You banned the AR15. Now what?

[M14 Shooter]

I just now saw a clip on Newsmax that August saw the record for AR-15s sold in America was over 1 million for the 37th month in a in a row. That's impressive.

I did not see that, but if true, it would not suprise me.

 

[Resnic]

The NSSF estimates the private marked holds around 20,000,000 AR15.
Lets say you Democrats manage to pass your 'assault weapon' ban, and ban the manufacre and sale of same.

1: This does not reduce the number of AR15s in private hands.
2: This does not prevent someone from purchsing or possessing an AR15
3: This does not prevent someone from using an AR15 for some illegal purpose
4: This does not prevent the sale and manufacture of firearms functionally identical to the AR15
And thus
This does nothing to reduce the possibility - and thus, the probability - of someone using an AR15 in a mass shooting
So....
A question for those who support said ban:
What have you accomplished?

The answer is. They banned something once not banned.

Once they ban one popular and common gun it will be easier to ban others. It sets a presidence. Because then they will start with the real stats, like handguns kill way way way more people than ar15s do.

Taking ar15s isn't about getting them off the streets. If they do, it will be when gun grabbing and limits actually starts. They just picked AR-15 as the starting point because it's been used in shootings, it looks intimidating and so they can tack on the name assualt weapon. It's an easy target. Banning them would just be the beginning.

 

[Baron Von Murderpaws]

Your little bit about "corrupt gun companies" says it for you.
But, OK...
Do you support a ban on the AR15, et al?

WHERE do you see where I wrote "corrupt gun companies"????

Hmmmm????

 

[westwall]

Properly cared for, moderns firearms will last for centuries.

Glocks won't. Plastic guns will have a due by time thanks to the UV effects on plastic. But regular metal firearms, yes. I regularly shoot my 1873 Winchester that was made in 1875.

 

[Lesh]

Oddly we had a ten year ban (only ten years) on assault weapons. It was an imperfect ban and yet it still reduced mass shootings

 

[Woodznutz]

Would these be the next weapons of choice for mass shooters?

 

[there4eyeM]

I just now saw a clip on Newsmax that August saw the record for AR-15s sold in America was over 1 million for the 37th month in a in a row. That's impressive.

You mean, "magazine"?

 

[Hossfly]

You mean, "magazine"?

Video clip. 1 million AR 15s sold for the 37th month in a row.

 

[Rogue AI]

America is changing it's battle rifle to a higher caliber, gun enthusiasts and collectors will follow suit. The AR will be old news, and nearly impossible to ban the new civilian models until or if there are high profile crimes committed with them.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

It never ceases to amaze me how little many Conservatives know about tyranny, how it works or how a nation gets there.
Hell, they also believe that simply owning a gun stops tyrants and if push comes to shove, their strategy is to fight the government solo at their doorstep.

Geeeeeeezuz CHRIST !!

It amazes me how little you loons know about history and military strategy. One of the first things tyrants and or a tyrannical government does is disarm the citizenry. Hitler stripped gun rights from Jews and "non-Ayrans" and murdered millions of these disarmed groups. The Soviets and Communist China ended private gun ownership and killed mega-millions. Seems to be a socialist thing disarm certain groups or an entire nation and then start executing people.

As far as military strategy goes history is full of technologically inferior groups fighting against a superior force, Vietnam and Afghanistan come to mind. Perfect examples of asymmetric warfare .

Unless the Fed ends posse comitatus it can not use the US military to enforce gun control so the Government would have to rely on the National Guard and local law enforcement. You loons are stupid as fuck if you believe those groups are going to fire on family, friends and neighbors.

 

[westwall]

Oddly we had a ten year ban (only ten years) on assault weapons. It was an imperfect ban and yet it still reduced mass shootings

PROVABLY it had no effect whatsoever.

 

[JWBooth]

AR is an ok platform, but I prefer shooting the only thing communists ever made that worked reliably.

 

[JWBooth]

Gun banners are the best firearms salesmen in history.

 

[Hossfly]

Glocks won't. Plastic guns will have a due by time thanks to the UV effects on plastic. But regular metal firearms, yes. I regularly shoot my 1873 Winchester that was made in 1875.

