I watched parts of CNN town hall last week. One part that struck with me with me was Rubio saying that to re-enact the now-expired 1994 assault weapons ban would only ban some 300ish of 3000ish assault-like weapons. Because there is a great difficulty with defining weapons, and that they can be easily modified to get around those. I read a CNN article that went a little into this. While I understand definitions needs to be used for laws I thought there has to be a better way of going around this, instead of having laws where there are loop holes where simple detail changes or name changes will make a gun legal but not change its lethality.
Would it be easier to define if a gun is legal or not by the results / effects of the weapon?
Now, again, I don't know enough about guns to properly parse them out, but a few things I heard about how/why certain guns are more lethal than others are things like
1) How quickly in succession bullets can leave the gun. (mainly due to the fact more bullets are flying).
Such a rule impacting this would presumably affect selective fire, semi-automatics, fully automatics, and large magazines.
2) How fast a bullet leaving the gun is traveling apparently is more lethal. Per The Atlantic.
3) The ammo composition, size, or shape. Armour piercing being an obvious one.
Could rules not be made to address those, instead of specific gun models? That guns which shoot out bullets in quick succession, at high speeds, and/or with crazy ammo/magazines, are, if not banned, then more strictly regulated than guns without those parameters? And if we want or need to create certain cut outs (example: big ammo for wildlife control for certain professions and/or locations) then do so.
I don't think that looking at what weapons are available of course is the only thing to look at. Universal background checks and mental health both need to be looked at more closely. In Florida non-hand-guns can be purchased at 18, and hand-guns at 21. It has been suggested to raise the age so that it is 21 for all guns. I have wondered the wisdom of letting 18 year olds access to weapons, for 2 reasons. 1) They haven't had a chance to tarnish up their adult criminal record which might disallow them from owning a gun (I assume a juvenile criminal record does not show up on NICS). 2) Most mental health issues develop between ages 14-24 (though that doesn't mean they come to a professional's attention then). It would seem to be if we want to keep a juvenile criminal record out of NICS that it is only fair to give them a couple years to mess up their life *and* want to have stricter mental health evaluation of young adults purchasing guns. Of course if someone is not old enough to purchase guns… there should be some common-sense exceptions. Professional. On a licensed gun-range. Hunting game with a person with a valid gun license.
Edited by sierraleone, 26 February 2018 - 10:55 PM.