Dick's anti gun policies hard on investors

[poppopfox]

It's a base position.

It's a question that you have still not answered and I even provided a link that presented the

Those forces are used to protect the State - according to SCOTUS in US v Morrison and Castle Rock v Gonzales, the government doesn't have to protect the people.

Show me in the actual decision where it directly states the bolded above, and forgive me for not taking your word for it.

The authors of the Constitution didn't believe this. This position would preclude the legal use of force in self defense.

Wrong. "Weapons can be private property, but a government, by its very nature, has a legal monopoly on the use of force among its citizens." The author of that quote has a PhD in history from Stanford, so forgive me again for not accepting your opinion on the matter.

Since the government doesn't have a legal monopoly on the use of force in the US, you can't use that position to support the sentence above.

Your premise remains unproven.

They aren't considered to be "granted" at all under US jurisprudence.
Elaborate, please. Which rights due you consider "civil rights" and which rights do you consider "inalienable rights"? In what way would one take precedent over the other?

Read the link and answer the question for yourself.

 

[poppopfox]

As mentioned, force can be also used at the state and local level. With the use of the National guard and police force.

Agreed.

And a Supreme Court case in which they ruled the police do not have a Constitutional obligation to protect you. The very reason why we do need a 2A.

The bolded did not appear in the decision. Don't buy into another posters claims without checking it out first, unless you are already committed to one side or the other.

You also mention "Moral" several times. If we were to add a moral aspect to the Constitution, things like "Abortion" wouldn't be allowed. Be careful what you wish for...

Can you furnish us with any quotes from the founding fathers re: their views on abortion?
It was just as common a practice back then as it is today.

Abortion in Early America

 

[poppopfox]

My right to own firearms has zero impact on "rights" of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

Some folks version of liberty includes owning machine guns. Do you support that right to liberty?
Some folks version of pursuit of happiness includes taking heroin. Why does the government infringe that right?

What if my pursuit of happiness includes building, owning and firing AR-15s? Whose rights are infringed if I exercise this one?

Should a civil right take precedent over an inalienable right was the question.

 

[poppopfox]

They don't have a monopoly on force. As noted by local PD and the National Guard. Even restrictions on how the government can use force. Such as using the U.S. military within the United States.

You might be too narrowly interpreting what "government" means to the author of the article posted. Local PDs and National Guard also belong to the category of government.

 

[Rucker61]

Should a civil right take precedent over an inalienable right was the question.

Are you claiming that the "right" to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness takes precedent over the right to keep and bear arms?

Likewise, to have precedence over the rights protected by Amendments 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 ,7 and 8?

 

[Linuxcooldude]

The bolded did not appear in the decision. Don't buy into another posters claims without checking it out first, unless you are already committed to one side or the other.

I don't rely on just word of mouth, but find things out for myself. Which apparently in this case, you didn't do either.

Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone (Published 2005)

Supreme Court rules that police do not have constitutional duty to protect person from harm, even woman who obtained court-issued protective order against violent husband which made arrest mandatory for violation; decision overturns ruling by federal appeals court in Colorado; it had permitted...

www.nytimes.com

 

[MAGAnificent]

This is what cost them so many customers

Stack joined gun-reform group Everytown for Gun Safety, as part of its council of business leaders, and urged Congress to act on guncontrol.

I recall enjoying a local Competitor to Dick's putting out an ad that said: "We will continue to offer firearms and ammo, because we are not Dicks."

 

[Rucker61]

It's a question that you have still not answered and I even provided a link that presented the

One missive isn't evidence.

Show me in the actual decision where it directly states the bolded above, and forgive me for not taking your word for it.

See Post #956.

Wrong. "Weapons can be private property, but a government, by its very nature, has a legal monopoly on the use of force among its citizens." The author of that quote has a PhD in history from Stanford, so forgive me again for not accepting your opinion on the matter.

"Appeal to authority" remains a fallacy, and in this case you exacerbate the fallacy by appealing to a rather poor authority. The author of that quote has published that single screed on civil vs natural rights; he doesn't appear to have much background, training or interest in the subject otherwise. Two EE degrees, an MBA and a Ph.D. in history that seems to have been focused in philosophical induction vs deduction. He doesn't actually have a chair in any academic department. Another quote from your author: "The main theme of my academic research is that the philosophical problem of induction is an artifact of a bad turn taken in the early nineteenth century, by which induction came to be conceived as a logic of propositional inference that depends on a suppressed uniformity principle. "

About me • John P. McCaskey

After spending twenty years in the computer business, I went back to school and got a PhD in history. I research the history of philosophy—mostly of science but also of politics and ethics.

www.johnmccaskey.com

Your premise remains unproven.

