Slashdot Mirror

You can't do this in the US either. Not sure where you get your info from but maybe research a little before you spout next time.

Sure you can so long as it is a private sale (except for a handful of states that regulate private sales). Typically only FFLs have to do background checks.

I'm not even American and I know this.

What you "know" is wrong. Fully automatic rifles (aka machine guns) are very tightly regulated, in three ways.

First, the 1934 National Firearms Act (NFA) requires that anyone attempting to purchase a fully automatic weapon must obtain a tax stamp from the federal government. The cost of the tax stamp isn't too bad, $200, since the price was set in the 1934 law and has never been increased, but the legal process to obtain one is long, and arduous, and definitely includes thorough background checks by both federal and local law enforcement. There are also stringent requirements on storage and movement... if you want to transport your machine gun across state lines you have to notify the federal government, for example.

Second, the Hughes amendment to the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act bans the transfer of any machine gun to a civilian, unless it was already in civilian hands before the law was passed. This means there is a fixed -- and fairly small -- supply of fully automatic weapons in civilian hands. Fixed supply and growing demand means growing prices. The price of a fully automatic Colt AR-15, for example, is upwards of $25,000.

Third, eleven states simply ban them entirely, so it's impossible to legally own one if you live in one of those states.

The result of these restrictions is that fully-automatic weapons are owned only by wealthy collectors with spotless backgrounds.

Now, if you want to talk about semi-automatic rifles, the story is very different. You can pick up Ruger 10/22 about $200 at any gun store, and at many department stores that sell guns, like Wal-mart. If you buy it from a store, of course you'll have to have an instant background check. If you buy one in a private sale, you won't.

So, what you said is accurate if you refer to semi-automatic, rather than fully automatic rifles. This terminology distinction isn't a nit. The legal and practical differences are enormous.

While my .45 makes a very convincing argument, my Super Blackhawk ends the argument once and for all. :-)

Yes, it may be penis envy, but it's fun as hell, expensive to shoot, and looks great.

So what's up with arguments that you need an automatic gun with high capacity magazine to defend yourself against multiple meth junkies or whatever? Just give these guys bird rifles and they can keep intruders "reliably enough".

I don't think anyone is reasonably arguing that you need an automatic gun with a high capacity magazine for self-defense.

In any case, self-defense is a completely different thing. The goal there isn't to kill as many people as possible, it's to reliably stop (not necessarily kill, though if that happens as a side effect, it's acceptable) an attacker - usually just one, rarely more than three. So the important part there is stopping power. Hence shotguns for home defense, and handguns for carrying (because there's no such thing as a pocket shotgun). Handguns by necessity have to be semi-auto because they do not possess enough stopping power (which, again, is very different from lethality rate) from a single shot in most case. But in pretty much any realistic self-defense scenario, no-one is going to even have the time to fire all the rounds even in a 10-round magazine, much less a 30-round one.

I think it's common sense that there will be some accidents where you hit people in the eyes, but by and large lethality is way less than military weapons if people are running away or conversly charging to disarm you,

It depends on what you mean by "military weapons"? An actual military rifle, complete with fully automatic mode (M16)? A civilian clone of said military rifle that's semi-auto only (AR-15)? A rough derivative of said military rifle that has "hunting" furniture and is marketed for those purposes, but otherwise works exactly the same (Saiga, compared to AK)? A semi-auto rifle that was designed from ground up as a hunting/utility rifle, but is just as effective as a "military rifle" (Mini-14, SU-16)?

Point is, all those categories - "military weapons", "assault weapons" etc - are basically bullshit. A semi-auto rifle is a semi-auto rifle. All those features that make it an "assault weapon" have zero or negligible effect on its lethality. A Mini-14 is just as capable as an AR-15, even though the first wouldn't be considered AWB under any, even the most restrictive, AWB proposals fielded to date, while the latter one is the "scary assault rifle" poster child.

And if what you want is to ban all semi-autos outright, as Australia did - well, it's a valid position (though I think that a lot of people will dispute that it is common sense, in this country at least). But then at least be open about it, don't try to arbitrarily relabel them as "assault weapons" or some such.

