Biden wants to ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines

[Noodlegawd]

Because the nuances about the definition are around the edges.

No they're not. The nuances about the definition in every single assault weapons law that has been proposed or enacted make the bans meaningless.

 

[DCCougar]

You deliberately edited my post in your response, to remove the example of deliberate murder I provided. Not very slick.

Oh right. The part of your post that I edited out was this:

RF66...: Sometimes their mothers load them in the car and drive off the boat ramp. Can we blame the car for that, or was it the fault of the lake?

That single instance involved one mother loading her own two children in her car and driving into a lake, drowning them. And that's how you claim cars are comparable to guns in their dangerous use against school children? You must not realize that there have been 386 school shootings (with guns, not cars) since Columbine. And then you callously ask:

Do only deliberate murders matter?

They sure as **** do to the parents of the school children killed in those 386 school shootings.

 

[NolanVoyd]

No they're not. The nuances about the definition in every single assault weapons law that has been proposed or enacted make the bans meaningless.

They aren't meaningless at all.

 

[RF667799]

Oh right. The part of your post that I edited out was this:

That single instance involved one mother loading her own two children in her car and driving into a lake, drowning them. And that's how you claim cars are comparable to guns in their dangerous use against school children? You must not realize that there have been 386 school shootings (with guns, not cars) since Columbine. And then you callously ask:

They sure as **** do to the parents of the school children killed in those 386 school shootings.

And now you deliberately edited out the question concluding my previous post.

The accidental deaths involving cars are comparable to the deliberate deaths using guns. These accidental deaths could be virtually eliminated, but it would be an inconvenience to the driving public. That's the real reason you hate the comparison. Too inconvenient to do much about them.

 

[Noodlegawd]

They aren't meaningless at all.

All the ones that distinguish them from other firearms that are NOT assault weapons are.

 

[NolanVoyd]

All the ones that distinguish them from other firearms that are NOT assault weapons are.

What in the world are you talking about.

 

[Noodlegawd]

What in the world are you talking about.

I'm talking about how "assault weapons are defined in pretty much every assault weapons ban that has been proposed or enacted in this country. Are you not familiar with it?

 

[NolanVoyd]

I'm talking about how "assault weapons are defined in pretty much every assault weapons ban that has been proposed or enacted in this country. Are you not familiar with it?

Yes, I am.

For example.

The Act prohibited the manufacture, transfer, or possession of "semiautomatic assault weapons," as defined by the Act. "Weapons banned were identified either by specific make or model (including copies or duplicates thereof, in any caliber), or by specific characteristics that slightly varied according to whether the weapon was a pistol, rifle, or shotgun" (see below).[17] The Act also prohibited the manufacture of "large capacity ammunition feeding devices" (LCAFDs) except for sale to government, law enforcement or military, though magazines made before the effective date ("pre-ban" magazines) were legal to possess & transfer. An LCAFD was defined as "any magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device manufactured after the date [of the act] that has the capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition."[17]

I don't get what the problem is.

 

[Noodlegawd]

Yes, I am.

For example.

The Act prohibited the manufacture, transfer, or possession of "semiautomatic assault weapons," as defined by the Act. "Weapons banned were identified either by specific make or model (including copies or duplicates thereof, in any caliber), or by specific characteristics that slightly varied according to whether the weapon was a pistol, rifle, or shotgun" (see below).[17] The Act also prohibited the manufacture of "large capacity ammunition feeding devices" (LCAFDs) except for sale to government, law enforcement or military, though magazines made before the effective date ("pre-ban" magazines) were legal to possess & transfer. An LCAFD was defined as "any magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device manufactured after the date [of the act] that has the capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition."[17]

I don't get what the problem is.

Of course you don't.

 

[NolanVoyd]

Of course you don't.

So what I'd the problem?

 

[Rich2018]

Right. It wasn't clever.

See?

We're in agreement.

I never said the word "clever", you did.

 

[RF667799]

I never said the word "clever", you did.

Yes, I said it wasn't clever. And now you've agreed.

 

[Rich2018]

Yes, I said it wasn't clever. And now you've agreed.

No, you just admitted that you first mentioned the word

QED.

 

[DCCougar]

Why does it matter if it's intentional?

Because you and what's-his-name are trying to compare apples to oranges. People with assault weapons intentionally kill school children... and concert goers, and gays in nightclubs, and Jews in a synagogue, etc., etc. And you're claiming this is just like people dying in auto accidents, so if we want to ban assault weapons, we should also ban cars? That's some kind of bullshit argument, and if you don't know it, I don't know what's wrong with you.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

I've always understood that flash suppressors protect the night vision of the person firing the gun.

They are what they are called, so it suppresses the flash. This protects the night vision of the shooter, but the flash is also what gives away the position of the shooter as it can be seen from quite a bit away. So suppressing it works both ways.

 

[RF667799]

No, you just admitted that you first mentioned the word

QED.

Yes, I would have when I was noting your post wasn't clever. Mentioning the word, is how that was communicated.

Then you came along and agreed.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

which is meaningless. the constitution precludes you from doing so.

What makes you think that? Bump stocks are already illegal. Places like NYC limit bullets in magazines to seven rounds, no matter the capacity of the magazine they are in you can only carry seven. These laws were upheld.

it's already been done. See Heller and Bruen.

Not on these matters [assault weapons ban, etc].

Polling is meaningless. It can't be done. The constitution does not permit it.