From DC v Heller: "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

If government held a monopoly on violence, the court could have not ruled this way.

Read the link and answer the question for yourself.

Civil rights as protected in the Bill of Rights take precedence of natural rights as defined by "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

Here's another article by a professor of philosophy who has ethics of gun control included in his specialties with a different viewpoint on "civil rights, natural rights and guns".

Natural Rights, Self-Defense, and the Right to Own Firearms

We have a moral right to own guns.

www.thepublicdiscourse.com

http://timhsiao.org/CV-2021.pdf

Publications | Tim Hsiao

 

[Rich2018]

Should a civil right take precedent over an inalienable right was the question.

You mean natural rights, like the right to life ?

 

[Rucker61]

You mean natural rights, like the right to life ?

@poppopfox, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe he's sorted rights into those to categories for the purposes of this discussion, with the rights protected by the Bill of Rights defined under "civil rights" and specifically the rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" as "inalienable rights".

 

[Rich2018]

@poppopfox, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe he's sorted rights into those to categories for the purposes of this discussion, with the rights protected by the Bill of Rights defined under "civil rights" and specifically the rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" as "inalienable rights".

The right to life + plus the right to self defense are natural/human rights

Civil rights are not just found in the BoR.

 

[Rucker61]

The right to life + plus the right to self defense are natural/human rights

Civil rights are not just found in the BoR.

This is a specific framework for a specific discussion. You're welcome to participate or not, or wait for @poppopfox to answer your question.

 

[Rich2018]

This is a specific framework for a specific discussion. You're welcome to participate or not, or wait for @poppopfox to answer your question.

OK

Until then, let's just call them natural or human rights.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

You mean natural rights, like the right to life ?

Rights to life doesn't have anything to do with the weapon or method used.

 

[Rich2018]

Rights to life doesn't have anything to do with the weapon or method used.

No, but guns are the #1 method of homicide, so let's start there.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

All gun laws intend to reduce crime/save lives,

I seriously doubt that.

If that was the goal, they would try to craft laws that actually tried to work towards such a goal.

whether they succeed in doing that is irrelevant.

It's relevant to the Second Amendment, because gun regulations do not fulfil a compelling government interest if they do not save lives or reduce crime.

And your evidence to support this ?

My evidence is the fact that having a pistol grip on a semi-auto long gun does not make it any deadlier in any way whatsoever.

Yes it does, as shown by the number of laws the SC have struck down by citing it.

That is incorrect. The Supreme Court has struck down zero laws that reduce crime or save lives while citing the Second Amendment.

You even admitted as much when you said you could not name any case of such a law being struck down.

The term you meant is "selective fire" and includes semi-automatic

No. I meant exactly what I said.

Burst fire is not an option on an AK-47

Full auto is an option on the AK-47.

Sub machine guns have a detachable magazine and some are accurate up to 300m

No submachine gun is effective at 300m.

A M-16 has a greater range than 300m, so is that not an "assault weapon" ?

A full-auto or burst-fire M-16 is indeed an assault weapon.

And since you could hunt deer with a .223 rifle, you definition falls flat again

My definition is fine.

.223 is not sufficient for deer hunting.

What is your definition of a deer rifle round ?

One that is sufficient for hunting deer.

Can you even define the difference between a pistol and a rifle bullet ?

Probably.

If nothing else, the powder burns faster than it does in rifle ammo.

By your definition perhaps

I provided the true definition.

But the assault weapons ban had a different one and included the AR-15 (which is semi-automatic only)

I've already agreed that the 1994 law concocted a fraudulent definition.

You're getting confused with "assault rifles" and "assault weapons"

No confusion. The terms are interchangeable. Both refer to weapons that were all but banned way back in 1934.

Would one crime or one life be enough for you

I doubt it. But that doesn't really matter when it comes to gun control that saves zero lives.

If not, then what ?

No idea. More than zero lives saved certainly though.

It is not proof of that at all

That is incorrect. The fact that gun availability has little impact on homicide rates is proof that just as many people would be killed, just with different weapons, if there were no guns.

Guns are the #1 method of homicide

So what? The victims would be just as dead if they were killed some other way.

They are also by far the most effective (in suicides too)

I think nuclear weapons would be more effective.

