Another mass shooting. Another assault rifle

[2aguy]

Making assault type rifles illegal will make them harder to obtain, allow police to arrest them on the way to commit their slaughter, or arrest them in the planning stages.

This doesn't even make rational sense. A retarded person makes better sense. Seriously!

How does making a certain style of gun illegal allow police to arrest nutbags on the way to commit slaughter or in the planning stages (if they have them)?

You're making an emotive claim that has no connection with reality.

So... we outlaw scary-looking rifles and suddenly police have the ability of mental telepathy?

Really.... How old are you?

1) If assault rifles are legal, how can the shooter be arrested prior to the attack if he is spotted with such a weapon?

2) Illegal means harder to obatain & the better the chances of stopping it at that stasge.

It's not rocket science.

Well because he would be careful and not be spotted with the weapon which could also be any number of other weapons that aren't banned. Again.... the police can't stop something unless they know something is about to happen. You seem to think banning guns gives them some sort of super power of telepathy.

You just keep making this emotive idiotic argument that banning scary-looking guns will somehow prevent nutbags from doing crazy shit. It just won't!

As it is now, carrying an assault weapon is not illegal. Police would see him & do nothing

With a ban, the guy could be arrested for carrying it. They don't need telepathy as the law is being broken.

If these assault weapons provide no advantage other than looking scary, why the FUCK do you want them?

You are sofa king stupid you think the death toll between a crazy person with an assault weapon & one with a bolt action rifle or a knife or a baseball bat is all the same.

In new york it is illegal......you have to have a permit to carry a gun.......and they don't give them out for long guns, genius......so if a cop saw him they could have stopped and arrested him right there....

The guy could still be arrested for carrying it, the cop could say he was disturbing the peace, genius.....

We want them because they are a good quality rifle, easy to shoot for all the members of the family, they are convenient and can be used for fun, for self defense......and they are protected by the 2nd Amendment.....

You are sofa king stupid you think the death toll between a crazy person with an assault weapon & one with a bolt action rifle or a knife or a baseball bat is all the same

How many people did the hospital shooter kill? 1.....with the rifle with a magazine.

How many did the guy in Britain kill with a shotgun? In 2010....24 years after they banned and confiscated guns in Britain...

12 people...using a double barrled shotgun and a .22 bolt action rifle.....

Cumbria shootings - Wikipedia

Targeted shootings[edit]
In the early hours of 2 June, Bird left his home in Rowrah and drove his Citroën Xsara Picasso to his twin brother David's home in Lamplugh,[5] where Bird shot David 11 times in the head and body with a .22 rifle, killing him.

He then went to Frizington, arriving at the home of the family solicitor, Kevin Commons, whom Bird prevented from driving away by firing twice with a double-barreled shotgun,

 

[2aguy]

Correct, it is a tool for use in killing in mass, especially when equipped with a large magazine and a quick release magnet.

No.....wrong...again...The AR-15 is the most popular rifle in the United States, over 5 million in private hands.....and in 35 years how many people have been murdered with one......less than 167, ...in 35 years....hardly a mass killing weapon...

Knives on the other hand...kill over 1,500 every single year. Knives are actually deadlier by body count than these rifles....

AJune 2016 article: "At least 84 people have been killed and 119 have been injured so far this year in 86 shooting incidents involving assault-style rifles, according to data compiled by the Gun Violence Archive, a not-for-profit corporation that tracks gun violence. Those numbers include the casualties at Pulse nightclub over the weekend."

84 in half of 2016. Assault type rifles. Yet you are claiming 137 in 35 years........

It's pretty clear why you didn't include a link to that article, isn't it? Could it be that most of those killed were killed by terrorists? Would you be happier is the terrorists just used trucks to commit mass murder?

The fact remains, most murders are done with handguns and involve gang-bangers shooting other gang-bangers or domestic violence. More than half of the "gun violence" (a term the LW antigunners love to toss around) are suicides. Gang-bangers is an inner-city crime problem. Domestic violence and suicides are a mental health issue. If the LW really gave a shit about saving lives, they'd focus on fixing those areas and less on shredding the Constitution for their authoritarian agenda.

The post that claimed 135 people killer had no link. So fuck you & your link. The post clearly stated who did the numbers. Grow the fuck up.

I guess we all know now who is the lying fuck, don't we? No wonder you ran from the offer of a bet after you libeled me.

Thousands Of Americans Are Gunned Down Each Year, But Few Die By Assault-Style Rifle | HuffPost
But as momentum builds for a new assault weapons ban, data shows just how small of an effect such legislation would have on the overall levels of gun violence in the U.S.

At least 84 people have been killed and 119 have been injured so far this year in 86 shooting incidents involving assault-style rifles, according to data compiled by the Gun Violence Archive, a not-for-profit corporation that tracks gun violence. Those numbers include the casualties at Pulse nightclub over the weekend.

Thanks for the link.....notice how they lie and pad their numbers....they have to include "Brandishing" "illegal possession" charges, and "other" legal interventions and the guns weren't even fired......anti gunners just lie, it is what they do.....

There have been at least 267 incidents involving assault-style rifles in 2016, including reported weapons thefts, crimes in which the guns were brandished, arrests for illegal possession and other legal interventions in which they weren’t fired.

