3 mass shooting, three semi automtic rifles

[M14 Shooter]

It truly is a failed, ignorant, and ridiculous "argument."
What constitutes an assault weapon is whatever a given lawmaking body determines it to be, having nothing to do with the configuration or functionality of the weapon.

Yep.
Thus, the asininity of the 1994 ban, as well as any argument that it had any effect whatsoever on any sort of crime.

 

[fncceo]

The last three whack jobs that went on a shooting spree used semi automatic rifles. The last two wore tactical gear.

Background checks?

If all these nutsos want them then I suggest that the idea some one wants them is a sign they are mentally off.

The more they assault type rifles want, the more whacked they are. Probably at least at by the square of that number.

Have two, 4 times as as crazy. Have 4, 16 times as crazy.

Next, add another factor of ten for every piece of "tactical gear" they own.

Really, you are way off the deep end if you have to dress up in this tactical gear.

Real sane gun owners wouldn't own an assault type rifle. Not good for hunting, not good for self defense. They would be safe.

Just those crazy ***** running around in tactical gear toting their AR-15, round them up & send them to the psycho ward.

I wear tactical gear at work. I must be insane.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Real sane gun owners wouldn't own an assault type rifle.

I must be really insane. I have like six semi automatic firearms.

But, very few private Americans own an actual assault rifle.

Not this stupid ******* argument again.

Jesus **** can you people get a ******* brain.

Anyone familiar with technology or history knows that in the 18 hundreds, it was a pair of pistols that was used as an assault weapon.
In WWI it was a pump shotgun, called a trench sweeper, that was the assault weapon of choice.
In WWII and Korean war, it was carbines like the M-1 that were used as assault weapons.

So there is no single weapon known as an assault weapon, and almost any firearm can be adapted as assault weapon, so all at risk when someone suggests banning that use.

I know technology and history, and not to put too fine a point on it, but the Thompson machine gun (otherwise known as the trench sweeper) was invented for use as a military assault weapon for use in WWI, but was mostly used for that purpose in WWII. The shotgun has been outlawed for military use by the Geneva Convention, and the AK47 has been the assault weapon of choice in Korea, and by the Communist countries ever since.

 

[Rigby5]

The last three whack jobs that went on a shooting spree used semi automatic rifles. The last two wore tactical gear.
Background checks?
If all these nutsos want them then I suggest that the idea some one wants them is a sign they are mentally off.
The more they assault type rifles want, the more whacked they are. Probably at least at by the square of that number.
Have two, 4 times as as crazy. Have 4, 16 times as crazy.
Next, add another factor of ten for every piece of "tactical gear" they own.
Really, you are way off the deep end if you have to dress up in this tactical gear.
Real sane gun owners wouldn't own an assault type rifle. Not good for hunting, not good for self defense. They would be safe.
Just those crazy ***** running around in tactical gear toting their AR-15, round them up & send them to the psycho ward.

Good news:
You definition of "crazy" does not create a compelling argument for infringing upon my rights.

Wrong.

Background checks don't "infringe" on any rights.

Actually they do, because you have a right to privacy, so that the government does not know who has guns to come and illegally confiscate them from.
Exactly how can government ever get the authority to deny any citizens the right to be able to defend themselves and their home?
Those are basic 4th and 5th amendment rights, that the federal government most definitely has no jurisdiction over.
In fact, if police and military has weapons, then under the 14th amendment, we have to be able to have the same ones.
Why? Because ultimately government, police/soldiers, are historically the most corrupt and dangerous factor.
All democratic republics are always threatened by government police states by the police/military.

 

[Rigby5]

You guys do know a semi automatic and an assault rifle are not the same thing right?

You assfucks know we had an assault rifle ban. & do you know what as banned?

Indeed.

View attachment 250366

The idea you God damn gun nuts think your right to own assault type rifles so you can get all beered up & shoot bottles outweighs the right of children not to be slaughtered in school is just plain ridiculous.

Not this stupid ******* argument again.
Jesus **** can you get a ******* brain.

It truly is a failed, ignorant, and ridiculous "argument."

What constitutes an assault weapon is whatever a given lawmaking body determines it to be, having nothing to do with the configuration or functionality of the weapon.

And even more important is that since clearly assault weapons are necessary, since police and security have them, it is illegal for government to prevent honest citizens from also having them for protection.
It is not like anyone attacks police.
It is average citizens who get attacked.
So if police have them, we all most certainly do.
In fact, the LAST people I want to have them are the police, since they have been proven to be the most trigger happy.
Where would government even get jurisdiction to regulate weapons from anyway?
They were never delegated that authority in the Constitution.