We had an assault weapons ban from 1994 to 2004. It expired and wasn't renewed. It wasn't Constitutionally cast down by the courts. It just expired. So you are wrong on all of this.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

no new ban is possible, unless you can amend the constitution. SCOTUS has already told you this.

As stated above, already had one from 1994 to 2004 that wasn't overturned by courts, it simply expired when the law was not renewed.

 

[RF667799]

They are what they are called, so it suppresses the flash. This protects the night vision of the shooter, but the flash is also what gives away the position of the shooter as it can be seen from quite a bit away. So suppressing it works both ways.

It can be seen even with a flash suppressor. Some designs might slightly hide the flash from the POV of downrange, but others not at all. The use of a tracer mix at night would be counterproductive to that anyway.

 

[Noodlegawd]

Because you and what's-his-name are trying to compare apples to oranges. People with assault weapons intentionally kill school children... and concert goers, and gays in nightclubs, and Jews in a synagogue, etc., etc.

You're dodging question. You still haven't explained why it matters whether a death is intentional, rather than unintentional.

If your loved one gets burned alive in a car wreck caused by a drunk or reckless driver, are you less sad than if she gets shot by a lunatic with an AR?

And you're claiming this is just like people dying in auto accidents, so if we want to ban assault weapons, we should also ban cars? That's some kind of bullshit argument, and if you don't know it, I don't know what's wrong with you.

No, it's called a strawman argument, not a "bullshit argument," and you're the one making it. You don't know a whole lot of anything if you honestly (yeah right) think that's my argument.

If we can save a handful of lives by making it a felony to have an AR15 (not really, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt), we can save thousands by making speeding and drunk driving a felony, or by simply banning cars that are capable of exceeding the speed limit. Oddly, the people who claim to care so much about saving innocent lives wouldn't go anywhere near any of that, even while vilifying others for opposing stricter laws that supposedly will save lives.

You either care about saving lives, or you don't. My guess is that you only care about it if you can accomplish it by making OTHER people give stuff up.

 

[CLAX1911]

Whilst I actually support the concept of restricting ownership of 'assault guns' to genuine need, and restricting high capacity magazines in the same way, the use of the term "assault weapon" is a political opt out and a bit cowardly. What they should say is semi automatic center fire rifles with a caliber greater than .22 (or whatever caliber is chosen to avoid gun companies instantly launching new high power small caliber models to evade the law). If you have a genuine, provable need for a 'powerful' semi auto you can own one, but it comes with additional requirements on you to keep it secure from theft. If you are buying one to be your new favorite love toy that you leave lying around waiting to be stolen, then sorry, that's the cost of saving lives. Using the term "assault weapon" etc just leaves the whole concept of what they are trying to achieve far too open for argument, bit of course is easier to 'market' to the public.

None of that unfortunately addresses the fact that handguns are by far the most deadly problem because they can be carried and concealed so easily. If anyone wants to truly start saving lives is large volumes, that's the place to go, but that isn't politically possible without a lot of stars aligning.

There is no such thing as assault guns or high capacity magazines. These are propaganda terms

 

[holbritter]

One look like a generic AR style. The other is a Ruger Mini-14.

Here you go:
Ruger AR-556 chambered in 5.56x45

Ruger® AR-556® Standard Autoloading Rifle Model 8500

ruger.com

Ruger Mini-14 chambered in 5.56x45

Ruger® Mini-14® Ranch Rifle Autoloading Rifle Model 5801

ruger.com

Thanks. I stand corrected and learned something new.

 

[SiNNiK]

I'm against banning them.

But if you oppose taking any additional steps to control firearms at this point I really don't get it. They should at the very least have a similar process to getting a driver's license.

No.

 

[SiNNiK]

Wouldn't the Mini-14, like the AR-15, is a 'tactical rifle". Wouldn't that qualify as an "assault rifle" under any new ban? They wouldn't be using the standard definition of selective fire, you know.

I didn't say they couldn't. I said it was much easier as the proper rails and attachment points on the AR-15 make it easier to modify them. Certainly they are easier with some models, with the knowing of how [but that knowledge is rather easy to find] to modify them to full auto fire.

As to the more unseen I was referencing flash suppressors.

lol@selective fire

smh....

 

[poppopfox]

Wow, complaining about a red herring (not actually a red herring), in a comment jam-packed with straw men.

Go back and read again the list you offered. Perhaps you are just blind to your own fallacious arguments.

How's it a red herring to provide evidence that you don't need an AR to kill lots of people

Because that was not the topic of conversation, that was a diversion to "But, but bombs, etc... ."

And what do your charts demonstrate, other than the fact that school shootings have increased, dramatically over the last 50 years,

The dramatic increase began in 2018, not 1973. Go back and look at it again.

even as our gun laws have generally gotten stricter?

Where do you get your info, the NRA? Gun laws have generally gotten less restrictive and the current increase in death tolls shows the results. Fact Sheet: Weak Gun Laws Are Driving Increases in Violent Crime

Homicide rates are higher in states with weaker gun laws​

Missouri’s repeal of its handgun law led to an increase in gun homicide rates​

Iowa has seen a dramatic increase in gun violence after weakening its state gun laws​

Mississippi has the weakest gun laws and the highest firearm death rate in the country​

Mass shootings are increasing faster in states with weak gun laws​

Police officers are more likely to be fatally shot in states with weaker gun laws​

States that strengthen gun laws see reductions in violent crime​