The Supreme Court on Monday turned away an appeal by a group of gun rights advocates seeking to overturn Maryland’s ban on assault-style rifles and high-capacity magazines under the Second Amendment.
The decision, a major win for gun safety advocates, leaves in place a ruling by the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals which ruled that the state may constitutionally prohibit sale and possession of the weapons.
The state legislation, enacted in 2013 after the Sandy Hook elementary school shooting, specifically targets the AR-15 – the most popular rifle in America with 20-30 million in circulation. They are legal in 41 of the 50 states.
You must log in or # to comment.
Single issue ammosexual voters allowed all our other rights to be stripped, watered down, limited and degraded while they deified their gun fetish.
Leopards are indiscriminate.
I’m for certain gun regulation, I’m not for an outright ban however.
Consider these two events:
-
Before the holocaust the jews had to surrender in their weapons
-
before the nakba, the same happened to the Palestinians, they had to surrender their weapons.
Being able to have weapons to protect yourself from everyday threats but also for if things go south is very important.
If you want to fight fascism if things go south, you’ll need weapons.
Let’s also consider the decades of little to no mass shootings and gun violence in these entire countries: Japan Singapore South Korea United Kingdom Australia New Zealand Norway Iceland Denmark
Consider these two events
I don’t think that’s what the SCOTUS was thinking about when they reached this ruling.
More likely it was California man arrested near Kavanaugh’s home, charged with attempted murder of justice
If you want to fight fascism if things go south, you’ll need weapons
I guess. But you also need widespread popular support. Randos with guns acting independently aren’t any better at repelling fascist governments than unarmed protestors.
What American liberals lack isn’t merely guns, it’s militias.
You mean some sort of well-regulated militia? That’s crazy, just flood the fucking streets with lead. /s
Consider Waco, TX. And that was 30 years ago before the massive leaps forward in drone, communications, satellite and digital technology.
Having guns does not protect you from the government. It may even barely protect you from an armed burglary. Guns are largely used for hunting deer shooting stationary paper indoors.
If you actually want to use guns to fight back against the government you needed to have built your fortified underground structure which is completely sound proof and infrared proof, and fully self sustaining for air, food, water and sewer filled with hundreds of people by now.
I think having weapons is purely a stress reduction tool, similar to xanax. Makes you calm to have them around, but when you need them they won’t help much. Incredibly risky things to have around in any sort of quickly usable manner as well.
-
You’re a fucking idiot for celebrating this, if you are, under a fascist regime. You’re literally fucking brain mush.
For folks actually interested in defending themselves and not just cosplaying as Delta Farce or Gravy Seals:
If you can’t handle the fact that you may have to take a life someday, DON’T BUY A GUN PERIOD. Gun ownership is a serious responsibility that we as a country unfortunately don’t treat as such. If you do decide to get one, the MOST IMPORTANT thing is to train, even just target practice, don’t buy something and stash it in a shoe box (have somewhere secure to keep it!). Make sure you take a stop the bleed class (good idea if you’re American period), and know your local self defense/gun laws backwards and forwards. If you’ve never touched a gun before, have someone who can show you how to safely operate and handle it before even considering buying one. This may be difficult if you’re openly leftist/LGBTQ+, but there are liberal/LGBTQ+ gun owner groups, or the Socialist Rifle Association, who might have, or help you find local groups/organizations/stores that aren’t right wing cultists. They should also be able to guide you on buying something that fits your use case (e.g. Home Defense or Concealed Carry) and that you can safely handle.
For a few options that aren’t an AR: In states that ban the AR by name but don’t have a blanket AWB, you may be able to get a Ruger Mini 14. Uses the same caliber, and has interchangeable magazines, only difference is it’s wood and patterned after the M1/M14. Ruger also makes something called the PC Carbine, which is a 9mm carbine that can take Glock magazines. Then, there’s the SKS which can be retrofitted to take box magazines, but those are now rare and expensive. There’s also the good ol’ AK-47/74 but those tend to be swept up in legislation that ban weapon platforms by name. You could also choose to get really, really good with a lever gun or shotgun. Heck, if you join the Civillian Marksmenship Program, you can get an M1 Garand! You can also get a pistol such as a Glock 19 or 43x which, while less effective than a long gun, is something at least. I would choose the 43x if you decide to get a concealed carry permit; it’s very slim, good for small hands, and has a 10 round magazine which is legal most everywhere. There’s a lot of options to choose from out there that get overshadowed by the AR, and thanks to our gun fetishism, it’ll probably be a while before they’re all legislated away.
And how exactly will an AR-15 help you against a fascistoid government?
Pew! Pew! Pew!
Haven’t you seen Rambo II? The AR-15 is how we won Vietnam.
Through the acute, ballistic application of lead.
Same way the IRA, the Vietnamese and the Afghans did.
Same way ak47s did for Afghanistan when they were being invaded
Do you think a bunch of couch potatoes will stop fascism with AR-15s? They are the SAME people who VOTED for fascism! Buy a clue.
There’s only two kinds of American
-
Couch potatoes who won’t do anything, no matter what
-
Tankie extremists who nobody likes because they want to do too much
That’s why I’m putting all my money on the liberal vanguard I know I can trust: Cops.