And of course....they use suicides to pas their numbers....

but also includes suicides

As I posted...I use the Mother Jones Mass public shooting tracker....they actually list only mass public shootings and they list the type of weapon used...

 

[2aguy]

As it is now, carrying an assault weapon is not illegal. Police would see him & do nothing

With a ban, the guy could be arrested for carrying it. They don't need telepathy as the law is being broken.

If these assault weapons provide no advantage other than looking scary, why the FUCK do you want them?

You are sofa king stupid you think the death toll between a crazy person with an assault weapon & one with a bolt action rifle or a knife or a baseball bat is all the same.

But Dave, he doesn't need an "assault weapon" to kill people. He can use an automatic pistol and kill just as many, just as quickly. Banning a certain kind of gun isn't going to change a mentally unstable person's state of mind.

The weapons you are calling "assault weapons" are just regular guns. They have some beneficial features like a carbon fiber stock which makes them lighter. They may have a noise suppressor which helps protect the user's hearing. They may be camouflage in color so they are more beneficial to hunting wild animals. They aren't any more deadly than a regular rifle. In fact, there are regular-looking rifles that are much more powerful than an AR-15 or AK-47.

Will you please stop for a minute and think about the number of people killed in numerous attacks across the UK in the past few months? These people have the most strict anti-gun laws in the world... did it prevent people from dying? NO! Look at Chicago... a city with the most stringent gun laws in America and you have more people being shot and killed there daily than in Afghanistan and Iraq. Banning guns doesn't stop people from being killed.

In Britain, in 2010, 24 years after they banned and confiscated guns...they had the Cumbria shooting...the guy killed 12 people with a double barreled shotgun and a bolt action .22 rifle......

 

[2aguy]

As it is now, carrying an assault weapon is not illegal. Police would see him & do nothing

With a ban, the guy could be arrested for carrying it. They don't need telepathy as the law is being broken.

If these assault weapons provide no advantage other than looking scary, why the FUCK do you want them?

You are sofa king stupid you think the death toll between a crazy person with an assault weapon & one with a bolt action rifle or a knife or a baseball bat is all the same.

But Dave, he doesn't need an "assault weapon" to kill people. He can use an automatic pistol and kill just as many, just as quickly. Banning a certain kind of gun isn't going to change a mentally unstable person's state of mind.

The weapons you are calling "assault weapons" are just regular guns. They have some beneficial features like a carbon fiber stock which makes them lighter. They may have a noise suppressor which helps protect the user's hearing. They may be camouflage in color so they are more beneficial to hunting wild animals. They aren't any more deadly than a regular rifle. In fact, there are regular-looking rifles that are much more powerful than an AR-15 or AK-47.

Will you please stop for a minute and think about the number of people killed in numerous attacks across the UK in the past few months? These people have the most strict anti-gun laws in the world... did it prevent people from dying? NO! Look at Chicago... a city with the most stringent gun laws in America and you have more people being shot and killed there daily than in Afghanistan and Iraq. Banning guns doesn't stop people from being killed.

gun crime is increasing in Britain....gun crime in London last year was up 42%......30 years after they banned guns....

 

[2aguy]

The rifle used was an AR-15, which is semi-automatic. The primary performance characteristic of an assault rifle is full-automatic function.

Unfortunately the vast majority of anti-gun commentators know absolutely nothing about guns, they are afraid of guns, and they are not inclined to defend themselves under any circumstances -- which accounts for their ignorance.

What today's shooter did with his AR-15 could have been done just as well, if not even better, with some of the most ordinary hunting rifles available. In fact there are a number of ordinary hunting rifles and shotguns with which he could have done a lot more damage.

For your information, the AR-15 is mainly a fetish firearm, adored because of its cosmetic resemblance to the military standard M-16. It is over-priced and over-rated. And it is not an "assault" rifle or an "assault-type" rifle. In fact there is no such thing as an "assault-type" rifle. That is a jerk-off designation.

That's the commonly used term these days for a gun that will spray multiple bullets in a minute, a dozen or more depending on who you ask. That makes it an "assault" weapon, indeed, if you are the person being fired upon.

No...it doesn't...that is the lie the anti gunners use because they want to ban the weapon. The truth is that a military rifle must have select fire capability.......the AR-15 does not, and never has had this...and has never been used by the military....the definition you gave...fits most modern pistols...which is another thing the gun grabbers do...they bait and switch, here we were talking about rifles...but the definition you gave fits pistols too....which is why we don't trust anti gunners....

We had a ban on assault type rifles. Where were the other bans you keep whining about?

Many LWs want to ban all guns. This forum is replete with that idea. However, shredding the Constitution isn't a practical path for them. Slowly eating away at individual rights and eroding the meaning and intent of the Second Amendment in particular works much better for them. They use words like "for the children" and "common sense" but when it comes down to the nitty-gritty it's statements that mean restricting all free citizens from exercising their natural right of self-defense.

BTW, there is not such thing as an "assault rifle" much less an "assault type rifle". It's a fabricated term used by the anti-gun left that means "scary-looking rifle".

What is the difference between these two rifles, RealDave?

