You don't see how a grenade launcher would make a weapon more lethal?

Or how making it easier to conceal might be a problem?

As for the rest, I'll let others take it from here.

I absolutely see how a grenade launcher would be potentially more lethal than a semi-auto rifle. However, my understanding is that both grenades and launchers are on the ATF NFA list and that to get either you need either an ATF approval and stamp, a special class of dealer license or maybe a munitions license from the state department. If you can get any of those approvals, I think you can also get weapons even more lethal. Also, maybe this is a bad inference on my part but due to language from other AWBs I expect the final version may read "capable of accepting...". This would be something like an M-203. Beyond all of that I'm not aware of any commonly available new rifle in production today that includes a grenade launcher that isn't already unavailable to the public.

Considering all of that, I have no problem with prohibiting grenade launchers.

Making a rifle easier to conceal is something to consider but I will point out that the average AR comes stock with a 20 -30 round mag and that 40 round extended mags for 9mm handguns are commonly available and, AFAIK, all handguns even have a pistol grip. They would be infinitely more concealable than any rifle with any type of adjustable stock. Having said that, I'd also be just fine with a law that restricts the minimum overall length in folded/compacted form of any long gun (shotguns included) to something on the order of 24 -28 inches.

As for grips, shrouds and threads I haven't a clue how any of that affects anything relating to lethality.

Thanks again.

where you come down on this.

Guns aren't my forte, so I just commented on what seemed most obvious to me.

Best wishes.

You have to admit that all those things combined make for a pretty formidable weapon since the type of weapon you are referring to, or at least some of them are able to be altered easily into a fully automatic machine gun. I did it to my Chinese made SKS rifle with a 1/8 in piece of metal bent and shaped into what's called a sear pin. Of course this has been many years ago and the SKS and I have a long parted ways.
My only other thought is on magazines. If there is a way to detach a magazine from its rifle, the capacity will only depend on the maker of said magazine. On the other hand, a built-in receiver such as on a shotgun or Winchester 73 which only has the capacity of a set amount of rounds due to size limitations would deter any alteration turning it into a mechanism designed and built for war. A hunter only needs one round to kill a deer if he's good, two if they're average, and the third shot is usually at a target that is no longer there. It's apparent how ridiculous a 30 round magazine sounds. With limited, unalterable ammo feeds, there's a possibility the loss of life can be greatly reduced, as opposed to the loss of life given the capacity and possibility a 30 round magazine offers.
Like I said, just a few thoughts.

As I understand it there were changes to the law dealing with manufacturers that require those easy mods to be made impossible without significant machining work. Also, anyone capable of that kind of work has the skills needed to make a full-auto from basic materials.

Regarding magazines: I do understand the magazine thinking and some of the restriction ideas. I am only focused here in this thread on the idea of the AWB as presented in HR 1808. AFAIK most states have a 5 round (or less) magazine limit on deer, elk, bear or moose sized game. The skill set for hunting a deer and defending yourself in your home is completely different. With a deer after the first shot, the deer is either completely disabled, injured and running away or you missed and it's gone. Home defense probably needs either 0 to 1 shot or many.

Thanks for the exchange.

... I am not current with the gun laws concerning manufacturers. Of course that's a good thing, however, one has to take into consideration the number of older, used AR-15 type weapons that are available through private sellers, pawn shops, gun shows, and those weapons on the illegal market. Lots of SKS assault rifles available out there, affectionately known as the Norinco Sport Rifle. The crude instruction sheet to make the sear pin with a 2 in x 1 in by 1/8 inch thick piece of metal was specifically designated in lettering "FOR ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES ONLY". 🥴 Not much anyone can do about those at this time.

As for the magazines, the fully enclosed limited receiver for ammunition it's something that was based on whimsy more than anything else.

I don't know what if anything should be done about those older guns. HR 1808 AFAIK only addresses new/newer guns.

It makes me wonder how many older, alterable weapons are in the hands of individual owners, or available to the public as compared to the number of weapons sold that cannot be altered. I know there is a crap ton of older weaponry out there, but I have no idea about sales numbers of newer weapons.

As to the controversy surrounding the frequent use of AR style rifles in mass shootings. It is not so much that the weapon is any more efficient than any other automatic weapon, but in a lot of cases, especially among easily influenced younger men, it's more the belief it is more efficient because of the style, and reputation of AR type rifles as killing machines.

Personally, I think it will take a democratically controlled government enacting new laws to give law enforcement the authority to do what every trumpublicans fears the most. Other than that, and recognizing that some advances have been made concerning gun laws, this is going to be a controversy that may never be settled one way or the other. At least not in most of our lifetimes. 🥴

...limiting people to only what they need.

Is it too much to ask to come up with a better version instead of rehashing the same thing year after year?

And to answer your question, they don't. A magazine fed semi auto rifle lacking every single one of those features will do the exact same amount of damage as one with all of them. The lethality comes from the rate of fire, ammo capacity, and power of the rifle rounds. Cosmetic, ergonomic, and minor dimension differences change none of that.

is quite deadly.

