12 Dead in Mass Shooting at So.Cal Bar

[Daryl Hunt]

here you go Daryl hunt , just some info on hunting with the AR15 Daryl Hunt . ------------------------------ --- 5 Reasons To Hunt With An AR-15 Rifle | Brenton USA ---

You mean 5 reasons for you to buy something from us, don't you. It's a friggin sales procure trying to sell you something. I look in the gun shops around here and the ARs have steadily been dropping in price. Your buddy claims he sells the MP-15 for 499 yet I can buy them around here all day long for 399 because they are cluttering up the gun racks in the guns stores since the gun scare was shown it was a farce.

Your brochure claims familiarity. Yes, almost any Veteran will feel right at home with an AR. Why? He or She probably spent time training at least on a M-16 and there is no difference except for, most of the time, the selector settings. All other things will be exactly the same.

Your brochure goes on to say it's used for big game. You get caught using ANY 223 hunting big game around here and two things will happen. You will get a really hefty fine and then some serious jail time. About the smallest I would consider would be a 270. If you can't reach out and have a killing shot at 400 yds then your round is worthless. And I have made many killing shots at 400 yds with both a 303 british and a 308 Model 700. At 400 yds, with an AR-15, you just as well be throwing rocks.

Your Brochure is just trying to sell shit.

------------------------------------------------- well as i noted earlier , AR and .223 are legal to hunt all sorts of varmints including the larger Deer depending on the State that hunters hunt in . And the AR's i featured are available for serious hunters to buy if they want to buy . Your OPINION means 'Nothing' except that its your OPINION . Americans are Free to BUY what they like and then to determine whats legal or illegal and you lefties want to change that so that you can DICTATE your OPINIONS on what Americans can do Daryl Hunt .

I'm a Lefty? Maybe so but I am probably one of the best armed lefty you have ever met. You just can't stand that the Constitution doesn't agree with your warped ideas. So be it.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

yeah , become a 'veteran' and join up with the other unamerican veterans in 'gabby giffords ' gun control group Daryl Hunt . Are you a member of this unamerican group of 'veterans' DarylHunt ?? --- Giffords Veterans Coalition - Giffords --- veterans , many retired on the taxpayer dime sure have changed for the bad Daryl Hunt .

You need to just keep working so you can keep sending me my Military Retirement Money. I greatly appreciate it.

-------------------------------------- do you have your widdle base ball cap that says ' veteran' on it DarylHunt ??

Yah, I wear it every time I go to the bank. But you keep working and sending me money. If you send me enough, I just might buy one of those "Widdle" hats you refer to if that is one of the requirements to get that money. But I can see I appreciate you working a lot more than what I did to give you the right to work at what you do. So thank you for giving to my service.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

here you go Daryl hunt , just some info on hunting with the AR15 Daryl Hunt . ------------------------------ --- 5 Reasons To Hunt With An AR-15 Rifle | Brenton USA ---

You mean 5 reasons for you to buy something from us, don't you. It's a friggin sales procure trying to sell you something. I look in the gun shops around here and the ARs have steadily been dropping in price. Your buddy claims he sells the MP-15 for 499 yet I can buy them around here all day long for 399 because they are cluttering up the gun racks in the guns stores since the gun scare was shown it was a farce.

Your brochure claims familiarity. Yes, almost any Veteran will feel right at home with an AR. Why? He or She probably spent time training at least on a M-16 and there is no difference except for, most of the time, the selector settings. All other things will be exactly the same.

Your brochure goes on to say it's used for big game. You get caught using ANY 223 hunting big game around here and two things will happen. You will get a really hefty fine and then some serious jail time. About the smallest I would consider would be a 270. If you can't reach out and have a killing shot at 400 yds then your round is worthless. And I have made many killing shots at 400 yds with both a 303 british and a 308 Model 700. At 400 yds, with an AR-15, you just as well be throwing rocks.

Your Brochure is just trying to sell shit.

------------------------------------------------- well as i noted earlier , AR and .223 are legal to hunt all sorts of varmints including the larger Deer depending on the State that hunters hunt in . And the AR's i featured are available for serious hunters to buy if they want to buy . Your OPINION means 'Nothing' except that its your OPINION . Americans are Free to BUY what they like and then to determine whats legal or illegal and you lefties want to change that so that you can DICTATE your OPINIONS on what Americans can do Daryl Hunt .

You left out the 7 states that have outright banned the AR-15 and it's various clones. The last ruling was in Massehusetts and the Federal Judge said, "If you don't like the laws where you are at, you are free to move". The NRA lost another one. The last 5 years has not been kind to the NRA in lawsuits.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

GOOD , so you got some AR's in your lefty area i guess Daryl .

The Western Slope of Colorado is Lefty? Guess I need to tell all the Republicans we voted in (all the local winners were Republican) that they have to go home and can't serve and we need to disregard the ballots. Tell you what, you tell them. They could use a good laugh.

 

[pismoe]

Seems the NRA can be blamed for these deaths as well.
The Gun Nutter NRA Killer crew blocked what CA. voted to remove.
Like really 98% of people dying by guns really in what the NRA sponsors.

View attachment 228112

What you fail to understand is that the magazine had nothing to do with how many people he killed...... the fact is that shooting unarmed people is what allowed him to kill so many people..... had there been armed civilians in that bar, they would have stopped him from killing.....but they were unarmed thanks to you...

The magazine in a gun is easily and quickly changed out, so the number of bullets in the magazine have no bearing on the killer who is shooting people who can't shoot back....there is an actual study on this.....

And did you read the Judges opinion on the Temporary injunction against the magazine ban in California...he understands what you don't understand... you should read it...

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research

Large-Capacity Magazines and the Casualty Counts in Mass Shootings: The Plausibility of Linkages by Gary Kleck :: SSRN

Do bans on large-capacity magazines (LCMs) for semiautomatic firearms have significant potential for reducing the number of deaths and injuries in mass shootings?
The most common rationale for an effect of LCM use is that they allow mass killers to fire many rounds without reloading.
LCMs are used is less than 1/3 of 1% of mass shootings.
News accounts of 23 shootings in which more than six people were killed or wounded and LCMs were used, occurring in the U.S. in 1994-2013, were examined.
There was only one incident in which the shooter may have been stopped by bystander intervention when he tried to reload.
In all of these 23 incidents the shooter possessed either multiple guns or multiple magazines, meaning that the shooter, even if denied LCMs, could have continued firing without significant interruption by either switching loaded guns or by changing smaller loaded magazines with only a 2-4 second delay for each magazine change.
Finally, the data indicate that mass shooters maintain slow enough rates of fire such that the time needed to reload would not increase the time between shots and thus the time available for prospective victims to escape.

--------

We did not employ the oft-used definition of “mass murder” as a homicide in which four or more victims were killed, because most of these involve just four to six victims (Duwe 2007), which could therefore have involved as few as six rounds fired, a number that shooters using even ordinary revolvers are capable of firing without reloading.

LCMs obviously cannot help shooters who fire no more rounds than could be fired without LCMs, so the inclusion of “nonaffectable” cases with only four to six victims would dilute the sample, reducing the percent of sample incidents in which an LCM might have affected the number of casualties.

Further, had we studied only homicides with four or more dead victims, drawn from the FBI’s Supplementary Homicide Reports, we would have missed cases in which huge numbers of people were shot, and huge numbers of rounds were fired, but three or fewer of the victims died.


For example, in one widely publicized shooting carried out in Los Angeles on February 28, 1997, two bank robbers shot a total of 18 people - surely a mass shooting by any reasonable standard (Table 1).

Yet, because none of the people they shot died, this incident would not qualify as a mass murder (or even murder of any kind).

Exclusion of such incidents would bias the sample against the proposition that LCM use increases the number of victims by excluding incidents with large numbers of victims. We also excluded shootings in which more than six persons were shot over the entire course of the incident but shootings occurred in multiple locations with no more than six people shot in any one of the locations, and substantial periods of time intervened between episodes of shooting. An example is the series of killings committed by Rodrick Dantzler on July 7, 2011.

Once eligible incidents were identified, we searched through news accounts for details related to whether the use of LCMs could have influenced the casualty counts.

Specifically, we searched for

(1) the number of magazines in the shooter’s immediate possession,

(2) the capacity of the largest magazine,

(3) the number of guns in the shooter’s immediate possession during the incident,

(4) the types of guns possessed,

(5) whether the shooter reloaded during the incident,

(6) the number of rounds fired,

(7) the duration of the shooting from the first shot fired to the last, and (8) whether anyone intervened to stop the shooter.

Findings How Many Mass Shootings were Committed Using LCMs?

We identified 23 total incidents in which more than six people were shot at a single time and place in the U.S. from 1994 through 2013 and that were known to involve use of any magazines with capacities over ten rounds.