The only way to stop fascism is to call the police and report it, while staring out your window and sneering.
-
My opinion on gun control has changed over the years.
I used to be very anti gun. didn’t really see the point of regular people having them.
Today though, me giving up my guns would be like Ukraine giving up their nukes but smaller.
me giving up my guns would be like Ukraine giving up their nukes
The Ukrainians that controlled the nukes were Soviets. They gave them up as part of non-proliferation agreements intended to disarm Russia.
Western Liberals didn’t want Viktor Yanukovych commanding a nuclear arsenal. You guys seem to have forgotten everything prior to Maidan
I’m conflicted. On one hand, I don’t want somebody’s hobby to be the reason why school shootings persist in the hundreds every year. On the other hand, the best way for minorities to protect their rights is to be armed and dangerous. I think the only way for certain to advance as a society is stricter gun laws overall to keep the impule purchases away.
Yeah, most of the restrictions are meaningless for preventing violence. We need to keep guns from people who shouldn’t have them, not stop people from getting suppressors for example.
A major source is trying to restrict stuff that looks scary instead of actually tackling the issue.
The current laws surrounding guns in the US is probably going to make the inventable next civil war a lot worse in terms of deaths.
Who gives a fuck about death?!
Your should give a fuck about living under dire conditions way way way way WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY THE FUCK MORE than fucking death.
You’re going to fucking die.
Now decide whether you die under the boot or not.
You’re going to fucking die.
Hi Joni Ernst
You realise I don’t live in the corrupt nation named the US?
That could have been achieved 20 years ago with logical induction on a few things and a thought experiment.
Also Ukraine gave up its nukes voluntarily , and the common opinion was that the Cold War is over and nobody is going to need weapons, except for fighting criminals and terrorists. Russia didn’t ask for Ukraine’s nukes so persistently. USA did, but not everything USA demanded in those years was given.
So the analogy is very fine, it was also understood to be a mistake to give Russia those nukes even before the first Maidan. Somewhere around second Chechen war.
Humanity is stupid.
Seriously, no way. I’m giving up my guns now that we have brown coats.
punctuation. is important
Lmao
Edit I spelled the laughy thing wrong
And it seems like a really egregious error with punctuation, too.
yeah it gives the opposite meaning.
Why not having guns and being for the ban ?
There’s no good reason to need a high powered semiautomatic rifle, anything you need can be done with a bolt action rifle.
Fucking dumb.
Removed by mod
Look around. If ever there was a time for 2a, it’s rn
When the Christian militias come for me I want to be able to lay down suppressive fire 🤷🏻♀️
When you’re alone, it’s a bad idea to waste ammo on this.
But firing bursts makes targeted fire better, so semi-auto is needed, yes.
Just not for anything suppressive, that’s for people with a mounted machine gun with enough ammo to be limited by barrel temperature
Suppression is good for movement under fire and like you said, works well in groups. While an MG would be ideal, it works fine with pistols and rifles, too.
But like you said, if you’re alone, it’s probably best to stay low, concealed, and covered as much as possible. Take targeted shots, and gtfo of the situation if at all possible.
Yeah, but what if TWO fascists attack you?
You invent “sheeting”, which is shooting twice at the same time.
Claymore?
Shotgun shot to the legs.
Ok yeah but what about three fascists
How are you getting close enough with a shotgun, when they have rifles?
Real life shot guns are effective at a longer range than video games. Not counting the various ammunition types you can use. Birdshot might not kill at 100 yards, but you’re still not wanting to get hit by it, especially near the face.
Birdshot from 100 yards will hurt less than a paintball at 50 yards. Birdshot at 100 yards likely wouldn’t even break the skin of a human. And you’re trying to tell me about video games? Fucking pistols are basically useless at 100 yards, let alone a shotgun. And in the non-existent situation where you knew what you’re talking about, I single shot targets with iron sites from 500m with an m249, which isn’t as accurate as an m16, m4, or m14 etc.
So tell me again about how life isn’t like a video game. My guess is that you’ve never even held one considering how many wrong points you had in only 3 sentences. And even shotgun slugs are inaccurate at a distance. Saying things as fact as if you know things you don’t, is how we got trump in the White house.
Making a claim stating I have “wrong points” while making a bunch of false claims and for some reason bragging about video games, doesn’t mean you are correct in anything you said.
Please go get shot in the face by bird shot from 100 yards and report back to us.
Please also stop comparing real guns to video games.
I also don’t know where you got “three” from, but it’s pretty clear you are delusional and live outside reality.
Is this you? You claim to have zero experience with shotguns, and yet here you are trying to be a subject matter expert. https://lemmy.world/post/27230270
Why?
:: gestures broadly to current events::
Current events show that guns are pretty useless against dictators, people do just happily vote them in power. The right to free education would have been a better weapon.
Just shut the fuck up if you don’t know history. Seriously. You don’t need to respond to everything when you don’t know what you’re talking about. Just shut the fuck up. It’s a virtue, I promise.
JFC I thought I burned them. But is there a hood word for scorched?
Khadaffi would beg to differ.
Of all ways to get rid of dictators you choose Lybia as a good example. I rest my case.
Lol, that nose stuck straight up in the air is going to obstruct your target acquisition.
