Questions for those that would ban 'assault weapons'

[Wildman]

Wait just a minute. I read on here all the time that there are no assault weapons being offered for sale here in the USA. Only "sporting rifles". Then a gun nutter self identifies a weapon as an assault weapon. (see above highlighted)

So which one of you gun nutters are lying. Seeing as how you all seem to agree that there are assault weapons on the market.

Do gun shops sell assault weapons or don't they?

Do gun shops sell assault weapons or don't they?

in general.., "they" do NOT.., unless "they" are CLASS III dealers, do you know what that means ?do you have any ******* idea what is involved to buy a CLASS III weapon ? to start with it takes at least $12,000.00, and tons of paper work, after jumping thru all the hoops the person buying the "ASSAULT" weapon will receive it in about 18 to 24 months of waiting.., waiting..., and more waiting.

if you still have no comprehension of what an assault weapon is, please click on my link to the truth about assault weapons.., i challenge you to get properly educated.., thank you !!

Nah dude, it is YOU that doesn't know what an "assault weapon" is. Which is weird as **** seeing as how you are the know all on weapons and there intended use.

You want to make the case that BECAUSE it can't be used (as bought) as a fully automatic weapon, why then it can't be an "assault weapon". What a crock of bullshit.

But when ever these is a mass assault in the country (aka mass killing) what was the weapon of choice? When the Bundy protectors were carrying their weapons, intending to assault someone if need be, what was the rifle of choice. Was it the AR? Or an AK.

Hey is the AK47 an assault weapon? It isn't. Is it? All those ******* terrorists and "freedom fighters" are carrying AK47's cause they are great deer rifles. Right?

i guess it is your choice to remain stupid, so i or any other gun enthusiast can not help you, as long as you keep bringing up "DEER" you will remain a stupid loser.

yes !! i know what an assault weapon IS.., terrible shame that you do not...., but ! let me try to educat you just a tiny bit, here, read this...., GunCite: Assault Weapon Panic ooops ! being an illiterate liberfool, if you have a conservative friend have him/her read it to you, or get your Mommie read it to you.., we all know that our Moms never lie...., right ?

 

[Skull Pilot]

See below:



Questions:
-Had the 1994 AWB not sunset, or had it been reinstated once The Obama took office, how would it have stopped the Newton/Sandyhook shooting?
-If it were in place now, how would it stop another?

Please try to answer in a manner that does not involve emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

When the 1994 bill was written, the NRA managed to get the process bogged down with cosmetic differences. They steered everyone clear of the real issue: firing mechanics.

If the semi-automatic firing system had been banned, not just the size of the stock or a flash suppressor, or the details of the grip, we would be twenty years ahead in the process of ridding weapons designed for warfare, not sport, from our streets.

There are plenty of sporting firearms that are semi-automatics.

But more importantly, what percentage of the homicides in the US are committed with semi-automatic rifles??

And what is the most common type of firearm used to commit murders in the US?

So if you actually wanted to make the streets safer, why would you focus on banning these rifles instead of banning easily concealed handguns? Unless you have another agenda.

More people are killed with fists and feet than by all types of rifles combined.

Rifles are not and have never been the problem.

 

[M14 Shooter]

To bad you all couldn't (or wouldn't) put up a couple photos of what you gun nuts consider "assault weapons".

Apparently, someone didn't read the OP.

Somone also doesn't understand the issue here is 'assault weapons', not assault rifles, and so any discussion of assault rifles is meaningless.

That same someone has yet to address the questions asked in the OP.

Someone (YOU) is goofy as shit. YOU put up two photos of assault rifles

I put up pictures of 'assault weapons', not assault rifles.
Perhaps you do not know the difference?

In any case, maybe now you'll address the questions asked in the OP.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Fine. Ban all semi-automatic weapons AND large ammo clips. How many rounds per second do you need to kill a deer anyway?

You cannot present a sound argument for doing so.