Personally, we could give the gun grabbers what they want on this, I have zero need of any of those features, although I guess barrel shrouds are a thing for some people; I don't go burning off enough ammo to worry about it (and don't care for anything but bolt actions, wheelguns, and flintlocks myself, although a Henry is on the wishlist).

Won't do shit, but nothing really will short of insanely draconian laws (eg semi-automatics with detachable magazines) that will piss off enough people to lose us elections. Maybe give some good feels to people traumatized by the latest SCOTUS. But as I said, it's wheelguns and bolt actions for me....

Apparently it is. If I can for a minute sum up the high points of mass shooters...
A person with serious anger issues or some other mental or emotional disturbance wants some kind of blaze of glory that hurts those in the community around him. The activity that is most news worthy that also hurts the community is mass murder. Now this wanna be killer isn't in a raging hurry. He can plan. In many cases he has a family that has ignored his anger and pain. They told him things like "grow up, life is hard". He's angry to the point of murder. Maybe he feels like he has an enemy or maybe he's just hurting because those around him don't care, don't have time or interest in him, don't value him...

It may sound cliche but misery loves company. He's angry enough to kill and killing loved ones spreads the pain. He decides to kill as many as possible to spread the pain. To do this you need soft targets like schools and theaters. These are places where he'll meet minimal resistance and therefore continue killing for the longest possible time. He's seen the news and read about the other nut jobs. In about two thirds of murders the weapon used is a gun. Rifles are more powerful than handguns and maybe he picks a rifle to "feel" more powerful. The most popular rifle is some type of AR.

So in essence here, an angry guy who wants to feel powerful and hurt/kill people picks the most popular type of the more powerful kind of the most common murder weapon. Guns are most common for murders. Rifles are more powerful than handguns and the AR is not only the most popular rifle today, it's choice of a bunch of other loser killers.

Take for example that loser mutant in Uvadle. Does anyone really believe that if he had gone to the gun shop and they were entirely out of AR style or every other flavor of so called "assault weapons", that he would have just gone home and forgot about killing anyone?

...your post might get yanked.

Remember, it's in the DNC platform. It can NOT BE CRITICIZED because calling a stupid thing "stupid" is a right-wing talking point.

A letter to America
There is NO constitutional guarantee to be able to advertise guns.
Ban modern-urban-assault-movie-fad-gun merchandising.

As I am reading the the cosmetics are not relevant to lethality, it seems to me obvious.
The pistol grip, forward grip, folding, detaching, concealing, large capacity, and such elements do not enhance the target rifle, the hunting gun, the home defense long arm. Therefore every reason to want, need and buy a (now defined) assault weapon is negated.

Unless, one wants to dress up as Rambo, or Osama Bin Ladin, etc; then buy a costume gun and ask yourself why you are attracted to destruction.

Perhaps you have been hypnotized, if you have been paying attention to the gun lobbying, marketing, advertising, magazines, gun store window-signage, and other presented enticements encouraging you to want this gun (often as first and only I bet); this gun and no other because you have been manipulated by marketing.

Or simply continue to argue against all restrictions and for accepting any and all levels of blood and death insanity that comes along with your un-infringed gun. Addicts got to addict!

as the capacity to accept a detachable ammunition feeding device; and - allows you to use more ammo quicker, making it more deadly.
--“(ii) has any 1 of the following:
---“(I) A pistol grip.- makes it easier to control, even with one hand.
---“(II) A forward grip.- Easier to control.
---“(III) A folding, telescoping, or detachable stock, or a stock that is otherwise foldable or adjustable in a manner that operates to reduce the length, size, or any other dimension, or otherwise enhances the concealability, of the weapon. - just read the last 6 words, enhances coincealability.
---“(IV) A grenade launcher.- allows you to shoot a grenade, derp.
---“(V) A barrel shroud. Keeps you from grabbing a hot barrel as you might need to do in CQB.
---“(VI) A threaded barrel.- Allows you to add a silence to help evade detection.

Next.
Eko.

Pistol and forward grips make a rifle easier to control which makes the weapon safer. One of the key gun safety rules is to never point the gun at anything you don't intend to destroy. Better control will enhance your ability to avoid negligently shooting yourself or another person.

Concealability is a concern specifically because many states have different requirements for handguns versus long guns. I have no issue with establishing a minimum overall length for a rifle. The ATF has already established special rules for short barreled rifles (SBR). The minimum is around 18 inches. SBR permit investigations IIRC take 6-9 months rather than the current 3 day max for a standard rifle. Please see #5 for more info: https://www.democraticunderground.com/1172212301#post5 However, being concealable does make the gun more deadly. I wouldn't recommend an AR for home defense but, because of the versatility of that platform, I recognize that some do. An adaptable stock may be very useful in that scenario.

