Slashdot Mirror

Browning still makes BARs actually. But they look a little different than they used to

You've described just about every semi-automatic gun on the market today.

I can see how those features would make them somewhat more useful in a mass shooting, but I don't see how it makes them any less useful for any of the other perfectly legitimate uses that people use them for. Indeed, those features seem like they would be ideal for a self-defense firearm and would be quite useful in many other situations, like competition.

Also, that doesn't really help distinguish such a gun from any of the other popular semi-auto guns on the market today. The Mini-14, for example, can be reloaded quickly, is of comparable size, is semi-auto, and can accept magazines of arbitrary size yet it wasn't banned during the 1994-2004 ban. The exact same rifle with some different plastic bits, however, would. That doesn't really make any sense as the functionality and lethality of the gun are the same.

The Browning BAR is an extremely common semi-auto rifle marketed to hunters. It's semi-auto, only 3.5 inches longer than an AR, can be reloaded quickly, and can accept magazines of arbitrary size. Is it an assault weapon?

It would be consistent to argue that all semi-auto guns should be banned, or those that can accept detachable magazines. I disagree, but that's a personal opinion. It isn't consistent to argue that some semi-auto guns should be banned as being particularly dangerous while others shouldn't be: there's no functional difference between them.

As I mentioned in another post, it'd be like saying that a Honda Civic with a spoiler, strips, racing stickers, and a stock engine is a "race car" and shouldn't be street-legal while a Honda Civic without those cosmetic features is somehow safer and more appropriate. They're the same car.

I wonder if anyone in the house or senate is at all uneasy or even concerned about the American public running out of options...

What can readers do about it?

not much

We don't need no stinking jammers. The ghetto bird has met it's match. Blam! down it goes.

"Kazaa is designed specifically to be capable of sharing copyrighted material, with the intent to share or proliferate. If you downnload a copyrighted song with it, you are using it for exactly what it was made for. "

Right? Or does Kazaa have non-infringing uses? Does a gun have non-killing uses? The question is one and the same: do you ban the item for its controversial use.

Here is a gun that was not designed specifically to be capable of destroying flesh - quite the opposite. With this counterexample I have refuted your argument in its totality.

In one post you've dismissed America's millions of sport shooters, while I have dismissed the four or five bands trying to use Kazaa as a distribution mechanism. Think about it.

An excellent point overall (especially the "average joe" part), except for one thing: it doesn't make any distinction between the design intent of the specific firearms.

Case in point, the Uzi. This line of weapons was never intended for general recreational use. They were designed as compact, light-weight, easily wielded assault weapons, with mechanisms that would prove reliable under intense, high-rate of fire situations. In other words, close quarters combat situations.

On the other hand, you have recreational-design rifles the likes of the Remingtion 7400 series and the Browning BAR series. In the strictest sense, they are semi-automatic. However, they are long (unwieldy), heavy, and have very limited magazine capacities (usually about 5 rounds; less than a standard revolver). In addition, their firing mechanisms often jam if not cleaned and maintained regularly due to build-up of gun powder residue.

In other words, they were designed for the guys that can't hit the deer on the first shot and need to get a second one off quickly. ;-)