Table 1 summarizes key details of the LCMinvolved mass shootings relevant to the issues addressed in this paper.

(Table 1 about here) What fraction of all mass shootings involve LCMs?

There is no comprehensive listing of all mass shootings available for the entire 1994-2013 period, but the most extensive one currently available is at the Shootingtracker.com website, which only began its coverage in 2013.

-----


-----
The offenders in LCM-involved mass shootings were also known to have reloaded during 14 of the 23 (61%) incidents with magazine holding over 10 rounds.

The shooters were known to have not reloaded in another two of these 20 incidents and it could not be determined if they reloaded in the remaining seven incidents.

Thus, even if the shooters had been denied LCMs, we know that most of them definitely would have been able to reload smaller detachable magazines without interference from bystanders since they in fact did change magazines.

The fact that this percentage is less than 100% should not, however, be interpreted to mean that the shooters were unable to reload in the other nine incidents.

It is possible that the shooters could also have reloaded in many of these nine shootings, but chose not to do so, or did not need to do so in order to fire all the rounds they wanted to fire. This is consistent with the fact that there has been at most only one mass shootings in twenty years in which reloading a semiautomatic firearm might have been blocked by bystanders intervening and thereby stopping the shooter from doing all the shooting he wanted to do. All we know is that in two incidents the shooter did not reload, and news accounts of seven other incidents did not mention whether the offender reloaded.

----

For example, a story in the Hartford Courant about the Sandy Hook elementary school killings in 2012 was headlined “Shooter Paused, and Six Escaped,” the text asserting that as many as six children may have survived because the shooter paused to reload (December 23, 2012). ''

The author of the story, however, went on to concede that this was just a speculation by an unnamed source, and that it was also possible that some children simply escaped when the killer was shooting other children.

There was no reliable evidence that the pauses were due to the shooter reloading, rather than his guns jamming or the shooter simply choosing to pause his shooting while his gun was still loaded.

The plausibility of the “victims escape” rationale depends on the average rates of fire that shooters in mass shootings typically maintain.

If they fire very fast, the 2-4 seconds it takes to change box-type detachable magazines could produce a slowing of the rate of fire that the shooters otherwise would have maintained without the magazine changes, increasing the average time between rounds fired and potentially allowing more victims to escape during the betweenshot intervals.

On the other hand, if mass shooters fire their guns with the average interval between shots lasting more than 2-4 seconds, the pauses due to additional magazine changes would be no longer than the pauses the shooter typically took between shots even when not reloading.

In that case, there would be no more opportunity for potential victims to escape than there would have been without the additional magazine changes

-----


SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research

In sum, in nearly all LCM-involved mass shootings, the time it takes to reload a detachable magazine is no greater than the average time between shots that the shooter takes anyway when not reloading.

Consequently, there is no affirmative evidence that reloading detachable magazines slows mass shooters’ rates of fire, and thus no affirmative evidence that the number of victims who could escape the killers due to additional pauses in the shooting is increased by the shooter’s need to change magazines.

Crazy BS Gun Nutter spews mostly above. 2nd Anal RE-spews of NRA BS from the
weakminded fools Gun Nutters BE!
DOPers want everyone to be armed in America for safety. Haha. Crazy, not needed.
Gun Nutters want to bring the lawless Afgan style of living in America.
Where AK's are 5 bucks, and most everyone can get one in mins. No Checks.

Back in the 1800's. Most families had only one musket. If that.
Seems there were really no single Whitey Guy's doing mass shoots, then.
The Musket did not shoot fast. As they were our armed militia weapons
They were good then, that's all Gun Nutters should have, today. Slow firing stuff.

Back in the early 1900's. Most families had only one gun.
Seems there were really no single Whitey Guy's doing mass shoots, then.
You see the pattern here DOPer Gun Nutters?

Now in the 2000's we started to have mass shootings by mostly Whitey Guys.
With what are all fully autoloading guns shooting clips out in seconds.
There is semi fire, but all modern guns gas loading are fully automatic weapons.
It's just that simple. Back in the 1800's getting off 3 shots in a minute was good.
Now, you can get off 3, 15 plus round clips in a min., and if really good, 4 clips in under a min.
To do your Whitey mostly Mass shootings today. Fully sponsored by the NRA.

It's just weird, we don't let the Gun Nutter 2nd Anal loving Crazies have bigger military guns on the streets for protection.
Seems the Gun Nutter Morons want to defend America with what they have, as the fools they be.
Your AR-XXX POS won't stop drone bombs you BOZO Freedom Fighters. HAHAHAHA! Losers. Good Luck in your freedom fighting.

here you go Daryl hunt , just some info on hunting with the AR15 Daryl Hunt . ------------------------------ --- 5 Reasons To Hunt With An AR-15 Rifle | Brenton USA ---

You mean 5 reasons for you to buy something from us, don't you. It's a friggin sales procure trying to sell you something. I look in the gun shops around here and the ARs have steadily been dropping in price. Your buddy claims he sells the MP-15 for 499 yet I can buy them around here all day long for 399 because they are cluttering up the gun racks in the guns stores since the gun scare was shown it was a farce.

Your brochure claims familiarity. Yes, almost any Veteran will feel right at home with an AR. Why? He or She probably spent time training at least on a M-16 and there is no difference except for, most of the time, the selector settings. All other things will be exactly the same.

Your brochure goes on to say it's used for big game. You get caught using ANY 223 hunting big game around here and two things will happen. You will get a really hefty fine and then some serious jail time. About the smallest I would consider would be a 270. If you can't reach out and have a killing shot at 400 yds then your round is worthless. And I have made many killing shots at 400 yds with both a 303 british and a 308 Model 700. At 400 yds, with an AR-15, you just as well be throwing rocks.

Your Brochure is just trying to sell shit.

------------------------------------------------- well as i noted earlier , AR and .223 are legal to hunt all sorts of varmints including the larger Deer depending on the State that hunters hunt in . And the AR's i featured are available for serious hunters to buy if they want to buy . Your OPINION means 'Nothing' except that its your OPINION . Americans are Free to BUY what they like and then to determine whats legal or illegal and you lefties want to change that so that you can DICTATE your OPINIONS on what Americans can do Daryl Hunt .

I'm a Lefty? Maybe so but I am probably one of the best armed lefty you have ever met. You just can't stand that the Constitution doesn't agree with your warped ideas. So be it.

here you go Daryl hunt , just some info on hunting with the AR15 Daryl Hunt . ------------------------------ --- 5 Reasons To Hunt With An AR-15 Rifle | Brenton USA ---

You mean 5 reasons for you to buy something from us, don't you. It's a friggin sales procure trying to sell you something. I look in the gun shops around here and the ARs have steadily been dropping in price. Your buddy claims he sells the MP-15 for 499 yet I can buy them around here all day long for 399 because they are cluttering up the gun racks in the guns stores since the gun scare was shown it was a farce.

Your brochure claims familiarity. Yes, almost any Veteran will feel right at home with an AR. Why? He or She probably spent time training at least on a M-16 and there is no difference except for, most of the time, the selector settings. All other things will be exactly the same.

Your brochure goes on to say it's used for big game. You get caught using ANY 223 hunting big game around here and two things will happen. You will get a really hefty fine and then some serious jail time. About the smallest I would consider would be a 270. If you can't reach out and have a killing shot at 400 yds then your round is worthless. And I have made many killing shots at 400 yds with both a 303 british and a 308 Model 700. At 400 yds, with an AR-15, you just as well be throwing rocks.

Your Brochure is just trying to sell shit.

------------------------------------------------- well as i noted earlier , AR and .223 are legal to hunt all sorts of varmints including the larger Deer depending on the State that hunters hunt in . And the AR's i featured are available for serious hunters to buy if they want to buy . Your OPINION means 'Nothing' except that its your OPINION . Americans are Free to BUY what they like and then to determine whats legal or illegal and you lefties want to change that so that you can DICTATE your OPINIONS on what Americans can do Daryl Hunt .

I'm a Lefty? Maybe so but I am probably one of the best armed lefty you have ever met. You just can't stand that the Constitution doesn't agree with your warped ideas. So be it.

-------------------------------------------- 'feinstein' was also a well armed lefty as she carried a concealed Snubby while other 'kalifornian' could not . Its what you lefty dictator types are known for Daryl Hunt .

 

[2aguy]

--------------------------------------------------- AR's are LEGAL Guns and though i don't care about hunting too much anymore AR's are legal for ALL Lawful purposes OldLADY .

It all dpends on the locality. In some areas, the AR is banned. Just not where I am from. It's a States and Local rights thing.

Wrong...it is not a state and local issue as Heller v D.C. states...... a Right is not based on where you live.....that is why democrats didn't get away with denying Blacks the Right to vote simply because they lived in democrat controlled states....

