But assault rifle bans are the most popular form of gun control, probably because of the popularity of hand guns.
so it's easier to pass and claim a victory lap.
I saw a definition recently that said assault rifle bans.. any rifle with at least one 'military type accessory' - that wording is part of the charade. I'm guessing a forward grip, maybe a red dot would be in that?
Frankly if the grandma next door needs to use a weapon, I would hope that she is not limited by regulations such as that - I would like her to have as good of a grip and sighting options as absolutely possible. I'd rather her have an easily controllable SBR type of weapon, expandable stock and maybe 30 rounds of 22 winmag - this would be much safer for her and for the neighbors I think if something went down... JB's double barrell shotgun suggestion would not be the best protection for many grandmas, imho.
so maybe 'because of the popularity of hand guns' is that in a way, in that people in the middle want them.. I think some people will read that as in 'the popularity' is causing lots of shootings and that makes gun control popular.
maybe. all situations are different not an exhaustive suggestion(s) thought processes atm. ymmv.
Is this a real risk in parts of the country where old people need serious fire power to defend themselves? Maybe it is and I just haven't been exposed to it. For me, I'd feel more nervous with someone with deteriorating memory and eyesight handling a lethal weapon next door.
I don't think the way to reason about this is based on "serious fire power" vs some other kind of weapon that you feel is more acceptable. All guns can be lethal.
If grandma feels unsafe, she might get a gun. I can understand how older people might want firepower when they know they can't physically fend off an attacker.
If you accept grandma's right to be armed, would you rather she use a more or less dangerous gun?
Most gun controls make the weapon less safe. It's similar to how people think sharp knives are more dangerous, but they're actually much safer than dull knives.
The way to think about it is that the round is doing most of the work. The gun is just a delivery system for the round, and besides fully automatic weapons, every other weapon choice is about safety, accuracy, and reliability.
A "Short Barrel Rifle" or "Short Barrel Shotgun" is easier to operate, and therefore more safe than a non-NFA rifle. They were regulated to make people feel better, not to add safety. The velocity of NFA SBRs is actually lower than the velocity of a bullet leaving a non-NFA 16" barrel.
A silencer is not silent, it's just hearing protection, but also requires an NFA tax stamp. They don't sound like they do in the movies, and there's no mistaking it's a gunshot.
Expandable stocks and foregrips are scary looking, but the whole point of them is to gain accuracy, which makes the gun safer. These are usually legal, but there are silly regulations around these too.
Larger magazines allow you to focus on your threat instead of counting your bullets. For now, these are legal, but banning magazines with large capacity is a common talking point.
The reason all of these items look scary is because we see military with them. But even in the military, they're not to make the guns more lethal. The whole point is operational safety.
If you don't think anyone should be allowed to have a gun, that's actually a more defensible position. If people are allowed to have guns, they should be allowed to have any gun and any gun attachment that improves their safety.
The idea that any gun would have made my grandma more safe is ludicrous to me. Giving my grandmother a gun would have either made her less safe, or way way less safe.
> If people are allowed to have guns, they should be allowed to have any gun and any gun attachment that improves their safety.
She was allowed to have one, but the only attachment that would have improved her safety is no gun.
Maybe with training, your grandma could enjoy plinking targets and also be safer in her home?
There are grandmas that love hunting and spending time at the range.
It'd be nice to live in a world where nobody ever commits acts of violence. Unfortunately, we banned violence long ago, and it seems that criminals are still doing it anyway. The next best thing we can do is be prepared.
Guns don't go bad, after all.
(And if you count things like the Holodomor, Holocaust, Cambodian Genocide etc as murder, I think the correlation between 'murder rate' and 'civilian gun ownership rate' takes a decidedly different slope)
A lot of people want to compare because money or gdp is similar or whatever - but they are all totally different.
I'd love to have the same kind of social safety nets that many Euro countries have, I think much of the US violence in related to the lack of stability in families that is a reflection of financial insecurities honestly.
Other things like the value of the drug markets here, and the quick access of Latin countries to here ( https://www.businessinsider.com/latin-america-is-the-worlds-... ) - make a huge difference. comparing stats about any other place is just apples and oranges.
I have about a dozen grandmas in my neighborhood that are all physically and mentally doing very well. They don't need walkers or wheelchairs. some still work, some run businesses. They garden, the go out. Every single one of them can wield a shovel or a firearm if need be.
Sadly there is advice out there that puts them in more danger in a similar way that you describe with yours - I've heard popular advice repeated like 'you need a revolver that don't jam' - best thing is 'a double barrel 12 ga shotgun' - quite frankly I think that is terrible advice for most of them.
For many with the kind of physical limitations in our area, something like a GSG-16 .22 , a Mossberg 715 Pistol .22 , even a Walther Arms Uzi Tactical Rifle Semi-Auto .22 - these things would be easier to use, less fear of recoil, easier to keep on target of bad guys and less chance of inuring self, or bystanders / neighbors..
yet some of the GC ideas would limit access to exactly these kinds of safer features all in the name fear mongering 'military assault accessories' -
the grandma next door would be less safe being forced not to have access to these options and instead forced to use something will less control and options. That's simply truth.
again, it may not be true for every grandma in the world, but a majority of them (that are not bedridden / incapacitated etc), I think so.
