Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

kentuck

(111,110 posts)
Fri Sep 13, 2019, 09:42 AM Sep 2019

What did you think of Beto O'Rourke's idea of confiscating AK-47s and AR-15s?

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by Yonnie3 (a host of the General Discussion forum).

I admired his passion. I think he may have touched a nerve with the voting public?

But, many people are uncomfortable with the word "confiscate". I think the questioner may have set him up with that terminology. It was the wrong word to use, in my opinion.

However, the fact remains. We need to get AK-47s and AR-15s off our streets and out of the hands of dangerous people. They are weapons of war.

We need to ban the sale of these types of weapons, I would agree. If anyone is caught carrying one in the public square, they should lose that weapon immediately. There might be a process for them to get it back but it should be very difficult. This would be a prime instance where the government would likely offer a "buyback", in my opinion.

I was impressed with Beto.

60 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
What did you think of Beto O'Rourke's idea of confiscating AK-47s and AR-15s? (Original Post) kentuck Sep 2019 OP
Yes, but do it by capabilities, not by model number lagomorph777 Sep 2019 #1
I 100% support his position on this issue True Dough Sep 2019 #2
Totally agree. The 2nd Amendment calls for a "well regulated" militia. walkingman Sep 2019 #3
The second amendment is what the Supreme Court says it is. I think a good idea is repeal of the wasupaloopa Sep 2019 #14
How is that even possible ? hack89 Sep 2019 #23
With the current standings of the states right now ripcord Sep 2019 #37
I admire him for him s political courage, but I fear that won't resonate well in a GE. I think still_one Sep 2019 #4
I'm glad he used the word "confiscate" because it's Upthevibe Sep 2019 #5
I agree gratuitous Sep 2019 #9
+1000 smirkymonkey Sep 2019 #30
Totally agree. cyndensco Sep 2019 #48
Totally honest in his answer and didn't try to walk back what he has said outside of the debates to lunasun Sep 2019 #6
Bravo! NRaleighLiberal Sep 2019 #7
we don't get anywhere by confiscating guns rampartc Sep 2019 #8
Exactly, 100% ScratchCat Sep 2019 #11
ironically trump could be the only president that could lead on gun control rampartc Sep 2019 #16
Nixon wasn't insane. At the end of the day, he "got it" and changed an insane policy. CTyankee Sep 2019 #18
both nixon and trump were associated with the late roy cohn rampartc Sep 2019 #35
Are you serious? BruceWane Sep 2019 #20
war is arithmatic rampartc Sep 2019 #34
So going to school.... SergeStorms Sep 2019 #54
He's got the passion-- and passion my be what's needed. We banned tommy guns and grenades... TreasonousBastard Sep 2019 #10
Not like this. We did not require people to sell their machine guns to the government aikoaiko Sep 2019 #22
I loved how blunt it was. world wide wally Sep 2019 #12
Wrongheaded, J_William_Ryan Sep 2019 #13
I agreed with it.... MicaelS Sep 2019 #15
As a strong supporter of the RKBA, I'm strongly in favor of adding semiautos to the NFA. Marengo Sep 2019 #32
If the most liberal states in the US haven't managed to ban them NickB79 Sep 2019 #17
It's a bad idea. Or in Beto-speak, "It's fukt up!" aikoaiko Sep 2019 #19
I don't care that you are "personally offended". Cry me a river Takket Sep 2019 #26
Having a dad that described in great detail gay texan Sep 2019 #55
Desperation. hack89 Sep 2019 #21
I don't think it would be a winning campaign issue in the GE Polybius Sep 2019 #24
Well regulated militia BlueTexasMan Sep 2019 #25
Works for me! 50 Shades Of Blue Sep 2019 #27
This message was self-deleted by its author Chin music Sep 2019 #28
It's a good idea BruceWane Sep 2019 #29
Confiscation is a non-starter. maxsolomon Sep 2019 #31
I think it makes a good sound bite for him, sarisataka Sep 2019 #33
Sadly, I think you're right. cwydro Sep 2019 #39
I'm on board 100% jcgoldie Sep 2019 #36
Works for me. Somehow we all survived when there was a ban on them before. Vinca Sep 2019 #38
I think you just reinstate the ban and offer a buy back tax credit, then set up return centers to ooky Sep 2019 #40
I think it was politically stupid. bluedigger Sep 2019 #41
Love it! ananda Sep 2019 #42
Rule of law... albacore Sep 2019 #43
O'Rourke's best point is that these "assault" style gunz are popular because their ammo kills. Hoyt Sep 2019 #44
This buys into the Republican rhetoric "they're coming for your guns". mwooldri Sep 2019 #45
None of these people will vote for Beto or any Democrat anyway.. kentuck Sep 2019 #46
I like it! shanti Sep 2019 #47
I am all for it gopiscrap Sep 2019 #49
I thought it was the best part of the debate! LeftTurn3623 Sep 2019 #50
The NRA absolutely LOVED Beto's comments calguy Sep 2019 #51
"What did you think of Beto O'Rourke's idea of confiscating AK-47s and AR-15s?" LudwigPastorius Sep 2019 #52
This was a great idea 10 years ago and the need for it has only multiplied since then. LonePirate Sep 2019 #53
Wounds From Military-Style Rifles? 'A Ghastly Thing to See' dalton99a Sep 2019 #56
Confiscation is the only measure I am against TheRealNorth Sep 2019 #57
Two birds with one stone... homegirl Sep 2019 #58
Unreasonable, never gonna happen randr Sep 2019 #59
Locking ... Yonnie3 Sep 2019 #60