 

[Rigby5]

Real sane gun owners wouldn't own an assault type rifle.

I must be really insane. I have like six semi automatic firearms.

But, very few private Americans own an actual assault rifle.

Not this stupid ******* argument again.

Jesus **** can you people get a ******* brain.

Anyone familiar with technology or history knows that in the 18 hundreds, it was a pair of pistols that was used as an assault weapon.
In WWI it was a pump shotgun, called a trench sweeper, that was the assault weapon of choice.
In WWII and Korean war, it was carbines like the M-1 that were used as assault weapons.

So there is no single weapon known as an assault weapon, and almost any firearm can be adapted as assault weapon, so all at risk when someone suggests banning that use.

I know technology and history, and not to put too fine a point on it, but the Thompson machine gun (otherwise known as the trench sweeper) was invented for use as a military assault weapon for use in WWI, but was mostly used for that purpose in WWII. The shotgun has been outlawed for military use by the Geneva Convention, and the AK47 has been the assault weapon of choice in Korea, and by the Communist countries ever since.

Not to really argue much, but the Thompson did not make it to WWI.
It came out too late.
It was the Winchester Model 1897 pump shotgun known as the "trench sweeper" in WWI.
Winchester Model 1897 - Wikipedia
{...
Unlike most modern pump-action shotguns, the Winchester Model 1897 (versions of which were type classified as the Model 97 or M97 for short) fired each time the action closed with the trigger depressed (that is, it lacks a trigger disconnector). Coupled with its five-shot capacity, this made it effective for close combat, such that troops referred to it as a "trench sweeper".
...}
Whether the shotgun has been outlawed or not, US forces still use them.
But I do not think they were outlawed?
{...
This characteristic allowed troops to fire the whole magazine with great speed. The Model 1897 was so effective, and feared, that the German government protested (in vain) to have it outlawed in combat.[18] The Model 1897 was used again in World War II by the United States Army and Marine Corps, where it was used alongside the similarly militarized version of the hammerless Model 1912.[19] Some were still in service during the Korean War[20] and the Vietnam War.[21]

Other military uses of the shotgun included "the execution of security/interior guard operations, rear area security operations, guarding prisoners of war, raids, ambushes, military operations in urban terrain, and selected special operations". Despite protesting them, Germans did not listen to Ludendorff and decided to use and unofficially adopt the M1897 for their own use with modifications and named it "trench mouser" and mainly place them with stormtroopers.
...}

 

[Vandalshandle]

The last three whack jobs that went on a shooting spree used semi automatic rifles. The last two wore tactical gear.
Background checks?
If all these nutsos want them then I suggest that the idea some one wants them is a sign they are mentally off.
The more they assault type rifles want, the more whacked they are. Probably at least at by the square of that number.
Have two, 4 times as as crazy. Have 4, 16 times as crazy.
Next, add another factor of ten for every piece of "tactical gear" they own.
Really, you are way off the deep end if you have to dress up in this tactical gear.
Real sane gun owners wouldn't own an assault type rifle. Not good for hunting, not good for self defense. They would be safe.
Just those crazy ***** running around in tactical gear toting their AR-15, round them up & send them to the psycho ward.

Good news:
You definition of "crazy" does not create a compelling argument for infringing upon my rights.

Wrong.

Background checks don't "infringe" on any rights.

Actually they do, because you have a right to privacy, so that the government does not know who has guns to come and illegally confiscate them from.
Exactly how can government ever get the authority to deny any citizens the right to be able to defend themselves and their home?
Those are basic 4th and 5th amendment rights, that the federal government most definitely has no jurisdiction over.
In fact, if police and military has weapons, then under the 14th amendment, we have to be able to have the same ones.
Why? Because ultimately government, police/soldiers, are historically the most corrupt and dangerous factor.
All democratic republics are always threatened by government police states by the police/military.

Regarding the Thompson Submachine gun, they were invented for use in WW1, but, you are right, it did not get put in production in time. Regarding the other military uses for a shotgun, did you honestly think that I meant that other than it is only banned in combat?

As for the background check, when someone argues that convicted felons and people under restraining orders should have a loophole to buy firearms in private transactions, because to take it away from them opens up the slippery slope that will prevent us from shooting down Blackhawk helicopters with our 1911's when the New World Order is installed, it is, at once, obvious, that that person's train has already left their baggage at the station, and there is no real point in further discussion.