I said dictators have been taken down with items less deadly than a gun, and you say “la la la I can’t hear you!”
And you think it’s a gotcha as the cherry on top!
Introspection must be your dump stats.
The real answer?
Because donald trump got re-elected. That’s it. That’s the sole reason why this person now favors owning a gun.
Neo-liberals are like sheep.
Calling people sheep for wanting to be armed against a fascist regime is a new one.
Better late then never you fucking asshole.
Headline is misleading. SCOTUS turned the case down, they didn’t “allow” anything and there’s still potential for another case to be brought before the court.
Honestly, it’s clear SCOTUS cares as much about precedent as your average billionaire cares about the livability of the planet 100 years from now so hearing that they’re not going to listen to a case like this is refreshing
SCOTUS likes guns when poor people shoot each other.
SCOTUS doesn’t like guns when the poor shoot CEOs.
Here’s everything you need to know. CBS Sunday morning interviews a gun nut job. She states a demonstratively false statement about how many guns kill a people a year, and gets fucking zero push back. That’s how we got to where we are. It’s harder to get a driver’s license than it is to get a gun.
EDIT: As we all know “knives and blunt objects” are obviously used to kill more people than assault rifles.
Most handgun calibre rounds are, well, round, for the most part. Bullets get the pointy end as we move towards bigger calibres, right?
Not really.
There’s lots of big ammo that is “round”, such as .50AE,. 475 Nitro, 30-30 Win, etc.
Actually, I’d say most large calibers between .404 PM and .700 Nitro Express are on the round side of things.
And, there is plenty of “pointy” small caliber rounds, like 5.7 x 28mm,. 17 HMR, 4.6x30 H&K, and depending on your leniency for what is “pointy,”, even 9mm parabellum (luger) might apply.
Everyone acknowledges that the problem is mental health, everyone is convinced that solving guns is the answer.
You wanna know what I can make using styrofoam (or soap) and gasoline? Fucking napalm. You wanna know what will cause a lot more harm than a gunshot? Fucking napalm.
Removed by mod
It must be the 90s again to see someone saying that styrofoam and gasoline makes napalm lol. That is not actual napalm. It could hurt people, but it’s more like being lit on fire in modern plastic clothes than it is napalm.
Having easy access to guns is just objectively stupid.
Dude it’s stuff that I can set on fire that will stick to you, and that’s not including all of the other things that can hurt you like cars that are infinitely easier to access and operate. People like you would have us ban everything for no other reason than you’re afraid.
Nice strawman. Regulation is not the same thing as banning. You shouldnt be able to buy guns so easily.
Regulation? Seriously?
I can have a drone equipped with a fiber optic cable and a jar of not napalm ready to use on some random nobody for about a thousand bucks. Up that price a little bit and I can not only increase the range — I can just fucking make thermite, use the drone to set a whole neighborhood on fire.
Should we regulate red iron oxide because I’ve put the spectre of drone warfare into your mind? Do you have any idea how dumb it is to be fixated on guns?
Just checking the thread… but holy fuck you are weirdly obsessed with drones and thermite. I responded to you elsewhere and I want to make it more clear. I have the education and skills required to design and build the things you are acting like you know about. Even though I have the credentials, I hate flexing them in this capacity.
You are sort of useless from a short reading of your comments. Bring something to the table before arguing about things you don’t understand.
And you’re advocating for a fascist government seizing individual firearms. Let me think, for a second, how much I give a shit about your opinions… nope, I don’t.
Are you sure cars are easier to access? You need to be licensed to operate a car in public.
And it’s generally illegal to operate a gun in public…
They’re arguing with an imaginary person and reciting talking points. I’m not sure they understand that I like guns, but understand that we need to control access to them.
Well, it’s strictly illegal to operate a gun in public — and if we’re talking about places that don’t have open carry, it takes considerably longer to get your concealed carry and a lot more training.
Not to mention, you can pretty much bet that everyone around you has access to a car in the U.S. . The memes might make you think that every single American has firearms but the reality is that they don’t.
I’m not afraid and don’t think they should be banned. I like going shooting in the woods for fun. Cars require registration and a license like guns should.
Easy access to guns is objectively stupid. Read what I say without implying things.
Napalm is not styrofoam mixed with gas, full stop.
Red iron oxide and aluminum flakes. Fiber optic drone for around 1-1.5k.
None of that is regulated and I can do far more damage with that than a gun. Give me enough time and I can do better because it’s already being done in other countries like Ukraine.
You wanna regulate red iron oxide and drones now that I’ve put the spectre of thermite drones into your mind? Oh, sorry — you’re too fixated on the not napalm to realize the point. My mistake.
Put the meth down.
Thermite is only dangerous in very specific situations. You aren’t some scary bad ass because you think you know how to make bombs. Bigger and better explosives are made with other things that get you put on a list for buying to much of.
Guns need to be regulated is such a broad statement. Its meant to allow dumb people to interpret it however they want. Easy access to guns is objectively stupid.
Tf the point is? They gonna use another gun instead
So, let’s just do nothing about guns? Just give up and let public shootings happen as an unavoidable fact of life, but only for the U.S?