 

[Defiant1]

See below:



Questions:
-Had the 1994 AWB not sunset, or had it been reinstated once The Obama took office, how would it have stopped the Newton/Sandyhook shooting?
-If it were in place now, how would it stop another?

Please try to answer in a manner that does not involve emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

When the 1994 bill was written, the NRA managed to get the process bogged down with cosmetic differences. They steered everyone clear of the real issue: firing mechanics.

If the semi-automatic firing system had been banned, not just the size of the stock or a flash suppressor, or the details of the grip, we would be twenty years ahead in the process of ridding weapons designed for warfare, not sport, from our streets.

Do you want to ban all semi-automatic weapons or do you think there is a difference between the weapons that make you pee your pants and the ones that don't?

 

[WinterBorn]

When the 1994 bill was written, the NRA managed to get the process bogged down with cosmetic differences. They steered everyone clear of the real issue: firing mechanics.

If the semi-automatic firing system had been banned, not just the size of the stock or a flash suppressor, or the details of the grip, we would be twenty years ahead in the process of ridding weapons designed for warfare, not sport, from our streets.

There are plenty of sporting firearms that are semi-automatics.

But more importantly, what percentage of the homicides in the US are committed with semi-automatic rifles??

And what is the most common type of firearm used to commit murders in the US?

So if you actually wanted to make the streets safer, why would you focus on banning these rifles instead of banning easily concealed handguns? Unless you have another agenda.

More people are killed with fists and feet than by all types of rifles combined.

Rifles are not and have never been the problem.

Rifles are not a problem where making the streets safer is concerned. The push for the removal of rifles is a fairly recent phenomenon. It might be that they have a different agenda than preventing street crimes?

 

[zeke]

282

4
Tumblr
1

0
Reddit
17
Email
6.2K
Share
150
Tweet

Batting Around

Claim: More homicides in the U.S. are committed with baseball bats than with firearms.


FALSE


Examples: [Collected via e-mail, December 2012]

I have seen that the FBI says that more people are killed by baseball bats than by firearms. Is this true?


What percentage of homicides are committed via baseball bats verses guns?


I'm told that baseball bats kill more people annually than guns. I can't believe that is true.


More people are killed each year by baseball bats than by guns. [true or false]


Origins: In any debate about gun control in the U.S., someone will inevitably make the argument that "[X] kills more people than guns do" (where [X] is anything from automobiles to scissors to sharks), with the implication that gun control advocates are too narrowly focused on one issue while ignoring other, greater threats to public safety.

One common form of this argument which is often invoked after a prominent incident brings the subject of gun control to the forefront of public discussion (such as the December 2012 shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut) is the claim that more people are killed by baseball bats than by firearms, an assertion typically cited as a truism which is borne out by FBI statistics.

However, information gathered by the FBI does not support this claim. The Uniform Crime Reports made available on the "Crime in the U.S." section of the FBI's web site includes homicide data that breaks down killings by the types of weapons used. In 2011, the percentages for weapon types used in homicides throughout the U.S. were as follows:
Firearms: 67.8%
Knives or other cutting instruments: 13.4%
Personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.): 5.7%
Blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.): 3.9%
Other dangerous weapons: 9.2%
The FBI doesn't offer data showing the latter categories broken down into more detail, so it isn't possible to determine from this source exactly what percentage of homicides in 2011 involved the use of baseball bats. But even if one were to assume that every single homicide in the "blunt objects" category was committed with a baseball bat (almost certainly a very large overestimate), firearm-related homicides would still outnumber bat-related homicides by a ratio of more than sixteen to one.

The FBI's Supplementary Homicide Reports (tabulated in simple form on the Bureau of Justice web site) make the distinction even clearer. In each year of the last several decades, the number of homicides in which firearms were used has been about ten to sixteen times greater than the number of homicides in which a blunt object (such as a baseball bat) was the weapon of choice:


Read more at snopes.com: Gun Deaths vs. Baseball Bat Deaths


Snopes says someone is lying about ball bats and guns.

