Biden on Gun Control

[progressive hunter]

Except when you are talking about fully automatic weapons.

You got a real prob with full auto. When has even ONE been used in a mass shooting. Ever shoot one? Awesome fun, I built them, legally.

Sure I've fired a fully auto. Unless you are in the military, they are nothing but a toy. It would be stupid to deregulate them.

your ignorance really has no limits,,,if they are just a toy then why are they so feared and banned???

 

[BULLDOG]

But they are still subject to being regulated..

In your head only.

If they're subject to regulation, why aren't they regulated already?

Assault weapons can be regulated. You just can't process and accept what weapon falls under category of "assault weapon" or not.

US Army and Defense Department definitions of "assault rifle":

"Assault rifles are short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between sub machine gun and rifle cartridges."
"Assault rifles have mild recoil characteristics and, because of this, are capable of delivering effective full-automatic fire at ranges up to 300 meters."

"Select fire" means it is capable of fully automatic or burst fire as well as semi-auto. "Semi-auto" means when the trigger is pulled the rifle will fire once, "full-auto" means that when the trigger is pulled the gun will fire until it runs out of ammo or the trigger is released.

Assault weapon uses an intermediate round that is accurate at least 300 meters away so more accurate than a submachine gun but less accurate than a hunting rifle.

The definition of assault rifle is clear and has only one meaning, despite of politicians trying to change the meaning to fit their narrative, where "every scary looking gun is an assault weapon". People who know nothing about weapons, such as yourself, and people who know very little or nothing about constitutional rights, such as yourself, are falling for that narrative. The rest of us are "not buying".

According to leftist proposed assault weapons bans the rifle on top would be legal while the rifle on the bottom would be an illegal assault weapon. In reality, they are the same model of rifle with the same firing spec, just looking different.

When the constitution mentions arms, they didn't differentiate between one type of arms or another. I'm pretty sure terms like select fire or assault weapon weren't even considered. Therefore, I'm having a hard time understanding why you have such a problem with the constitutionality of regulating ALL arms. We can discuss whether all arms should be regulated in the same way if you would like, but it's clear that it is constitutionally acceptable to regulate them all in exactly the same way.

The same Constitution that you're calling on is securing our "unalienable rights".

To simplify it just for you, you have no right to kill someone, but you can defend yourself from being killed.

The 2nd Amendment is giving protecting your right to defend your life.

Every weapon can be used to attack or to defend. Therefore, every weapon can be called "assault weapon". If I use banana to choke you, that was "assault weapon". Left want's to label every weapon as "assault weapon", and without 2nd Amendment they would probably succeed. If semi-auto weapons are banned, what's next? Call hunting rifle a sniper, and simply ban it because it's weapon of war.

As I mentioned above, automatic weapons are considered assault weapons. Semi autos are not.

Although I don't agree with a statement that "you don't need machine gun to defend your home", and I think ban on automatic guns is unconstitutional, because state can still have them, I can accept not having one to defend my home.

And last, when the Constitution mentions freedom of press, they didn't differentiate between one type of news papers from another. I'm pretty sure terms like select cable TV, internet, or Twitter weren't even considered. However, freedom of press is constitutional right regardless of technical advancements we have today.

The term "assault weapon" has nothing to do with whether a weapon is constitutionally allowed to be regulated. As I said before, we can discuss which weapons should be regulated, and to what extent, but that is a different conversation for another time. My intent for now is to show the trite remark "will not be infringed" is bullshit and immaterial when it comes to whether we can or should regulate any weapon.

Of course you are a stupid confused Libtard that doesn't have a clue what "shall not be infringed" means. Everybody else knows that it means to not to infringe but you are confused about it like you are confused about many other issues. Like I said, pull your head out of your Libtard ass and you won't be so confused.

I've already proven that regulation, such as we already have for fully automatic weapons, is not the same as infringement. Of course I expect you to stick your head in the sand and say no, but you are wrong.

 

[BULLDOG]

Common sense regulation won't effect my gun ownership or use or the ownership and use of any law abiding sane person. I can understand you crazy militia types, with all your conspiracy theory fears being concerned.

We lived for a few years under an assault weapon ban with no ill effects. Assault weapon ownership is like an opioid addiction using the weapons as the opioid of false security. None can defend the need in a civilian society.

Nobody can justify the need for an assault weapon. The best they can do is claim they fear some imagenary conspiracy theory enemy might attack them.

Its a constitutional and natural right.
Why do you hate freedom? I wish all you statists were born in another country ibstead of trying to ruin this one.