Would you call CPS on the parents of this young man?

Premise one is a lie ("Many LWs want to ban all guns"); no one in authority has ever proposed legislation to ban all guns. Most of us believe guns need to be controlled, and kept out of the hands of those who have a demonstrated a lack of self control (drugs, alcohol, domestic violence, etc.).

Any tool can be an assault weapon, from a hammer or screw driver to a a knife or a gun. Assault with a Deadly Weapon is a felony, though no real harm to the victim needs to have occurred.

Obama told John Lott at the University of Chicago that civilians shouldn't be allowed to have guns.....as President he packed the courts with anti gun judges....the democrats have learned that legislation to ban guns loses seats...so they are now focused solely on using the courts at the federal level as their lower level governors and city and state minions ban at the local level...like the SAFE act in New york.....

Hilary also planned on using the courts to enact her gun banning...

Articles: Hillary: Impose Gun Control by Judicial Fiat



Hillary’s focus on repealing the PLCAA seems strange: it’s been on the books for eleven years, it was passed by 2-1 bipartisan majorities (65-31 Senate, 283-144 House), and every suit it has blocked is one that should never have been filed. Yet oppose it Hillary does. Her campaign webpage proposes to “Take on the gun lobby by removing the industry’s sweeping legal protection for illegal and irresponsible actions (which makes it almost impossible for people to hold them accountable), and revoking licenses from dealers who break the law.” She told the Bridgeport News that “as president, I would lead the charge to repeal this law.” In Iowa, she called the PLCAA “one of the most egregious, wrong, pieces of legislation that ever passed the Congress.”

But, even given her anti-gun beliefs, why does Hillary place so high a priority on repealing some eleven-year-old statute?

The papers found in her husband’s presidential archives in Little Rock show why the lawsuits that the PLCAA stopped were so important to his anti-gun plans. A January 2000 question and answer document, probably meant to prepare Bill Clinton for a press conference, asks about his involvement in the lawsuits against the gun industry. It suggests as an answer that he “intends to engage the gun industry in negotiations” to “achieve meaningful reforms to the way the gun industry does business.” The memo suggests he close with “We want real reforms that will improve the public safety and save lives.”

This is noteworthy: the Clinton White House did not see the lawsuits’ purpose as winning money, but as a means to pressure the gun industry into adopting the Clinton “reforms.” What might those reforms have been?

The Clinton Presidential Archives answered that question, too. In December 1999, the “Office of the Deputy Secretary” (presumably of Treasury) had sent a fax to the fax line for Clinton’s White House Domestic Policy Council. The fax laid out a proposed settlement of the legal cases. The terms were very well designed. They would have given the antigun movements all the victories that it had been unable to win in Congress over the past twenty years! Moreover, the terms would be imposed by a court order, not by a statute. That meant that any violation could be prosecuted as a contempt of court, by the parties to the lawsuit rather than by the government. A future Congress could not repeal the judgment, and a future White House could not block its enforcement. The settlement would have a permanent existence outside the democratic process.

The terms were extensive and drastic:

Gun manufacturers must stop producing firearms (rifle, pistol, or shotguns) that could accept detachable magazines holding more than ten rounds. In practice, since there is no way to design a detachable-magazine firearm that cannot take larger magazines, this would mean ceasing production of all firearms with detachable magazines. No more semiauto handguns.

The manufacturers would be required to stop production of magazines holding more than ten rounds.

Manufacturers must also stop production of firearms with polymer frames. All handguns made must meet importation standards (long barrels, target sights, etc.).

After five years, manufacturers must produce nothing but “smart guns” (that is, using “authorized user technology”).

But those conditions were just the beginning. The next requirement was the key to regulating all licensed firearms dealers, as well. The manufacturers must agree to sell only to distributors and dealers who agreed to comply with the standards set for distributors and dealers. Thus dealers would were not parties to the lawsuits would be forced to comply, upon pain of being unable to buy inventory.

The dealers in turn must agree:

They’d make no sales at gun shows, and no sales over internet.

They’d hold their customers to one-gun-a-month, for all types of guns, not just handguns.

They would not sell used or new magazines holding more than ten rounds.

They would not sell any firearm that fell within the definitions of the 1994 “assault weapon ban,” even if the ban expired.

They must prove they have a minimum inventory of each manufacturers’ product, and that they derive a majority of their revenue from firearms or sporting equipment sales. No more small town hardware store dealers, and no more WalMarts with gun sections.

The manufacturers would be required to pay for a “monitor,” a person to make sure the settlement was enforced. The monitor would create a “sales data clearinghouse,” to which the manufacturers, distributors, and dealers must report each gun sale, thus creating a registration system, outside of the government and thus not covered by the Privacy Act.

The monitor would have the authority to hire investigators, inspect dealer records without notice, and to “conduct undercover sting operations.” The monitor would thus serve as a private BATFE, without the legal restrictions that bind that agency, and paid for by the gun industry itself.

The manufacturers must cut off any dealer who failed to comply, and whenever BATFE traced a gun to a dealer, the dealer would be presumed guilty unless he could prove himself innocent. (BATFE encourages police departments to trace every firearm that comes into their hands, including firearms turned in, lost and found, and recovered from thieves. As a result, it performs over 300,000 traces a year. Thus, this term would lead to many dealers being cut off and forced to prove their innocence on a regular basis).

