In shootings, is the gun to blame?

[Ginger Ale]

Which law? The one that can't possibly prevent criminals from possessing short barreled shotguns and rifles?

I didn't say whether I thought the law worked. I just stated the reason.

 

[rahl]

Sorry, gun owner. I wasn't aware they got rid of stockpiling laws. Haven't looked.

There has never been a limit, nor can there be.

I thought there was a federal assault weapons ban.

You thought wrong then. there is no such thing as an assault weapon.

 

[Ginger Ale]

There has never been a limit, nor can there be.

You thought wrong then. there is no such thing as an assault weapon.

Ok then. lmao. I'd suggest you put it like this.
There is no such thing as an assault weapon ban (to me.)

Just FYI, it's still in effect in CA as it's been for the last thirty or so years until the ruling.

Speaking of such, Biden is getting ready to bring it up again with a new assault weapons ban......so get ready to fight for your right to own something that assaults. lol You guys should have a "blast" with this one.

This ^ is the only reason I ever venture on to gun threads. You just can't seem to come up with effective arguments when there actually are some.

 

[rahl]

Ok then. lmao. I'd suggest you put it like this.
There is no such thing as an assault weapon ban (to me.)

Why?

Just FYI, it's still in effect in CA as it's been for the last thirty or so years until the ruling.

I can purchase an “assault” weapon in any state in the US, legally lol.

Speaking of such, Biden is getting ready to bring it up again with a new assault weapons ban......so get ready to fight for your right to own something that assaults. lol You guys should have a "blast" with this one.

Well, no he isn’t.

This ^ is the only reason I ever venture on to gun threads. You just can't seem to come up with effective arguments when there actually are some.

Huh? I have consistently used constitutional law, and statistical data to demolish yours and others anti gun posts.

 

[Rucker61]

I didn't say whether I thought the law worked. I just stated the reason.

Your stated reason doesn't work. Criminals can and do convert standard length barrels to illegal length barrels at will.

 

[Rucker61]

Speaking of such, Biden is getting ready to bring it up again with a new assault weapons ban......so get ready to fight for your right to own something that assaults. lol You guys should have a "blast" with this one.

The only result of any new "ban" would be adding another 5 to 19 million AR-15s to civilian hands.

Best case, SCOTUS slaps it down, citing Heller and Caetano, and then using McDonald slaps down the state level bans.

This ^ is the only reason I ever venture on to gun threads. You just can't seem to come up with effective arguments when there actually are some.

Given that the Second Amendment protects all bearable arms in common use for lawful purposes, what to you think is the Constitutional basis for banning the classes of firearms defined as "assault weapons"?

 

[Ginger Ale]

Your stated reason doesn't work. Criminals can and do convert standard length barrels to illegal length barrels at will.

So, there is no law on short barrel rifles in any state in the U.s.?

 

[Rucker61]

Ok then. lmao. I'd suggest you put it like this.
There is no such thing as an assault weapon ban (to me.)

He said "...no such thing as an assault weapon".

 

[Rucker61]

So, there is no law on short barrel rifles in any state in the U.s.?

There are some states that forbid the lawful possession of them, even under NFA 1934.

Nothing stops a criminal from buying a hacksaw.

 

[Ginger Ale]

The only result of any new "ban" would be adding another 5 to 19 million AR-15s to civilian hands.

Best case, SCOTUS slaps it down, citing Heller and Caetano, and then using McDonald slaps down the state level bans.


Given that the Second Amendment protects all bearable arms in common use for lawful purposes, what to you think is the Constitutional basis for banning the classes of firearms defined as "assault weapons"?

Ugh, again?

To blunt the efficiency of gun usage to kill people. Oh, those types of guns kill more people with less effort. So let's ban those, maybe it will save a few people. This is not rocket science, so you either know the answer and don't like it, or you missed a lot of classes in gun school.

To be clear, I have not stated whether I think these laws are effective just that they are real.

 

[KingLeo]

The gun itself? Of course not.
The ease that those guns are available to mentally unstable, untrained, and dangerous people? Yes.

 

[Ginger Ale]

He said "...no such thing as an assault weapon".

Well, to be fair, it applies. If their are no assault weapons, then why would they ban them? Wouldn't that be silly?

The semantics game is getting old. It makes it seem like you guys have something to hide. Why not just deal with this topic head on with all the facts.

 

[Rich2018]

Directly refuted this already. 200 million guns added yet homicides decreased.