We are kind of past that point. In only two days we have seen what appears to be a Hamas terrorist attack at a pro Isael gathering and the murder of a prominent gay man. Republicans will say shit like ‘guns are a fact of life in the US’ and its absolutely true. We can see it in the fact that they called the cops requesting help and each time they where ignored and this shit happens regularly. No law will protect us from that only we can.
Turns out the people saying how we need guns to protect ourselves where the people we needed to protect ourselves from.
“Hamas terrorist attack at pro israel rally”
You just have to label him Hamas even though he’s clearly an independent actor?
I used to think along the lines of the Churchill quote of “Americans can always be trusted to do the right thing, once all other possibilities have been exhausted.” Turns out that was giving us way too much credit.
Turns out we’ll try all sorts of bizarre schemes before we’re willing to try doing the obviously right thing.
Well, I don’t know what to tell you. Hell, not that long ago a deputy’s son shot up a school and everyday cops murder unarmed citizens. In the end I am pro gun control, but its going to take more then a law to solve this.
I am against guns, but I don’t believe the police brutality has to do with guns
They are supposed to prevent it. Besides, do you want guys like the dude who shot Joss to be the only ones with guns? Because I can promise you the cops will turn a blind eye to them
Actually a bit disappointed in this. I mean, NOW of all times you think keeping “military grade” gear out of regular citizens hands is a good idea.
Well, yeah. NOW of all times is exactly when the fascists would want to disarm the populace.
Removed by mod
I genuinely wonder if all the people I’ve had tell me Obama and Biden are going to ban all guns/they’re coming for our guns are going to have a moment of self reflection when the fascists in power come for their guns.
Or is it going to be a “only white people with no unnatural hair coloring and presenting as their birth cirtificate sex are allowed to have guns”
If they were capable of rising above their quagmire of fear and hate, they probably wouldn’t be conservatives. It’s not about facts or consistency. It’s about feelings. Mostly fear of the out-group.
Take the guns first and due process later
This was 2018.
So on your question on if they will have a moment of self reflection, I’m going to go with a no.
You already know the answer to that, Sarge
Maryland is super-blue politically and includes regions of the wealthiest black people in the country. They don’t want us to have AR’s
Right? My tin foil thoughts immediately went to them upholding states’ rights on this because they know which states will ban and which won’t.
So this just bans that “style” of rifle? Someone can just go buy some other semi-automatic rifle that doesn’t look as imposing or whatever but will still kill a person just as dead? I don’t really get what this accomplishes other than inconveniencing people who already own one of the guns this prohibits.
Several northeast states passed kneejerk legislation of this type in the wake of Sandy Hook. Common sense gun legislation that provides a pathway to purchase for those without red flags without violating the privacy of owners would be nice, but neither Democrats or Republicans are capable of passing any such legislation. Republicans want no regulation at all while Democrats want to score points in a punitive culture war.
So this just bans that “style” of rifle? Someone can just go buy some other semi-automatic rifle that doesn’t look as imposing or whatever but will still kill a person just as dead?
According the language of the actual law the answer is either “no” or “not really, no”. The law calls out a couple dozen aspects of firearms that precludes most of the “style” concerns. The biggest one is a limit on magazines only containing a maximum 10 rounds. While, yes, 10 rounds can still do lots of damage, it requires more frequent reloading, more chances for error, greater amount of encumbrance of the shooter. Assuming a shooter was using a gun that complied with this law, it would allow more opportunities to intervene or for people to get away.
You’d think that if someone was about to slaughter as many people as possible they wouldn’t really be to worried about a 10-round mag law.
Counterpoint is that these wouldn’t just be readily available everywhere if they were illegal.
By that logic, why should anything be illegal?
That doesn’t follow logically at all unless you think a society with frequent mass murders is a foregone conclusion.
Well it doesn’t matter what you make illegal, because criminals will just get it anyway. That’s why every other country has the exact same gun death rate as the USA, even though guns are illegal in most of them, right?
Sorry what? No most other countries do not have gun death rates close to the US. The US also spans the crown. And that is not even saying anything about the amount of massacres in US schools compared to the rest of the world.
Yeah, I was being sarcastic to show how ridiculous that logic is.
I’m not saying don’t try to stop mass murders. I’m saying do it in a way that makes fucking sense. This part bans make no fucking sense, especially when they don’t grandfather in for existing owners. I wish we would put all the effort spent on supporting these piecemeal measures into pressuring legislators to provide access to a good education and medical / mental health services for everyone as I’m convinced lack of those things are the source of the violence, but all this stupid system can do is take from people and it bothers me to see people jump on that train so willingly when it happens.
Especially at a time where government agencies are committing acts of escalating terror against the population, like we’re seeing with ICE. It’s just so tone deaf.
So you are saying its easier to ensure everyone is happy nearly all the time than to pass gun regulation that minimizes the amount of guns in society? Tough sell don’t you think? Do you also think countries with lower gun crime are just happier in general? Do you think mental health isn’t an issue ib places like Australia?
A simple fact of life is that sometimes people get upset/sad/frustrated and then make mistakes. What tools are available at the time have a direct impact on how bad those mistakes are.
Americans are just like anyone else, with less guns we would still fight and argue but people wouldnt be put in a grave as often over it.
You must be right since every other country who’s already solved this problem solved it in the way you’re saying doesn’t work.