lagomorph777

(30,613 posts)
1. Yes, but do it by capabilities, not by model number
Fri Sep 13, 2019, 09:45 AM
Sep 2019

We've seen that loophole before.

True Dough

(17,331 posts)
2. I 100% support his position on this issue
Fri Sep 13, 2019, 09:47 AM
Sep 2019

That said, in this era of soundbites, it's unfortunate he phrased it the way he did. It will repeatedly be used as fodder to rally right-wingers to show up at the polls. "It's true. The Democrats are coming for your guns. Just ask Beto..." [rolls clip]

walkingman

(7,668 posts)
3. Totally agree. The 2nd Amendment calls for a "well regulated" militia.
Fri Sep 13, 2019, 09:48 AM
Sep 2019
 

wasupaloopa

(4,516 posts)
14. The second amendment is what the Supreme Court says it is. I think a good idea is repeal of the
Fri Sep 13, 2019, 10:24 AM
Sep 2019

2nd Amendment.

The arguments which put us along side other countries is bogus at best because other countries do not have our constitution which guarantees the right to have guns.

hack89

(39,171 posts)
23. How is that even possible ?
Fri Sep 13, 2019, 10:42 AM
Sep 2019

What 38 states will approve such an amendment?

ripcord

(5,537 posts)
37. With the current standings of the states right now
Fri Sep 13, 2019, 11:37 AM
Sep 2019

It would be more likely that other Amendments would be eliminated, I'm not sure we want to let that genie out of the bottle.

still_one

(92,411 posts)
4. I admire him for him s political courage, but I fear that won't resonate well in a GE. I think
Fri Sep 13, 2019, 09:48 AM
Sep 2019

bringing back the assault weapon ban would have been the way to do it, rather than as the OP points out, using words like confiscate

In order to do anything, you have to win first

Upthevibe

(8,072 posts)
5. I'm glad he used the word "confiscate" because it's
Fri Sep 13, 2019, 09:49 AM
Sep 2019

a word we've run from and sometimes it's appropriate! And confiscating AK-47s and AR-15s is appropriate! I was pleased with Beto last night......

gratuitous

(82,849 posts)
9. I agree
Fri Sep 13, 2019, 10:04 AM
Sep 2019

I'm so over worrying about the delicate feelings of the blood-gargling psychopaths who insist on unrestricted civilian ownership of weapons designed to kill the maximum number of people in the minimum amount of time.