Using your logic fully automatic weapons would be available and on the shelves at any gun shop. Is that the type of infringement you are talking about? Should fully automatic weapons be on the shelves and available at any gun shop?

you really need to quit talking,,
I hate to break it to you but full auto's are on the shelves and available at most gun shops,,,

They are not as accessable as other weapons, and they are extremely regulated. Only an idiot would try to pretend different.

 

[Shawnee_b]

Smart people have other issues besides guns

oh right

Like what, drag queen story hour and BF'ers?

 

[BULLDOG]

Except when you are talking about fully automatic weapons.

You got a real prob with full auto. When has even ONE been used in a mass shooting. Ever shoot one? Awesome fun, I built them, legally.

Sure I've fired a fully auto. Unless you are in the military, they are nothing but a toy. It would be stupid to deregulate them.

your ignorance really has no limits,,,if they are just a toy then why are they so feared and banned???

I never said they weren't extremely dangerous and their ownership and use should be heavily regulated . However, their use is so regulated till they are not much more than an amusing carnival ride for the vast majority of the country. Pay your money. Shoot a few rounds. Brag to your friends about shooting a fully auto weapon. That's about as far as it goes.

 

[progressive hunter]

In your head only.

If they're subject to regulation, why aren't they regulated already?

Assault weapons can be regulated. You just can't process and accept what weapon falls under category of "assault weapon" or not.

US Army and Defense Department definitions of "assault rifle":

"Select fire" means it is capable of fully automatic or burst fire as well as semi-auto. "Semi-auto" means when the trigger is pulled the rifle will fire once, "full-auto" means that when the trigger is pulled the gun will fire until it runs out of ammo or the trigger is released.

Assault weapon uses an intermediate round that is accurate at least 300 meters away so more accurate than a submachine gun but less accurate than a hunting rifle.

The definition of assault rifle is clear and has only one meaning, despite of politicians trying to change the meaning to fit their narrative, where "every scary looking gun is an assault weapon". People who know nothing about weapons, such as yourself, and people who know very little or nothing about constitutional rights, such as yourself, are falling for that narrative. The rest of us are "not buying".

According to leftist proposed assault weapons bans the rifle on top would be legal while the rifle on the bottom would be an illegal assault weapon. In reality, they are the same model of rifle with the same firing spec, just looking different.

When the constitution mentions arms, they didn't differentiate between one type of arms or another. I'm pretty sure terms like select fire or assault weapon weren't even considered. Therefore, I'm having a hard time understanding why you have such a problem with the constitutionality of regulating ALL arms. We can discuss whether all arms should be regulated in the same way if you would like, but it's clear that it is constitutionally acceptable to regulate them all in exactly the same way.

The same Constitution that you're calling on is securing our "unalienable rights".

To simplify it just for you, you have no right to kill someone, but you can defend yourself from being killed.

The 2nd Amendment is giving protecting your right to defend your life.

Every weapon can be used to attack or to defend. Therefore, every weapon can be called "assault weapon". If I use banana to choke you, that was "assault weapon". Left want's to label every weapon as "assault weapon", and without 2nd Amendment they would probably succeed. If semi-auto weapons are banned, what's next? Call hunting rifle a sniper, and simply ban it because it's weapon of war.

As I mentioned above, automatic weapons are considered assault weapons. Semi autos are not.

Although I don't agree with a statement that "you don't need machine gun to defend your home", and I think ban on automatic guns is unconstitutional, because state can still have them, I can accept not having one to defend my home.

And last, when the Constitution mentions freedom of press, they didn't differentiate between one type of news papers from another. I'm pretty sure terms like select cable TV, internet, or Twitter weren't even considered. However, freedom of press is constitutional right regardless of technical advancements we have today.

The term "assault weapon" has nothing to do with whether a weapon is constitutionally allowed to be regulated. As I said before, we can discuss which weapons should be regulated, and to what extent, but that is a different conversation for another time. My intent for now is to show the trite remark "will not be infringed" is bullshit and immaterial when it comes to whether we can or should regulate any weapon.

Of course you are a stupid confused Libtard that doesn't have a clue what "shall not be infringed" means. Everybody else knows that it means to not to infringe but you are confused about it like you are confused about many other issues. Like I said, pull your head out of your Libtard ass and you won't be so confused.

I've already proven that regulation, such as we already have for fully automatic weapons, is not the same as infringement. Of course I expect you to stick your head in the sand and say no, but you are wrong.

you havent proven shit,,,you really need to buy a dictionary to learn the meanings of words,,,

 

[Shawnee_b]

mods shouldn't use the funny button to ridicule posters. It's not professional.

Why not, the step into their pants same as anyone else

 

[progressive hunter]

Except when you are talking about fully automatic weapons.

You got a real prob with full auto. When has even ONE been used in a mass shooting. Ever shoot one? Awesome fun, I built them, legally.