You’ll never convince me that guns aren’t the problem, because places that don’t have guns don’t have the problem. The evidence is thoroughly and definitively not on your side.
You’d think that if someone was about to slaughter as many people as possible they wouldn’t really be to worried about a 10-round mag law.
You’re missing the point of these laws entirely. No one is saying that passing a law like this is going to remove every possible avenue for someone to get the most destructive gun on the planet and do the most damage possible.
What these laws are intended to do is make it less likely someone will have access to the most destructive gun on the planet. If someone plans multiple years ahead, they can go to the far ends of the Earth to get the most destructive gun possible. However, if they got pissed off at their boss that morning and decide to commit this kind of crime they’ll only have wants available to that morning. If they were a legal gun owner when the day started, that means they’ll only have 10 round magazines at most. Even if they drive to the local store nearby, they’d only be able to buy more 10 round magazines.
Lets even say that higher capacity magazines are available in the next state over. That may mean hours of planning and travel just to get to the other state to get the high capacity magazines, then all the time it takes to get back home to commit their crime. That’s a lot of time for someone to consider what they’re doing, the impact it will have on others, and even their own lives.
Will some still do it with all of that planning and bother needed? Yes. Will everyone? Doubtful.
It takes 5 minutes to change a 10 round magazine into a high capacity one
It takes 5 minutes to change a 10 round magazine into a high capacity one
Any magazine that can be changed in 5 minutes to hold more than 10 rounds likely doesn’t count as a legal magazine even with only 10 round capacity at that time of sale.
Here’s an example from the text California law with a piece on the 10 round magazine limits and exceptions:
“With limited exceptions, California law prohibits any person from manufacturing, importing into the state, keeping for sale, offering or exposing for sale, giving, lending, buying, or receiving a large capacity magazine.1 (A “large capacity magazine” is defined as any ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept more than ten rounds, with exceptions for any .22 caliber tube ammunition feeding device, any feeding device that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate more than ten rounds, or any tubular magazine that is contained in a lever-action firearm).2” source
Why do you think if we can’t stop the most determined Luigi’s out there that regulation is impotent? We aren’t trying to stop the very edge cases, we are trying to stop crimes of passion, which most gun crime is.
That seems like an awfully fringe and roundabout improvement for a law that ruins the fun for everyone else. But I guess this is the flip side of the same leadership that’s engineered a society in which so many people decide to be mass murderers in the first place.
for a law that ruins the fun for everyone else
Yeah, firearms have been the top cause of death of children in the US for years, but wouldn’t want to ruin the fun for you.
And before that it was cars, Detroit just had better lobbyists and didn’t use them to shelter Russian intelligence assets. Cars continue to get larger, faster, heavier, and with higher raised bumpers because fuck pedestrians.
That seems like an awfully fringe and roundabout improvement for a law that ruins the fun for everyone else.
Ruining the fun? That seems to be an incredibly weak argument for gun proliferation. I can see an argument for strong 2nd Amendment proponents as the Constitution grants rights and freedoms, and restrictions on those granted in the Constitution could be a pathway to a bad place. However, I can also see an argument that the evolution of firearms has outpaced our society’s safe use of modern firearms and that the freedom of victims of gun violence are also having their even stronger Constitutional rights restricted and spirit of our nation with the Declaration’s “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”. In this conversation I’m not advocating a position either way, but I can see the valid arguments on both sides.
In neither one of those is “ruining” the fun" even a fraction of a thought to consider. You do you though.
Have a good night.
Ruining the fun? That seems to be an incredibly weak argument for gun proliferation.
Why, you have an issue with fun? You have an issue with a society where everyone can pursue their hobbies to the fullest extent, and find enjoyment in them? Do you not think it’s possible to provide responsible restrictions on firearms in a way that doesn’t prevent one from going out into the woods on a weekend with friends to merely enjoy nerding out on the intersection of machining and marksmanship? More importantly, do you not find it justified to argue for rights from the goal of having a good time? Fun isn’t covered in the constitution per se but I think this falls under the old “If I can’t dance, I don’t want to be a part of your revolution”.
Then do paintball.
Guns, particularly handguns and AR-15s are specifically designed to kill humans. Do you really need someone to walk you through why that’s different than sewing or riding bikes?
If you’re not even capable of understanding why your need to have instruments of death in order to have “fun” isn’t more important than other peoples’ lives and safety, then you have no place in modern society and should remove yourself and go live in the woods or something.
There have been several mass shootings which were stopped when the shooter stopped to reload, and a bystander was able to intervene at that moment. Limiting the capacity saves lives.
I agree with you, which is why I think that element of the law is effective.
Pretty much!
Illegal:
Perfectly Legal:
“But, but, you can’t shoot a lever action as fast as a semi-auto!”
Maybe both should be banned. Personally I don’t like having so many people armed with weapons that allow them to easily kill people.
If you don’t see the difference between a trained professional plinking with a lever action .22 and a 20 year old mowing down 20 kids and 6 adults with a semi-auto assault rifle, you’re hopeless.
A 20 year old firing indiscriminately is a 20 year old firing indiscriminately. There’s no effective difference.
Let me put it this way, which gun would you rather have in a gunfight?
Mass shootings are rarely gunfights.