 

[Wildman]

there are no background checks if you go to a gun show.

there ya go, using generalities, going to a gun show and buying from a FFL dealer, there WILL be a BG check.


nice try

 

[WinterBorn]

282

4
Tumblr
1

0
Reddit
17
Email
6.2K
Share
150
Tweet

Batting Around

Claim: More homicides in the U.S. are committed with baseball bats than with firearms.


FALSE


Examples: [Collected via e-mail, December 2012]

I have seen that the FBI says that more people are killed by baseball bats than by firearms. Is this true?


What percentage of homicides are committed via baseball bats verses guns?


I'm told that baseball bats kill more people annually than guns. I can't believe that is true.


More people are killed each year by baseball bats than by guns. [true or false]


Origins: In any debate about gun control in the U.S., someone will inevitably make the argument that "[X] kills more people than guns do" (where [X] is anything from automobiles to scissors to sharks), with the implication that gun control advocates are too narrowly focused on one issue while ignoring other, greater threats to public safety.

One common form of this argument which is often invoked after a prominent incident brings the subject of gun control to the forefront of public discussion (such as the December 2012 shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut) is the claim that more people are killed by baseball bats than by firearms, an assertion typically cited as a truism which is borne out by FBI statistics.

However, information gathered by the FBI does not support this claim. The Uniform Crime Reports made available on the "Crime in the U.S." section of the FBI's web site includes homicide data that breaks down killings by the types of weapons used. In 2011, the percentages for weapon types used in homicides throughout the U.S. were as follows:
Firearms: 67.8%
Knives or other cutting instruments: 13.4%
Personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.): 5.7%
Blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.): 3.9%
Other dangerous weapons: 9.2%
The FBI doesn't offer data showing the latter categories broken down into more detail, so it isn't possible to determine from this source exactly what percentage of homicides in 2011 involved the use of baseball bats. But even if one were to assume that every single homicide in the "blunt objects" category was committed with a baseball bat (almost certainly a very large overestimate), firearm-related homicides would still outnumber bat-related homicides by a ratio of more than sixteen to one.

The FBI's Supplementary Homicide Reports (tabulated in simple form on the Bureau of Justice web site) make the distinction even clearer. In each year of the last several decades, the number of homicides in which firearms were used has been about ten to sixteen times greater than the number of homicides in which a blunt object (such as a baseball bat) was the weapon of choice:


Read more at snopes.com: Gun Deaths vs. Baseball Bat Deaths


Snopes says someone is lying about ball bats and guns.

I haven't seen anyone say that more people are killed with basebll bats than with guns.

I did see a comparison concerning rifles used to commit murders. And rifles have always been a very small part of the guns used to commit murders.

 

[zeke]

Well why in the **** are you gun nutters wanting to qualify the killing by gun.

You don't want any restriction on handguns. You don't want any restriction on rifles. But you do want to contend that ball bats kill more that rifles all the while ignoring the fact that guns in general kill many more than ball bats come close to.

What you all afraid of in admitting that guns (all types of guns) kill lots of people?

And besides I would like to see any of you gun nuts hit a fast ball for a home run with your AR15.

How come you didn't comment on the military being told they are attacking American terrorists and insurgents? You know, if you get that revolution going.

 

[Wildman]

I just can't figure out why you gun lovers don't know what an assault rifle is.

it wouldn't be all that difficult if you had a functioning brain

 

[WinterBorn]

Well why in the **** are you gun nutters wanting to qualify the killing by gun.

You don't want any restriction on handguns. You don't want any restriction on rifles. But you do want to contend that ball bats kill more that rifles all the while ignoring the fact that guns in general kill many more than ball bats come close to.

What you all afraid of in admitting that guns (all types of guns) kill lots of people?