Also see #5 regarding the grenade launcher. Previous AWBs have included as a qualifier 'the ability to accept the attachment of a grenade launcher' or some such language. Actual grenade launchers do require ATF investigation and approval beyond that of the regular background check as do any grenades. I certainly agree that grenades are deadlier than rifle rounds.

Preventing someone from accidentally burning a hand doesn't make the rifle more or less deadly. The chance of burning your hand makes it less safe.

A suppressor (silencer) would reduce the sound of a gunshot to about the volume of a chainsaw a few feet away, far from an undetectable level. Suppressors are still ATF restricted and not generally available.

The overall point of HR 1808 is ban guns that look like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushmaster_XM-15
The thing to be aware of is that this law doesn't affect this gun: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruger_Mini-14
Keep in mind is that both of these accept the same ammo, fire at the same rate and will produce identical wounds.

" Better control will enhance your ability to avoid negligently shooting yourself or another person. "
Better control will enhance you ability to shoot the person you want to, thus enhancing its lethality.

"However, being concealable does make the gun more deadly."
Glad you agree.

"Preventing someone from accidentally burning a hand doesn't make the rifle more or less deadly. The chance of burning your hand makes it less safe. "
If it allows you to use it in CQB in ways that you cant other rifles then it does.

"A suppressor (silencer) would reduce the sound of a gunshot to about the volume of a chainsaw a few feet away, far from an undetectable level. Suppressors are still ATF restricted and not generally available."
Still makes it easier to evade detection, and when it comes to all battle, seeing the other person or knowing where they are and not being seen or known where you are it is everything. That makes it more lethal.

So the XM-15 and the Ruger are exactly the same? There is no reason you would want the xm-15 over the ruger if you were trying to kill as many people as you could? You could carry both of them the same if you were in a hallway about to peek around a corner? You couldnt burn your hand if you put it on the barrel of the ruger unlike the xm15? The ruger is as easy to control as the xm-15? Please. That's like saying a Jeep Rubicon and a Jeep Sport with the same engine are the same thing overlooking all the things that make it a rubicon. I mean they are both 4x4 right? The front and rear locking diff's on the rubicon dont really make it better since the sport has 4x4 also? They have the same engine? See, they are the same.

Hi again

"Better control will enhance you ability to shoot the person you want to, thus enhancing its lethality." - This is a rifle. In a typical mass shooting someone is firing from a distance of a few feet such as across a room. Uvalde and Sandy Hook took place in average classrooms. Aiming isn't a factor. A lefty could fire right-handed and be just as deadly. OTOH that scum in Las Vegas sprayed the crowd not really aiming at all so control isn't really a factor. Charles Whitman [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Texas_tower_shooting ] did not have any rifles with pistol grips, fired from considerable distance and injured or killed almost 50 people. Connecticut had an AWB in force when the murders at Sandy Hook took place. Many of the greatest snipers have used rifles without a pistol grip (such as Lyudmila Pavlichenko and Simo Häyhä) with no impact on their abilities. I have read that some folks find it slightly more time consuming to shoulder a rifle with a pistol grip and that it is less comfortable and more difficult to fire from the hip.

"Glad you agree. (concealability)" - I agree that a concealable gun allows you to get to (I hate phrasing it this way) a target dense area without being noticed. Concealability, itself doesn't make the AR more deadly. I don't really agree.

"If it allows you to use it in CQB in ways that you cant other rifles then it does." - As does a damp cloth.

"Still makes it easier (a suppressor) to evade detection...makes it more lethal." - A suppressor does help impede detection but having a threaded barrel doesn't give you a suppressor or any similar functionality. It might save the manufacturer a few cents in reducing the variety of inventory. Barrels are not serialized or regulated so buying a rifle without those threads and the replacing it with a threaded barrel gives you the same eye candy/gun porn appeal, I guess.

In the XM v mini discussion, I'd make the opinion based observation that these are rather different guns with substantially similar functionality. Considering liability and responsibility, I have an issue with Bushmaster's infamous marketing campaign recently highlighted in the widely covered lawsuit by some of the Sandy Hook families. IMO that type of marketing is NOT protected by the PLCAA and, IMO, the company does share responsibility. Such advertising, IMO, does "bait insecure young men into buying weapons" like the XM-15. [ https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/gun-maker-sandy-hook-settlement-exposed-predatory-ads-n1289394 ]

IMO, AR style rifles "look" like police and military rifles and NOT like grandpa's deer rifle (or Fudd gun). I wouldn't mind raising the age to purchase any semi-auto firearm, rifle, handgun, whatever to 25 or at least 21. Now there's a law that would have/may still actually impact at least some of these scumbag school shooters.

OT: Jeeps and 4x4s I love 'em! I currently have a Jeep and a 4x4 Trailblazer in the driveway. I live in an area that infrequently gets substantial snow and I've pulled a coworker out the mud. So you like Jeeps???