Gun Bans

[Dyakovo]

Do Australia and Japan have an equivalent to the Second Amendment?

As a representative of the Commonwealth. No we don't have seconded amendment, thankfully.

I don't see why that would be something to be thankful of, but thanks for confirming.

[Big Jim P]

As a representative of the Commonwealth. No we don't have seconded amendment, thankfully.

I don't see why that would be something to be thankful of, but thanks for confirming.

Of course that will not stop the gun-control supporters from comparing apples to oranges.

[Big Jim P]

You know it is still illegal to knowingly sell guns to a criminals and the mentally ill.

That is meaningless without background checks.

If you're looking to sell something, and a buyer is there offering the asking price, you have no incentive to check their criminal or mental health status. Maybe you ask them politely and maybe they lie to you, but to say to them "I need your name and social security number, or current address, and I need to sight some ID, oh and you'll have to wait a week before taking possession of this fine gun" is very likely throwing away the money YOU want in exchange for the gun you want to sell.

Gun dealers do that because they're required to by law. Private owners should be similarly compelled before selling (or gifting) a gun to anyone.

No. It is the responsibility of the criminal or mentally ill not to try and by the gun in the first place.

[Ecans]

I speak as one who has enjoyed hunting, target shooting and skeet over the years. First .22 at the age of 10. I am not an American and I am NOT in favour of banning or tightly and obtrusively controlling weapons in the hands of hunters, sport shooters, farmers etc.

I know the difference between an Assault Rifle and it's close cousin i.e. the AR15. If I am not mistaken, an AR15 can be converted to full automatic with the illegal purchase of a few internal parts and the aid of a gunsmith.

I don't understand the need for an AR15-type weapon. My understanding is that they do not make good target rifles or adequate hunting weapons. Home defense? Perhaps a bit of overkill here? Special-license military collectors? Why not...if they are legitimate.

I also don't see the need for 30 round clips. Any decent hunter needs no more than 5. Target shooters as well.

I am sure that there are more than a few people out there who can tell me if my thoughts are offside and why. In a rational and intelligent way, please.

[Emile Zola]

As a representative of the Commonwealth. No we don't have seconded amendment, thankfully.

I don't see why that would be something to be thankful of, but thanks for confirming.

No problem. Why would I be thankful? Because we don't need it, we define our society differently. Our gun laws are the best gun laws for both society and the individual.

[Yes Im Biop]

I speak as one who has enjoyed hunting, target shooting and skeet over the years. First .22 at the age of 10. I am not an American and I am NOT in favour of banning or tightly and obtrusively controlling weapons in the hands of hunters, sport shooters, farmers etc.

I know the difference between an Assault Rifle and it's close cousin i.e. the AR15. If I am not mistaken, an AR15 can be converted to full automatic with the illegal purchase of a few internal parts and the aid of a gunsmith.

I don't understand the need for an AR15-type weapon. My understanding is that they do not make good target rifles or adequate hunting weapons. Home defense? Perhaps a bit of overkill here? Special-license military collectors? Why not...if they are legitimate.

I also don't see the need for 30 round clips. Any decent hunter needs no more than 5. Target shooters as well.

I am sure that there are more than a few people out there who can tell me if my thoughts are offside and why. In a rational and intelligent way, please.

Going Coyote Hunting requires more then 5 if you go solo and find a pack.
Also what Jim Said.

Interesting enough AR-15 get a lot of attention. but the AR-10 is better then it in quite a lot of way's besides costing more.

[Big Jim P]

I speak as one who has enjoyed hunting, target shooting and skeet over the years. First .22 at the age of 10. I am not an American and I am NOT in favour of banning or tightly and obtrusively controlling weapons in the hands of hunters, sport shooters, farmers etc.

I know the difference between an Assault Rifle and it's close cousin i.e. the AR15. If I am not mistaken, an AR15 can be converted to full automatic with the illegal purchase of a few internal parts and the aid of a gunsmith.

I don't understand the need for an AR15-type weapon. My understanding is that they do not make good target rifles or adequate hunting weapons. Home defense? Perhaps a bit of overkill here? Special-license military collectors? Why not...if they are legitimate.

