Star Member LAS14 (3,873 posts) https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029677448
Can gun control laws be written in such a way...
Last edited Thu Oct 5, 2017, 05:58 PM - Edit history (1)
... to prohibit the sale to non-military/law enforcement of guns that will shoot more than X bullets per minute/trigger pull? I frequently see references to the problem of manufacturers simply making new weapons that don't fit the description of legislation. Can legislation be written based on "behavior" of the gun, rather than its physical description?
To re-phrase... If they can be written this way, why aren't they?
Star Member Hoyt (31,202 posts)
4. That's a good idea. Back when I was growing up, there were limits on the number of shells a shotgun
could hold when hunting. I think it was like three maximum.
Don't know what the rules are today, but why should the limits be greater for those hunting human prey?
Even most military rifles used in WWII only held 8 rounds or so.
The standard weapon long arm in WW2 had a five round fixed box magazine. The Garand M1 (US) had a 8 round clip and fired semi-auto. The Germans worked to develop a semi-auto as well, but the tactics for the infantry were based, for the most part, on slower sustained fire from riflemen and supported by light machine guns. The Russians went with the concept of massed SGM fire in selected units but their rifle was still the same one used in WW1, The Mosen-Nagant 91/30.
After WW2 the Russians developed the AK-47... well, anyway, banning guns that fire fast is silly.
Star Member LAS14 (3,873 posts)
7. Yeah, but is there a legal reason why this kind of thing...
...isn't being done? And am I right in my impression that it is not being done?
Man_Bear_Pig (59 posts)
23. If the reason you want to limit magazine size...
...is because they serve no self defense purpose and only make it easier to kill lots of people, why exactly does your suggestion allow the cops to have them?
Man_Bear_Pig (59 posts)
25. And enforcing the law...requires items that "aren't good for self defense and only good for mass murder?" The same police we take a knee to protest their brutality?
The reason the police were upgunned starting in about 1970 was the criminals outgunned them.
Star Member Hoyt (31,202 posts)
3. I'm sure it could. Personally, they need to lift the law that prohibits a victim from suing
the manufacturer, dealer or other seller, advertising agencies, etc., such that if a manufacturer skirts the intent of the law, that could be used in a civil law-suit.
To gunners wishing to post NRA type BS -- I know that the manufacturers can be sued if their gun is defective right now. But that is just not good enough, and a manufacturer who skirts the intent of the law -- which is quite clear to anyone but the obtuse trying to protect their access to more and more guns -- should be held accountable.
How about victims suing beer companies if a DUI driver hits them?
better (125 posts)
6. Oh dear god how I wish they would.
I have long been opposed to the previous iterations of the assault weapons ban, not because I actually think the average civilian has any business owning an assault weapon, but because what counts as an assault weapon was legislated on the basis of appearance, rather than function, and so my .22 caliber 10 shot rifle would suddenly become an assault weapon if I swapped out the stock for one with a pistol grip, for example. Had they simply stuck to regulating things that actually have any bearing on how the weapon operates, I would have no objection at all.
I was just posting about this concept the other day, that yes legislation can be written this way, with specific respect to suppressors, along the lines of "a suppressed weapon may not produce less than x decibels at y distance", perhaps with the values indexed by caliber to take into account how loud various calibers are naturally and what their range is. That would allow people to use suppressors for things like not scaring the shit out of my neighbors when I'm out on my own land target shooting, yet at the same time make sure that bystanders would still be able to tell that someone was shooting nearby, and roughly where.
It's easy enough to write legislation this way, but it does require that the people writing it understand the basic operation of firearms well enough to know the difference between a pistol grip and a bump fire device, and how each affects the behavior of the weapon. One makes no sense to ban, while the other makes no sense not to ban (or at least regulate the same way we do actual machine guns). Entirely because one changes the way the gun behaves, while the other does not.
Please, by all means do keep pressing this idea, as I will. If we can get our lawmakers to stop banning things that don't make guns any more dangerous, we could get a lot more support for actual common-sense laws from the gun rights crowd. A lot of us don't at all mind regulation of things that improve public safety. We just oppose banning things that don't improve public safety, like purely ergonomic features.
Amishman (978 posts)
11. Lots of good ideas there but I really like the minimum decibel rating for silencers
Something like minimum 100 decibels sounds reasonable.
Better written gun law proposals could help get things done. As I've said in other threads, I've been talking to my brother-in-law a lot this week on this topic. He's a serious gun guy (has to have over 100), and he said he has mixed feelings on Senator Feinstein's proposal. He doesn't care about bumpfire (calls them stupid gimmicks) but says the vague wording and ?construction possession? (I should have asked him what that meant) could mean someone could.be guilty for having a rifle and wearing shoes as a shoe lace can be creatively used to connect the bolt handle to the trigger, making it effectively full auto.
i could go on for several pages on 'silencers'...
Star Member Skittles (115,337 posts)
28. I doubt they could ever be written in a way gun humpers could understand
they are not known for their intellect
Lee-Lee (4,498 posts)
29. More than one round per trigger pull is already illegal
Outside very expensive and highly regulated machine guns.
As for magazine bans, technology has reached a point where they are pretty well pointless at stopping criminals- because 3D printers exist and are cheap now. Where 20 years ago if you couldn't buy a magazine off the shelf making your own was damm near impossible for the typical person. Not you but a 3D printer online and print them out. The only part you can't print is the spring, but instead you print a mold that you wrap the spring wire around to form one.
So a magazine ban would be pointless at this point because anyone with criminal intent could bypass it with an inexpensive 3D printer.
oneshooter (8,215 posts)
42. Every thing he used was/is legal, at this time.
He did walk right by a " No Firearms" sign, probably several times.