Mass murders without guns are extremely rare

So what? If we removed guns and forced mass murderers to use different methods, then mass murders without guns would be less rare.

The numbers of mass shootings is rising

That's because the number of mass murders is increasing.

The victims would be just as dead if they were killed with knives or bombs.

In high crime areas (typically urban areas of low income) studies show that more guns ***DO*** equal more homicides.

It is the opposite. Statistics are quite clear that gun availability has little impact on homicide rates.

The government has a duty of general welfare. So reducing shootings, particularly mass shootings is in the governments interest.

Maybe, but that's nothing to do with gun control laws that do absolutely nothing to reduce shootings.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

If the barrel is in line with the butt, accuracy is improved - because in an old style rifle like the M1 Garand, the recoil force is first backwards, then down, causing the foresight to jerk upwards
This is far less of a problem if the recoil force is just directed backwards (but then you need a pistol grip)

That only improves accuracy when the gun is fired full-auto or burst-fire. It hinders accuracy when the gun is fired semi-auto.

A rifle with a straight line configuration (hence needing a pistol grip) is inherently more accurate that one that is not
All other things being equal that is, like the round fired, build quality, sights etc.

Even if that was true, it would not make a weapon unusually dangerous.

But note that that is NOT true.

A semi-auto rifle with a straight line configuration is inherently LESS accurate than a semi-auto rifle where the barrel is higher up and closer to the line of sight provided by the gun's scope or sights.

No, but guns are the #1 method of homicide, so let's start there.

So what? The victims would be just as dead if they were killed some other way.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

No, but guns are the #1 method of homicide, so let's start there.

That's not how it works. First off, they see if its justifiable homicide. Homicide is homicide. They don't go by the weapon used.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

No, it makes no sense to ban the AR-15, but not the M-16

But that's not what I said. I was referring to your proposal to restrict some guns that are no deadlier than other guns that you would still allow.

An M-16 is much deadlier than an AR-15 due to its burst-fire or full-auto capability.

Some gun types are dangerous, like hand guns, so we need to ban them all.

It is just the opposite. Banning handguns would result in criminals using sawed off shotguns, which are much deadlier than handguns.

It wouldn't be the first time gun control has managed to put deadlier guns in criminal hands. The 1994 ban on large magazines resulted in criminals using 9MMs instead of little 25s and 32s.

The gun control people wanted to follow that up by putting .45s in criminal hands, but the NRA stomped all over them.

You can't ban every hand gun but allow free access to a hitherto obscure Chinese made 9mm semi-auto just because almost no-one has one
That is both illogical and makes no sense.

OK. But I never proposed doing anything like that.

Mass shootings in the USA are not rare,

Maybe not compared to other nations, but I'd still not consider them to be common.

neither is a majority of them premeditated.

Is there any evidence for this?

I'm not sure how it would matter even if it is true though.

QED
Precisely why your earlier assertion that:
Makes ***NO*** sense.

It makes perfect sense. There is no compelling government interest in restricting a gun that is no deadlier than other guns that you still allow.

Yes it will, by restricting supply rather than demand.

Restricting supply of guns does not restrict supply of bombs and knives.

Gun control measures vary throughout the world, yet only in the USA is there a comparative lack of control, or such a high level of shootings.

There are high levels of shootings (and high levels of other methods of killing too) in some other countries.

Except the lack of evidence...mass murders are very rare without guns. Mass murders in the USA are anything but rare. Even rarer if you exclude terrorism.

Facts backed by evidence are nice, but facts are not everything. Logic is another good way to support an argument.

Count them.

Seems to be a 1 to 1 ratio. When someone decides to go commit a massacre, they go commit a massacre.

Because of a lack of access to guns, not because American are more pathological.

Except some of these countries have widespread access to guns.

Yes it does
They are not allowed, EXCEPT is designated practice areas. Do read.

That is incorrect. You are quoting restrictions for the use of firearms.

Restrictions for firearms do not restrict the use of swords and longbows.

Also, the exceptions for firearms include defense of the home in addition to designated practice areas.

LMAO
And why would they do that - are the rest of the world stupid or doesn't democracy work anywhere else ?

You'd have to ask them why they reject freedom.

Sorry but that's a stupid thing to say

I do not agree that telling the truth is stupid.

Cut out the "Little American"

I'm not sure what that means, but I do not intend to stop telling the truth.

Then how do you explain soldiers joining the army in their teens, like the example I cited ?

