Question for folks who want to ban civilian use of semi-auto firearms:

Meh, I don't see a moral conundrum.
Rich have many many things the ave joe doesn't have. Including better representation in the justice area of our country.
They can hire the best lawyer, where others get stuck with a PD that nearly flunked out of law school.

 

Far as I can tell, you are correct. Although I've heard it proposed for handguns...

 

Nuisance animals are a different story and not killed for sport but to protect property and pets, might require more than five shots...

 

That's pretty much what I'm asking. Do you think there should be a special permit, and if so, who should be able to get it?

Consider California. Its illegal to conceal a weapon in CA without a permit, which most people can't get without demonstrating a need (TBD by the State, of course). Of the people I know who have obtained such a permit in CA, all of them were able to do so because they needed to frequently transport large amounts of money at work. CA is demonstrably more concerned about protecting the monied and their money than the common folk. Its also pretty much a guarantee to get a concealed weapon permit in CA if you are employed as a bodyguard or other sort of armed security. Or in other words- if someone or some organization with a lot of money is willing to back you, you have access to much more powerful means of self defense than the rest of the people.

Is this equitable?

 

Nuisance animals?
Like what? Mice, rabbits, squirrels?
Won't a BB or Air pellet gun work on them? Much less damage to your own property.

 

Coyotes. Wild dogs. Wild pigs. Mountain lions. Bears in a few areas. Granted, none of these are likely to attack people, but they all have been known to, and they all can kill a human.

 

I would say those in the security protection business.

Properly licensed company and employees properly trained like police and military people are trained.

Money is power. Always has been always will be.
Rich will always have better lawyers, where the poor will have public defenders.

 

Isn't this about semi auto firearms?
You can still carry your revolver.
Or are you saying you carry a rifle around with you?

With or without semi auto arms, you and I will likely never have private security. That is not a moral conundrum. But a money conundrum.

 

How many of those animals are in large cities?
And if you're worried about being attacked, a revolver would be better if you get surprised as they are attacking you. Because in the case of mountain lion, they'd likely be on you before you knew it.

 

Why would a revolver be better than a semi-auto handgun?

 

Coyotes or feral pigs, that sort of thing...

 

Revolvers don’t stovepipe for example. It’s why you’ll see most people in the bush in places like Alaska carrying a revolver. Much more reliable.

 

Likely wouldn't be.
But better than a semi auto rifle. It taken by surprise.

 

Need more than 5 or 10 rounds?

 

I have spent quite a bit of time in the AK. Some carry revolvers as a backup, but more carry a rifle or a shotgun, particularly on the North Slope. And these days, many have taken to carry 10mm; the G20 is popular. It became popular for years for some to carry large bore revolvers, but for many that did their choice was too much gun for them to handle, particularly if they didn’t practice with their carry gun. Pistol vs long gun choice... an argument for someone that hasn’t seen a harry locomotive up close or seen one charge.
Then if you want the best chance to survive a big bear surprise encounter, you carry bear spray; it’s use has a far better proven survival rate than any gun. Don’t believe that, run some queries... bear gun encounters vs spray.

 

Maybe. My biggest concern would be a bear, and I'd take any high powered rifle over any pistol vs a bear, because bears are effectively armored with thick hyde and dense bone. You're right about needing something more maneuverable in a surprise scenario, for all the same reasons that you'll also be better off with a large magazine too. I personally think the best bear protection is going to be a .308 semi-auto AR/AK pistol variant or SBR, for the best mix of penetration, maneuverability and volume of fire.

If we were allowed to have solid metal (armor piercing) ammo, that would best against bear as well.

 

I will settle for a 10 round limit, if the police and military are also limited to 10 round magazines.

 

At least its not like New Jersey where you're limited to 3 rounds and you can only hunt with shotguns.

 

I wont. Criminals will still have high cap mags. They're just too easy to DIY

 

In that case the police and military should have access to higher round magazines and so should the common citizen.

 

That sucks. The whole state or county by county? We shotgun county's where there's dense population..

 

Does such a mentality apply to the hunting of nuisance species that travel in large packs, such as coyotes or feral hogs? Neither of which are endangered species, nor are there any bag limits, meaning individuals are legally free to kill as many as they can in an effort at eradicating their populations.