 

smirkymonkey

(63,221 posts)
30. +1000
Fri Sep 13, 2019, 10:59 AM
Sep 2019

This!

cyndensco

(1,697 posts)
48. Totally agree.
Fri Sep 13, 2019, 11:56 AM
Sep 2019

Confiscate works for me.

lunasun

(21,646 posts)
6. Totally honest in his answer and didn't try to walk back what he has said outside of the debates to
Fri Sep 13, 2019, 10:00 AM
Sep 2019

appeal to the masses
He gained points on my list for detailing the horror of the AWs some maybe still don’t understand

NRaleighLiberal

(60,022 posts)
7. Bravo!
Fri Sep 13, 2019, 10:01 AM
Sep 2019

rampartc

(5,437 posts)
8. we don't get anywhere by confiscating guns
Fri Sep 13, 2019, 10:02 AM
Sep 2019

it won't pass either house and the supreme court will not allow it.

the rwnjs are talking about "2nd amendment sanctuary" states.

gun laws are possible but they have got to be directed at the people who own guns. restrict psychiatric cases, restrict gang members, red flag behavior.

they don't like that, but they are not voting with us anyway.

with regard to automatic weapons. they waste a lot of ammunition. a shooter can only carry so much ammunition. more time is spent reloading. the more that lands harmlessly in walls and trees the better. if a victim takes 2 or 3 rounds that allows for fewer victims.

ScratchCat

(2,002 posts)
11. Exactly, 100%
Fri Sep 13, 2019, 10:14 AM
Sep 2019

The only thing that running on "gun confiscation" accomplishes is re-electing Donald Trump.

rampartc

(5,437 posts)
16. ironically trump could be the only president that could lead on gun control
Fri Sep 13, 2019, 10:27 AM
Sep 2019

because he (for unimaginable reasons) inspires trust in the gun nuts. they would hand over their guns almost as readily as they would hand over their wives and daughters for his pleasure.

"only Nixon could go to china"



CTyankee

(63,912 posts)
18. Nixon wasn't insane. At the end of the day, he "got it" and changed an insane policy.
Fri Sep 13, 2019, 10:32 AM
Sep 2019

I never thought anyone could be as bad as him back in the day. But here we are with someone so corrupt and horrible, Nixon must be turning over in his grave....

rampartc

(5,437 posts)
35. both nixon and trump were associated with the late roy cohn
Fri Sep 13, 2019, 11:29 AM
Sep 2019

BruceWane

(345 posts)
20. Are you serious?
Fri Sep 13, 2019, 10:39 AM
Sep 2019

Are you seriously suggesting that automatic weapons result in fewer people getting shot?

rampartc

(5,437 posts)
34. war is arithmatic
Fri Sep 13, 2019, 11:25 AM
Sep 2019

SergeStorms

(19,204 posts)
54. So going to school....
Fri Sep 13, 2019, 12:16 PM
Sep 2019

church, the mall, a movie, out to dinner and drinks etc. is war now?

We're not taking these weapons away from the military, but there is no way in hell a private citizen should have the same firepower as someone on a real battlefield. NO. WAY. IN. HELL!

TreasonousBastard

(43,049 posts)
10. He's got the passion-- and passion my be what's needed. We banned tommy guns and grenades...
Fri Sep 13, 2019, 10:08 AM
Sep 2019

so why not other essentially military weapons?

I don't see any great movement to legalize any surplus M60s lying around. Could it be that they just aren't that easy to lug into WalMart to scare the shit out of mothers with small children?

And they would be just the thing to deal with those marauding wild pigs. Shows ya where priorities may be lying.





aikoaiko

(34,183 posts)
22. Not like this. We did not require people to sell their machine guns to the government
Fri Sep 13, 2019, 10:41 AM
Sep 2019

They only had to go through NFA registration.