Gun registration, one gun a month, magazines limited to ten rounds, no Glocks, no guns with detachable magazines (in effect, no semiauto handguns), no dealers at gun shows, an “assault weapon ban” in perpetuity, no internet sales. I

n short, the movement to restrict gun owners would have achieved, in one stroke, every objective it had labored for over the years -- indeed, it would have achieved some that (a ban on semiauto handguns) that were so bold it had never dared to propose them. All this would be achieved without the messy necessity of winning a majority vote in Congress.

 

[August West]

The only floor you mopped was in the shithouse of your 7-11. The next time you`re stopped at a metal detector because you`re afraid to be without your little gun, give the officer your little "infringement" speech. Cops like a good laugh now and then too.

Metal detectors don't infringe on my rights because I have a choice. In certain circumstances, I have chosen to allow restriction of firearms for all, like in a courtroom. My fellow citizens and I made this choice in the interest of public safety but it doesn't impugn my right to own a gun.

Funny.. I keep on mopping the floor with you and it just gets dirtier.

i
You`re flip flopping on the only amendment you thought you knew.

 

[Divine Wind]

Premise one is a lie ("Many LWs want to ban all guns"); no one in authority has ever proposed legislation to ban all guns. Most of us believe guns need to be controlled, and kept out of the hands of those who have a demonstrated a lack of self control (drugs, alcohol, domestic violence, etc.).

Any tool can be an assault weapon, from a hammer or screw driver to a a knife or a gun. Assault with a Deadly Weapon is a felony, though no real harm to the victim needs to have occurred.

"Many" do. Is that because they know it wouldn't work? That the best way to ban guns is through erosion of Constitutional rights? Are you saying no Democrat would ban all private guns if they could?

Agreed on the law, so why do we need more laws? Don't we just need more enforcement of the law...and better mental health care?

 

[2aguy]

The rifle used was an AR-15, which is semi-automatic. The primary performance characteristic of an assault rifle is full-automatic function.

Unfortunately the vast majority of anti-gun commentators know absolutely nothing about guns, they are afraid of guns, and they are not inclined to defend themselves under any circumstances -- which accounts for their ignorance.

What today's shooter did with his AR-15 could have been done just as well, if not even better, with some of the most ordinary hunting rifles available. In fact there are a number of ordinary hunting rifles and shotguns with which he could have done a lot more damage.

For your information, the AR-15 is mainly a fetish firearm, adored because of its cosmetic resemblance to the military standard M-16. It is over-priced and over-rated. And it is not an "assault" rifle or an "assault-type" rifle. In fact there is no such thing as an "assault-type" rifle. That is a jerk-off designation.

That's the commonly used term these days for a gun that will spray multiple bullets in a minute, a dozen or more depending on who you ask. That makes it an "assault" weapon, indeed, if you are the person being fired upon.

No...it doesn't...that is the lie the anti gunners use because they want to ban the weapon. The truth is that a military rifle must have select fire capability.......the AR-15 does not, and never has had this...and has never been used by the military....the definition you gave...fits most modern pistols...which is another thing the gun grabbers do...they bait and switch, here we were talking about rifles...but the definition you gave fits pistols too....which is why we don't trust anti gunners....

We had a ban on assault type rifles. Where were the other bans you keep whining about?

Many LWs want to ban all guns. This forum is replete with that idea. However, shredding the Constitution isn't a practical path for them. Slowly eating away at individual rights and eroding the meaning and intent of the Second Amendment in particular works much better for them. They use words like "for the children" and "common sense" but when it comes down to the nitty-gritty it's statements that mean restricting all free citizens from exercising their natural right of self-defense.

BTW, there is not such thing as an "assault rifle" much less an "assault type rifle". It's a fabricated term used by the anti-gun left that means "scary-looking rifle".

What is the difference between these two rifles, RealDave?

Would you call CPS on the parents of this young man?

Premise one is a lie ("Many LWs want to ban all guns"); no one in authority has ever proposed legislation to ban all guns. Most of us believe guns need to be controlled, and kept out of the hands of those who have a demonstrated a lack of self control (drugs, alcohol, domestic violence, etc.).

Any tool can be an assault weapon, from a hammer or screw driver to a a knife or a gun. Assault with a Deadly Weapon is a felony, though no real harm to the victim needs to have occurred.

It is already against the law for a felon to buy, own or carry a gun. If they are caught doing any of those things they can be arrested.....this can already be done, under current law.

If you use a gun to commit an actual crime, rape, robbery, murder, attempted murder, you can already be arrested...under current law, using any type of firearm.

We already have the laws for gun crimes........yet the anti gunners want more laws that solely target law abiding people, who have not, and do not use their guns to commit crimes....

Why is that?

 

[Wry Catcher]

That's the commonly used term these days for a gun that will spray multiple bullets in a minute, a dozen or more depending on who you ask. That makes it an "assault" weapon, indeed, if you are the person being fired upon.