I also don't see the need for 30 round clips. Any decent hunter needs no more than 5. Target shooters as well.

I am sure that there are more than a few people out there who can tell me if my thoughts are offside and why. In a rational and intelligent way, please.

AR15s make excellent target and varmint hunting rifles.

[AiliailiA]

A firearm. ONE firearm.

There is no reason to extend that right to dozens or hundreds of firearms.

There is no reason to restrict it either.

Handgun, rifle and shotgun. Just a basic battery is three guns.

A right to 3 guns would be an acceptable compromise. It's the right to bear arms being exploited to build stockpiles of guns which I object to.

And sure, sometimes a person has good reasons to own more than one, or three. I wouldn't outright ban that, but after the first one they should show cause to own more.

Think about the origins of the 2nd Amendment. Whatever "well-regulated" means, and whatever "a free state" means, the word "militia" is crucial. It's about every fighting man (or nowadays, person) bringing their own gun which they are competent in the use of. It wasn't written in knowledge of the Civil War, but only of the Revolutionary War.

And I admit that the ultimate test of what is constitutional is what SCOTUS makes of it, and as it stands there is also an individual right to bear arms found in the 2nd Amendment. It's an individual right established by legal precedent, not just constructive reading of the Constitution (though I think that supports it too), and I won't argue with it. Individuals have a right to bear arms.

What I'm saying is that limits could be put on how many arms an individual can "keep and bear". I would restrict that number: while leaving open to them personally the option to join a "militia" to oppose tyranny, leaving open to them the option to defend their lives or the lives of others with lethal force, leaving open the option to hunt for food, and leaving open the option to fart about with a gun for fun, I would DENY them the option to buy as many guns as they want.

I live in a nation with quite strong gun control (most of the world has quite strong gun control compared to the US, so don't even ask). I would strongly resist any moves to loosen those restrictions, but when talking to Americans I have to take account of their differing expectations and conception of "rights". In my own country I would strongly resist 'right to one gun, unless disqualified by criminal record or mental health' because that's a whole lot more guns than we've got, and in the hands of people who shouldn't have a gun but just haven't been convicted of a felony yet or been forcibly detained for mental illness yet. But for the USA, I admit that such a limitation would be politically difficult and not show any positive effect for decades even if implemented across all the states.

So I'm suggesting something which to you may seem an outrageous infringement of your "rights" but to me is equally outrageous. I have to swallow hard and hold my mouth right to say that people have a right to "keep and bear arms" and it sickens me that in some states, a forty year old who did a few years in jail for having sex with a 14-yo when they were 16, is forbidden to carry a gun for self-defense while their name, photo and address are published by the government as a sex offender. Where is their right of self-defense? Their right to hunt game, or fart around with a gun for fun?

Anyway, from outside the US, it seems to me a very reasonable compromise to suggest that people be limited in how many guns they can own at one time. It's not contrary to either the constitution nor to the "individual right" interpretation of the Scalia court.

And the objections I'm hearing from yourself and others amount to "it would be inconvenient and less fun for me".

I said "a right to one firearm" and I'm prepared to compromise on three. Will you compromise at all?

[Nua Corda]

I speak as one who has enjoyed hunting, target shooting and skeet over the years. First .22 at the age of 10. I am not an American and I am NOT in favour of banning or tightly and obtrusively controlling weapons in the hands of hunters, sport shooters, farmers etc.

I know the difference between an Assault Rifle and it's close cousin i.e. the AR15. If I am not mistaken, an AR15 can be converted to full automatic with the illegal purchase of a few internal parts and the aid of a gunsmith.

I don't understand the need for an AR15-type weapon. My understanding is that they do not make good target rifles or adequate hunting weapons. Home defense? Perhaps a bit of overkill here? Special-license military collectors? Why not...if they are legitimate.

I also don't see the need for 30 round clips. Any decent hunter needs no more than 5. Target shooters as well.

I am sure that there are more than a few people out there who can tell me if my thoughts are offside and why. In a rational and intelligent way, please.