They were only able to do so because they had been practicing the bow from childhood.

True but irrelevant

The fact that someone had to have years of practice to wield the English longbow is not irrelevant.

It meant that the King needed the people to train in archery from childhood if he wanted to ever have new recruits.

Many archers served in an army for decades...as I said the period was marked with virtually continuous warfare.

And how did the King find new archers when his current archers died?

 

[Toggle Almendro]

How "glad" do you feel the victims of the hundreds of mass shootings, the USA experiences every year feel ? (those surviving that is)
Plus the friends, relatives of those who don't.

If they are rational, they will understand that America's freedom has not caused the death of their loved ones.

All in Westernized democracies do,.

That is not my experience. Most people that I talk to from other westernized democracies claim to be happy that they lack freedom.

Like I said before though, they do seem quite bitter at the US for being free, so they may not be telling me the truth.

LOL
But you've NEVER been there have you. Much less lived overseas ?
That's like basing your wisdom on what you see on Fox News or hear in church
You are so sheltered and parochial.

Don't be silly. You don't have to visit a country to learn what its laws are.

Serf don't exist anymore.

Whatever they are, they certainly aren't free.

"Widespread" compared to what ?

I don't know. I've never compared them to anything.

What is your criteria for "widespread" ?

These countries count as having widespread gun ownership:

Finland
Households with guns: 37.9%
Guns per 100 people: 32.4
Homicide rate: 1.42

Bosnia and Herzegovina
Households with guns: 34%
Guns per 100 people: 31.2
Homicide rate: 1.56

Switzerland
Households with guns: 28.6%
Guns per 100 people: 27.6
Homicide rate: 0.54

Norway
Households with guns: 26.1%
Guns per 100 people: 28.8
Homicide rate: 0.52

Iceland
Households with guns: 23.5%
Guns per 100 people: 31.7
Homicide rate: 0.30

Do you consider the USA to have "widespread" gun ownership.

Yes.

As are the British,

That is incorrect. The British are no longer free.

You should go there one day and speak to people you meet and then gauge how "enslaved" they are - until then you'll continue to sound foolish.

I do not agree that telling the truth sounds foolish.

Perhaps but GREATLY reduced in number.

That is incorrect. Exactly the same number.

WOW
I didn't know you were so educated - LOL

You didn't realize that you could read about things on the internet and learn about them??

I must admit, I didn't know you were THAT well educated, let me guess, you read about constitutional law...on the INTERNET
I can't tell if you've lost all grasp on seriousness at this point.

Appeals to authority are logical fallacies.

Another BS claim.

All of my claims are true.

Nope, they didn't

Yes they did. At least if they ever read the Constitution they did.

And if they hadn't ever read the Constitution, then they had no business forming conclusions about it.

You can't cite any source that supports that.

Yes I can.

US Constitution:
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription

Note: The following text is a transcription of the Constitution as it was inscribed by Jacob Shallus on parchment (the document on display in the Rotunda at the National Archives Museum). The spelling and punctuation reflect the original.

www.archives.gov

No, what you've read off the INTERNET
And the opinions you've made from it

No. I base my arguments on facts and logic. That's why my arguments succeed.

Try doing some real study and some real travel
Stop being a "Little American".

I still don't know what that means, but it still sounds like an appeal for me to stop telling the truth.

Sorry, but I will continue to tell the truth.

I think Dicks should be not only applauded for putting ethics before profit, but officially recognized by the government and rewarded with a tax break to give san incentive for other retailers to follow suit.

There is nothing ethical about Dick's call to violate people's civil liberties for no reason.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

They oppose any gun restrictions, let's be honest here.

That is incorrect. The NRA is the group that compromises and accepts some gun control.

The GOA is the group that opposes all gun control no matter what.

The definition is whatever is codified in the statute.

That is incorrect. The statute concocted a fraudulent definition.

Gun control advocates wanted to reduce carnage in the streets, traumatic deaths and horrific injuries that affect the lives of too many innocents.

Not likely.

If that was their goal, they would not have pushed so hard for laws that have no such effects.

Claim otherwise all you want. Their approach was worth a try.

I do not share the opinion that violating people's civil liberties for no reason was a worthwhile endeavor.

What has the NRA attempted to do to reduce the violence caused by the 'arms' industry they are in bed with and whose donations they gladly accept.

The arms industry does not cause any violence.

Seriously, what have they attempted and did it work?

The NRA helped to craft the federal background check system.