There you go again giving out false interpretations of a ruling. SCOTUS didn't say that Heller could have a handgun in his home. They said that he was to be offered the chance to have a serviceable handgun in his home as long as he legally qualified under DC laws. DC did not have the right to outright ban handguns or have you disassemble them to have them in your home. But they didn't say that DC couldn't put some form of draconian law making it difficult to have the right to have a serviceable handgun in your home. It only said that Heller had the right to have the serviceable handgun in the home IF he qualified. That's the whole ruling in the nutshell. You keep reading into it things you "Wish".

And Black Voting has nothing to do with any of this. The last thing you want to do is to get into that subject with me considering just how it's been treated in deep south to prevent black voters from easy voting access. I even see that around here a bit.

You don't know what you are talking about.......any court that bans semi automatic rifles, any town or city that bans them is breaking the law....


https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

----

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf

That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629.

And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625. The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.

Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3.

The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

From your own cite. And this is the ruling which says nothing about rifles of any kind and certainly does not include any form or automatic anything which would be in violation of the 1934 Firearms Act.

3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to
self-defense) violate the Second Amen
dment. The District’s total ban
on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an
entire class of “arms” that Amer
icans overwhelming
ly choose for the
lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scru-
tiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this
3
Cite as: 554 U. S. ____ (2008)
Syllabus
prohibition—in the plac
e where the importance of the lawful defense
of self, family, and property is mo
st acute—would fail constitutional
muster. Similarly, the requiremen
t that any lawful firearm in the
home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible
for citizens to use arms for the core
lawful purpose of self-defense and
is hence unconstitutional. Because
Heller conceded at oral argument
that the D. C. licen
sing law is perm
issible if it is not enforced arbi-
trarily and capriciously
, the Court assumes that
a license will satisfy
his prayer for relief and does not a
ddress the licensing
requirement.
Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment
rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and
must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–

You keep trying to use the Dissenting views. Dissenting Views is the views of the losers side. It has no legal worth whatsoever.

DC is a special case. The 10th Amendment does not apply to them so the Federal Government assumes the role of the State in their case. You argument has failed in every state court system and Federal Court that has addressed it since the State hs the right to either regulate or outright ban anything other than what is the traditional home defense or hinting guns. And the AR-15 can be specifically spelled out by name and the regulating or full ban will stand in the Federal Court System. The ones that haven't stood are the ones that gave too general of a description that basically could be interpreted to affect all semi auto rifles. But by putting in something like "The AR-15 and it's various Clones" will stand in any court of law in the land. The reason the Supreme Court has not ruled on this is that they refuse to hear the cases and the lower courts ruling stand since the 10th amendment gives the State or Local Governments the right. For instance, it's not illegal to own, carry or possess a handgun in New York City. They do issue conceal carry permits there as well. But they make it so damned difficult to obtain it that almost everyone just gives up. DC can opt to make it difficult to own or possess a serviceable handgun in the home by the same methods but they are under the whims of the Federal Court System since they are exempt from the 10th amendment.

Now, I know you don't understand because you lost another of the 3 remaining brain cells but others will understand it and just put you on ignore.

And again...since you obviously have a hard time with reading comprehension...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

----

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf

That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629.

And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625. The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.

Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3.

The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

 

[2aguy]

here you go Daryl hunt , just some info on hunting with the AR15 Daryl Hunt . ------------------------------ --- 5 Reasons To Hunt With An AR-15 Rifle | Brenton USA ---

You mean 5 reasons for you to buy something from us, don't you. It's a friggin sales procure trying to sell you something. I look in the gun shops around here and the ARs have steadily been dropping in price. Your buddy claims he sells the MP-15 for 499 yet I can buy them around here all day long for 399 because they are cluttering up the gun racks in the guns stores since the gun scare was shown it was a farce.

Your brochure claims familiarity. Yes, almost any Veteran will feel right at home with an AR. Why? He or She probably spent time training at least on a M-16 and there is no difference except for, most of the time, the selector settings. All other things will be exactly the same.

Your brochure goes on to say it's used for big game. You get caught using ANY 223 hunting big game around here and two things will happen. You will get a really hefty fine and then some serious jail time. About the smallest I would consider would be a 270. If you can't reach out and have a killing shot at 400 yds then your round is worthless. And I have made many killing shots at 400 yds with both a 303 british and a 308 Model 700. At 400 yds, with an AR-15, you just as well be throwing rocks.

Your Brochure is just trying to sell shit.

------------------------------------------------- well as i noted earlier , AR and .223 are legal to hunt all sorts of varmints including the larger Deer depending on the State that hunters hunt in . And the AR's i featured are available for serious hunters to buy if they want to buy . Your OPINION means 'Nothing' except that its your OPINION . Americans are Free to BUY what they like and then to determine whats legal or illegal and you lefties want to change that so that you can DICTATE your OPINIONS on what Americans can do Daryl Hunt .

You left out the 7 states that have outright banned the AR-15 and it's various clones. The last ruling was in Massehusetts and the Federal Judge said, "If you don't like the laws where you are at, you are free to move". The NRA lost another one. The last 5 years has not been kind to the NRA in lawsuits.

They are in violation of the Constitution.

The judge should be impeached and removed from office as he is no different than the judges who upheld separate but equal...




Here is Justice Alito smacking down the 4th on another case they lied about, but it too covers the AR-15 rifle.....the judge violated the Constitution and Supreme Court Rulings ... he should be impeached and removed from office...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

Opinion of the Court[edit]

In a per curiam decision, the Supreme Court vacated the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

[7] Citing District of Columbia v. Heller[8] and McDonald v. City of Chicago,[9] the Court began its opinion by stating that "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" and that "the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States".[6]

The Court then identified three reasons why the Massachusetts court's opinion contradicted prior rulings by the United States Supreme Court.[1]

First, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they "were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment", but the Supreme Court noted that this contradicted Heller's conclusion that Second Amendment protects "arms ... that were not in existence at the time of the founding”.[10]

Second, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns were "dangerous per se at common law and unusual" because they were "a thoroughly modern invention", but the Supreme Court held that this was also inconstant with Heller.[11]


Third, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they were not "readily adaptable to use in the military", but the Supreme Court held that Heller rejected the argument that "only those weapons useful in warfare" were protected by the Second Amendment.[12]

-----

----As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)).


That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment. First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).

Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly.

Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581.


--

The court also opined that a weapon’s unusualness depends on whether “it is a weapon of warfare to be used by the militia.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693. It asserted that we followed such an approach in Miller and “approved its use in Heller.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693.


But Heller actually said that it would be a “startling reading” of Miller to conclude that “only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.” 554 U. S., at 624.


Instead, Miller and Heller recognized that militia members traditionally reported for duty carrying “the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home,” and that the Second Amendment therefore protects such weapons as a class, regardless of any particular weapon’s suitability for military use.

 

[2aguy]

here you go Daryl hunt , just some info on hunting with the AR15 Daryl Hunt . ------------------------------ --- 5 Reasons To Hunt With An AR-15 Rifle | Brenton USA ---

You mean 5 reasons for you to buy something from us, don't you. It's a friggin sales procure trying to sell you something. I look in the gun shops around here and the ARs have steadily been dropping in price. Your buddy claims he sells the MP-15 for 499 yet I can buy them around here all day long for 399 because they are cluttering up the gun racks in the guns stores since the gun scare was shown it was a farce.

Your brochure claims familiarity. Yes, almost any Veteran will feel right at home with an AR. Why? He or She probably spent time training at least on a M-16 and there is no difference except for, most of the time, the selector settings. All other things will be exactly the same.

Your brochure goes on to say it's used for big game. You get caught using ANY 223 hunting big game around here and two things will happen. You will get a really hefty fine and then some serious jail time. About the smallest I would consider would be a 270. If you can't reach out and have a killing shot at 400 yds then your round is worthless. And I have made many killing shots at 400 yds with both a 303 british and a 308 Model 700. At 400 yds, with an AR-15, you just as well be throwing rocks.

Your Brochure is just trying to sell shit.

------------------------------------------------- well as i noted earlier , AR and .223 are legal to hunt all sorts of varmints including the larger Deer depending on the State that hunters hunt in . And the AR's i featured are available for serious hunters to buy if they want to buy . Your OPINION means 'Nothing' except that its your OPINION . Americans are Free to BUY what they like and then to determine whats legal or illegal and you lefties want to change that so that you can DICTATE your OPINIONS on what Americans can do Daryl Hunt .

You left out the 7 states that have outright banned the AR-15 and it's various clones. The last ruling was in Massehusetts and the Federal Judge said, "If you don't like the laws where you are at, you are free to move". The NRA lost another one. The last 5 years has not been kind to the NRA in lawsuits.

Yes...moron....the 4th Circuit judge said they could move....just like the judges in the South thought that if Blacks didn't want to sit in the back of the bus, or be forcefully removed from lunch counters they could simply move out of democrat controlled states...