No...it doesn't...that is the lie the anti gunners use because they want to ban the weapon. The truth is that a military rifle must have select fire capability.......the AR-15 does not, and never has had this...and has never been used by the military....the definition you gave...fits most modern pistols...which is another thing the gun grabbers do...they bait and switch, here we were talking about rifles...but the definition you gave fits pistols too....which is why we don't trust anti gunners....

We had a ban on assault type rifles. Where were the other bans you keep whining about?

Many LWs want to ban all guns. This forum is replete with that idea. However, shredding the Constitution isn't a practical path for them. Slowly eating away at individual rights and eroding the meaning and intent of the Second Amendment in particular works much better for them. They use words like "for the children" and "common sense" but when it comes down to the nitty-gritty it's statements that mean restricting all free citizens from exercising their natural right of self-defense.

BTW, there is not such thing as an "assault rifle" much less an "assault type rifle". It's a fabricated term used by the anti-gun left that means "scary-looking rifle".

What is the difference between these two rifles, RealDave?

Would you call CPS on the parents of this young man?

Premise one is a lie ("Many LWs want to ban all guns"); no one in authority has ever proposed legislation to ban all guns. Most of us believe guns need to be controlled, and kept out of the hands of those who have a demonstrated a lack of self control (drugs, alcohol, domestic violence, etc.).

Any tool can be an assault weapon, from a hammer or screw driver to a a knife or a gun. Assault with a Deadly Weapon is a felony, though no real harm to the victim needs to have occurred.

It is already against the law for a felon to buy, own or carry a gun. If they are caught doing any of those things they can be arrested.....this can already be done, under current law.

If you use a gun to commit an actual crime, rape, robbery, murder, attempted murder, you can already be arrested...under current law, using any type of firearm.

We already have the laws for gun crimes........yet the anti gunners want more laws that solely target law abiding people, who have not, and do not use their guns to commit crimes....

Why is that?

Q. How do felons acquire a gun.

Q. What laws are in place and enforced to prevent the sale of a gun to a felon, by a private party.

Q. The 2nd A. which you argue is clear in its "shall not be infringed" phrase, allows the state to deny this right to felons.

 

[RealDave]

You made this quote:

AJune 2016 article: "At least 84 people have been killed and 119 have been injured so far this year in 86 shooting incidents involving assault-style rifles, according to data compiled by the Gun Violence Archive, a not-for-profit corporation that tracks gun violence. Those numbers include the casualties at Pulse nightclub over the weekend."

84 in half of 2016. Assault type rifles. Yet you are claiming 137 in 35 years........

When asked to back it up with a link, you dodged and lied that it had a link.

Here is your linked source; HuffPo.

Thousands Of Americans Are Gunned Down Each Year, But Few Die By Assault-Style Rifle | HuffPost
But as momentum builds for a new assault weapons ban, data shows just how small of an effect such legislation would have on the overall levels of gun violence in the U.S.

At least 84 people have been killed and 119 have been injured so far this year in 86 shooting incidents involving assault-style rifles, according to data compiled by the Gun Violence Archive, a not-for-profit corporation that tracks gun violence. Those numbers include the casualties at Pulse nightclub over the weekend.

Now, how about that bet, Dave? It's a simple yes or no question.

Look, asswipe, I never said where was no link, I said I wasn't posting it because the source of the stats was stated in my quoted segment. What bet are you whining about.

 

[RealDave]

As it is now, carrying an assault weapon is not illegal. Police would see him & do nothing

With a ban, the guy could be arrested for carrying it. They don't need telepathy as the law is being broken.

If these assault weapons provide no advantage other than looking scary, why the FUCK do you want them?

You are sofa king stupid you think the death toll between a crazy person with an assault weapon & one with a bolt action rifle or a knife or a baseball bat is all the same.

But Dave, he doesn't need an "assault weapon" to kill people. He can use an automatic pistol and kill just as many, just as quickly. Banning a certain kind of gun isn't going to change a mentally unstable person's state of mind.

The weapons you are calling "assault weapons" are just regular guns. They have some beneficial features like a carbon fiber stock which makes them lighter. They may have a noise suppressor which helps protect the user's hearing. They may be camouflage in color so they are more beneficial to hunting wild animals. They aren't any more deadly than a regular rifle. In fact, there are regular-looking rifles that are much more powerful than an AR-15 or AK-47.

Will you please stop for a minute and think about the number of people killed in numerous attacks across the UK in the past few months? These people have the most strict anti-gun laws in the world... did it prevent people from dying? NO! Look at Chicago... a city with the most stringent gun laws in America and you have more people being shot and killed there daily than in Afghanistan and Iraq. Banning guns doesn't stop people from being killed.

You dickweeds do realize that by stating how other weapons can kill just as quickly that you are arguing there is no need for assault type weapons.

 

[there4eyeM]

These firearms, based upon assault rifle designs, appeal to a 'particular' type of person. The psychology involved is clear.

 

[boedicca]

As it is now, carrying an assault weapon is not illegal. Police would see him & do nothing

With a ban, the guy could be arrested for carrying it. They don't need telepathy as the law is being broken.

If these assault weapons provide no advantage other than looking scary, why the FUCK do you want them?

You are sofa king stupid you think the death toll between a crazy person with an assault weapon & one with a bolt action rifle or a knife or a baseball bat is all the same.