Magazine capacity limits are another matter (and are completely orthogonal to AWB - you can make a hi-cap magazine for pretty much any semi-auto rifle, aftermarket if the original manufacturer doesn't do that - e.g. Saiga comes with 10-round mags, but there are 20- and 30-round ones made for it). They do make a difference, yes. But I think that people who push for them vastly overestimate the effect they would have. Given the duration of a typical spree and the number of shots fired in it, there's plenty of time there for reloads, which take a couple of seconds at most (and under a second with a little practice).

A flash suppressor, as the name implies, suppresses the muzzle flash of the weapon. This lets you see the target more clearly for repeat shots, preserves night vision if shooting in low-light conditions (e.g. at night), and prevents people standing on either side of you from being similarly affected. Basically, it is something that removes one of the general inconveniences associated with the operating mechanism of a firearm.

It's not usually something that you go out and buy on your own, but many guns do come with them these days, and not just "assault weapons". E.g. here is a bolt-action rifle (practically the antithesis of the usual assault weapon cliche) with one.

This is the proper response to geese

No, THIS is the proper response to geese.

Seriously, I don't think I could buy one if I wanted to. The gadgetophile in me loves the idea, but there's only one company making 'em, it's only a 10-round .22LR, and there's that infamous video of the salesman handing the gun to the customer to test - instead of going silent, he pulls the trigger and it clicks - the hammer fell on an empty chamber, in spite of the smart electronic safety being engaged at the time. After the first dry-firing, it stops going but if that's their idea of a promo video, I'm worried.

Maybe I'll look into smart guns again in a decade or so, that should be enough time for them to 1: actually reach market, and 2: implement some worthwhile features. Let's say you've got a smartwatch, like the Armatix gun. It's got electrodes on the back. Make my wrist tingle when I'm getting low, and itch outright when the magazine's empty. Hell, this is 2023. Google Glass is out, and we've already got pica tinny "action cams". Let's make a camera under the barrel feed video to my Glass. If you gave me Land Warrior on a handgun, I'd be inclined to overlook the new points of failure; the ability to fight from behind cover without exposing yourself to return fire is pretty revolutionary. Set it up so my smartphone dials 911, feeds the operator my Glass-eye view, my words, and speakerphone audio - odds are if I'm drawing a weapon on short notice, I want the police to show up, know exactly where I am, and who I've been shooting at.

If domestic law-enforcement drones end up legal, automatically task one to my location, and let the 911 operator work with me to tag the bad guy so I know if I'm pinned down, or I can get away safely. Some of this is also going to involve a smart holster, but Viridian has developed the prototype for that already.

The problem is right now, smartguns are all stick, no carrot. I get a low-capacity, small-calibre, weapon that has glowing TRON lines (maybe they should have put the indicator in the front sight? The thing that's supposed to be easy to see while you're shooting?) to give away my position, an unreliable safety mechanism that'll only let me get shot with my own gun once, and all this for the price of "If you have to ask, you can't afford it". I could get a very nice used, 10-round .22LR for a couple hundred bucks, and if I shop around I could get a really nice European gun made by people better known for making Olympic target pistols at that price. If I'm in a hurry, I can find a used Ruger Mk.3 for about that price just about anywhere. And that Triggersmart thing - that lump's so big I probably couldn't holster a retrofitted gun. I certainly can't use it alongside a Radtec round counter, which sits in the same spot but is a much smaller box. Additionally, I doubt most people could effectively conceal a handgun with an inch-thick block sticking out of the side; the trend is toward small, slim, and round-edged these days for a very good reason.

Seriously, right now there is no benefit to smartguns.

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.

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.

A little harder? Might not be %100 effective? Shouldn't try? Assault weapons?

I guess all the things you're talking about are just "common sense", eh? Let me explain to you why you are %100 wrong and people like you are dangerous to a Republic.