We did ban new machine guns into the pipeline after 1986, but for 34 years after the NFA people could buy new machines guns and register them.

world wide wally

(21,755 posts)
12. I loved how blunt it was.
Fri Sep 13, 2019, 10:16 AM
Sep 2019

It was something that needed to be said definitively.
Thank you, Beto.

J_William_Ryan

(1,757 posts)
13. Wrongheaded,
Fri Sep 13, 2019, 10:18 AM
Sep 2019

not viable, and potentially dangerous to Democrats.

MicaelS

(8,747 posts)
15. I agreed with it....
Fri Sep 13, 2019, 10:25 AM
Sep 2019

Last edited Fri Sep 13, 2019, 11:27 AM - Edit history (1)

And I am a FORMER gun owner.

If we cannot get an outright ban, then we need a new NFA to cover semiautomatics.
Similar to the NFA of 1934:

Fingerprinting
Full background check by FBI
Registration of all guns
Pay $200 for tax stamp for each gun
$100 for each hicap magazine.
No short barreled weapons.

 

Marengo

(3,477 posts)
32. As a strong supporter of the RKBA, I'm strongly in favor of adding semiautos to the NFA.
Fri Sep 13, 2019, 11:14 AM
Sep 2019

The only point of question to me is the cost burden to low income gun owners. Semiautos are most definitely in common use now, and I consider it only fair to give those current gun owners who can’t afford the cost burden a means to comply at either a reduced fee or free of charge at the time of enactment. Otherwise, we may be facing a poll tax type issue which may not survive judicial review.

NickB79

(19,273 posts)
17. If the most liberal states in the US haven't managed to ban them
Fri Sep 13, 2019, 10:31 AM
Sep 2019

No bill in Congress will get enough votes to pass.

After all, AR's and AK's are still legal in one form or another in all 50 states today.

aikoaiko

(34,183 posts)
19. It's a bad idea. Or in Beto-speak, "It's fukt up!"
Fri Sep 13, 2019, 10:39 AM
Sep 2019

His distinction that they are weapons of war is intellectually weak. Almost every major design in guns was designed to increase rate of fire in battle including bolt action rifles, revolvers, pistols, pump-action shotguns, and magazine-fed rifles. If he wants to confiscate all "weapons of war" then he's coming for all guns -- even flint-locks.

It is an even more extreme reaction than how we handled machine guns which only required NFA registration and it worked to eliminate homicides with legal machine guns.

I'm personally offended that he thinks I'm a danger if I own one.

It may cost of the 2020 election or subsequent house/senate seats for years to come just as Bill Clinton described after the 1994 AWB.

I'm not impressed with his stance at all and will fight this policy any way I can except for not voting for Democrats.

Takket

(21,631 posts)
26. I don't care that you are "personally offended". Cry me a river
Fri Sep 13, 2019, 10:48 AM
Sep 2019

No one needs a weapon designed to slaughter the maximum amount of people in the shortest time possible to hunt or defend their homes. I am personally offended by piles of blood soaked children.

There are perfectly reasonable distinctions that can be made between guns for defense and sport and guns designed to wage war on the public. These "slippery slope" arguments is designed to keep us spinning in circles so nothing ever gets done.

I am sure you are a perfectly harmless person that wouldn't kill another if you owned an AR-15 or a bazooka or a nuclear missile but you don't need and should not have ANY of those things. Find some other way to amuse yourself.

gay texan

(2,476 posts)
55. Having a dad that described in great detail
Fri Sep 13, 2019, 12:16 PM
Sep 2019

What an M-16/AR-15 does to human flesh in the Tet Offensive is insane. As far as I am concerned nobody needs one of the damn things.

He will be the first to tell you that it was made to kill people, and do it quickly. It is a weapon of war. Same thing goes for the AK-47. The VC would spray bullets until it was impossible to hold on to it. They would throw it into a creek to cool it off and go again.

I'm my experience, the vast majority of the owners are non-military types want to look tough. Its bullshit.