Actually, AR-15s make excellent target rifles. They're as accurate as most bolt actions, and the semi-automatic fire is nice for snap shooting, and necessary for Three-Gun. You certainly can hunt with them, or with their larger cousin, the .308 AR-10, and in fact the 5.56 NATO/.223 Remmington they fire was originally intended for varmint hunting and animal control. In some parts of the US, coyotes and foxes are a big problem, especially for farmers, and the AR-15 is remarkable efficient at putting them down. And, pretty much anything can be converted to full auto with the aid of a gunsmith. The Chechens in Russia build submachineguns out of plumber's pipe and scrap parts.

There's no such thing as a 30 round clip.



And there's no good reason to ban them. A British SMLE bolt-action rifle, feeding from actual clips as seen above, can fire a hundred rounds in a minute with a bit of practice, far more than is actually needed even in a mass shooting scenario.

[Dyakovo]

There is no reason to restrict it either.

Handgun, rifle and shotgun. Just a basic battery is three guns.

A right to 3 guns would be an acceptable compromise. It's the right to bear arms being exploited to build stockpiles of guns which I object to.

And sure, sometimes a person has good reasons to own more than one, or three. I wouldn't outright ban that, but after the first one they should show cause to own more.

Think about the origins of the 2nd Amendment. Whatever "well-regulated" means, and whatever "a free state" means, the word "militia" is crucial. It's about every fighting man (or nowadays, person) bringing their own gun which they are competent in the use of. It wasn't written in knowledge of the Civil War, but only of the Revolutionary War.

And I admit that the ultimate test of what is constitutional is what SCOTUS makes of it, and as it stands there is also an individual right to bear arms found in the 2nd Amendment. It's an individual right established by legal precedent, not just constructive reading of the Constitution (though I think that supports it too), and I won't argue with it. Individuals have a right to bear arms.

What I'm saying is that limits could be put on how many arms an individual can "keep and bear". I would restrict that number: while leaving open to them personally the option to join a "militia" to oppose tyranny, leaving open to them the option to defend their lives or the lives of others with lethal force, leaving open the option to hunt for food, and leaving open the option to fart about with a gun for fun, I would DENY them the option to buy as many guns as they want.

I live in a nation with quite strong gun control (most of the world has quite strong gun control compared to the US, so don't even ask). I would strongly resist any moves to loosen those restrictions, but when talking to Americans I have to take account of their differing expectations and conception of "rights". In my own country I would strongly resist 'right to one gun, unless disqualified by criminal record or mental health' because that's a whole lot more guns than we've got, and in the hands of people who shouldn't have a gun but just haven't been convicted of a felony yet or been forcibly detained for mental illness yet. But for the USA, I admit that such a limitation would be politically difficult and not show any positive effect for decades even if implemented across all the states.

So I'm suggesting something which to you may seem an outrageous infringement of your "rights" but to me is equally outrageous. I have to swallow hard and hold my mouth right to say that people have a right to "keep and bear arms" and it sickens me that in some states, a forty year old who did a few years in jail for having sex with a 14-yo when they were 16, is forbidden to carry a gun for self-defense while their name, photo and address are published by the government as a sex offender. Where is their right of self-defense? Their right to hunt game, or fart around with a gun for fun?

Anyway, from outside the US, it seems to me a very reasonable compromise to suggest that people be limited in how many guns they can own at one time. It's not contrary to either the constitution nor to the "individual right" interpretation of the Scalia court.

And the objections I'm hearing from yourself and others amount to "it would be inconvenient and less fun for me".

I said "a right to one firearm" and I'm prepared to compromise on three. Will you compromise at all?

Requiring a license to own guns was the compromise.
Different guns are suited for different tasks.

[AiliailiA]

That is meaningless without background checks.

If you're looking to sell something, and a buyer is there offering the asking price, you have no incentive to check their criminal or mental health status. Maybe you ask them politely and maybe they lie to you, but to say to them "I need your name and social security number, or current address, and I need to sight some ID, oh and you'll have to wait a week before taking possession of this fine gun" is very likely throwing away the money YOU want in exchange for the gun you want to sell.

