progressive hunter
Diamond Member
- Dec 11, 2018
- 71,192
- 45,473
- 2,615
your ignorance really has no limits,,,if they are just a toy then why are they so feared and banned???
Biden on Gun Control
- Thread starter Auld Phart
- Start date
BULLDOG
Diamond Member
- Jun 3, 2014
- 105,192
- 38,782
- 2,250
In your head only.
If they're subject to regulation, why aren't they regulated already?
Assault weapons can be regulated. You just can't process and accept what weapon falls under category of "assault weapon" or not.
US Army and Defense Department definitions of "assault rifle":
"Select fire" means it is capable of fully automatic or burst fire as well as semi-auto. "Semi-auto" means when the trigger is pulled the rifle will fire once, "full-auto" means that when the trigger is pulled the gun will fire until it runs out of ammo or the trigger is released.
Assault weapon uses an intermediate round that is accurate at least 300 meters away so more accurate than a submachine gun but less accurate than a hunting rifle.
The definition of assault rifle is clear and has only one meaning, despite of politicians trying to change the meaning to fit their narrative, where "every scary looking gun is an assault weapon". People who know nothing about weapons, such as yourself, and people who know very little or nothing about constitutional rights, such as yourself, are falling for that narrative. The rest of us are "not buying".
According to leftist proposed assault weapons bans the rifle on top would be legal while the rifle on the bottom would be an illegal assault weapon. In reality, they are the same model of rifle with the same firing spec, just looking different.
When the constitution mentions arms, they didn't differentiate between one type of arms or another. I'm pretty sure terms like select fire or assault weapon weren't even considered. Therefore, I'm having a hard time understanding why you have such a problem with the constitutionality of regulating ALL arms. We can discuss whether all arms should be regulated in the same way if you would like, but it's clear that it is constitutionally acceptable to regulate them all in exactly the same way.
The same Constitution that you're calling on is securing our "unalienable rights".
To simplify it just for you, you have no right to kill someone, but you can defend yourself from being killed.
The 2nd Amendment is giving protecting your right to defend your life.
Every weapon can be used to attack or to defend. Therefore, every weapon can be called "assault weapon". If I use banana to choke you, that was "assault weapon". Left want's to label every weapon as "assault weapon", and without 2nd Amendment they would probably succeed. If semi-auto weapons are banned, what's next? Call hunting rifle a sniper, and simply ban it because it's weapon of war.
As I mentioned above, automatic weapons are considered assault weapons. Semi autos are not.
Although I don't agree with a statement that "you don't need machine gun to defend your home", and I think ban on automatic guns is unconstitutional, because state can still have them, I can accept not having one to defend my home.
And last, when the Constitution mentions freedom of press, they didn't differentiate between one type of news papers from another. I'm pretty sure terms like select cable TV, internet, or Twitter weren't even considered. However, freedom of press is constitutional right regardless of technical advancements we have today.
The term "assault weapon" has nothing to do with whether a weapon is constitutionally allowed to be regulated. As I said before, we can discuss which weapons should be regulated, and to what extent, but that is a different conversation for another time. My intent for now is to show the trite remark "will not be infringed" is bullshit and immaterial when it comes to whether we can or should regulate any weapon.
Of course you are a stupid confused Libtard that doesn't have a clue what "shall not be infringed" means. Everybody else knows that it means to not to infringe but you are confused about it like you are confused about many other issues. Like I said, pull your head out of your Libtard ass and you won't be so confused.
I've already proven that regulation, such as we already have for fully automatic weapons, is not the same as infringement. Of course I expect you to stick your head in the sand and say no, but you are wrong.
BULLDOG
Diamond Member
- Jun 3, 2014
- 105,192
- 38,782
- 2,250
They are not as accessable as other weapons, and they are extremely regulated. Only an idiot would try to pretend different.
Shawnee_b
Platinum Member
Like what, drag queen story hour and BF'ers?
BULLDOG
Diamond Member
- Jun 3, 2014
- 105,192
- 38,782
- 2,250
I never said they weren't extremely dangerous and their ownership and use should be heavily regulated . However, their use is so regulated till they are not much more than an amusing carnival ride for the vast majority of the country. Pay your money. Shoot a few rounds. Brag to your friends about shooting a fully auto weapon. That's about as far as it goes.
progressive hunter
Diamond Member
- Dec 11, 2018
- 71,192
- 45,473
- 2,615
In your head only.