And besides I would like to see any of you gun nuts hit a fast ball for a home run with your AR15.

How come you didn't comment on the military being told they are attacking American terrorists and insurgents? You know, if you get that revolution going.

You also didn't answer my question concerning the soldier's use of slurs concerning the enemy. Would you like to take a shot at why they do that?

 

[Wildman]

To bad you all couldn't (or wouldn't) put up a couple photos of what you gun nuts consider "assault weapons".

Apparently, someone didn't read the OP.

Somone also doesn't understand the issue here is 'assault weapons', not assault rifles, and so any discussion of assault rifles is meaningless.

That same someone has yet to address the questions asked in the OP.

Of course they haven't. To do so honestly would be to admit that the ban was based on cosmetic nonsense.

you want photos ??? here ya go: Modern Firearms - Mp-43 MP-44 Stg.44

want more ??

 

[WinterBorn]

I am afraid we can't go any further in this discussion.

Did Iraq happen in the "last century". But you don't want to talk about that eh. How convenient.

And nah, Americans won't kill other Americans. Even if they are in the military. Did the Civil War happen in your America?

But it sounds like YOU are willing to see this country turn into another Iraq or Afghanistan, just so you gun nuts can have you some "assault weapons".

What a bunch of fucked up thinking. Are you a "guerrilla leader?". Or a
"cell commander?"

Don't answer that. The government is listening and watching. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

On the contrary, I have not said I wanted any of that to happen. I simply brought it up to counter your notion that the military would sweep the armed resistance aside.

I also did not say Americans would not kill Americans. I did, however, question whether everyone in the US Military would be willing to attack US citizens.

And yes, Iraq did happen in the last century. And our military swept their military aside rather quickly. But that is not the situation I was talking about. And when you asked for examples of when an armed population prevented an invasion, you did not ask me to list every time it did not.

And right there is where your thinking goes all fuzzy. The military would not be killing or attacking "US citizens". They would be attacking and killing an armed group of insurgents or terrorists intent on overthrowing the lawful government of the United States of America. You know, that part where the soldier swears to protect the COTUS and such. You ever read the Patriot Act? You would be declared a "terrorist" so fast it would make you dizzy.

Can you see the difference? I know you can't. But it's there.

Also, in Iraq our military kicked everybody's ass. Army, insurgents, terrorists etc. And they (insurgents, terrorists etc) had more weapons and more powerful weapons than your militia ever dreamed about. You got road side bomb material? (Don't answer that)

Not a problem for the US military to put down whatever armed revolution you and your friends think would be appropriate. No matter how many "assault rifles, assault weapons or even deer hunting rifles" that you have. No matter how many rounds of ammo you self load, how much "survival gear" you own, it won't matter.

If the US military comes to kick your ass, you are toast. Hell, even a good SWAT team will do.

The oath taken by every member of the military includes the following:

"I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;..."

You keep trying to accuse me of being a terrorist or some militia nut. I have not advocated anything to suggest such. I have simply pointed out that armed civilians could, in fact, be a factor in a war on this continent.

Now, if the gov't did try to usurp constitutional rights, the oath taken by every veteran would still hold true. There was no time limit on that oath. And considering that there are over 20 million veterans in the US, even a small percentage of that group would be a large number of trained and armed citizens. The only way the heavy weapons technology possessed by the US military would be an advantage is if the "insurgents" were fighting in the open. Otherwise the military could not use those heavy weapons for fear of high numbers of civilian casualties.

 

[WinterBorn]

Well why in the **** are you gun nutters wanting to qualify the killing by gun.

You don't want any restriction on handguns. You don't want any restriction on rifles. But you do want to contend that ball bats kill more that rifles all the while ignoring the fact that guns in general kill many more than ball bats come close to.

What you all afraid of in admitting that guns (all types of guns) kill lots of people?

And besides I would like to see any of you gun nuts hit a fast ball for a home run with your AR15.