I think it depends on where you live, and how valuable you are in terms of theft and attractiveness.
For examples - the super rich in Miami probably need more security than the richer in Beverly Hills. If you are attractive / sexy in Miami you are probably not more in danger than if you are that sexy in like St Louis or Newark NJ / Detriot.
There was a country girl in the news a couple years back, she was young and very pretty. The whole town knew her husband had died / had a funeral - a couple weeks later she needed firearms to stop bad things happening at her house.
I've been in Nashville (TN) and the suburbs of it for many years, and I will say that you won't need weapons everyday, but the crime, especially with violent younger people is increasing at a rate that is kind of shocking. We have multiple armed robberies all around us. Last week someone put a knife to a convenience store customer;s throat in order to rob the gas station.
People and places are being robbed left and right around here these days - and many of them get extra violent without reason. Some have been caught on door cams lately. With the 'gentrification' that certain places are bringing - it's not going to get any better.
I spent more than a decade working the nightshift downtown. It was during those times it became clear to me, when you need help, if you have time to call the cops - it will take a long time for them to get to you.
My neighbor who is grandma age has had her house attempted to be broken into multiple times throughout the years. Partially because it is off the main road enough to be secluded for privacy in attacks.
People around her are busting into cars, jacking mail from mailboxes a lot.. that is not usually violent, but when you catch these people doing these things, sometimes they pop off with all kinds of crazy, sometimes with stolen guns.
I don't know what it's like in the part of the world you are in, but around here it's not everyday you in the thick of it - not like SE DC was in the 80s.. but everyday there is lots of crime all around us (like within a 1/2 mile and lots within 5 miles) - it's just a matter of time before you are in a normal place at a bad time.
Hopefully you can run / drive away and maybe just use a pepper spray and whistle.. but the criminals around here have really stepped up the violence and guns the past few years. There are signs it's getting worse. I would suggest the possible need for weaponry during the daylight hours is much more often now than it was a decade ago I'd say only those who worked at night needed to really be extra aware of surroundings and such.
lots of people chuckle at someone using '22'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attempted_assassination_of_Ron...
From what I've seen in the news and videos most of violent criminals around here have been tshirts and hoodies, generally 1 -4 people, although the group of kids that took a musician out recently over a van I think was 5 maybe 6 at once. 30 rounds of 22 would be better than trying to swat them with a heavy purse.
If your threat was high value target, or some kind of state entity, I would not count on a 22 to be the best choice. Some people have suggested winter coats and layers of cloth can impede a 22, maybe if it's hollow.. for grandmas in Minnesota and such I'd probably suggest training with and getting used to something that can run critical duty or critical defense ammo through it instead maybe.
Most of my older neighbors would do well with any low recoil round if the platform was easy to handle.
Which is one reason this assault style banning talk bothers me so much. It literally makes them more dangerous and puts them in more danger by regulation, which is not silly.
It gives the strong criminals an advantage and the weaker citizens a disadvantage in life threatening situations.
again, not an expert, doctor, lawyer, etc.. just been doing some research and trying to share some things I have found that may be surprising for those who have not. There is certainly more to know, ymmv.
That seems like a much more important question than bickering over precisely which firearm grandma should have as she slides into dementia.
https://khn.org/news/dementia-and-gun-safety-when-should-agi...
There will likely come a point when people need to step in and take control of elderly people's finances, weapons, other possession, choices for nutrition and healthcare, all that.
There are people at many ages that are stripped of their rights for different reasons. I hope the world exposes more of these concerns. I recently helped with a site for exposing some people who used the law for taking over people's stuff - family pushed through a busy judge, took over her house and bank accounts, made her broke after a couple years then disappeared. She was left to the state to care for with no money, no house, everything - and she was quite capable of planning her future and retirement, but it was all taken.
I think there are many people who have had rights taken from them in unfair ways. In same cases states are moving to restore voting and gun rights who have served their time and such.
At the same time we need more tests for proving that people are mentally and physically fit enough to wield weapons, cars, and other things safely.
In some of those cases it may make sense to have special teams show elderly people how to use different weapons and different cars should the need arise. In other cases it could be deemed that they should not drive or try to defend themselves.
I'd like to think our society will take care of these older people so they never need to worry about transportation or fighting. We need to make a lot of changes for the future if this is to be however. Right now our society is set to leave a lot of old people to languish without good care and safety - and most just look the other way as they suffer.
I think it's more that most of those advocating for these rifle bans have limited or no experience with any firearm, let a lone rifles. Most of these things just look scary to people who are unfamiliar with them, even though they'd be functionally equivalent to rifles with wooden stocks and wooden foregrips.
Edit: clarifying word
I think it’s more likely that the people who are politically motivated around this issue represent the extremes and that leads to weird compromises.
When they choose to carry 'high capacity magazines', SBRs (real pia to get for non-leo) - and other weaponry, it is understood these things help them be safer...