Out here on the farm, I do just fine with an old clapped out bolt action and a shotgun. .

hack89

(39,171 posts)
21. Desperation.
Fri Sep 13, 2019, 10:40 AM
Sep 2019

He can't gain traction and is running out of time.

Polybius

(15,485 posts)
24. I don't think it would be a winning campaign issue in the GE
Fri Sep 13, 2019, 10:44 AM
Sep 2019

He should have said every owner will have to give them back, but the government will pay them three times the amount that they paid for them. That way you give them an incentive. Might actually get some votes out of them too.

BlueTexasMan

(165 posts)
25. Well regulated militia
Fri Sep 13, 2019, 10:46 AM
Sep 2019

How about forming well regulated militias run by federal authorities. You have to be in one to own an assault rifle. You have to train and be qualified (stable) to be a member.

50 Shades Of Blue

(10,049 posts)
27. Works for me!
Fri Sep 13, 2019, 10:56 AM
Sep 2019

Response to kentuck (Original post)

BruceWane

(345 posts)
29. It's a good idea
Fri Sep 13, 2019, 10:58 AM
Sep 2019

It has been shown in the most graphic terms that semiautomatic weapons are an unacceptable danger to the public.

There is no reason that private citizens should be able to own them without restriction. If you can't "git 'er done" with a non-automatic weapon, the answer isn't "more bullets faster", 'cause you're a lousy shot - you need a shotgun.

We already restrict gun ownership based on type. Prohibiting automatic guns (full and semi) doesn't mean you can't own a gun, period.

We need to expand the same regulations we have on fully automatic guns to include semiautomatics. Create a buyback program for those who would rather not bother with compliance.

maxsolomon

(33,400 posts)
31. Confiscation is a non-starter.
Fri Sep 13, 2019, 11:04 AM
Sep 2019

Buy-back programs for MSSAs, definitely. Ending the sale and manufacture of new MSSAs, sure. Even disallowing sales of existing weapons, fine.

But the cat's out of the bag on the rifles that are already in circulation.

So many Rampage Shootings are committed by alienated young men who acquire SA firearms just to commit the crime. It's key to keep that impulse checked and that's a legitimate reason to infringe on the 2nd.

I favor extending waiting periods for SA firearm purchases to 6 months (or a year), especially under 30 years old. Let that impulse fade.

sarisataka

(18,774 posts)
33. I think it makes a good sound bite for him,
Fri Sep 13, 2019, 11:17 AM
Sep 2019

Has approximately 0 percent chance of happening in the near future, helps NRA recruiting/ retention and places a major pothole in the path of every Democrat seeking election.

 

cwydro

(51,308 posts)
39. Sadly, I think you're right.
Fri Sep 13, 2019, 11:38 AM
Sep 2019

jcgoldie

(11,647 posts)
36. I'm on board 100%
Fri Sep 13, 2019, 11:32 AM
Sep 2019

Beto described very well the only thing these guns are designed for and thats killing people.

Vinca

(50,308 posts)
38. Works for me. Somehow we all survived when there was a ban on them before.
Fri Sep 13, 2019, 11:38 AM
Sep 2019

ooky

(8,929 posts)
40. I think you just reinstate the ban and offer a buy back tax credit, then set up return centers to
Fri Sep 13, 2019, 11:39 AM
Sep 2019

receive the weapons who will give you a tax credit receipt. I don't see a realistic scenario whereby police are just walking up to front doors and demanding people to turn over the weapons. Offer the buy back period for a certain period of time and then once it expires you find yourself owning an illegal weapon you can't take anywhere without risking getting caught with it. Give the new law teeth by making it a felony to be caught with it, with a mandatory minimum one year sentence in a federal pen. You'll recover a lot of the weapons that way.

bluedigger

(17,087 posts)
41. I think it was politically stupid.
Fri Sep 13, 2019, 11:44 AM
Sep 2019

ananda

(28,877 posts)
42. Love it!
Fri Sep 13, 2019, 11:45 AM
Sep 2019

Good idea!

albacore

(2,406 posts)
43. Rule of law...
Fri Sep 13, 2019, 11:46 AM
Sep 2019

I've already noted people posting elsewhere that they'd refuse to give up their AR's or whatever. I respond that if Congress passes a law, and you refuse to obey that law, you know that makes you a lawbreaker...an outlaw, if you will. They respond that they are defending a Constitutional right. I respond that the SCOTUS interprets the Constitution, not them. They respond that this is different. I ask if they would shoot at the cops if they came for their weapons, and I get crickets.