What do you think happens when the cops show up? (If the cops have the balls to walk through the door and try to save the kids, that is.)
Your parenthetical kind of says it all…
The AR platform is high modifiable, has a nearly infinite number of configurations, can be customized to meet just about any need, and is easily the most widely available sem-automatic rifle on the market. This makes the barrier for entry (to being a mass shooter) much higher.
It really doesn’t. AR-15s are everything you said, but just because you take this one specific model rifle it off the market doesn’t mean there aren’t thousands of lightweight semi automatic rifles that are cheap and just as capable to buy instead. They might not be the gun owner’s version of LEGO, but they’re just as available and just as lethal.
If someone wants to be a mass shooter they have unlimited options in the USA. AR-15s are just so common you see them more. Starting this decade about 1/4 of the firearms produced in the USA are AR-15s.
If 1/4 the cars sold in the USA were Corollas because they’re cheap and easy to drive, would banning Corollas in Maryland reduce car wrecks? No, people would just drive Camrys or Civics or whatever and still drive like idiots.
Driving is a requirement in america for most. Owning a gun is not for anyone I can think of outside employment reasons.
I mostly agree with you (see my other comments in the thread). I was just explaining it from the perspective of the Maryland lawmakers. Although, you’re not entirely correct. It appears that the law is a lot more broad than the title would lead you to believe
Read the law before you assume what it says.
https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2013RS/bills/sb/sb0623f.pdf
It doesn’t take “one specific model” off the market, it redefines assault weapon in the text of the law to include any weapon with certain features.
My reply wasn’t in response to the law, but to the guy claiming that by removing AR-15s you increase the barrier to entry to mass shootings.
He was talking about the law, which does more than that. I don’t think anyone here is proposing banning one single model.
Well, it defines assault weapons rather than redefines. As that wasn’t previously any kind of classification of gun. Just a scare term that politicians liked to use similar to “super predator”.
No, it redefines it. It repeals the old definition and enacts a new definition. That is redefining. Did you read it?
Yeah, but the law you linked only says what it’s modifying. Did the previous law define the term “assault weapon” in Maryland, too?
Yes. Specifically, assault pistol. This new definition adds assault long gun.
If that’s true, then it would be reflected in statistics about states with AR15 and magazine bans. I wonder if that’s really true or if it’s just a matter of being used in attacks because it’s the most common (just like the most common vehicles are probably involved in more crashes - it doesn’t mean they are unusually dangerous compared to other cars, just that there’s more of them).
ARs make up a significantly higher percentage of gun sales than they do in gun deaths or homicides.
It’s just posturing, really. It’s the kind of gun legislation that gets liberals excited, but probably won’t actually change much in the long run
From the article in the original post:
Maryland has seen a decline in gun violence since the enactment of a series of laws aimed at curbing access to dangerous weapons.
series of laws
Yeah, and this is one of them. There are plenty of studies showing that gun control works. You don’t need to take my word for it. Here’s a Scientific American article about it:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-science-is-clear-gun-control-saves-lives1/
But is this specifically one of the ones that worked?
By that, what I mean is, was there a reduction seen in violence done specifically with assault rifles that used the banned features? Reductions in violence using (for example) pistols or shotguns don’t count.
Are you asking because you want to know, or are you asking to sow doubt that clearly effective laws are effective?
How many assault weapons attacks occur in England every year? How does that compare to the US? Do you think that has anything to do with the fact that assault weapons are illegal in England?
(By the way, you can replace England with almost any other country in the world in that paragraph and it still works.)
Also, if you actually want to know, you should be petitioning your government to make it easier to study gun violence. Right now, it’s very hard to study gun violence, thanks to the lobbying efforts of the NRA.
I still don’t see what prevents someone from just buying a different model.
Nothing. I didn’t say it was an effective strategy, just what appears to be THE strategy at play
Clearly you are the one who fails to understand this law.
While it bans standard AR-15s, it specifically allows AR-15s with “heavy barrels” referred to in MD as HBARs. Also, the barrel can be easily switched out after purchase.
The law simply took a list of 81 specific models of semi-auto rifles and shotguns and moved them from being “regulated longguns” (which required the same hoops and registration as a handgun) and instead made them illegal to purchase. The law also bans any center-fire semi-auto rifles and shotguns with detachable magazines from having certain cosmetic features.
Those cosmetic features have basically no relevance to lethality and can be added after purchase.
So yes, under this law, people can simply purchase other models not listed that do the same thing.
Ah yes, cosmetic features like… a grenade launcher.
Grenade launchers are regulated as Destructive Devices under the NFA.
It doesn’t ban the model. It bans a whole bunch of criteria that the model has, and many other guns do too. I’m not saying its impossible to skirt this one legally, but reading the law I’m not seeing a way to have a legal gun that is equally lethal.
Gun advocates like to mock those who want to ban military-style guns, while other hunting rifles with the same capacities are still available, but that misses the point. If both guns were the same, why are nearly all mass shootings done with military-style weapons, and are NEVER done with standard hunting rifles?
Something that is never discussed is the psychological effects of military-style weapons, in both the shooter and the victim. In general, mass shooters are people who feel weak, abused, outcast. A scary black gun makes them feel powerful in a way that a standard hunting rifle doesn’t. In addition, that military-style gun is scarier to their intended victims as well. It forces them to fear the shooter, something the shooter craves.
