[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by justjim

I have owned guns most of my life primarily to hunt and target shoot with my Dad and a few close friends. When Dad passed and I retired, I retired my hunting guns and moved to Florida. Golf is my primary hobby and I love the game but it sure would have been nice if he had bought me a set of golf clubs along with that BB gun and first shotgun. I still have a couple of personal guns at home that actually belonged to my Dad and a close friend. We never had any thoughts or discussions about having any gun to protect us from “the Government”. That just seems “weird” to me but to each his own. Fore

Fear of the big bad government is a TOOL used to separate gun enthusiasts from their money to the tune of up to $5,000 per rifle. Hunting rifles cost less. About 1990 Americans lost interest in hunting and the outdoors and factory farms made for fewer game animals and hunting areas than the older smaller farms provided. So to keep up their profits the manufacturers pointed young city-dwelling MEN toward paintball and then convinced them that they NEEDED expensive semi-auto rifles (just like GI joe and Sue) in case they needed to fight their government in the streets in pitched battles house to house.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Wyseguy

Other than revolvers and some shotguns, aren't the vast majority of guns semi auto?

No! Most rifles are bolt-action. There are also single-shot rifles and shotguns and double-barrel shotguns. And some other varieties.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by ThirdOfFive

You could interpret it as that. Most firearms, other than single-shot ones where you have to physically eject the spent cartridge and load another one by hand, will fire rapidly, the advantage of the semi-auto being that you can fire the rounds as fast as you can pull the trigger. A double-action revolver for example will also fire as fast as you can pull the trigger, the limiting factor being that your finger supplies the energy to rotate the cylinder and cycle the hammer, so "as fast as you can pull the trigger" is somewhat slower than with a semi-auto pistol.

But even a lever-action rifle can be fired rapidly. Back in the day my uncle Vic, who hunted deer with a 30-30 Model 94 Winchester, had the reputation of being able to fire off the seventh round before the first one got to the target. May have been slightly exaggerated, but he WAS fast. Not accurate, but fast.

A well-worn and oiled PUMP-ACTION rifle or shotgun can be fired by an expert faster than a semi-auto.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by moe1212

the reason is to fend off tyranny / the government, if they decide to take over. To have the ability to defend against the "standing army" I don't think flint locks or sabers would have much of a chance. The amendment is not for sport shooters / hunters or the such

The point is that in the US today because of so many mass murders that are INCREASING - there is a trade-off that needs to be made........which is more important..... lowering the number of mass murders or using semi-auto rifles for hunting or self-protection from burglars and the REMOTE possibility of a tyrannical US government - when bolt action rifles would be able to do ALL those things 90% as well.
Australia chose to eliminate the semi-auto rifles. I considered that a smart choice and a good trade-off.

[TrapX]

The constitution was written with general words that describe a whole group of things when they meant ALL of the group. Some simple examples of groups of things vs specific things.
Books... dictionary (a subset of all books)
Food... wheat (a subset of all foods)
Speech... newspapers (a subset of all types of speech)
Shall... will (just a portion of the meaning of shall)
Religion... Christianity (a subset of all religions)
Arms... musket (a subset of all arms) If they meant muskets, then why did they not say it that way? Simply put, they meant all arms for all of the population.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Blueblaze

So are you trying to say that the damage from a 75 caliber black powder Brown Bess was less devastating than a modern 22 caliber AR15 round?

Ignoring an astounding level of ignorance of weaponry, have you considered the fact that the height of emergency care in 1776 was a tourniquet and a bone saw without anesthesia -- if you were lucky enough to get shot in a limb (rather than the body or head) -- and within screaming range of a doctor?

Thank heavens lunatics have access to so-called "military grade" weapons! Otherwise, they might be forced to use a really devastating weapon, like a common semi-automatic 30-06 deer rifle! The reason the AR15 uses such a small 22 caliber round is so that a soldier can carry more of it for their fully-automatic M4 rifles. In a true wartime environment, with fully-automatic weapons, quantity is more deadly than caliber. This is not the case, with a single-shot, non-automatic weapon like a 30-06 or AR15 -- or for that matter, a 1776 English Brown Bess.

Believe me, if you have a choice between being shot by a modern AR15 or 250-year-old, 75 Caliber Brown Bess, take the AR15!

