[Sarah_W]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

At the 1st shot, the wolves will spook and move so fast that even a semi-auto can't load fast enough to get a 2nd shot off. A large magazine is just extra weight and would not EVEN help with shooting prairie dogs. They go underground after the 1st shot.

Again, clearly this is not the voice of experience but the voice of fantasy. A wolf can do a short burst from 31-37 mph. American Pronghorn Antelope can hit a top speed of 61 mph. Hunters shoot them every year.

[Sarah_W]

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.

Hunting licenses peaked in 1980 at 17 million. Last year 15 million licenses were issued. Even that 10% decline is causing serious conservation problems and a significant increase in disease among various species of game animals.

Anyone who does not fear the power of the government is being foolish. Kindly give us a list of rifles that cost $5,000 or more and the sales figures. AR styled rifles are predominantly used in shooting sports (3 gun competitions), hunting wild boar and ferrel hogs, and target practice. Of course, anti-gun people don't let facts get in the way of spewing nonsense.

[Sarah_W]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

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

50% of all firearms produced are semi-automatic. Bolt action, lever action, pump action, breach action

The first semi-automatic rifle was produced in 1885, first semi-automatic pistol was produced in 1892 and the first semi-automatic shotgun was produced in 1902. They've been around for over 125 years. All of a sudden anti-gun people who refuse to be educated on the subject make wild claims rooted in their imagination.

I'd be happy to meet you at the range and give you a free lesson.

[Reiver]

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.

While it is true that Australians were forced to sell their now-illegal firearms back to the state in the aftermath of the Port Arthur massacre, the country does permit restricted private firearm sales. Evidence suggests that the number of firearms reported in Australia has in fact increased since 1996.

[Sarah_W]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

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

Can you name that expert?

The typical cyclic rate of a semi-automatic rifle is 600-900 rounds per minute, or 10-15 rounds per second. Most semi-automatic rifles are magazine fed with 10-30 round magazines. Therefore, a shooter would empty that magazine in 1-3 seconds and need to reload.

Pump action rifles are not common. The Remington Model 7600 for example is a pump action rifle available in four calibers. It's capacity ranges from 4 to 10. Attempting to operate a pump action at any speed resembling a semi-automatic would require a significant amount of arm movement which in turn would move the muzzle all of the place and most certainly not on target. That very reason is why most hunter opt for a semi-automatic. A lever action would be even slower unless it's been modified for speed competition.

Again, let's go to the range so you can gain some first hand knowledge.

[Reiver]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

So?

I'm glad you asked. I guess you missed the fact that I was answering your postulation:

Originally Posted by MartinSE

I forgot, how man y rounds per second is a cannon? I mean, yeah, if you want to huff and puff and blow down someones how, a cannon is better, but if you want to murder a class room of children, the AR-15 is the weapon of choice.

You think about as well as you can spell..

[Sarah_W]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

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.

Mass shootings are increasing because young men are seeking notoriety. It has nothing to do with the choice of firearm. The point is, it takes a mentally ill person to kill innocent people they don't know. A normal person does not do that, regardless how many firearms they own. We can stop mass shootings right now by banning gun ownership by males. Women don't do that.

According to the FBI the average home invasion is 3-5 armed individuals. If you are in a gun fight with bad people what type of weapon is a personal choice. For me, I prefer a semi-automatic pistol. One thing for certain. Nobody who has ever won a gun fight complained of having too much ammunition.

You can be certain of this. Criminals don't care how many laws you make nor how many guns you ban, they will still shoot you.

Armed law abiding citizens use their firearm 2.5 million times each year. It is estimated that between 50-75% of those interactions saved lives.

[Sarah_W]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

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.

The military chose the 5.56/.223 round to allow troops to carry more rounds into combat. The higher muzzle velocity of 3,250 feet per second created enough terminal force while maintaining lighter recoil for quicker follow up shots.

[affald]

Originally Posted by LAFwUs

They also had different: indoor plumbing, cars, airplanes, golf courses, 65" TV's, new balance tennis shoes, soft serve ice-cream, amazon prime deals and waaaay different xfinity back then! Yep, thanks to the British Crown's "fake news" censorship zar at the time, they couldn't even use the internet to drop their passive aggressive, pseudo woke, virtue signaling post....