 

[Rigby5]

The last three whack jobs that went on a shooting spree used semi automatic rifles. The last two wore tactical gear.
Background checks?
If all these nutsos want them then I suggest that the idea some one wants them is a sign they are mentally off.
The more they assault type rifles want, the more whacked they are. Probably at least at by the square of that number.
Have two, 4 times as as crazy. Have 4, 16 times as crazy.
Next, add another factor of ten for every piece of "tactical gear" they own.
Really, you are way off the deep end if you have to dress up in this tactical gear.
Real sane gun owners wouldn't own an assault type rifle. Not good for hunting, not good for self defense. They would be safe.
Just those crazy ***** running around in tactical gear toting their AR-15, round them up & send them to the psycho ward.

Good news:
You definition of "crazy" does not create a compelling argument for infringing upon my rights.

Wrong.

Background checks don't "infringe" on any rights.

Actually they do, because you have a right to privacy, so that the government does not know who has guns to come and illegally confiscate them from.
Exactly how can government ever get the authority to deny any citizens the right to be able to defend themselves and their home?
Those are basic 4th and 5th amendment rights, that the federal government most definitely has no jurisdiction over.
In fact, if police and military has weapons, then under the 14th amendment, we have to be able to have the same ones.
Why? Because ultimately government, police/soldiers, are historically the most corrupt and dangerous factor.
All democratic republics are always threatened by government police states by the police/military.

Regarding the Thompson Submachine gun, they were invented for use in WW1, but, you are right, it did not get put in production in time. Regarding the other military uses for a shotgun, did you honestly think that I meant that other than it is only banned in combat?

As for the background check, when someone argues that convicted felons and people under restraining orders should have a loophole to buy firearms in private transactions, because to take it away from them opens up the slippery slope that will prevent us from shooting down Blackhawk helicopters with our 1911's when the New World Order is installed, it is, at once, obvious, that that person's train has already left their baggage at the station, and there is no real point in further discussion.

Shotguns are not banned in combat that I know of.
They were issued in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.

A convicted felon can be someone who bounced a check over $100. Once sentence is served, they are a citizen, and deserve full rights to defend themselves, others, property, etc. There is no one with the right or authority to make anyone a second class citizen. If you look at the laws, a convicted felon is not committing a crime if they use a firearm in defense from an attack.
So they then should also be able to buy and own them.

Private transactions are rare transfers of used items that government has no right to know about. And anyone who thinks you can stop illegal transactions by threatening minor punishments far less than what criminals already intend to risk, is foolish. All they are going to accomplish is to disarm the honest people who we should want to be armed.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Further research tells me that if any signatory uses a banned weapon, the ban applies to no belligerent, and that the USA has never been in a declared war in which the ban applies.

As for the background checks, as I said, in your case, that train has left the station.....

 

[RealDave]

It truly is a failed, ignorant, and ridiculous "argument."
What constitutes an assault weapon is whatever a given lawmaking body determines it to be, having nothing to do with the configuration or functionality of the weapon.

Yep.
Thus, the asininity of the 1994 ban, as well as any argument that it had any effect whatsoever on any sort of crime.

View attachment 250423

The effect is documented. Statistics show in fewer mass shootings.
Since there is no official definition of an assault rifle, in legislation, one is provided. It did have to do with functionality.

 

[RealDave]

Because assault weapons ARE the weapon of choice for mass murder

According to Mother Jones:
From 1982 thru all of 2018, 'assault weapons' accounted for 378 mass shooting deaths; handguns accounted for 427 such deaths.
The 378 total deaths by 'assault weapons' in mass shootings 1982-2018 represent 42.95% of total deaths in mass shootings; handguns represent 48.52%
US mass shootings, 1982-2019: Data from Mother Jones’ investigation

Thus, your statement is either a lie, or a statement of abject ignorance.
Let us know which.

It depends a lot on how many fatalities it takes to be a mass shooting. As that numbe goes up, so does the % of assault type rifles.

Obviously a person can go into a school with handguns. When they go in with assault type rifles the death tolls are highert

Unless you want to try to argue that assault type rifles are not more deadly in these situations.

 

[RealDave]

Not this stupid ******* argument again.
Jesus **** can you people get a ******* brain.

Says the guy who believes "Real sane gun owners wouldn't own an assault type rifle"

Ahhhh poor baby if you couldn't own every type of gun ever made.

Not this stupid ******* argument again.
Jesus **** can you get a ******* brain.