Our Rights are not based on where we live, they are based on our individul Rights as codified in the Bill of Rights and Constitution...

That you support judges who openly ignore and defy the Constitution shows that you are a left winger and a fascist.

 

[Baz Ares]

and some nice AR based serious hunting rifles Daryl Hunt . --- AR Hunting Rifles - Brenton USA ---

If the State Bag limits are four deer a year. Or 2 deer per day.
How many bullets shooting fast from an AR-XXX POS does it take
for a poorly skilled hunter to bag its limits? 2, 3 or 4 ....15 rounds clips?

 

[Baz Ares]

Seems the NRA can be blamed for these deaths as well.
The Gun Nutter NRA Killer crew blocked what CA. voted to remove.
Like really 98% of people dying by guns really in what the NRA sponsors.

View attachment 228112

What you fail to understand is that the magazine had nothing to do with how many people he killed...... the fact is that shooting unarmed people is what allowed him to kill so many people..... had there been armed civilians in that bar, they would have stopped him from killing.....but they were unarmed thanks to you...

The magazine in a gun is easily and quickly changed out, so the number of bullets in the magazine have no bearing on the killer who is shooting people who can't shoot back....there is an actual study on this.....

And did you read the Judges opinion on the Temporary injunction against the magazine ban in California...he understands what you don't understand... you should read it...

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research

Large-Capacity Magazines and the Casualty Counts in Mass Shootings: The Plausibility of Linkages by Gary Kleck :: SSRN

Do bans on large-capacity magazines (LCMs) for semiautomatic firearms have significant potential for reducing the number of deaths and injuries in mass shootings?
The most common rationale for an effect of LCM use is that they allow mass killers to fire many rounds without reloading.
LCMs are used is less than 1/3 of 1% of mass shootings.
News accounts of 23 shootings in which more than six people were killed or wounded and LCMs were used, occurring in the U.S. in 1994-2013, were examined.
There was only one incident in which the shooter may have been stopped by bystander intervention when he tried to reload.
In all of these 23 incidents the shooter possessed either multiple guns or multiple magazines, meaning that the shooter, even if denied LCMs, could have continued firing without significant interruption by either switching loaded guns or by changing smaller loaded magazines with only a 2-4 second delay for each magazine change.
Finally, the data indicate that mass shooters maintain slow enough rates of fire such that the time needed to reload would not increase the time between shots and thus the time available for prospective victims to escape.

--------

We did not employ the oft-used definition of “mass murder” as a homicide in which four or more victims were killed, because most of these involve just four to six victims (Duwe 2007), which could therefore have involved as few as six rounds fired, a number that shooters using even ordinary revolvers are capable of firing without reloading.

LCMs obviously cannot help shooters who fire no more rounds than could be fired without LCMs, so the inclusion of “nonaffectable” cases with only four to six victims would dilute the sample, reducing the percent of sample incidents in which an LCM might have affected the number of casualties.

Further, had we studied only homicides with four or more dead victims, drawn from the FBI’s Supplementary Homicide Reports, we would have missed cases in which huge numbers of people were shot, and huge numbers of rounds were fired, but three or fewer of the victims died.


For example, in one widely publicized shooting carried out in Los Angeles on February 28, 1997, two bank robbers shot a total of 18 people - surely a mass shooting by any reasonable standard (Table 1).

Yet, because none of the people they shot died, this incident would not qualify as a mass murder (or even murder of any kind).

Exclusion of such incidents would bias the sample against the proposition that LCM use increases the number of victims by excluding incidents with large numbers of victims. We also excluded shootings in which more than six persons were shot over the entire course of the incident but shootings occurred in multiple locations with no more than six people shot in any one of the locations, and substantial periods of time intervened between episodes of shooting. An example is the series of killings committed by Rodrick Dantzler on July 7, 2011.

Once eligible incidents were identified, we searched through news accounts for details related to whether the use of LCMs could have influenced the casualty counts.

Specifically, we searched for

(1) the number of magazines in the shooter’s immediate possession,

(2) the capacity of the largest magazine,

(3) the number of guns in the shooter’s immediate possession during the incident,

(4) the types of guns possessed,

(5) whether the shooter reloaded during the incident,

(6) the number of rounds fired,

(7) the duration of the shooting from the first shot fired to the last, and (8) whether anyone intervened to stop the shooter.

Findings How Many Mass Shootings were Committed Using LCMs?

We identified 23 total incidents in which more than six people were shot at a single time and place in the U.S. from 1994 through 2013 and that were known to involve use of any magazines with capacities over ten rounds.


Table 1 summarizes key details of the LCMinvolved mass shootings relevant to the issues addressed in this paper.

(Table 1 about here) What fraction of all mass shootings involve LCMs?

There is no comprehensive listing of all mass shootings available for the entire 1994-2013 period, but the most extensive one currently available is at the Shootingtracker.com website, which only began its coverage in 2013.

-----


-----
The offenders in LCM-involved mass shootings were also known to have reloaded during 14 of the 23 (61%) incidents with magazine holding over 10 rounds.

The shooters were known to have not reloaded in another two of these 20 incidents and it could not be determined if they reloaded in the remaining seven incidents.

Thus, even if the shooters had been denied LCMs, we know that most of them definitely would have been able to reload smaller detachable magazines without interference from bystanders since they in fact did change magazines.

The fact that this percentage is less than 100% should not, however, be interpreted to mean that the shooters were unable to reload in the other nine incidents.

It is possible that the shooters could also have reloaded in many of these nine shootings, but chose not to do so, or did not need to do so in order to fire all the rounds they wanted to fire. This is consistent with the fact that there has been at most only one mass shootings in twenty years in which reloading a semiautomatic firearm might have been blocked by bystanders intervening and thereby stopping the shooter from doing all the shooting he wanted to do. All we know is that in two incidents the shooter did not reload, and news accounts of seven other incidents did not mention whether the offender reloaded.

----

For example, a story in the Hartford Courant about the Sandy Hook elementary school killings in 2012 was headlined “Shooter Paused, and Six Escaped,” the text asserting that as many as six children may have survived because the shooter paused to reload (December 23, 2012). ''

The author of the story, however, went on to concede that this was just a speculation by an unnamed source, and that it was also possible that some children simply escaped when the killer was shooting other children.

There was no reliable evidence that the pauses were due to the shooter reloading, rather than his guns jamming or the shooter simply choosing to pause his shooting while his gun was still loaded.

The plausibility of the “victims escape” rationale depends on the average rates of fire that shooters in mass shootings typically maintain.

If they fire very fast, the 2-4 seconds it takes to change box-type detachable magazines could produce a slowing of the rate of fire that the shooters otherwise would have maintained without the magazine changes, increasing the average time between rounds fired and potentially allowing more victims to escape during the betweenshot intervals.

On the other hand, if mass shooters fire their guns with the average interval between shots lasting more than 2-4 seconds, the pauses due to additional magazine changes would be no longer than the pauses the shooter typically took between shots even when not reloading.

In that case, there would be no more opportunity for potential victims to escape than there would have been without the additional magazine changes

-----


SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research

In sum, in nearly all LCM-involved mass shootings, the time it takes to reload a detachable magazine is no greater than the average time between shots that the shooter takes anyway when not reloading.

Consequently, there is no affirmative evidence that reloading detachable magazines slows mass shooters’ rates of fire, and thus no affirmative evidence that the number of victims who could escape the killers due to additional pauses in the shooting is increased by the shooter’s need to change magazines.

Crazy BS Gun Nutter spews mostly above. 2nd Anal RE-spews of NRA BS from the
weakminded fools Gun Nutters BE!
DOPers want everyone to be armed in America for safety. Haha. Crazy, not needed.
Gun Nutters want to bring the lawless Afgan style of living in America.
Where AK's are 5 bucks, and most everyone can get one in mins. No Checks.

Back in the 1800's. Most families had only one musket. If that.
Seems there were really no single Whitey Guy's doing mass shoots, then.
The Musket did not shoot fast. As they were our armed militia weapons
They were good then, that's all Gun Nutters should have, today. Slow firing stuff.

Back in the early 1900's. Most families had only one gun.
Seems there were really no single Whitey Guy's doing mass shoots, then.
You see the pattern here DOPer Gun Nutters?

Now in the 2000's we started to have mass shootings by mostly Whitey Guys.
With what are all fully autoloading guns shooting clips out in seconds.
There is semi fire, but all modern guns gas loading are fully automatic weapons.
It's just that simple. Back in the 1800's getting off 3 shots in a minute was good.
Now, you can get off 3, 15 plus round clips in a min., and if really good, 4 clips in under a min.
To do your Whitey mostly Mass shootings today. Fully sponsored by the NRA.

