Assault weapon ban.

[Gob]

US President Barack Obama wants to reinstate an assault weapons ban in the wake of the mass killings in Newtown, Connecticut, his spokesman says.

Jay Carney said the president was "actively supportive" of a Democratic senator's plan to introduce a bill on the first day of the next Congress.

Mr Obama would also consider curbs on high-capacity ammunition and loopholes, Mr Carney said.

Students in the rest of the Newtown district returned to school on Tuesday, but Sandy Hook Elementary, where the shooting took place, is still designated a crime scene.

[Rick]

I actually support a ban on assault type weapons. I was thinking about buying a BPMS .308, wouldn't now.

I would also support a ban on high capacity hand guns, not autos indiscriminately but those that are considered high capacity I don’t have a problem letting them go at all.

Banning ALL weapons/firearms, not a chance…

[Andrew D]

It bears noting that the rifle used by the shooter in the Newtown massacre would not have been banned under the US's previous assault-weapons ban. Nor, for that matter, was it banned under Connecticut's assault-weapons ban.

[Rick]

The shooter in the Newtown massacre was not a gun owner either...

For those that may have Googled BPMS that should have been DPMS, sorry.

Newtown massacre would not have been banned under the US's previous assault-weapons ban

In what manner would it not have been banned?

Detachable Magazine, Pistol Grip, flash suppressor, don't know if it had an extendable stock but that would have just been icing.

ETA: If speaking solely of the pistols I agree they don't meet the criteria.

For pistols I would go one step beyond to include High Cap Mags in the grip.

[Andrew D]

Newtown massacre would not have been banned under the US's previous assault-weapons ban

In what manner would it not have been banned?

It has been widely reported that neither Connecticut's nor the US's assault-weapons ban covered the firearm used by Lanza. For example, here:

In State With 'Assault Weapons' Ban, Lanza's Rifle Still Legal

Adam Lanza blasted through the glass doors of the Sandy Hook Elementary School clutching a military-style Bushmaster rifle with 30 rounds in the clip and hundreds more at the ready.

When his chilling rampage was over minutes later, Lanza had used the weapon to kill 20 students and six adults and, in doing so, rekindled the often intractable debate over limiting access to what many see as the deadliest of weapons.

Bushmaster's version of the AR-15, a civilian firearm modeled after the military M-16 rifle, has a grim history, with links to the D.C.-area sniper shootings. But under Connecticut's firearms laws, considered strong by national standards, the lethal weapon that Lanza employed was perfectly legal to own.

And for another example, here:

Could a Ban Have Prevented the Connecticut Shootings?

It's impossible to say for sure, but it seems unlikely that if the law were still in place, as it was written, it could have done much to prevent Friday's tragedy. Lanza's primary weapon, the Bushmaster .223 rifle, is a type of AR-15 semiautomatic rifle, certain models of which were prohibited from being sold under the ban, but the Bushmaster model used by Lanza was not on that list.

Additionally, the language in the law was loose enough that a gun enthusiast who was interested in adding a type of AR-15 to their collection could have purchased one legally.

What's more, the other two firearms found at the scene -- a Glock handgun and a Sig Sauer handgun -- were also not affected by the ban.

There are numerous other sources on both points.

Whether the 30-round clip used by Lanza would have been banned under the former US law or was banned under Connecticut law is another matter. But if he had used only 10-round clips, it virtually certain that that would have made no difference in the outcome.

[Rick]

That is true only in as much as Bushmaster AR 15 was not on the list in the original language only the Colt AR 15 is mentioned (Bushmaster did not exist at the time due to patents):



Colt AR 15



Bushmaster AR 15

Capacity of the Mags was not in the original language for assault rifles.

AGAIN Lanza was NOT a gun owner it would appear that laws made little difference to him...

[Lord Jim]

It bears noting that the rifle used by the shooter in the Newtown massacre would not have been banned under the US's previous assault-weapons ban. Nor, for that matter, was it banned under Connecticut's assault-weapons ban.

That's correct, and it goes to my point about the magazine size....

Under the previous federal assault weapons ban, some 35 types of weapons were banned..

And as that quote indicates, it would not have included this "Bushmill" rifle....

And if a new "assault weapons ban" includes this rifle, and 50 others like it...

Someone will come up with a new one that will somehow skirt the law....(I'd be perfectly happy to support the re-institution of the old assault weapon law; but that won't have a meaningful impact on the problem)

I hate to sound like a broken record, but if on the other hand, you set a maximum size on the clips or magazines, it won't matter what kind of weapon the shooter has....

Whether it falls under an "assault weapon ban" or not...

With a strictly enforced magazine size, the shooter still won't be able to fire more than eight shots, (I see Chuck Schumer is proposing 10; fine, that would be a huge improvement; if we can get a bill through at 10 rounds in a clip, it will save lives)

without re-loading, no matter what kind of gun or rifle the shooter owns.

[Rick]

Bushmill?

Must be cocktail time...

[Lord Jim]

Bushmill?

Must be cocktail time...