If grandma is not allowed to be safer because random bad guy - you have to wonder, or should maybe.
I think your comment shows a fundamental misunderstanding.
My point was that some of the 'assault rifle bans' are trying to stop simple things like a grip addon, a collapsible stock, an over 10rd magazine - any one of those things could make the whole thing illegal..
and I would want grandma to have access to those things, all of them. It would make her, and her neighbors safer.
This is not fictional in any way shape or form.
Not too long ago a grandma near me went to take the shooting class with a 38 revolver.. it hurt her wrists after a few shots and everyone quickly realized she would not be able to perform the amount of firing to do the practice and the test with one.
If she had been given a police issue SBR MP5 with muzzle break, forward grip, collapsible stock, laser and red dot - she would be able to plink accurately all day long.
These things they want to ban are actually safety features - but people can't see that.
I may have to make a few grandma videos to show this maybe.
It's not that bad.
The easy way is to find an SBR you want to buy, file Form 4 for $200, wait for a few months, then take receipt of your NFA item.
Or if you want to do a conversion from an existing rifle, file Form 1 (also $200) and get short barrel. The disadvantage is that you've then created an NFA weapon, so you'd have to be more careful how you handle transfer and sale.
If you don't want an NFA SBR, well, AR-15s can be pistols. Pistols can be short. Pistols can't have buttstocks, but there are legal products that are not "intended" to be used as stocks. They happen to look just like a stock, but they're totally intended to be used as an arm brace. If you do use one as a buttstock, that's not how it was intended to be used, but it is legal to do so. This approach is so popular that ATF has issued letters saying it's not illegal.
Here's most of what you need to know: http://preparedgunowners.com/2017/04/27/atf-reverses-opinion...
It's not mentioned in the article, but pistols cannot have a forward grip, as that would make them "Any Other Weapon", which is NFA. If you have a forward grip but don't have the tax stamp, you'll go to prison. Keep in mind you can start down the AR-15 pistol route, then later get your Form 1 tax stamp to convert it into a rifle by attaching a stock.
This is all quite ridiculous, but that's the law.
Incidentally, I'm pretty sure this applies even if the grip isn't attached, or is attached to another gun. All depends on how friendly the ATF is feeling...
I think it's unlikely (but possible) a case would be brought against you for just having the grip, and I'm not sure if that's ever actually happened. As opposed to if you had all the parts to make a machine gun, where there could only be one use for those parts.
Also interesting, drilling the extra hole in your AR-15 lower so that it could some day accept an auto-sear is a serious felony, even if you don't own the auto-sear.
I'm fascinated by how insane these rules are after I learned that I can't legally own or operate a firearm because I'm a medical marijuana user. If cannabis ever gets unscheduled, I'd like to build a little arsenal.
As an addendum, I have to imagine that GRAs enjoy this debate, because as long as we're stuck on it, we don't have to talk about how access to handguns increases the successful suicide attempt rate.
mass shooters... gravitate to assault rifles
> We have different definitions of mass shooters.
You're almost certainly talking about high profile shooting incidents with broad media coverage, that drive what is essentially a moral panic.
Parent comment is referring to incidents where 3+ people get shot, which often do not make the national and international media, and are predominately carried out with handguns.
The shootings last August that got a lot of attention are a great example. Couple of back-to-back mass shooting incidents in TX and Ohio got a lot of press... even though just the week before something like 34 people got shot in Chicago over the course of 2 days; hardly a word in the press outside of Chi-town.
You group the two in order to dilute the focus of anti-gun violence advocacy, but you're given away by how little you care about instances of the latter definition otherwise. If "mental healthcare" is your panacea, it won't help non-suicide handgun violence. You know that, and I know that, and it's then perplexing why you would think we wouldn't notice.
I feel like anybody wanting to pass gun laws in congress should take basic firearms courses. It takes a lot for me to be in the range as a newcomer and just shoot. I am convinced the issue isnt guns its the culture / mental state of the person with the gun.
Worse yet you are disarming people who had a better chance against criminals who have access to worse weapons and will likely go for those.
Edit: In other words I'm talking about rate of bullets fired per second, and not how fast they leave the clip / magazine which is what you're talking about.
From quick Google searches, 9mm pistol barrels are around 4-5 inches long, 9mm rifles around 16". This has a major impact on muzzle velocity, and an even greater impact on muzzle energy.
People focus on rifles, which are responsible for relatively few deaths, because banning handguns is wildly unpopular. (Heck Kamala Harris owns a handgun.)
Unless someone is proposing you need to defend your house against a zombie invasion.
A big fraction of serious marksmanship is done with rifles, including multiple formats that depend upon semi-automatic rifles.
There are many collectors of curios & relics of military and sporting history, which are overwhelmingly rifles.
My brother kills trapped raccoons on his property with a rifle instead of drowning them because he feels it is more humane.
There's a ton of legitimate sporting use, some defense use, and they are used much, much less in crime than handguns.
Private ownership of battle rifles (c.f. Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq insurgency) are pretty much the only (valid) defense against the "Lol you think you can fight a war against an adversary with drones and nukes?" argument.