How come you didn't comment on the military being told they are attacking American terrorists and insurgents? You know, if you get that revolution going.

The main issue I have with your logic is that you equate all gun owners with criminals. There are roughly 63 million private gun owners. There are around 8583 gun related murders each year. Even if every murder was committed by a legally owned firearm (and they are certainly not), that still means that only 0.01% of the gun owners committed a murder. There are only 323 murders listed with a rifle in 2011. That constitutes only 3.5% of the firearm murders. Why would the focus be on such a tiny part of the numbers? And the 323 rifle related murders to not necessarily mean assault rifles. I could not find anything that broke it down into types of actions of the rifles. So I don't know how many of those are bolt action, lever action, or even single shot rifles.

As for the baseball bat comments, the FBI lists 496 murders in 2011 with blunt objects, and 728 with hands, feet, fists ect. So the 323 murders with all types of rifles is a very small percentage of the murders in the US.

Hell, there were 356 murders with shotguns in 2011. And a shotgun is far more likely to kill than wound, unlike a handgun or rifle.

Here is the source of my info:
FBI ? Expanded Homicide Data Table 8

 

[WinterBorn]

Well why in the **** are you gun nutters wanting to qualify the killing by gun.

You don't want any restriction on handguns. You don't want any restriction on rifles. But you do want to contend that ball bats kill more that rifles all the while ignoring the fact that guns in general kill many more than ball bats come close to.

What you all afraid of in admitting that guns (all types of guns) kill lots of people?

And besides I would like to see any of you gun nuts hit a fast ball for a home run with your AR15.

How come you didn't comment on the military being told they are attacking American terrorists and insurgents? You know, if you get that revolution going.

My main problem with gun bans is that they don't work. The '94 ban did virtually nothing to change the rates of gun related deaths.

If we are going to involve heavier gov't regulation and gun bans, there needs to be some substantial evidence that it will make a difference. So far gun bans have not been shown to be effective.

Perhaps if as much energy were focused on the actual reasons for gun crime, we could have a greater effect on the number of gun related homicides.

 

[Nosmo King]

See below:



Questions:
-Had the 1994 AWB not sunset, or had it been reinstated once The Obama took office, how would it have stopped the Newton/Sandyhook shooting?
-If it were in place now, how would it stop another?

Please try to answer in a manner that does not involve emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

When the 1994 bill was written, the NRA managed to get the process bogged down with cosmetic differences. They steered everyone clear of the real issue: firing mechanics.

If the semi-automatic firing system had been banned, not just the size of the stock or a flash suppressor, or the details of the grip, we would be twenty years ahead in the process of ridding weapons designed for warfare, not sport, from our streets.

There are plenty of sporting firearms that are semi-automatics.

But more importantly, what percentage of the homicides in the US are committed with semi-automatic rifles??

And what is the most common type of firearm used to commit murders in the US?

So if you actually wanted to make the streets safer, why would you focus on banning these rifles instead of banning easily concealed handguns? Unless you have another agenda.

Long guns and pistols with semi-automatic firing systems are widely used in drive by shootings and are the weapon of choice in mass shootings. What puts the "mass" in mass shooting? The ability to spray as many rounds as quickly as possible.

Bolt action rifles are sporting guns. Pump action shotguns are sporting guns. Even some revolvers are sporting guns. But semi-automatics are designed to kill human beings. As many human beings as possible in the shortest possible time. They are NOT sporting guns, but weapons designed for a battlefield.

 

[WinterBorn]

When the 1994 bill was written, the NRA managed to get the process bogged down with cosmetic differences. They steered everyone clear of the real issue: firing mechanics.

If the semi-automatic firing system had been banned, not just the size of the stock or a flash suppressor, or the details of the grip, we would be twenty years ahead in the process of ridding weapons designed for warfare, not sport, from our streets.

There are plenty of sporting firearms that are semi-automatics.