First, we have a petty tyrant here where I live in New York City who calls himself the Mayor. He says he believes in the Second Amendment but that we need "common sense restrictions". This is the same mayor who has instituted a policy of illegally searching black people for no reason whatsoever. You know, the Stop and Frisk program. Google it. They are stopping and searching black people on the streets, in every borough and in front of and inside all the public projects. Out of the hundreds of thousands of Stop and Frisks less than %10 percent of the citizens they have searched have had a weapon, gun or drugs. But hey, it's not %100 effective but we should try a little harder, right?

And on Evil Black Rifles, aka "Assualt Weapons", there is NO SUCH FUCKING THING! You don't like them because they are evil looking and BLACK. See the above paragraph and think about that for a while. Black "Assault Weapons" are hated because of how they look, i.e., *black*, military style with a conspicuous *protruding* pistol grip. Does that remind you of how some white southerners felt about muscular black slaves? The racists who thought that these "Assault Slaves" were ready to rape their wives and pre-teen daughters and thus had to be "controlled" and "restricted" from just about doing anything but work the fields?

Look at the Ruger Mini 14 here: http://www.ruger.com/products/mini14/index.html Look at the differences between the wholesome looking Ranch version and the Evil Black Tactical. One would be legal in New York State and the other would not even though they fire the same ammunition and have the EXACT same receiver, action and trigger group. One is Mighty Whitey with its walnut stock and hunting aesthetics. The other, well... That *black* pistol grip sure looks phallic and *black*! That's nothing but a killing machine!

The majority of murders where a firearm is involved are carried out with handguns and NOT rifles. That's from the CDC and FBI annual stats.

Lastly, just like the Fourth and First amendment, we do not regulate a right out of existence just to make you feel a little safer. These rights are recognized (not granted!) because they *are* all dangerous. That's the price we pay for liberty.

While it's very true that mental health is a much more important issue to tackle, it's also exponentially more difficult. It takes far more time and money, neither of which we have much to spare. In the meantime, while it may not be the most efficient, why not put some common-sense restrictions in place with regards to weapons? Banning assault weapons might not be 100% effective, but at the same time, shouldn't we at least try to make it a little harder for mentally unstable people to get their hands on weapons designed specifically to create large numbers of people as quickly as possible?

Sure, there will be ways around it. There are always ways around it, and there are always alternatives. But the mere existence of these doesn't mean we shouldn't try. After all, if you look back at all these gun massacres, you'll find that in almost every case, the firearms were obtained completely legitimately, not from the black market. There is a point, of course, at which we have to say "Okay, we've done all we can reasonably do." Banning cars or propane tanks or whatnot would be ridiculous. Yes, they *could* be used for mass harm, but they generally aren't. Assault weapons are. It's only logical to put at least some restrictions on these things, since they have a history (not to mention purposeful design) of harming large numbers of people.

A little harder? Might not be %100 effective? Shouldn't try? Assault weapons?

I guess all the things you're talking about are just "common sense", eh? Let me explain to you why you are %100 wrong and people like you are dangerous to a Republic.

First, we have a petty tyrant here where I live in New York City who calls himself the Mayor. He says he believes in the Second Amendment but that we need "common sense restrictions". This is the same mayor who has instituted a policy of illegally searching black people for no reason whatsoever. You know, the Stop and Frisk program. Google it. They are stopping and searching black people on the streets, in every borough and in front of and inside all the public projects. Out of the hundreds of thousands of Stop and Frisks less than %10 percent of the citizens they have searched have had a weapon, gun or drugs. But hey, it's not %100 effective but we should try a little harder, right?

In NYC, you have to pay $340 every three years just for the privilege of having a handgun in your own home. In New York State it's $10. Most other states don't charge a dime for you to keep a gun at home. You think a lower middle class family can afford that? At one point, I could not afford that on a paramedic salary. You know what the response was from the NYPD? $340 or turn your guns in; if not we'll arrest you. See, they took an enshrined right and regulated it out of existence; turned it into a privilege.