The USA's holdings of gun supplies reached saturation a long time ago....a reduction of 50-100 million guns won't cause a significant drop in gun related homicides (particularly mass shootings).

Do read.

 

[Rucker61]

Ugh, again?

To blunt the efficiency of gun usage to kill people. Oh, those types of guns kill more people with less effort. So let's ban those, maybe it will save a few people.

Interesting claim. Given that AR-15s and Ruger Mini-14s are functionally equivalent, why were AR-15s banned in 1994 and Mini-14s were not?

This is not rocket science, so you either know the answer and don't like it, or you missed a lot of classes in gun school.

To be clear, I have not stated whether I think these laws are effective just that they are real.

Do you support them?

 

[Rucker61]

Well, to be fair, it applies. If their are no assault weapons, then why would they ban them? Wouldn't that be silly?

The semantics game is getting old. It makes it seem like you guys have something to hide. Why not just deal with this topic head on with all the facts.

Let's deal with the topic them. Bring your "facts".

 

[Rich2018]

Interesting claim. Given that AR-15s and Ruger Mini-14s are functionally equivalent, why were AR-15s banned in 1994 and Mini-14s were not?

Popularity

It's a Catch-22, if related guns are banned, gun lovers will cry foul and cite the low levels of the similar weapon being used in shootings

Your post is a glorious example

If AR-15's are banned, it makes ZERO sense to let M-16's unaffected. Yet the second we ban M-16's, the gun lobby screams about how no MN-16 has ever been used in a mass shooting.


So which is it, if the AR-15 is banned, do you want the Ruger banned as well ?

 

[Rucker61]

Popularity

It's a Catch-22, if related guns are banned, gun lovers will cry foul and cite the low levels of the similar weapon being used in shootings

Your post is a glorious example

If AR-15's are banned, it makes ZERO sense to let M-16's unaffected. Yet the second we ban M-16's, the gun lobby screams about how no MN-16 has ever been used in a mass shooting.


So which is it, if the AR-15 is banned, do you want the Ruger banned as well ?

Why should the AR-15 be banned, considering it's in common use for lawful purposes?

 

[zsu2357]

Gun violence statistics are not collected.

If that's so, then why do all these politicians (D) go on and on about "gun violence" in the U.S. Senate and House and cite all these statistics that as you claim aren't collected?

 

[RF667799]

The USA's holdings of gun supplies reached saturation a long time ago....a reduction of 50-100 million guns won't cause a significant drop in gun related homicides (particularly mass shootings).

Do read.

At what point would a reduction in numbers start to be significant, if we presume your unsupported saturation effect is real?

 

[RF667799]

Ugh, again?

To blunt the efficiency of gun usage to kill people. Oh, those types of guns kill more people with less effort. So let's ban those, maybe it will save a few people. This is not rocket science, so you either know the answer and don't like it, or you missed a lot of classes in gun school.

To be clear, I have not stated whether I think these laws are effective just that they are real.

How are you measuring this efficiency you keep referring to?

For instance, I have a truck that can be considered as an inefficient transportation device. Yet, it can also be considered as an efficient transportation device?

Besides all that, why are we assuming that efficiency is a negative quality?

If a particular gun is inefficient at killing people, why would I choose that gun for self defense?

 

[Rich2018]

Why should the AR-15 be banned, considering it's in common use for lawful purposes?

Banned from PRIVATE ownership.

 

[RF667799]

Banned from PRIVATE ownership.

Yes, that's the usual context. Most people who don't trust their fellow citizens to possess guns, nevertheless whole heartedly support the state having all manners of weaponry. The state that is made up of their fellow citizens, interestingly enough.

 

[Gateman_Wen]

If that's so, then why do all these politicians (D) go on and on about "gun violence" in the U.S. Senate and House and cite all these statistics that as you claim aren't collected?

Already answered, read the thread.

 

[zsu2357]

Is it? A convicted felon can sometimes get a gun legally, depends on the state laws and the paper work they're willing to fill out.

But, you know the reason for the law. Semantics aside.

Now I see. You are under the illusion (delusion?) that convicted felons are going to get them legally by doing the paper work.
I guess it does happen but then that shows who's not on their toes.

 

[zsu2357]

There has never been a limit, nor can there be.

You thought wrong then. there is no such thing as an assault weapon.

I think if Ginger Ale did some research Ginger Ale would find it was just a made up term. In other words if it looks like a machine gun it is a machine gun, and that was peddled to the people who didn't know different.