No fucking hope. 30% of Americans own guns, and only a small percentage of that number own "assault" weapons. And they think they can override the laws of the US because their interpretation of a 18th Century document is correct, and everybody else's is wrong. No fucking hope!

 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
44. O'Rourke's best point is that these "assault" style gunz are popular because their ammo kills.
Fri Sep 13, 2019, 11:48 AM
Sep 2019

Gun-lovers -- even some here -- try to persuade us that it's the looks of the rifle that turn people off. They ain't being truthful.


Here's a physician's description of what the ammo does to a person:

"In a typical handgun injury, which I diagnose almost daily, a bullet leaves a laceration through an organ such as the liver. To a radiologist, it appears as a linear, thin, gray bullet track through the organ. There may be bleeding and some bullet fragments."

"I was looking at a CT scan of one of the mass-shooting victims from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, who had been brought to the trauma center during my call shift. The organ looked like an overripe melon smashed by a sledgehammer, and was bleeding extensively. How could a gunshot wound have caused this much damage?

"The reaction in the emergency room was the same. One of the trauma surgeons opened a young victim in the operating room, and found only shreds of the organ that had been hit by a bullet from an AR-15, a semiautomatic rifle that delivers a devastatingly lethal, high-velocity bullet to the victim. Nothing was left to repair—and utterly, devastatingly, nothing could be done to fix the problem. The injury was fatal."

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/02/what-i-saw-treating-the-victims-from-parkland-should-change-the-debate-on-guns/553937/



Now, you tell me why anyone wants rifles like this available on demand.

mwooldri

(10,303 posts)
45. This buys into the Republican rhetoric "they're coming for your guns".
Fri Sep 13, 2019, 11:49 AM
Sep 2019

I'd somehow reframe it but we need to do the following:

1. Ban sale of new "weapons of war".
2. Optional government buyback.
3. Registry of said "weapons of war" and all existing weapons to be registered.
4. Owners of said weapons must be licensed.

This kills the "coming for your guns" meme IMO.

kentuck

(111,110 posts)
46. None of these people will vote for Beto or any Democrat anyway..
Fri Sep 13, 2019, 11:53 AM
Sep 2019

Their debate is amongst themselves. Will they all march in lockstep or will some of them say, "Enough"?

Any damage to Beto or the Democrats is exaggerated, in my opinion. They are not holding a very popular position, as far as the majority of Americans are concerned.

shanti

(21,675 posts)
47. I like it!
Fri Sep 13, 2019, 11:54 AM
Sep 2019

There was an audible gasp from the audience when he said it though.

gopiscrap

(23,765 posts)
49. I am all for it
Fri Sep 13, 2019, 12:04 PM
Sep 2019

in fact I think all guns should be confiscated

 

LeftTurn3623

(628 posts)
50. I thought it was the best part of the debate!
Fri Sep 13, 2019, 12:12 PM
Sep 2019

Loved it. I was like "Hell Yeah!

calguy

(5,327 posts)
51. The NRA absolutely LOVED Beto's comments
Fri Sep 13, 2019, 12:13 PM
Sep 2019

They will be able to raise a lot of money sending out those comments in a fund raising promotion.

LudwigPastorius

(9,178 posts)
52. "What did you think of Beto O'Rourke's idea of confiscating AK-47s and AR-15s?"
Fri Sep 13, 2019, 12:13 PM
Sep 2019

I don't think the House or the Senate would pass such a law in the foreseeable future, and if they did, the Supreme Court would strike it down in short order.

