crazies have nothing to fear from background checks. They get one each time they apply for a worthwhile job. They just don't know it. Sane non criminals have nothing to fear from the linking of psych records with police records. I got thorough background checks run on me when I enlisted in USAF, when I applied for a job as a police officer, when I applied for a PI license, and bond, when I applied for a CCW permit, when I applied for a license, and bond, to be a locksmith, etc. I passed all with flying colors. The background checks never hurt me. If sane, law abiding, gun owners do not stand up against gun crazies, and act to limit gun access to criminals, and crazies, the sane, law abiding, gun owners will eventually lose most of their gun rights in the ultimate backlash
against the actions of the criminals, and crazies, who mis-use guns. Wake up to Reality, and do what you need to do, or end up wishing that you had.

G Brown Loc: Sunny Bognor Regis West Sussex UK

never had one - not interested in either.
Life is full of potential death...neither of those may be the cause & owning one hasn't a chance of stopping disease or the myriad of other causes for having a short life.

Bill 45

BAN BOTH OF THEM. Case closed.

controversy Loc: Wuhan, China

Still wondering if anyone can answer the original question. Given the number of self-identified firearms experts who have replied, one would think at least one of them would know.

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

What is the point?

rwoodvira

I don't believe the founders envisioned automatic weapons - I just don't see the need in modern society for assault weapons. An additional problem is a disparity in state laws in the purchase of weapons. I once had a job that I felt I needed a carry permit. I live in New Jersey, forget about it.
If I moved across the Delaware River to Chester or Delaware County in Pennsylvania - no problem.

controversy Loc: Wuhan, China

It seems self-evident: folks are talking about banning certain types of rifles and I am interested in understanding what differences indicate that a particular rifle is more dangerous than another and should be banned. Certainly, there must be an intelligent, rational, and measurable reason for suggesting one rifle be banned and not another. My curiosity centers on learning about those differences and how to recognize them.

Are you an arms expert or just a commentator?

controversy Loc: Wuhan, China

By "automatic" weapons are you speaking of "machine guns"? Do you know that private ownership of "machine guns" has been banned since the National Firearm Act, June 26, 1934. There was an exception for a special license that involved a high fee, a background check equivalent to that done on FBI agent applicants, and a waiting period that usually ran six to 12 months. Plus, you had to get signature approval from the highest level police authority in the area where you lived.

Subsequently, US legislators in 1986 limited that special license for "machine guns" to those manufactured prior to that date and, since then, it has been completely illegal for a private citizen to purchase or own a machine gun manufactured after 1986. The grandfathered "machine guns" manufactured before 1986 are highly prized by collectors, very scarce, and, typically, cost tens of thousands of dollars, each.

The AR-15, for example, looks like a military assault weapon but it, in fact, is not (the "A" stands for Armalite - not automatic). Military weapons function in both the semi-automatic and full-automatic / "machine gun" modes. Changing the way something looks does not change the way it functions -- putting brown gravy on tofu doesn't make it roast beef.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

This is not the place to learn or gain real understanding what differences indicate a rifle is more dangerous than another and should be banned. Ther are probably few, if any, experts on this forum that will give you insight, if that is really the point of the post. Your curiosity on learning those differences and how to recognize them will not be satisfied on this forum; but a post like yours might bait a reader into an argument--which, I think, is really what you are looking for.
I am not an arms expert, just a bored commentator.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

There is no "intelligent, rational, and measurable reason",
believe it or not, the more "dangerous" ones LOOK NASTY!
Not an arms expert, just someone with a lot of common sense.

sheebe Loc: Lake Isabella, CA

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

[quote=Keen]The ...

You have said a lot I can agree with and a lot I disagree with. But being a Life Member of the NRA and a History Teacher with many hours of seminars on the the Constitution. And experience in reading historic documents USING THE DEFINITIONS OF THE WORDS FROM THAT TIME IN HISTORY there is a lot to disagree with in this paragraph:

BTW - The Second Amendment NEVER mentions: assault rifles, rifles, pistols, guns, or firearms of ANY sort. It mentions "arms." Pitchforks, nightsticks, and carving knives, are "arms." Arms as used in the 2nd means weapons. If you go with the presumed "original intent" of The Founding Fathers, AND assume they meant guns as "arms", then organized state militia (National Guard) members have the right to own a single action, single shot, flintlock weapon...and nothing more. If you are not in the NG, you do not have the right to even that.Nope, the Militia is the body of citizens or those becoming citizens*. and is in two main parts-Unorganized and Organized or Uniformed-the NG sort of fits in the second group but some states still have a separate organized militia. CA calls the main part of theirs the California State Guard.** and under the Militia Act and in the past those called up to serve were required to supply their own arms of suitable and currant type-anything from an M-16 back to a WWI bolt action if you interpret that loosely today. That part has lapsed through neglect, they no longer check to see if you have the required equipment. So, it is all a matter of "interpretation", and interpretation is the jurisdiction of The US Supreme Court....NOT The NRA. I was an NRA member....until they started spending more time, and money, lobbying for, and bribing, sleazy politicians than they spent on gun safety training. Today, the NRA serves gun MAKERS....not gun owners. The NRA does not care that criminals, and crazies, kill even gun owners. They care that the gun MAKERS get to SELL guns TO the criminals, and the crazies, and so make a buck off of them. You are totally off base here. NRA is still the #1 training org, including training and certification of the majority of police instructors. The NRA was also one of the groups that pushed for background checks instead of bans and only withdrew support when the Background Check system the gvt came up with was so flawed. Many jurisdictions do not keep up with entering relevant data and mental health records are often totally left off due to privacy laws. Why should everyone be subject to that flawed a system when many of the ones it is meant to catch/prevent from getting guns aren't because the system is so flawed? Just one example - the Texas church shooter cleared the background check because his domestic violence conviction by court martial was not entered into the system by the Air Force. The shooting was ended when a neighbor of the church, with his own legal AR-15 engaged the shooter, wounded him twice and then followed him (in a truck that offered him a ride as the shooter took off) while calling the police via cell phone. The shooter crashed his vehicle and committed suicide before the police could arrest him.

*The 1903 Militia Act with several amendments is still in effect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903
If you are 17 to 45, a citizen or becoming a citizen you are in the unorganized militia. Some people can be in to older ages and some females such as National Guard members are also in the militia.
**California State Guard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Guard

One last note, the "A well regulated militia..." in the late 18th Century "well regulated" meant well equipped and trained, not controlled by laws or regulations as today. That is why it was a custom for the militia to meet, drill, train etc and they either brought their own guns or the local gvt/wealthy individuals etc paid for weapons and even uniforms.

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

The guy was a convicted felon with a rap sheet like a phone book.
Every gun and round of ammunition he had was already illegal and another felony he can be charged with and convicted of.
Whoever helped him get them is also subject to felonies for everyone of them.

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

They are the same Ruger Mini-14 rifle with different stock and accessories. One looks "bad" because of the wanna be military look. But they are the same rifle, probably the same caliber ammunition, off hand I seem to remember it has been made in, I think, 5 calibers, - .222, .223, 5.56 Nato, 300BLK, 7.62x39 (AK-47 and SKS caliber). All are semi-auto only though the military and PDs can order special ones from the factory with a different receiver that has a selector switch (semi-auto or full auto)
I own two of them, one in .223 and one Mini-30(same rifle different caliber) in 7.62x39. Neither has ever been used in a crime etc. Though the one in .223 used to belong to a police department who had a custom gunsmith rework it as a light sniper/marksman rifle.
A friend who owned a gun shop got it in trade when the PD ordered some real fully automatic weapons to replace it for their SWAT team.