But Dave, he doesn't need an "assault weapon" to kill people. He can use an automatic pistol and kill just as many, just as quickly. Banning a certain kind of gun isn't going to change a mentally unstable person's state of mind.

The weapons you are calling "assault weapons" are just regular guns. They have some beneficial features like a carbon fiber stock which makes them lighter. They may have a noise suppressor which helps protect the user's hearing. They may be camouflage in color so they are more beneficial to hunting wild animals. They aren't any more deadly than a regular rifle. In fact, there are regular-looking rifles that are much more powerful than an AR-15 or AK-47.

Will you please stop for a minute and think about the number of people killed in numerous attacks across the UK in the past few months? These people have the most strict anti-gun laws in the world... did it prevent people from dying? NO! Look at Chicago... a city with the most stringent gun laws in America and you have more people being shot and killed there daily than in Afghanistan and Iraq. Banning guns doesn't stop people from being killed.

You dickweeds do realize that by stating how other weapons can kill just as quickly that you are arguing there is no need for assault type weapons.

People purchase a great many product that other people think they shouldn't need. That's not a valid reason to prohibit something.

 

[RealDave]

IDK ISIS seems to be doing a decent enough job with cars, trucks and bombs. Matter of fact they haven't been using guns at all lately.

I'm more worried about the U.S. and the OP is about the shooting of six innocent doctors and med students going about their work at a hospital when they were gunned down by an ex coworker using an AR15, widely available in any hunting goods store and WalMart. We aren't talking about terrorists.

Well actually we are. This guy left that job in 2015. He's been stewing for a while and probably planning this for a while;its domestic terrorism of a sort. Take away the AR-15 and he still would have had his revenge. Like ISIS he could have used a bomb,knife,car,poison, the only limit is his imagination. Timothy McVeigh used a truck and made a fertilizer bomb. This isn't rocket science and this guy was a doctor so I'm thinking he could figure out by way of internet how to make a bomb. Emergency rooms have drive up access so it really would have been nothing for Dr. Bello blow shit up if he couldn't have gotten his hands on a AR-15. The terrorists in London used cars,homemade bombs and knives and so could have Bello. If this country wants to stop guys like Bello and Lanza maybe we should invest more into mental health. Clearly Bello had anger management problems and a screw loose as did Lanza. It's not the guns it's the mind of the people with the guns. Our society is producing nut jobs at an alarming rate and maybe we should also put some cash into why that is. This type of thing didn't happen with this frequency 30 years ago. Somethings gone horribly wrong in the last 30 years.

I am willing to bet that mass shootings would actually increase significantly if there were to be a total (unconstitutional) ban on firearms. Even if the ban were specific to only certain types or calibers.

Banning guns will not in any way convert insane criminals into law abiding upstanding members of a society.

Making assault type rifles illegal will make them harder to obtain, allow police to arrest them on the way to commit their slaughter, or arrest them in the planning stages.

Trucks & knives have actual uses outside of killing things. Really. Quit being sofa king stupid by declaring there are other ways to kill people. No fucking shit. It has no change ton the FACT that a AK47 has far more killing power than a knife or pistol or bolt action rifle or a baseball bast. A fact you assholes can't seem to grasp.

Why own one? It is a crappy home defense weapon.

Why own one? It is a crappy home defense weapon

You have no idea what you are talking about...it is a great home defense weapon...

It is light, so any body type can use it easily, men, women, teenagers, it holds a magazine that allows 20 rounds to deal with the threat.....even a 30 round magazine.......so you don't run out and don't have to change the magazine in most criminal encounters in the home......you morons have given it a reputation, so when a criminal sees it they will react to it with more fear and will likely run away instead of challenging you the way they might if you had a snub nose .38. The weapon allows 3 points of contact with the weapon allowing you to control it and where the bullet goes......it has low recoil, and is easier to shoot than a small pistol....which means you will likely hit what you shoot at. You can also mount a light and a laser on it making it easier to shoot in the dark and low light if you need it.

And if you are facing down a riot in a democrat controlled city, where the democrat mayor has told the police to stand down and let the rioters loot and burn stores.....your AR-15 will keep your store from being burned to the ground.....without having to fire a shot....

Not as good as a pump action shotgun.

 

[Boss]

The only floor you mopped was in the shithouse of your 7-11. The next time you`re stopped at a metal detector because you`re afraid to be without your little gun, give the officer your little "infringement" speech. Cops like a good laugh now and then too.

Metal detectors don't infringe on my rights because I have a choice. In certain circumstances, I have chosen to allow restriction of firearms for all, like in a courtroom. My fellow citizens and I made this choice in the interest of public safety but it doesn't impugn my right to own a gun.

Funny.. I keep on mopping the floor with you and it just gets dirtier.

i
You`re flip flopping on the only amendment you thought you knew.

Yeah, I have to keep flipping you over as I mop... keeps smelling like shit.

Metal detectors don't violate the 2nd Amendment. Dumb ass.

 

[2aguy]

I'm more worried about the U.S. and the OP is about the shooting of six innocent doctors and med students going about their work at a hospital when they were gunned down by an ex coworker using an AR15, widely available in any hunting goods store and WalMart. We aren't talking about terrorists.