It's just weird, we don't let the Gun Nutter 2nd Anal loving Crazies have bigger military guns on the streets for protection.
Seems the Gun Nutter Morons want to defend America with what they have, as the fools they be.
Your AR-XXX POS won't stop drone bombs you BOZO Freedom Fighters. HAHAHAHA! Losers. Good Luck in your freedom fighting.

You just posted nonsense....nothing you posted is true or accurate....

You be a DOPer ignorant Liar, a Whitey rightie' Liar. Spewing brain-dead comments as always.
Keep spewing. Pure DOPer alt-facts BS, sucking it right out the Great Orange Douche ass.

 

[pismoe]

so my conclusion , i'm happy that Daryl Hunt has finally been outed as the unAmerican gun controller that he is and a veteran to boot --- IF --- he is a veteran . --- Giffords Veterans Coalition - Giffords --- IF he is a 'veteran' , well he is the same as those 'veterans' in my 'giffords' link . Click this link this 'veterans' day Daryl hunt .

 

[Daryl Hunt]

here you go Daryl hunt , just some info on hunting with the AR15 Daryl Hunt . ------------------------------ --- 5 Reasons To Hunt With An AR-15 Rifle | Brenton USA ---

You mean 5 reasons for you to buy something from us, don't you. It's a friggin sales procure trying to sell you something. I look in the gun shops around here and the ARs have steadily been dropping in price. Your buddy claims he sells the MP-15 for 499 yet I can buy them around here all day long for 399 because they are cluttering up the gun racks in the guns stores since the gun scare was shown it was a farce.

Your brochure claims familiarity. Yes, almost any Veteran will feel right at home with an AR. Why? He or She probably spent time training at least on a M-16 and there is no difference except for, most of the time, the selector settings. All other things will be exactly the same.

Your brochure goes on to say it's used for big game. You get caught using ANY 223 hunting big game around here and two things will happen. You will get a really hefty fine and then some serious jail time. About the smallest I would consider would be a 270. If you can't reach out and have a killing shot at 400 yds then your round is worthless. And I have made many killing shots at 400 yds with both a 303 british and a 308 Model 700. At 400 yds, with an AR-15, you just as well be throwing rocks.

Your Brochure is just trying to sell shit.

------------------------------------------------- well as i noted earlier , AR and .223 are legal to hunt all sorts of varmints including the larger Deer depending on the State that hunters hunt in . And the AR's i featured are available for serious hunters to buy if they want to buy . Your OPINION means 'Nothing' except that its your OPINION . Americans are Free to BUY what they like and then to determine whats legal or illegal and you lefties want to change that so that you can DICTATE your OPINIONS on what Americans can do Daryl Hunt .

You left out the 7 states that have outright banned the AR-15 and it's various clones. The last ruling was in Massehusetts and the Federal Judge said, "If you don't like the laws where you are at, you are free to move". The NRA lost another one. The last 5 years has not been kind to the NRA in lawsuits.

Yes...moron....the 4th Circuit judge said they could move....just like the judges in the South thought that if Blacks didn't want to sit in the back of the bus, or be forcefully removed from lunch counters they could simply move out of democrat controlled states...

Our Rights are not based on where we live, they are based on our individul Rights as codified in the Bill of Rights and Constitution...

That you support judges who openly ignore and defy the Constitution shows that you are a left winger and a fascist.

There is a huge difference between a Federal Judge from 2018 and a Judge named Bubba Joe from the South in 1955. You do know you are embarrassing yourself right now and trying to make State Gun Rights into a Racist thing.

 

[pismoe]

here is your boy 'general mccrystal' Daryl Hunt . Also a pretty good article where the writer sees the difference between American gun owners like me and Second Amendment supporting 'veterans' and then YOU anti american gun controltypes like YOU Daryl Hunt . --- General Stanley McChrystal [Ret.]: .223 Too Lethal for Civilians - The Truth About Guns --- then see 'general mccrystal' speak like a gun controller , check it out Daryl Hunt .

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Seems the NRA can be blamed for these deaths as well.
The Gun Nutter NRA Killer crew blocked what CA. voted to remove.
Like really 98% of people dying by guns really in what the NRA sponsors.

View attachment 228112

What you fail to understand is that the magazine had nothing to do with how many people he killed...... the fact is that shooting unarmed people is what allowed him to kill so many people..... had there been armed civilians in that bar, they would have stopped him from killing.....but they were unarmed thanks to you...

The magazine in a gun is easily and quickly changed out, so the number of bullets in the magazine have no bearing on the killer who is shooting people who can't shoot back....there is an actual study on this.....

And did you read the Judges opinion on the Temporary injunction against the magazine ban in California...he understands what you don't understand... you should read it...

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research

Large-Capacity Magazines and the Casualty Counts in Mass Shootings: The Plausibility of Linkages by Gary Kleck :: SSRN

Do bans on large-capacity magazines (LCMs) for semiautomatic firearms have significant potential for reducing the number of deaths and injuries in mass shootings?
The most common rationale for an effect of LCM use is that they allow mass killers to fire many rounds without reloading.
LCMs are used is less than 1/3 of 1% of mass shootings.
News accounts of 23 shootings in which more than six people were killed or wounded and LCMs were used, occurring in the U.S. in 1994-2013, were examined.
There was only one incident in which the shooter may have been stopped by bystander intervention when he tried to reload.
In all of these 23 incidents the shooter possessed either multiple guns or multiple magazines, meaning that the shooter, even if denied LCMs, could have continued firing without significant interruption by either switching loaded guns or by changing smaller loaded magazines with only a 2-4 second delay for each magazine change.
Finally, the data indicate that mass shooters maintain slow enough rates of fire such that the time needed to reload would not increase the time between shots and thus the time available for prospective victims to escape.

--------

We did not employ the oft-used definition of “mass murder” as a homicide in which four or more victims were killed, because most of these involve just four to six victims (Duwe 2007), which could therefore have involved as few as six rounds fired, a number that shooters using even ordinary revolvers are capable of firing without reloading.

LCMs obviously cannot help shooters who fire no more rounds than could be fired without LCMs, so the inclusion of “nonaffectable” cases with only four to six victims would dilute the sample, reducing the percent of sample incidents in which an LCM might have affected the number of casualties.

Further, had we studied only homicides with four or more dead victims, drawn from the FBI’s Supplementary Homicide Reports, we would have missed cases in which huge numbers of people were shot, and huge numbers of rounds were fired, but three or fewer of the victims died.


For example, in one widely publicized shooting carried out in Los Angeles on February 28, 1997, two bank robbers shot a total of 18 people - surely a mass shooting by any reasonable standard (Table 1).

Yet, because none of the people they shot died, this incident would not qualify as a mass murder (or even murder of any kind).

Exclusion of such incidents would bias the sample against the proposition that LCM use increases the number of victims by excluding incidents with large numbers of victims. We also excluded shootings in which more than six persons were shot over the entire course of the incident but shootings occurred in multiple locations with no more than six people shot in any one of the locations, and substantial periods of time intervened between episodes of shooting. An example is the series of killings committed by Rodrick Dantzler on July 7, 2011.

Once eligible incidents were identified, we searched through news accounts for details related to whether the use of LCMs could have influenced the casualty counts.

Specifically, we searched for

(1) the number of magazines in the shooter’s immediate possession,

(2) the capacity of the largest magazine,

(3) the number of guns in the shooter’s immediate possession during the incident,

(4) the types of guns possessed,

(5) whether the shooter reloaded during the incident,

(6) the number of rounds fired,

(7) the duration of the shooting from the first shot fired to the last, and (8) whether anyone intervened to stop the shooter.

Findings How Many Mass Shootings were Committed Using LCMs?

We identified 23 total incidents in which more than six people were shot at a single time and place in the U.S. from 1994 through 2013 and that were known to involve use of any magazines with capacities over ten rounds.


Table 1 summarizes key details of the LCMinvolved mass shootings relevant to the issues addressed in this paper.

(Table 1 about here) What fraction of all mass shootings involve LCMs?

There is no comprehensive listing of all mass shootings available for the entire 1994-2013 period, but the most extensive one currently available is at the Shootingtracker.com website, which only began its coverage in 2013.

-----


-----
The offenders in LCM-involved mass shootings were also known to have reloaded during 14 of the 23 (61%) incidents with magazine holding over 10 rounds.

The shooters were known to have not reloaded in another two of these 20 incidents and it could not be determined if they reloaded in the remaining seven incidents.

Thus, even if the shooters had been denied LCMs, we know that most of them definitely would have been able to reload smaller detachable magazines without interference from bystanders since they in fact did change magazines.

The fact that this percentage is less than 100% should not, however, be interpreted to mean that the shooters were unable to reload in the other nine incidents.