Gun dealers do that because they're required to by law. Private owners should be similarly compelled before selling (or gifting) a gun to anyone.

No. It is the responsibility of the criminal or mentally ill not to try and by the gun in the first place.

No. It is the responsibility of the owner of the gun, not to sell it to a criminal or lunatic.

If it wasn't, there would be no limitation on criminals buying a gun. All they'd have to do is offer the market price, in a private sale, and they could get a gun for the exact same price and a lot less paper-trail than a legal buyer would need to buy from a legal (and regulated) gun dealer.

"Criminals will always be able to get a gun" follows directly from what you say: the seller can take the money for the gun with no sense of guilt, nor legal responsibility, and all responsibility falls on the buyer of the weapon. That is how criminals get guns.

And that is why I say that people like you should be limited in how many guns they may own. I don't give a damn what your dad did, live your own life and take responsibility for your own choices. If you ever sold a gun to a criminal, I consider you a criminal. Even if you didn't know their criminal record ... because you should have known that before selling to them.

[Nua Corda]

A right to 3 guns would be an acceptable compromise. It's the right to bear arms being exploited to build stockpiles of guns which I object to.

And sure, sometimes a person has good reasons to own more than one, or three. I wouldn't outright ban that, but after the first one they should show cause to own more.

Think about the origins of the 2nd Amendment. Whatever "well-regulated" means, and whatever "a free state" means, the word "militia" is crucial. It's about every fighting man (or nowadays, person) bringing their own gun which they are competent in the use of. It wasn't written in knowledge of the Civil War, but only of the Revolutionary War.

And I admit that the ultimate test of what is constitutional is what SCOTUS makes of it, and as it stands there is also an individual right to bear arms found in the 2nd Amendment. It's an individual right established by legal precedent, not just constructive reading of the Constitution (though I think that supports it too), and I won't argue with it. Individuals have a right to bear arms.

What I'm saying is that limits could be put on how many arms an individual can "keep and bear". I would restrict that number: while leaving open to them personally the option to join a "militia" to oppose tyranny, leaving open to them the option to defend their lives or the lives of others with lethal force, leaving open the option to hunt for food, and leaving open the option to fart about with a gun for fun, I would DENY them the option to buy as many guns as they want.

I live in a nation with quite strong gun control (most of the world has quite strong gun control compared to the US, so don't even ask). I would strongly resist any moves to loosen those restrictions, but when talking to Americans I have to take account of their differing expectations and conception of "rights". In my own country I would strongly resist 'right to one gun, unless disqualified by criminal record or mental health' because that's a whole lot more guns than we've got, and in the hands of people who shouldn't have a gun but just haven't been convicted of a felony yet or been forcibly detained for mental illness yet. But for the USA, I admit that such a limitation would be politically difficult and not show any positive effect for decades even if implemented across all the states.

So I'm suggesting something which to you may seem an outrageous infringement of your "rights" but to me is equally outrageous. I have to swallow hard and hold my mouth right to say that people have a right to "keep and bear arms" and it sickens me that in some states, a forty year old who did a few years in jail for having sex with a 14-yo when they were 16, is forbidden to carry a gun for self-defense while their name, photo and address are published by the government as a sex offender. Where is their right of self-defense? Their right to hunt game, or fart around with a gun for fun?

Anyway, from outside the US, it seems to me a very reasonable compromise to suggest that people be limited in how many guns they can own at one time. It's not contrary to either the constitution nor to the "individual right" interpretation of the Scalia court.

And the objections I'm hearing from yourself and others amount to "it would be inconvenient and less fun for me".

I said "a right to one firearm" and I'm prepared to compromise on three. Will you compromise at all?

Requiring a license to own guns was the compromise.
Different guns are suited for different tasks.

And what about us collectors?

Even if not...

1. Pistol

2. Bolt-Action, High-caliber Hunting Rifle

3. Shotgun

Where's the room for my plinker? My target rifle? My pest-control/Coyote gun?

[Alowwvia]

No. It is the responsibility of the criminal or mentally ill not to try and by the gun in the first place.

