for sake of this say ban on the new sale or criminalization for the sale of existing

1

I would appreciate clarification because “the problem being solved” sounds like a net positive that puts personal wants over reduction of casualties

1

Comment Deleted

0

I’ll make it as broad as possible without banning any specific firearm: A ban on the manufacture, import, and commercial sale of detachable ammunition feeding devices holding more than, for example, 10 rounds (as shown to be correlated with higher casualty amounts in shootings), and of any device that materially increases a firearm’s cyclic rate of fire.

3

Pls don’t sit here and argue semantics, with enough good willed conversation people can come to a reasonable consensus for what can be allowed and what banning will cause a net good

0

Comment Deleted

0

Because that’s not what they want n u know it. They just gave an example. Also, what percentage of hunting rifles store more than 10 at a time? It’s definitely not a majority.

1

Comment Deleted

0

We’re talking about guns not abortion. I get the point you’re making. We’re not asking to debate the semantics/details, we’re asking if it were possible for there to be a set of details you’d agree is a reasonable restriction

3