It is possible that the shooters could also have reloaded in many of these nine shootings, but chose not to do so, or did not need to do so in order to fire all the rounds they wanted to fire. This is consistent with the fact that there has been at most only one mass shootings in twenty years in which reloading a semiautomatic firearm might have been blocked by bystanders intervening and thereby stopping the shooter from doing all the shooting he wanted to do. All we know is that in two incidents the shooter did not reload, and news accounts of seven other incidents did not mention whether the offender reloaded.

----

For example, a story in the Hartford Courant about the Sandy Hook elementary school killings in 2012 was headlined “Shooter Paused, and Six Escaped,” the text asserting that as many as six children may have survived because the shooter paused to reload (December 23, 2012). ''

The author of the story, however, went on to concede that this was just a speculation by an unnamed source, and that it was also possible that some children simply escaped when the killer was shooting other children.

There was no reliable evidence that the pauses were due to the shooter reloading, rather than his guns jamming or the shooter simply choosing to pause his shooting while his gun was still loaded.

The plausibility of the “victims escape” rationale depends on the average rates of fire that shooters in mass shootings typically maintain.

If they fire very fast, the 2-4 seconds it takes to change box-type detachable magazines could produce a slowing of the rate of fire that the shooters otherwise would have maintained without the magazine changes, increasing the average time between rounds fired and potentially allowing more victims to escape during the betweenshot intervals.

On the other hand, if mass shooters fire their guns with the average interval between shots lasting more than 2-4 seconds, the pauses due to additional magazine changes would be no longer than the pauses the shooter typically took between shots even when not reloading.

In that case, there would be no more opportunity for potential victims to escape than there would have been without the additional magazine changes

-----


SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research

In sum, in nearly all LCM-involved mass shootings, the time it takes to reload a detachable magazine is no greater than the average time between shots that the shooter takes anyway when not reloading.

Consequently, there is no affirmative evidence that reloading detachable magazines slows mass shooters’ rates of fire, and thus no affirmative evidence that the number of victims who could escape the killers due to additional pauses in the shooting is increased by the shooter’s need to change magazines.

Crazy BS Gun Nutter spews mostly above. 2nd Anal RE-spews of NRA BS from the
weakminded fools Gun Nutters BE!
DOPers want everyone to be armed in America for safety. Haha. Crazy, not needed.
Gun Nutters want to bring the lawless Afgan style of living in America.
Where AK's are 5 bucks, and most everyone can get one in mins. No Checks.

Back in the 1800's. Most families had only one musket. If that.
Seems there were really no single Whitey Guy's doing mass shoots, then.
The Musket did not shoot fast. As they were our armed militia weapons
They were good then, that's all Gun Nutters should have, today. Slow firing stuff.

Back in the early 1900's. Most families had only one gun.
Seems there were really no single Whitey Guy's doing mass shoots, then.
You see the pattern here DOPer Gun Nutters?

Now in the 2000's we started to have mass shootings by mostly Whitey Guys.
With what are all fully autoloading guns shooting clips out in seconds.
There is semi fire, but all modern guns gas loading are fully automatic weapons.
It's just that simple. Back in the 1800's getting off 3 shots in a minute was good.
Now, you can get off 3, 15 plus round clips in a min., and if really good, 4 clips in under a min.
To do your Whitey mostly Mass shootings today. Fully sponsored by the NRA.

It's just weird, we don't let the Gun Nutter 2nd Anal loving Crazies have bigger military guns on the streets for protection.
Seems the Gun Nutter Morons want to defend America with what they have, as the fools they be.
Your AR-XXX POS won't stop drone bombs you BOZO Freedom Fighters. HAHAHAHA! Losers. Good Luck in your freedom fighting.

here you go Daryl hunt , just some info on hunting with the AR15 Daryl Hunt . ------------------------------ --- 5 Reasons To Hunt With An AR-15 Rifle | Brenton USA ---

You mean 5 reasons for you to buy something from us, don't you. It's a friggin sales procure trying to sell you something. I look in the gun shops around here and the ARs have steadily been dropping in price. Your buddy claims he sells the MP-15 for 499 yet I can buy them around here all day long for 399 because they are cluttering up the gun racks in the guns stores since the gun scare was shown it was a farce.

Your brochure claims familiarity. Yes, almost any Veteran will feel right at home with an AR. Why? He or She probably spent time training at least on a M-16 and there is no difference except for, most of the time, the selector settings. All other things will be exactly the same.

Your brochure goes on to say it's used for big game. You get caught using ANY 223 hunting big game around here and two things will happen. You will get a really hefty fine and then some serious jail time. About the smallest I would consider would be a 270. If you can't reach out and have a killing shot at 400 yds then your round is worthless. And I have made many killing shots at 400 yds with both a 303 british and a 308 Model 700. At 400 yds, with an AR-15, you just as well be throwing rocks.

Your Brochure is just trying to sell shit.

------------------------------------------------- well as i noted earlier , AR and .223 are legal to hunt all sorts of varmints including the larger Deer depending on the State that hunters hunt in . And the AR's i featured are available for serious hunters to buy if they want to buy . Your OPINION means 'Nothing' except that its your OPINION . Americans are Free to BUY what they like and then to determine whats legal or illegal and you lefties want to change that so that you can DICTATE your OPINIONS on what Americans can do Daryl Hunt .

I'm a Lefty? Maybe so but I am probably one of the best armed lefty you have ever met. You just can't stand that the Constitution doesn't agree with your warped ideas. So be it.

here you go Daryl hunt , just some info on hunting with the AR15 Daryl Hunt . ------------------------------ --- 5 Reasons To Hunt With An AR-15 Rifle | Brenton USA ---

You mean 5 reasons for you to buy something from us, don't you. It's a friggin sales procure trying to sell you something. I look in the gun shops around here and the ARs have steadily been dropping in price. Your buddy claims he sells the MP-15 for 499 yet I can buy them around here all day long for 399 because they are cluttering up the gun racks in the guns stores since the gun scare was shown it was a farce.

Your brochure claims familiarity. Yes, almost any Veteran will feel right at home with an AR. Why? He or She probably spent time training at least on a M-16 and there is no difference except for, most of the time, the selector settings. All other things will be exactly the same.

Your brochure goes on to say it's used for big game. You get caught using ANY 223 hunting big game around here and two things will happen. You will get a really hefty fine and then some serious jail time. About the smallest I would consider would be a 270. If you can't reach out and have a killing shot at 400 yds then your round is worthless. And I have made many killing shots at 400 yds with both a 303 british and a 308 Model 700. At 400 yds, with an AR-15, you just as well be throwing rocks.

Your Brochure is just trying to sell shit.

------------------------------------------------- well as i noted earlier , AR and .223 are legal to hunt all sorts of varmints including the larger Deer depending on the State that hunters hunt in . And the AR's i featured are available for serious hunters to buy if they want to buy . Your OPINION means 'Nothing' except that its your OPINION . Americans are Free to BUY what they like and then to determine whats legal or illegal and you lefties want to change that so that you can DICTATE your OPINIONS on what Americans can do Daryl Hunt .

I'm a Lefty? Maybe so but I am probably one of the best armed lefty you have ever met. You just can't stand that the Constitution doesn't agree with your warped ideas. So be it.

-------------------------------------------- 'feinstein' was also a well armed lefty as she carried a concealed Snubby while other 'kalifornian' could not . Its what you lefty dictator types are known for Daryl Hunt .

Now I am a dictator. If you can't debate with facts and truths, try and discredit your opponent. How Trumpesk of you.

 

[pismoe]

naw , not a dictator YET but you got those leanings but you haven't had the chance YET Daryl Hunt .

 

[Daryl Hunt]

It all dpends on the locality. In some areas, the AR is banned. Just not where I am from. It's a States and Local rights thing.

Wrong...it is not a state and local issue as Heller v D.C. states...... a Right is not based on where you live.....that is why democrats didn't get away with denying Blacks the Right to vote simply because they lived in democrat controlled states....

There you go again giving out false interpretations of a ruling. SCOTUS didn't say that Heller could have a handgun in his home. They said that he was to be offered the chance to have a serviceable handgun in his home as long as he legally qualified under DC laws. DC did not have the right to outright ban handguns or have you disassemble them to have them in your home. But they didn't say that DC couldn't put some form of draconian law making it difficult to have the right to have a serviceable handgun in your home. It only said that Heller had the right to have the serviceable handgun in the home IF he qualified. That's the whole ruling in the nutshell. You keep reading into it things you "Wish".

And Black Voting has nothing to do with any of this. The last thing you want to do is to get into that subject with me considering just how it's been treated in deep south to prevent black voters from easy voting access. I even see that around here a bit.

You don't know what you are talking about.......any court that bans semi automatic rifles, any town or city that bans them is breaking the law....


https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

----

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf

That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629.

And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625. The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.

Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3.

The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

From your own cite. And this is the ruling which says nothing about rifles of any kind and certainly does not include any form or automatic anything which would be in violation of the 1934 Firearms Act.