No. It is the responsibility of the owner of the gun, not to sell it to a criminal or lunatic.

If it wasn't, there would be no limitation on criminals buying a gun. All they'd have to do is offer the market price, in a private sale, and they could get a gun for the exact same price and a lot less paper-trail than a legal buyer would need to buy from a legal (and regulated) gun dealer.

"Criminals will always be able to get a gun" follows directly from what you say: the seller can take the money for the gun with no sense of guilt, nor legal responsibility, and all responsibility falls on the buyer of the weapon. That is how criminals get guns.

And that is why I say that people like you should be limited in how many guns they may own. I don't give a damn what your dad did, live your own life and take responsibility for your own choices. If you ever sold a gun to a criminal, I consider you a criminal. Even if you didn't know their criminal record ... because you should have known that before selling to them.

That's like saying

"Nobody NEEDS a computer with more than 1GB of hardrive space, or an internet connection faster than 50.0 mbs, so we're going to restrict it to that to cut down on online piracy."

It's bullshit. There should be no limit on the amount of THINGS I wish to own. I should be allowed to own as many as I choose to buy, because this is America, dammit.

[AiliailiA]

A right to 3 guns would be an acceptable compromise. It's the right to bear arms being exploited to build stockpiles of guns which I object to.

And sure, sometimes a person has good reasons to own more than one, or three. I wouldn't outright ban that, but after the first one they should show cause to own more.

Think about the origins of the 2nd Amendment. Whatever "well-regulated" means, and whatever "a free state" means, the word "militia" is crucial. It's about every fighting man (or nowadays, person) bringing their own gun which they are competent in the use of. It wasn't written in knowledge of the Civil War, but only of the Revolutionary War.

And I admit that the ultimate test of what is constitutional is what SCOTUS makes of it, and as it stands there is also an individual right to bear arms found in the 2nd Amendment. It's an individual right established by legal precedent, not just constructive reading of the Constitution (though I think that supports it too), and I won't argue with it. Individuals have a right to bear arms.

What I'm saying is that limits could be put on how many arms an individual can "keep and bear". I would restrict that number: while leaving open to them personally the option to join a "militia" to oppose tyranny, leaving open to them the option to defend their lives or the lives of others with lethal force, leaving open the option to hunt for food, and leaving open the option to fart about with a gun for fun, I would DENY them the option to buy as many guns as they want.

I live in a nation with quite strong gun control (most of the world has quite strong gun control compared to the US, so don't even ask). I would strongly resist any moves to loosen those restrictions, but when talking to Americans I have to take account of their differing expectations and conception of "rights". In my own country I would strongly resist 'right to one gun, unless disqualified by criminal record or mental health' because that's a whole lot more guns than we've got, and in the hands of people who shouldn't have a gun but just haven't been convicted of a felony yet or been forcibly detained for mental illness yet. But for the USA, I admit that such a limitation would be politically difficult and not show any positive effect for decades even if implemented across all the states.

So I'm suggesting something which to you may seem an outrageous infringement of your "rights" but to me is equally outrageous. I have to swallow hard and hold my mouth right to say that people have a right to "keep and bear arms" and it sickens me that in some states, a forty year old who did a few years in jail for having sex with a 14-yo when they were 16, is forbidden to carry a gun for self-defense while their name, photo and address are published by the government as a sex offender. Where is their right of self-defense? Their right to hunt game, or fart around with a gun for fun?

Anyway, from outside the US, it seems to me a very reasonable compromise to suggest that people be limited in how many guns they can own at one time. It's not contrary to either the constitution nor to the "individual right" interpretation of the Scalia court.

And the objections I'm hearing from yourself and others amount to "it would be inconvenient and less fun for me".

I said "a right to one firearm" and I'm prepared to compromise on three. Will you compromise at all?

Requiring a license to own guns was the compromise.

Oh, like your ancestors compromised once so you never have to do it again?

Circumstances change. For instance, a well-regulated militia is no longer necessary for the security of a free state. You have the Senate and you have the Navy.

Different guns are suited for different tasks.