LonePirate

(13,431 posts)
53. This was a great idea 10 years ago and the need for it has only multiplied since then.
Fri Sep 13, 2019, 12:15 PM
Sep 2019

Disarming all of the gundamentalists is the real national emergency we face.

dalton99a

(81,598 posts)
56. Wounds From Military-Style Rifles? 'A Ghastly Thing to See'
Fri Sep 13, 2019, 12:19 PM
Sep 2019
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/04/health/parkland-shooting-victims-ar15.html

Wounds From Military-Style Rifles? ‘A Ghastly Thing to See’
Trauma surgeons tell what it is really like to try to repair such devastating injuries. “Bones are exploded, soft tissue is absolutely destroyed,” one said.
By Gina Kolata and C. J. Chivers
March 4, 2018


Left, an X-ray of a leg showing a bullet wound delivered by an assault rifle used in combat. Right, an X-ray of a leg that sustained a bullet wound from a low-energy bullet, inflicted by a weapon like a handgun in Philadelphia. (Dr. Jeremy W. Cannon)

Perhaps no one knows the devastating wounds inflicted by assault-style rifles better than the trauma surgeons who struggle to repair them. The doctors say they are haunted by their experiences confronting injuries so dire they struggle to find words to describe them.

At a high school in Parkland, Fla., 17 people were recently killed with just such a weapon — a semiautomatic AR-15. It was legal there for Nikolas Cruz, 19, the suspect in the shooting, to buy a civilian version of the military’s standard rifle, while he would have had to be 21 to buy a less powerful and accurate handgun.

Many factors determine the severity of a wound, including a bullet’s mass, velocity and composition, and where it strikes. The AR-15, like the M4 and M16 rifles issued to American soldiers, shoots lightweight, high-speed bullets that can cause grievous bone and soft tissue wounds, in part by turning sideways, or “yawing,” when they hit a person. Surgeons say the weapons produce the same sort of horrific injuries seen on battlefields.

Civilian owners of military-style weapons can also buy soft-nosed or hollow-point ammunition, often used for hunting, that lacks a full metal jacket and can expand and fragment on impact. Such bullets, which can cause wider wound channels, are proscribed in most military use.

A radiologist at the hospital that treated victims of the Parkland attack wrote in The Atlantic about a surgeon there who “opened a young victim in the operating room and found only shreds of the organ that had been hit.”

What follows are the recollections of five trauma surgeons. Three of them served in the military, and they emphasized that their opinions are their own and do not represent those of the armed forces. One has treated civilian victims of such weapons in American cities. And a pediatric surgeon treated victims of a Texas church shooting last year.


An X-ray of a rifle bullet wound to an arm. (Dr. Jeremy W. Cannon)

TheRealNorth

(9,500 posts)
57. Confiscation is the only measure I am against
Fri Sep 13, 2019, 12:23 PM
Sep 2019

Most Everything else (background checks, restrictions on clip size, closing the gun show loophole) I am for.

We will still have problems if they get rid of the assault rifles- people inclined to murder will just go back to using handguns.

homegirl

(1,434 posts)
58. Two birds with one stone...
Fri Sep 13, 2019, 12:34 PM
Sep 2019

sliding scale--more firing power higher premium. Every gun required to have its own liability coverage. In return for this boon to the insurance companies the American people will get Medicare for All.

A buy back program for military type weapons would help.

randr

(12,417 posts)
59. Unreasonable, never gonna happen
Fri Sep 13, 2019, 12:34 PM
Sep 2019

A buy back program and elimination of ammo purchase is a start

Yonnie3

(17,486 posts)
60. Locking ...
Fri Sep 13, 2019, 12:39 PM
Sep 2019

Please discuss Democratic Primary Candidates and their policy positions in the Democratic Primaries Forum

Per the announcement on Feb 20, 2019 by site administrators, all discussion of the Democratic Primaries and candidates belongs in the Democratic Primaries Forum. Please re-post there if you like.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»What did you think of Bet...