Lighter recoil is an equally important reason for the military going to the 22 caliber cartridge. Teaching recruits to handle higher recoil cartridges would be more difficult and time-consuming.

[ThirdOfFive]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

Australia ended its mass murder problem when it got rid of semi-auto rifles. The US could do that as well.

Except that there is no way we will ever get rid of semi-automatic firearms. There are just too many of them in private hands, and most with absolutely no record of who purchased them or who the current owners are.

First of all, semi-automatic rifles are not limited (despite what a lot of people think) to AR-15 type weapons. Best estimates are about 15 million AR-15 - type weapons in private hands with about another 3 million AK - types (guns dot com). Add to that another several million (probably) military surplus - type rifles such as the M1 Garand and Carbine which were put into civilian hands by the truckload after WWII for practically peanuts.

But it isn't just military-style semi-autos. Semi-automatics for sporting purposes have been sold in the U.S. ever since 1903 and there are literally dozens if not hundreds of calibers, variations, etc. etc. out there. And add to that the millions of semi-auto handguns that are in private hands (estimated 85% of all handgun purchases since 1990 have been of semi-auto pistols) and the sheer number becomes staggering. In close quarters a semi-auto handgun is just as deadly as a rifle if not more so, and high-capacity clips are everywhere. The Kel-Tec PMR-30 for example can hold 30 rounds of .22 Magnum ammo. Then there are the hybrids; semi-auto rifles that use pistol ammo, with the magazines often being interchangeable: the Ruger PC Carbine, for example, which is a semi-auto rifle that comes stock with a 17-round clip...but it will also accept Glock 9 MM pistol clips up to 33 rounds, so one can own both a semi-auto rifle and a semi-auto pistol that uses the exact same ammo and clips, and are interchangeable.

Then, of course, there is the .22 long rifle rimfire cartridge, the cartridge which, according to some, has killed more people than any other single cartridge. I'm not sure I believe that but considering the sheer number of semi-auto pistols and rifles out there chambering the cartridge, I suppose it is possible.

But just on the assumption that our government DOES decide to ban semi-autos...just how would that, realistically speaking, be accomplished?

[Kenswing]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

Fear of the big bad government is a TOOL used to separate gun enthusiasts from their money to the tune of up to $5,000 per rifle. Hunting rifles cost less. About 1990 Americans lost interest in hunting and the outdoors and factory farms made for fewer game animals and hunting areas than the older smaller farms provided. So to keep up their profits the manufacturers pointed young city-dwelling MEN toward paintball and then convinced them that they NEEDED expensive semi-auto rifles (just like GI joe and Sue) in case they needed to fight their government in the streets in pitched battles house to house.

$5,000 per rifle? Not many AR’s selling for that. Even my better 1911 pistols don’t reach that unless they’re custom built.

I guess we can expect you to carpet bomb us with “your views” now that you’ve returned?

[Sarah_W]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

Australia ended its mass murder problem when it got rid of semi-auto rifles. The US could do that as well.

Wrong. 75-77% of mass shootings in the US are done with handguns, not semi-automatic rifles.

• Guns used in mass shootings U.S. 2021 | Statista

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by ThirdOfFive

Except that there is no way we will ever get rid of semi-automatic firearms. There are just too many of them in private hands, and most with absolutely no record of who purchased them or who the current owners are.

First of all, semi-automatic rifles are not limited (despite what a lot of people think) to AR-15 type weapons. Best estimates are about 15 million AR-15 - type weapons in private hands with about another 3 million AK - types (guns dot com). Add to that another several million (probably) military surplus - type rifles such as the M1 Garand and Carbine which were put into civilian hands by the truckload after WWII for practically peanuts.

But it isn't just military-style semi-autos. Semi-automatics for sporting purposes have been sold in the U.S. ever since 1903 and there are literally dozens if not hundreds of calibers, variations, etc. etc. out there. And add to that the millions of semi-auto handguns that are in private hands (estimated 85% of all handgun purchases since 1990 have been of semi-auto pistols) and the sheer number becomes staggering. In close quarters a semi-auto handgun is just as deadly as a rifle if not more so, and high-capacity clips are everywhere. The Kel-Tec PMR-30 for example can hold 30 rounds of .22 Magnum ammo. Then there are the hybrids; semi-auto rifles that use pistol ammo, with the magazines often being interchangeable: the Ruger PC Carbine, for example, which is a semi-auto rifle that comes stock with a 17-round clip...but it will also accept Glock 9 MM pistol clips up to 33 rounds, so one can own both a semi-auto rifle and a semi-auto pistol that uses the exact same ammo and clips, and are interchangeable.

