Well this is good news and a wise ruling. AP Judge: Assault weapons ban doesn't violate 2nd Amendment
Here are links to some of our previous discussions.
Here are links to some of our previous discussions.
G2A Lethal Weapons (source of table)
43 comments:
Fox News tells me that the move to repeal the second amendment is growing. Who ever even thought that was a possibility?
--Hiram
Fow News seems to make a habit of reporting impossibilities and inaccuracies. :-)
Opposition to gun control is all about hoping the butcher's bill gets presented to someone else.
--Hiram
Hiram,
I think it is about a simple denial of reality and logic.
These people can say on one hand that
"assault rifles are just rifles"
while denying that they want them
"because they are especially well suited to holding off the feds, rogue governments, zombie hordes, etc"
and denying that mass shooters love them for the same reason.
Just looking at the numbers in the post explains it all. A lot more people are killed and injured when these types of weapons are readily available and used.
I assume it is the NRA activities that stoked all this fear and desperation.
If we give up our weapons of mass murder, next they will come after Grandpa's old 12 gauge or 30-06... Or the handgun I keep in the dresser for self defense.
Of course all the Left Tribe folks who fight against conceal and carry help to sell the NRA's conspiracy theories.
All this as our nation's children are slaughtered violently.
I assume it is the NRA activities that stoked all this fear and desperation.
It's the shooting of people that does it.
--Hiram
"does it"...
You will need to better explain what "it" is?
You will need to define what an "assault weapon" is first.
Already well defined over here.
Perhaps I should have said SENSIBLY well defined. The majority of those items that distinguish your so-called "assault rifle" are simply cosmetic features that have no impact on the lethality of the weapon. For example, a grenade launcher may LOOK scary, but without grenades it really cannot hurt anybody. And you continue to overlook the fact that about half of all hunting rifles are AR style.
I think you would do us all good service if, rather than worrying about one or two crazed shooters who happen to pick up a common hunting rifle, let us ban any automobile capable of exceeding 70 miles an hour. Nobody needs to drive any faster, right? And we all know that speed kills thousands of people every year.
I think I will stick with my view even if it only saves 50 innocent children / people per year. I deem homicides as different from accidents.
Here is a WAPO piece I have not read yet.
The allure of the AR-15: ‘I know I don’t need it,’ says one recent buyer, but that’s not the point
"...let us ban any automobile capable of exceeding 70 miles an hour."
As soon as companies start designing cars to be as efficient as possible at killing, perhaps there's a conversation to be had. Otherwise, you just smell like red herring.
Moose
Moose,
The funnier thing about when they bring up car accidents, distracted driving, alcohol, etc... Is that in all of those areas government is passing laws regularly to reduce loss of life...
It seems the assault weapons folks do see government intervention to save lives as acceptable.
Now this shocking... VOX and Jerry share some views... :-)
Government already has thousands of laws protecting people from dangerous people who choose to misuse guns. Start with the laws against murder. How many lives have been saved by that law? We will never know. We do know that every single "mass shooting" has violated that law many times over, as well as countless gun laws. In some cases the law COULD have prevented the perpetrator from getting the gun used in the first place, but in many other cases it has not. Again, if the laws against murder do not prevent these tragedies, is one more gun law, especially one based on a cockamamie definition like "assault weapon," really going to help? How about let us pass a law that says you cannot have any gun whatsoever within a thousand feet of a school? That would stop it, right? Oh, wait....
your hyperlink does not work.
VOX Why Assault Weapon Ban Can Not Address America's Gun Problem
And yes, if the "assault weapons" were all destroyed... The severity of the incidences would be less.
and if we put rubber tips on all the unicorn horns, fewer people would be gored.
Really, why this fascination with the almost negligible misuse of these "ugly guns" when ordinary guns and knives kill FAR more people? Again, there were more Teenagers shot in "gun-free" Chicago alone that month than there were in Lakeland.
"almost negligible misuse of these "ugly guns""
Please try to explain that to the 1200+ victims and their families.
All that death, injury and suffering of innocent people so enthusiasts can own an "ugly gun" and alt right folks can be prepared to fight our government...
Sorry. It makes no sense.
Source for your number? And how many of those gun deaths were committed by criminals?
Would you have been happier had these deaths been caused by a gun that did NOT have a grenade launcher?
Same source as above... MJ Mass Shooting Spreadsheet
Same old questions...
If the AR15 clones are "just a rifle" why do our Alt Right militants feel they are irreplaceable for the confrontations to come?
If the person is all that matters, then should we make machine guns legal and readily available?
How does one consider this to be different from a "machine gun"?
A semi-automatic fires one bullet per pull of the trigger. It is not an automatic weapon. A "machine gun" by its nature is an indiscriminate weapon aimed at large numbers. A semiauto is intended to be aimed. Bump firing, with a stock or without, is somewhere between (and I'm OK outlawing the bump stock for that reason) but an "assault weapon" is not.
Well that video is a guy firing a standard AR-15/M4 with no mods or bump stock...
I would be hard pressed to tell if it was a semi automatic or an automatic...
And I am sure the kids on the receiving ends of bullets won't be able to tell for sure.
Just think 60 to 120 bullets per minute...
No wonder militants, zombie killers and child killers like them so much.
So, in your zeal to control zombie killers and a few crazies each year, you want to eliminate the ability of ALL gun owners to defend themselves with their weapon of choice? Do a bit of research and find out how many lives have been SAVED by your so-called "assault weapons." There was at least one high-profile incident just in the last year.
I only know of one possible "save" and that was at the Texas church. And that could have been accomplished with any traditional rifle... Definitely not a good argument for keeping these "near machine guns" poorly controlled in our society.