3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to
self-defense) violate the Second Amen
dment. The District’s total ban
on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an
entire class of “arms” that Amer
icans overwhelming
ly choose for the
lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scru-
tiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this
3
Cite as: 554 U. S. ____ (2008)
Syllabus
prohibition—in the plac
e where the importance of the lawful defense
of self, family, and property is mo
st acute—would fail constitutional
muster. Similarly, the requiremen
t that any lawful firearm in the
home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible
for citizens to use arms for the core
lawful purpose of self-defense and
is hence unconstitutional. Because
Heller conceded at oral argument
that the D. C. licen
sing law is perm
issible if it is not enforced arbi-
trarily and capriciously
, the Court assumes that
a license will satisfy
his prayer for relief and does not a
ddress the licensing
requirement.
Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment
rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and
must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–

You keep trying to use the Dissenting views. Dissenting Views is the views of the losers side. It has no legal worth whatsoever.

DC is a special case. The 10th Amendment does not apply to them so the Federal Government assumes the role of the State in their case. You argument has failed in every state court system and Federal Court that has addressed it since the State hs the right to either regulate or outright ban anything other than what is the traditional home defense or hinting guns. And the AR-15 can be specifically spelled out by name and the regulating or full ban will stand in the Federal Court System. The ones that haven't stood are the ones that gave too general of a description that basically could be interpreted to affect all semi auto rifles. But by putting in something like "The AR-15 and it's various Clones" will stand in any court of law in the land. The reason the Supreme Court has not ruled on this is that they refuse to hear the cases and the lower courts ruling stand since the 10th amendment gives the State or Local Governments the right. For instance, it's not illegal to own, carry or possess a handgun in New York City. They do issue conceal carry permits there as well. But they make it so damned difficult to obtain it that almost everyone just gives up. DC can opt to make it difficult to own or possess a serviceable handgun in the home by the same methods but they are under the whims of the Federal Court System since they are exempt from the 10th amendment.

Now, I know you don't understand because you lost another of the 3 remaining brain cells but others will understand it and just put you on ignore.

And again...since you obviously have a hard time with reading comprehension...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

----

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf

That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629.

And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625. The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.

Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3.

The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

I read it just fine. And it dealt with whether DC could wholesale require that any handgun IN THE HOME to be dissambled and rendered inoperative. SCOTUS said it couldn't but left a huge door open for DC to require some type of regulation in order for people like Heller to be licensed to have operative handguns in the home. You keep reading way more into it than it really is. Since DC is not a state, it depends on the Feds to operate as the State on their behalf. There is NO 10th amendment protection for DC unlike the 50 states.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

and some nice AR based serious hunting rifles Daryl Hunt . --- AR Hunting Rifles - Brenton USA ---

If the State Bag limits are four deer a year. Or 2 deer per day.
How many bullets shooting fast from an AR-XXX POS does it take
for a poorly skilled hunter to bag its limits? 2, 3 or 4 ....15 rounds clips?

But you may corner a deer in a warehouse armed with a Bazooka and need all 5 30 round mags to bring home the small piece of meat that will be left after you riddle it with your bullets. Safety First.

 

[pismoe]

Seems the NRA can be blamed for these deaths as well.
The Gun Nutter NRA Killer crew blocked what CA. voted to remove.
Like really 98% of people dying by guns really in what the NRA sponsors.

View attachment 228112

What you fail to understand is that the magazine had nothing to do with how many people he killed...... the fact is that shooting unarmed people is what allowed him to kill so many people..... had there been armed civilians in that bar, they would have stopped him from killing.....but they were unarmed thanks to you...

The magazine in a gun is easily and quickly changed out, so the number of bullets in the magazine have no bearing on the killer who is shooting people who can't shoot back....there is an actual study on this.....

And did you read the Judges opinion on the Temporary injunction against the magazine ban in California...he understands what you don't understand... you should read it...

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research

Large-Capacity Magazines and the Casualty Counts in Mass Shootings: The Plausibility of Linkages by Gary Kleck :: SSRN

Do bans on large-capacity magazines (LCMs) for semiautomatic firearms have significant potential for reducing the number of deaths and injuries in mass shootings?
The most common rationale for an effect of LCM use is that they allow mass killers to fire many rounds without reloading.
LCMs are used is less than 1/3 of 1% of mass shootings.
News accounts of 23 shootings in which more than six people were killed or wounded and LCMs were used, occurring in the U.S. in 1994-2013, were examined.
There was only one incident in which the shooter may have been stopped by bystander intervention when he tried to reload.
In all of these 23 incidents the shooter possessed either multiple guns or multiple magazines, meaning that the shooter, even if denied LCMs, could have continued firing without significant interruption by either switching loaded guns or by changing smaller loaded magazines with only a 2-4 second delay for each magazine change.
Finally, the data indicate that mass shooters maintain slow enough rates of fire such that the time needed to reload would not increase the time between shots and thus the time available for prospective victims to escape.

--------

We did not employ the oft-used definition of “mass murder” as a homicide in which four or more victims were killed, because most of these involve just four to six victims (Duwe 2007), which could therefore have involved as few as six rounds fired, a number that shooters using even ordinary revolvers are capable of firing without reloading.

LCMs obviously cannot help shooters who fire no more rounds than could be fired without LCMs, so the inclusion of “nonaffectable” cases with only four to six victims would dilute the sample, reducing the percent of sample incidents in which an LCM might have affected the number of casualties.

Further, had we studied only homicides with four or more dead victims, drawn from the FBI’s Supplementary Homicide Reports, we would have missed cases in which huge numbers of people were shot, and huge numbers of rounds were fired, but three or fewer of the victims died.


For example, in one widely publicized shooting carried out in Los Angeles on February 28, 1997, two bank robbers shot a total of 18 people - surely a mass shooting by any reasonable standard (Table 1).

Yet, because none of the people they shot died, this incident would not qualify as a mass murder (or even murder of any kind).

Exclusion of such incidents would bias the sample against the proposition that LCM use increases the number of victims by excluding incidents with large numbers of victims. We also excluded shootings in which more than six persons were shot over the entire course of the incident but shootings occurred in multiple locations with no more than six people shot in any one of the locations, and substantial periods of time intervened between episodes of shooting. An example is the series of killings committed by Rodrick Dantzler on July 7, 2011.

Once eligible incidents were identified, we searched through news accounts for details related to whether the use of LCMs could have influenced the casualty counts.

Specifically, we searched for

(1) the number of magazines in the shooter’s immediate possession,

(2) the capacity of the largest magazine,

(3) the number of guns in the shooter’s immediate possession during the incident,

(4) the types of guns possessed,

(5) whether the shooter reloaded during the incident,

(6) the number of rounds fired,

(7) the duration of the shooting from the first shot fired to the last, and (8) whether anyone intervened to stop the shooter.

Findings How Many Mass Shootings were Committed Using LCMs?

We identified 23 total incidents in which more than six people were shot at a single time and place in the U.S. from 1994 through 2013 and that were known to involve use of any magazines with capacities over ten rounds.


Table 1 summarizes key details of the LCMinvolved mass shootings relevant to the issues addressed in this paper.

(Table 1 about here) What fraction of all mass shootings involve LCMs?

There is no comprehensive listing of all mass shootings available for the entire 1994-2013 period, but the most extensive one currently available is at the Shootingtracker.com website, which only began its coverage in 2013.

-----


-----
The offenders in LCM-involved mass shootings were also known to have reloaded during 14 of the 23 (61%) incidents with magazine holding over 10 rounds.

The shooters were known to have not reloaded in another two of these 20 incidents and it could not be determined if they reloaded in the remaining seven incidents.

Thus, even if the shooters had been denied LCMs, we know that most of them definitely would have been able to reload smaller detachable magazines without interference from bystanders since they in fact did change magazines.

The fact that this percentage is less than 100% should not, however, be interpreted to mean that the shooters were unable to reload in the other nine incidents.

It is possible that the shooters could also have reloaded in many of these nine shootings, but chose not to do so, or did not need to do so in order to fire all the rounds they wanted to fire. This is consistent with the fact that there has been at most only one mass shootings in twenty years in which reloading a semiautomatic firearm might have been blocked by bystanders intervening and thereby stopping the shooter from doing all the shooting he wanted to do. All we know is that in two incidents the shooter did not reload, and news accounts of seven other incidents did not mention whether the offender reloaded.

----

For example, a story in the Hartford Courant about the Sandy Hook elementary school killings in 2012 was headlined “Shooter Paused, and Six Escaped,” the text asserting that as many as six children may have survived because the shooter paused to reload (December 23, 2012). ''

The author of the story, however, went on to concede that this was just a speculation by an unnamed source, and that it was also possible that some children simply escaped when the killer was shooting other children.

There was no reliable evidence that the pauses were due to the shooter reloading, rather than his guns jamming or the shooter simply choosing to pause his shooting while his gun was still loaded.