I have a U.S Army 1884 Springfield 45-70 my father bought in 1926 for fifty cents. He shot his first legal buck with it the day I was born. I got my first buck on my 11th birthday in 1950. My son was 9 years old in 1969 when he had his first chance at a buck. He got buck fever and pulled the trigger too soon. He got a buck though 3 days later. That old rifle brought home a lot of meat over the years.

 

[westwall]

I have a U.S Army 1884 Springfield 45-70 my father bought in 1926 for fifty cents. He shot his first legal buck with it the day I was born. I got my first buck on my 11th birthday in 1950. My son was 9 years old in 1969 when he had his first chance at a buck. He got buck fever and pulled the trigger too soon. He got a buck though 3 days later. That old rifle brought home a lot of meat over the years.

Very cool! I don't have a trapdoor rifle, but I do have an 1879 Trapdoor carbine. Never hunted with it, but I do like shooting it!

 

[2aguy]

Oddly we had a ten year ban (only ten years) on assault weapons. It was an imperfect ban and yet it still reduced mass shootings

No, it didn't, that is a lie....there is no research that shows this.........you are spreading a lie, just like a typical, anti-gun fanatic....

A plethora of research was conducted on the ban's effectiveness and "consistently found no statistically significant impact on mass public shootings or any other type of crime," according to a 2018 analysis by the Crime Prevention Research Center. The findings hold true for research funded by the Clinton administration, per think tank Urban Institute's conclusions in a 1997 final report for the National Institute of Justice: "The evidence is not strong enough for us to conclude that there was any meaningful effect (i.e., that the effect was different from zero)." The same criminologists published a follow-up NIJ study in 2004 where the researchers found: "We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation's recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence." The assessment added, "Should it be renewed, the ban's effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement," mentioning that "[assault weapons] were rarely used in gun crimes even before the ban."

The first congressionally mandated study also mentioned that the banned guns "were never used in more than a modest fraction of all gun murders" beforehand while the subsequent 2004 report found that "assault weapons" and large-capacity magazines were "used in only a minority of gun crimes prior to the 1994 federal ban."

Even the left-leaning ProPublica fact-checked Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) for claiming in a 2014 press release honoring the ban's 20th anniversary that "the ban worked." The non-profit's fact-check cited Duke University public policy experts on gun violence who concluded, "There is no compelling evidence that it saved lives."
-----

As for Biden continuing to maintain that the ban reduced mass shooting deaths, 2019 research led by New York University epidemiologist Charles DiMaggio raises eyebrows. DiMaggio focused on shootings that killed at least four victims—the parameters used by the FBI—and employed a trio of open-source databases on mass shootings maintained by Mother Jones, the Los Angeles Times, and researchers at Stanford University.

The study examined not the number of mass shootings, as Biden underscores, but the number of mass shooting deaths as a share of all firearm homicides. The difference in total fatalities during the period when the ban was in effect amounted to 15 fewer deaths over a decade, a 1.5-per-year average, including mass shootings that did not involve weapons covered by the ban. Aside from the fact that the comparison was made between a pre-ban period that was two years longer than the ban period, "[t]he drop of 15 mass shooting deaths from before the ban to during it is a slender difference on which to base firm conclusions," even PolitiFact observed.

DiMaggio's comparative study found that "no observational epidemiologic study can answer the question whether the 1994 US federal assault ban was causally related to preventing mass-shooting homicides." DiMaggio also told PolitiFact it's not definitive that the rate of mass shooting deaths per 100,000 Americans fell during the ban's timeline.

Did the Previous Federal 'Assault Weapons' Ban Actually Work?

Biden claimed that "mass shootings were down" during the 10-year federal ban on "assault weapons."

townhall.com

 

[M14 Shooter]

WHERE do you see where I wrote "corrupt gun companies"????

Who makes firesrms?
Gun companies.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Oddly we had a ten year ban (only ten years) on assault weapons. It was an imperfect ban and yet it still reduced mass shootings

The fact you completely avoided the issue aside...

This is a lie. as the 1994 ban did not reduce the number of firearms on the market, and did not prevent the sale of identical firearms.
Thus, the 1994 could not have had an effect on mass shootings.
Go ahead. Lie some more.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Glocks won't. Plastic guns will have a due by time thanks to the UV effects on plastic.

Don't store them outside

 

[westwall]

Don't store them outside

Just normal useage kills them.

It will be the very rare Glock that makes it to 100 years old.