The owners still would have many choices... Just not these. And yes the lives of 1200 innocents and others traumatized in the event are worth it.
As the judge found... Hand guns are the most normal choice for personal protection.
Same old questions... Still waiting.
If the AR15 clones are "just a rifle" why do our Alt Right militants feel they are irreplaceable for the confrontations to come?
If the person is all that matters, then should we make machine guns legal and readily available?
How does one consider this to be different from a "machine gun"?
asked and answered.
How many militants do you know?
If persons matter, then we should outlaw murder. Oh, wait....
Machine gun is fully automatic, true assault weapons (not available to the public) are switchable, and semi-automatics are just that, regardless of appearance.
I communicated with a few on FB, it was interesting. They were big fans of the Cliven Bundy stand offs and AR15s.
That is not an answer... That is evasion.
I guess I am more interested in the rate of fire than technicalities. By that simplistic definition, one can not own an old machine gun. But can own this more effective killing weapon.
So, once again you would deny millions of rational and law-abiding citizens the means of self-defense or recreation, to stop a tiny few IRRATIONAL people from breaking laws we already have?
An evasion, you say? You believe a silly gun law is going to stop murders from occurring, when laws against murder do not?
Rate of fire of an AR-15 rifle: roughly 2 rounds/second. Rate of fire of a standard semi-auto hunting rifle: roughly 2 rounds/second. Rate of fire for a 22 caliber semi-auto pistol (lady's gun), roughly 2 rounds/second. Old fashioned "Tommy gun": 20 rounds per second. Rate of fire for the modern military assault weapon, the M16, in fully automatic mode (not available in the civilian AR-15 look-alike): 15 rounds per second. In semi-auto mode? 2 rounds/second.
I would take those rapid fire large clip rifles off the market and melt every one of them down without a second thought if I ruled the USA. No need for them or "machine guns" in our private hands. Especially with such poor background checks, tracking and owner accountability.
Again... If the person is all that matters, then should we make machine guns legal and readily available?
Source...
Except you have no clue what a "rapid fire large clip rifle" actually IS, nor any evidence that "melting them all down" would make any significant difference, except to prevent law-abiding citizens from self-defense and hunting.
And nobody has had a "machine gun" since the 30s. They're no good for self-defense or hunting.
Must I repeat?
"Rate of fire of an AR-15 rifle: roughly 2 rounds/second. Rate of fire of a standard semi-auto hunting rifle: roughly 2 rounds/second. Rate of fire for a 22 caliber semi-auto pistol (lady's gun), roughly 2 rounds/second. Old fashioned "Tommy gun": 20 rounds per second. Rate of fire for the modern military assault weapon, the M16, in fully automatic mode (not available in the civilian AR-15 look-alike): 15 rounds per second. In semi-auto mode? 2 rounds/second."
This is what a source looks like...
Not just repeating the same paragraph again...
Since both are limited to 30 or 50 round clips, The difference between an M16 and AR15 are negligible in a mass shooting situation.
Please remember that hand guns are a short range weapon... Not so for rifles. I suppose you may be interested in dueling with someone from 200 yards... You get the 22 hand gun and they get the AR15 with a 50 round clip. Deal?
Another source
"The difference between an M16 and AR15 are negligible in a mass shooting situation."
Why do you insist on making statements that are patently false? An M16 has a fully automatic mode, firing 15 rounds/second. The AR15 does NOT have an auto mode and fires 2 rounds per second. Depending on how many rats or zombies one has to shoot and how fast they move, the AR15 takes a LOT longer. And a .22 handgun takes the same amount of time, but longer to stop the oncoming mob.
And I'm not interested in an armed duel with anybody. If I did, I would like the RIGHT to be similarly armed, the right you would deny.
And your source confirms what I said, so....
Same math applies with both guns...
"Moreover, most modern semiautos use 30-round magazines, which means the mag would have to be changed six times to reach the magic 180 number. An expert can change a mag on some rifles in about two to three seconds (depending on the gun and how he/she has staged the mags), but that’s still 12–18 seconds of lost shooting time per minute. So a maximum theoretical rate of about 138 rounds per minute."
One spends about the same amount of time reloading as firing with both guns.
And Again... If the person is all that matters, then should we make machine guns legal and readily available?
Full-auto military weapon: Empties 30 rounds in 2 seconds, switches mags in two seconds, does it 5 times. Result: 150 rounds in 20 seconds.
Semi-auto civilian weapon: Empties 30 rounds in 15 seconds, switches mags in 3 seconds, does it 5 times. Result 150 rounds in 90 seconds. Same math? Ridiculous. Give it up.
Oh, and the civilian's trigger finger gets tired after the first couple of magazines.
I think you should watch that bump fire technique again...
His trigger finger does not move... He puts a little forward force on the gun and the fire/recoil motion pulls the trigger...
And he sure is firing much faster than 2 rounds per second...
Video 1
Video 2
What did they say about philosophers... They could sit around all day thinking about how many teeth are in a horse's mouth instead of just looking.
And again... The argument is that the lethality of the weapons is immaterial... Therefore...
If the person is all that matters, then should we make machine guns legal and readily available?
I'm not seeing the link between the two arguments. If the lethality of the weapons is immaterial, than we should not ban "assault rifles" or machine guns or bump stocks or grenades or howitzers. But we DO. Someone who knows about guns has decided the line should be drawn where it has been drawn since 1934. What has changed is the lack of mental health help and the publicity parade given to mass shooters. Treat the root cause of the problem.
And the lethality of the weapons is NOT immaterial. You insist that a civilian semi-auto rifle be banned because it does not look like other semi-auto rifles with the exact same lethality-- rate of fire and range.
Post a Comment