If they're subject to regulation, why aren't they regulated already?
Assault weapons can be regulated. You just can't process and accept what weapon falls under category of "assault weapon" or not.
US Army and Defense Department definitions of "assault rifle":
"Select fire" means it is capable of fully automatic or burst fire as well as semi-auto. "Semi-auto" means when the trigger is pulled the rifle will fire once, "full-auto" means that when the trigger is pulled the gun will fire until it runs out of ammo or the trigger is released.
Assault weapon uses an intermediate round that is accurate at least 300 meters away so more accurate than a submachine gun but less accurate than a hunting rifle.
The definition of assault rifle is clear and has only one meaning, despite of politicians trying to change the meaning to fit their narrative, where "every scary looking gun is an assault weapon". People who know nothing about weapons, such as yourself, and people who know very little or nothing about constitutional rights, such as yourself, are falling for that narrative. The rest of us are "not buying".
According to leftist proposed assault weapons bans the rifle on top would be legal while the rifle on the bottom would be an illegal assault weapon. In reality, they are the same model of rifle with the same firing spec, just looking different.
When the constitution mentions arms, they didn't differentiate between one type of arms or another. I'm pretty sure terms like select fire or assault weapon weren't even considered. Therefore, I'm having a hard time understanding why you have such a problem with the constitutionality of regulating ALL arms. We can discuss whether all arms should be regulated in the same way if you would like, but it's clear that it is constitutionally acceptable to regulate them all in exactly the same way.
The same Constitution that you're calling on is securing our "unalienable rights".
To simplify it just for you, you have no right to kill someone, but you can defend yourself from being killed.
The 2nd Amendment is giving protecting your right to defend your life.
Every weapon can be used to attack or to defend. Therefore, every weapon can be called "assault weapon". If I use banana to choke you, that was "assault weapon". Left want's to label every weapon as "assault weapon", and without 2nd Amendment they would probably succeed. If semi-auto weapons are banned, what's next? Call hunting rifle a sniper, and simply ban it because it's weapon of war.
As I mentioned above, automatic weapons are considered assault weapons. Semi autos are not.
Although I don't agree with a statement that "you don't need machine gun to defend your home", and I think ban on automatic guns is unconstitutional, because state can still have them, I can accept not having one to defend my home.
And last, when the Constitution mentions freedom of press, they didn't differentiate between one type of news papers from another. I'm pretty sure terms like select cable TV, internet, or Twitter weren't even considered. However, freedom of press is constitutional right regardless of technical advancements we have today.
The term "assault weapon" has nothing to do with whether a weapon is constitutionally allowed to be regulated. As I said before, we can discuss which weapons should be regulated, and to what extent, but that is a different conversation for another time. My intent for now is to show the trite remark "will not be infringed" is bullshit and immaterial when it comes to whether we can or should regulate any weapon.
Of course you are a stupid confused Libtard that doesn't have a clue what "shall not be infringed" means. Everybody else knows that it means to not to infringe but you are confused about it like you are confused about many other issues. Like I said, pull your head out of your Libtard ass and you won't be so confused.
I've already proven that regulation, such as we already have for fully automatic weapons, is not the same as infringement. Of course I expect you to stick your head in the sand and say no, but you are wrong.
you havent proven shit,,,you really need to buy a dictionary to learn the meanings of words,,,
Shawnee_b
Platinum Member
Why not, the step into their pants same as anyone else
progressive hunter
Diamond Member
- Dec 11, 2018
- 71,192
- 45,473
- 2,615
theyre full auto so I dont know how you just shoot a few rounds,,,
like I said your ignorance has no limits,,,
Shawnee_b
Platinum Member
I'm militia and I'm "regular". least once a day I shit out a demtard. Then flush it before it can get a fake BC and run for president
Shawnee_b
Platinum Member
Shawnee_b
Platinum Member
Biden doesn't even remember what a bullet is after 30 min. Thinks it's a suppository.
rightwinger
Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
- Aug 4, 2009
- 309,926
- 268,573
- 3,615
Moron.....you don't inform the people about the issue, and they simply respond to the sound of the question.