Indeed they are. The legally recognized "tasks" are self-defense, and resisting tyranny. I'm being generous allowing a third (for hunting or target shooting) and if you won't compromise on three, then I'm going back to advocating zero by right.

[Dyakovo]

No. It is the responsibility of the criminal or mentally ill not to try and by the gun in the first place.

No. It is the responsibility of the owner of the gun, not to sell it to a criminal or lunatic.

If it wasn't, there would be no limitation on criminals buying a gun. All they'd have to do is offer the market price, in a private sale, and they could get a gun for the exact same price and a lot less paper-trail than a legal buyer would need to buy from a legal (and regulated) gun dealer.

"Criminals will always be able to get a gun" follows directly from what you say: the seller can take the money for the gun with no sense of guilt, nor legal responsibility, and all responsibility falls on the buyer of the weapon. That is how criminals get guns.

And that is why I say that people like you should be limited in how many guns they may own. I don't give a damn what your dad did, live your own life and take responsibility for your own choices. If you ever sold a gun to a criminal, I consider you a criminal. Even if you didn't know their criminal record ... because you should have known that before selling to them.

And there goes what little credibility you had.

[Frisivisia]

No. It is the responsibility of the owner of the gun, not to sell it to a criminal or lunatic.

If it wasn't, there would be no limitation on criminals buying a gun. All they'd have to do is offer the market price, in a private sale, and they could get a gun for the exact same price and a lot less paper-trail than a legal buyer would need to buy from a legal (and regulated) gun dealer.

"Criminals will always be able to get a gun" follows directly from what you say: the seller can take the money for the gun with no sense of guilt, nor legal responsibility, and all responsibility falls on the buyer of the weapon. That is how criminals get guns.

And that is why I say that people like you should be limited in how many guns they may own. I don't give a damn what your dad did, live your own life and take responsibility for your own choices. If you ever sold a gun to a criminal, I consider you a criminal. Even if you didn't know their criminal record ... because you should have known that before selling to them.

That's like saying

"Nobody NEEDS a computer with more than 1GB of hardrive space, or an internet connection faster than 50.0 mbs, so we're going to restrict it to that to cut down on online piracy."

It's bullshit. There should be no limit on the amount of THINGS I wish to own. I should be allowed to own as many as I choose to buy, because this is America, dammit.

False Equivalency sooooo much.

[Alowwvia]

That's like saying

"Nobody NEEDS a computer with more than 1GB of hardrive space, or an internet connection faster than 50.0 mbs, so we're going to restrict it to that to cut down on online piracy."

It's bullshit. There should be no limit on the amount of THINGS I wish to own. I should be allowed to own as many as I choose to buy, because this is America, dammit.

False Equivalency sooooo much.

It isn't. Cope with it.

[Frisivisia]

False Equivalency sooooo much.

It isn't. Cope with it.

It is, cope with it.

[Alowwvia]

It isn't. Cope with it.

It is, cope with it.

Nope.

[Frisivisia]

It is, cope with it.

Nope.

Yep.

[Alowwvia]

Nope.

Yep.

How much longer do we have to keep this up until you provide proof I used any fallacy at all?

[Frisivisia]

Yep.

How much longer do we have to keep this up until you provide proof I used any fallacy at all?

A computer cannot kill people, that's why they aren't already regulated like guns are. To use computers in an analogy as if they were guns is therefore a false equivalency.

[Ecans]

I speak as one who has enjoyed hunting, target shooting and skeet over the years. First .22 at the age of 10. I am not an American and I am NOT in favour of banning or tightly and obtrusively controlling weapons in the hands of hunters, sport shooters, farmers etc.

I know the difference between an Assault Rifle and it's close cousin i.e. the AR15. If I am not mistaken, an AR15 can be converted to full automatic with the illegal purchase of a few internal parts and the aid of a gunsmith.

I don't understand the need for an AR15-type weapon. My understanding is that they do not make good target rifles or adequate hunting weapons. Home defense? Perhaps a bit of overkill here? Special-license military collectors? Why not...if they are legitimate.

I also don't see the need for 30 round clips. Any decent hunter needs no more than 5. Target shooters as well.