Military-style weapons may not have any more practical characteristics than a standard hunting rifle, but it’s psychological effects are much stronger.
Most mass shootings are done with pistols though…
This is accurate, and before anyone else downvotes I challenge you to google that shit. Homicides in the USA involving rifles are only 3% at most of the total. About 80% of mass shootings involve the use of handguns, while only 20-30% involve rifles (some crossover due to multiple guns used in events).
The disconnect is because people think mass shooting means a person attempts to murder many people, not 3 people get in a gun fight outside a club at 2 in the morning over a spilled drink.
Maybe it isn’t discussed because ARs are also the most common rifle in the U.S., and for at least 10 years now, the cheapest non-22LR. It’s hard to know how much of a role the psychological factors actually play when “easy to obtain” is a significant one of them.
“Easy to obtain” is also the part that is easy for legislation to address, while vaguely defined and hard to measure “psychological effects” requires significant effort just to understand, let alone implement the required social safety nets and induce cultural change to address the root causes.
If you buy guns based on looks, you shouldn’t allowed to own a gun in my opinion.
Every gun should be legally required to be neon pink. If you’re using it for sport shooting or hunting or even self defence it wouldn’t matter.
Honestly, seems like that’d actually be a great law to pass.
It accomplishes fewer people dying.
Maryland has seen a decline in gun violence since the enactment of a series of laws aimed at curbing access to dangerous weapons.
And no, it doesn’t just ban a “style” of rifle. The law does ban specific models, but also defines what makes a gun an assault weapon. If a gun has the features outlined in the law, it’s considered an assault weapon, regardless of the style.
You can read the text of the law here:
Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, who could have supplied the fourth vote needed to add the case to the court’s docket, issued a statement saying the question was significant and could soon warrant review but that he hoped additional opinions from lower courts could assist the justices on the issue. He wrote that the Supreme Court “should and presumably will address the AR-15 issue soon, in the next term or two.”
—NYT
In 2 Weeks, like Trump always says
I’ve heard statements before the “assault weapons” bans are pretty weak in their description and can easily be skirted with mild modifications rendering a gun no longer meeting the definition. I got curious what Maryland’s law text said. I found it here: link
I’ll say that the law as written is very detailed with its criteria for what is banned including even minor items like have a threaded barrel such as one would need to mount a flash suppressor. They also go through many iterations of descriptions of magazine size, detachabilty, and thumb hole position.
Just curiosity in the spirit of my original question (guns that would be legal), but still likely run afoul of the spirit (but not the letter of this law), I found this one:
Franklin Armory F17
Its rare apparently, but “the Franklin Armory F17 is the only semi-auto 17 Winchester Super Mag available today.”
“assault weapons” are a nebulous concept. that law sounds like it was closely tailored to match the AR-15 and its clones, since that’s the closest definition anyone can agree on. but it’s not like thumb position, stock design etc. make the AR-15 more lethal than other rifles.
why don’t they just ban semi-auto rifles? for home defense you can use a handgun, for hunting you can use a bolt action rifle of a pump action shotgun. you eliminate the bump stock loophole and it becomes harder to mow down a crowd.
Hand guns are so, so much more common in crime, rifles are barely a blip on the map. Also, handguns have almost no use other than killing humans/sport. (You can argue that they can offer some sort of protection from wild animals when you’re hiking, by scaring them away with noise… I can’t really think of much else)
Semi automatic rifles cover the gamut of utility. They’re not JUST for killing people and/or sport. Every reason you could legitimately need a gun for, the broad category “semi auto rifle” covers, so banning them has a disproportionate impact to people who use them legally and as tools vs banning handguns.
If people seriously want to make a dent in gun crime/accidental deaths/suicide we need to look at handguns, but they’re not scary looking enough so there’s no clout. Instead we get stupid laws that try to ban scary looking black guns or limit magazine sizes. Pisses off gun owners that know it’s useless and doesn’t actually get at anything that can make a difference. It’s all theater.
Considering that the point of the Second Amendment was to enable a “well regulated militia” to maintain “the security of a free state,” military-relevant weapons ought to be the ones most protected by it.
The explicit goal was to enable the populace to defend itself militarily, and you’re not doing that with a handgun (at least not effectively compared to using an assault rifle).
Read the federalist papers if you want to understand the 2nd amendment better. You’re just as wrong as the people who like to say that the 2nd amendment was just to protect having a militia.
Just keep ignoring entire words (“well-regulated”)
In the 1700s, “well-regulated” was a synonym for “well-trained.”
Well trained and well equipped. One of the reasons the 2A exists is because Congress did such a godawful job keeping the continental army equipped during the revolutionary war. The US was originally to have no standing army but militias by and from the populace under the supervision and training of professional federal officers. With a structure like that, militia members need to be able to provide their own arms rather than rely on Congress, which was seen as untrustworthy and partial, particularly in possible disputes between states. However, the 2A was ratified at about the same time the US was realizing that a standing army of some kind was existentially necessary, following catastrophic defeats in conflicts with the natives. It was never meant to be used the way it is now being used.