Sure I've fired a fully auto. Unless you are in the military, they are nothing but a toy. It would be stupid to deregulate them.

your ignorance really has no limits,,,if they are just a toy then why are they so feared and banned???

I never said they weren't extremely dangerous and their ownership and use should be heavily regulated . However, their use is so regulated till they are not much more than an amusing carnival ride for the vast majority of the country. Pay your money. Shoot a few rounds. Brag to your friends about shooting a fully auto weapon. That's about as far as it goes.

theyre full auto so I dont know how you just shoot a few rounds,,,

like I said your ignorance has no limits,,,

 

[Shawnee_b]

Let me know when you find it because I cant.

Isn't there something in there about a well REGULATED militia?

I'm militia and I'm "regular". least once a day I shit out a demtard. Then flush it before it can get a fake BC and run for president

 

[Shawnee_b]

Moron.....you don't inform the people about the issue, and they simply respond to the sound of the question.

They don't know we already have background checks.

They don't know that the democrat party is the main reason we have gun crime in democrat party controlled cities.

They don't know that gun free zones allow mass shooters to kill more people.

Actually, most Americans don't know how lax our gun laws are, or they'd be for making them even tighter.

You see, the real problem, every time a Second Amendment Hero shoots up a school or a theater or a concert...

View attachment 310220
(Pictured - Second Amendment Heroes)

... people ask, "how the hell did that person get a gun?!". The problem is, by the time the answer comes on, we've moved on to the next tragedy.

Problem is we already got the laws, authorities don't report as they are supposed to.

 

[Shawnee_b]

Don’t forget the bullets
Biden hates bullets

Biden doesn't even remember what a bullet is after 30 min. Thinks it's a suppository.

 

[rightwinger]

"Joe Biden promises to put Beto O'Rourke in charge of gun control efforts"



That's sure to win him the votes of thousands of gun owners.

Right?

Most Americans favor stricter gun control.

Moron.....you don't inform the people about the issue, and they simply respond to the sound of the question.

They don't know we already have background checks.

They don't know that the democrat party is the main reason we have gun crime in democrat party controlled cities.

They don't know that gun free zones allow mass shooters to kill more people.

They don't know that magazine size has nothing to do with how many people are killed in mass public shootings...

If you actually asked accurate questions, they wouldn't support you....

Do you not remember that report a month ago, it say large mag over 10 rounds are the cause of mass shootings.

Here I'll remind of the study:
Firearm Purchaser Licensing Laws Linked to Fewer Fatal Mass Shootings

Bans on large-capacity magazines were also associated with fewer fatal mass shootings and fatalities

And that was a crap report....considering that magazines were not a factor in any of the 10 mass public shootings in 2019.......

This is an actual look at mass public shootings and the magazines used........

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals

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

I.

Do bans on large-capacity magazines (LCMs) for semiautomatic firearms have significant potential for reducing the number of deaths and injuries in mass shootings?
========
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.
==========
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

tl;dr

 

[rightwinger]

That asshole Biden is just as big a gun grabber as that Mini Mike shithead.

Nobody that owns a firearm would ever vote for that sonofabitch and there are many gun owners in the US, like well over a 100 million.

Get over it

Biden is going to take your guns

 

[Shawnee_b]

You can? show me. I did it legally, 07ffl class 2 sot,,, show me. You talk but you can't walk the talk. Gonna give me a link to brownells like fuktard DR love did then went into hiding and never came back?

Go ahead, show me how.

 

[Shawnee_b]

That asshole Biden is just as big a gun grabber as that Mini Mike shithead.

Nobody that owns a firearm would ever vote for that sonofabitch and there are many gun owners in the US, like well over a 100 million.

Any vote, for any democrat is a vote to end the 2nd Amendment.....

Id shoot myself if there was no choice but a dem.

 

[Shawnee_b]

The NRA is the leader in promoting gun sales. Why do you think manufacturers give them so much money?

Idiot

 

[Shawnee_b]

It's common practise for the NRA to count lifetime members as current members even after they have died.

Like the DNC?

 

[Shawnee_b]

That asshole Biden is just as big a gun grabber as that Mini Mike shithead.

Nobody that owns a firearm would ever vote for that sonofabitch and there are many gun owners in the US, like well over a 100 million.

Get over it

Biden is going to take your guns

Biden can't remember what a gun is.

 

[Penelope]

Let me know when you find it because I cant.

Isn't there something in there about a well REGULATED militia?

I'm militia and I'm "regular". least once a day I shit out a demtard. Then flush it before it can get a fake BC and run for president

I imagine you are pro life too.

 

[Shawnee_b]

I imagine you are pro life too.

Absolutely. Cept for you, should have been aborted long ago.