Why do you need to own an assault type rifle? How many dead children do you think thy your need outweighs?

What do you do with it? Besies getting beered up & shootiing bottles?

 

[Blues Man]

You guys do know a semi automatic and an assault rifle are not the same thing right?

You assfucks know we had an assault rifle ban. & do you know what as banned?

Do we really need to say assault type rifles?

Everyone knows what is bseuinbg discussed.

The idea you God damn gun nuts think your right to own assault type rifles so you can get all beered up & shoot bottles outweighs the right of children not to be slaughtered in school is just plain ridiculous.

That ban was a ban of cosmetic features that do nothing to increase the lethality of a rifle

 

[Lesh]

That ban was a ban of cosmetic features that do nothing to increase the lethality of a rifle

Wrong.the argument over "cosmetic features" was an argument over how to define what is and is not an assault rifle and it began because gun nuts were trying to confuse the issue. They SHOULD have simply banned all magazine fed semi auto rifles. That would have been far more effective and far more "elegant".

 

[Blues Man]

That ban was a ban of cosmetic features that do nothing to increase the lethality of a rifle

Wrong.the argument over "cosmetic features" was an argument over how to define what is and is not an assault rifle and it began because gun nuts were trying to confuse the issue. They SHOULD have simply banned all magazine fed semi auto rifles. That would have been far more effective and far more "elegant".

Rifles of any kind are used in less than 2% of all murders

So banning any type of rifle will do nothing to lower the murder rate

 

[M14 Shooter]

It truly is a failed, ignorant, and ridiculous "argument."
What constitutes an assault weapon is whatever a given lawmaking body determines it to be, having nothing to do with the configuration or functionality of the weapon.

Yep.
Thus, the asininity of the 1994 ban, as well as any argument that it had any effect whatsoever on any sort of crime.
View attachment 250423

The effect is documented. Statistics show in fewer mass shootings.

Post hoc fallacy.
With the graphic I posted in mind, explain how the AWB could have possibly resulted in fewer mass shootings.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Not this stupid ******* argument again.
Jesus **** can you people get a ******* brain.

Says the guy who believes "Real sane gun owners wouldn't own an assault type rifle"

Ahhhh poor baby if you couldn't own every type of gun ever made.

Not this stupid ******* argument again.
Jesus **** can you get a ******* brain.

Why do you need to own an assault type rifle? How many dead children do you think thy your need outweighs?
What do you do with it? Besies getting beered up & shootiing bottles?

Not this stupid ******* argument again.
Jesus **** can you get a ******* brain.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Because assault weapons ARE the weapon of choice for mass murder

According to Mother Jones:
From 1982 thru all of 2018, 'assault weapons' accounted for 378 mass shooting deaths; handguns accounted for 427 such deaths.
The 378 total deaths by 'assault weapons' in mass shootings 1982-2018 represent 42.95% of total deaths in mass shootings; handguns represent 48.52%
US mass shootings, 1982-2019: Data from Mother Jones’ investigation
Thus, your statement is either a lie, or a statement of abject ignorance.
Let us know which.

It depends a lot on how many fatalities...

No. It doesn't. Fact, it, most deaths in mass shootings come from handguns; this negates the argument that 'assault weapons' are the weapon of choice.

 

[M14 Shooter]

That ban was a ban of cosmetic features that do nothing to increase the lethality of a rifle

Wrong.the argument over "cosmetic features" was an argument over how to define what is and is not an assault rifle and it began because gun nuts were trying to confuse the issue. They SHOULD have simply banned all magazine fed semi auto rifles. That would have been far more effective and far more "elegant".

And wholly unnecessary... and wholly ineffective... and wholly unconstitutional.

 

[RealDave]

Because assault weapons ARE the weapon of choice for mass murder

According to Mother Jones:
From 1982 thru all of 2018, 'assault weapons' accounted for 378 mass shooting deaths; handguns accounted for 427 such deaths.
The 378 total deaths by 'assault weapons' in mass shootings 1982-2018 represent 42.95% of total deaths in mass shootings; handguns represent 48.52%
US mass shootings, 1982-2019: Data from Mother Jones’ investigation
Thus, your statement is either a lie, or a statement of abject ignorance.
Let us know which.

It depends a lot on how many fatalities...

No. It doesn't. Fact, it, most deaths in mass shootings come from handguns; this negates the argument that 'assault weapons' are the weapon of choice.

You really don't know shit. Your stats had mass shootings at 3 deaths. If you change that to say 8, the percentages of handguns or assault rifles would change.