Nominate for best post of the year.

[Sarah_W]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

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

That is a non-effective plan and would fail from the beginning.

A better plan is to secure our schools in a manner similar to a school in Indiana. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcpsnrxHdCc

This type of retrofit could happen nationwide over the course of summer break. Additionally, states should implement a program like Florida did. The guardian program can be found here: Coach Aaron Feis Guardian Program

How about volunteering to protect a school in your area?

Another option would be to arm every adult in the school with a non-lethal option such as the Byrna pepper gun. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5db0qRMJSfs

Incidentally, over 200 police departments are looking at the Byrna to replace tazers as their non-lethal option.

[Sarah_W]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

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.

What is a hard core mass murderer? The worst school mass murderer used dynamite in Bath, Michigan. With all due respect Jim, firearms, mass shootings and ballistics are not in your wheelhouse. Perhaps stick to subjects you're well versed in.

A firearms is only as effective as the person on the trigger. I'll make a fun wager with you. I'll give you an AR or other semi-automatic rifle of your choice and I will use my 9mm Beretta 92FS semi-automatic handgun. Our target is a 12" x18" steel target at 400 yards. I'm confident I will hit that target before you will. It's simple geometry and ballistics.

Interesting fact. More people are killed each year with hammers and with fists that all rifles combined. What do we do about that?

[Taltarzac725]

I wonder if the Founding Fathers would have considered crossbows, bows, spears, javelins, swords, daggers, knives, etc., as "arms"?

[Byte1]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

I wonder if the Founding Fathers would have considered crossbows, bows, spears, javelins, swords, daggers, knives, etc., as "arms"?

I am sure that they would prefer that citizens had FIREARMS. Just for fun, I wonder what OUR country today would rather we had if we were invaded, semi-automatic weapons or bolt action weapons. What would you rather law enforcement have to defend you, a semi-auto pistol or a revolver in the case of a robbery?

This gun control debate is exactly that. Certain folks wish to control the debate, as they would control self defense. Self defense is not considered until certain folks find themselves in a dangerous situation, where immediate action is needed in seconds and the closest police are minutes away.

If you can't protect your own family then how can you protect your country during an invasion? What is the difference between self defense and defending your country, state, neighborhood, family, yourself?

Ignorance begets fear and fear begets irrational reactions.

Remember the Texas MASS shooting by Whitman where 14 were killed and 31 wounded? He started his killing by stabbing family members, then used mostly a bolt action hunting rifle to kill and wound dozens of others. Just a reminder that it is not a particular rifle that is the villain. It is the evil of the person that perpetrates the killings that is at fault. Get rid of the guns and you will still have murders. I believe the first murders in history were by stone and/or stick.

[ThirdOfFive]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

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

I agree that it will never happen, but for different reasons.

In my opinion the NRA is merely a handy bogieman for the anti-gun folks. The NRA at its peak in 2018 never had more than 5.5 million members. But to NOT blame the NRA would mean that the anti-gun people would have to accept that there are other reasons that so many people own guns, such as law-abiding people strongly supporting the Second Amendment, and the necessity that citizens be armed to protect themselves against government overreach. Things like that.

It is an interesting paradox, though. If one accepts the argument that most Americans strongly favor more stringent laws relating to gun ownership, then natural question is: why don't legislators CHANGE those laws? after all, legislators are elected by citizens, and what legislator would go directly against the wishes of his or her constituents? The words "political suicide" comes to mind. Additionally, the argument that these legislators are bought off by NRA money is patently ridiculous: the NRA doesn't vote.

No. Gun laws don't change because America's legislators by and large won't risk their careers by supporting something their constituents DON'T want to change.

[Normal]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

Amazon.com

The weapons Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, Franklin, and others considered as "arms" are far different from the arms of 2022.

“Arms” were a means to repel government tyranny (British or other) which happened to be devices like cannons and flintlocks back in the day.

The right to bear arms came from the 1689 English Bill of Rights. It was copied verbatim into a draft that made the top 10 list for our Bill of Rights. It provided the citizenry a means to get rid of James II which the newest William and Mary happily conceded to sign onto.

It had made it from the 4th most important priority to the 2nd by final adoption. It was and is still very significant to maintenance of freedom and democracy.