Well actually we are. This guy left that job in 2015. He's been stewing for a while and probably planning this for a while;its domestic terrorism of a sort. Take away the AR-15 and he still would have had his revenge. Like ISIS he could have used a bomb,knife,car,poison, the only limit is his imagination. Timothy McVeigh used a truck and made a fertilizer bomb. This isn't rocket science and this guy was a doctor so I'm thinking he could figure out by way of internet how to make a bomb. Emergency rooms have drive up access so it really would have been nothing for Dr. Bello blow shit up if he couldn't have gotten his hands on a AR-15. The terrorists in London used cars,homemade bombs and knives and so could have Bello. If this country wants to stop guys like Bello and Lanza maybe we should invest more into mental health. Clearly Bello had anger management problems and a screw loose as did Lanza. It's not the guns it's the mind of the people with the guns. Our society is producing nut jobs at an alarming rate and maybe we should also put some cash into why that is. This type of thing didn't happen with this frequency 30 years ago. Somethings gone horribly wrong in the last 30 years.

I am willing to bet that mass shootings would actually increase significantly if there were to be a total (unconstitutional) ban on firearms. Even if the ban were specific to only certain types or calibers.

Banning guns will not in any way convert insane criminals into law abiding upstanding members of a society.

Making assault type rifles illegal will make them harder to obtain, allow police to arrest them on the way to commit their slaughter, or arrest them in the planning stages.

Trucks & knives have actual uses outside of killing things. Really. Quit being sofa king stupid by declaring there are other ways to kill people. No fucking shit. It has no change ton the FACT that a AK47 has far more killing power than a knife or pistol or bolt action rifle or a baseball bast. A fact you assholes can't seem to grasp.

Why own one? It is a crappy home defense weapon.

Why own one? It is a crappy home defense weapon

You have no idea what you are talking about...it is a great home defense weapon...

It is light, so any body type can use it easily, men, women, teenagers, it holds a magazine that allows 20 rounds to deal with the threat.....even a 30 round magazine.......so you don't run out and don't have to change the magazine in most criminal encounters in the home......you morons have given it a reputation, so when a criminal sees it they will react to it with more fear and will likely run away instead of challenging you the way they might if you had a snub nose .38. The weapon allows 3 points of contact with the weapon allowing you to control it and where the bullet goes......it has low recoil, and is easier to shoot than a small pistol....which means you will likely hit what you shoot at. You can also mount a light and a laser on it making it easier to shoot in the dark and low light if you need it.

And if you are facing down a riot in a democrat controlled city, where the democrat mayor has told the police to stand down and let the rioters loot and burn stores.....your AR-15 will keep your store from being burned to the ground.....without having to fire a shot....

Not as good as a pump action shotgun.

Yes....it is often better than a pump action shotgun...you have to manually rack the shotgun to load a new shell....if you have been shot in one arm or the other, or stabbed, or lost the use of a hand......racking the shotgun becomes a problem....if you have more than one attacker and have to shoot them before they shoot you, racking the shotgun between shots slows you down.......and a many women find the shotgun hard to shoot...while an AR-15 has little to no recoil, making it far easier for women and smaller shooters to fire......

YOu really should research these topics...

 

[2aguy]

These firearms, based upon assault rifle designs, appeal to a 'particular' type of person. The psychology involved is clear.

These are the most common rifles in this country....over 5 million of them...

The "Particular" person is one who likes a rifle that is easy to shoot, allows them to put a light and a laser on it, and who wants enough bullets so they don't have to count bullets if they are in the middle of protecting themselves......for people who are into shooting, they are also said to be fun to shoot....

Your psychology is much more clear.......you are no different than the Book Burners you used to hear about...the ones who would burn Slaughter House Five, Huckleberry Finn, Catcher in the Rye and other books, simply because you didn't like them.....you are the equivalent of a Book Burner...but for the 2nd AMendment instead of the 1st Amendment...you have an irrational fear of guns and those who own them....the same way the Book Burners hated those books and the people who wanted to read them......

you need help.

 

[2aguy]

As it is now, carrying an assault weapon is not illegal. Police would see him & do nothing

With a ban, the guy could be arrested for carrying it. They don't need telepathy as the law is being broken.

If these assault weapons provide no advantage other than looking scary, why the FUCK do you want them?

You are sofa king stupid you think the death toll between a crazy person with an assault weapon & one with a bolt action rifle or a knife or a baseball bat is all the same.

But Dave, he doesn't need an "assault weapon" to kill people. He can use an automatic pistol and kill just as many, just as quickly. Banning a certain kind of gun isn't going to change a mentally unstable person's state of mind.

The weapons you are calling "assault weapons" are just regular guns. They have some beneficial features like a carbon fiber stock which makes them lighter. They may have a noise suppressor which helps protect the user's hearing. They may be camouflage in color so they are more beneficial to hunting wild animals. They aren't any more deadly than a regular rifle. In fact, there are regular-looking rifles that are much more powerful than an AR-15 or AK-47.