I am sure that there are more than a few people out there who can tell me if my thoughts are offside and why. In a rational and intelligent way, please.

Actually, AR-15s make excellent target rifles. They're as accurate as most bolt actions, and the semi-automatic fire is nice for snap shooting, and necessary for Three-Gun. You certainly can hunt with them, or with their larger cousin, the .308 AR-10, and in fact the 5.56 NATO/.223 Remmington they fire was originally intended for varmint hunting and animal control. In some parts of the US, coyotes and foxes are a big problem, especially for farmers, and the AR-15 is remarkable efficient at putting them down. And, pretty much anything can be converted to full auto with the aid of a gunsmith. The Chechens in Russia build submachineguns out of plumber's pipe and scrap parts.

There's no such thing as a 30 round clip.



And there's no good reason to ban them. A British SMLE bolt-action rifle, feeding from actual clips as seen above, can fire a hundred rounds in a minute with a bit of practice, far more than is actually needed even in a mass shooting scenario.

Thanks for the thoughtful and informative answer. I hadn't thought of varmint control and I can see why a large magazine coupled with a fast cycling semi-auto makes sense. I didn't think that they were very accurate past 200 yards though. I also believed that the original AR15 was designed as a survival weapon for downed Air Force pilots.

A bit of a brain cramp there...I do know the difference between a magazine and a clip. A 30 round clip would indeed be a bit unwieldy.

Your reference to the Lee-Enfield SMLE refers, I think, to what the British Army called the "mad minute". The object was to get 15+ aimed shots out in a minute. Many exceeded this and could manage 30+. I own a Lee-Enfield .303 and believe me it would take a robot with a very tough shoulder to get 100 off. That's 10 full mags. With the standard full metal jacket round the damn thing kicks like a mule! Especially if one shortens it and cuts the stock back in order to "sporterize" it. Of course FMJ rounds are just for play, hunting loads are usually a lot lighter.

[Frisivisia]

Actually, AR-15s make excellent target rifles. They're as accurate as most bolt actions, and the semi-automatic fire is nice for snap shooting, and necessary for Three-Gun. You certainly can hunt with them, or with their larger cousin, the .308 AR-10, and in fact the 5.56 NATO/.223 Remmington they fire was originally intended for varmint hunting and animal control. In some parts of the US, coyotes and foxes are a big problem, especially for farmers, and the AR-15 is remarkable efficient at putting them down. And, pretty much anything can be converted to full auto with the aid of a gunsmith. The Chechens in Russia build submachineguns out of plumber's pipe and scrap parts.

There's no such thing as a 30 round clip.



And there's no good reason to ban them. A British SMLE bolt-action rifle, feeding from actual clips as seen above, can fire a hundred rounds in a minute with a bit of practice, far more than is actually needed even in a mass shooting scenario.

Thanks for the thoughtful and informative answer. I hadn't thought of varmint control and I can see why a large magazine coupled with a fast cycling semi-auto makes sense. I didn't think that they were very accurate past 200 yards though. I also believed that the original AR15 was designed as a survival weapon for downed Air Force pilots.

A bit of a brain cramp there...I do know the difference between a magazine and a clip. A 30 round clip would indeed be a bit unwieldy.

Your reference to the Lee-Enfield SMLE refers, I think, to what the British Army called the "mad minute". The object was to get 15+ aimed shots out in a minute. Many exceeded this and could manage 30+. I own a Lee-Enfield .303 and believe me it would take a robot with a very tough shoulder to get 100 off. That's 10 full mags. With the standard full metal jacket round the damn thing kicks like a mule! Especially if one shortens it and cuts the stock back in order to "sporterize" it. Of course FMJ rounds are just for play, hunting loads are usually a lot lighter.

If my Day Z knowledge holds true in the real-gun-iverse, the Lee Enfield is also loud as all hell.

[Dyakovo]

Requiring a license to own guns was the compromise.

Oh, like your ancestors compromised once so you never have to do it again?

I have no clue what you're going on about.

Different guns are suited for different tasks.

Indeed they are. The legally recognized "tasks" are self-defense, and resisting tyranny.

Wrong.