The plausibility of the “victims escape” rationale depends on the average rates of fire that shooters in mass shootings typically maintain.

If they fire very fast, the 2-4 seconds it takes to change box-type detachable magazines could produce a slowing of the rate of fire that the shooters otherwise would have maintained without the magazine changes, increasing the average time between rounds fired and potentially allowing more victims to escape during the betweenshot intervals.

On the other hand, if mass shooters fire their guns with the average interval between shots lasting more than 2-4 seconds, the pauses due to additional magazine changes would be no longer than the pauses the shooter typically took between shots even when not reloading.

In that case, there would be no more opportunity for potential victims to escape than there would have been without the additional magazine changes

-----


SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research

In sum, in nearly all LCM-involved mass shootings, the time it takes to reload a detachable magazine is no greater than the average time between shots that the shooter takes anyway when not reloading.

Consequently, there is no affirmative evidence that reloading detachable magazines slows mass shooters’ rates of fire, and thus no affirmative evidence that the number of victims who could escape the killers due to additional pauses in the shooting is increased by the shooter’s need to change magazines.

Crazy BS Gun Nutter spews mostly above. 2nd Anal RE-spews of NRA BS from the
weakminded fools Gun Nutters BE!
DOPers want everyone to be armed in America for safety. Haha. Crazy, not needed.
Gun Nutters want to bring the lawless Afgan style of living in America.
Where AK's are 5 bucks, and most everyone can get one in mins. No Checks.

Back in the 1800's. Most families had only one musket. If that.
Seems there were really no single Whitey Guy's doing mass shoots, then.
The Musket did not shoot fast. As they were our armed militia weapons
They were good then, that's all Gun Nutters should have, today. Slow firing stuff.

Back in the early 1900's. Most families had only one gun.
Seems there were really no single Whitey Guy's doing mass shoots, then.
You see the pattern here DOPer Gun Nutters?

Now in the 2000's we started to have mass shootings by mostly Whitey Guys.
With what are all fully autoloading guns shooting clips out in seconds.
There is semi fire, but all modern guns gas loading are fully automatic weapons.
It's just that simple. Back in the 1800's getting off 3 shots in a minute was good.
Now, you can get off 3, 15 plus round clips in a min., and if really good, 4 clips in under a min.
To do your Whitey mostly Mass shootings today. Fully sponsored by the NRA.

It's just weird, we don't let the Gun Nutter 2nd Anal loving Crazies have bigger military guns on the streets for protection.
Seems the Gun Nutter Morons want to defend America with what they have, as the fools they be.
Your AR-XXX POS won't stop drone bombs you BOZO Freedom Fighters. HAHAHAHA! Losers. Good Luck in your freedom fighting.

here you go Daryl hunt , just some info on hunting with the AR15 Daryl Hunt . ------------------------------ --- 5 Reasons To Hunt With An AR-15 Rifle | Brenton USA ---

You mean 5 reasons for you to buy something from us, don't you. It's a friggin sales procure trying to sell you something. I look in the gun shops around here and the ARs have steadily been dropping in price. Your buddy claims he sells the MP-15 for 499 yet I can buy them around here all day long for 399 because they are cluttering up the gun racks in the guns stores since the gun scare was shown it was a farce.

Your brochure claims familiarity. Yes, almost any Veteran will feel right at home with an AR. Why? He or She probably spent time training at least on a M-16 and there is no difference except for, most of the time, the selector settings. All other things will be exactly the same.

Your brochure goes on to say it's used for big game. You get caught using ANY 223 hunting big game around here and two things will happen. You will get a really hefty fine and then some serious jail time. About the smallest I would consider would be a 270. If you can't reach out and have a killing shot at 400 yds then your round is worthless. And I have made many killing shots at 400 yds with both a 303 british and a 308 Model 700. At 400 yds, with an AR-15, you just as well be throwing rocks.

Your Brochure is just trying to sell shit.

------------------------------------------------- well as i noted earlier , AR and .223 are legal to hunt all sorts of varmints including the larger Deer depending on the State that hunters hunt in . And the AR's i featured are available for serious hunters to buy if they want to buy . Your OPINION means 'Nothing' except that its your OPINION . Americans are Free to BUY what they like and then to determine whats legal or illegal and you lefties want to change that so that you can DICTATE your OPINIONS on what Americans can do Daryl Hunt .

I'm a Lefty? Maybe so but I am probably one of the best armed lefty you have ever met. You just can't stand that the Constitution doesn't agree with your warped ideas. So be it.

here you go Daryl hunt , just some info on hunting with the AR15 Daryl Hunt . ------------------------------ --- 5 Reasons To Hunt With An AR-15 Rifle | Brenton USA ---

You mean 5 reasons for you to buy something from us, don't you. It's a friggin sales procure trying to sell you something. I look in the gun shops around here and the ARs have steadily been dropping in price. Your buddy claims he sells the MP-15 for 499 yet I can buy them around here all day long for 399 because they are cluttering up the gun racks in the guns stores since the gun scare was shown it was a farce.

Your brochure claims familiarity. Yes, almost any Veteran will feel right at home with an AR. Why? He or She probably spent time training at least on a M-16 and there is no difference except for, most of the time, the selector settings. All other things will be exactly the same.

Your brochure goes on to say it's used for big game. You get caught using ANY 223 hunting big game around here and two things will happen. You will get a really hefty fine and then some serious jail time. About the smallest I would consider would be a 270. If you can't reach out and have a killing shot at 400 yds then your round is worthless. And I have made many killing shots at 400 yds with both a 303 british and a 308 Model 700. At 400 yds, with an AR-15, you just as well be throwing rocks.

Your Brochure is just trying to sell shit.

------------------------------------------------- well as i noted earlier , AR and .223 are legal to hunt all sorts of varmints including the larger Deer depending on the State that hunters hunt in . And the AR's i featured are available for serious hunters to buy if they want to buy . Your OPINION means 'Nothing' except that its your OPINION . Americans are Free to BUY what they like and then to determine whats legal or illegal and you lefties want to change that so that you can DICTATE your OPINIONS on what Americans can do Daryl Hunt .

I'm a Lefty? Maybe so but I am probably one of the best armed lefty you have ever met. You just can't stand that the Constitution doesn't agree with your warped ideas. So be it.

-------------------------------------------- 'feinstein' was also a well armed lefty as she carried a concealed Snubby while other 'kalifornian' could not . Its what you lefty dictator types are known for Daryl Hunt .

Now I am a dictator. If you can't debate with facts and truths, try and discredit your opponent. How Trumpesk of you.

----------------------------------------- DEBATE , WHAT FACTS , what Truths ?? I just give my OPINION that YOU and your retired gun grabbing 'generals' , government employees and anti gun 'veterans' are gun controllers and prohibitionists of effective and efficient guns and i prove that OPINION with links Daryl Hunt .

 

[pismoe]

and some nice AR based serious hunting rifles Daryl Hunt . --- AR Hunting Rifles - Brenton USA ---

If the State Bag limits are four deer a year. Or 2 deer per day.
How many bullets shooting fast from an AR-XXX POS does it take
for a poorly skilled hunter to bag its limits? 2, 3 or 4 ....15 rounds clips?

But you may corner a deer in a warehouse armed with a Bazooka and need all 5 30 round mags to bring home the small piece of meat that will be left after you riddle it with your bullets. Safety First.

--------------------------------- thats up to the Deer Hunter that got the Deer though normally a guy hunting with an AR will have a 3 or 5 round hunting magaine in his AR Daryl Hunt .

 

[Daryl Hunt]

here is your boy 'general mccrystal' Daryl Hunt . Also a pretty good article where the writer sees the difference between American gun owners like me and Second Amendment supporting 'veterans' and then YOU anti american gun controltypes like YOU Daryl Hunt . --- General Stanley McChrystal [Ret.]: .223 Too Lethal for Civilians - The Truth About Guns --- then see 'general mccrystal' speak like a gun controller , check it out Daryl Hunt .

It's not the caliber or the round. The projectile is actually pretty damned weak. It's the way the
AR is constructed and the original intent. Plus, the fact that it holds all the records for the top number of deaths for mass killings. The way we dealt with it here is not to outlaws or ban the AR but to take away the things that make it so lethal in a mass shooting. The more mags you carry, the more time you are going to spend reloading and the more likely you are going to fumble changing mags. Plus, we took away all the rails for the most part so no longer looks exactly like the M-16 and the honeymoon is over.

Tell you what, How many years did you serve? I served more than 20 myself. Do a search at military.com and guess what, you'll find a Tsgt with my name in there. It's too easy to verify as it is for almost ALL Veterans. So you traitor, keep spewing your hate but it won't work for me. On Labor Day, I'll enjoy that free steak dinner and I won't give you one single thought.