Then, of course, there is the .22 long rifle rimfire cartridge, the cartridge which, according to some, has killed more people than any other single cartridge. I'm not sure I believe that but considering the sheer number of semi-auto pistols and rifles out there chambering the cartridge, I suppose it is possible.

But just on the assumption that our government DOES decide to ban semi-autos...just how would that, realistically speaking, be accomplished?

1st step would be to stop making new ones or at least selling new ones in the US, Canada, or Mexico. Then whenever a semi-auto rifle was used in a crime or found in a criminal's hands it would either be melted down or sold somewhere like Africa. Then, there could be government buy-backs of semi-auto rifles. It would probably take 30 years or so of this to have a big effect on mass murders. But, at least they would start going down. Since mass murders are on the increase, at least this would save some of your grandchildren's children's lives. Law-abiding citizens could still keep their semi-auto weapons, but any magazine over say 5 rounds would be illegal to possess and there would be a fine given.
.........Personally, I would want the same thing to happen with semi-auto pistols after about 10 years from now.
.........I know that none of that will actually happen because the NRA and the gun manufacturers care more about money than American childrens' lives and they have their DEVIL hooks into the average gun owner

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Kenswing

$5,000 per rifle? Not many AR’s selling for that. Even my better 1911 pistols don’t reach that unless they’re custom built.

I guess we can expect you to carpet bomb us with “your views” now that you’ve returned?

Thanks, nice that you care.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Kenswing

$5,000 per rifle? Not many AR’s selling for that. Even my better 1911 pistols don’t reach that unless they’re custom built.

I guess we can expect you to carpet bomb us with “your views” now that you’ve returned?

Fully accessorized (like Barbie) AR-15 types could push $5,000. The 2 that the Uvalde shooter used were $2 K each and they did not even have scopes. And there are a lot more accessories available at high-profit. margins

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Sarah_W

Wrong. 75-77% of mass shootings in the US are done with handguns, not semi-automatic rifles.

• Guns used in mass shootings U.S. 2021 | Statista

Yes, that is true. But, the AR-15 is still the weapon of choice by the most hard-core mass murderers. They can kill from a protective distance with rifles as opposed to pistols which put them closer to their target. We both know that with iron sights a rifle has a longer sight radius than a pistol so the rifle is very much more accurate in an average shooter's hands Also, a rifle gives a steadier 2-hand hold than a pistol for increased accuracy.
The statistics that you quoted merely means that pistols are more available in the home than are rifles. Statistics can be misleading. But, the rifle is a superior killing tool to the pistol for attacking crowds of people. And obviously, if pistols were better at mass murder, then the armies of the world would carry only pistols, not rifles.

[Sarah_W]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

Australia eliminated all AR-15 and ANY other semi-auto rifle and their mass murder rate dropped to zero. That is what a smart country that is not dominated by gun manufacturers does for its citizens. They put citizens' lives above the profits of the gun manufacturers. They still allow bold action rifles to be used by hunters and target shooters.

Disarming their citizens is what allowed Australia to forcefully remove people from their homes and put them into Covid concentration camps.
Video: Australia forcing people into quarantine camps despite negative COVID tests, reports say | American Military News

It is easy to take away your Rights when you can't defend yourself.

Police State: Australia Recaptures Three Teens Who Escaped COVID Concentration Camp

[Sarah_W]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

Hunters are fine with bolt actions. Many of the best trophy hunters use a single-shot rifle because it is lighter. They hunt in the more rugged territory and walk and stalk for greater distances because they pass up shots. A semi-auto rifle makes a hunter more likely to spray bullets around and hope rather than concentrating on ONE ACCURATE shot.

Clearly you've never been hunting. A bolt action rifle is not lighter than a semi automatic rifle. Most hunters use semi automatic rifles and shotguns for small game, large game, and foul. Hunters are extremely safe with their firearm manipulations and don't "spray bullets around" nor do they "hope". Hunting is a skille and humanely taking the prey is an art form. I'm happy to take you hunting so that you can speak from experience.