Will you please stop for a minute and think about the number of people killed in numerous attacks across the UK in the past few months? These people have the most strict anti-gun laws in the world... did it prevent people from dying? NO! Look at Chicago... a city with the most stringent gun laws in America and you have more people being shot and killed there daily than in Afghanistan and Iraq. Banning guns doesn't stop people from being killed.

You dickweeds do realize that by stating how other weapons can kill just as quickly that you are arguing there is no need for assault type weapons.

No.....we are showing that 1) the weapon isn't the issue and 2) that we know that once you get the AR-15, you will move on to the other weapons we mentioned.....we know who and what you are, and that you will not stop.....you have an irrational fear of guns and a hatred of gun owners that will not allow you to stop at rifles with magazines......

The Judge from San Diego has your number too...

From Page 40 and 41 of his injunction against the magazine ban......

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content...rra_Order-Granting-Preliminary-Injunction.pdf

(n) a slippery slope

What is clear from the preliminary evidence presented is that individuals who intend to engage in mass gun violence typically make plans. They use multiple weapons and come loaded with extra ammunition.

They pick the place and the time and do much harm before police can intervene. Persons with violent intentions have used large capacity magazines, machine guns, hand grenades and pipe bombs, notwithstanding laws criminalizing their possession or use.

Trying to legislatively outlaw the commonly possessed weapon de jour is like wearing flip flops on a slippery slope.

A downhill slide is not hard to foresee.

Tragically, when 30-round magazines are banned, attackers will use 15 or 17- round magazines.


If magazines holding more than 10 rounds are banned they will use multiple 10-round magazines.

If all semi-automatic weapons are banned they will use

40 17cv1017-BEN Case 3:17-cv-01017-BEN-JLB Document 28 Filed 06/29/17 PageID.4156 Page 40 of 66 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28


shotguns and revolvers.

All of these scenarios already occur.

Because revolvers and handguns are the quintessential home defense weapon protected by the Second Amendment and specifically approved in Heller, and because the average defensive gun use involves firing 2.2 rounds (according to the State’s experts), states could rationalize a ban on possession of rounds in excess of three per weapon. Criminals intent on 13 violence would then equip themselves with multiple weapons.

The State could then rationalize a one-weapon-per-individual law.

Since “merely” brandishing a firearm is usually effective as a defense to criminal attack (according to the State’s experts), it could be argued that a one-revolver-with-one-round-per-individual ban is a reasonable experiment in state police power as a means to protect citizens and law enforcement officers from gun violence.

Statutes disarming law-abiding responsible citizen gun owners reflect an opinion on gun policy. Courts are not free to impose their own policy choices on sovereign states. But as Heller explains, the Second Amendment takes certain policy choices and removes them beyond the realm of debate. Disarming California’s law-abiding citizenry is not a constitutionally-permissible policy choice.

 

[Boss]

As it is now, carrying an assault weapon is not illegal. Police would see him & do nothing

With a ban, the guy could be arrested for carrying it. They don't need telepathy as the law is being broken.

If these assault weapons provide no advantage other than looking scary, why the FUCK do you want them?

You are sofa king stupid you think the death toll between a crazy person with an assault weapon & one with a bolt action rifle or a knife or a baseball bat is all the same.

But Dave, he doesn't need an "assault weapon" to kill people. He can use an automatic pistol and kill just as many, just as quickly. Banning a certain kind of gun isn't going to change a mentally unstable person's state of mind.

The weapons you are calling "assault weapons" are just regular guns. They have some beneficial features like a carbon fiber stock which makes them lighter. They may have a noise suppressor which helps protect the user's hearing. They may be camouflage in color so they are more beneficial to hunting wild animals. They aren't any more deadly than a regular rifle. In fact, there are regular-looking rifles that are much more powerful than an AR-15 or AK-47.

Will you please stop for a minute and think about the number of people killed in numerous attacks across the UK in the past few months? These people have the most strict anti-gun laws in the world... did it prevent people from dying? NO! Look at Chicago... a city with the most stringent gun laws in America and you have more people being shot and killed there daily than in Afghanistan and Iraq. Banning guns doesn't stop people from being killed.

You dickweeds do realize that by stating how other weapons can kill just as quickly that you are arguing there is no need for assault type weapons.

There is a need for whatever a free market demands, dipwad.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Premise one is a lie ("Many LWs want to ban all guns"); no one in authority has ever proposed legislation to ban all guns. Most of us believe guns need to be controlled, and kept out of the hands of those who have a demonstrated a lack of self control (drugs, alcohol, domestic violence, etc.).

Any tool can be an assault weapon, from a hammer or screw driver to a a knife or a gun. Assault with a Deadly Weapon is a felony, though no real harm to the victim needs to have occurred.

"Many" do. Is that because they know it wouldn't work? That the best way to ban guns is through erosion of Constitutional rights? Are you saying no Democrat would ban all private guns if they could?

Agreed on the law, so why do we need more laws? Don't we just need more enforcement of the law...and better mental health care?

I don't know how many seek to ban guns, but there is no on going effort to legislate such a repeal of the 2nd A. I support the right of a sane, sober, mentally well citizen to own, possess and have in his or her custody and control a firearm, as regulated by the state or local government.

By regulation, I mean those who wish to own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun, need to be licensed by the state, and all guns need to be registered and insured.