The US was originally to have no standing army
It still is; that rule never got amended. The entire US Army runs on a loophole, getting “reauthorized” each year. (The Air Force and Space Force too, I guess, since historically speaking, those are technically spin-offs of the Army.)
The Navy and Marine Corps are properly Constitutional, though. Frankly, that’s the loophole they should’ve gone with instead: calling all ground troops “Marines,” and all aircraft “Naval aviation.”
No it wasn’t. But sure, anything can mean anything when you change what words mean.
So in order to get a gun Americans need to have training (like driver’s education)?
If we actually followed the Constitution a lot of things would be different.
(Also, I would very much advocate for that.)
They’re not JUST for killing people and/or sport
I’m trying to think of other use-cases. Do you mean something like mass culling of wild hogs? That’s the only thing I can think of that isn’t killing people or sport.
the only use I can think of is bear defense for someone with bad aim
handguns are much more common in homicides in general, but I think rifles are the weapon of choice in school shootings and other acts of domestic terrorism. they have more potential to kill a larger number of people in a shorter amount of time from a greater distance. in particular I’m thinking about the Las Vegas shooter who infamously used bump stocks to rain bullets on a crowd.
incidentally, we almost banned handguns decades ago. it’s my understanding that that attempt at a ban - saved by last minute edits - are responsible for outlawing short-barreled rifles (they were trying to prevent people from making their rifles into handguns.)
They’re not JUST for killing people and/or sport. Every reason you could legitimately need a gun for, the broad category “semi auto rifle” covers, so banning them has a disproportionate impact to people who use them legally and as tools vs banning handguns.
but do those purposes need semi-auto? can you not afford the extra second to charge the weapon between shots? the only situation I can envision is needing to protect yourself from criminals with semi-autos, which is a legitimate concern.
“assault weapons” are a nebulous concept. that law sounds like it was closely tailored to match the AR-15 and its clones, since that’s the closest definition anyone can agree on. but it’s not like thumb position, stock design etc. make the AR-15 more lethal than other rifles.
I think you missed the point of my post. The law is the opposite of what you said. Its NOT the nebulous concept. In the language of the law (which I linked) they have all kinds of criteria that apply to lots of guns that aren’t and don’t look like the AR-15 platform.
why don’t they just ban semi-auto rifles?
Honestly, that legislation is what makes more sense to me if thats what they’re going for. I’d modify your language slight to be “single action”, instead of non “semi automatic”.
I’d dispute that. Single action is a specific type of system.
What is your definition of your proposed “ban semi-auto rifles”? In other words, what is a rifle that is not semi-automatic?
Semi-automatic is a specific type of action where after firing, the bolt removes the spent case and chambers the next round without further manual input from the operator as would be required in lever actions, bolt actions, etc.
Well, semi-automatic also interrupts the action so it only gives one shot per trigger pull, versus burst mechanisms or fully automatic.
So as for what is not a semi-automatic? Any gun requiring manual operation to clear the spent case and chamber a new round or can fire more than one round per trigger pull.
The solution is turning this on its head and having a law saying which weapons are allowed.
Granted it’s hard with how the archaic constitution of the US is written and how creatively the conservative judges read it, but decisions like this give room for states to try more tiered access to weapons.
Oh man, I would love to be the gun company lobbying for that law.
For home defense you use a shotgun with buckshot. Less aim required, safer for others behind drywall, and can hold 1 - 10 rounds depending on the type. Easy load for 1 shots. Also better for defense claim on trials.
Nice to see a test of sheetrock. I’d still argue that a 9mm would penetrate much more though.
Oddly enough… It’s pretty similar.
deleted by creator
Nah, Kavanaugh said he wants them to take one up, this isn’t the right one to suit him apparently. They just need one more vote to take one up.
funny seeing Authoritarians ITT and in cm0002’s crosspost.
I complete see you.
Good.
deleted by creator
Lese mass killing guns in the U.S. is good. Unless you support killing kids for your ideology.
Unless you support killing kids for your ideology.
Bad faith arguments like this are why sane people don’t take reddit opinions seriously.
Meaning you do support the mass killing g of children.
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
Ah yes “guns don’t kill people, people do”
deleted by creator
That is a real head in the sand point if view. Guns are definitely an issue.
deleted by creator
The kinds of people who do mass killings have parents and grandparents who already have these kinds of guns and pass them down. They’ll pass em down to their kids too. It more stops new purchases, like people who are trying to defend themselves from the first group of people I described.
If you would ban a specific kind of gun you should introduce a good way for people to get rid of the guns. Australia did this by using a gun buyback program.
America has gun buybacks too, fairly regularly too. There’s still more guns than people in the country.
Check yourself before you wreck yourself. Uvalde, Sandy Hook, Las Vegas, Orlando, Virginia Tech (handguns, but guns are guns), I could go on, all purchased their weapons specifically for the purposes of what they did with them. The people you are talking about tend to be the most responsible and respectable owners of guns, statistically. City folk with a history of mental instability and their freshly purchased assault weapons are overwhelmingly the problem, not people that were raised around guns used for hunting animals and taught to respect and safety use them from the time they could hold one.
That’s cope bullshit.
Sure buddy.
I think he’s referring to the fact that our government is looking more authoritarian. Ok, it is, it just is now.