They don't know we already have background checks.
They don't know that the democrat party is the main reason we have gun crime in democrat party controlled cities.
They don't know that gun free zones allow mass shooters to kill more people.
They don't know that magazine size has nothing to do with how many people are killed in mass public shootings...
If you actually asked accurate questions, they wouldn't support you....
Do you not remember that report a month ago, it say large mag over 10 rounds are the cause of mass shootings.
Here I'll remind of the study:
Firearm Purchaser Licensing Laws Linked to Fewer Fatal Mass Shootings
Bans on large-capacity magazines were also associated with fewer fatal mass shootings and fatalities
And that was a crap report....considering that magazines were not a factor in any of the 10 mass public shootings in 2019.......
This is an actual look at mass public shootings and the magazines used........
SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals
Large-Capacity Magazines and the Casualty Counts in Mass Shootings: The Plausibility of Linkages by Gary Kleck :: SSRN
I.
Do bans on large-capacity magazines (LCMs) for semiautomatic firearms have significant potential for reducing the number of deaths and injuries in mass shootings?
========
In sum, in nearly all LCM-involved mass shootings, the time it takes to reload a detachable magazine is no greater than the average time between shots that the shooter takes anyway when not reloading.
Consequently, there is no affirmative evidence that reloading detachable magazines slows mass shooters’ rates of fire, and thus no affirmative evidence that the number of victims who could escape the killers due to additional pauses in the shooting is increased by the shooter’s need to change magazines.
==========
The most common rationale for an effect of LCM use is that they allow mass killers to fire many rounds without reloading.
LCMs are used is less than 1/3 of 1% of mass shootings.
News accounts of 23 shootings in which more than six people were killed or wounded and LCMs were used, occurring in the U.S. in 1994-2013, were examined.
There was only one incident in which the shooter may have been stopped by bystander intervention when he tried to reload.
In all of these 23 incidents the shooter possessed either multiple guns or multiple magazines, meaning that the shooter, even if denied LCMs, could have continued firing without significant interruption by either switching loaded guns or by changing smaller loaded magazines with only a 2-4 second delay for each magazine change.
Finally, the data indicate that mass shooters maintain slow enough rates of fire such that the time needed to reload would not increase the time between shots and thus the time available for prospective victims to escape.
--------
We did not employ the oft-used definition of “mass murder” as a homicide in which four or more victims were killed, because most of these involve just four to six victims (Duwe 2007), which could therefore have involved as few as six rounds fired, a number that shooters using even ordinary revolvers are capable of firing without reloading.
LCMs obviously cannot help shooters who fire no more rounds than could be fired without LCMs, so the inclusion of “nonaffectable” cases with only four to six victims would dilute the sample, reducing the percent of sample incidents in which an LCM might have affected the number of casualties.
Further, had we studied only homicides with four or more dead victims, drawn from the FBI’s Supplementary Homicide Reports, we would have missed cases in which huge numbers of people were shot, and huge numbers of rounds were fired, but three or fewer of the victims died.
For example, in one widely publicized shooting carried out in Los Angeles on February 28, 1997, two bank robbers shot a total of 18 people - surely a mass shooting by any reasonable standard (Table 1).
Yet, because none of the people they shot died, this incident would not qualify as a mass murder (or even murder of any kind).
Exclusion of such incidents would bias the sample against the proposition that LCM use increases the number of victims by excluding incidents with large numbers of victims. We also excluded shootings in which more than six persons were shot over the entire course of the incident but shootings occurred in multiple locations with no more than six people shot in any one of the locations, and substantial periods of time intervened between episodes of shooting. An example is the series of killings committed by Rodrick Dantzler on July 7, 2011.
Once eligible incidents were identified, we searched through news accounts for details related to whether the use of LCMs could have influenced the casualty counts.
