The reason Democrats are targeting "assault" rifles

[Ringtone]

Ah yes, the good old slippery slope fallacy. Again, this is really simple so pay attention. The drive to ban the assault weapon is not an attempt to stop crime or even the use of guns in crimes. It is merely an attempt to mitigate the damage from mass shootings, and perhaps cut down on their frequency. It is the simple response to a simple cost benefit analysis. Assault weapons provide little, if any benefit, to their ownership. Other guns can be used just as effectively, if not more effectively, than the assault rifle. Well, except for mass shootings, like children at elementary schools. The cost of their legality far exceeds any benefit they provide.

Ah, yes, the imbecility of the-guns-are-the-problem fallacy mouthed by lefty as he propagates degeneracy and lawlessness in popular culture and the state schools, indeed, as he marches through and tears down the civil and familiar institutions of civilization.

 

[night_son]

Ah yes, the good old slippery slope fallacy. Again, this is really simple so pay attention. The drive to ban the assault weapon is not an attempt to stop crime or even the use of guns in crimes. It is merely an attempt to mitigate the damage from mass shootings, and perhaps cut down on their frequency. It is the simple response to a simple cost benefit analysis. Assault weapons provide little, if any benefit, to their ownership. Other guns can be used just as effectively, if not more effectively, than the assault rifle. Well, except for mass shootings, like children at elementary schools. The cost of their legality far exceeds any benefit they provide.

Ignorance must be bliss, eh? If other firearms can be used more effectively than "assault" rifles then banning assault weapons makes . . . let us hear it, in your own words . . . zero sense. I love it when a fool publicly identifies himself. Keep up the good work.

 

[daveman]

http://there are lots of issues

From surada's link:

"The Nazi gun control argument is the claim that gun regulations in Nazi Germany helped facilitate the rise of the Nazis and the Holocaust.[1][2][3] Historians and fact-checkers have characterized the argument as dubious or false, and point out that Jews were under 1% of the population and that it would be unrealistic for such a small population to defend themselves or overthrow the state even if they were armed."

So, because Jews were just 1% of the population, it's okay to take away their human rights and murder them.

What's the cutoff, surada? 5%? 10%? 50%?

 

[irosie91]

I didn't say that. What's wrong with you? Conservatives often say Hitler and Nazis took away gun rights, but they didn't. Quite the opposite.

right----only from jews and other "untermenchen"
consistent with Shariah law. Did anyone mention
the symbolic use of the color yellow?

 

[irosie91]

In case you haven't noticed, mass shootings, especially when they involve children, are much more heinous than the murders that happen throughout the country every day. It's easy to tell yourself "I'll never be in a position to become a part of the crime that causes so many deaths" For the vast majority of people that will be true. However, it's not so easy to watch innocent children die in piles. Most school shootings are done with military style rifles. that has to stop.

yes---the question is how. There is no question in
my mind that no law in the USA will prevent criminals
from being criminals. The issue is the criminals,

 

[mudwhistle]

The vast majority of firearm crimes involve handguns, not anything like an AR-15. So why are Democrats targeting so called assault rifles?

Simple! Because the vast majority of firearm crimes involve handguns, not anything like an AR-15. It's all about strategy.

After they outlaw AR-15s, they'll wait until the next headline catching crime that involves a handgun, and point to the statistics to insist that now we have to outlaw handguns, too. They'll start talking about the "handgun loophole" and saying that they need to close it. They'll tell everyone that of course we have to outlaw handguns, saying that if the relatively small percentage of crime that involves a long gun was worthy of action, then the remaining 90% certainly warrants action.

Democrats aren't coming for your guns. Until they are.

They're liars. That's why they do it.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

Thanks Surada for the link. As usual you provide sober and useful information. We may not always agree on every detail, but your contributions are appreciated.

Can’t say the same about most of your opponents here …

 

[yidnar]

This is a lie; again, there is no ‘strategy’ to ban handguns.

so Biden either lied or he didnt know what he was talking about when he said no one needs to own a gun [9mm] that will blow the lung out of the body ? so which is it a lie or ignorance ?

 

[irosie91]

Thanks Surada for the link. As usual you provide sober and useful information. We may not always agree on every detail, but your contributions are appreciated.

Can’t say the same about most of your opponents here …

I missed it-------what was the "useful" information?
the Nuremburg Laws circa 1935?.

 

[Vrenn]

I am aware that we got M-16s in late June 1965 and Colt sent a team to Ft. Benning to demonstrate them.

Those weren't M-16s. Those were what the AF were using, the AR-15 Model 601. It wasn't until the Army adopted the AR-15 that it was redesignated the M-16. In fact, the "M-16" I qualified in the AF on was stamped "AR-15 Model 601 (M-16). The M-16 stamp was added later sometime in 1968. The Army had not totally adopted the M-16 until early 1968. Until then, they were called AR-15 Model 601. When they were adopted, there were some changes where rails were added and some of the chromium plating was removed making the Model 602 an inferior weapon to the 601. Later on, the Chromium was readded. Between the poor powder, removing of some of the chromium plating and the removal of the cleaning kits, you Army types were screwed.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

You are being facetious, Irosie91. But in any case I was only referring to this link Surada provided, which actually presents many diverse views on German gun laws under Weimar and Nazi Germany.

Nazi gun control argument - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

The absurdity of analogies made between Nazi policies and the policies of today’s American liberals who support representative democracy (and more gun regulations) should imo be … self evident.