NRA doesn't like that do they?

The NRA never likes it when people's civil liberties are violated.

Read this of an arms merchant with no respect for human life.

The Case Against The TEC-9
In 1982, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms ruled that the KG-9 was an illegal machine gun, due to the ease with which it could be converted to fully automatic fire.

The company redesigned the KG-9's bolt to make conversion more difficult, and renamed the weapon the KG-99. Intratec confirmed that like its predecessor, the KG-99 could be fairly described as "combining the high capacity and controlled firepower of the military submachinegun with the legal status and light weight of a handgun."

Intratec renamed the KG-99 the TEC in August 1985. Intratec advertised the TEC-9 as a "High-spirited" weapon that is "as tough as your toughest customer." The company’s brochure emphasized the weapon’s "paramilitary" appeal, its "Military blowback design," and its "Combat-type" sights. The brochure depicted a smoking target of a human being shot dozens of times through the head and the heart in what appears to be a fusillade of automatic weapons fire.

Read the rest (and there's quite a bit more) if your willing to open your mind for a spell.

That article is factually inaccurate. Except for its poor aim, poor reliability, and excessive size and weight, the TEC-9 is functionally no different from an ordinary semi-auto handgun.

How many could he have killed with a knife?

20 or so.

His best bet would have been bombs, or running a large truck through the crowd at high speed.

The NRA supports an industry that provides the tools for a single individual to take away the "right to life" of many individuals. Which "right" is more important to you?

There is no conflict between the two rights.

If anything, the right to keep and bear arms supports the right to life.

Having the means to defend yourself can save your life.

Did you read the dissenting opinions in those cases? Are you claiming those arguments hold no merit because the decision was not in their favor?

The dissenting arguments hold no merit because they directly contradict the Constitution.

Are arms different from guns?

Guns are one type of arm.

Swords and axes are also arms. As are bazookas and grenade launchers.

More guns, more arms, more weapons, more violence.

Statistics show that that is not true.

Should a civil right take precedent over an inalienable right was the question.

Rights seldom conflict with each other.

 

[Rich2018]

I seriously doubt that.

If that was the goal, they would try to craft laws that actually tried to work towards such a goal.

All gun laws and proposed gun laws have the aim of saving lives (and reducing crime by reducing shootings - which admittedly is but a small portion of overall crime).

It's relevant to the Second Amendment, because gun regulations do not fulfil a compelling government interest if they do not save lives or reduce crime.

They do (see above).

My evidence is the fact that having a pistol grip on a semi-auto long gun does not make it any deadlier in any way whatsoever.

Not par se, no
But it is a feature of many semi/fully automatic rifles that require them due to their configuration which affords more accurate fire, especially rapid fire (and therefore increasing their lethality)
Fundamentally though it was an unsatisfactory attempt the define a type of weapon (assault weapons) in order to ban it

It's why I think all guns should be banned and then exemptions made by citing specific make/model numbers.

That is incorrect. The Supreme Court has struck down zero laws that reduce crime or save lives while citing the Second Amendment.

Wrong, it has struck down multiple laws that were designed to save lives and/or reduce crime.

You even admitted as much when you said you could not name any case of such a law being struck down.

Nope, that I can't name any specific laws without doing so basic research, in no way means you are correct by default.

I meant exactly what I said.

Possibly, but the correct term is "selective fire" and includes semi-automatic fire.

Full auto is an option on the AK-47.

Since 1986, in the United States, the sale and/or importation of full-auto firearms for civilians has been banned. Any new and most used Kalashnikov-pattern rifles and pistols, as well as all other firearms, are and legally must be semi-auto.

My definition is fine.

Fine for you maybe, but your range criteria is flawed
Early assault rifles were maybe accurate only up to 300m, but more modern assault rifles are accurate out to much longer distances.

.223 is not sufficient for deer hunting.

If you can hunt deer with a pistol or bow & arrow, you can with a .223"

No confusion. The terms are interchangeable. Both refer to weapons that were all but banned way back in 1934.

Assault rifles didn't exist in 1934.

I doubt it. But that doesn't really matter when it comes to gun control that saves zero lives.

You're confusing intent and effect - the intent of every gun control law was/is to save lives

You have no evidence that any lawmaker ever drafted a gun control law that didn't have this intent.

That is incorrect. The fact that gun availability has little impact on homicide rates is proof that just as many people would be killed, just with different weapons, if there were no guns.