But more importantly, what percentage of the homicides in the US are committed with semi-automatic rifles??

And what is the most common type of firearm used to commit murders in the US?

So if you actually wanted to make the streets safer, why would you focus on banning these rifles instead of banning easily concealed handguns? Unless you have another agenda.

Long guns and pistols with semi-automatic firing systems are widely used in drive by shootings and are the weapon of choice in mass shootings. What puts the "mass" in mass shooting? The ability to spray as many rounds as quickly as possible.

Bolt action rifles are sporting guns. Pump action shotguns are sporting guns. Even some revolvers are sporting guns. But semi-automatics are designed to kill human beings. As many human beings as possible in the shortest possible time. They are NOT sporting guns, but weapons designed for a battlefield.

And without a criminal to operate them, they are simply mechanical objects.

Oh, and I have hunted rabbits with a semi-auto handgun on numerous occasions. The Ruger Mk II is an excellent small game hunting gun and an even better target piece.

People also hunt with semi-auto rifles, and have for years. Remington make a couple of nice rifles for deer hunting that are semi-auto.

 

[candycorn]

Tax the crap out of them and they become much less prevalent. Worked with cigarettes and it will work with guns. Make owners buy insurance on them as we do cars and they become even less appealing.

Simple...

Obviously the rest of the world is doing something right and we are doing something wrong here...the murder rates speak for themselves.

Because if that darn 2nd Amendment won't let us ban weapons, let us just tax them into oblivion! That way, no-one can defend themselves!

The current situation is untenable with the comparatively low tax rates. I don't have time to explain economics 101 to you but there is a supply curve and a demand curve. Manufacturers of every thing under the sun want to produce just enough to hit the demand curve so there is no waste in their process. When you lower the demand through taxing and ostracizing the product (as we did with cigs), you reduce the number supplied. But instead of the price dropping to meet the demand that is now lacking, the price stays artificially high. So when a 16 year old decides he wants to take someone's car or whatever, they don't have access to the firepower they once had due to there being fewer made year in and year out.

The people can't even threaten rebellion without some sort of weapon to use! Now we can do whatever the hell we want because we're greedy self-serving politicians! YAAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!

Pal, you can't threaten a rebellion now; you never could.

You see, there seems to be a problem with your reasoning.

No, only with trying to explain it to knuckle draggers who think that 10,000+ deaths due to firearms is just dandy when quite clearly, the rest of the civilized world has it figured out.

 

[Nosmo King]

There are plenty of sporting firearms that are semi-automatics.

But more importantly, what percentage of the homicides in the US are committed with semi-automatic rifles??

And what is the most common type of firearm used to commit murders in the US?

So if you actually wanted to make the streets safer, why would you focus on banning these rifles instead of banning easily concealed handguns? Unless you have another agenda.

Long guns and pistols with semi-automatic firing systems are widely used in drive by shootings and are the weapon of choice in mass shootings. What puts the "mass" in mass shooting? The ability to spray as many rounds as quickly as possible.

Bolt action rifles are sporting guns. Pump action shotguns are sporting guns. Even some revolvers are sporting guns. But semi-automatics are designed to kill human beings. As many human beings as possible in the shortest possible time. They are NOT sporting guns, but weapons designed for a battlefield.

And without a criminal to operate them, they are simply mechanical objects.

Oh, and I have hunted rabbits with a semi-auto handgun on numerous occasions. The Ruger Mk II is an excellent small game hunting gun and an even better target piece.

People also hunt with semi-auto rifles, and have for years. Remington make a couple of nice rifles for deer hunting that are semi-auto.

Are all gun deaths at the hands of criminals? If they are, why would anyone oppose a back ground check in order to keep the criminal from owning a gun? When a kid picks up a gun and snuffs out his life because the gun cultured idiot parent of hers did not properly secure it, is it a problem of inadequate safes, or is it indeed a gun? Is there a connection between guns and gun violence?