YouGov asked people whether they favor or oppose banning semiautomatic weapons. Note: Not semiautomatic rifles, which some might incorrectly but understandably treat as a question about AR-15s or “assault weapons.” YouGov asked about semiautomatic weapons. That means handguns too. Result:
82% of Democrats are in favor of banning semi-automatic firearms.
They followed up by asking how people feel about banning all handguns (except those issued to officers of the state, of course!), which would include revolvers. Result:
44% of Democrats are in favor of banning all handguns.
I’m tempted to retire the category “No one wants to take your guns” with this post. If some random Democrats says, “No one wants to take your guns” there is a about a 99.9% chance they know that is a lie.
It’s well documented (and I saw this spelled out in a recent op-ed) that you can make drastic changes to the poll outcome by changing the wording. That’s likely at play here.
Those who are not gun people generally don’t know what “semi-automatic” means. All the bump stock hoopla has improved that somewhat, but not enough. They are likely to view it as a synonym of “machine gun”. I’m not speaking of politicians here, they generally do know and simply lie. I’m talking about ordinary voters.
So in this case, does the general public know that “all semi-auto weapons” translates to “nearly all handguns including most revolvers”? I suspect not.
This is what’s so dangerous about the “assault weapon ban” craze. We see bills that ban any semi-auto firearm with a “scary to CA lefties” feature, including stuff like “a threaded barrel”. I don’t remember yet any proposal that uses the words “capable of using a magazine greater than 10 rounds” but I expect to see that — which of course means any weapon with a detachable magazine since it’s always possible to built larger aftermarket ones.
Paul, there is a current proposal that does exactly what you are describing. There’s a magazine capacity limit of 10 rounds plus 1 required “scary feature”. Scary features include pistol grip, forward grip, barrel shroud. A grip (pistol or forward) is defined as anything you can use to hold the weapon and explicitly includes thumbhole stocks. So it’s basically anything that meets the core definition of “A semiautomatic rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine”. Not even a size limit on that part.
I know you saw that post since you left a comment on it. 🙂
Thankfully, that is still only a proposal and not law.
Yes, that post is what prompted my comment. “scary feature” is how I like to refer to those, sometimes a less polite variation. But as of right now, it seems like some rifles with detachable magazines are still allowed, since it’s still possible to have one without a “feature that makes a CA liberal s*** his pants”.
It’s amusing that a Barrett 95 in .50 BMG isn’t an “assault rifle” by their definition.