4 ms·

> "assault rifle" doesn't mean much in terms of operating characteristics In my experience, what reasonable gun control advocates mean when they talk about ARs

> "assault rifle" doesn't mean much in terms of operating characteristics In my experience, what reasonable gun control advocates mean when they talk about ARs are rifles equipped with gas powered repeating actions. There is a fundamental difference between a bolt-action rifle, which has no practical way to be converted to an automatic weapon, and gas powered semi automatic that anyone who knows how to type "youtube" into the browser bar can turn into a bullet hose. There was a good writeup on this here: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/06/opinion/banning-bump-stocks-wont-solve-anything.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/06/opinion/banning-bump-stoc...

Zak 9y ago
Use of fully-automatic firearms and rapid-fire devices like bump stocks for crime, including mass shootings has been exceedingly rare. I haven't seen gun control advocates talk about this much until the Las Vegas mass shooting. Instead, they typically argue that semi-automatic rifles are too deadly in their original configuration. While I can understand the argument, it doesn't seem to be very rooted in reality given that their use in crime is exceedingly rare. The vast majority of crimes committed using firearms involve handguns. I think it's likely the people pushing for restrictions or bans on semi-automatic rifles want them as a stepping stone to additional firearms restrictions, as the data available suggests it would not have a significant impact on crime even if a ban greatly reduced the availability of such rifles. They're being targeted for bans because they're an easy target; it's easy to argue to the average person that there's no legitimate reason for civilians to have them.
- jeffdavis 9y ago
  "I think it's likely the people pushing for restrictions or bans on semi-automatic rifles want them as a stepping stone to additional firearms restrictions" I think it's more like a culture war -- go after the enthusiasts and influencers first. Take away someone's rifle when they got it from their grandfather, and you take away one rifle. Take away all of the young enthusiasts' rifles, and you also take their friends and family out of the picture for generations hence; and take away a lot of revenue from the industry as well.

Zak 9y ago

Use of fully-automatic firearms and rapid-fire devices like bump stocks for crime, including mass shootings has been exceedingly rare. I haven't seen gun control advocates talk about this much until the Las Vegas mass shooting. Instead, they typically argue that semi-automatic rifles are too deadly in their original configuration. While I can understand the argument, it doesn't seem to be very rooted in reality given that their use in crime is exceedingly rare. The vast majority of crimes committed using firearms involve handguns. I think it's likely the people pushing for restrictions or bans on semi-automatic rifles want them as a stepping stone to additional firearms restrictions, as the data available suggests it would not have a significant impact on crime even if a ban greatly reduced the availability of such rifles. They're being targeted for bans because they're an easy target; it's easy to argue to the average person that there's no legitimate reason for civilians to have them.

jeffdavis 9y ago
"I think it's likely the people pushing for restrictions or bans on semi-automatic rifles want them as a stepping stone to additional firearms restrictions" I think it's more like a culture war -- go after the enthusiasts and influencers first. Take away someone's rifle when they got it from their grandfather, and you take away one rifle. Take away all of the young enthusiasts' rifles, and you also take their friends and family out of the picture for generations hence; and take away a lot of revenue from the industry as well.