 

[Hossfly]

Those weren't M-16s. Those were what the AF were using, the AR-15 Model 601. It wasn't until the Army adopted the AR-15 that it was redesignated the M-16. In fact, the "M-16" I qualified in the AF on was stamped "AR-15 Model 601 (M-16). The M-16 stamp was added later sometime in 1968. The Army had not totally adopted the M-16 until early 1968. Until then, they were called AR-15 Model 601. When they were adopted, there were some changes where rails were added and some of the chromium plating was removed making the Model 602 an inferior weapon to the 601. Later on, the Chromium was readded. Between the poor powder, removing of some of the chromium plating and the removal of the cleaning kits, you Army types were screwed.

Friend, the 1st Cavalry Division were issued M-16s in June and July 1965. We left for Vietnam Aug 13 with the M-16. We never had AR 15s. I know the history of both including the reduction of muzzle velocity and addition of a forward assist assembly.

 

[irosie91]

You are being facetious, Irosie91. But in any case I was only referring to this link Surada provided, which actually presents many diverse views on German gun laws under Weimar and Nazi Germany.

Nazi gun control argument - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

The absurdity of analogies made between Nazi policies and the policies of today’s American liberals who support representative democracy (and more gun regulations) should imo be … self evident.

nope----not facetious----suradie did present the
nazi policies as somehow laudable for their time.
In fact they were eerily consistent with Justinian
law and Shariah law. ----of course analogies between shariah/canon weapons law and ----the issues of gun control in the USA ARE TOO ABSURD for discussion

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Not for Jews, he didn't.

Wrong.

No, gun control regulation in Nazi Germany did not help advance the Holocaust

On March 13, 2018, gun control activists laid 7,000 pairs of shoes on the lawn outside the Capitol in D.C. to represent

www.politifact.com

 

[westwall]

This is a lie; again, there is no ‘strategy’ to ban handguns.

Correct. There is a strategy to ban ALL GUNS.

DURRRRRR

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The vast majority of firearm crimes involve handguns, not anything like an AR-15. So why are Democrats targeting so called assault rifles?

Simple! Because the vast majority of firearm crimes involve handguns, not anything like an AR-15. It's all about strategy.

After they outlaw AR-15s, they'll wait until the next headline catching crime that involves a handgun, and point to the statistics to insist that now we have to outlaw handguns, too. They'll start talking about the "handgun loophole" and saying that they need to close it. They'll tell everyone that of course we have to outlaw handguns, saying that if the relatively small percentage of crime that involves a long gun was worthy of action, then the remaining 90% certainly warrants action.

Democrats aren't coming for your guns. Until they are.

...shall not be infringed

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Wrong.

No, gun control regulation in Nazi Germany did not help advance the Holocaust

On March 13, 2018, gun control activists laid 7,000 pairs of shoes on the lawn outside the Capitol in D.C. to represent

www.politifact.com

Pololololoitifact.

Oh, brother!

The article even says that Hitler banned Jews from owning weapons of any kind in 1938. That's your role model for sensible gun control.

.....shall not be infringed

 

[2aguy]

The vast majority of firearm crimes involve handguns, not anything like an AR-15. So why are Democrats targeting so called assault rifles?

Simple! Because the vast majority of firearm crimes involve handguns, not anything like an AR-15. It's all about strategy.

After they outlaw AR-15s, they'll wait until the next headline catching crime that involves a handgun, and point to the statistics to insist that now we have to outlaw handguns, too. They'll start talking about the "handgun loophole" and saying that they need to close it. They'll tell everyone that of course we have to outlaw handguns, saying that if the relatively small percentage of crime that involves a long gun was worthy of action, then the remaining 90% certainly warrants action.

Democrats aren't coming for your guns. Until they are.

I think what they will do is point out that AR-15s are semi-automatic weapons.......they will then say, since we allowed them to ban and confiscate AR-15s, that means that all semi-automatic weapons....since they all operate the same way, are just as deadly as the AR-15...ipso facto post hoc and other latin words............that means we have to give in when they demand all semi-automatic weapons....shotguns, pistols and the rest of the semi-auto rifles they didn't get when they got the AR-15.....also be banned and confiscated...

Biden already gave away the handgun ban they want.....and it seems they are going to try to use some sort of lie about the damage a 9mm bullet can do.........

Till then, they want the AR-15 because it is the gateway gun they can use to demand banning all semi-automatic weapons.....and then....then they will go after bolt action, pump action and revolver guns...

 

[2aguy]

That might be the strategy of those at the top like Schumer, et al, but by and large it's shear ignorance. A lot of people on the left clamoring for a ban on AR-15s have never even seen nor fired one and many think they're automatic weapons. They don't even know what AR means. I've seen this play out on social media repeatedly.

They don't care how it operates.......if it is a gun, the want to ban it.....the AR-15 is their gateway gun for getting the rest.

 

[2aguy]

Ah yes, the good old slippery slope fallacy. Again, this is really simple so pay attention. The drive to ban the assault weapon is not an attempt to stop crime or even the use of guns in crimes. It is merely an attempt to mitigate the damage from mass shootings, and perhaps cut down on their frequency. It is the simple response to a simple cost benefit analysis. Assault weapons provide little, if any benefit, to their ownership. Other guns can be used just as effectively, if not more effectively, than the assault rifle. Well, except for mass shootings, like children at elementary schools. The cost of their legality far exceeds any benefit they provide.

Dipshit........this is a lie.....handguns are used more often than these rifles in mass public shootings.......and there is only one mass public shooting where using an AR-15 made the difference in the number of people killed...and that was in Las Vegas where the range was about 400 yards......all of the other mass public shootings could have been done, with the same number of deaths, using a pump action shotgun or pistols...

How do we know?

Virginia Tech....32 killed with 2 pistols

Luby's Cafe....26 killed...two pistols

Russian Polytechnic shooting....20 killed, 70 wounded with a 5 shot, pump action shotgun....