Specifically, we searched for
(1) the number of magazines in the shooter’s immediate possession,
(2) the capacity of the largest magazine,
(3) the number of guns in the shooter’s immediate possession during the incident,
(4) the types of guns possessed,
(5) whether the shooter reloaded during the incident,
(6) the number of rounds fired,
(7) the duration of the shooting from the first shot fired to the last, and (8) whether anyone intervened to stop the shooter.
Findings How Many Mass Shootings were Committed Using LCMs?
We identified 23 total incidents in which more than six people were shot at a single time and place in the U.S. from 1994 through 2013 and that were known to involve use of any magazines with capacities over ten rounds.
Table 1 summarizes key details of the LCMinvolved mass shootings relevant to the issues addressed in this paper.
(Table 1 about here) What fraction of all mass shootings involve LCMs?
There is no comprehensive listing of all mass shootings available for the entire 1994-2013 period, but the most extensive one currently available is at the Shootingtracker.com website, which only began its coverage in 2013.
-----
-----
The offenders in LCM-involved mass shootings were also known to have reloaded during 14 of the 23 (61%) incidents with magazine holding over 10 rounds.
The shooters were known to have not reloaded in another two of these 20 incidents and it could not be determined if they reloaded in the remaining seven incidents.
Thus, even if the shooters had been denied LCMs, we know that most of them definitely would have been able to reload smaller detachable magazines without interference from bystanders since they in fact did change magazines.
The fact that this percentage is less than 100% should not, however, be interpreted to mean that the shooters were unable to reload in the other nine incidents.
It is possible that the shooters could also have reloaded in many of these nine shootings, but chose not to do so, or did not need to do so in order to fire all the rounds they wanted to fire. This is consistent with the fact that there has been at most only one mass shootings in twenty years in which reloading a semiautomatic firearm might have been blocked by bystanders intervening and thereby stopping the shooter from doing all the shooting he wanted to do. All we know is that in two incidents the shooter did not reload, and news accounts of seven other incidents did not mention whether the offender reloaded.
----
For example, a story in the Hartford Courant about the Sandy Hook elementary school killings in 2012 was headlined “Shooter Paused, and Six Escaped,” the text asserting that as many as six children may have survived because the shooter paused to reload (December 23, 2012). ''
The author of the story, however, went on to concede that this was just a speculation by an unnamed source, and that it was also possible that some children simply escaped when the killer was shooting other children.
There was no reliable evidence that the pauses were due to the shooter reloading, rather than his guns jamming or the shooter simply choosing to pause his shooting while his gun was still loaded.
The plausibility of the “victims escape” rationale depends on the average rates of fire that shooters in mass shootings typically maintain.
If they fire very fast, the 2-4 seconds it takes to change box-type detachable magazines could produce a slowing of the rate of fire that the shooters otherwise would have maintained without the magazine changes, increasing the average time between rounds fired and potentially allowing more victims to escape during the betweenshot intervals.
On the other hand, if mass shooters fire their guns with the average interval between shots lasting more than 2-4 seconds, the pauses due to additional magazine changes would be no longer than the pauses the shooter typically took between shots even when not reloading.
In that case, there would be no more opportunity for potential victims to escape than there would have been without the additional magazine changes
tl;dr
rightwinger
Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
- Aug 4, 2009
- 309,926
- 268,573
- 3,615
Shawnee_b
Platinum Member
You can? show me. I did it legally, 07ffl class 2 sot,,, show me. You talk but you can't walk the talk. Gonna give me a link to brownells like fuktard DR love did then went into hiding and never came back?
Go ahead, show me how.
Go ahead, show me how.
Last edited by a moderator:
Shawnee_b
Platinum Member
Shawnee_b
Platinum Member
Idiot
Shawnee_b
Platinum Member
Like the DNC?
Shawnee_b
Platinum Member
Biden can't remember what a gun is.
Penelope
Diamond Member
- Jul 15, 2014
- 60,265
- 15,813
- 2,210
Shawnee_b
Platinum Member
I imagine you are pro life too.
Absolutely. Cept for you, should have been aborted long ago.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
98% of Somali Girls are put Through Female Genital Mutilation- Started by Seymour Flops
- Replies: 10
-
Supreme Court to debate whether police may seek sweeping cellphone location data in investigations- Started by NewsVine_Mariyam
- Replies: 6
-
-