And on Evil Black Rifles, aka "Assualt Weapons", there is NO SUCH FUCKING THING! You don't like them because they are evil looking and BLACK. See the above first paragraph and think about that for a while. Black "Assault Weapons" are hated because of how they look, i.e., *black*, military style with a conspicuous *protruding* pistol grip. Does that remind you of how some white southerners felt about muscular black slaves? The racists who thought that these "Assault Slaves" were ready to rape their wives and pre-teen daughters and thus had to be "controlled" and "restricted" from just about doing anything but work the fields?

Look at the Ruger Mini 14 here: http://www.ruger.com/products/mini14/index.html Look at the differences between the wholesome looking Ranch version and the Evil Black Tactical. One would be legal in New York State and the other would not even though they fire the same ammunition and have the EXACT same receiver, action and trigger group. One is Mighty Whitey with its walnut stock and hunting aesthetics. The other, well... That *black* pistol grip sure looks phallic and *black*! That's nothing but a killing

It'd all be a matter of circumstances. Some of the first weapons carried by individual U.S. infantry on the battlefield were things like the Thompson SMG. It was marketed as a trench sweeper with an eye towards the kind of fighting that took place in WWI. Honestly, the larger .45 cartridge over such a short range would be more effective for these bastards, but yes, it would expend large amounts of ammunition. Contemporary weapons like the M1918 Browning automatic were used as light machine guns: i.e. they were placed on bipods in a location were the gunner could suppress enemy movement. Such a weapon would be unhelpful to the murderers. So, a full auto really has different practical applications when it's actually part weapons system. I should note, in any case, that the old M16 and M16A1 is no longer in service in the U.S. These were designed for fully auto. Turns out most rounds are wasted even on a battlefield with full auto. The M16A2 and M16A4 have 3-round burst or single shot selectors. Although there are M16 variants in use with full auto, it's largely been abandoned as not terribly helpful for infantry rifle.

Regardless, my point is that these terms "machine gun" and "assault rifle" is thrown around in such a way that it obscures rather than elucidates discussion. I heard a conversation on NPR the other day where the guest had noted that there are restrictions on machine guns, passed back in the 1930's. The host's response was to say, [quoting from memory] 'Surely a modern assault rifle is deadlier than some Tommy Gun made in the 1920's.' The ignorance here is staggering and as much as I like listening to NPR on some subjects, I've come to the conclusion gun issues is not one of those subjects. The use of the term "assault rifle" or "machine gun" in current journalist parlance does not evoke thought, but emotion. It's what Richard Weaver referred to as a "devil term" in The Ethics of Rhetoric. These are terms intended to provoke revulsion in their hearers rather than rational discourse. One of the keys to the devil term is its vagueness and therefore its ability to have an effect on many different imaginations. In his day, he spoke of "un-American" and "Communist" as being devil-terms--and we know to what effect such insinuations were used.

I would suggest that during the Bush years "terrorist" and "unpatriotic" were devil terms. They were not helpful to democratic discourse and I'm glad they're falling out of use. But I would also say that since the 90's the word "assault rifle" is used as a devil term. To understand how foolish the use of this term is, I would point to this assortment of rifle models. They are all the same gun, with slightly varied features. Only one of these guns, however, was counted an "assault rifle" under the former assault weapons ban. If people have a problem with semi-automatic weapons, they ought to say as much. If they think dislike pistol grips, they ought to go after them. But to throw around these words like "assault rifle" or "machine gun" is no way to conduct a public discussion, especially about something as important as how we shall best defend ourselves and our own against murderers.

My daughter loves the .380 Ruger LCP-P.

http://www.ruger.com/products/lcpDE/models.html

Show me SOMETHING that is made inthe USA.

Here is something. 100% US manufacture.

Your point is well taken, however. We don't make much here anymore, unless you count government. We make a lot of that.

In the case of Reuger vs Ruger, are you suggesting that the issue would raise the temperature and pressure to such a degree that someone would break out guns?

But I have a piece of cool tech in my car that you can't get in Europe or Japan. It's a Ruger KP90DC, eight shots of .45 lovin, and as soon as they're released I'm putting a set of Crimson Trace lasergrips on it. So if I see some moron driving down the road and playing Doom III or watching reruns of Friends on his center console monitor I can bust a couple of caps into him and improve road safety.