I'm sorry, Bushmaster....

(Slip of the tongue...I confess that I'm more familiar with Irish Whiskey than I am with rapid repeating round firearms... )

[Gob]

How very unAmerican of you Jim

[Lord Jim]

How very unAmerican of you Jim

Har har hardy har har...

Still waiting for someone to try to make the case for why any private citizen has a legitimate, lawful need, for a clip with 100 shots in it....

Do we have no one willing to make that case?

I'm open to hearing it....

[Gob]

[Crackpot]

How very unAmerican of you Jim

Har har hardy har har...

Still waiting for someone to try to make the case for why any private citizen has a legitimate, lawful need, for a clip with 100 shots in it....

Do we have no one willing to make that case?

I'm open to hearing it....

probably because you're framing the question as a need. A desire for OTOH might get more bites. I imagine target shooting obliteration with a gun/clip capable to unloading that much ammo that fast would be quite a rush.

[Andrew D]

... if ... you set a maximum size on the clips or magazines, it won't matter what kind of weapon the shooter has....

Whether it falls under an "assault weapon ban" or not...

With a strictly enforced magazine size, the shooter still won't be able to fire more than eight shots, (I see Chuck Schumer is proposing 10; fine, that would be a huge improvement; if we can get a bill through at 10 rounds in a clip, it will save lives)

without re-loading, no matter what kind of gun or rifle the shooter owns.

Would a limit of 8 or 10 rounds per clip really save lives?

Reloading a typical semi-automatic firearm generally requires pressing a button (or flicking a switch), allowing the empty magazine to fall out, slamming in a new magazine, and retracting the slide to put the first round of the new magazine into the chamber. With only a little practice, one can do that in less than 2 seconds.

Would a delay of 2 seconds -- or 3 seconds or even 5 seconds -- in reloading have made any difference in the Newtown case? Or in any of the other mass-slaughter cases that have become all too familiar to us in the US? I doubt it.

Reducing the permissible number of rounds in a magazine is a good idea. But we should not fool ourselves about how much difference it would make. Once in a great while, the brief delay in rounds fired which the necessity of frequent reloading would cause would make some meaningful difference. Perhaps slightly more often, the necessity of carrying more magazines in order to carry the same number of rounds would make some meaningful difference in the number of rounds which a lunatic hell-bent on mass slaughter could carry at once.

And those are good things: Even a brief delay in firing and even a small difference in the number of rounds carried by some bat-shit crazy person hell-bent on mass slaughter have the potential to make a significant difference in the number of people killed.

But the odds of either or both of those making a significant difference in the number of people killed is quite small. Good idea, true. But counting on it to make a big difference in outcomes is wishful thinking.

[Lord Jim]

I imagine target shooting with a gun/clip capable to unloading that much ammo that fast would be quite a rush.

That's the only excuse I've ever heard...(The chick on Myth Busters, once talked about this; she said she was a complete political liberal, but she loved firing off thousands of rounds...)

But the fact that there are a handful of folks who get some sort of "thrill" out of being able to fire off those kinds of rounds, doesn't mean that the whole country has to be held hostage to their "pleasure"; nor does the Constitution require it.

[Joe Guy]

How very unAmerican of you Jim

Har har hardy har har...

Still waiting for someone to try to make the case for why any private citizen has a legitimate, lawful need, for a clip with 100 shots in it....

Do we have no one willing to make that case?

I'm open to hearing it....

Yes.

Why should a person be required to keep reloading a weapon in order to fire it if there is a simple way to allow a longer time between reloads?

Should we all be required to put one round in a firearm at a time because there are people who might use each round to kill people?

If so, then why allow guns at all?

Everyone is a potential murderer, even with one bullet at a time.

(I won't be around for a while to respond to you but I'll be back)

[Lord Jim]

Reloading a typical semi-automatic firearm generally requires pressing a button (or flicking a switch), allowing the empty magazine to fall out, slamming in a new magazine, and retracting the slide to put the first round of the new magazine into the chamber. With only a little practice, one can do that in less than 2 seconds.

Yeah, If you're an Army Ranger Sniper, or a professional MI-6 assassin...

Your average high school kid will not be that proficient....

[liberty]

General thoughts:
Do you all remember the Mexican mother who was protesting the murder of her daughter by a gang member when she murdered on camera in the middle of town? The people of Mexico are helpless, not that being armed will not guarantee ones survival, and there are no guarantees of anything.

If the lower classes are not allowed to protect themselves should the rich be allowed to hire armed guards, are some people more important than others?

The Second Amendment has nothing to do hunting.

[Lord Jim]

lib, there are times that I feel that you are being made to look a fool by Scooter or Grim...

And I think it's unfair....

This is not one of them....

[dales]

Still waiting for someone to try to make the case for why any private citizen has a legitimate, lawful need, for a clip with 100 shots in it....

It's a pain in the @ss having to replenish a magazine after 30 rounds, a drum magazine with a 100 rounds is so much more convenient.

Less change of breaking a nail.