Wrong
Guns are the #1 method of homicides, and they're the most effective by far (same with suicides Btw)
QED: Less guns = less gun crime = less homicides (plus less suicides).

So what? The victims would be just as dead if they were killed some other way.

If they were killed yes
But not as many would be killed, because not as many homicide attempts would occur, and of those that did, more people would survive

Same with suicides.

 

[Rich2018]

I think nuclear weapons would be more effective.

Don't be obtuse
Are you aware of any suicide attempts by nuclear weapon ? I didn't think so, so the success rate is 0, isn't it ?

So what? If we removed guns and forced mass murderers to use different methods, then mass murders without guns would be less rare.

Perhaps very marginally
As proven by the scarcity of mass murders without a gun, in countries where guns are banned/restricted

As as opposed to the HUNDREDS of mass shootings in the USA per year - the EU has more people but only a fraction of this.

That's because the number of mass murders is increasing.

And the overwhelming method ?
Guns.

The victims would be just as dead if they were killed with knives or bombs.

Except they wouldn't be subject of an attack in the first place, and of those who were, many more would survive.

It is the opposite. Statistics are quite clear that gun availability has little impact on homicide rates.

No they don't.

Maybe, but that's nothing to do with gun control laws that do absolutely nothing to reduce shootings.

Controlling guns/reducing shootings has EVERYTHING to do with general welfare.

If they are rational, they will understand that America's freedom has not caused the death of their loved ones.

Freedom never killed anybody, people with guns do.

That is not my experience. Most people that I talk to from other westernized democracies claim to be happy that they lack freedom.

People like who (names please) ?
You were saying something above that the inability to name stuff, proves its not there.

Like I said before though, they do seem quite bitter at the US for being free, so they may not be telling me the truth.

Stop lying.

Don't be silly. You don't have to visit a country to learn what its laws are.

But you do to gauge attitudes...of course not if you're willing to lie about having spoken to people from there.

Whatever they are, they certainly aren't free.

They think they are.

That is incorrect. The British are no longer free.

They think they are - can you name any Brits who say they're not ?

You didn't realize that you could read about things on the internet and learn about them?

Your attitudes are proof that you do not, certainly concerning freedom.

All of my claims are true.

In your opinion perhaps, formed as it was from the internet.

There is nothing ethical about Dick's call to violate people's civil liberties for no reason.

Except Dicks has not violated anyone's liberties.

 

[RF667799]

Ex

All gun laws and proposed gun laws have the aim of saving lives (and reducing crime by reducing shootings - which admittedly is but a small portion of overall crime).



They do (see above).



Not par se, no
But it is a feature of many semi/fully automatic rifles that require them due to their configuration which affords more accurate fire, especially rapid fire (and therefore increasing their lethality)
Fundamentally though it was an unsatisfactory attempt the define a type of weapon (assault weapons) in order to ban it

It's why I think all guns should be banned and then exemptions made by citing specific make/model numbers.



Wrong, it has struck down multiple laws that were designed to save lives and/or reduce crime.



Nope, that I can't name any specific laws without doing so basic research, in no way means you are correct by default.



Possibly, but the correct term is "selective fire" and includes semi-automatic fire.



Since 1986, in the United States, the sale and/or importation of full-auto firearms for civilians has been banned. Any new and most used Kalashnikov-pattern rifles and pistols, as well as all other firearms, are and legally must be semi-auto.



Fine for you maybe, but your range criteria is flawed
Early assault rifles were maybe accurate only up to 300m, but more modern assault rifles are accurate out to much longer distances.



If you can hunt deer with a pistol or bow & arrow, you can with a .223"



Assault rifles didn't exist in 1934.



You're confusing intent and effect - the intent of every gun control law was/is to save lives

You have no evidence that any lawmaker ever drafted a gun control law that didn't have this intent.



Wrong
Guns are the #1 method of homicides, and they're the most effective by far (same with suicides Btw)
QED: Less guns = less gun crime = less homicides (plus less suicides).



If they were killed yes
But not as many would be killed, because not as many homicide attempts would occur, and of those that did, more people would survive

Same with suicides.

"Since 1986, in the United States, the sale and/or importation of full-auto firearms for civilians has been banned."

Who wrote the above? The same guy who argues that there has never been a law banning any type of gun in the US. Yep...Rich vs Rich.

 

[Rich2018]

That's not how it works. First off, they see if its justifiable homicide. Homicide is homicide. They don't go by the weapon used.

OK, guns are the #1 method of UN-justified homicide.